HomeMy WebLinkAbout20260313Direct Nesbitt.pdf RECEIVED
MARCH 13, 2026
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR A )
DETERMINATION OF 2025 DEMAND- ) CASE NO. IPC-E-26-05
SIDE MANAGEMENT EXPENSES AS )
PRUDENTLY INCURRED. )
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
DIRECT TESTIMONY
OF
QUENTIN NESBITT
1 Q. Please state your name, business address, and
2 present position with Idaho Power Company ("Idaho Power" or
3 "Company") .
4 A. My name is Quentin Nesbitt . My business
5 address is 1221 West Idaho Street, Boise, Idaho 83702 . I am
6 employed by Idaho Power as the Customer Relations and
7 Program Manager in the Customer Operations Department.
8 Q. Please describe your educational background.
9 A. I earned a Bachelor of Science degree in
10 Agricultural Engineering from the University of Idaho in
11 1989 and received my Professional Engineering license in
12 1992 .
13 Q. Please describe your work experience with
14 Idaho Power.
15 A. I began my employment with Idaho Power in
16 1991 as an Agricultural Representative in the Company' s
17 Energy Management Department where I was responsible for
18 providing customer service to irrigation and agricultural
19 customers . Later in 1991, I was promoted to an engineering
20 position where I provided technical support for Idaho Power
21 Agricultural Representatives . This involved Demand Side
22 Management ("DSM") program design and operation, pump
23 testing, new service requests, investigation of high bills,
24 and irrigation system evaluation and consultation. In 2002,
NESBITT, DI 2
Idaho Power Company
1 the department was reorganized as the Customer Relations
2 Department, and I took on additional duties as the
3 Agricultural Customer Segment Advocate/Expert where I
4 coordinated Company activities that affected agricultural
5 customers . In October of 2014, I was promoted to Energy
6 Efficiency Program Leader and was responsible for
7 overseeing the Company' s Commercial and Industrial and
8 Irrigation DSM programs . In June of 2020, I became the
9 Customer Research and Analysis Leader and was responsible
10 for overseeing the Company' s analysis and reporting of all
11 DSM programs . In December of 2023, I was promoted to my
12 current position as Customer Relations and Program Manager.
13 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony in this
14 case?
15 A. The purpose of my testimony is to present the
16 Company' s request for a determination that $37, 876, 413 of
17 DSM expenses for the acquisition of demand-side resources
18 in 2025 was prudently incurred. This amount includes
19 $28, 936, 689 funded in 2025 by the Idaho Energy Efficiency
20 Rider ("Rider") and $8, 939, 724 of demand response program
21 incentive payments funded through base rates and tracked
22 annually through the Power Cost Adjustment ("PCA") .
23 My testimony will : (1) provide a review of 2025 DSM
24 program performance, (2) discuss 2025 DSM expenses and
NESBITT, DI 3
Idaho Power Company
1 adjustments, (3) provide an overview of the cost-
2 effectiveness results for 2025, (4) review program
3 evaluation efforts, and (5) describe the input stakeholders
4 provided during the year.
5 Q. Are you sponsoring any exhibits?
6 A. Yes . I am sponsoring the following exhibits :
Exhibit Description
Exhibit No. 1 2025 Idaho DSM Expenses and Adjustments
for Prudence Filing
Exhibit No. 2 2025 Cost-Effectiveness Summary by
Program, Sector, and Portfolio
Exhibit No . 3 DSM Evaluation Plan
7 I . 2025 DSM PROGRAM PERFORMANCE
8 Q. What is Idaho Power' s focus when evaluating
9 program performance?
10 A. Idaho Power takes its responsibility of
11 prudently managing customer-funded DSM activities
12 seriously, and the Company believes it is important to
13 provide its customers with the maximum value from these
14 activities . The Company' s actions in 2025, and the content
15 of the Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report ("DSM 2025
16 Annual Report") , Attachment 1 to the Application filed in
17 this proceeding, demonstrate the conscientious work and
18 decisions Idaho Power employees make to prudently use
19 customers' funds when supporting DSM activities .
NESBITT, DI 4
Idaho Power Company
1 Q. Please provide an overview of Idaho Power' s
2 DSM activities in 2025 .
3 A. On a system-wide basis, Idaho Power offered a
4 broad portfolio of energy efficiency and demand response
5 programs available to all customer segments, and the
6 Company also participated in market transformation efforts
7 through the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ("NEEA") .
8 The Company also offered several educational and behavioral
9 initiatives including the Residential Energy Efficiency
10 Education Initiative, the School and Campus Cohorts, and
11 the Industrial Energy Efficiency Cohort.
12 The Company leveraged its Energy Efficiency Advisory
13 Group ("EEAG") to solicit input and feedback on ways to
14 identify opportunities to increase program effectiveness,
15 delivery, and marketing. A summary of Idaho Power' s 2025
16 DSM programs is provided in Table 1 below.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
NESBITT, DI 5
Idaho Power Company
1 Table 1 . 2025 DSM Programs by Sector, Operational Type,
2 and Location
Program by Sector Operational Type State
Residential
A/C Cool Credit............................................................. Demand Response ID/OR
Educational Distributions............................................... Energy Efficiency ID/OR
Heating&Cooling Efficiency Program.......................... Energy Efficiency ID/OR
Home Energy Audit....................................................... Energy Efficiency ID
Home Energy Report Program...................................... Energy Efficiency ID/OR
Low-Income Energy Efficiency Education..................... Energy Efficiency ID
Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program.......................... Energy Efficiency ID/OR
Oregon Residential Energy Conservation Program...... Energy Efficiency OR
Rebate Advantage........................................................ Energy Efficiency ID/OR
Residential New Construction Program........................ Energy Efficiency ID
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (Idaho) Energy Efficiency ID
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (Oregon) Energy Efficiency OR
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers........... Energy Efficiency ID
Commercial/Industrial
C&I New Construction................................................... Energy Efficiency ID/OR
C&I Retrofits.................................................................. Energy Efficiency ID/OR
Custom Projects............................................................ Energy Efficiency ID/OR
Flex Peak Program ....................................................... Demand Response ID/OR
Oregon Commercial Audit............................................. Energy Efficiency OR
Small Business Lighting Program ................................ Energy Efficiency ID/OR
Irrigation
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards......................................... Energy Efficiency ID/OR
Irrigation Peak Rewards................................................ Demand Response ID/OR
All Sectors
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance............................ Market Transformation ID/OR
3
4 Table 1 illustrates the broad availability of
5 programs offered by Idaho Power to its customers in energy
6 efficiency, demand response, and market transformation.
7 Moreover, Idaho Power' s energy efficiency portfolio was
8 cost-effective, resulting in a 1 . 70 benefit/cost ratio when
9 evaluated from a Utility Cost Test ("UCT") perspective, a
10 1 . 37 benefit/cost ratio when evaluated from a Total
NESBITT, DI 6
Idaho Power Company
1 Resource Cost ("TRC") test perspective, and a 1 . 78
2 benefit/cost ratio when evaluated from a Participant Cost
3 Test ("PCT") perspective.
4 Attachment 1 to the Application, the DSM 2025 Annual
5 Report, provides details for each program, which include : a
6 program description, 2025 performance results, program
7 activities, cost-effectiveness ratios, marketing
8 activities, customer education and satisfaction, upcoming
9 2026 plans, and evaluation results when applicable . Also
10 included in Attachment 1 are: Supplement 1 : Cost
11 Effectiveness ("Supplement 1") , which provides detailed
12 cost-effectiveness data by program and measure, and
13 Supplement 2: Evaluation ("Supplement 2") , which provides
14 copies of the Company' s evaluations and reports conducted
15 in 2025 .
16 Energy Efficiency
17 Q. What level of incremental annual energy
18 efficiency savings was achieved in 2025?
19 A. On a system-wide basis, Idaho Power achieved
20 153, 099 megawatt-hours ("MWh") of incremental annual energy
21 efficiency savings in 2025 . This value includes 125, 392 MWh
22 from Idaho Power' s energy efficiency programs and an
NESBITT, DI 7
Idaho Power Company
1 estimated 27, 707 MWhl of energy efficiency market
2 transformation savings through NEEA initiatives . Chart 1
3 below shows the incremental annual energy efficiency
4 savings in MWh from 2005 to the current year. Also shown in
5 this chart are the total energy efficiency expenses for
6 each year in millions of dollars .
7 Chart 1 . Incremental Annual Energy Efficiency Savings
8 (MWh) and Energy Efficiency Expenses ($ millions) 2005-2025
9
hL"Fw harp Sari(YYYf�)
5aa �
z+M.� 535
s � �
c
0
M _ J
2M6 2W 2M9 2M 2M 2M M7 2M 2M 2M 2625
10
11 Note: 2025 NEEA market-transformation savings are estimated.
12 Q. Did Idaho Power meet the energy efficiency
13 targets included in its 2023 Integrated Resource Plan
14 ("IRP") ?
15 A. Yes . In 2025, Idaho Power achieved 17 . 5
16 average megawatts ("aMW") of incremental energy efficiency
17 savings, including NEEA estimated energy savings, which
1 Because Idaho Power will not receive final 2025 savings from NEEA
until the second quarter 2026, the NEEA-attributable savings is an
estimate provided to Idaho Power by NEEA.
NESBITT, DI 8
Idaho Power Company
1 exceeded the economic technical achievable potential
2 included in the 2023 IRP of 12 . 8 aMW. The 2025 savings
3 represent enough energy to power approximately 14, 000
4 average homes in Idaho Power' s service area for one year.
5 Q. How did the 2025 DSM program year compare to
6 2024 for energy efficiency?
7 A. In the 2025 program year, several of the
8 Company' s energy efficiency-related DSM programs
9 outperformed their savings and participation as compared to
10 the 2024 program year .
11 Overall energy efficiency portfolio savings
12 increased by 7, 689 MWh year-over-year compared to 2024, and
13 all sectors saw an increase in savings in 2025 . The overall
14 increase in savings can largely be attributed to the
15 Commercial and Industrial ("C&I") Retrofits Program and the
16 Residential Home Energy Reports Program. Specifically, the
17 C&I Retrofits Program increased its total savings by 7, 513
18 MWh, with an increase in total projects of 53, and the Home
19 Energy Reports Program began sending additional reports to
20 a new treatment group consisting of 32, 048 recipients for a
21 total of 100, 875 homes receiving home energy reports in
22 2025, resulting in an increase in total savings of 1, 911
23 MWh.
NESBITT, DI 9
Idaho Power Company
1 Q. Does the Company engage in customer education
2 and outreach activities for which it cannot quantify or
3 report savings?
4 A. Yes . The Company engages in significant
5 educational awareness activities and marketing efforts that
6 are likely to result in energy savings experienced by
7 customers but are not quantified or claimed as part of
8 Idaho Power' s annual savings . These efforts are designed to
9 reach all customer segments and are more fully explained
10 throughout the DSM 2025 Annual Report. In 2025, this
11 included activities such as : holding virtual and in-person
12 technical trainings and workshops with customers, producing
13 the Energy@Work and Irrigation newsletters, participating
14 in several different types of agricultural shows, hosting
15 or participating in vendor workshops promoting irrigation
16 system efficiency, sharing residential energy efficiency
17 guides that showcased behavioral changes to save energy,
18 attending other outreach activities such as home shows to
19 discuss energy efficiency with customers one-on-one, and
20 supporting the Integrated Design Lab.
21 Demand Response
22 Q. What level of capacity was available from
23 Idaho Power' s demand response programs in 2025?
24 A. The total available capacity ("maximum
25 potential demand reduction") of Idaho Power' s three demand
NESBITT, DI 10
Idaho Power Company
1 response programs (Residential A/C Cool Credit, C&I Flex
2 Peak, and Irrigation Peak Rewards) was approximately 328
3 megawatts ("MW") . This value represents the total enrolled
4 MW from participants adjusted for an expected maximum
5 realization rate.
6 Q. What level of non-coincident demand reduction
7 was provided in 2025?
8 A. The Company' s demand response programs
9 provided actual non-coincident demand reduction of 161 MW
10 during the 2025 program season.
11 Chart 2 below reflects the annual maximum potential
12 demand reduction and maximum actual demand reduction in MW
13 since 2005 and the associated annual expenses in millions
14 of dollars .
15 Chart 2 . Maximum Potential Demand Reduction (MW) and Demand
16 Response Expenses ($ millions) 2005-2025
M__ , dnUmd
�11111dkilw �ein�d
a� OMMW FMP�Oq®
256
2W !
£ 2M S6
3
so
MEN ■ s a
17
18 Q. How did the 2025 DSM program year compare to
19 2024 for demand response?
NESBITT, DI 11
Idaho Power Company
1 A. The total demand response portfolio increased
2 its available capacity from 323 MW in 2024 to 328 MW in
3 2025 . The Irrigation Peak Rewards demand response program
4 increased its total participating service points by 185 .
5 The actual non-coincident demand reduction was 161 MW in
6 2025 compared to 257 MW in 2024 . This decrease was
7 primarily due to a milder summer across the Company' s
8 service area and the Company' s Load Serving Operations
9 Group utilizing the flexibility of the five irrigation
10 participant groups based on system need. Specifically, the
11 Residential A/C Cool Credit program had a maximum cycling
12 rate of 55 percent in 2025 compared to 65 percent in 2024,
13 the C&I Flex Peak program had a maximum realization rate of
14 71 percent in 2025 compared to 85 percent in 2024, and the
15 Irrigation Peak Rewards program simultaneously dispatched a
16 maximum of three out of five groups in 2025 compared to
17 four out of four groups in 2024 .
18 II . 2025 DSM EXPENSES AND ADJUSTMENTS
19 Q. What amount of DSM expenses is the Company
20 requesting the Idaho Public Utilities Commission
21 ("Commission") find were prudently incurred?
22 A. In the delivery of energy efficiency, demand
23 response, and market transformation programs, Idaho Power
24 expended $28, 936, 689 of Rider funds and paid $8, 939, 724 in
25 demand response program incentives, for a total of
NESBITT, DI 12
Idaho Power Company
1 $37, 876, 413 spent on demand-side resource acquisition in
2 2025 . Idaho Power requests that the 2025 Rider-funded DSM
3 expenses, and the 2025 demand response program incentives
4 recovered through base rates and tracked through the PCA,
5 be reviewed together for a prudence determination. Exhibit
6 No . 1 to my testimony, 2025 Idaho DSM Expenses and
7 Adjustments for Prudence Filing, shows a breakout of these
8 expenses by program, customer sector, and funding source .
9 Q. Please compare the dollar amounts in Exhibit
10 No . 1 to your testimony with Appendix 2, 2025 DSM expenses
11 by funding source (dollars) , of the DSM 2025 Annual Report.
12 A. For clarity and ease of understanding, Exhibit
13 No . 1 ties to Appendix 2, which is found on page 174 of the
14 DSM 2025 Annual Report. The first column of Appendix 2
15 labeled "Idaho Rider" and the column of Exhibit No. 1
16 labeled "Idaho Rider" match at the row labeled "Total DSM
17 Expense" in Exhibit No. 1 and "Grand Total" in Appendix 2
18 in the amount of $28, 945, 938 . All values in Exhibit No. 1
19 represent DSM expenses for the Idaho service area only.
20 Three prior year-end accounting adjustments and three
21 current year-end accounting adjustments were necessary to
22 accurately arrive at the total 2025 expenses for purposes
23 of the prudence determination. These six adjustments,
24 listed in Exhibit No. 1 under the "Adjustments" section,
25 comprise three prior year-end accounting adjustments for
NESBITT, DI 13
Idaho Power Company
1 Home Energy Audit, Rebate Advantage, and Irrigation Peak
2 Rewards, and three current year-end accounting adjustments
3 for Home Energy Audit, Residential New Construction
4 Program, and Residential Energy Efficiency Conservation
5 Overhead.
6 Q. Please describe the prior year-end accounting
7 adjustments included in Exhibit No. 1 .
8 A. The first adjustment of $5, 383 is related to
9 expenses associated with the Home Energy Audit program that
10 should have been charged to the Idaho Rider rather than
11 Operations and Maintenance ("O&M") in 2024 . The correction
12 to add the expense to the Idaho Rider was made in 2025 and
13 therefore $5, 383 needs to be subtracted from the 2025
14 prudence request because it was already deemed prudent by
15 the Commission in 2024 .
16 The second adjustment of $5, 523 is related to
17 expenses associated with the Rebate Advantage program that
18 should have been charged to the Idaho Rider, rather than
19 0&M in 2024 . The correction to add the expense to the Idaho
20 Rider was made in 2025 and therefore $5, 523 needs to be
21 subtracted from the 2025 prudence request because it was
22 already deemed prudent by the Commission in 2024 .
23 The third adjustment of $2, 278 is related to
24 expenses associated with the Irrigation Peak Rewards
25 program that should have been charged to O&M rather than
NESBITT, DI 14
Idaho Power Company
1 the Idaho Rider in 2024 . The correction to reduce Idaho
2 Rider expenses was made in 2025, and therefore $2, 278 needs
3 to be added back to avoid understating the 2025 prudence
4 request.
5 Q. Please describe the current year-end
6 accounting adjustments included in Exhibit No. 1 .
7 A. Three accounting adjustments for 2025 were
8 identified through Idaho Power' s annual review of DSM
9 expenses and the corrections were made after the 2025 year-
10 end financial books were closed.
11 The first adjustment results in a reduction of $244
12 associated with the Home Energy Audit program where the
13 expenses were initially charged to the Idaho Rider instead
14 of the Oregon Rider.
15 The second adjustment results in an addition of $346
16 associated with the Residential New Construction program
17 where the expenses were initially charged to the Oregon
18 Rider instead of the Idaho Rider.
19 The third adjustment results in a reduction of $723
20 associated with the Residential Energy Efficiency program
21 where the expenses were initially charged to the Idaho
22 Rider instead of the Oregon Rider.
23 Q. What was the year-end 2025 balance of the
24 Rider?
NESBITT, DI 15
Idaho Power Company
1 A. The Rider account balance on December 31,
2 2025, had a positive balance of $13, 365, 262, indicating it
3 had collected this amount in advance of funding energy
4 efficiency programs . Table 2 below shows the January 2025
5 beginning balance, funding plus accrued interest, expenses,
6 and the ending balance as of December 31, 2025 .
7 Table 2 . Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider (January-December
8 2025)
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider
2025 Beginning Balance $ 7,570,508
2025 Funding plus Accrued Interest as of 12/31/25 34,740,692
Total 2025 Funds 42,311,200
2025 Expenses as of 12/31/25 (28,945,938)
Ending Balance as of 12/31/25 $ 13,365,262
9
10 III . 2025 COST-EFFECTIVENESS OVERVIEW
11 Q. What is Idaho Power' s overall goal when it
12 comes to DSM cost-effectiveness tests?
13 A. Idaho Power strives to ensure that DSM funds
14 collected from customers are utilized to support the
15 pursuit of cost-effective energy efficiency and demand
16 response programs, with the limited exception of certain
17 policy considerations . This goal is achieved by applying a
18 multi-step process . Prior to the actual implementation of
19 energy efficiency or demand response programs, Idaho Power
20 performs a preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis to
21 assess whether a potential program design or measure will
22 be cost-effective from the perspective of customers as well
NESBITT, DI 16
Idaho Power Company
1 as the Company. Idaho Power measures cost-effectiveness
2 under three tests : the UCT, the TRC test, and the PCT. A
3 review of each test allows for an economic assessment of
4 the life—cycle costs and benefits of a DSM investment from
5 the perspective of DSM program participants, Idaho Power,
6 and non-participating customers .
7 Idaho Power also reviews the cost-effectiveness
8 results for each program and measure on an annual basis to
9 determine whether a program should continue or be modified
10 so it remains cost-effective on an ongoing basis . If a
11 measure or program is identified as non-cost-effective,
12 Idaho Power seeks EEAG input before making its
13 determination on modifying, continuing, or discontinuing an
14 offering.
15 The cost-effectiveness test methodologies and
16 assumptions are described in more detail in the first pages
17 of Supplement 1, included in Attachment 1 to the
18 Application in this proceeding.
19 Q. Does Idaho Power believe its application of
20 the standard economic tests is consistent with Commission
21 directives?
NESBITT, DI 17
Idaho Power Company
1 A. Yes . Idaho Power believes its application of
2 the three economic tests is consistent with prior
3 Commission directives, as described in Order No. 33365 :2
4 We thus find it reasonable for the Company to
5 continue screening potential programs using
6 each test as a guideline, and to advise us on
7 how the Company' s programs fare under each
8 test . When the Company ultimately seeks to
9 recover its prudent investment in such
10 programs, however, we believe the Company may
11 (but need not exclusively) emphasize the UCT-
12 and that test ' s focus on Company-controlled
13 benefits and costs—to argue whether the
14 programs were cost-effective . As always, the
15 Company ultimately must persuade us that its
16 program investments were prudent under the
17 totality of the circumstances .
18
19 Because Idaho Power must ultimately demonstrate to
20 the Commission that its program investments were prudent
21 under "the totality of the circumstances, " the Company
22 continues to evaluate performance from the three cost-
23 effectiveness test perspectives .
24 A. 2025 Cost-Effectiveness Results
25 Q. What were the results of the 2025 cost-
26 effectiveness analyses?
27 A. Exhibit No. 2 to my testimony, 2025 Cost-
28 Effectiveness Summary by Program, Sector, and Portfolio,
29 shows the results of the UCT, TRC test, and PCT for every
2 In the Matter of the Application of Idaho Power Company for a
Determination of 2014 Demand-Side Management Expenditures as Prudently
Incurred, Case No. IPC-E-15-06, Order No. 33365, p. 9-10 (Aug. 28,
2015) .
NESBITT, DI 18
Idaho Power Company
I energy efficiency program aggregated by sector and for the
2 overall portfolio. As shown in Table 3 below, the overall
3 DSM Portfolio achieved benefit/cost ratios greater than 1 . 0
4 for each of the three cost-effectiveness tests . All three
5 of the program sectors achieved benefit/cost ratios greater
6 than or equal to 1 . 0 from the UCT and PCT perspectives, and
7 only the Residential Sector had a TRC less than 1 . 0 .
8 Table 3 . 2025 Benefit/Cost by Sector & Portfolio
Utility Cost Total Participant
Sector Test (UCT) Resource Cost Cost Test
(TRC) Test (PCT)
Residential* 1 . 46 0 . 75 1 . 94
Commercial/Industrial 2 . 09 1 . 00 1 .28
Irrigation 1 . 61 2 . 69 2 . 81
Portfolio* 1 . 70 1 . 37 1 . 78
*Does not include Idaho and Oregon Weatherization Assistance for Qualified
Customers Programs
9 Q. Did the Company quantify the Residential
10 Sector and DSM Portfolio cost-effectiveness, including the
11 costs and benefits of the Idaho and Oregon Weatherization
12 Assistance for Qualified Customers ("WAQC") programs?
13 A. Yes . Table 4 below shows the cost-
14 effectiveness of the Residential Sector and the Overall DSM
15 Portfolio with and without the Idaho and Oregon WAQC
16 programs included.
17 Table 4 . Residential and Portfolio Cost-Effectiveness with
18 and without WAQC
Sector WAQC Not Included WAQC Included
UCT TRC PCT UCT TRC PCT
Residential 1 . 46 0 . 75 1 . 94 1 . 13 0 . 65 1 . 83
Portfolio 1 . 70 1 . 37 1 . 78 1 . 64 1 . 34 1 . 78
NESBITT, DI 19
Idaho Power Company
1 While the WAQC programs remain non-cost-effective
2 from an economic perspective, they provide real savings to
3 customers that would otherwise likely be unable to afford
4 to weatherize their homes . The WAQC programs offer health
5 and safety benefits to customers in need that are not
6 quantifiable through the economic tests .
7 Q. What assumptions were utilized to calculate
8 the sector and portfolio cost-effectiveness for 2025?
9 A. Idaho Power relies on research conducted by
10 third parties to obtain savings and cost assumptions for
11 various measures . The Company fixes savings assumptions
12 when budgets and goals are established for the next
13 calendar year unless codes and standards change, or program
14 updates necessitate a need to use updated savings . The
15 remaining inputs are obtained from the Company' s IRP
16 planning process . Because the 2023 IRP was the most
17 recently filed IRP at the time 2025 DSM program planning
18 occurred, Idaho Power used the avoided costs from the 2023
19 IRP in its 2025 program cost-effectiveness analysis .
20 To calculate the sector cost-effectiveness, Idaho
21 Power includes the benefits and costs associated with
22 programs that produce quantifiable energy savings . The
23 portfolio cost-effectiveness is the sum of all energy
24 efficiency activities, including those that do not have
25 savings associated with them, such as overhead expenses .
NESBITT, DI 20
Idaho Power Company
1 Q. What are the cost-effectiveness results for
2 each of the Company' s DSM programs?
3 A. As reflected in Exhibit No. 2 to my testimony,
4 on an individual program basis, 10 of the 13 energy
5 efficiency programs offered in Idaho for which the Company
6 calculates cost-effectiveness had benefit/cost ratios
7 greater than 1 . 0 under the UCT.
8 It should be noted that the PCT ratios cannot be
9 calculated for programs that do not have a direct customer
10 cost, and the PCT is shown as "N/A" in Exhibit No. 2 for
11 those programs . The details of the other calculations are
12 found in Supplement 1 of the DSM 2025 Annual Report.
13 Q. How many measures did Idaho Power calculate
14 cost-effectiveness for within each energy efficiency
15 program it offers?
16 A. In 2025, Idaho Power evaluated the benefits
17 and costs of 319 measures . The results of these
18 calculations, along with measure assumption details and
19 source documentation, can be found in Supplement 1 to the
20 DSM 2025 Annual Report.
21 Q. How does Idaho Power address any individual
22 measures that are not cost-effective based on one or more
23 tests?
24 A. The cost and benefit values used in the
25 various analyses are based on markets, technologies,
NESBITT, DI 21
Idaho Power Company
1 economic inputs, savings estimates, and cost estimates,
2 which can change over time. When a measure is identified as
3 non-cost-effective at a specific point in time, Idaho Power
4 first evaluates whether the inputs used in the calculations
5 are still applicable. Then the Company determines if the
6 measure parameters should be modified or if the measure
7 should be eliminated altogether. For additional detail on
8 measure analysis, please refer to Supplement 1 to the DSM
9 2025 Annual Report.
10 B. Non-Cost-Effective Programs
11 1 . Income Qualified Weatherization
12 Q. Please explain what drivers influence the
13 cost-effectiveness results for the Idaho WAQC and
14 Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers
15 ("Solutions") programs?
16 A. The Idaho WAQC and Solutions programs provide
17 real and substantial per home savings, but due to the costs
18 of comprehensive whole-house weatherization, it is
19 difficult for the value of the savings to outweigh the
20 costs . The weatherization services provided through the
21 Idaho WAQC program are consistent with the Idaho State
22 Weatherization Assistance Program guidelines, and both the
23 Idaho WAQC and Solutions programs are offered at no charge
24 to the participant. Please refer to pages 74 and 89 in the
NESBITT, DI 22
Idaho Power Company
1 DSM 2025 Annual Report for the savings, costs, and the
2 number of homes weatherized in 2025 .
3 Q. Did the Company make changes to the programs
4 in 2025?
5 A. Yes . In November 2024 the Commission approved
6 through Order No. 36406 an increase of the maximum annual
7 average cost per dwelling weatherized from $6, 000 to
8 $8, 495 .3 This change was implemented beginning in 2025 and
9 allows Community Action Partnership ("CAP") agencies more
10 flexibility in spending their Idaho Power allotted funds .
11 While the Company does not expect this increase will
12 improve the overall cost-effectiveness of the program, it
13 will review changes in per home savings in future billing
14 analyses once sufficient usage history exists to identify
15 any impact. In addition, at the end of 2025, the re-
16 weatherization option offered under Idaho WAQC was closed.
17 Initiated in 2022, the re-weatherization option allowed for
18 the use of carryover funds to pay for up to 100 percent of
19 Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning ("HVAC") upgrades
20 in homes that had previously been weatherized through Idaho
21 WAQC within a 14-year period and did not receive an HVAC
22 replacement. When implemented, the re-weatherization option
3 In the Matter of Idaho Power Company Tariff Advice In compliance with
Order No. 36042 Related to Changes to Schedule 79 - Tariff Advice No.
IPC-TAE-24-03, Case No. IPC-E-24-39, Order No. 36406 at 4 (Nov. 29,
2024) .
NESBITT, DI 23
Idaho Power Company
1 was set to run until the earlier of carryover funds being
2 fully expended or the CAP agency contracts expiring at the
3 end of 2025 .
4 Q. Does Idaho Power have plans for further
5 modifications to the Idaho WAQC and Solutions programs?
6 A. Not at this time . While the Company has
7 identified that the programs are not cost-effective under
8 the UCT, unless the Commission directs otherwise, Idaho
9 Power intends to continue providing funding to local
10 Community Action Partnership agencies to offer the programs
11 to the Company' s limited-income customers on an ongoing
12 basis and will monitor how the increased maximum annual
13 average cost per dwelling weatherized impacts the program.
14 The Company will also continue to consult EEAG and the
15 weatherization managers who oversee the weatherization work
16 to look for ways to improve outreach and the cost-
17 effectiveness of these programs as opportunities are
18 available.
19 2 . Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program
20 Q. What were the cost-effectiveness results for
21 the Heating and Cooling Efficiency program?
22 A. As shown in Exhibit No. 2, the Heating and
23 Cooling Efficiency program achieved a UCT of 0 . 89 and a TRC
24 of 0 . 17 .
NESBITT, DI 24
Idaho Power Company
1 Q. What was the primary contributor to the
2 program not being cost-effective?
3 A. In 2025, the Heating and Cooling Efficiency
4 program included $69, 035 in administrative expenses from
5 both a process and impact evaluation, representing about 22
6 percent of total HCE program administrative expenses for
7 2025 . Without the evaluation cost, the program would have
8 an UCT and TRC ratio of 1 . 02 and 0 . 18, respectively, which
9 is an improvement from the UCT perspective when compared to
10 2024 .
11 Q. Does Idaho Power expect the program to be
12 cost-effective going forward?
13 A. Based on the Company' s forecast analysis for
14 2026, coupled with the exclusion of the non-recurring
15 evaluation costs, it expects the program to be cost-
16 effective. If at any time during 2026 the Company no longer
17 expects the program to be cost-effective, it would explore
18 changes to improve the cost-effectiveness and discuss those
19 changes with EEAG.
20 C. Demand Response Cost-Effectiveness
21 Q. Does Idaho Power evaluate cost-effectiveness
22 for its three demand response programs?
23 A. Yes . The methodology approved in Order No .
NESBITT, DI 25
Idaho Power Company
1 353364 is used to determine the cost-effectiveness of the
2 demand response programs and sets the maximum avoided cost
3 value . In accordance with the approved methodology, the
4 2025 cost-effectiveness threshold for demand response is
5 $64 . 03 per kilowatt ("kW") year.
6 Q. How was the $64 . 03 determined?
7 A. Using the approved method, the avoided cost
8 calculation for the demand response programs is as follows :
9
10 (Levelized Fixed Costs - Additional Benefits)
11 x Effective Load Carrying Capacity ("ELCC") of Annual
12 Demand Response Capacity Compared to Proxy Resource
13 = $ per kW year Demand Response Avoided Costs
14
15 Each of the three components have been updated and
16 are :
17 1 . From the 2023 IRP, the 2025 levelized fixed
18 cost value of a Simple-Cycle Combustion Turbine ("SCCT")
19 was determined to be $149 . 73 per kW per year.
20 2 . From the 2023 IRP, to determine the
21 additional ancillary benefits provided by the SCCT compared
22 to demand response, an analysis was performed where demand
4In the Matter of Idaho Power Company's Application for Approval to
Modify its Demand Response Programs, Case No. IPC-E-21-32, Order No.
35336, p. 9-10 (Mar. 4, 2022) .
NESBITT, DI 26
Idaho Power Company
1 response was replaced with an equivalent SCCT and the fixed
2 costs of the SCCT were removed from the model . The result
3 of this analysis showed there were $1 . 66 in benefits
4 associated with the SCOT, this value is mainly driven by
5 market prices .
6 3 . The updated ELCC of approximately 323 MW of
7 demand response capacity compared to a SCOT utilizing 2023
8 IRP assumptions is 43 . 24 percent.
9
10 ($149. 73 - $1 . 66) * 43.24 0 =
11 $64. 03 per kW year Demand Response Avoided Cost
12
13 Additional details of the methodology are included
14 in Supplement 1 .
15 Q. What were the total and per kW costs of the
16 Company' s demand response programs?
17 A. In 2025, the system-wide cost of operating the
18 three demand response programs was approximately $10 . 8
19 million ($9 . 1 million of incentives and $1 . 7 million of
20 other costs) . The amounts attributable to the Idaho-only
21 jurisdiction were $10 . 5 million ($8 . 9 million of incentives
22 and $1 . 6 million of other costs) . Table 5 below shows the
23 2025 dollar per kW year costs for each program and the
24 overall demand response portfolio assuming the programs
25 were dispatched for the maximum 60 hours . Idaho Power
NESBITT, DI 27
Idaho Power Company
1 estimates that if the three programs were dispatched for
2 the full 60 hours allowed, the total costs would have been
3 approximately $14 . 8 million on a system-wide basis .
4 Table 5 . Demand Response Program 2025 $ per kW year
Program $ per kW year
Residential A/C Cool Credit $53.22
C&I Flex Peak $26.75
Irrigation Peak Rewards $47 .03
Total Demand Response Portfolio $45.05
5
6 Q. Were the demand response programs cost-
7 effective?
8 A. Yes . All three of the Company' s demand
9 response programs, as well as the demand response
10 portfolio, had a cost per kW less than the 2025 threshold
11 of $64 . 03, meaning the programs and the portfolio were
12 cost-effective .
13 IV. EVALUATION ACTIVITY OVERVIEW
14 Q. What is the Company' s approach to DSM program
15 evaluation?
16 A. To ensure the ongoing cost-effectiveness of
17 programs through validation of energy savings and demand
18 reduction, and to guide the efficient management of its
19 programs, the Company utilizes evaluations conducted by
20 third-party contractors chosen through a competitive
21 bidding process . Idaho Power uses industry-standard
22 protocols, internal analyses, and regional and national
23 studies to inform its internal and external evaluation
NESBITT, DI 28
Idaho Power Company
1 efforts . The Company has generally conducted impact
2 evaluations every three years, and conducts process
3 evaluations as needed for relatively new programs or when a
4 program has significant changes . Exhibit No. 3 to my
5 testimony includes the actual frequency of impact and
6 process evaluations from 2010 through a forecast for 2027 .
7 Supplement 2 to the DSM 2025 Annual Report provides
8 additional information regarding how Idaho Power evaluates
9 its programs .
10 Q. How does Idaho Power utilize the evaluations
11 described above?
12 A. Idaho Power uses the results of its
13 evaluations to inform decisions related to program
14 improvement, to compare processes to industry best
15 practices, and to benchmark and validate reported program
16 savings .
17 Q. What evaluation activities took place in 2025?
18 A. In addition to the annual cost-effectiveness
19 analyses that the Company conducts for each program, Idaho
20 Power contracted with several third-party evaluators to
21 conduct impact and process evaluations in 2025 . Evaluations
22 conducted by these evaluators were on the following
23 programs :
24 • Impact and process evaluations on the Heating and
25 Cooling Efficiency, New Construction, Retrofits,
NESBITT, DI 29
Idaho Power Company
1 A/C Cool Credit, and Irrigation Peak Rewards
2 programs .
3 • Impact evaluation on the Home Energy Reports
4 Program.
5 • Evaluation of deemed savings potential for the
6 Home Energy Reports Program.
7 • Follow up evaluation to the prior impact
8 evaluation on the Residential New Construction
9 Program.
10 • Internal evaluations on Idaho and Oregon WAQC,
11 Solutions, A/C Cool Credit, C&I Flex Peak, and
12 Irrigation Peak Rewards programs .
13 The impact evaluations that were conducted in 2025
14 analyzed reported savings from the 2024 program year.
15 Realization rates were as follows :
16 • Heating and Cooling Efficiency: 90 . 7 percent .
17 • New Construction: 99 . 7 percent.
18 • Retrofits : 97 . 3 percent.
19 The final reports for these evaluations, and the
20 market effects evaluations conducted by NEEA, are included
21 in Supplement 2 to the DSM 2025 Annual Report.
22 Q. Does Idaho Power have a DSM program evaluation
23 plan for 2026-2027?
24 A. Yes . The evaluation plan is included as
25 Exhibit No. 3 to my testimony and is also included in
NESBITT, DI 30
Idaho Power Company
1 Supplement 2 to the DSM 2025 Annual Report. In 2026, Idaho
2 Power' s evaluation plan includes the following third-party
3 evaluations : impact and process evaluations on the
4 Irrigation Efficiency Rewards and Flex Peak Programs .
5 V. STAKEHOLDER INPUT
6 Q. What is EEAG?
7 A. In 2002, Idaho Power formed EEAG to provide
8 input on enhancing existing DSM programs, recommending new
9 energy efficiency measures, and implementing energy
10 efficiency programs . Members include customer
11 representatives from residential, irrigation, commercial,
12 and industrial sectors as well as technical experts,
13 representatives for limited-income individuals,
14 environmental organizations, state agencies, county and
15 city governments, the Commission, and Idaho Power.
16 Q. What is the structure of EEAG meetings?
17 A. EEAG generally meets quarterly, and when
18 necessary additional meetings are held to address special
19 topics . The agenda during EEAG meetings is varied, but
20 typically includes program and project updates, new energy
21 efficiency program or measure proposals, marketing methods,
22 specific measure details including cost-effectiveness, the
23 status of energy efficiency expenses, and general
24 information on DSM issues . When appropriate, the Company
NESBITT, DI 31
Idaho Power Company
1 invites experts to speak on evaluations, research, and
2 other topics of interest to enhance EEAG' s understanding.
3 Q. How did Idaho Power solicit guidance from EEAG
4 during the 2025 program year?
5 A. In 2025, the Company held four EEAG meetings
6 in Idaho, two in person with a virtual option and two
7 virtually. During these meetings, Idaho Power discussed and
8 requested recommendations on a broad range of DSM issues .
9 While a comprehensive list of the topics Idaho Power worked
10 with EEAG on for development, design, marketing, or input
11 are included in the DSM 2025 Annual Report, a few of the
12 items are highlighted as follows :
13 • Residential Home Energy Reports : As a result of
14 Order No. 36331 issued in Case No IPC-E-24-11,
15 the Company presented to EEAG alternative ways
16 to validate savings for the Home Energy Reports
17 program that would allow all customers to
18 participate in the program. An Impact
19 evaluation was completed in 2025, as well as an
20 additional evaluation to determine deemed
21 savings potential . The Company will use the
22 results of the deemed savings potential
23 evaluation to evaluate alternative methods and
24 will continue to bring the information to EEAG
25 for feedback in 2026 .
NESBITT, DI 32
Idaho Power Company
1 • Rebate Advantage: Faced with changes in savings
2 reported from the Regional Technical Forum due
3 to regional market transformation indicators,
4 the Company shared with EEAG that the program
5 would no longer be cost-effective going forward
6 and sought feedback on whether to suspend or
7 discontinue the program entirely. Idaho Power
8 received general support to suspend the program
9 beginning January 1, 2026, and to monitor
10 market conditions for changes that might make
11 an efficient manufactured homes program cost-
12 effective in the future.
13 • Idaho WAQC Re-weatherization: Idaho Power
14 sought input on whether to close the re-
15 weatherization option at the end of 2025 or
16 extend it until carryover funds were fully
17 expended. At the August EEAG meeting, the
18 Company presented on results from the re-
19 weatherization efforts, current carryover
20 balances and projections for re-weatherization
21 opportunities . While some members indicated
22 support to leave the option available, after
23 updating EEAG at the November meeting that the
24 carryover balances had decreased substantially
25 since the August meeting and were nearly
NESBITT, DI 33
Idaho Power Company
1 depleted, it was determined that the option
2 would be closed out at the end of 2025 .
3 • Multifamily and Commercial New Construction -
4 Whole Building Approach: Based on other
5 regional utilities' experience that show
6 increased savings with a whole building
7 approach, there is the potential for a large
8 volume of savings in Idaho Power' s service area
9 for multifamily and commercial buildings that
10 the Company' s prescriptive program (s) have not
11 yet been able to capture, therefore the Company
12 explored a multifamily and commercial new
13 construction whole building approach with EEAG.
14 Under this approach, a third party implementor
15 works with the construction company and design
16 team to influence and encourage high efficiency
17 design and capture additional interactive
18 savings for the whole building. Based on
19 feedback from EEAG, the Company plans to launch
20 this offering in 2026 .
21 • Retrofits and New Construction - Midstream
22 Approach: Looking to increase participation in
23 retrofits and new construction non-lighting
24 measures, the Company explored a midstream
25 program approach with EEAG. A midstream program
NESBITT, DI 34
Idaho Power Company
1 is different than the Company' s traditional
2 downstream programs in that it focuses on the
3 distributers and retailers instead of the end-
4 users . The incentives flow through at this
5 higher level of the supply chain to influence
6 distributors and retailers to stock and promote
7 energy efficient products . This in turn helps
8 increase the market share and availability of
9 energy efficient products making them more
10 accessible. Based on feedback from EEAG, the
11 Company plans to launch this program in 2026 .
12 • Baseline Assumptions : In most cases, the
13 Company has traditionally avoided claiming
14 heating savings or incenting customers to
15 install efficient electric equipment for new
16 construction where natural gas is available, or
17 for retrofits when customers have existing
18 natural gas equipment to avoid incentivizing
19 fuel switching. However, the Company has seen
20 an increase in commercial and industrial
21 customers pursuing electric options . Given
22 customers' shifting motivations and practices,
23 the Company explored opportunities with EEAG to
24 incent those customers to install more
25 efficient electric options compared to what
NESBITT, DI 35
Idaho Power Company
1 electric options might otherwise be installed,
2 even where natural gas is available or
3 currently in use.
4 • NEEA Marketplace Pilot: NEEA is launching an
5 online marketplace pilot that would provide
6 customers a streamlined online platform to
7 explore energy efficient appliances and
8 equipment. The marketplace pilot allows
9 utilities to join at different funding levels
10 to receive varying levels of options and
11 benefits such as utility branding, allowing for
12 customers to apply for utility rebates directly
13 through the marketplace, and control over
14 product categories shown. The Company sought
15 feedback from EEAG about whether Idaho Power
16 should participate in the pilot, and at what
17 level .
18 VI . CONCLUSION
19 Q. Do you believe that the information contained
20 in this testimony and attached exhibits supports a prudence
21 determination for 2025 DSM expenses?
22 A. Yes . Based on the DSM 2025 Annual Report, the
23 testimony set forth above, and the attached exhibits, Idaho
24 Power respectfully requests the Commission determine that
NESBITT, DI 36
Idaho Power Company
1 $37, 876, 413 was prudently incurred for the acquisition of
2 demand-side resources in 2025 .
3 Q. Does this conclude your testimony?
4 A. Yes, it does .
NESBITT, DI 37
Idaho Power Company
1 ATTESTATION OF TESTIMONY
2
3 STATE OF IDAHO )
4 ) ss .
5 County of Ada )
6
7 I, Quentin Nesbitt, having been duly sworn to
8 testify truthfully, and based upon my personal knowledge,
9 state the following:
10 I am employed by Idaho Power Company as the Customer
11 Relations and Program Manager in the Customer Operations
12 Department and am competent to be a witness in this
13 proceeding.
14 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of
15 the state of Idaho that the foregoing pre-filed testimony
16 and exhibits are true and correct to the best of my
17 information and belief.
18 DATED this 13th day of March 2026 .
19
20
21 Quentin Nesbitt
22 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 13th day of
23 March 2026 .
24 &Dd--
2 5 T HRKTY LYN DAVENPORT
NgA-y Vubl1c State of Idah]2026
26 C«nmi»ionNumibei 52970Notary Public for Idaho
27 MYcnnrnis-onExpkvsSep To, Residing at Ada County Idaho
28 My commission expires : 09/10/2026
NESBITT, DI 38
Idaho Power Company
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-26-05
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
NESBITT, DI
TESTIMONY
EXHIBIT NO. 1
Exhibit 1
2025 Idaho DSM Expenses and Adjustments for Prudence Filing
Demand Response
Sector/Program Idaho Rider Program Incentives Total
Recorded in PCA
Energy Efficiency
Residential
A/C Cool Credit 744,318 325,079 1,069,397
Educational Distributions 812,932 - 812,932
Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program 384,961 384,961
Home Energy Audit 115,931 115,931
Home Energy Report Program 767,603 767,603
Low-Income Energy Efficiency Education 119,804 119,804
Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program 458,832 458,832
Rebate Advantage 156,688 156,688
Residential New Construction Program 199,938 199,938
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(Idaho) 771,466 771,466
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers 148,132 148,132
Commercial/Industrial - -
Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Program
C&I New Construction 2,570,978 2,570,978
C&I Retrofits 4,712,883 4,712,883
Custom Projects 9,350,459 - 9,350,459
Flex Peak Program 8,844 466,126 474,970
Small Business Lighting Program 265,234 - 265,234
Irrigation - -
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards 1,764,797 - 1,764,797
Irrigation Peak Rewards 522,112 8,148,519 8,670,631
Energy Efficiency/Demand Response Total 23,875,912 8,939,724 32,815,636
Market Transformation
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance 3,239,863 - 3,239,863
Market Transformation Total 3,239,863 3,239,863
Other Programs and Activities
Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency Overhead 191,565 191,565
Energy Efficiency Direct Program Overhead 29,522 29,522
Residential Energy Efficiency Education Initiative 204,664 204,664
Residential Energy Efficiency Overhead 961,805 961,805
Other Programs and Activities Total 1,387,556 - 1,387,556
Indirect Program Expenses
Energy Efficiency Accounting&Analysis 440,027 440,027
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group 2,240 2,240
Special Accounting Entries 340 340
Indirect Program Expenses Total 442,606 442,606
Total DSM Expense 28,945,938 8,939,724 37,8859661
Adjustments
Prior year-end accounting adjustments:
Home Energy Audit(a) (5,383) (5,383)
Rebate Advantage(a) (5,523) (5,523)
Irrigation Peak Rewards(b) 2,278 2,278
Current year-end accounting adjustments:
Home Energy Audit(c) (244) (244)
Residential New Construction Program(d) 346 346
Residential Energy Efficiency Overhead(c) (723) (723)
2025 Prudence Filing Total $ 28,936,689 $ 8,939,724 $ 37,876,413
(a)2024 Idaho Rider expense initially charged to O&M.The correction was made in 2025.
(b)2024 O&M expense initially charged to the Idaho Rider The correction was made in 2025.
(c)2025 Oregon Rider expense initially charged to the Idaho Rider,correction planned for 2026.
(d)2025 Idaho Rider expense initially charged to the Oregon Rider,correction planned for 2026.
Exhibit No.1
Case No.IPC-E-26-05
Q.Nesbitt,IPC
Page 1 of 1
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-26-05
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
NESBITT, DI
TESTIMONY
EXHIBIT NO. 2
2025 Cost-Effectiveness Summary by Program, Sector, and Portfolio
2025 Benefit/Cost Tests
Utility Cost Test Total Resource Cost Participant Cost
Program/Sector (UCT) (TRC) (PCT)
Educational Distributions 2.27 2.62 N/A
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program 0.89 0.17 0.41
Home Energy Reports 1.42 1.56 N/A
Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program 2.60 0.72 1.41
Rebate Advantage 1.27 0.51 1.73
Residential New Construction 1.03 1.55 5.60
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (Idaho) 0.13 0.22 N/A
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (Oregon) 0.08 0.32 N/A
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers 0.13 0.20 N/A
Residential Energy Efficiency Sector 1.46 0.75 1.94
Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Program
C&I Custom Projects 2.16 0.80 0.96
C&I New Construction 2.15 2.14 3.14
C&I Retrofits 2.00 1.10 1.45
Small Business Lighting 1.04 1.29 2.23
Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency Sector 2.09 1.00 1.28
Irrigation Efficiency 1.61 2.69 2.81
Irrigation Energy Efficiency Sector 1.61 2.69 2.81
Energy Efficiency Portfolio 1.70 1.37 1.78
1 Residential sector cost-effectiveness excludes WAQC benefits and costs. If included, the UCT, TRC, and PCT would be 1.13, 0.65 and 1.83, respectively.
2 Portfolio cost-effectiveness excludes WAQC benefits and costs. If included, the UCT, TRC, and PCT would be 1.64, 1.34 and 1.78, respectively.
Exhibit No. 2
Case No. IPC-E-26-05
Q. Nesbitt, IPC
Page 1 of 1
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-26-05
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
NESBITT, DI
TESTIMONY
EXHIBIT NO. 3
Customer Relations and Energy Efficiency 2026-2027 Program Evaluation Plan
2027 2026 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015t 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010
Residential Energy Efficiency Programs
Educational Distributions I I/P
Energy House Calls I/P I P
Heating&Cooling Efficiency Program I/P I/P I/P P I P
Home Energy Audit I/P I P
Home Energy Reports Program 1/0 1 P
Multifamily Direct Install Program I/P
Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program I/P
Rebate Advantage I/P I I/P I
Residential New Construction Program I/P OI
I/P
Shade Tree Project I O P
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho and Oregon) O LEE O P I
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers O O O P I
Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency Programs
Commercial Energy-Saving Kits I/P
C&I Custom Projects I/P UP 1/P I P I/P I P
C&I New Construction I/P I/P I P I I P
C&I Retrofits I/P UP I P I P I P
Small Business Direct-Install P
Small Business Lighting I/P
Irrigation Energy Efficiency Programs
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards I/P I I/P I/P P/O I/P P
Demand-Response Programs
A/C Cool Credit O O I/P/0 O O O 1 O 1 O O 1 1 1 O P O
Flex Peak Program O 1 I/P/O 1 O O O O 1/0 O O O O 1/0 1/0 P/O O
Irrigation Peak Rewards O 1 O 1 I/P/O O O O 1/0 O O O O O 1/0 O O O
'Enerav efficiencv nroorams evaluated in 2015 have since been eliminated or combined into another Droaram.
Evaluation TVDe: I=Impact.P=Process.O=Other
Program not active
Exhibit No. 3
Case No. IPC-E-26-05
Q. Nesbitt, IPC
Page 1 of 1