20110909Avista to Staff 099-117, 135-137.pdf

Avista Corp.
1411 East Mission P.O. Box 3727
Spokane. Washington 99220-0500
Telephone [phone]
Toll Free 800-727-9170
Ri: r r i'ir:n. 1,,.. \,j ;".",.' T! r~."" ',h','"
" ,'~
,JIVIST.
Corp.
"!'llt).L -9 II: 24
September 8, 2011
¡
_I
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 W. Washington St.
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Att: Krstine Sasser
Deputy Attorney General
Re: Production Request of the Commission Staffin Case Nos. A VU-E-11-01 and
A VU-G-11-0 1
Dear Ms. Sasser,
Enclosed are an original and three copies of Avista's responses to IPUC Staffs production
requests in the above referenced docket. Included in this mailing are Avista's responses to
production requests 099 - 117, and 135 - 137. The electronic versions of the responses were
emailed on 09/08/11 and are also being provided in electronic format on the CDs included in this
mailng.
If there are any questions regarding the enclosed information, please contact Paul Kimball at
[phone] or via e-mail atpauI.kimball(?avistacorp.com
Sincerely,~~~
Paul Kimball
Regulatory Analyst
Enclosures
cc: all paries
.
.
.
nJRISDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYE:
REQUEST NO.:
REQUET:
A VISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMTION
IDAHO
AVU-E-ll-01 / AVU-G-ll-01
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-099
DATE PREPARD:
WITSS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMENT:
TELEPHONE:
08/26/2011
Scott Kinney
Scott Waples
System Operations
[phone]
What impact on A vista system reliabilty and renewable energy integration costs would occur if
only the BC Hydro "norter project" is constrcted as part of the Canada to Northern Californa
(CNC) project?
RESPONSE:
The BC Hydro "Nortern Project" would interconnect to the Avista transmission system at a new
230 kV station near the existing Avista Devils Gap 115 kV substation. It would be a new
connection from the Avista 230 kV system to a 500 kV system not owned or operated by the
Bonneville Power Administration, and as such, would be an interconnection to both a potential
new supplier of resources, as well as a new connection to a strong transmission source.
It is expected that system reliabilty (especially to the wester porton of the Avista system) would
be enhanced, and it is also expected that ths project could provide additional sources of renewable
energy from the grd, potentially reducing the integration costs of those resources.
.
.
.
JUSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYE:
REQUEST NO.:
REQUEST:
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
IDAHO
AVU-E-ll-Ol 1 AVU-G-ll-01
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-1 00
DATE PREPARD:
WITSS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMENT:
TELEPHONE:
08/2612011
Scott Kinney
Scott Waples
System Operations
[phone]
What were the primar issues beteen the paries that contrbuted to the decision that the CNC
project should not be developed as a single cooperative project?
RESPONSE:
BC Hydro, Avista, and PG&E have recognzed that each sponsor's needs have changed since the
beginning of the project. The sponsors have decided not to pursue the project as originally
conceived due to the evolving supply and need for renewable energy and the changing industr
landscape. The sponsors are stil supportive of transmission expansion to improve overall system
reliability and meet renewable energy integration needs.
.
.
.
JUSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYE:
REQUEST NO.:
REQUEST:
A VISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMTION
IDAHO
AVU-E-ll-Ol 1 AVU-G-ll-01
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-101
DATE PREPARD:
WITSS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMNT:
TELEPHONE:
08/26/2011
Scott Kinney
Scott Waples
System Operations
[phone]
At this time, the "original" cooperative CNC project has completed the WECC Project Review and
Phase I Rating Study and is in the process of being evaluated in the Phase II process for the single
cooperative project. Given that ths project is currently being planed and developed as a
"southern project" and a "norter project," wil the WECC project review and evaluation process
require additional steps and, if so, what are the estimated additional expenses?
RESPONSE:
The Paries intend to request separate Phase II ratings from WECC for the separate portons of the
project. It is unown if the WECC wil grant this request, but the present expectation is that it
wil be allowed. Because the formal request for bifucation has not yet been made, any additional
steps and or expenses for the project review process are presently unown.
.
.
.
A VISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMTION
JUSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
AVU-E-ll-01 1 AVU-G-ll-01
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-1 02
DATE PREPARD:
WITSS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMNT:
TELEPHONE:
08/30/2011
Scott Kinney
Ken Sweigar
System Operations
[phone]
REQUEST:
How was the cost estimate for the Transmission Line Ratings Confirmation Plan determined? Is
this project being pedormed by A vista or a subcontractor? What is the anticipated anual cost of
this program after the initial verfication of record drawing planprofile and field confirmation is
complete?
RESPONSE:
Please find attached the following program estimate taken from The June 8, 2011 (Pinal
Rev C) Transmission Line Ratings Confirmation Plan, submitted to the National Electrc
Reliabilty Corporation (NRC):
Cost and Manpower
1. Engineering: (3) years full-time entr-level engineer (? $70k/year
2. Surey: (3) years par-time surveyor (? $15k/year
3. Materials: Laser Range Pinder and Miscellaneous:
4. 4x4 Truck and ATV: (3) years renta (? $25k/year:
5. Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) Serces: (1400) miles (? $1.25k/mile:
6. LiDAR Consultant: Lump Sum:
$ 210,000
$ 45,000
$ 25,000
$ 75,000
$ 1,750,000
$ 250,000
(subtotal) $ 2,355,000
TOTAL (Materal and Constrction):$ 2,355,000
$ 590,000TOTAL (Taxes, A&G, and PM): (? 25%
TOTAL COST (+1- 20% Engineering Estimate): $2,945,000*
* Total Cost estimate includes overheads and taxes
* Costs do not include corrective action required due to identified clearance violations
* Costs do not include TL.Pro computer modeling of transmission lines
* Costs do not include resources for processing/implementing Vegetation Management plans
associated with LIDAR data
In August 2011, Avista awarded Engineerng Consultats, Inc. (ECI) an Owner's Engineer
Contract to acquire and process LiDAR data on a significant portion of its transmission system.
GeoDigital is the Subcontractor, owning and operating the LiDAR acquisition equipment and
aircraft.
The winning Bid Proposal came in at approximately $1 ,600/mile of line sureyed, slightly
higher than estimated. Anual softare costs are in the $25,000 range. It is expected that this
thee-year program wil recur every 10-15 years.
.
.
.
JUSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYE:
REQUEST NO.:
REQUEST:
A VISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMTION
IDAHO
AVU-E-ll-01 1 AVU-G-ll-01
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-1 03
DATE PREPARD:
WITSS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMNT:
TELEPHONE:
08/26/2011
Scott Kinney
Scott Waples
System Operations
[phone]
How are the benefits of futue transmission project1; quantified for puroses of developing a
cost!enefit analysis? Is the cost avoidance ofNERC violations included in ths evaluation?
RESPONSE:
Avista doesn't pedorm a traditional cost benefit analysis for most of its Transmission projects.
Projects are developed, designed and constrcted to either meet mandatory compliance
requirements, load growth, new generation integration, or replace aging equipment. Cost and
benefits are considered but are just a portion of the critera used to evaluate different design
options. Other criteria include; operational risk during constrction, operational flexibility, safety,
right-of-way availability, environmenta issues, customer needs, equipment costs, and crew
availabilty. A vista does not pedorm a cost!enefit analysis on projects that are required to meet
PERCINRCIWECC requirements since constrction and implementation of these projects is
mandatory.
.
.
.
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JUSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYE:
REQUEST NO.:
DATE PREPARD:WISS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMNT:
TELEPHONE:
08/30/2011
Scott Kinney
K. Sweigar. James
System Operations
[phone]/4185
IDAHO
AVU-E-ll-01 1 AVU-G-ll-01
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-1 04
REQUEST:
What methodology does A vista utilze to prepare cost estimates for transmission and distrbution
projects? Historical cost database, industr standard costing publications, consultation with utility
industr contractors?
RESPONSE:
Transmission: For Transmission projects, A vista uses a 3-par cross-check approach to
estimating. It begins with establishing a base per mile cost derived from a Feasibilty Cost Char
(developed in 2008 sumarzing Avista historical and industr typical per mile costs). Per mile
cost adders include location, crossings, outage needs, traffic control needs, crop damage
expectations, right-of-way needs, etc.
Also used is a unitized estimating approach found in Avista's TL.Pro transmission line design
program (purchased from Trimble-Pondera).
Lastly, the design engineer estimates the project costs based on expected crew time required for
each phase of constrction.
Together these thee estimates are compared and evaluated to establish an Engineerng Estimate
(+1- 20%) for projects.
Distribution: Distribution Engineering publishes an anual report entitled "Electrc Distrbution
Estimating Book" which includes current costs for materal and labor associated with overhead
and underground primar and secondar electrc circuits and lighting. This booklet is a resource
for engineers, designers, technicians, and constrction personneL. It ensures that operations
personnel have access to curent cost and accounting information. Constrction Project
Coordinators (CPC-designers) also use a GIS computer design tool and work management system
to develop design based estimates. These constrction estimates include direct costs for material,
equipment and labor along with indirect costs for engineering, drafting, peritting, and
administration. Costs for design based estimates are also managed by Distribution Engineering.
.
.
.
A VISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMTION
JUSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYE:
REQUEST NO.:
DATE PREPARD:
WITSS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMNT:
TELEPHONE:
08/30/2011
Scott Kinney
K. Sweigar. James
System Operations
[phone]/4185
IDAHO
A VU-E-ll-01 1 A VU-G-ll-01
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-1 05
REQUEST:
For major transmission and distrbution projects, what average percentage of the work is
pedormed by A vista crews and what percentage of the work is performed by contractors? Does
Avista utilze a formal competitive bidding process for contracted work?
RESPONSE:
Transmission: For all transmission projects, Avista contracts approximately 750/0-85% of the
constrction work. For what might be considered major transmission projects, Avista contracts
approximately 90%-100% of the work. The Contract award follows a competitive bid process.
Presently there are five Contractors pre-qualified to bid on A vista transmission projects, with a
sixth being evaluated.
Distribution: Approximately 75-85% of distrbution projects are constrcted with internal
Avista labor resources. Distrbution Engineering works closely with Divisional Area Engineers to
budget and plan for reconstrction, system enhancements, and customer growth projects and
develops a multi-year resource plan for capita constrction. Typically, contractors are only used
when signficant constrction is slated for rural areas such as Grangeville, St. Mares, or Kellogg,
Idaho. When contractors are used, Avista uses a bid process consistent with transmission and that
process is owned and administered by our supply chain deparent (contracts). This helps to
ensure consistency sourcing activities, bid evaluation, and final contract negotiation.
.
.
.
JUSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYE:
REQUEST NO.:
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMTION
08/30/2011
Scott Kinney
K. Sweigar. James
System Operations
[phone]/4185
IDAHO
AVU-E-ll-01 1 AVU-G-ll-01
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-1 06
DATE PREPARD:
WITSS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMNT:
TELEPHONE:
REQUEST:
For large-scale transmission and distrbution, what value engineering steps are taken by A vista to
ensure that all projects are constructed at the highest quality level at the lowest reasonable cost? Is
ths value engineerg process limited to interal review or is an external value engineering
process utilized?
RESPONSE:
Transmission: Large-scale transmission projects tyically originate in the Planng or Operations
Groups within Avista, heavily weighted towards Planing. The projects are first identified in
Regional Planng Assessment studies. These studies go though a Planng Review Conference
(PRC) prior to receiving budget approval. Once budget approval is made, the A vista Capita
Budget group prioritizes the budget/fuding requests versus money available. Afer a project
budget has been approved and preliminar Engineerg is underway, a Design Review Conference
(DRC) takes place. Once in constrction, an inspector is assigned to ensure a quality product.
Steel strctures are typically specified following a life-ycle cost justification determined by the
Asset Management Group. Supply Chain employs a varety of purchasing strategies to provide
least costlighest quality materals and equipment.
Distribution: Recently, A vista fully redeveloped our constrction and associated material
standards for the bulk of our underground and overhead electrc distrbution facilties. In doing so,
we have eliminated over two hundred (200) stock materal items, reduced our stadards count by
50%, standardized our 600A UG constrction, and eliminated "custom" strctues. This process
was driven by engineering but wil have signficant positive outcomes for our operations designers
and constrction labor force. By moving forward with a much simpler set of strctues, wires, and
cables, we drive value though standardization of procurement, design, and constrction. A vista
distrbution standards engineers paricipate in a number of Western Electrc Institute (WEI)
forus and committees and have developed strong ties with PNW utilties. It is vital that we share
information with other utilities and collectively lear and modify our business and constrction
practices. Avista also hosts an internal Distrbution Standards Committee (DISCOM) that meets
quarerly to discuss material and construction standards, tooling, and constrction methods. This
foru brings engineers together with designers, constrction managers, operations engineers, and
field personneL. This committee has served us well to continually shape and refine our engineering
stadards and field construction practices.
Although not a specific Value Engineering Contract, Avista recently employed Booze & Co. to
review overall company processes in order to gain efficiencies.
.
.
.
AVISTACORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JUSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
AVU-E-ll-01 1 AVU-G-ll-01
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-1 07
DATE PREPARD:WISS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMNT:
TELEPHONE:
08/26/2011
Scott Kinney
Scott Waples
System Operations
[phone]
REQUEST:
How does Avista determine whether a project is categorized as ''Reliabilty Compliance" or a
"Reliabilty Improvement?" Is the evaluation methodology the same for determining the
cost!enefit of each of these categories of projects?
RESPONSE:
Avista uses the FERCINERCIWECC Reliability Standards to determine if a project is a Reliabilty
Compliance project. Note that in general, projects necessar to satisfy these requirements wil
produce a reliability improvement. Those projects that are constrcted due to age or condition of
equipment wil provide reliabilty improvements due to the replacement of old or defective
equipment.
As was stated in the answer for Staff 103, Avista does not pedorm a cost!enefit analysis on
projects that are required to meet FERCINRC/WCC requirements since constrction and
implementation of these projects is mandatory. Similarly, Avista does not do a cost!enefit
analysis for projects required for age or condition since in order to reliably serve our customers,
these projects are also required.
.
.
.
JUSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYE:
REQUEST NO.:
REQUEST:
AVISTACORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMTION
IDAHO
AVU-E-ll-01 1 AVU-G-ll-01
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-1 08
DATE PREPARD:
WITSS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMENT:
TELEPHONE:
08/30/2011
Scott Kinney
Ken Sweigar
System Operations
[phone]
What process did Avista use to estimate the $1.55 milion, FY 2012, cost of Transmission Minor
Rebuilds investment as this category of projects is based on weather, fire, wind and human caused
damage?
RESPONSE:
For this request, as well as request No. 109, I believe there may be some confusion between
Avista's Transmission Minor Rebuild budget/investment (ER2057), and Electrc Transmission
Plant - Storm (ER2051). For Transmission Minor Rebuilds, A vista budgeting process ( amount) is
based on the frequency that each transmission line is inspected and tested. Presently these
inspections are made on a fifteen -year cycle. These inspections are made by Avista's Asset
Management (AM) Group. Based on the anual flow AM inspection reports, Engineerng budgets
the for the following year's Minor Rebuilds. It is under the Electrc Transmission Plant - Storm
ER that A vista budgets/invests in projects based on weather, fire, wind and human caused damage.
.
.
.
JUSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYE:
REQUEST NO.:
REQUEST:
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
IDAHO
AVU-E-ll-01 1 AVU-G-ll-01
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-1 09
08/30/2011
Scott Kinney
Ken Sweigar
System Operations
[phone]
DATE PREPARD:
WITSS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMNT:
TELEPHONE:
In FY 2010, Avista spent $3.053 millon and in FY 2011, Avista spent $2.75 milion on
Transmission Minor Rebuild projects. In FY 2012, Avista estimates only $1.50 milion on
Transmission Minor Rebuild projects. Since the cost of these projects is not based on controllable
events, what is the rationale for the significant reduction in this investment category and the
downward trend since FY 2010?
RESPONSE:
As described in StafC DR _108, there may be some confusion between A vista's Transmission
Minor Rebuild budget/investment (ER2057), and Electrc Transmission Plant - Storm (ER2051).
For Transmission Minor Rebuilds (ER2057) the FY 2012 budget estimate is indeed $ 1.50 millon.
However, for FY's 2010 and 2011, the amounts are well less than the $3.053 and $2.75 milion
stated above. This maybe due to mixing numbers between ER's 2051 and 2057. The Company
spent approximately $1.6 milion in 2010 for ER 2057. The 2011 pro forma amount is $1.75
millon. It is planed for the Transmission Minor Rebuild budget to increase by $50,000 over each
of the next five years.
.
.
.
JUSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYE:
REQUEST NO.:
REQUEST:
AVISTACORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMTION
IDAHO
AVU-E-ll-01 1 AVU-G-ll-01
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-11O
08/30/2011
Scott Kinney
Ken Sweigar
System Operations
[phone]
DATE PREPARD:
WITSS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMENT:
TELEPHONE:
What percentage of the historical and projected Transmission Minor Rebuild replacement costs
are caused by each of the individual categories (weather, fire, wind, human damage)? In the case of
wind damage, is this an area of futue expenditue that the increased emphasis on the Vegetation
Management Program should reduce?
RESPONSE:
Avista's Transmission Minor Rebuild budget/investment (ER2057) costs reflect condition
replacements. Strcture condition is assessed through Avista's Wood Pole Management (WM),
implemented by the Asset Management Group (see response to request No. 108 for details).
Transmission Minor Rebuild budget/investment is not based on weather, fire, wind, or human
damage). Replacement work to address this type of damage is covered under Electrc
Transmission plant - Storm (ER 2051).
The A vista Vegetation Management Program patrols its transmission lines on an anual basis in an
effort to remove hazard trees before they can fall into a transmission line. In the event a tree falls
the area wil receive greater emphasis in subsequent patrols.
.
.
.
JUSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYE:
REQUEST NO.:
REQUEST:
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMTION
IDAHO
AVU-E-ll-01 1 AVU-G-ll-01
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-ll1
DATE PREPARD:
WITSS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMNT:
TELEPHONE:
09/02/2011
Scott Kinney
Rodney Pickett
Asset Management
[phone]
On a more detailed level than presented in the testimony provided by Mr. Kinney, what are the
input varables for the Asset Management Models? How is an accetable level of failures
addressed by the model?
RESPONSE:
For the inputs to the Asset Management models, please see StafCPR _111 Attachment A. Ths list
is a comprehensive list of the model inputs. Whle most of the inputs are not used because the
information is not readily available, we attempt to gather as much as reasonably possible.
The accetable level of failures is addressed using several criteria. The Reliabilty Centered
Maintenance approach used by Avista uses the logic tree shown in StafCPR_111 Attachment B.
One of the purposes of Asset Management is to maximize the value of our physical assets for our
Customers. We tr to avoid failures when they present an unacceptable level of risk, create value
for our customers, or show a good retu for our customers' investment.
.
~i!n!!S;~~~~.~_li.,.t:.,
:gU--~a.~it~~~CAIDI!
.Q:ti!!.~~,~.~.,
~~.==:~~~._.E~~..~~
!~..f~.a.!'LÇJ.ri!!.!'~l.jR"uii:iriFaiProl,ocKaffJ¡¡il!o.ll .
Co'G:f~Se~1P"~iiri.~~l.e~.t.J
.
_tl_~~~Q.1.~~~.~-MaI~Ç.~.~!L~_.
:ltM!!'.~~~.~ ,
L~_~~!U_~_
C~~n~~!.~: j
Us Itlist II w.1eIhemc.pI..a.!'!:5'f!~!.~
.
Ellnformatior Nees fOr Asset Man ement.mma .06-8.2011-
StafLPR_111 Attachment A Page 1 of 1
Attachment B
Step 1- Select the Root Causes of Faiure
Mode
. Sttp2 -IsthèFaiW'e Evident?
StepS -eai .theFåiebe Toleratèd?
Step 4 -Can aI Effective Inspection Task
be Specifed?
Step.5 -Can an ElIective Preventatve
Måitenance Task be Specifed
Step 6 - can anElIective Condition
Monitorisystèm be Specifed
Step 7 - SeleçttheBest Option
lithe Risk Acceptable?
.
.
Staff PR 111 Attchment B Page 1 of 1
.
.
.
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JUSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
AVU-E-ll-01 1 AVU-G-ll-01
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-112
DATE PREPARD:
WITSS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMNT:
TELEPHONE:
09/02/2011
Scott Kinney
Rodney Pickett
Asset Management
[phone]
REQUEST:
As with most, if not all, infrastrctue asset management models the A vista model is statistically
based. How are the individual component life expectancy durations determined? What is the
statistical methodology utilzed to address the level of accetable and unacceptable failure rates for
each component type?
RESPONSE:
The individual component life expectancy or component failure curves are usually deterined one
of two ways. The first way is the most preferred. We use Availabilty Workbench's Weibull
module and input the curent ages of all similar components and the age at which other
components have failed for an asset. Using the softare, we fit a failure cure which is normally a
two-parameter Weibull distrbution that defines the Mean Time To Failure and other failure cure
characterstics. We then review the Weibull cure with our Subject Matter Expers (SME) and
other data to ensure the results reflect curent conditions and expert opinion. If the SME believes
the futue performance wil be different than the historical performance, we wil modify the failure
curve as needed. The second method is used when reliable data is not available. When data is not
available, we use SME opinion on what would be the appropriate failure curve, test ths cure in a
model and compare the output with existing information and SME's expectations. We wil then
adjust the cure until the output is in alignent with curent information and the SME' s opinion.
The method for deterining an acceptable and unacceptable failure rate has two components,
financial retu and risk. In most models we have developed, fiancial retu to the customer
usually drves us to act before any risks exceed an acceptable theshold. Our models include
outage costs estimates that our customers would experience when they have a servce outage as
well as costs incured by Avista. The models combine an extensive amount of information into a
comprehensive analysis. The softare applies the failure cure discussed above to an individual
component based on its curent age and projected age for a determined number of years into the
futue and develops a probabilty by time that this component wil faiL. Then for each component
we ask if ths component fails what are the possible consequences. Based on SME opinion and
data when possible we assign a probability for each consequence actually occurrng if the
component failed. The model then sums up all of the results in ters of costs and number of
failures. We then use the model to test several alteratives and identify which approach provides
the most value to our customers and maintain the consequences within an acceptable leveL.
Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) has established acceptable risk levels used in Asset
Management, but due to the costs assigned to outages and consequences, we usually see the
models drive us to act and reduce failures before we reach an unacceptable level of risk.
.
.
.
Page 2
As a backup to the ERM risk thesholds, we have developed a tool to help identify when a
component on the Electrcal Distribution system may be failng at an unacceptable rate. It is based
ona plot of 5 years wort of Outage Management Data (OMT) of the number of events per year by
OMT Sub-Reason and the average number of affected customers (See Figue 1). The cure is
designed so that a few OMT Sub-Reasons wil exceed the threshold each year and drive actions to
investigate fuer.
Figue 1
-Power (Action Level)
I,Q:sII;;,QlIi.a.
Eo..lI:sU
-g c:
1: ~
tê ~
c: a:-oi.a.,Q
E:sz
a.ti
t!a.
~
. Average Number of Affected Customers
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
o
o
Y = 2566.6x-°.4sS
-r+---.-----+---- i ----------
500 2500150020001000
Number of OMT Events per Year by Sub-Reason
.
.
.
A VISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMTION
JUSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYE:
REQUEST NO.:
DATE PREPARD:
WITSS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMENT:
TELEPHONE:
08/26/2011
Scott Kinney
Scott Waples
System Operations
[phone]
IDAHO
AVU-E-ll-01 1 AVU-G-ll-01
IPUC
Production Request
Staffl13
REQUEST:
The Irin Integration: Irin - Milwood 115kV transmission line project ($1.15 milion) is cited in
Mr. Kinney's testimony as "improving" reliabilty and that this project is not useful until a "futue"
Ir. Substation is constrcted. Is this correct? When is the Irn Substation planed to be
constrcted? Is this project required to meet NERC/WCC reliabilty requirements? What would
be the reliability impact to the Avista Spokane Valley system if this project was not constrcted?
RESPONSE:
The constrction of the Irin Integration: Irn - Milwood 115k V transmission line is a necessar
first step for ths integration, and must be staged so as to be energized prior to the constrction of
the rest of the facilties in the Spokane Valley, including Irin Substation. The Irn Substation is
expected to be energized in 2014.
The Irin Integration: Irn - Milwood 115kV transmission line project is required to increase
reliabilty to customers and reduce operational constraints such that existing facilities can be
maintained or upgraded. Presently, the Irn Integration: Irn - Milwood 115kV transmission
line project is not necessar to mitigate existing violations of NERCIWECC reliabilty
requirements, but as stated above, is required for futue reliability.
Presently the transmission system serng Inland Empire Paper (IEP) requires the Beacon -
Boulder #2 1 15:KV Transmission Line to be in serce and operated "closed" at both Beacon and
Boulder Substations when IEP stars their 33,000 HP synchronous motors. Reconstrction of the
Beacon - Boulder #2 115k V Transmission Line is therefore constrained (because none of the line
can be removed for reconstrction) and canot be completed until the new proposed transmission
line from Irn Switching Station to Milwood/P is operational (Irn Switching Station is
required to be operational as well) which will provide an additional source to IEP.
.
.
.
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMTION
JUSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYE:
REQUEST NO.:
08/26/2011
Scott Kinney
Scott Waples
System Operations
[phone]
IDAHO
AVU-E-ll-01 1 AVU-G-ll-01
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-1 14
DATE PREPARD:WISS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMENT:
TELEPHONE:
REQUEST:
What reliabilty issues does the Spokane Valley system curently have and has it become less
reliable in the recent past? Does A vista have outage data and reliabilty statistics to support the
necessity to improve that system's reliability at this time?
RESPONSE:
1. The Spokane Valley has the following reliability issues related to Avista's Transmission
System:
a. Inand Empire Paper is constrained operationally based on the present condition of
the Transmission System supplying the facility in the Spokane Valley.
b. Avista is presently unable to rebuild the Beacon - Boulder #2 115 kV Transmission
Line due to operational constraints.
c. A significant number of customers are supplied by substations connected to the
same transmission line therefore a fault on the transmission system wil cause a
large power outage in the Spokane Valley.
d. Present and near ter forecasted loading of existing transmission facilities wil
constrain the operational flexibilty required to maintain or upgrade equipment.
2. A vista did not use outage data or reliabilty statistics for support of the proposed projects to
improve the system's reliabilty in the Spokane Valley due to the nature of the reliability
issues being addressed. Avista is required to meet expected customer demand for all
seasons and operating scenaros.
.
.
.
JUSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYE:
REQUEST NO.:
REQUEST:
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMTION
IDAHO
AVU-E-ll-01 1 AVU-G-ll-Ol
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-115
DATE PREPARD:
WITSS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMNT:
TELEPHONE:
08/26/2011
Scott Kinney
Scott Kinney
System Operations
[phone]
Has A vista incurred any NERCIWCC fines for non-compliance, either via self-reporting or
audit, that were directly related to the Reliability Compliance projects listed in Table 4 or Table 6
of Mr. Kinney's testimony?
RESPONSE:
A vista has not incured any fines for non-compliance related to the Reliabilty Compliance
projects listed in Table 4 or Table 6 of Mr. Kinney's testimony. If Avista doesn't complete these
projects within a reasonable time frame from the planed schedule, then A vista could be fined for
a violation of the NERC/WCC standards. The system issues need to be resolved before they
become a real-time operating issue.
.
.
.
JUSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYE:
REQUEST NO.:
REQUEST:
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMTION
IDAHO
AVU-E-ll-01 1 AVU-G-ll-01
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-116
08/26/2011
Scott Kinney
Scott Kinney
System Operations
[phone]
DATE PREPARD:WISS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTM:
TELEPHONE:
The Thornton 230 kV Substation is listed in Table 6 of Mr. Kinney's testimony as a Reliability
Compliance project. However, the project description indicates that this project is solely required
for wind integration and not reliability concers. The project descrption does not lìst any
NERC/WCC standards for this project. What NERC/WCC reliabilty standards does the
constrction of this project intend to meet? Is the sole purose of the project to provide for wind
integration?
RESPONSE:
The Thornton 230 kV Substation project is not being constrcted to meet NERCIWECC reliabilty
standards. The project is required to interconnect a third pary wind resource per FERC Open
Access requirements and Avista's Open Access Transmission Tarff. The project was eroneously
listed as a Reliability Compliance project, but it is a FERC Open Access Compliance project.
.
.
.
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMTION
JUSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO DATE PREPARD:
AVU-E-ll-01 1 AVU-G-ll-01 WITSS:IPUC RESPONDER:
Production Request DEPARTMNT:PR-117 TELEPHONE:
09/0112011
Scott Kiey
David James
Engineerng
[phone]
REQUEST:
Distrbution reliability project investment to improve worst performing feeders is $925,000 in
2011(pro forma Table 5) and is $1,075,000 in 2012 (pro forma Table 7). Mr. Kinney's testimony
indicates that distrbution system reliabilty investment for worst performing feeders has been
on-going annually since 2008. The worst pedorming feeders are determined using "a combination
of reliability statistics, including CAII, SAII and CEMI (Customers Experiencing Multiple
Interrptions)." Have the funds expended in 2008, 2009 and 2010 for distrbution system
reliabilty improvements positively impacted the above reliability statistics for the worst
pedorming feeders? If so, what have been the reliabilty statistics for the improved feeders in
succeeding year(s)?
RESPONSE:
Distribution: Though the "worst feeder" program was developed in 2007 and 2008 as par of the
Company's overall Asset Management strategy, capital investments began in 2009 and we are
curently in year three ofthe program. Sumar data (see char on following page) indicates the
electrc circuit identification, SAII raning, and information pertaining to past actual or future
plan spend on circuits. It is much too early in this program to draw significant conclusions about
direct correlation between capital investments and improvement in reliability indices. However,
distrbution engineering recently reviewed the program and we are makng recommendations to
revise spend patterns going forward. A copy of that evaluation is attached to ths response. In
summar, Avista plans to track the top ten most undererforming feeders and review performance
on an anual basis. We plan to monitor the 3-year SAII average and continue making reliabilty
based improvements until circuits are displaced by other undererforming circuits. In all cases,
the most underedorming (aka - worst feeders) are rual and generally characterized by long
mileage tr and lateral circuits. These circuits are often in forested areas such as Sandpoint,
Grangevile, Dear, and St.Mares. Many of them experience 4-10 times as many sustained
outages as do their urban counterpars. Without specific treatment to improve reliabilty, the
overall condition of these circuits would continue to degrade and one would expect reliabìlty
indices to rise. Individual year reliabilty performance is largely weather dependant. It is often
diffcult to assess the direct impact of capital investments from year to year because of weather
dependence. Wind, snow, and lightning events playa major role in a circuit's outage pedormance.
Ths is why we've committed to a sustained, resource-Ievelized approach to mitigating
underperforming feeders. Please see Staff_PR_117 Attachment A for a copy ofthe "Worst Feeder
Program Evaluation - August 2011 ".
Page 2
Idaho PR 117 - Underpenorming electric distribution FDRs (Top Ten) - SAIFI.Actual Spend
Cust.2008 2009 2010
Sub-FOR Id #Rank Count SAIFI $ (Act)SAIFI $ (Act)SAIFI
Clark Fork 711 29 1543 2.4 3.41 $120,025 3.05
Grangevile 1273 1 644 18.38 $164,369 35.51 17.23
Sandpoint 4S21 52 1199 1.92 2.57 $142,837 1.67
* SAIFI Feeder Rank based on 3-year Saifi Avg.
(2008-2010)
Forecast Spend
2011 2012
Sub-FOR Id #Rank $ (Plan)Rank $ (Plan)
Sandpoint 4S21 52 100,000.Clark Fork 711 29 150,000
Oden 731 85 100,000
Priest River 4S40 51 125,000
St. Maries 633 6 250,000 6 $250,000
Dry Gulch 1209 20 150,000
Grangevile 1273 1 100,000 1 $250,000
Deary 651 3 50,000 3 $250,000
Rathdrum 231 5 $250,000
.
~7v,sTA.
.ER2414
Distribution Reliability
Improve Worst Feeders
2012 Capital Budget
Keri Gross
.
Distribution Engineering Report
StafCPR_117 Attachment A
August 29, 2011
Page 1 of11
.
.
.
Introduction
The Distrbution Reliability- Improve Worst Feeders Program, ER 2414, was added to
the annual distrbution capital budget in 2009. The goal was to improve the reliabilty of
the worst performing feeders. The feeders were ranked using information on outage
durations, customers affected and total customers per feeder. Money was allocated to five
feeders with the most need.
For the 2009 capital budget CHW12F3, DIA232, GRV1273, STM633 and VAL12F1
were chosen as the worst performing feeders based on 2007 SAIFI (System Average
Interrption Frequency Indices). The budget included $1.1 milion for pedormance
improving projects on the five feeders. The actual amount spent on ER 2414 in 2009 was
$1.04 milion with projects completed on four of the five feeders. A reliability analysis of
the five feeders is shown in Appendix 1.
Over the next four years, the projected ER 2414 budget spends $12.6 milion dollars
improving the reliability of26 different feeders. With the Improve Worst Feeders
program being implemented two years ago, there is not enough reliability data available
to determine if this program is actually improving feeder reliability. As additional feeders
are added to the list each year, it is beneficial to analyze options on how the program
should continue to be executed until multiple years of data is available to verify the
success of the program.
1
StafCPR_117 Attachment A Page2of11
f
.Option 1
The first option is to continue with ER 2414- Improve Worst Feeders as it is shown in the
budget, Table I, for the next 5 years. These feeders were originally chosen based on
anual 2007 SAIPI and others were added to the list based on reliability concerns from
area engineers. The 26 feeders in the budget are not necessarily the worst SAIPI feeders.
In fact, some are not in the top 100 of the worst performing feeders based on 2008-2010
SAIPI, Appendix 2.
These feeders are concentrated around the Pullman and Lewiston areas. Contract crews
might be essential to complete the projects on schedule. Contract crews wil also require
additional project management time and resources.
22 Marte BD101 Gifford 34F1 WA (Davenport)$300 $$$$$300
51 Weber AD103 Priest River 4S4O ID $125 $$$$$125
72 Weber AD202 OldTown 7211D $250 $$$$$250
6 Weber CD902 St Maries 633 (ID)$300 $300 $300 $300 $300 $ 1,50
143 Weber KD300 Pinehurst 4431D $$250 $250 $250 $250 $ 1,00
1 Olson LD101 Grangeville 1273 (ID)$$200 $200 $200 $200 $80
30 Olson LD202 Sweetwater 24031D $$150 $$$$150
11 Olson LD301 Juliaetta 6621D $$200 $200 $200 $200 $80
19 Olson LD302 Jaype 12871 D $$250 $250 $250 $250 $ 1,00.145 Olson L0303 Juliaetta 6611D $$200 $200 $200 $200 $80
110 Olson PD101 Palouse 312 (WA)$100 $$$$$100
110 Olson PD102 Palouse 3121D $50 $$$$$50
3 Olson PD201 Deary 651 (Elk River) 10 $250 $250 $$$$50
47 Olson PD202 Diamond 231 WA $$100 $$$$100
31 Olson P0203 Latah 421 (WA)$$$100 $200 $$300
116 Olson P0204 Latah 422 (WA)$$$100 $200 $$30
262 Olson PD205 Potlatch 3211D $100 $100 $$$$200
70 Olson PD206 Potlatch 3221D $$100 $100 $$$200
203 Olson P0300 Rosalia 431 (WA)$$50 $300 $$$350
71 McClain SD101 Colbert 12F2 WA $250 $$$$$250
7 Taylor WD005 Gifford 34F2 WA $$250 $250 $$$50
22 Taylor WD0 Gifford 34Fl WA (Colvile)$$$$125 $250 $375
12 Taylor WD101 Kettle Falls 12F2 WA $$$$$400 $40
15 Taylor W0201 Orin 12F3 (WA)$$250 $300 $250 $$80
45 Taylor W0202 Valley 12F3 WA $$$$250 $250 $500
4 Taylor WD4 Spirit 12F1 WA $$$200 $200 $$40
2 Taylor WD901 Chewelah 12F3 Spl FDR WA $$$$100 $200 $30
Baseline $275 $275
Total Wors Feeders (ER 2414)$2,000 $2,650 $2,750 $2,725 $2,500 $12,62
.
2
StafCPR_117 Attachment A Page 3 of 11
.
.
.
Option 2
The second option is to realign the program in the 2012 budget by funding projects to
improve the reliability of the ten worst feeders based on SAIF from 2008, 2009 and
2010. These feeders are more evenly distrbuted between the area engineers and should
be more manageable for crews than the previous option. Spokane feeders are not
represented in this option.
Area engineers would propose specific projects for each feeder to improve the reliabilty.
The feeders remain an ER 2414 budget item until all of the projects are complete.
Initially, each feeder wil be budgeted $200k per year for an annual ER 2414 total of $2
milion. Each year, the SAIFI average wil be updated and the list of feeders reviewed to
ensure all feeders receiving ER2414 fuds are still a worst performing feeder; for
example, stil in the top 25. Once a feeder is no longer considered a worst pedorming
feeder, it wil be replaced in the budget.
3
StafCPR_117 Attachment A Page4of11
.
.
.
Option 3
The third option is to realign the program in the 2012 budget by fuding projects to
improve the reliability of the two worst pedorming SAIPI feeders for each area engineer
based on SAIFI from 2008, 2009 and 2010. The list is similar to the list in Option 2; two
of the four Colvile feeders are removed. This option gives each area engineer an
opportity to propose and improve the reliability of service to their customers.
Area engineers would propose specific projects for each feeder to improve the reliability.
The feeders remain as an ER 2414 budget item until all of the projects are complete.
Initially, each feeder wil be budgeted $250k per year for an ER 2414 total of $2 milion
per year. Each year, the SAIFI average wil be updated and the list of feeders reviewed to
ensure all feeders receiving ER2414 fuds are stil a worst performing feeder; for
example, stil in the top 25. Once a feeder is no longer considered a worst pedorming
feeder, it wil be replaced in the budget.
Area Eng
Marte
Marte
Marte*
Olson
Oison
Table 3 Two Worst Performing Feeders per Area Engineer with Alternate
Cust Count 200
326 8.19
75 9.58
463 6.32
64 18.38539141~f.3rr
;. .'...............
Rank FOR
8 RON12F2
10 R0X751
13 LF34F1
1 GRV1273
3 OER651
11 .... ~~~
r¡ lor . . :. '. ' CHW12F3
Ti lor ., 4,' l
-
Weber
. Weber
Weber*
5
6
14
RAT231
STM633
WAL543"
200 2010 Average
7.50 0.65 5.45
1.31 3.67 4,853.72 3.06 4.~f
35.51 17 .i: 23~ 71.
6.2; 11.2¿,. LU.
~,q 4,6::
'Jj ','-~ ~-
,
71 7 " . .
91 " " 7
. '1~4i . .' 1&1'7: ~. " 4
46C . l.' " 5
- . .
" , :: i:JÌ . ." ,,'
*Some feeders are not necessarily ideal choices based solely on a three year SAIPI
average. An alternative feeder for each of the four areas has been included; the final
decision of which two feeders is made by the area engineer.
StafCPR_117 Attachment A
4
Page 5 of 11
.
.
.
.
Conclusion
The recommended choice for ER 2414- Improve Worst Feeders Program is Option 3: two
worst feeders per area engineer for a total of eight feeders per year. Each area engineer
wil have the opportity to propose projects to improve the reliability of two feeders.
Limiting projects to two feeders per area engineer wil minimize project delays associated
with design, management and crew availabilty. The feeders wil remain in the budget
under ER 2414 until there is outage data to show the reliability has significantly
improved.
Until specific projects are proposed, the anual budget wil include $250k for each
feeder. The budget wil be updated with actl proposed project costs.
Table 4 ER 2414- Capital Budget (in thousands
Area Eng Rank FOR Office 200 200 2010 Average
Marte 8 RDN12F2 DAC $ .250 $ 250 $ 2,0 $ 25Marte 10 R0X751 OTC $ 250 S. 250 $ 2,o.i 250Olson 1 GRV1273 GRC . 250 S 250 $ i) ( i5(Olson 3 DER651 PAC 250:.251 ¡. . . i) ( ~5O
;:~ I : ~':~~3 :: d,~ . ~ $,~
. 6 .. ~. COC I." . -
Total ER 2414 I $2,00 $2,00 $2,00 $2,00
5
StafCPR_117 Attachment A Page 6 of 11
.
.
.
Appendix 1
Reliability Analysis and money spent for 2009 ER 2414.
CHW12F3
¡¡
~
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
_ER2414
-SAIFI
2008
$-
37.95
2009
$627,213
7.31 16.19
Average2010
$132,801
3.31
$700,000
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000-
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$-
DIA232
40.00 $700,000
35.00 $600,000
30.00 $500,000
¡¡25.00 $400,000
ë(20.00 $300,000I/15.00
10.00 $200,000
5.00 ~-$100,000
0.00 $-
2008 2009 2010 Average
_ER2414 $-$159,378 $48,752
-SAIFI 4.94 0.97 5.70 3.87
GRV1273
40.00
35.00 /""-30.00 /""-
¡¡25.00 ./"-~
~20.00 ,~15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
2008 2009 2010 Average
_ER2414 $-$164,369 $-
-SAIFI 18.38 35.51 17.23 23.71
_....--
StafCPR_117 Attachment A
$700,000
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$-
6
Page 7 of 11
.
.
.
--~--------'------------_._.._-._--_._-------------_...---_._-------
STM633
40.00
35.00
30.00
u:25.00
ë(20.00II15.00
10.00 ~--5.00
0.00
2008 2009 2010 Average
_ER2414 $-$-$230,589
-SAIFI 8.22 4.05 7.78 6.69
-
VAL12Fl
u:
~
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
. _ER2414
-SAIFI
2008
$-
2.52
2009
$93,155
3.16
2010
$283,767
1.20 2.29
Average
StafLPR_117 Attachment A
----.-;-:1
$700,000
$600,000 .
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$-
$700,000
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$-
7
Page 8 of 11
.Appendix 2
Rnkdfì d d SAIPI2008-2010.b
.
a e ee ers ase on average
Rank Feeder CustCount Offce 200 200 2010 Average
1 GRVl273 64 GRC 18.38 35.51 17.23 23.71
2 CHW12F3 704 COC 37.95 7.31 3.31 16.19
3 OER651 539 PAC 14.13 6.22 11.24 10.53
4 SPI12Fl 767 ca 9.01 7.20 10.06 8.76
5 RA1231 134 CDC 3.88 16.45 0.31 6.88
6 SlM633 1775 CDC 8.22 4.05 7.78 6.69
7 GIF34F2 960 COC 4.10 7.10 5.42 5.54
8 RON12F2 326 DAC 8.19 7.50 0.65 5.45
9 ClV34Fl 1868 COC 5.08 6.88 3.70 5.22
10 ROX751 75 OLC 9.58 1.31 3.67 4.85
11 JUl86 377 PAC 2.96 7.65 3.29 4.63
12 KET12F2 84 COC 5.80 3.41 4.20 4.47
13 lF34Fl 463 DAC 6.32 3.72 3.06 4.37
14 WAl53 46 KEC 3.62 5.41 3.54 4.19
15 ORI12F3 1154 COC 6.37 3.45 2.10 3.97
16 ORl12Fl 658 ca 5.66 1.99 4.20 3.95
17 OIA32 388 PAC 4.94 0.97 5.70 3.87
18 SAG741 1045 SAC 4.27 1.28 5.65 3.74
19 JPE1287 550 GRC 1.96 4.55 3.96 3.49
20 ORY1209 539 iCC 6.40 2.75 1.19 3.45
21 BLU321 2089 CDC 8.67 0.90 0.57 3.38
22 GIF34Fl 150 OAC 2.75 2.33 5.05 3.38
23 EWN241 441 PAC 0.10 8.73 1.20 3.34
24 M23621 772 PAC 2.25 2.25 5.35 3.28
25 OER652 50 PAC 3.08 2.0 4.69 3.28
26 MEA12F2 201 SPC 0.59 7.77 1.41 3.26
27 OGA611 770 CDC 1.94 3.42 4.10 3.15
28 FOR12Fl 578 OAC 1.8 1.40 6.46 3.01
29 CKF711 1543 SAC 2.40 3.41 3.05 2.95
30 SW1240 m lcc 2.67 5.16 0.68 2.84
31 LAT421 489 PAC 5.19 0.43 2.55 2.12
32 VA112F2 374 COC 5.78 1.13 1.8 2.70
33 l&R512 396 OLC 6.65 0.42 0.95 2.67
34 MIS431 819 KEC 4.05 0.96 3.00 2.07
35 OVP12F2 196 OAC 1.30 6.37 0.15 2.61
36 WD.12F2 69 OAC 1.53 5.31 0.57 2.47
37 CRG1261 419 GRC 2.20 4.83 0.32 2.45
38 F&C12F2 2106 SPC 5.16 1.48 0.49 2.38
39 OR01281 639 LCC 1.60 2.28 3.08 2.32
40 CH12F4 539 ca 0.00 0.34 6.60 2.31
41 VA112Fl 104 COC 2.52 3.16 1.20 2.29
42 KOO1298 549 GRC 1.14 1.09 4.62 2.28
43 lOO12Fl 1034 OPC 0.79 1.75 4.23 2.26
44 C012402 211 GRC 2.33 3.02 1.37 2.24
45 VAl12F3 687 COC 4.87 0.51 1.34 2.24
46 SPI12F2 389 COC 2.58 1.13 2.86 2.19
47 OlA31 625 PAC 2.63 1.27 2.57 2.16
48 OEE12Fl 2157 OPC 1.79 3.01 1.65 2.5
49 WEI1289 139 LCC 1.10 0.87 4.46 2.14
50 M15512 2140 PAC 0.32 1.46 4.58 2.U
51 PRV4S4O 1605 SAC 4.09 1.45 0.63 2.06
52 SPT4S21 1199 SAC 1.06 1.99 3.U 2.06
53 SAG742 1199 SAC 1.92 2.57 1.67 2.06
54 NW12Fl 1773 SPC 4.23 0.06 1.80 2.03
55 C012401 624 GRC 2.04 2.36 1.44 1.95
56 OR01260 576 LCC 1.19 0.00 4.65 1.9
57 BEA12Fl 2120 SPC 1.10 3.46 1.21 1.92
58 lE0611 70 PAC 2.03 2.20 1.52 1.92
59 lOO12F2 729 OPC 2.59 2.23 0.86 1.89
60 WAS781 253 OLC 3.20 1.7 1.22 1.86
61 KAl29 121 GRC 1.3 2.42 2.03 1.86
62 MD.12F4 2989 SPC 2.15 3.19 0.16 1.83
63 Mll12Fl 1869 SPC 2.11 2.29 1.10 1.83
64 SPA442 243 PAC 2.36 1.93 1.12 1.81
65 9CE12F4 1931 SPC 0.08 5.06 0.28 1.80
66 BEA12F6 861 SPC 1.06 4.28 0.06 1.80
67 OON732 167 SAC 3.84 1.13 0.43 1.80
68 Ml5513 2412 PAC 0.21 1.46 3.69 1.79
69 SUN12F6 1677 SPC 2.38 1.37 1.60 1.78
70 POT322 258 PAC 2.03 2.65 0.55 1.74.
StafCPR_117 Attchment A
Rank Feeder CustCount Office 2008 200 2010 Average
71 COB 12F2 1747 OPe 0.11 0.35 4.54 1.67
12 OL0721 778 SAC 3.10 0.94 0.85 1.63
73 F&Cl2F3 1343 SPC 1.17 1.22 2.42 1.60
74 SUN12F3 2593 SPC 3.24 1.13 0.39 1.59
75 SPR761 483 OT 2.40 1.61 0.75 1.58
76 LKV343 134 CDC 1.24 0.92 2.54.1.57
77 WAK12F4 1197 SPC 3.1 0.29 1.07 1.55
78 WAl54 616 KEC 2.70 0.64 1.31 1.55
- 79 M15514 3163 PAC 1.09 2.68 0.81 1.53
80 GRV1274 1059 GRC 1.33 1.13 2.09 1.52
81 PULl13 164 PAC 3.26 0.1 1.11 1.51
82 NM052 11 PAC-2.33 0.08 2.09 1:.50
83 EFM12F2 743 SPC 0.97 2.27 1.26 1.50
84 l&S12F5 80 SPC 3.06 0.16 1.27 1.50
85 OON731 1373 SAC 0.60 2.12 1.73 1.48
86 BKR12F2 1313 SPC 1.1S 2.12 1.6 1.48
87 NE12Fl 2569 SPC 1.21 0.21 3.01 1.48
68 ll12Fl 419 OAC 1.75 0.91 1.70 1.46
89 BLA311 305 CDC 1.63 0.58 2.15 1.45
90 SUN12F2 1941 SPC 1.21 2.07 1.06 1.45
91 FWT12F2 1719 SPC 1.20 0.49 2.63 1.44
92 NEZ1267 402 GRC 2.12 0.02 2.17 1.44
93 LE0612 56 PAC 2.10 0.89 1.24 1.41
94 N13122 399 LCC 0.99 3.21 0.02 1.41
95 SlK12Fl 164 SPC 3.55 0.47 0.17 1.40
96 WIKl279 181 GRC 1.01 0.96 2.23 1.40
97 BEA12F3 419 SPC 0.02 3.05 1.09 1.38
98 SP1361 1385 CDC 1.90 0.88 1.37 1.38
99 WAl542 60 KEC 2.03 1.03 1.07 1.38
10 SPT4S22 1390 SAC 1.43 0.26 2.32 1.34
101 MlN12Fl 875 OPC 0.38 0.91 2.65 1.31
102 HOl1205 818 LCC 1.03 0.37 2.53 1.31
103 AR012F2 92 COC 1.40 0.89 1.62 1.30
104 TEN1256 1501 LCC 0.27 2.15 1.43 1.28
105 OSB521 898 KEC 1.52 2.08 0.22 1.27
106 OR01282 56 LCC 1.06 0,02 2.73 1.27
107 TEN1255 1873 LCC 2.26 0.05 1.50 1.27
108 CHW12F2 98 COC 1.60 0.81 1.38 1.26
109 GRV1271 64 GRC 1.33 1.09 1.26 1.23
110 PA1312 302 PAC 2.24 0.01 1.37 1.20
111 DEE 12F2 1050 OPC 0.24 3.19 0.16 1.19
1U GRV1272 60 GRC 2.48 0.01 1.03 1.17
113 RON12Fl 554 OAC 0.33 2.92 tl.25 1.17
114 SIPl2F4 1933 SPC 1.40 0.54 1.53 1.6
115 N131321 398 LCC 1.25 2.06 0.12 1.14
116 LAT422 257 PAC 0.82 0.63 1.98 1.14
117 SPT4S23 1637 SAC 0.26 2.06 1.09 1.14
118 WAK12F2 1491 SPC 2.34 0.67 0.35 1.12
119 PVW243 171 CDC 0.99 1.33 0.99 1.11
12 9C12F3 412 SPC 2.36 0.45 0.41 1.07
121 NM051 1412 PAC 1.99 1.05 0.16 1.07
122 AIR12Fl 700 SPC 1.49 1.33 0.39 1.07
U3 TEN1253 652 LCC 0.14 1.71 1.33-1.06
U4 SPUl23 3371 PAC 1.23 0.10 1.84 1.06
125 WAL5 849 KEC 2.81 0.07 0.23 1.04
126 TEN1257 1942 LCC 2.37 0.17 0.56 1.03
127 WOR471 150 PAC 0.01 2.09 1.00 1.03
128 CRG1260 312 GRC 1.05 1.02 1.00 1.02
129 GRN12F2 569 COC 1.64 0.23 1.19 1.02
130 SlM63 23 CDC 0.00 1.00 2.04 1.01
131 SUN12F4 1278 SPC 0.17 0.34 2.51 1.01
132 FOR2.3 1 OAC 0.00 1.00 2.00 1.00
133 HER 1 CDC 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00
134 NW12F2 1403 SPC 1.25 0.30 1.42 0.99
135 BKR12F3 353 SPC 0.97 0.04 1.95 0.99
136 GAR461 607 PAC 1.13 1.47 0.32 0.98
137 SLK12F2 913 SPC 1.58 1.19 0.15 0.97
138 9CE12F2 1789 SPC 1.41 1.09 0.38 0.96
139 S01523 653 OLC 0.86 0.92 1.07 0.95
140 SPU121 2271 PAC 0.22 0.46 2.15 0.94
8
Page 9 of 11
.Rank Feeder CustCount Office 200 200 2010 Average
141 ECl21 570 PAC 0.05 1.20 1.55 0.93
142 HOL1206 784 LCC LOW 0.13 1.53 0.92
143 PIN43 1261 KEC 0.93 0.42 1.40 0.92
144 KA1293 662 GRC 1.14 0.30 1.25 0.90
145 JUL661 421 PAC 1.29 0.34 1.03 0.89
146 CLV12F4 144 COC 1.06 0.71 0.89 0.89
147 S1M631 1949 KEC 1.77 0.33 0.49 0.86
148 SUN12F5 538 SPC 1.66 0.36 0.57 0.86
149 CH12F4 1520 SPC 1.07 1.09 0.38 0.85
150 L&S12F2 3373 SPC 0.11 1.5 1.29 0.85
151 NE12F3 1280 SPC 0.32 0.09 2.13 0.84
152 PVW241 1248 CD 0.18 0.16 2.18 0.84
153 3HT12F4 2312 SPC 1.22 0.10 1.9 0.84
154 NE12F2 446 SPC 0.35 0.00 2.5 0.84
155 SLW136 1977 LCC 1.8 0.17 1.5 0.83
156 BEA12F2 2962 SPC 0.14 1.17 1.14 0.81
157 PDL1201 140 LCC 1.23 1.02 0.20 0.81
158 BEA12F5 1971 SPC 0.0 0.13 2.21 0.80
159 KAM1291 612 GRC 0.40 0.11 1.88 0.80
160 SLW1316 1219 LCC 0.18 2.09 0.11 0.80
161 KOO1299 467 GRC 0.04 1.30 1.03 0.79
162 S015 711 OTC 1.60 0.56 0.16 0.78
163 AVD152 1373 CDC 1.16 0.01 1.12 0.77
164 SPT4S3O 2416 SAC 1.02 0.11 1.13 0.75
165 LOLl26 1731 LCC 1.9 0.02 1.04 0.75
166 H&W12F2 554 SPC 0.47 1.25 0.52 0.75
167 WIL12F1 625 DAC 0.01 2.18 0.04 0.74
168 CDA121 209 CD 1.77 0.17 0.24 0.73
169 ROK451 331 PAC 0.00 2.3 0.14 0.72
170 CLV12F2 122 COC 0.17 0.97 1.01 0.72
171 ECl 1472 PAC 1.04 1.04 0.07 0.72
172 Ml5515 2195 PAC 0.26 0.54 1.27 0.69
173 GRN12F1 145 COC 1.00 0.35 0.73 0.69
174 S01'21 1136 OTC 0.08 0.89 1.08 0.68
175 NW12F4 200 SPC 0.18 0.20 1.67 0.68
176 TK0412 309 PAC 0.18 0.94 0.92 0.68
177 F&C12F4 240 SPC 0.25 1.4 0.65 0.68
178 3HT12F2 2247 SPC 0.18 0.48 1.34 0.67
179 OLD722 1 SAC 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.67
18 0iH50 1 OTC 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.67
181 SIP12F1 1 SPC 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.67
182 HUE141 1129 CD 0.81 0.15 1.04 0.66
183 COB12F1 22 OPC 0.74 0.17 1.01 0.64
184 TEN1254 158 LCC 0.25 0.09 1.55 0.63
18 CHE12F1 1754 SPC 0.24 0.26 1.38 0.63
18 M15511 728 PAC 0.30 0.20 1.36 0.62
187 F&C12F6 186 SPC 0.12 1.43 0.30 0.62
18 MLN12F2 848 DPC 1.23 0.36 0.24 0.61
189 BIG411 413 KEC 0.24 0.65 0.93 0.61
190 FWT12F3 1463 SPC 0.65 0.04 1.09 0.59
191 CHE12F3 1813 SPC 0.15 0.26 1.37 0.59
192 BIG412 226 KEC 1.28 0.35 0.10 0.57
193 F&C12F5 1756 SPC 0.05 0.05 1.61 0.57
194 KET12F1 84 CD 1.69 0.01 0.00 0.57
195 FWT12F1 236 SPC 0.42 0.73 0.56 0.57
196 L&S12F4 2150 SPC 1.32 0.02 0.34 0.56
197 HAR4F1 169 DAC 1.51 0.14 0.02 0.56
198 SE12F4 2145 SPC 1.36 0.10 0.21 0.56
199 FWT12F4 1055 SPC 1.06 0.28 0.32 0.56
200 L1B12F2 2337 SPC 1.37 0.06 0.21 0.55
201 SE12F5 2198 SPC 1.31 0.08 0.22 0.54
202 NW12F3 1736 SPC 0.03 0.10 1.48 0.54
203 RSA431 674 PAC 0.57 0.25 0.79 0.54
204 3HT12F6 740 SPC 0.00 1.58 0.00 0.53
205 CRG126 9 GRC 1.22 0.11 0.22 0.52
206 MIL12F2 1760 SPC 0.14 0.36 1.03 0.51
207 BEA12F4 332 SPC 0.48 1.01 0.02 0.51
208 PRA222 1929 CDC 1.33 0.06 O.U 0.50
209 DVP12F1 945 DAC 0.21 1.21 0.06 0.49
210 PUL112 204 PAC 0.24 0.32 0.89 0.48
.
.
StafCPR_117 Attachment A
Rank Feeder Cust Count Office 200 200 2010 Average
211 CFD1210 1734 LCC 0.01 0.20 1.9 0.47
2U SUN12F1 3102 SPC 1.13 0.05 0.23 0.47
21 PDL1203 1503 LCC 0.11 0.21 1.07 0.46
214 PF212 1327 CDC 1.15 0.18 0.05 0.46
215 EFM12F1 1655 SPC 0.16 1.12 0.05 0.44
216 APW112 2587 CDC 0.10 1.09 0.14 0.44
217 0TH1 1127 OTC 0.10 1.10 0.11 0.43
218 SIP12F3 141 SPC 0.00 0.22 1.08 0.43
219 MEA12Fl 1472 SPC 0.24 1.03 0.02 0.43
220 C&W12F2 2561 SPC 1.23 0.03 0.04 0.43
221 PAL311 711 PAC 0.10 0.46 0.73 0.43
22 PF213 164 CDC 1.0g 0.01 0.18 0.42
223 CHE12F2 1576 SPC 0.07 1.06 0.12 0.41
224 AIR12F2 135 SPC 0.03 1.00 0.19 0.41
22 SLW1358 1898 LCC 0.37 0.64 0.19 0.40
226 HUE142 2170 CDC 0.21 0.97 0.01 0.40
227 LOLl359 1901 LCC 0.11 0.59 0.49 0.40
22 APW111 2474 CDC 1.12 0.02 0.05 -0.40
229 CDA124 2016 CDC 0.15 0.01 1.02 0.39
230 C&W12F4 1593 SPC 0.12 1.01 0.04 0.39
231 PDL1204 280 LCC 1.4 0.00 0.01 0.38
232 CGC31 14 SAC 1.00 0.00 0.14 0.38
233 LIB12F1 190 SPC 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.38
234 ORI12F2 174 COC 1.09 0.02 0.01 0.37
235 DRYl20 1160 LCC 0.04 1.05 0.02 0.37
236 L&RS11 289 OTC 0.86 0.04 0.20 0.37
237 SIP12F5 109 SPC 0.02-0.06 1.01 0.36
238 DALl33 258 CDC 0.21 0.61 0.23 0.35
239 DALl34 702 CDC 0.00 1.03 0.00 0.35
240 SIP12F2 208 SPC 0.00 0.00 1.03 0.34
241 PIN41 96 KEC 0.34 0.51 0.18 0.34
242 TVl32 2600 PAC 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.34
243 ODS12F1 711 DAC 0.13 0.37 0.51 0.
244 3HT12F7 407 SPC 0.61 0.35 0.04 0.34
245 BEA1310 2 SPC 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.33
246 PUL111 11 PAC 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.33
247 INT12F2 1160 SPC 0.00 0.57 0.41 0.33
248 DAL131 2628 CDC O.W 0.29 0.59 0.33
249 CDAl25 2783 CDC 0.49 0.28 0.17 0.31
250 APW113 1082 CDC 0.41 0.31 0.21 0.31
251 PUL116 2375 PAC 0.44 0.03 0.45 0.31
252 F&C12F1 30 SPC 0.14 0.26 0.51 0.30
253 PDL1202 2051 LCC 0.13 0.56 0.20 0.30
254 WAK12F1 2103 SPC 0.31 0.08 0.49 0.29
255 ROS12F6 2420 SPC 0.20 0.08 0.57 0.28
2S SE12F3 1929 SPC 0.60 0.06 0.17 0.28
257 PIN42 450 KEC 0.50 0.15 0.16 0.27
25 COA123 2322 CDC 0.51 0.12 0.15 0.26
259 WAK12F3 60 SPC 0.25 0.36 0.14 0.25
260 SE12Fl 1846 SPC 0.34 0.14 0.24 0.24
261 ROS12F5 2023 SPC 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.23
262 POT31 659 PAC 0.41 0.11 0.15 0.22
263 RAT23 2795 CDC 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.22
264 LIN711 416 OTC 0.21 0.14 0.29 0.21
265 C&W12F6 1962 SPC 0.0 0.33 0.22 0.21
266 C&W12F3 1508 SPC 0.13 0.41 0.0 0.20
267 AVD151 88 CDC 0.40 0.11 0.09 0.20
268 IDR253 1215 CDC 0.00 0.02 0.57 0.20
269 PUL115 156 PAC 0.21 0.00 0.33 0.18
270 MIL12F3 1575 SPC 0.17 0.10 0.27 0.18
271 RIT31 704 OTC 0.07 0.25 0.22 0.18
272 GLN12F1 2568 SPC 0.25 0.17 0.12 0.18
273 SE12F2 240 SPC 0.15 0.07 0.29 0.17
274 3HT12Fl 829 SPC 0.04 0.27 0.17 0.16
275 ROS12F3 236 SPC 0.23 0.10 0.14 0.16
276 PULl17 2240 PAC 0.34 0.09 0.02 0.15
277 SLK12F3 243 SPC 0.12 0.05 0.29 0.15
278 PF211 837 CDC 0.06 0.30 0.10 0.15
279 SLWl34 465 LCC 0.12 0.23 0.10 0.15
280 OPT12F1 412 SPC 0.20 0.22 0.02 0.15
9
Page 10 of 11
.
.
.
Rank Feeder CustCount Office 200 200 2010 Average
281 ROS12Fl 3199 SPC O.LL 0.13 0.19 0.15
282 C&W12Fl 2140 SPC 0.05 0.27 O.LL 0.14
283 CDAl22 1292 CDC 0.39 0.01 0.03 0.14
284 GLN12F2 2399 SPC 0.24 0.02 0.16 0.14
285 PRA21 1205 CDC 0.00 0.40 0.01 0.14
286 AIR12F3 475 SPC 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.13
287 lK0411 55 PAC 0.04 0.08 0.28 0.13
28 C&W12F5 1917 SPC 0.22 0.10 0.0 0.13
289 9CE12Fl 1353 SPC 0.21 0.11 0.0 0.13
290 NE12F4 1326 SPC 0.00 0.08 0.31 0.13
291 L&S12Fl 876 SPC 0.15 0.19 0.04 0.12
292 RI132 489 OTC 0.01 0.27 0.09 0.12
293 CLA56 31 DPC 0.00 0.35 0.00 O.LL
294 LIB12F3 175 SPC 0.17 0.06 0.11 0.11
295 BUN422 170 KEC 0.24 0.09 0.00 0.11
296 1N12Fl 1839 SPC 0.01 0.16 0.15 0.11
297 L&S12F3 2535 SPC 0.28 0.01 0.03 0.11
298 ROS12F2 985 SPC 0.20 0.04 0.08 0.10
29 LKV342 10 CDC 0.10 0.10 0.10 O.W
300 BKR12Fl 2691 SPC 0.15 0.01 0.14 0.10
301 CFD1211 1094 LCC 0.01 0.08 0.20 0.10
302 3HT12F8 8 SPC 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.08
303 3HT12F5 1611 SPC 0.05 0.13 0.07 0.08
30 ROS12F4 1000 SPC 0.09 0.01 0.10 0.0
305 a.V12Fl 860 CD 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.07
306 3HTl2F3 845 SPC 0.10 0.06 0.05 0.07
307 PST12Fl 456 SPC 0.15 0.00 0.02 0.06
308 NRC352 20 SAC 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.05
309 OSB522 9 KEC 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.04
310 DALl32 1985 CDC 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.03
311 IDR251 99 CDC 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.03
3ll BUN426 957 KEC 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.03
313 APWl14 1306 CDC 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.03
314 HAR4F2 189 DAC 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.02
315 LK341 45 CDC 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.02
316 LIB 12F4 85 SPC 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01
317 IDR252 1617 CDC 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01
318 HOL1207 68 LCC 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01
319 BUN423 109 KEC 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00
320 OPT12F2 522 SPC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
321 SPU125 1 PAC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10
StafCPR_117 Attachment A Page 11 of11
.
.
.
JUSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYE:
REQUEST NO.:
REQUEST:
A VISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
IDAHO
AVU-E-ll-01 1 AVU-G-ll-Ol
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-135
DATE PREPARD:
WITSS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMNT:
TELEPHONE:
08/25/2011
Don Kopczyski
Ana Matthews
Consumer Affairs
[phone]
For calendar 2010 and YTD 2011, please describe the Company's oversight activities with respect
to the Community Action Agency's (CAP) Low Income Energy Conseration Education Program.
If none, please explain.
RESPONSE:
The Company's formal oversight activity of the Community Action Agency's (CAP) Low Income
Energy Conservation Education Program consists of periodic reporting of educational activities.
The agency report provides:
. Overvew of the program objectives
. Education delivery strategies (low, medium and high impact)
. Number of total and A vista customer households reached
The Company's informal oversight consists of occasional visits or telephone calls to the education
specialist by Avista's low-income energy assistance program manager. Durng these
conversations, educational strategies and topics are discussed.
.JUSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYE:
REQUEST NO.:
REQUEST:
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMTION
IDAHO
AVU-E-ll-01 1 AVU-G-ll-01
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-136
DATE PREPARD:
WITSS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMNT:
TELEPHONE:
08/25/2011
Don Kopczynki
Ana Mattews
Consumer Affairs
[phone]
For calendar 2010, please provide an itemization of the expenditues associated with the Low
Income Energy Conservation program. Please identify whether these costs are directly incured
by the Company or reimbursement of costs incured by CAP.
RESPONSE:
The char below provides itemization of CAP agencies reimbursed costs associated with the
Low-Income Energy Conservation program for 2010:
Salaries & Wages $10,834.
Benefits $2,900..Travel $2,378.
Space Costs $7,400.
Admin $1,488.
Total $25,000.
.
.
.
.
JUSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYE:
REQUEST NO.:
REQUEST:
AVISTACORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMTION
IDAHO
AVU-E-ll-01 1 AVU-G-ll-01
IPUC
Production Request
Staff-137
08/3112011
Don Kopczynski
Ana Mattews
Consumer Affairs
[phone]
DATE PREPARD:
WITSS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMNT:
TELEPHONE:
For calendar year 2010 and YT 2011, please provide the total number of Avista customers who
have received low income energy conservation education.
RESPONSE:
The education specialist's reports did not record the reach to Avista customers in 2010. Below is
the reach for 2011 :
Prior to Januar 2011 161 individuals paricipated in CAP Cond Workshops; number of
A vista customers are unown
2011 first quarer 11,356 households, 7,915 of which were Avista customers, in Idaho
Regions 1 and 2 had received ConEd "low-impact" education in
conjunction with LIHEAP, which is they had access to print
information and broadcast videos while receiving energy assistance
fuding
26 individuals paricipated in CAP ConE "medium- impact"
education that occured in workshop settngs
8 households, of which 6 are A vista customers received
''hgh-impact'' education durng in-home audits and weatherization
projects
2011 second quarer and 471 households, 207 were Avista customers in Idaho which received
though August 29, 2011 "low-income" education along with LIHAP, which is they had
access to print information and broadcast videos while receiving
energy assistance fuding
An estimated 320 individuals received energy conservation
information in "medium-impact" education at the Nez Perce Tribal
Housing Authority's "Housing Fairs" in Lapwai and Kamiah; the
number of A vista customers in attendance was not tracked
32 households have received "high-impact" education, all of which
were A vista customers durng in-home audits and weatherization
projects