20260313Attachment No. 1.pdf

BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-26-05
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
ATTACHMENT NO. 1

153, 099MWh 328 MW 5"o Increase
SAVED POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS
DEMAND REDUCTION YEAR-OVER-YEAR
010*0 POMRO
Ai
Demand-SidLi-Management
2025 Annual Report
� ` March 15, 2026

SAFE HARBOR STATEMENT
This document may contain forward-looking statements,
and it is important to note that the future results could
differ materially from those discussed.A full discussion
of the factors that could cause future results to differ
materially can be found in Idaho Power's filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
® Printed on recycled paper

_"4ll%.....
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ExecutiveSummary....................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction..................................................................................................................................3
Programs and Offerings ..........................................................................................................3
FundingSources......................................................................................................................4
DSM Annual Report Structure.................................................................................................5
2025 DSM Program Performance .................................................................................................6
Energy Savings, Demand Reductions, and Program Expenses ................................................6
EnergyEfficiency...............................................................................................................6
DemandResponse.............................................................................................................7
DSM Funding and Expenditures ..............................................................................................9
CustomerEducation..............................................................................................................11
Marketing..............................................................................................................................12
SocialMedia....................................................................................................................13
Website...........................................................................................................................13
Customer Communications.............................................................................................13
Customer Relationship Survey ..............................................................................................14
Evaluations............................................................................................................................14
Cost-Effectiveness.................................................................................................................15
EnergyEfficiency.............................................................................................................15
DemandResponse...........................................................................................................16
2025 DSM Program Activity........................................................................................................17
Residential Sector Overview .................................................................................................17
Residential DSM Programs..............................................................................................18
Marketing........................................................................................................................19
Customer Satisfaction .....................................................................................................25
Field Staff Activities.........................................................................................................25
A/C Cool Credit................................................................................................................27
Educational Distributions ................................................................................................34
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program.............................................................................41
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page i

_"4l%.....
Table of Contents
HomeEnergy Audit .........................................................................................................48
Home Energy Report Program ........................................................................................52
Low-Income Energy Efficiency Education........................................................................58
Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program ...........................................................................62
Oregon Residential Energy Conservation Program..........................................................66
RebateAdvantage...........................................................................................................68
Residential New Construction Program ..........................................................................71
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (Idaho)...........................................74
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (Oregon)........................................84
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers ............................................................89
Commercial & Industrial Sector Overview ............................................................................93
Commercial and Industrial DSM Programs......................................................................93
Marketing........................................................................................................................95
Customer Satisfaction .....................................................................................................99
Training and Education.................................................................................................. 100
Field Staff Activities....................................................................................................... 101
C&I Custom Projects...................................................................................................... 103
C&I New Construction................................................................................................... 112
C&I Retrofits.................................................................................................................. 117
FlexPeak Program......................................................................................................... 121
Oregon Commercial Audit............................................................................................. 129
Small Business Lighting Program................................................................................... 131
Irrigation Sector Overview .................................................................................................. 134
Irrigation DSM Programs............................................................................................... 135
Marketing...................................................................................................................... 135
Customer Satisfaction ................................................................................................... 136
Training and Education.................................................................................................. 136
Field Staff Activities....................................................................................................... 137
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards......................................................................................... 138
Irrigation Peak Rewards ................................................................................................ 142
Other Programs and Activities ............................................................................................ 151
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page ii

Table of Contents
Idaho Power's Internal Energy Efficiency Commitment ................................................ 151
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG)...................................................................... 151
Market Transformation................................................................................................. 152
Regional Technical Forum ............................................................................................. 157
Residential Energy Efficiency Education Initiative (REEEI)............................................. 158
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab .................................................................... 161
Conclusions............................................................................................................................... 165
Glossaryof Acronyms................................................................................................................ 166
Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 171
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. DSM programs by sector, operational type, and location, 2025 .................................4
Table 2. DSM programs by sector summary and energy
usage/savings/demand reduction, 2025 .....................................................................6
Table 3. 2025 funding source and energy savings.....................................................................9
Table 4. 2025 DSM program expenditures by category..........................................................10
Table 5. 2025 DSM program incentive totals by program type and sector.............................11
Table 6. Cost-effectiveness summary by energy efficiency program, 2025 ............................16
Table 7. Residential sector program summary, 2025..............................................................17
Table 8. Network TV advertising analytics ..............................................................................21
Table 9. Broadcast radio advertising analytics........................................................................22
Table 10. A/C Cool Credit demand response event details.......................................................29
Table 11. A/C Cool Credit event metrics ...................................................................................31
Table 12. Welcome Kit and SEEK distribution by region ...........................................................38
Table 13. Measures and incentives—new homes.....................................................................41
Table 14. Measures and incentives—existing homes ...............................................................42
Table 15. Quantity of H&CE Program incentives in 2025..........................................................43
Table 16. Number and percentage of audited homes by heating fuel type, 2025 ....................49
Table 17. HERs delivered in 2025..............................................................................................53
Table 18. Energy efficiency measures for Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program....................63
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report

Table of Contents
Table 19. Idaho WAQC activities and Idaho Power expenditures by agency and county
in2025.......................................................................................................................75
Table 20. WAQC base funding and funds made available in Idaho in 2025 ..............................77
Table 21. WAQC summary of measures installed in Idaho, 2025..............................................78
Table 22. WAQC re-weatherization job summary, 2025...........................................................79
Table 23. WAQC re-weatherization spending and average job cost, 2025 ...............................79
Table 24. Oregon WAQC activities and Idaho Power expenditures by agency and
county, 2025..............................................................................................................85
Table 25. WAQC base funding and funds made available in Oregon, 2025 ..............................86
Table 26. WAQC summary of measures installed in Oregon, 2025...........................................86
Table 27. C&I sector program summary, 2025..........................................................................93
Table 28. C&I Custom Projects annual energy savings by primary option measure, 2025...... 107
Table 29. Flex Peak Program 2025 incentive structure........................................................... 123
Table 30. Flex Peak Program demand response event details................................................ 125
Table 31. Irrigation sector program summary, 2025............................................................... 135
Table 32. Completed projects and energy savings, 2025........................................................ 139
Table 33. Monthly fixed billing credits for manual and automatic dispatch options .............. 144
Table 34. Variable Energy Credit per hour of the event, ($/billing kW), paid after the
thirdevent............................................................................................................... 144
Table 35. Eligible pump locations and participation levels by area......................................... 146
Table 36. Irrigation Peak Rewards demand response event details........................................ 147
Table 37. Irrigation Peak Rewards program demand reduction (MW) for events,
including system losses ........................................................................................... 149
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. An Idaho Power energy advisor gives a presentation to an elementary
schoolclass..................................................................................................................2
Figure 2. Idaho Power service area map ....................................................................................3
Figure 3. DSM expense history by program type, 2005-2025....................................................5
Figure 4. Annual energy savings and energy efficiency program expenses, 2005-2025
(MWh and millions[$]) ................................................................................................7
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page iv

Table of Contents
Figure 5. Maximum potential demand reduction and demand response expenses,
2005-2025 (MW and millions [$])...............................................................................9
Figure 6. 2025 DSM program expenditures by category..........................................................10
Figure 7. Percent of DSM program incentive expenses by program type and
sector, 2025...............................................................................................................11
Figure 8. Graphic from the Good Energy kitchen tips campaign ..............................................18
Figure 9. Customer email header.............................................................................................29
Figure 10. A/C Cool Credit: average household results for July 14 event...................................31
Figure 11. Student Energy Efficiency Kit.....................................................................................35
Figure12. Welcome Kit..............................................................................................................36
Figure13. Nightlight...................................................................................................................37
Figure 14. Page 1 of the Home Energy Report ...........................................................................55
Figure 15. Free HVAC tune-up coupon.......................................................................................59
Figure 16. Low Income Energy Efficiency Education postcard....................................................60
Figure 17. Paid Linkedln ad about the Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program ..........................64
Figure 18. C&I energy efficient participant facility.....................................................................94
Figure 19. C&I energy efficiency bill insert.................................................................................95
Figure 20. Linkedln ad for C&I energy efficiency programs........................................................97
Figure 21. Large-format check presented to the City of Nampa ................................................98
Figure 22. Pop-up banner at the BOMA emergency preparedness event..................................99
Figure 23. Enrolled participants by region, 2025...................................................................... 125
Figure 24. Enrolled nominations (% of average daily nomination) by business type, 2025...... 126
Figure 25. Average and maximum demand reduction achieved per event.............................. 128
Figure 26. Irrigation sector customers provide opportunities for energy savings during
Idaho's growing season........................................................................................... 134
Figure 27. Postcard invitation to irrigation customer workshop.............................................. 137
Figure 28. Percentage of participants by sub-region, 2025...................................................... 145
Figure 29. Called participant demand (kW) by hour on event day July 14, 2025 ..................... 149
Figure 30. Boost savings graphic and social media for the Level Up campaign........................ 153
Figure31. Kill A Watt meter..................................................................................................... 159
Figure 32. Spring Energy Efficiency Guide................................................................................ 161
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page v

1%.........
Table of Contents
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Idaho Rider, Oregon Rider, and NEEA payment amounts (January—
December2025)................................................................................................ 173
Appendix 2. 2025 DSM expenses by funding source (dollars) ............................................... 174
Appendix 3. 2025 DSM Program Activity............................................................................... 175
Appendix 4. 2025 DSM Program Activity by State Jurisdiction.............................................. 177
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page vi

_N6. I
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Idaho Power encourages its customers to use energy wisely through a variety of energy
efficiency programs and customer education initiatives. The company offers energy efficiency
and demand response programs that not only help customers save money but are also
important aspects of meeting system energy and capacity needs. Potential energy efficiency
and demand response benefits are reviewed every two years through the integrated resource
plan (IRP) process.
In 2025, Idaho Power achieved 153,099 megawatt-hours (MWh) or 17.5 average megawatts
(aMW) of incremental energy efficiency savings, including Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
(NEEA) estimated energy savings, which is greater than the economic technical achievable
potential included in the 20231ntegrated Resource Plan of 112,265 MWh or 12.8 aMW.
The 2025 savings represent enough energy to power approximately 14,000 average homes in
Idaho Power's service area for one year.
The 2025 savings of 153,099 MWh increased by 7,689 MWh compared to the 2024 savings of
145,410 MWh—a 5%year-over-year increase. The savings from Idaho Power's energy efficiency
programs alone, excluding NEEA savings, were 125,392 MWh in 2025 compared to
119,098 MWh in 2024—a 5%year-over-year increase. The 5% increase in savings can largely
be attributed to increases in the savings from the Commercial & Industrial (C&I) Retrofits and
Home Energy Reports (HER) programs.
Idaho Power successfully operated all three of its demand response programs in 2025.
The maximum potential demand reduction from the company's programs was calculated to be
approximately 328 megawatts (MW), with an actual demand reduction of 161 MW.
In 2025, the company's energy efficiency portfolio was cost-effective from both the utility cost
test (UCT) and the total resource cost (TRC) test perspectives with ratios of 1.70 and 1.37,
respectively. The portfolio was also cost-effective from the participant cost test (PCT) ratio,
which was 1.78.
Demand-side management (DSM) program funding comes from the Idaho and Oregon Energy
Efficiency Riders and Idaho Power base rates. Total expenditures from all funding sources of
DSM activities were $43 million in 2025—$28.9 million from the Idaho Rider, $12.8 million from
Idaho Power base rates, and $1.3 million from the Oregon Rider.
The company sponsors significant customer educational outreach and awareness activities
promoting energy-saving habits that can lead to lower bills—none of which are quantified or
claimed as part of Idaho Power's annual DSM savings but are likely to result in energy savings
that accrue to Idaho Power's electrical system over time.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 1

Executive Summary
In 2025, Idaho Power participated in more than 100 events highlighting energy efficiency,
and program specialists and energy advisors shared information about programs and other
energy-saving ideas in almost 1,000 presentations and trainings for audiences of all ages.
Throughout the year, the Integrated Design Lab (IDL) conducted 16 technical training lunches.
A total of 163 architects, engineers, designers, project managers, and others attended.
Idaho Power continued to provide training to its C&I customers, delivering eight technical
training sessions to 302 individuals. Feedback indicated the average training satisfaction level
was 93%.
Idaho Power conducted four irrigation workshops and one conference seminar for the Irrigation
Efficiency Rewards and Irrigation Peak Rewards programs; a total of 154 customers attended.
1- -
Jr
21# - _ h•y
�G
Figure 1.An Idaho Power energy advisor gives a presentation to an elementary school class
This Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report provides a review of the company's DSM
activities and finances throughout the year and satisfies the reporting requirements set out in
Idaho Public Utilities Commission's (IPUC) Order Nos. 29026 and 29419. Idaho Power will file a
copy of the report with the Public Utility Commission of Oregon (OPUC) as an outcome of
Order No. 24-311 issued in UE 426.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report

Introduction
INTRODUCTION
Idaho Power has been locally operated since 1916 and serves more than 660,000 customers
throughout a 24,000-square-mile area in southern Idaho and eastern Oregon (Figure 2).
The company achieves energy savings and demand reduction objectives in both its Idaho and
Oregon service areas through the careful management of current programs and customer
outreach and education. Collectively, the implementation, operation, tracking, and evaluation
of these programs and offerings is called demand-side management (DSM).
e !M
ORECON
Figure 2. Idaho Power service area map
Programs and Offerings
Idaho Power's main objectives for DSM programs are to achieve prudent cost-effective energy
efficiency savings and to provide useful and cost-effective demand response programs as
determined by the integrated resource plan (IRP) process. Idaho Power strives to offer
customers valuable programs and information to help them wisely manage their energy use.
DSM programs and offerings by customer sector (residential, commercial/industrial [C&Ij,
and irrigation) are shown in Table 1.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 3

Introduction
Table 1. DSM programs by sector,operational type,and location,2025
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 Custom Projects............................................................... Energy Efficiency ID/OR
C&I New Construction............................................................ Energy Efficiency ID/OR
C&I Retrofits........................................................................... 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
Funding Sources
Energy efficiency and demand response funding comes from the Idaho and Oregon Energy
Efficiency Riders and Idaho Power base rates. Idaho incentives for the company's demand
response programs are recovered through base rates and tracked through the annual power
cost adjustment (PCA), while Oregon demand response incentives are funded through the
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider. Total expenditures on DSM-related activities from all funding
sources were $43 million in 2025, as shown in Figure 3.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 4

Introduction
60
■Demand Response
■Energy Efficiency
50
c 40
30
c
v
a
x
w
N 20
G
10 '
0 ,
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Figure 3. DSM expense history by program type,2005-2025
DSM Annual Report Structure
The Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report consists of this main document
and two supplements. The main document contains the following sections:
• Program Performance is a summary of total energy savings and program expenses,
funding, expenditures, marketing, and cost-effectiveness.
• Program Activity—Residential, C&I, and Irrigation provides sector summaries and
individual program details, including current year program activities, marketing efforts,
cost-effectiveness analyses, customer satisfaction survey results, evaluation
recommendations and responses, and planned future program activities.
• Other Programs and Activities is an overview of educational and DSM-related programs
and activities that can span multiple sectors, including market transformation.
• Conclusions is a brief recap of the major outcomes from the report.
• Appendices 1 through 4 present data related to payments, funding, costs, and savings.
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness describes the standard cost-effectiveness tests for
Idaho Power programs and reports 2025 program-level and summary cost-effectiveness and
expenses by funding source and cost category.
Supplement 2: Evaluation includes an evaluation and research summary, the evaluation plan,
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) meeting notes, links to Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance (NEEA) evaluations, copies of Integrated Design Lab (IDL) reports, research and survey
reports, evaluation reports, and other reports related to DSM activities.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 5

_"9ll%���
2025 DSM Program Performance
2025 DSM PROGRAM PERFORMANCE
A summary of the energy efficiency and demand response program performance metrics is
presented in this section and in individual program sections later in this report. Appendices 1
through 4 provide additional details on the funding, expenditures, and savings at the program
and sector levels.
Energy Savings, Demand Reductions, and Program Expenses
Program expenses, energy savings, and peak-load reduction by sector or program type are
presented in Table 2, followed by a general discussion of the approach to calculating energy
efficiency and demand response program impacts.
Table 2. DSM programs by sector summary and energy usage/savings/demand reduction,2025
Program Impacts 1 Idaho Power System Sales
Energy Peak-Load Sector Year-End
Program Savings Reduction Total Percentage of Number of
Expenses (MWh) (MW)Z (GWh)3 Energy Usage Customers
Residential(EE)......................... $4,499,919 28,371 6,039 37% 560,606
Commercial/Industrial(EE)....... 18,293,649 91,620 8,131 50% 80,975
Irrigation(EE)............................ 2,183,783 5,400 2,044 13% 21,215
Market Transformation............ 3,395,482 27,707
Demand Response.................... 10,816,426 n/a 161.3/328.4
Direct Overhead/Other Programs 2,640,561 n/a
Indirect Program Expenses....... 1,197,320 n/a
Total......................................... $43,027,141 153,099 161.3/328.4 1 16,213 100% 662,796
1 Energy,average energy,and expense data have been rounded to the nearest whole unit,which may result in minor rounding differences.
Maximum actual demand reduction/maximum potential demand reduction.Includes 6.5%peak system loss assumptions.
a GWh=Gigawatt-hour
Energy Efficiency
Energy efficiency programs are available to all customer segments in Idaho Power's service area
and focus on reducing energy use by targeting homes, buildings, equipment, or components for
which an energy-efficient design, replacement, or repair can achieve energy savings.
Some energy efficiency programs include behavioral components. For example, the Residential
Energy Efficiency Education Initiative (REEEI), the Home Energy Report (HER) Program, and the
Strategic Energy Management (SEM) cohorts primarily focus on behavioral energy savings.
Savings from energy efficiency programs are measured on a kilowatt-hour (kWh) or
megawatt-hour (MWh) basis. Programs can supply energy savings throughout the year or at
different times, depending on the energy efficiency measure. Idaho Power shapes the energy
savings profile based on how end-use equipment uses energy to estimate energy reduction at
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 6

2025 DSM Program Performance
specific times of the day and year. The company's energy efficiency offerings include programs
for residential, commercial, industrial, and irrigation new construction, and retrofit
applications. Incentives and services promote a wide range of energy-saving projects
and activities.
Idaho Power devotes significant resources to maintain and improve its energy efficiency
programs. The 2025 total savings, including savings from NEEA, were 153,099 MWh.
The savings in 2025 increased by 7,689 MWh compared to the 2024 savings of 145,410 MWh—
a 5%year-over-year increase—and represent enough energy to power approximately
14,000 average homes in Idaho Power's service area for one year. The savings from
Idaho Power's energy efficiency programs alone, excluding NEEA savings, were 125,392 MWh in
2025 compared to 119,098 MWh in 2024—a 5%year-over-year increase. Savings and expenses
are shown in Figure 4.
The 2025 savings results consisted of 28,371 MWh from the residential sector, 91,620 MWh
from the C&I sector, and 5,400 MWh from the irrigation sector. The C&I programs contributed
73% of the direct program savings. See Appendix 3 for a complete list of programs and
sector-level savings.
250,000 i Market Transformation(NEEA)(MWh) $45
Idaho Power Program Savings(MWh) ;
�
-EE expenses(no DR) $40 c
200,000
$35
s $30 �
� 150,000
$25 x
W
$20 >.
u
100,000 r
$15 w
C 50,000 $10 W
W iw
$5 w
C
W
0 $0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Figure 4.Annual energy savings and energy efficiency program expenses,2005-2025(MWh and millions[$])
Demand Response
The goal of demand response at Idaho Power is to reduce the demand on Idaho Power's system
when summer demand for energy is high and to avoid or delay the need for new generation
resources. The company estimates its future capacity needs through an integrated resource
planning process and manages resources to mitigate predicted system deficits. The company
strives to maintain or increase capacity from its demand response programs (A/C Cool Credit,
Flex Peak Program, and Irrigation Peak Rewards) consistent with needs identified through that
planning process.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report

2025 DSM Program Performance
Idaho Power's existing demand response programs began in 2002 and, as of 2025, had a
capacity of more than 8.6% of its all-time system peak load available to respond to a system
peak load event during the summer. Demand response is measured both by the actual demand
reduction in megawatts (MW) achieved during events, as well as the maximum potential
demand reduction if all programs were used at full capacity.
A minimum of three events are called for each of the programs each year, which allows the
company to test processes and software and helps customers fine-tune their curtailment plans.
The company believes by calling at least three events per season the programs are more
effective in providing consistent and reliable demand reduction.
During the summer of 2025, Idaho Power relied on its demand response programs on 10
different days between June 15 and September 15. The maximum actual demand reduction
from all three programs was 161 MW (Figure 5) and is calculated using interval meter data from
participants. The maximum potential demand reduction for all three programs was
approximately 328 MW at the generation level. The amount of demand available for demand
response varies based on weather, time of year, and how programs are used and managed.
The maximum potential demand reduction (328 MW) is based on an expected maximum
realization rate for participants. The calculation of maximum potential demand reduction is
slightly different for the three programs:
• For the Irrigation Peak Rewards program, it is based on the maximum demand reduction
possible within the program season.
• For the Flex Peak Program, it is the maximum nominated amount of demand reduction.
• For the A/C Cool Credit program, it is calculated based on the number of active
participants multiplied by the historical maximum demand reduction achieved under a
65% cycling event.
Additional details are provided in the individual demand response program reports in
Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report

2025 DSM Program Performance
�Maximum actual demand reduction
Soo �Available demand reduction $25
c
° 450 -Demand response expenses c
Z. o
a400 $20
v 350
c a
E 300 $15 y
v a
250
v 200 $10 c
a
a 150 y
E °C
£ IN $5
50 . ■ . ■ $0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Figure S. Maximum potential demand reduction and demand response expenses,2005-2025
(MW and millions[$])
DSM Funding and Expenditures
Funding for DSM programs comes from several sources. The Idaho and Oregon Energy
Efficiency Rider funds are collected directly from customers on their monthly bills. The 2025
Idaho Rider was 2.35% of base rate revenues, pursuant to IPUC Order No. 36042. The 2025
Oregon Rider was 4% of base rate revenues. DSM expenses not funded through the riders are
included in Idaho Power's base rates. Idaho demand response program incentives funded
through base rates are tracked through the annual PCA mechanism.
Table 3 shows the total expenditures funded by the Idaho and Oregon energy efficiency
riders and Idaho Power base rates resulting in total DSM expenditures of$43,027,141.
The Idaho Power Base Rates category includes the company's demand response incentives in
Idaho, expenses, labor, and other operations and maintenance (0&M) costs.
Table 3. 2025 funding source and energy savings
Funding Source Expenses' MWh Savings
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider.................................................................................... 28,945,938 149,670
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider................................................................................. 1,303,842 3,365
Idaho Power Base Rates............................................................................................ 12,777,362 64
Total.......................................................................................................................... $43,027,141 153,099
Dollars are rounded to the nearest whole unit,which may result in minor rounding differences.
Table 4 and Figure 6 present 2025 DSM program expenditures by category. While the Incentive
Expense category illustrates the amount paid directly to customers for their participation in an
energy efficiency or demand response program, other categories include items or services that
directly benefited customers. The expenses within the Materials & Equipment category were
associated with various kit programs ($927,501). Most expenses in the Other Expense category
were for marketing ($1,434,658), C&I Custom Projects audits ($323,893), program trainings
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 9

2025 DSM Program Performance
($122,832), program evaluations ($526,871), and program expenses ($10,997). The Purchased
Services category includes payments to NEEA ($3,395,482), engineering services ($2,213,936),
Low-Income Energy Efficiency Education and Weatherization Assistance for Qualified
Customers (WAQC) Community Action Partnership (CAP) agencies ($901,465),
Weatherization Solutions ($148,132), and third-party contractors that support the
implementation of Idaho Power's programs.
Table 4. 2025 DSM program expenditures by category
Program Expenditure Category Total 1 %of Total
Incentive Expense..................................................................................................... $ 25,240,811 58.7%
Labor/Administrative Expense................................................................................. 4,133,641 9.6%
Materials&Equipment............................................................................................ 927,501 2.2%
OtherExpense.......................................................................................................... 2,419,250 5.6%
Purchased Services................................................................................................... 10,305,938 24.0%
Total......................................................................................................................... $ 43,027,141 100%
Dollars are rounded to the nearest whole unit,which may result in minor rounding differences.
Materials&Equipment
2.2%
Labor/Administrative Expense
9 6% Other Expense
5.6%
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mi
Services
Contractor
Kits
Weatherization Services 0.9%
Purchased Services i Solutions LLC
0' Payments
NEEA Funding
Low-Income EE
loop
Education and WAQC
CAP Agency Payments
8.7%
Figure 6. 2025 DSM program expenditures by category
Table 5 and Figure 7 break out the incentive totals by program type (demand response
or energy efficiency) and sector (residential, C&I, and irrigation). Almost 85% of the
2025 incentives were paid through the C&I energy efficiency programs and the demand
response irrigation program (Irrigation Peak Rewards).
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 10

2025 DSM Program Performance
Table S. 2025 DSM program incentive totals by program type and sector
Program Type—Sector" Total 3 %of Total
DR—Residential........................................................................................................ $ 328,453 1.3%
DR—Commercial/Industrial...................................................................................... 623,898 2.5%
DR—Irrigation........................................................................................................... 8,188,704 32.4%
EE—Residential........................................................................................................ 1,109,134 4.4%
EE—Commercial/Industrial...................................................................................... 13,250,047 52.5%
EE—Irrigation........................................................................................................... 1,740,575 6.9%
Total......................................................................................................................... $ 25,240,811 100%
DR=demand response
Z EE=energy efficiency
3 Dollars are rounded to the nearest whole unit,which may result in minor rounding differences.
DR—Commercial/Industrial
DR—Residential 2 5%
1.3%
EE—Irrigation
6.9% I /
■ DR—Residential
DR—Commercial/Industrial
DR—irrigation ■ DR—Irrigation
32.4 ■EE—Residential
\ ■EE—Commercial/Industrial
■EE—Irrigation
EE—Residential
4.4%
Figure 7. Percent of DSM program incentive expenses by program type and sector,2025
Customer Education
In 2025, Idaho Power engaged with customers in person to discuss energy efficiency
at 76 community events. Idaho Power's program specialists and education and outreach energy
advisors (EOEA) also delivered 591 presentations and trainings with energy savings messages to
audiences of all ages. At those in-person events, Idaho Power distributed copies of the
30 Simple Things You Can Do to Save Energy booklet directly to customers. Efforts to enhance
digital communication continued—with the goal of bringing a variety of energy and
money-saving tips to a broad range of customers.
Idaho Power funded the IDL to conduct Lunch & Learn sessions to educate architects,
engineers, and other design and construction professionals about various energy efficiency
topics. In 2025, the IDL conducted 16 in-person and two hybrid technical training sessions with
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 11

2025 DSM Program Performance
163 architects, engineers, designers, project managers, and other interested parties.
Additionally, Idaho Power engaged IDL to host six virtual Building Simulation Users Group
(BSUG) sessions with 170 professionals attending.
The IDL also maintains an Energy Resource Library (ERL) with tools for measuring and
monitoring energy use and provides training on how to use them. The ERL includes over
900 individual pieces of equipment; a total of 14 new tools were added in 2025.
Idaho Power conducted eight technical training sessions for C&I customers in 2025. The level of
participation increased from last year, with 302 individuals attending the sessions.
Idaho Power also partnered with Building Potential to administer Building Operator
Certification (BOC) Level I and II courses, as well as their new Fundamentals of Energy Efficient
Buildings and Multifamily courses. Idaho Power sponsored 21 customers who signed up for the
training by paying $900 of the $2,495 tuition cost for the Level I and Level II courses or $625 of
the $1,450 tuition cost for the Fundamentals course.
Idaho Power conducted four in-person irrigation workshops and one conference seminar for
the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards and Irrigation Peak Rewards programs; approximately
154 customers attended.
Marketing
Idaho Power used multi-channel marketing and customer communication strategies in 2025 to
continually improve communication and increase energy efficiency program awareness among
its customers. The company employs a wide variety of media and marketing tactics, including
owned media (social, website, email, and newsletters) and paid media (advertising and
sponsorships), which allow Idaho Power to control content and messaging. Earned unpaid
media (news coverage, Idaho Power's News Briefs sent to reporters, third-party publications,
and television news appearances) gives Idaho Power access to a broader audience through
channels that help establish credibility and brand trust. Though the company has less
messaging control with earned unpaid media, the value is established through the
third-party endorsement.
Idaho Power's marketing staff networks with organizations across the region and industry to
track current and future marketing trends and successes. Idaho Power continued to work with
NEEA to coordinate, collaborate, and facilitate marketing for all sectors. To build marketing
networks and learn what works in other regions, Idaho Power staff also attended conferences
and webinars in 2025, such as the quarterly E-Source Marketing and Communications Council
and quarterly check-ins with E-Source.
The following describes a selection of the methods, approaches, and strategies used by
Idaho Power to engage customers regarding energy efficiency, along with their results. See the
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 12

­4ll%���
2025 DSM Program Performance
respective sector overviews and program sections later in this report for the company's
marketing efforts specific to those areas.
Social Media
Approximately 20% of the company's social media content promoted energy efficiency in 2025.
Idaho Power regularly posted content encouraging energy efficiency behaviors,
program enrollment, and customer engagement on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram,
and Linkedln.
Facebook, Instagram, and Linkedln all remain priority channels for engaging and communicating
directly with customers on energy efficiency tips and program offerings.
At the end of 2025, Idaho Power had approximately 32,855 followers on Facebook; 20,498 on
Linkedln; and 4,540 on Instagram.
Website
Idaho Power tracked the number of page views to the main energy efficiency pages—
also known as landing pages—from external users on the company's website. In 2025,
the company's energy efficiency homepage received 6,422 page views, the residential landing
page received 328,992 views, and the business and irrigation landing pages received
20,555 views. Idaho Power uses Google Analytics to analyze web activity. Google's definition of
page views is the total number of pages viewed, with repeated views of a single page by one
user counted as a new view.
Customer Communications
Idaho Power's communications staff promoted energy efficiency programs and activities
through Connections, a customer newsletter distributed in monthly bills and available online;
News Briefs, a weekly email of interesting news items sent to all media in the company's service
area; pitching and participating in news stories; and public events, such as incentive check
presentations.
In 2025, the January and August issues of Connections were devoted to energy efficiency.
The January issue featured a "People Behind Your Power" profile on Todd Greenwell,
who manages the company's residential Heating & Cooling Efficiency (H&CE) Program. It also
included an overview of the company's energy efficiency programs and highlighted a variety of
energy-saving resources available to businesses. The August edition featured summer
energy-saving tips, information on how temperature impacts energy use, and back-to-school
energy-saving tips.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 13

_`Illll%l���
2025 DSM Program Performance
With a warm summer throughout the company's service area, energy efficiency information for
staying cool during the summer was shared across the company's owned media channels and
regional media outlets. Social media messaging included tips about how to save energy during
high-use hours, which assists in reducing strain on the company's system.
Media outreach efforts resulted in a variety of earned media coverage focused on energy
efficiency. Energy efficiency topics were pitched in News Briefs throughout the year, and the
company earned media coverage in multiple markets spanning digital, print, TV, and radio.
Customer Relationship Survey
A relationship survey measures the satisfaction of several aspects of a customer's relationship
with Idaho Power, including energy efficiency, at a very high level. As such, the survey is not
intended to measure all aspects of the energy efficiency programs.
The 2025 Burke Customer Relationship Index Survey asked two questions related specifically to
satisfaction with Idaho Power's energy efficiency programs: 1) Have you participated in an
Idaho Power energy efficiency program? 2) Overall, how satisfied are you with the energy
efficiency program? In 2025, 21.8% of the survey respondents across all sectors indicated they
had participated in an Idaho Power energy efficiency program, and 89.5%were "very" or
"somewhat" satisfied with the program.
The sector-level results of the annual 2025 survey are discussed in the Residential,
C&I, and Irrigation Sector Overview sections of this report.
Evaluations
Idaho Power considers program evaluation an essential component of its DSM operational
activities. The company uses third-party contractors to conduct impact, process, and other
evaluations on a scheduled and as-required basis. Third-party contracts are generally awarded
using a competitive bidding process managed by Idaho Power's Corporate Services
department. In some cases, research and analyses are conducted internally and managed by
Idaho Power's Research and Analysis team within the Customer Relations and Energy Efficiency
(CR&EE) department.
Idaho Power uses industry-standard protocols for its internal and external evaluation efforts,
including the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency—Model Energy Efficiency Program
Impact Evaluation Guide, the California Evaluation Framework, the International Performance
Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP), the Database for Energy Efficiency Resources,
and the Regional Technical Forum's (RTF) evaluation protocols.
The company also supports regional studies to promote the ongoing cost-effectiveness of
programs, the validation of energy savings and demand reduction, and the efficient
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 14

­q4ll%���
2025 DSM Program Performance
management of its programs. Idaho Power considers primary and secondary research,
cost-effectiveness analyses, potential studies, and impact and process evaluations to be
important resources in providing accurate and transparent program savings estimates.
Idaho Power uses recommendations and findings from the evaluations and research to
continuously refine its DSM programs.
In 2025, Idaho Power contracted third-party evaluators to conduct impact and process
evaluations for the following programs: A/C Cool Credit, C&I New Construction, C&I Retrofits,
H&CE Program, and Irrigation Peak Rewards and an impact evaluation for the HER Program.
Summaries of the results of these evaluations are available in the respective program sections.
External program administrators compiled program summary reports for the Student Energy
Efficiency Kits (SEEK) program and the HER program, and the company conducted internal
analyses for the A/C Cool Credit, Flex Peak, and Irrigation Peak Rewards demand response
programs and the low-income weatherization programs.
An evaluation schedule and the final reports from evaluations, studies, and research completed
in 2025 are provided in Supplement2: Evaluation.
Cost-Effectiveness
Idaho Power considers cost-effectiveness of primary importance in the design, implementation,
and tracking of the energy efficiency and demand response programs. Prior to the actual
implementation, Idaho Power performs a cost-effectiveness analysis to assess whether a
potential program design or measure will be cost-effective. Incorporated in these models are
inputs from various sources that use the most current and reliable information available.
When an existing program or measure is not cost-effective, Idaho Power strives to work with
the EEAG to obtain input before making its determination on continuing, discontinuing,
or modifying the program. If the company continues to offer a non-cost-effective measure or
program, it must demonstrate why and communicate the steps the company plans to take to
improve cost-effectiveness. The company believes this aligns with the expectations of the IPUC
and the OPUC.
Energy Efficiency
Idaho Power strives for all energy efficiency programs to have benefit/cost (B/C) ratios greater
than 1.0 for the utility cost test (UCT), total resource cost (TRC) test, and participant cost test
(PCT) at the program and measure levels, where appropriate. In 2020, Idaho Power transitioned
to the UCT as the primary cost-effectiveness test for energy efficiency resource planning in
Idaho as directed by the IPUC in Order No. 34503. Programs and measures offered in Oregon
must use the TRC as the primary cost-effectiveness test as directed by the OPUC in
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 15

_`4l%���
2025 DSM Program Performance
Order No. 94-590. The company continues to calculate and consider the UCT, TRC, and PCT
when developing and operating programs because each perspective can help inform the
company and stakeholders about the effectiveness of a particular program or measure.
The cost-effectiveness metrics calculated for the energy efficiency programs is provided in
Table 6, details on the assumptions and data are included in Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness.
Table 6. Cost-effectiveness summary by energy efficiency program,2025
Ratepayer Impact
Program/Sector UCT TRC Measure(RIM) PCT
Educational Distributions............................................................. 2.27 2.62 0.51 n/a
Heating&Cooling Efficiency Program.......................................... 0.89 0.17 0.33 0.41
Home Energy Report Program...................................................... 1.42 1.56 0.42 n/a
Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program........................................ 2.60 0.72 0.45 1.41
Rebate Advantage........................................................................ 1.27 0.51 0.28 1.73
Residential New Construction Program....................................... 1.03 1.55 0.29 5.60
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(Idaho)........ 0.13 0.22 0.10 n/a
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(Oregon) 0.08 0.32 0.07 n/a
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers......................... 0.13 0.20 0.10 n/a
Residential Energy Efficiency Sector'.......................................... 1.46 0.75 0.41 1.94
C&I Custom Projects..................................................................... 2.16 0.80 0.75 0.96
C&I New Construction.................................................................. 2.15 2.14 0.65 3.14
C&I Retrofits................................................................................. 2.00 1.10 0.66 1.45
Small Business Lighting Program.................................................. 1.04 1.29 0.50 2.23
Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency Sector......................... 2.09 1.00 0.71 1.28
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards........................................................ 1.61 2.69 0.63 2.81
Irrigation Energy Efficiency Sector.............................................. 1.61 2.69 0.63 2.81
Energy Efficiency Portfolio2......................................................... 1.70 1.37 0.62 1.78
'Residential sector cost-effectiveness excludes WAQC benefits and costs.If included,the UCT,TRC,RIM,and PCT would be 1.13,0.65,0.37,
and 1.83,respectively.
Z Portfolio cost-effectiveness excludes WAQC benefits and costs.If included,the UCT,TRC,RIM,and PCT would be 1.64,1.34,0.61,and 1.78,
respectively.
Demand Response
As a result of IPUC Order No. 35336 (IPC-E-21-32) and the OPUC's approval on February 8,
2022, of ADV 1355/Advice No. 21-12, Idaho Power determines cost-effectiveness for its
demand response programs using financial and alternate resource cost assumptions from each
IRP. Details on the cost-effectiveness assumptions and data are included in Supplement 1:
Cost-Effectiveness; cost-effectiveness of the DR programs (A/C Cool Credit, Flex Peak Program,
and Irrigation Peak Rewards) is presented in the individual program sections later in this report.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 16

Residential Sector Overview
2025 DSM PROGRAM ACTIVITY
Residential Sector Overview
In 2025, Idaho Power's residential sector consisted of 554,211 customers averaged throughout
the year; Idaho customers averaged 540,032 and eastern Oregon averaged 14,179. The average
number of residential sector customers grew by 13,596 in 2025, an increase of 2.5%from 2024.
The residential sector represented 37.2% of Idaho Power's actual total billed electricity usage
and 45.5% of overall retail revenue in 2025.
Table 7 shows a summary of 2025 participants, costs, and savings from the residential energy
efficiency programs.
Table 7. Residential sector program summary,2025
Total Cost Savings
Annual Energy Peak Demand
Program Participants Utility Resource (kWh) (MW)l
Demand Response'
A/C Cool Credit........................................... 16,235 homes $ 1,175,421 $ 1,175,421 14.6/22.1
Total $ 1,175,421 $ 1,175,421 14.6/22.1
Energy Efficiency
Educational Distributions.......................... 51,663 kits/giveaways 832,256 832,256 4,164,401
Heating&Cooling Efficiency Program...... 676 projects 547,895 3,223,993 809,431
Home Energy Audit .................................. 310 audits 201,572 233,307 10,339
Home Energy Report Program.................. 100,875 treatment size 844,730 844,730 20,507,594
Low-Income Energy Efficiency Education.. 139 HVAC tune-ups 151,540 151,540 69,418
Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program..... 7 projects 466,854 2,016,816 1,937,572
Oregon Residential Energy 7 audits/projects 10,957 9,287 0
Conservation Program..............................
Rebate Advantage..................................... 120 homes 193,786 531,125 335,068
Residential New Construction Program ... 101 homes 233,585 495,346 274,680
Weatherization Assistance for 129 homes/non-profits 835,893 1,797,176 228,592
Qualified Customers(Idaho).....................
Weatherization Assistance for 3 homes/non-profits 25,377 40,844 3,069
Qualified Customers(Oregon)..................
Weatherization Solutions for 25 homes 155,475 155,475 31,046
Eligible Customers.....................................
Total.................................................................................................................. $ 4,499,919 $ 10,331,894 28,371,210
Notes:
See Appendix 3 for notes on methodology and column definitions.
Totals may not add up due to rounding.
Demand response program reductions are reported with 6.5%system loss assumptions.Maximum actual demand reduction/maximum
demand capacity.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 17

Residential Sector Overview
� 1
To
ti - -
• GO
r;k
1.
Figure 8.Graphic from the Good Energy kitchen tips campaign
Residential DSM Programs
A/C Cool Credit. A demand response program that gives residential customers a credit for
allowing Idaho Power to cycle their air conditioning (A/C) units or allowing a third-party vendor
to adjust the temperature on their smart thermostats when Idaho Power calls demand
response events during periods of high energy demand or for other system needs.
Educational Distributions. A multifaceted approach to educating residential customers about
their energy consumption, including giving away various efficient products and engaging
elementary students with in-class and at-home activities.
Heating& Cooling Efficiency Program. A program that provides cash incentives to
homeowners, property owners (landlords), and builders who upgrade existing homes or build
new ones using energy-efficient heating and cooling equipment and services.
Home Energy Audit. Idaho customers living in multifamily homes with discrete meters or
single-family homes pay a reduced price for an energy audit to identify energy efficiency
improvement opportunities. Participants may receive energy-efficient products for no
additional cost.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 18

Residential Sector Overview
Home Energy Report Program. A program that sends energy reports to select customers to
help them understand their energy use and provides energy efficiency tips and
incentive information.
Low-Income Energy Efficiency Education. A program that offers coupons to income-qualified
customers for HVAC tune-ups and one-on-one energy savings education.
Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program. A program that offers incentives to help reduce the
costs of installing energy efficiency features in existing and new construction multifamily
buildings with five or more units per building.
Oregon Residential Energy Conservation Program. A program that provides no-cost energy
audits for Oregon customers who heat with electricity.
Rebate Advantage. A program that provides financial incentives for customers who buy
Northwest Energy-Efficient Manufactured Housing ProgramTM (NEEM)-certified, ENERGY STAR°
qualified, energy-efficient manufactured homes and for the people who sell them.
Residential New Construction Program. A program that offers builders a cash incentive to
construct energy-efficient, above code, single-family, all-electric homes that use heat pump
technology for its Idaho customers.
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (Idaho and Oregon) and Weatherization
Solutions for Eligible Customers. Programs that provide energy-efficient products, services,
and education for customers who meet income requirements and heat with electricity.
Marketing
Idaho Power ran a multi-faceted advertising campaign in the summer (June and July) and fall
(October and November) to raise and maintain awareness of the company's energy efficiency
programs for residential customers and to demonstrate that saving energy does not have to be
complicated or expensive. The campaign used radio, television, newspaper ads, digital ads,
sponsorships, Meta ads, and boosted social posts aimed at a variety of customer demographics
across the service area. New in 2025, the company introduced an influencer marketing strategy
to diversify its promotional tactics and strengthen customer engagement. Influencer marketing
is a strategy where brands collaborate with individuals or companies who have established
credibility and an engaged audience to promote products and services or shape customer
perceptions. The creative campaign—implemented by Totally Boise—used the "Good Energy"
theme and centered on the idea that energy-efficient habits can help customers keep "good
energy in the room."
Described below are Idaho Power's marketing efforts to promote energy-saving tips and the
company's energy efficiency programs, along with resulting data. Marketing tactics related to a
specific program are detailed in those respective sections later in this report.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 19

Residential Sector Overview
Digital
During the summer campaign, web users were exposed to 7,679,212 display ads (animated GIF
image ads embedded on a website) based on their demographics, related to online articles
they viewed, or their use of a particular mobile web page or app. Users clicked the ads
160,990 times, resulting in a click-through rate of 2.10%. In the fall, the display ads received
6,196,768 impressions and 127,599 clicks, resulting in a click-through rate of 2.06%. Digital ads
also ran on the BoiseDev.com news site in July and received 22,969 impressions. The October
BoiseDev digital campaign received 127,188 impressions.
Idaho Power uses Google search ads to elevate company information in response to customer
web searches. When people search for terms related to energy efficiency, energy efficiency
programs, and individual program measures, the company's ads appear and direct them to
the appropriate energy efficiency web page. These ads received 15,156,661 impressions and
373,265 clicks throughout the year.
Idaho Power also placed digital ads on realtor.com in the summer to reach customers
interested in moving, renovations, or home upgrades. Those digital ads received
757,005 impressions and 244 clicks. Ads on realtor.com in the fall received 723,885 impressions
and 237 clicks.
Owned Digital
Owned digital refers to digital assets that Idaho Power controls, including the My Account
online account management tool, mobile app, website, and digital company newsletter.
Idaho Power continued its effort with email communication in 2025. The company only
emails customers who have supplied their addresses for other business purposes (i.e., when
signing up for My Account or enrolling in paperless billing). Energy efficiency
promotional emails included heating and cooling program information, seasonal energy
efficiency tips, and various program promotions. Detailed information can be found in the
respective program sections.
Streaming Audio:Music
Idaho Power continued with streaming music advertising as an awareness tactic in 2025,
using 30-second audio ads, called "dynamic ads," inserted into listener's programming if they
reside in the company's service area. The ads targeted customers by the type of listener rather
than being run on a specific show or music program. The ads received 448,533 impressions
in the summer. Summer Spanish ads on Spotify received 173,949 impressions and Spanish
streaming audio ads received 90,059 impressions. The fall radio ads received
780,133 impressions. Summer Spotify ads received 447,909 impressions, fall Spotify ads
received 446,724 impressions and fall Spanish Spotify ads received 128,564 impressions.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 20

_Nhilii.. I
Residential Sector Overview
Television:Network and Streaming
Idaho Power used network television and Hulu advertising for the summer and fall campaigns.
The company also used over-the-top (OTT) media, a type of streaming media that delivers
content to customers watching a certain online show. Most OTT providers have their own app
or website and are streamed through devices like Rokus, Apple TVs, or Amazon Fire TVs.
The network television campaigns focused on primetime and news programming that reaches
the highest percentage of the target market, adults aged 25 to 64.
Table 8 presents the details of Idaho Power's network TV advertising spend for English and
Spanish stations during the summer and fall campaigns.
Table 8. Network TV advertising analytics
Dates Market Paid Spots Reach W Frequency2
30-Second English
June—July Boise 162 82.8% 5
June—July Twin Falls 88 83.6% 4.25
June—July Pocatello 126 84.0% 4
October—November Boise 121 77.9% 4.25
October—November Twin Falls 86 70.0% 3.5
October—November Pocatello 109 78.4% 3.7
30-Second Spanish
June—July Boise 144 n/a n/a
June—July Pocatello 54 n/a n/a
October—November Boise 148 n/a n/a
October—November Pocatello 74 n/a n/a
30-Second Football Package
August—February 2026 Boise 59 91.2% 3.8
August—February 2026 Twin Falls 123 99.3% 10.9
August—February 2026 Pocatello 90 67.1% 4.1
1 Percentage of customers who have seen an ad.
Z Number of times an ad is shown to a single user within a specific period.
s Reach and frequency information is unavailable for Spanish networks.
Hulu summer ads delivered 579,670 impressions. OTT ads delivered 1,227,839 impressions with
a 98.8%video completion rate. Spanish OTT ads received 334,620 impressions and a 98%
completion rate.
Hulu fall ads delivered 357,104 impressions with a 98.71% completion rate. OTT ads delivered
937,705 impressions with a 98.96%video completion rate. Spanish OTT ads received
345,356 impressions with a 98.55% completion rate.
Idaho Power also sponsored commercials on Idaho Public Television in the Boise and Pocatello
markets that ran a total of 12 times in the summer and 12 times in the fall.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 21

Residential Sector Overview
Additionally, Idaho Power ran 15-second YouTube ads during the summer and fall
campaigns. Summer ads garnered 1,565,948 impressions. Users clicked on the ads 570 times,
which resulted in a 0.04% click-through rate. Fall YouTube ads garnered 1,299,021 impressions
with 506 clicks and a 0.04% click-through rate.
Radio
As part of its summer and fall campaigns, Idaho Power ran 30-second radio spots on major
commercial radio stations in the service area. To obtain optimal reach, the spots ran on several
station formats, including classic rock, news/talk, country, adult alternative, rock, sports,
and classic hits. The message was targeted toward adults ages 25 to 64 throughout
Idaho Power's service area. Results of the spots are provided in Table 9 for the three major
markets: Boise, Pocatello, and Twin Falls areas.
Table 9. Broadcast radio advertising analytics
Date Market Paid Spots Reach V Frequency2
30-Second English
June—July Boise 578 21.8 4.5
June—July Twin Falls 480 21 5.75
June—July Pocatello 437 17.1 3.6
October—November Boise 608 20 3.9
October—November Twin Falls 366 32.8 4.65
October—November Pocatello 271 36.7 3.25
30-Second Spanish3
June—July Boise 124 n/a n/a
June—July Twin Falls 104 n/a 2.2
June—July Pocatello 98 n/a n/a
October—November Boise 136 n/a n/a
October—November Twin Falls 96 n/a n/a
October—November Pocatello 96 n/a n/a
15-Second National Public Radio(NPR)
June—July Boise 72 5.65 2.75
June—July Pocatello 74 4.3 3.1
October—November Boise 100 6.5 3.35
October—November Pocatello 72 3.05 3.3
1 Percentage of customers who have seen an ad.
Z Number of times an ad is shown to a single user within a specific period.
s Reach and frequency information is unavailable for Spanish networks.
Print
As part of the campaign, print advertising ran in major daily and select weekly newspapers
throughout the service area. The company also ran ads in the Idaho Shakespeare Festival
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 22

Residential Sector Overview
program, Boise Lifestyle, and IdaHome Magazine. The summer and fall ads featured the quirky
but lovable character, Tina, and highlighted how she keeps "a wave of Good Energy flowing
through her space by swapping lightbulbs to LEDs." Ads also ran in select service area
newspapers including the Idaho Mountain Express, the Recorder Herald, and the Star News.
In 2025, Idaho Power updated the program information in a spiral-bound guide outlining each
of the residential energy efficiency programs, tips, and resources. The updated guide will be
included in the 2026 Welcome Kits. The previous edition of the guide was included in
2025 Welcome Kits, provided to WAQC customers, and shared with customers who attended
events in which Idaho Power participated.
Social Media and Influencer Marketing
Throughout the year, Idaho Power used Facebook, Instagram, and boosted Facebook posts
for various programs and easy energy efficiency tips for customers to implement at home and
at work. Facebook ads for the 2025 summer energy efficiency campaign received
3,352,452 impressions and 1,814 clicks per ad. Fall Facebook ads received
1,572,272 impressions and 665 clicks. The company also implemented influencer marketing in
2025 and ran reels as well as newsletter features on Totally Boise's social media and web
platforms. Combined, Totally Boise content received 14,329 views.
Out-of-Home
In 2025, Idaho Power used several marketing tactics referred to as out-of-home advertising.
Out-of-home advertising attempts to reach customers when they are outside of their homes,
which helps maintain energy efficiency program awareness throughout the year.
Tactics included a full-side bus wrap on a Pocatello Regional Transit bus in Eastern Idaho that
received 18,11,250 impressions. Billboards with energy efficiency messaging were placed
around the Idaho Power service area: eight billboards were placed across Pocatello (two),
Jerome, Salmon, Kimberly, Hollister, Twin Falls, and Rupert. The billboards garnered
9,942,408 impressions. Energy efficiency messaging was also included on top of gas pumps in
rural areas (called gas pump toppers) as well as Energy efficiency signage in select grocery
stores (called grocery store standees). A total of 15 gas pump toppers were strategically placed
in the Boise,Twin Falls, and Pocatello areas. Inside grocery stores, 18 standees were positioned
throughout service area locations to catch shoppers' attention. These tactics are a great way to
showcase Idaho Power's presence in everyday settings and effectively reach smaller markets.
Additionally, 2025 included sports sponsorships. Attendance at most service area events has
shown significant growth and is a great vehicle to share the energy efficiency message.
Sports sponsorships are particularly good at reaching residential customers because they
associate energy efficiency messaging with meaningful activities close to home and offer
diversified exposure. Idaho Power sponsored the Boise Hawks (minor league baseball team)
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 23

Residential Sector Overview
from May through August. 2025 was their highest attendance year yet, with 169,714 attendees
throughout the season. As part of the sponsorship package, Idaho Power received a 15-second
digital ad on the four screens within the stadium where its energy efficiency ad was displayed.
The ad ran on a seven-and-a-half-minute loop throughout the ballpark during the 48-game
season. The company also received a 15-second video board commercial during each Hawks
home game, which ran pre-game or in-game, depending on the schedule. Two 15-second
Idaho Power energy efficiency commercials were also shown during the Boise Hawks on-
demand streaming broadcast for all 48 home games.
A Boise State University (BSU) sponsorship was also part of the marketing strategy in 2025.
Energy efficiency messaging was featured at Albertsons Stadium during football games and
included digital concourse signage and a game co-sponsorship and table. The BSU basketball
sponsorship included a 30-second digital ribbon board that rotated throughout the game and a
"Good Energy Fan Cam" themed video board feature.
In addition to the BSU stadium and in-game advertising, a Good Energy-wrapped Valley
Regional Transit bus was also deployed. It ran its regular route during the week and operated as
a game-day shuttle, moving fans between downtown parking and the arena. The bus delivered
a total of 48,192,089 impressions and was a high-impact way to spread awareness around
energy efficiency.
As part of the marketing plan, Idaho Power sponsored sporting events at Idaho State University
(ISU). This included placing an energy efficiency message on the outdoor digital at the ICCU
dome (formerly named the Holt Arena). Additionally, Idaho Power was recognized during each
home football game as a sponsor of the "Idaho Power Good Energy Meter," which was
displayed on the big screen at home football games. The meter's level rose and fell based on
how loudly the crowd cheered. After each round of cheering, a short message about energy
efficiency appeared on the screen. Energy efficiency messaging was also included during men's
and women's basketball games on the courtside LED messaging board.
An Idaho Steelheads sponsorship amplified energy efficiency messaging throughout the
Idaho Central Arena in downtown Boise. There was an "Idaho Power Energy Efficient" break
where the lights were powered down during intermission and the message was broadcasted via
video board and announcements.
Additionally, Idaho Power's energy efficiency message was displayed on the wrap-around LED
ribbon board at every Steelheads home game, maximizing visibility. The Steelheads total game
attendance for the 2024-2025 season was 214,664 attendees.
Idaho Power also secured a digital presence on idahosteelheads.com, featuring the
company logo and a link to the energy efficiency landing page, further driving awareness
and engagement.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report

N6.. I
Residential Sector Overview
Signage was also included in the College of Idaho J.A. Albertson sports facility.
Customer Communications
Many of the company's communications activities focused on the residential sector.
Energy-saving tips in News Briefs, news releases, and Connections articles aimed to promote
incentive programs and/or educate customers about behavioral or product changes they can
make to save energy and money in their homes.
Customer Satisfaction
Idaho Power conducts the Burke Customer Relationship Index Survey each year. In 2025, on a
scale of zero to 10, residential survey respondents rated Idaho Power 7.65 regarding offering
programs to help customers save energy, and 7.72 related to providing customers with
information on how to save energy and money.
Over 15% of residential respondents indicated they have participated in at least one
Idaho Power energy efficiency program. Of the residential survey respondents who have
participated in at least one Idaho Power energy efficiency program, 79.30%were "very" or
"somewhat" satisfied with the program.
Empowered Community
In 2015, Idaho Power created the Empowered Community, an online community of residential
customers, to measure customer perceptions on a variety of company-related topics,
including energy efficiency. The community has over 2,500 actively engaged members across
Idaho Power's service area. Idaho Power typically sends these members between six and
12 surveys per year. In 2025, Idaho Power included 8 energy efficiency messages with survey
invitations, resulting in over 20,570 touchpoints.
Recruitment for the Empowered Community is conducted annually to refresh the membership.
In February 2025, a direct email campaign recruited 112 new members.
See the individual program sections for program-specific customer satisfaction survey results.
Field Staff Activities
In 2025, Idaho Power residential and commercial EOEAs continued to engage with customers
through one-on-one and group meetings, presentations, and participation in various events to
promote energy efficiency programs and offerings. The year was marked by strong company
involvement in major legacy events, including regional home, garden, and remodeling shows;
STEM events; science fairs; career fairs; and a BSU football game and a basketball game.
These events provided an opportunity for energy advisors to have thousands of positive
interactions with customers while promoting energy efficiency.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 25

Residential Sector Overview
Energy advisors continued dedicating a large portion of their time to presentations and events
at secondary schools, colleges, universities, and trade schools, as well as civic and community
audiences. This focus on outreach and education has been instrumental in spreading awareness
about energy efficiency programs and opportunities to save energy and money.
The company also continued to prioritize the training and development of its energy advisors,
enhancing their knowledge, skills, and abilities related to energy efficiency programs,
innovative technologies, and customer service. Three of the classes during the year were
focused on enhancing energy advisors' soft skills: Influencer Training, Empathy and Effective
Customer Interactions, and Best Practices for Customer Presentations. Additionally,
Idaho Power continued training sessions on lighting, building envelopes, HVAC systems, pumps,
motors, and refrigeration.
Demand-Side Management 202S Annual Report Page 26

Residential Sector—
A/C Cool Credit
A/C Cool Credit
2025 2024
Participation and Savings'
Participants(homes) 16,235 17,641
Maximum Potential Demand Reduction (MW)Z 22.1 24.0
Maximum Actual Demand Reduction (MW)z 14.6 21.9
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider $744,318 ($242,227)
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider $39,038 ($5,589)
Idaho Power Base Rates $392,064 $417,056
Total Program Costs—All Sources $1,175,421 $169,241
Cost-Effectiveness Values
Program Cost($/kW)4 $53.19 $47.25
DR Benefit Value($/kW)' $64.03 $62.39
'See Appendix 4 for jurisdictional-level participation and savings details.
'Demand response program reductions are reported with 6.5%peak loss assumptions.
'Negative expenditures in 2024 are due to transfer of demand response unit inventory costs to Energy Efficiency Accounting and Analysis.
^Maximum potential annual program cost divided by maximum potential capacity.See Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness for full calculation
details.
'See Cost-Effectiveness section of program write-up for details.
Description
Originating in 2003, A/C Cool Credit is a voluntary demand response program, through which
residential customers in Idaho and Oregon are eligible to earn a financial incentive for reducing
their A/C unit load. The objective of the program is to reduce demand on Idaho Power's system
when summer demand for energy is high or for other system needs.
Customers with A/C units using a central air system or an air-source heat pump (ASHP) in good
working condition are eligible to participate under the A/C cycling option. Customers
participate by allowing Idaho Power to cycle their A/C unit off and on during demand response
events (events) via a demand response unit (DRU) installed on or near their A/C unit. The
cycling rate is the percentage of an hour the A/C unit is turned off by the DRU. For instance,
with a 50% cycling rate, the DRU will cycle the A/C unit off for about 30 (non-consecutive)
minutes of each hour.
In March 2025, the company applied with the IPUC to add a new smart thermostat option to
the A/C Cool Credit program in Case No. IPC-E-25-09. The commission approved the company's
application in Order No. 36680 in July 2025, and the company subsequently initiated work with
a third-party vendor to facilitate the offering. Accordingly, customers with qualifying smart
thermostats who have central air conditioning are eligible to participate under the Bring Your
Own Thermostat (BYOT) option. Customers participate by allowing the third-party vender to
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 27

Residential Sector—
A/C Cool Credit
adjust the temperature on their smart thermostats when Idaho Power calls events.
The company will begin marketing the BYOT option to customers in 2026.
Program event parameters are listed below:'
• Events occur during the program season, June 15 through September 15
(excluding weekends, Independence Day, and Labor Day).
• A minimum of three events will occur each program season.
• Events can last up to four hours per day.
• Events will not exceed 16 hours per week or 60 hours per season.
Participating customers receive a $5.00 credit on their July, August, September, and October
Idaho Power bills.
After enrollment, participating customers in the A/C cycling option receive a $5.00 credit on
their July, August, September, and October Idaho Power bills. New A/C Cool Credit participants
electing to enroll in the BYOT option receive a $50 enrollment incentive and, after 12 months of
participating in the program, receive a $5.00 credit on their July, August, September,
and October Idaho Power bills for participating in more than 50% of eligible event hours.
Program Activities
In 2025, 16,235 customers participated in the program, with 166 in Oregon and 16,069 in
Idaho. Table 10 provides details for the five events that occurred. The cycling rate was 55%for
three of the events and 50%for two of the events.
Idaho Power calculated the maximum potential demand reduction in 2025 to be 22.0 MW at
the generation level. This program potential is based on the historical maximum demand
reduction achieved during a 65% cycling event, which equates to a generation level reduction of
1.36 kilowatt (kW) per participant. Customers participating in the A/C cycling option receive a
$5.00 incentive for each month of participation between June 15 and September 15, resulting
in a total annual incentive potential of$20.00. The credits appear on their July through October
bill statements. The company did not have any customers participating in its BYOT option
during the 2025 demand response season.
'Program parameters do not apply to system emergencies.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 28

Residential Sector—
A/C Cool Credit
Table 10. A/C Cool Credit demand response event details
Event Date Event Time(p.m.) Cycling Rate High Temperature(°F)
July 14 6-9 55% 99.5
July 29 6-10 50% 96.5
August 12 4-8 50% 100.9
August 18 5-8 55% 91.9
September 2 5-8 55% 96.9
Marketing Activities
Idaho Power actively marketed the A/C Cool Credit program in 2025.
In the spring and summer, the company used phone calls, direct-mail letters, and home visits
(leaving door hangers for those not home) to recruit customers moving into houses with
existing DRUB and previous program participants who moved into new homes without DRUB.
Additionally, a postcard reminder was sent to all current participants reminding them of the
upcoming season. April through June, web users were exposed to 475,034 promotional display
ads (animated GIF image ads embedded on a website) based on their demographics, related to
online articles they viewed, or their use of a particular mobile web page or app. Users clicked
the ads 22,342 times, resulting in a click-through rate of 4.70%.
01
a`
' - r
1
K, �' �� � �� " '� 1' � * 1� r 'fit►" 1
•
fps
Figure 9. Customer email header
The company also sent three recruitment letters to over 77,900 residential customers,
encouraging them to sign up, as well as two recruitment emails in May and June. The two
emails resulted in 36,766 emails delivered and a 52% open rate.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 29

Residential Sector—
A/C Cool Credit
Participating customers received a thank you and credit reminder message on their summer
bills, and Idaho Power concluded the season by sending a thank you postcard and email
to participants.
Cost-Effectiveness
Idaho Power determines cost-effectiveness for its demand response programs using the
approved method for valuing demand response under IPUC Order No. 35336 and approved by
the OPUC on February 8, 2022, in Docket No. ADV 1355. Using financial and avoided cost
assumptions from the 2023 Integrated Resource Plan, the defined cost-effective threshold for
operating Idaho Power's three demand response programs for the maximum allowable
60 hours is $64.03 per kW under the current program parameters.
The A/C Cool Credit program was dispatched for five events that included 16,235 households
and achieved a maximum actual demand reduction of 14.6 MW with a maximum potential
demand reduction of 22.1 MW. The total expense for 2025 was $1,175,421 and would have
remained the same if the program had been fully used for 60 hours because there are no
additional variable incentives paid for events called beyond the three minimum required
events. Using the total cost and the maximum potential demand reduction results in a program
cost of$53.22 per kW. This is less than the threshold, and therefore, the program was
cost-effective. In 2025, $100,700 in expenses was incurred for the A/C Cool Credit program to
support third-party vendor start-up costs for the BYOT option. With these costs excluded,
the cost associated with the A/C Cycling option is $48.66 per kW. A complete description of the
cost-effectiveness of Idaho Power's demand response programs is included in Supplement 1:
Cost-Effectiveness.
Evaluations
In 2025, in addition to an internal review to evaluate the demand reduction over the course of
the five events, an evaluator was hired to perform impact and process evaluation on the
program. The complete reports are available in Supplement 2: Evaluation. This section presents
a summary of the results.
Idaho Power Demand Reduction Analysis
The actual demand reduction was calculated by comparing the actual average demand for
participating customers on each of the five event days to a corresponding baseline.
Average hourly demand reduction by participant for each event and the maximum hourly
demand reduction achieved by all participants for each event are shown in Table 11. In addition
to calculating actual demand reduction, the number of households during each event that did
not produce a statistically noticeable demand reduction was quantified and reported as
non-contributing.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 30

Residential Sector—
A/C Cool Credit
Table 11. A/C Cool Credit event metrics
Event Time Non-Contribution Average Hourly Demand Total Demand Reduction All
Event Date (p.m.) Ratio Reduction per Participant(kW) Participants(MW)
July 14 6-9 13.6% 0.89 14.6
July 29 6-10 16.8% 0.67 11.0
August 12 4-8 22.7% 0.72 11.7
August 18 5-8 21.2% 0.62 10.1
September 2 5-8 21.6% 0.75 12.2
The first event on July 14 achieved an average hourly demand reduction of 0.89 kW per
participant for a total actual demand reduction of 14.6 MW (with system losses); Figure 10
compares actual versus baseline demand for this event. The complete set of graphs comparing
actual versus baseline demand for each event is available in Supplement 2: Evaluation.
4.00
3.50
Actual kW
3.00
2.50 0` Baseline kW
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Hour Ending
Figure 10. A/C Cool Credit:average household results for July 14 event
Third-Party Evaluation
The evaluators found that Idaho Power achieves accurate savings through a consistent code
that provides results based on raw meter data from participants. In 2024, the program
determined savings using a sample of the participants that accurately reflected the
overall performance.
Listed in the following paragraphs are key recommendations from the evaluation (in italics)
followed by Idaho Power's response. See the complete impact and process evaluation report in
Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 31

Residential Sector—
A/C Cool Credit
Continue using the current model to claim savings.
Response: Idaho Power will continue using the current model to calculate A/C Cool Credit
reductions until a new model would better reflect participant behavior.
Analyze all participants to determine the demand reduction.
Response: Idaho Power included all A/C Cool Credit participants in its calculations of program
impacts, and the company will continue using this comprehensive approach. While the
evaluation found a randomized sampling approach may be viable, reviewing all participants
each year ensures demand-reduction estimates remain accurate, consistent, and reflective of
real program performance.
Exclude results from events where the participant's average kW for event hours varies
because of temperature changes across the event.
Response: Idaho Power plans to follow this recommendation moving forward by identifying
demand response events where sudden or abnormal weather patterns occurred. Idaho Power
will continue to calculate and publish results for these events in the same manner but will
exclude these occurrences from season averages. There were no abnormal weather events in
the 2025 season and any instances moving forward will be clearly noted in the company's
season-end reporting. This change will help ensure transparency while maintaining consistent
calculations that are less susceptible to potential outliers.
Clarify the definition of a Non-Contributing Household(NCH) and how the NCH percentage
is calculated.
Response: Idaho Power will update its documentation of each step of the NCH classification
process to ensure it aligns with the methodology used. As part of this work, definitions will be
refined, documentation on how devices are identified as NCH will be updated, and the
calculation steps will match the actual logic applied in the model. If necessary, the model will be
adjusted so its structure and calculations fully align with the updated definitions. This will help
ensure transparency, consistency, and accuracy in how NCH percentages are reported.
Continue ongoing edits on the program handbook and consider adding a definitions section
and a links/file path location section.
Response: Idaho Power agrees to continue refining the program handbook to improve clarity
and usability for both internal and external stakeholders, and will continue with ongoing
updates to the handbook, including incorporation of a dedicated definitions section to ensure
key terms and processes are clearly explained.
Additionally, a new section will be added to provide links and file path locations for supporting
documents, resources, and related program materials. Including this information will help users
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report

Residential Sector—
A/C Cool Credit
quickly find the references they need and ensure the handbook remains a reliable and
easy-to-navigate resource as the program evolves.
Consider smart thermostat capabilities.
Response: Idaho Power contracted with a smart thermostat demand response vendor in 2025
to make a smart thermostat option available within the A/C Cool Credit program for residential
customers. Beginning in 2026, the company will market the option and enroll participants
which will provide demand reduction benefits in the active 2026 demand response season.
Consider offering an enrollment bonus.
Response: Idaho Power will offer an enrollment incentive for new demand response customers
who enroll in the smart thermostat option within A/C Cool Credit. Currently, providing an
enrollment bonus for participants of the A/C cycling option is not cost-effective. However,
the company will continue to evaluate this annually and reassess whether changing conditions
would allow an enrollment incentive to be offered to A/C cycling participants in the future.
2026 Plans
Idaho Power will continue to actively market the A/C Cool Credit program to solicit new
participants with a strong focus on recruiting customers who live at a residence that currently
has a DRU that was installed for a previous occupant.
Idaho Power will continue to direct customers to the awareness video on its website to help
educate customers about what the A/C Cool Credit program does and how it can benefit
customers. Additionally, the company will continue to include a quick response (QR) code on all
marketing materials to direct customers to the awareness video.
The company will begin marketing its newly approved BYOT option to customers in Idaho to
enroll them in the option. The company will begin realizing benefits for the option during the
2026 program season. With this option, customers can participate in A/C Cool Credit events
through their smart thermostats as an alternative option to the current A/C cycling option that
uses DRUB.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 33

_`4l%....� �
Residential Sector—
Educational Distributions
Educational Distributions
2025 2024
Participation and Savings'
Participants(kits/giveaways) 51,663 53,983
Energy Savings(kWh) 4,164,401 3,900,277
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider $812,932 $737,775
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider $19,324 $13,280
Idaho Power Base Rates $0 $0
Total Program Costs—All Sources $832,256 $751,055
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.028 $0.028
Total Resource Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.028 $0.028
Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.27 2.31
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.62 2.69
'For jurisdictional-level participation and savings details,see Appendix 4.
Description
Designated as a specific program in 2015, the Educational Distributions effort is administered
through the REED and seeks to use low-cost and no-cost channels to deliver energy efficiency
items with energy savings directly to customers. The goal for these distributions is to drive
behavioral change and create awareness of, and demand for, energy efficiency programs in
Idaho Power's service area.
Idaho Power selects items for distribution if the initial analysis indicates the measure is either
currently cost-effective or expected to be cost-effective. Typically, selected items have
additional benefits beyond traditional energy savings, such as educating customers about
energy efficiency, expediting the opportunity for customers to experience newer technology,
or allowing Idaho Power to gather data or validate potential energy savings resulting from
behavior change.
Idaho Power recognizes the need to educate and guide customers to promote behavioral
change and awareness and will plan program activities accordingly. Items may be distributed
at events and presentations, through direct-mail, or during home visits conducted by
energy advisors.
Nightlights as Giveaways
Nightlights are a popular giveaway item with Idaho Power customers and provide
another opportunity to share information about energy efficient LED technology and safe,
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 34

_`Ill%�...�
Residential Sector—
Educational Distributions
energy-efficient ways to provide nighttime lighting. Energy advisors are encouraged to use
nightlights as a bridge to these discussions.
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program
The SEEK program provides fourth-to sixth-grade students in schools in Idaho Power's service
area with quality, age-appropriate instruction regarding the wise use of electricity. Each child
who participates receives an energy efficiency kit. The products in the kit are selected
specifically to encourage energy savings at home and engage families in activities that support
and reinforce the concepts taught at school.
Once a class enrolls in the program, teachers receive curriculum and supporting materials.
Students receive classroom study materials, a workbook, and a take-home kit containing
the following:
• Two LED lightbulbs
• A high-efficiency showerhead
• Two LED nightlights
• A furnace filter alarm
• A digital thermometer for measuring water and refrigerator/freezer temperatures
• A water flow-rate test bag
• A shower timer
• Sticker and magnet pack (containing reminders about energy efficiency)
vt
77
ma�cr- y N11':• Qi
Figure 11. Student Energy Efficiency Kit
At the end of the program, students and teachers return feedback to Idaho Power's vendor
indicating how the program was received, and which measures were installed. The vendor uses
this feedback to provide a comprehensive program summary report showing program results
and savings.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 35

Residential Sector—
Educational Distributions
Unlike most residential programs offered by Idaho Power, SEEK results are reported on a
school-year basis, not by calendar year.
Welcome Kits
Idaho Power uses a vendor to mail Welcome Kits to brand new customers between 35 and
45 days after electric service begins at their residence. Each kit contains two LED lightbulbs,
two nightlights, a greeting card, and a small flipbook containing energy-saving tips and
information about Idaho Power's energy efficiency programs. The kits are intended to
encourage first-time customers to adopt energy-efficient behaviors early in their new homes.
. j�i'At '1cul adE ti ti
Figure 12. Welcome Kit
Program Activities
Nightlights as Giveaways
Idaho Power continued to distribute LED nightlights to engage customers in discussions around
energy-efficient behavior changes and home upgrades.
In-person events scheduled throughout the year afforded Idaho Power staff and energy
advisors the opportunity to distribute 7,455 nightlights along with an educational message.
Nightlights were distributed to business and community leaders at civic events,
aging customers at senior centers, secondary students at career fairs and during presentations,
as well as many other groups at presentations and events throughout Idaho Power's
service area.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 36

­9ll%�...
Residential Sector—
Educational Distributions
Lt.We this LED
Mry, •� ,
- ' �4` v�Ya r'+,r�'^�tr,�`ii�u� f•'ic��C r �ati�:ff{m r
TI n�, r aG
Figure 13. Nightlight
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program
During the 2024-2025 school year, the vendor was responsible for SEEK recruiting activities.
Idaho Power EOEAs continued to promote the program during their school visits and
interactions with fourth-to sixth-grade teachers. The curriculum, focusing on digital
engagement, continues to be well received, and SEEK enrollments were strong. The vendor
delivered 11,975 kits to 358 classrooms in 182 schools within Idaho Power's service area
(Table 12), resulting in 3,301 MWh of savings.
In the 2024 evaluation, the evaluator suggested that Idaho Power "consider adjusting the
projected increase in gas efficiency parameter in the filter whistle savings equation. At a
minimum, reviewing the source for the 0.92% used in ex-ante calculations (and potentially
adjusting that value to closer to 15%) seems worthwhile." Idaho Power reviewed the
recommendation and found that some of the assumptions that were used to determine the
15% savings were not applicable and made the decision to continue to use the more
conservative 0.92% savings.
Welcome Kits
Idaho Power continued to contract with a third-party vendor to distribute energy efficiency kits
to the company's first-time customers. Each welcome kit recipient received two 800-lumen
lightbulbs and two nightlights along with a flip book highlighting the residential energy
efficiency programs and additional energy-saving tips.
The company shipped over 32,000 Welcome Kits to Idaho customers in 2025, and over 500 kits
to Oregon customers (Table 12). Idaho Power continues to receive positive customer feedback
indicating these kits are well received.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 37

_`4l%�...�
Residential Sector—
Educational Distributions
Table 12. Welcome Kit and SEEK distribution by region
Region SEEK Distribution Welcome Kit Distribution
Capital 4,841 17,050
Southern 2,610 3,642
Canyon 1,594 6,953
Eastern 1,450 3,042
Western Idaho 1,187 1,513
Oregon 293 566
Total 11,975 32,766
Marketing Activities
Nightlights as Giveaways
Nightlights are not marketed as a separate measure, but energy advisors use them to facilitate
energy efficiency conversations during customer visits. Nightlights have also become an
outstanding way to engage customers at events and presentations, as energy advisors report
they are a sought-after item.
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program
During the 2024-2025 school year, the vendor staff handled most of the marketing and
recruitment of teachers via email and phone calls to the eligible schools. Idaho Power EOEAs
continued to promote the program through the Idaho Power Community Education Guide and
in conversations with teachers throughout the year.
Welcome Kits
The Welcome Kits are not requested by customers; therefore, they are not marketed. Instead,
each week Idaho Power sends a list of new customers to the vendor to fulfill orders. The kits
are, however, used to cross-market other programs through the inclusion of a small flipbook
containing energy-saving tips and information about Idaho Power's energy efficiency programs.
Cost-Effectiveness
In situations where Idaho Power managed energy efficiency education and distribution through
existing channels, the cost-effectiveness calculations were based on the actual cost of the
items. If outside vendors were used to assist with distribution, the cost-effectiveness
calculations may include vendor-related charges.
The UCT and TRC for the program are 2.27 and 2.62, respectively.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 38

_"4l%....
Residential Sector—
Educational Distributions
Nightlights as Giveaways
Idaho Power used the third-party evaluator's calculated savings of 12 kWh per nightlight as
explained in the Welcome Kit cost-effectiveness section.
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program
The cost-effectiveness analysis for the SEEK offering was based on the savings reported by the
kit provider for the 2024-2025 school year. The kit provider calculated the annual savings based
on information collected from the participants' home surveys and the installation rate of the kit
items. Questions on the survey included the number of individuals in each home, water heater
fuel type, flow rate of old showerheads, and the wattage of any replaced lightbulbs.
The response rate for the survey was approximately 70%. The survey gathers information on
the efficiency level of the existing measure within the home and which measures were
installed. The energy savings will vary for each household based on the measures offered within
the kit, the number of items installed, and the existing measure that was replaced.
Savings were calculated for the 2024-2025 school year using the kit provider's calculated
savings as well as a third-party deemed value of 12 kWh per nightlight within the kits.
The savings for each kit averaged approximately 279 kWh annually per household, and the total
program saved 3,301,349 kWh. A copy of the report is included in Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Welcome Kits
For the nightlight component of the kit, Idaho Power used the third-party evaluator's calculated
savings of 12 kWh per nightlight, which was identified using survey data as part of a
2020 evaluation and verified again in the 2024 evaluation. For kits distributed after June 30,
2023, Idaho Power did not claim savings for the LED lightbulbs; however, the company
continued to claim 12 kWh per nightlight included in the kit. In 2024, the Welcome Kits were
not fully cost-effective due to the erosion of lighting savings. After consulting the EEAG in 2021,
the decision was made to keep this educational offering, but to include only the cost-effective
portion of costs associated with those energy savings in the Educational Distribution program;
the remainder of the kit costs are included in the REEEI budget (see Other Program and
Activities section).
2026 Plans
Nightlights as Giveaways
Nightlights will continue to be the primary opportunity to garner savings in conjunction with
educational discussions and customer conversations. Field staff will look for opportunities to
discuss enhancements in LED technology (dusk-to-dawn sensors, etc.); promote the use of LED
nightlights as an energy-efficient, safe nighttime lighting option; and encourage in-home
adoption of other energy-saving behaviors.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 39

Residential Sector—
Educational Distributions
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program
Idaho Power will continue to offer the SEEK program. The company will work with the vendor
to implement process and curriculum enhancements based on suggestions received from
teachers, students, and parents.
The company will continue to leverage the positive relationships Idaho Power's EOEAs have
within the schools to maintain program participation levels.
Welcome Kits
Idaho Power will continue to offer Welcome Kits to first-time customers, working to raise
awareness of energy efficiency programs and encourage adoption of energy-saving behaviors at
a prime readiness moment—when moving into their new homes. The company will continue to
explore additional cost-effective items to potentially add to the kit. The Educational
Distributions program will continue to count the savings and pay for the cost-effective
energy-saving portion of each kit, while the remaining costs associated with the kits will be
included in Idaho Power's REED efforts.
Other Educational Distributions
In 2026, Idaho Power will begin offering low-flow thermostatic shower valve showerheads as
part of its giveaways. These showerheads will be distributed at the same events where
nightlights are currently provided. Each showerhead will include a tip card explaining its
functionality and outlining potential energy savings for customers with electric water heaters.
Idaho Power will continue to look for opportunities to engage customers with new technologies
that stress the importance of energy-efficient behaviors at home. Idaho Power intends to
continue efforts to identify a cost-effective marketplace platform that will engage and educate
customers as well as look to identify other innovative solutions to promote efficient
technologies that may not fold neatly into other program offerings.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 40

Residential Sector—
Heating&Cooling Efficiency Program
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program
2025 2024
Participation and Savings'
Participants(projects) 676 622
Energy Savings(kWh) 809,431 819,224
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider $384,961 $331,068
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider $21,121 $27,002
Idaho Power Base Rates $141,812 $160,935
Total Program Costs—All Sources $547,895 $519,004
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.066 $0.062
Total Resource Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.387 $0.266
Benefit/Cost Ratios'
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.89 0.95
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.17 0.39
'For jurisdictional-level participation and savings details,see Appendix 4.
22025 cost-effectiveness ratios include evaluation.If evaluation expenses were removed from the program's cost-effectiveness,
the 2025 UCT and TRC would be 1.02 and 0.24,respectively.
Description
Initiated in 2007, the objective of the Heating & Cooling Efficiency (H&CE) Program is to provide
customers with energy-efficient options for space heating/cooling and water heating.
The program provides incentives to residential customers, builders, landlords, and installation
contractors in Idaho Power's service area for the purchase and proper installation of qualified
heating and cooling equipment and services. Measures, conditions, and incentives/stipends for
new homes and existing homes are summarized in tables 13 and 14, respectively.
See idahopower.com/heatingcooling for a complete description of the program.
Table 13. Measures and incentives—new homes
New Equipment or Services Customer Incentive Contractor Stipend
Ducted air-source heat pump $ 800 $ 50
Ducted open-loop water-source heat pump 1,000 50
Ducted ground-source heat pump 3,000
Central A/C(high efficiency)' 50
Central A/C(higher efficiency)' 150
Heat pump water heater 300
'See idahopower.com/heatingcooling for full requirements.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 41

R�esilential Sector—
Heating&Coolin ncy Program
Table 14. Measures and incentives—existing homes
Customer Contractor
Existing Equipment Requirement' New Equipment or Services' Incentive Payment
Oil or propane heating system Ducted air-source heat pump $ 800 $ 50
Electric(forced-air or zonal)heating system Ducted air-source heat pump 800 50
Ducted air-source heat pump Ducted open-loop water-source heat pump 500 50
Electric(forced-air or zonal),oil,or propane Ducted open-loop water-source heat pump 1,000 50
heating system
Air-source heat pump Ducted ground-source heat pump 1,000
Electric zonal system,electric furnace,or an oil Ducted ground-source heat pump 3,000
or propane furnace
n/a Central A/C(high efficiency)' 50
n/a Central A/C(higher efficiency)' 150
Zonal electric heating system Ductless air-source heat pump 500
Electric forced-air heating system or heat pump Duct-sealing services(single-family or 200
manufactured home)
Permanent split capacitor air handler motor Electronically commutated motor 50 1502
n/a Evaporative cooler 150
Electric storage water heater Heat pump water heater 300
Electric heating system Smart thermostat 50
Zonal or central A/C or heat pump Whole-house fan 200
'Seeidahopo er.com/heatingcooling for full requirements.
z Contractor stipends(to offset labor costs)are$50;contractor incentive of$150 is to encourage promotion.
Idaho Power requires licensed contractors to perform the installation services related to these
measures, except evaporative coolers, heat pump water heaters, and smart thermostats.
To qualify for the ducted ASHP, ducted open-loop water-source heat pump, ductless ASHP, and
duct-sealing incentives, an authorized participating contractor must perform the work. To be
considered a participating contracting company, the employee(s) from the contracting
company must first complete Idaho Power's required orientation training regarding program
requirements and technical information on HVAC equipment.
A third-party contractor reviews, enters, and submits incentive applications for payment using
a program database portal developed by Idaho Power. The third-party contractor also provides
technical and program support to customers and their contractors and performs
installation verifications.
Program Activities
H&CE Program performance is largely dependent on the ability of the customers' contractors to
promote, leverage, and successfully administer the heat pump measures offered. Idaho Power
continued to engage with and develop participating contractors already in the program while
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 42

R�esilential Sector—
Heating&Coolin ncy Program
adding 14 additional contractors in 202S. The program specialist frequently engaged with
contractors to discuss the program and provided technical assistance and market information.
Eleven H&CE Program web pages highlighted the availability of federal tax credits in 2025 for
high efficiency space heating, space cooling, and water heating appliances. The tax credits were
offered to homeowners as a part of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) and were
marketed on the federal Energy Star website. These tax credits expired December 31, 2025.
The tax credit highlights on the 11 H&CE Program web pages were subsequently removed.
The number of H&CE Program incentives paid in 2025 are listed in Table 15.
Table 15. Quantity of H&CE Program incentives in 2025
Incentive Measure Total Idaho Oregon
Ducted Air-Source Heat Pump 123 117 6
Open-Loop Water-Source Heat Pump 3 3
Ductless Heat Pump 176 170 6
Evaporative Cooler 2 2
Whole-House Fan 70 70
Electronically Commutated Motor 13 13
Duct-Sealing 8 8
Smart Thermostat 207 206 1
Heat Pump Water Heater 21 21
Central A/C 52 52
Ground-Source Heat Pump 1 1
In 2025, the company evaluated the program's existing measures by applying the DSM avoided
costs from the newly filed 2025 IRP to determine what changes would be warranted for 2026.
As a result, two measures were identified as candidates for incentive amount adjustments
scheduled for January 2026. The new DSM avoided costs show a shift in avoided cost benefit
values from the winter months to the summer months. The incentive for the ductless heat
pump (DHP) measure, which realizes more savings in the winter months, was reduced to keep
the measure cost-effective. The incentives for two central A/C measures, which realize more
savings in the summer months and therefore will see an overall increase in their benefit values,
were raised with the goal of improving measure participation and overall program
cost-effectiveness. The company presented these changes to EEAG in Idaho at the November
meeting and to the Oregon EEAG at the December meeting. Also in November, the company
applied with the OPUC for the incentive changes in ADV 1807/Advice No. 25-10, which was
adopted by the Commission at its December 23, 2025, public meeting.
Marketing Activities
Idaho Power used multiple marketing tactics for its H&CE Program promotion in 2025.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 43

Residential Sector—
Heating&Cooling Efficiency Program
In February, the company emailed information about the H&CE Program to approximately
337,755 residential customers. The promotion was opened by 161,032 customers and received
2,611 clicks to the H&CE Program web page. A Facebook ad also ran from February to March
and had 431,970 impressions resulting in 2,614 clicks to the web page.
Additional tactics included digital ads in February and March. The digital display ads received
2,207,240 impressions resulting in 21,205 clicks to the web page.
Program information was also included in energy efficiency collateral mailed in the new
customer Welcome Kits.
Inserts were sent in bills to promote the program—once in February to 295,058 customers and
again in September to 294,246 customers. Both inserts also included information on applicable
federal tax credits, which could help customers save more money when combined with
the Idaho Power incentive. The program and applicable tax credits were also promoted on
social media.
Idaho Power communicated about the end of federal tax incentives for heating and cooling
equipment by including a reminder article in the December issue of The Current, the monthly
e-newsletter. The message encouraged customers to take advantage of the tax credits before
the December 31, 2025, deadline. The newsletter was sent to 350,767 customers and opened
by 121,484. A coordinated Facebook post in December reinforced the same message.
Cost-Effectiveness
In 2025, the H&CE Program had a UCT of 0.89 and TRC of 0.17.
Overall, program participation increased from 622 in 2024 to 676 in 2025, an increase of 8.7%.
Despite the increase in program participation, overall savings declined. The increase in
participation was primarily in measures with lower savings, either based on the measure or
because it was installed in a heating and cooling zone with lower savings, as compared to 2024.
In 2025, the H&CE Program included $69,035 in administrative expenses from both a process
and impact evaluation, representing about 22% of total H&CE Program administrative expenses
for 2025. Without the evaluation cost, the program would have a UCT and TRC ratio of 1.02 and
0.18, respectively, which is an improvement from the UCT perspective over 2024. The next
scheduled process and impact evaluations for the program are in 2029.
The TRC calculation includes tax credits for the participant. As part of the IRA, tax credits are
available for ASHPs, open-loop heat pumps, ground-source heat pumps, DHPs, heat pump
water heaters, and central A/C units that meet certain efficiency standards. These tax credits
range from $600 to $9,000. The inclusion of the tax credit offsets the participants' costs used in
the TRC calculation. Most of these tax credits expired on December 31, 2025.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 44

R�esilential Sector—
Heating&Coolin ncy Program
DHPs made up 26% of the program participation and total savings. Year over year,
DHP applications increased 25% driven by increased contractor marketing and
customer awareness.
For detailed information about the cost-effectiveness savings, sources, calculations,
and assumptions, see Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness.
Evaluations
In 2025, Idaho Power contracted with a third-party evaluator to conduct an impact and process
evaluation of the H&CE Program. The evaluators found a successfully run program that stays
current with baseline requirements and market conditions for measures. Overall,
the evaluation team found that the program's savings calculations are accurate and
well-documented; the realization rate calculated by the evaluators was 90.7%.
Listed below are key recommendations from the evaluation (in italics) followed by
Idaho Power's response. See the complete impact and process evaluation report in
Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Update the zip code match.
Response: Idaho Power has updated its zip code data and has refined its process for linking
program participants to their appropriate heating and cooling zone. The savings calculated in
this 2025 report reflect the updated process.
Consider reincorporating the heat pump upgrade measure.
Response: Idaho Power accepts this recommendation under advisement. Idaho Power
currently participates with the RTF and other regional stakeholders in the re-evaluation of all
centrally ducted ASHP measures published by the RTF. This work will continue in 2026.
The results of any development to the currently deactivated centrally ducted ASHP upgrade
measure will be included in the Demand-Side Management 2026 Annual Report.
Investigate the best use for contractor stipends.
Response: Idaho Power does not plan to expand the strategic use of the current stipends
offered to the authorized participating contractors beyond the intended purpose of offsetting
labor costs for administrative time used to process certain incentives.
Study the contractor-installed smart thermostats controlling heat pumps.
Response: Idaho Power accepts this recommendation under advisement. Idaho Power
currently participates with the RTF and other regional stakeholders in the evaluation of the
smart thermostat measure published by the RTF. This work will continue in 2026. The results of
any development to the measure will be included in the Demand-Side Management 2026
Annual Report.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 45

Residential Sector—
Heating&Cooling Efficiency Program
Consider a smart thermostat tune-up measure.
Response: Idaho Power accepts this recommendation under advisement. Idaho Power
currently participates with the RTF and other regional stakeholders in the evaluation of a
potential comprehensive new measure centered on the recommissioning (tune-up) of existing
centrally ducted air-source heat pumps in the region. The recommissioning will include, in part,
several smart thermostat control adjustments. This work will continue in 2026. The results of
any development to the measure will be included in the Demand-Side Management 2026
Annual Report.
Update whole house fan deemed savings value for residences.
Response: Idaho Power will consider this recommendation and make any required changes to
deemed savings. A description of any changes will be included in the Demand-Side
Management 2026 Annual Report.
Provide training to installers to use the HVI-916 airflow values when sizing equipment.
Response: Idaho Power does not plan to train installers to use product ratings derived from the
Home Ventilating Institute HVI-916 test procedure. The company continues to require the
customer of an existing home to ensure the installation of the whole house fan meets the
manufacturer's requirements and all federal, state, and local statutes. This includes, if required
by a government agency, any certification associated with the whole house fan's product
ratings derived from the HVI 916 test procedure.
Provide guidance to installers and homeowners that fans operating at partial speed are more
energy efficient than the same fan at full speed.
Response: Idaho Power does not plan to alter the guidance provided to customers to include
encouragement to operate the fan at a low-speed setting on a multi-speed whole house fan.
This practice can produce insufficient space cooling resulting in the need for the mechanical
cooling system to be manually re-energized.
2026 Plans
As discussed in the Program Activities section above, changes to the incentive levels for DHPs
and central A/Cs were made, effective January 1, 2026. Specifically, the DHP incentive was
reduced from $500 to $400, and the A/C incentives for units with a SEER rating between
15 and 17 and units with at least a 17 SEER rating were increased from $50 and $150 to
$100 and $250, respectively.
Idaho Power's goal in 2026 is to continue adding new contractors and to develop existing
contractors currently in the H&CE Program that administer the incentives for ducted ASHP,
ductless ASHP, open-loop water-source heat pumps, and duct-sealing. The program specialist
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 46

Residential Sector—
Heating&_"4%l.. Cooling Efficiency Program
will frequently interact with the contractors and continue to provide program guidance and
technical support to assist them in meeting the H&CE Program requirements and further their
product and installation knowledge. This remains an important part of the program because it
creates the opportunity to diversify with additional contractors while offering refresher
knowledge for existing participating contractors. This helps them increase customer
participation while improving their work quality and program compliance.
The 2026 marketing strategy will include bill inserts, direct-mail, social media, digital and
search advertising, and email marketing to promote individual measures as well as the
overall program.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 47

Residential Sector—
Home Energy Audit
Home Energy Audit
2025 2024
Participation and Savings'
Participants(audits) 310 235
Energy Savings(kWh) 10,339 19,407
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider $115,931 $72,571
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider $0 $0
Idaho Power Base Rates $85,641 $85,715
Total Program Costs—All Sources $201,572 $158,287
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost($/kWh) $2.252 $0.942
Total Resource Levelized Cost($/kWh) $2.606 $1.286
Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio n/a n/a
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio n/a n/a
'For jurisdictional-level participation and savings details,see Appendix 4.
Description
Initiated in 2014, the Home Energy Audit program was designed to provide residential
customers with helpful tools and tailored information to reduce energy consumption in their
homes. Under the Home Energy Audit program, a certified, third-party home performance
specialist conducts an in-home energy audit to identify areas of concern and provide specific
recommendations to improve the efficiency, comfort, and health of the home. The audit
includes a visual inspection of the crawlspace and attic, a health and safety inspection, and a
blower door test to identify and locate air leaks. The home performance specialist collects
information on types and quantities of appliances and lighting in each home, then determines
which available energy efficiency measures are appropriate. Homeowners and/or landlords
approve all direct-install measures prior to installation, which could include the following:
• Up to 20 LED lightbulbs
• One high-efficiency showerhead with thermostatic shower valve
• Pipe insulation from the water heater to the home wall (approximately 3 feet)
• Tier 2 Advanced Power Strip
The home performance specialist collects energy-use data and records the quantity of
measures installed during the audit using specialized software. After the audit, the auditor
writes up the findings and recommendations, and the software creates a report for
the customer.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 48

Residential Sector—
Home Energy Audit
To qualify for the Home Energy Audit program, a participant must live in Idaho and be the
Idaho Power customer of record for the home. Renters must have prior written permission
from the landlord. Single-family, site-built homes, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes qualify,
though multifamily homes must have individual, separate heating systems and meters for
each unit. Manufactured homes, new construction, or buildings with more than four units do
not qualify.
Interested customers fill out an online application. If they do not have access to a computer,
or prefer talking directly to a person, Idaho Power accepts applications over the phone.
Participants are assigned a home performance specialist based on geographical location to save
travel time and expense.
Participating customers pay $99 (all-electric homes) or $149 (other homes: gas, propane,
or other fuel sources) for the audit and installation of measures, with the remaining cost
covered by the Home Energy Audit program. The difference in cost covers the additional testing
necessary for homes that are not all-electric. These types of energy audits normally cost $400
or more, not including the select energy-saving measures, materials, and labor. The retail cost
of the materials available to install in each home is approximately $145.
Program Activities
Four home performance specialist companies served the program in 2025 and completed
310 energy audits. The number and percentage of audited homes per heating fuel type are
listed in Table 16.
Table 16. Number and percentage of audited homes by heating fuel type,2025
Fuel Type Number of Homes Percent'
Electric 79 25.57%
Natural Gas 218 70.55%
Oil 2 0.65%
Propane 8 2.59%
Wood 2 0.65%
'Totals may not sum due to rounding.
The City of Boise collaborated with the company to offer Boise residents no-cost residential
home energy audits in 2025. The city contributed funds to offset the residents' portion of the
already discounted audit offered by Idaho Power, which was $99 for electrically heated homes
and $149 for homes heated with all other fuels. The collaboration resulted in 147 Boise
residents receiving no-cost audits.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 49

Residential Sector—
Home Energy Audit
Marketing Activities
In 2025, several tactics were used to promote the program. A bill insert was sent to
283,781 residential customers in May and 284,318 in June. Also in June, a digital ad appeared
in the company's e-newsletter, The Current, directing customers to the Home Energy Audit
web page.
In February, a card on the homepage of the idahopower.com website featured the program and
directed customers to the Home Energy Audit web page.
As mentioned above, the company collaborated with the City of Boise to provide residents with
no-cost residential home energy audits. Promotion was led by the City of Boise through its
digital channels, including the mayor's e-newsletter and multiple city agency Facebook pages.
Coverage was also picked up and shared by the online news outlet BoiseDev. Idaho Power
supported the effort by featuring a banner on the Home Energy Audit web page highlighting
the free audits available to Boise customers.
Customers who enrolled in Home Energy Audit throughout the year were asked where they
heard about the program. Responses included the following: information in the mail, 14%;
family member or friend, 11%; Idaho Power employee, 15%; social media, 9%; other, 51%;
did not reply, 0%.
Cost-Effectiveness
One of the goals of the program is to increase participants' understanding of how their home
uses energy and to encourage their participation in Idaho Power's energy efficiency programs.
Because the Home Energy Audit program is primarily an educational and marketing program,
the company does not use the traditional cost-effectiveness tests.
Savings for pipe wrap (approximately 18 kWh per foot, annually) are counted for homes with
electric water heaters. Since pipe wrap is installed in three-foot increments, the savings ranged
from 55 to 111 kWh per home.
The integrated 1.75 gallons per minute (gpm) high-efficiency showerheads with thermostatic
shower valves were installed in three homes. The savings per showerhead are approximately
47 kWh per year.
While Idaho Power does not calculate a cost-effectiveness ratio for the Home Energy Audit
program, the savings benefits and costs associated with direct-install measures have been
included in the sector and portfolio cost-effectiveness.
Customer Education and Satisfaction
On July 12, 2025, an email survey was sent to the 88 home energy audit customers who
participated in the program during the first half of 2025; 12 customers responded.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 50

Residential Sector—
Home Energy Audit
Customers who participated during the second half of 2025 will be surveyed during the first
quarter of 2026. Survey highlights are outlined below. Respondents said their main motivation
to participate in the Home Energy Audit program was to learn how to reduce their home's
energy consumption, followed closely by reducing their monthly utility costs.
• Most respondents (75%) rated the process of scheduling an audit as easy to very easy.
• Most respondents (91.67%) said the auditor arrived on time, asked about concerns, and
discussed energy savings that might be achieved by making the recommended
improvements.
• After the audit, the actions that were most popular were to wash clothes in cold water,
share their experience with relatives/friends, and unplug appliances when not in use.
• The most popular improvement respondents plan to complete is sealing air leaks,
followed by increasing insulation.
• 83.33% of respondents are likely or very likely to recommend the Home Energy Audit
program to friends/relatives.
2026 Plans
Idaho Power will recruit participants through small batches of targeted direct-mailings, emails,
social media posts, and bill inserts. Additional digital advertising may be considered if the
program needs to be strategically promoted in specific regions.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 51

Residential Sector—
Home Energy Report Program
Home Energy Report Program
2025 2024
Participation and Savings'
Participants(homes) 100,875 98,119
Energy Savings(kWh)z 20,507,594 18,596,812
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider $767,603 $783,117
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider $17,423 $0
Idaho Power Base Rates $59,703 $48,998
Total Program Costs—All Sources $844,730 $832,115
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.040 $0.044
Total Resource Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.040 $0.044
Benefit/Cost Ratios'
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.42 1.31
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.56 1.44
'For jurisdictional-level participation and savings details,see Appendix 4.
22025 third-party reported savings of 20,507,594 kWh and 2024 third-party reported savings of 18,596,812 kWh discounted by
0.44%based on evaluated double-counting estimate.Idaho Power reported values shown in the table above reflect the
0.44%discount.
Description
Originating as a pilot in 2017 and expanding to a full-bodied program in 2020, the Home Energy
Report (HER) Program is designed to encourage customers to engage with their home's
electricity use with a goal to produce average annual behavioral savings of 1 to 3%.
The program also promotes customer use of online tools and participation in other energy
efficiency programs. Idaho Power works with a third-party contractor to operate the program.
All active participants in the treatment group receive periodic HERS with information about how
their homes' energy use compares with similar homes. The reports also give a breakdown of
household energy use and offer suggestions to help customers change their energy-related
behaviors. The program contractor estimates energy savings by completing a statistical
comparison of the energy used by customers who receive the reports against the energy used
by a control group. Since the savings estimates rely on the integrity of the experimental design,
participants in both the treatment group (those receiving reports) and the control group are
selected through a random process.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 52

Residential Sector—
Home Energy Report Program
Program Activities
All HER Program participants received reports in the months of May, July, August,
and September. The reports offer valuable insights into home energy usage, highlight areas for
potential energy savings, and continue to compare a home's energy consumption to both an
average and an efficient home. Additionally, the customers received two personalized tips
based on their home's characteristics along with up to two additional tips from Idaho Power.
The reports also featured a graph that displays electric usage trends over time alongside the
average monthly temperatures.
Each report included a helpful tip, reminding customers to update their home profiles so the
reports accurately reflected their household energy use. Unfortunately, due to technical issues
with the third-party contractor's ability to process updated home profiles for customers, the
final reports scheduled for quarter 4 were delayed. Idaho Power has worked with the vendor to
resolve this issue to ensure customers receive accurate and timely information moving forward.
In August, the company introduced the HERS to a new treatment group (wave 7). This group
included 2,389 customers in Oregon and 29,659 customers in Idaho. Each new customer
received a welcome letter with their first report introducing them to the program, explaining
how to read the reports, and listing responses to frequently asked questions. The new
wave 7 treatment group received two email reports (e-HER) and one paper report in 2025.
Idaho Power continued to send eHERs, in addition to paper reports, to participants who had an
email address on file with Idaho Power. A total of 331,671 reports were delivered in 2025
(Table 17).
Table 17. HERs delivered in 2025
#of Email Only #of Paper Only #of Both Email& #of Unique Customers Total Reports
Report Cycle Recipients Recipients Paper Recipients Receiving HERs Delivered
May 138 24,296 50,951 75,385 126,336
June — 2,000 — 2,000 2,000
July 10,458 618 — 16,596 16,596
August 10,171 23,265 51,128 84,564 135,692
September 51,047 — — 51,047 51,047
2025 Report Totals 71,814 50,179 102,079 229,592 331,671
In 2025, the savings results for one of the initial two waves of pilot participants identified as
electric heating customers were not statistically significant as stand-alone cohorts; however,
these participants did contribute to the overall program savings. Overall, the active participants
used an average of 164.09 fewer kWh per home than their control group counterparts.
When viewed in aggregate, the estimated year-to-date savings for all program participants
reached a total savings of 20,598,226 kWh. Program performance across the different waves
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 53

Residential Sector—
Home Energy Report Program
remained consistent; apart from two cohorts (T5 and T7), program participants achieved
significant annual savings ranging between 87.90 kWh and 470.28 kWh per home.
The T5 cohort, categorized as low energy users, stopped receiving reports as of 2020 when it
was determined that they did not achieve statistically significant savings in the pilot program.
The T7 cohort is a new wave that was added in 2025 and, although it is still ramping,
is contributing statistically significant savings.
Idaho Power's customer solutions advisors responded to 453 HER Program-related phone calls
during the year. Given that 331,671 reports were delivered, this represents a call rate of just
under 0.14%. Participant engagement remains high, with very low rates of program departure.
The participant-driven opt-out rate included 93 eHER opt-outs and 284 paper HER opt-outs.
Monthly unsubscribe data for electronic reports peaked in October at 0.2% but remained at 0%
or near-zero for most of the year. Furthermore, the program maintained an excellent
retention profile with an overall attrition rate of 4.07%for the 2025 reporting period,
involving 11,193 inactive accounts across a total population of 274,880.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 54

Residential Sector—
Home Energy Report Program
,��gM�K:_�-`�.:�a,;f�+"•.i:� �:'CitiP�'1'IfJfbi���1��'+t71'i' .. .. .. ,,,.:
✓,,.. , ..I P iJ..n i,VI 14t if 111c.•Liire�0It 1-t..-3
HZ
i ri ° ,c Mtr,q. /1.1!.I,4 Sr=fY,lj rtl- L rLtfl it i
_y�.• (it
1� 1 s•h�Allfi� _ rr.
►`'-�-
"{;.' r,P'iA,1,��d1 N 1�'`�K. '�1�fj,=��,�,13<�� K ,.,�,�. �� , i�h•'
/1 f,pp�����, 4��e yy/ �r T � �- I'171K�•i11rYeI:COMrrn tlU:uin1
�/.i,l�pfj3 1. H'� �1ud1'u ,•p}�"ill ,rtl
ot1 i
��>�(�rkawl � ���,aatdh, ��� -' # �'a s;� lur�;,r ,�1u• ris:axwTt r:�..�,t �,-,,,.
,,i 3�1i1�, ��. ���1�'�,„1 'j+wwr� 'Nl�gfAii�}rYl✓1 ItY$+A{"}� ��b5 your
i I ` 1`' ��
1,3+W�1'�ANr7h+� � )t�omlrYtat�t'�,•pth � /Pfl �Ayi�ijfi4 ��0'�Shu ;�Etl�i� .I;"
Arm a
-0
r • � �.. ( -}r $tile? 1 1► / •_'fk,j��"-i..�.,.�s�'j
Nit
S►fi191 M. - 7�-vc�dl; 9, P sr irs r�_ raew�..vprq , K�r
Figure 14. Page 1 of the Home Energy Report
Marketing Activities
Because the HER Program is based on a randomized control trial (RCT) methodology,
the reports cannot be requested by customers, therefore the program is not marketed.
The HER were used to cross-market Idaho Power's other energy efficiency programs
(i.e., Home Energy Audits and H&CE Program).
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 55

Residential Sector—
Home Energy Report Program
Evaluations
In 2025 Idaho Power contracted with a third-party evaluator to conduct an impact evaluation of
the HER Program. The evaluator found there were statistically significant electric savings
associated with participation in the program for five out of six customer groups.
Idaho Power also contracted with the third-party evaluator to conduct separate research on the
viability of switching from the current randomized control trial method of determining program
savings to a deemed savings approach. This research was commissioned in response to
Order No. 36331, which directed the company to explore alternatives to the randomized
control group method used to statistically validate savings that would allow all customers to
participate in the program. Idaho Power will discuss the report's findings in upcoming EEAG
meetings. The complete report can be found in Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Listed below are key recommendations from the impact evaluation (in italics) followed
by Idaho Power's response. See the complete impact evaluation report in
Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Consider reviewing datasets to identify any key differences and reconcile any associated
effects on analysis results.
Response: Idaho Power plans to continue working with the program implementor to clarify the
specific definitions of key reporting metrics. Having better documentation of program data sets
will simplify future evaluation activities by minimizing the amount of time spent cleaning the
initial data.
It may be worthwhile to collect data on the rates at which HER emails are being opened and
integrate those data into future analyses.
Response: The company will continue monitoring email report open rates and assess whether
adjustments to the report delivery process are necessary to optimize program effectiveness.
Idaho Power may want to consider leveraging granular customer billing data to provide more
specific tailored recommendations for energy savings opportunities in HER materials. For
example, current materials focus on monthly trends, but if AMI data could reveal customers
using substantially more energy during certain hours of the day or certain days of the week,
sharing that information could help customers reduce energy usage even further.
Response: Idaho Power recognizes the potential value of leveraging granular automated
metering infrastructure (AMI) data to provide more tailored energy-saving recommendations in
HERS. While current materials focus on monthly trends, incorporating hourly or daily usage
insights could help customers identify specific behaviors to further reduce energy consumption.
Idaho Power will review the feasibility of integrating this level of detail into future reports,
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 56

Residential Sector—
Home Energy Report Program
including assessing data availability, system and vendor capabilities, and customer
engagement considerations.
Cost-Effectiveness
HER Program savings are calculated each year using measured usage of the customers receiving
the reports relative to a statistically similar control group that does not receive the reports.
Due to the potential of double-counting savings from other programs, Idaho Power discounts
the HER Program savings of 20,598,226 kWh by 0.44%to report savings of 20,507,594 kWh.
This percentage was recommended by a third-party evaluator during the 2022 impact
evaluation. The UCT and TRC ratios for the 2025 program year are 1.42 and 1.56, respectively.
The cost-effectiveness is based on the one-year life of the associated savings.
For more detailed information about the cost-effectiveness savings and assumptions,
see Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness.
2026 Plans
In 2026, Idaho Power plans to continue working with the contractor to maintain or enhance the
HER cadence and enrich the customer experience for current participants. Idaho Power will
work to improve the two-way flow of data between the contractor and Idaho Power to tighten
the feedback loop and shorten the timeframe for implementing program improvements.
Also in 2026, Idaho Power will continue to explore alternatives to validate the savings
generated by the HER Program that may allow more (or all) customers to receive HERS.
The company will engage with its EEAG for guidance and consulting and consult results from
the deemed savings evaluation (described in the Evaluations section above).
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 57

Residential Sector—
Low-Income Energy Efficiency Education
Low-income Energy Efficiency Education
2025 2024
Participation and Savings'
Participants(coupons) 139 130
Energy Savings(kWh) 69,418 70,589
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider $119,804 $125,050
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider $0 $0
Idaho Power Base Rates $31,735 $29,596
Total Program Costs—All Sources $151,540 $154,646
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.760 $0.763
Total Resource Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.760 $0.763
Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio n/a n/a
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio n/a n/a
'For jurisdictional-level participation and savings details,see Appendix 4.
Description
Initially implemented in 2009 as an outcome of IPUC Case No. IPC-E-08-10 and
Order Nos. 30722 and 30754, Idaho Power committed to fund energy efficiency education for
low-income customers and provide up to $125,000 to CAP agencies in its service area annually.
That amount and structure were most recently evaluated in Case No. IPC-E-24-39 where no
changes were made to the funding level of$125,000 per year for low-income energy
efficiency education.
From 2009 to 2017, using CAP agency personnel, the program distributed energy-saving kits
(ESK) and corresponding educational materials to participants in the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program (LIHEAP) who heat their homes with electricity. In 2017, with input from a
planning committee consisting of representatives from CAP agencies, the Idaho Department of
Health and Welfare (IDHW), the IPUC, and Idaho Power, the program discontinued kit
distribution and began offering coupons for free electric HVAC tune-ups and one-on-one
education with the goal of helping low-income customers learn ways to maintain their HVAC
system and reduce their energy costs.
To provide services for the program, participating HVAC company owners sign HVAC contractor
guidelines and acknowledge the two-fold goal of the program—customer education and
equipment tune-up. CAP agencies qualify applicants and, if eligible, provide a coupon.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 58

Residential Sector—
Low Income Energy cy Education
The coupons contain a list of the participating HVAC contractors available in the
customer's area.
The selected HVAC contractors visit customers and provide HVAC tune-up services while
educating customers about maintaining their HVAC system and how to change filters.
They explain how regular maintenance improves overall performance, answer questions about
the specific heating equipment, and share ways to save energy. The contractor leaves energy
efficiency information and energy-saving tips with customers as well as a customer survey.
HVAC contractors then bill the CAP agency for their cost of the services, with a maximum of
$800 per coupon.
Program Activities
In 2025, Idaho Power made $125,000 available to CAP agencies to cover the cost of HVAC
tune-ups, filters, and administrative cost for agencies. In 2025, a total of 139 coupons were
redeemed for HVAC tune-ups and disposable or washable furnace filters. The cost associated
with tune-ups and filters was $86,866. The average cost per coupon of all coupons redeemed
was $625. The agencies and Idaho Power work together to arrange the transfer of funds
between those agencies not able to spend their allotted funding and those who anticipated
needing additional funds for redeemed coupons toward the end of the year. In 2025,
one agency transferred $513 to another agency.
Marketing Activities
The Low-Income Energy Efficiency Education program is included under Savings for Your Home
on the Idaho Power website in the Income-Qualified Customers section.
Idaho Power provided regional CAP agencies with coupons updated for 2025. A survey was
included to gather feedback about customers' experience with the Low-Income Energy
Efficiency Education program during the contractor visit.
Idaho Power sent a postcard advertising the coupons to approximately 14,813 customers who
had previously received LIHEAP assistance.
h N .renr..,.•,,•.
TV
.i ..-1.: -- -_ Sri• �ba.�� ��
Figure 15. Free HVAC tune-up coupon
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 59

Residenlial Sector—
Low-Income Energy ncy Education
IOU u-14 .fie
Figure 16. Low Income Energy Efficiency Education postcard
Customer Satisfaction
A customer survey was used to assess major indicators of customer satisfaction with the
program throughout the service area. Program participants were asked to complete a survey
after their HVAC system was serviced. Survey questions gathered the following information:
• What the contractor did while at the home
• How much customers learned about their HVAC system and its operation
• How well the contractor communicated
Idaho Power received survey results from 65 of the 139 participants who had their HVAC
systems serviced in 2025. Some highlights include the following:
• Over 98% of respondents said the contractor made sure the heating system was
working properly
• Over 95% of respondents said the contractor provided energy-saving tips
• Almost 88% reported they learned how to change furnace filters, how often to change
them, and the importance of maintaining the heating system
• Over 92% of respondents reported they learned how to set the thermostat to save
energy, and almost 94% learned how their HVAC system works
• Over 98% of respondents rated their overall experience with the Low-Income Energy
Efficiency Education program as "Satisfied" or "Very Satisfied," with 1.5% saying they
were "Unsure"
A summary of the survey is included in Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 60

Residential Sector—
Low-Income Energy Efficiency Education
Cost-Effectiveness
Because the Low-Income Energy Efficiency Education program is primarily an educational and
marketing program, Idaho Power does not apply traditional cost-effectiveness tests to it.
For the HVAC tune-up coupons redeemed in 2025, the program claimed between 112 and
651 kWh per home, with average savings of approximately 499 kWh per home. The savings are
calculated using a weighted average of single-family, multifamily, and manufactured home
types from Idaho Power's 2024 Energy Efficiency Potential Study. The weighting is derived from
the 2025 housing types from both the WAQC (Idaho and Oregon) and Weatherization Solutions
for Eligible Customers programs. The savings from the study include tune-up savings for
cooling, space heating, and miscellaneous/ventilation.
2026 Plans
Each agency will submit invoices for redeemed coupons up to their portion of the available
annual funds of$125,000.
Participating contractors will continue to discuss the importance of HVAC maintenance and
incorporate education about saving energy with coupon recipients. They will answer questions
about other ways to save energy in their homes as agreed upon for this low-income energy
efficiency educational program.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 61

Residential Sector—
_`4l%�.�Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program
Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program
2025 2024
Participation and Savings'
Participants(projects) 7 2
Energy Savings(kWh) 1,937,572 84,977
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider $458,832 $30,985
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider $687 $1,072
Idaho Power Base Rates $7,335 $11,152
Total Program Costs—All Sources $466,854 $43,208
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.024 $0.051
Total Resource Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.105 $0.093
Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.60 1.16
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.72 0.75
'For jurisdictional-level participation and savings details,see Appendix 4.
Description
Originating in 2023, the Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program is designed to provide energy
efficiency incentives for multifamily projects with five or more dwelling units per building and
common commercial areas typically seen in multifamily developments. The program includes
residential and commercial space types for both new construction and retrofit projects.
The Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program offers nine energy efficiency measures specific to
the dwelling units and 17 energy efficiency measures for the common commercial space areas
(Table 18).
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 62

_`4l%�.�
Residential Sector—
Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program
Table 18. Energy efficiency measures for Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program
Dwelling Unit Measures Incentive Common Commercial Space Measures' Incentive
Air-source heat pumps' $75—$125 Efficiency exit signs' $7.50
Continuous exhaust fans' $25 Efficient chillers' $40—$110
Ductless mini-split heat pumps' $125 Light load reduction' $0.10—$0.30
Efficient windows3 $0.25—$1 Efficient laundry machines4 $200
Low-e storm windows3 $1 Indoor and outdoor pool covers3 $2
Manual exhaust fans4 $25 Economizers' $75—$100
Packaged terminal A/C and heat pumps' $25—$100 Efficient air-cooled A/C and heat pump units' $25—$130
Reflective roof treatment3 $0.05 High-volume,low-speed fans4 $2,000
Smart thermostats4 $30 Reflective roof treatment3 $0.05
1 Separate incentives are offered for each type of project(new construction/major renovations or retrofits)depending on
whether the project is in Oregon or Idaho.
'Incentive is per ton of cooling capacity.
'Incentive is per square foot.
4Incentive is per unit.
5For detail on incentive by tier or efficiency level,see Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness.
In addition to the customer incentive, a professional assistance incentive (PAI) is available to an
architect or engineer for supporting technical aspects and documentation of a project.
Program Activities
The program engineer and energy advisors provided outreach to customers, professionals,
and professional organizations to highlight the Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program while
promoting other Idaho Power energy efficiency and demand response programs.
Idaho Power received nine preliminary applications for the program in 2025, all in Idaho.
There were seven projects completed in 2025, resulting in 1,937,572 kWh of energy savings in
Idaho. This is compared to two projects in 2024, which resulted in 84,977 kWh of energy
savings in Idaho. The dwelling unit savings were 984,012 kWh and the common areas savings
were 953,560 kWh in 2025. All seven of the projects received the PAI.
Marketing Activities
In May, Idaho Power sent a program email to 295 architects, engineers, and developers with a
27% open rate. Digital ads and search engine marketing ran January through March and
November through December. Web users were exposed to 1,878,020 display ads (animated GIF
image ads embedded on a website) based on their demographics, related to online articles they
viewed, or their use of mobile web pages or apps. Users clicked the ads 3,403 times.
Multifamily search terms and ads were added to the existing C&I search engine marketing
campaign. In January, February, and March of 2025, Idaho Power ran paid ads on Linkedln
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 63

Residential Sector—
Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program
focusing on the Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program. These ads received 152,863 impressions
and 1,608 clicks.
y� r Ir;-W
air ftlAr"4"
-)4�4�
10
YV
1 11
srrf
Figure 17. Paid Linkedln ad about the Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program
Cost-Effectiveness
To calculate energy savings for the Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program, Idaho Power relies
on the Technical Reference Manual(TRM) commissioned by Idaho Power using a third-party
consultant. The TRM provides savings and costs related to measures in new construction and
retrofit scenarios.
The program saw 1,937,572 kWh of savings in the 2025 program year, resulting in UCT and TRC
ratios of 2.60 and 0.72, respectively. The program's TRC was impacted by high incremental
participant costs, driven by one large project. Idaho Power anticipates the program will remain
UCT cost-effective in 2026. For more detailed information about the cost-effectiveness savings
and assumptions, see Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness.
2026 Plans
Idaho Power engineers, program specialists, and energy advisors will continue to provide
outreach to customers, professionals, and professional organizations to promote the
Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program. The program will also continue to be marketed while
promoting other Idaho Power energy efficiency and demand response programs.
Updates to Idaho Power's TRM, which ensures accuracy and alignment with industry best
practices and codes, will be completed in 2026. The company will evaluate both existing and
new measures to identify opportunities for inclusion in the Multifamily Energy Efficiency
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report

R�esilential Sector—
Multifamily Energncy Program
Program. Recognizing the decline in prescriptive savings over recent years, Idaho Power will
develop and launch a whole-building option designed to promote holistic energy efficiency
strategies and deliver deeper savings. The new whole-building option will deliver added value
for customers by offering greater flexibility and resources to achieve long-term efficiency gains.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 65

Residential Sector—
Oregon Residential Energy Conservation Program
­I%Oregon Residential Energy Conservation Program
2025 2024
Participation and Savings'
Participants(audits/projects) 7 13
Energy Savings(kWh) — —
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider $0 $0
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider $10,957 $14,007
Idaho Power Base Rates $0 $0
Total Program Costs—All Sources $10,957 $14,007
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost($/kWh) n/a n/a
Total Resource Levelized Cost($/kWh) n/a n/a
Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio n/a n/a
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio n/a n/a
'For jurisdictional-level participation and savings details,see Appendix 4.
Description
Idaho Power offers free energy audits for customers with electrically heated homes within the
Oregon service area. This is a program required by Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 469.633 and
has been offered under Oregon Tariff Schedule 78 since 1980. Upon request, an energy audit
contractor hired by Idaho Power visits the customer's home to perform a basic energy audit
and to analyze it for energy efficiency opportunities. The customer receives an estimate of costs
and savings for recommended energy-efficient measures. Customers may choose either a cash
incentive or a 6.5%-interest loan for a portion of the costs for weatherization measures.
Program Activities
A total of seven audits were completed in 2025. None of the audit customers chose to pursue
energy efficiency upgrades.
Marketing Activities
In October, Idaho Power sent 9,963 Oregon residential customers an informational brochure
about energy audits and home weatherization financing.
Cost-Effectiveness
The Oregon Residential Energy Conservation Program is a statutory program described in
Oregon Schedule 78, which includes a cost-effectiveness definition. Pages 3 and 4 of
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 66

Residential Sector—
Oregon Residential Energy Conservation Program
Schedule 78 identify the measures determined to be cost-effective and the specified measure
life cycles for each. This schedule also includes the cost-effective limit (CEL) for measure lives of
7, 15, 25, and 30 years.
2026 Plans
On January 8, 2026, the company filed ADV 1825/Advice No. 26-02 with the OPUC to update
the cost-effectiveness limits because of the updated avoided costs in the 2025 Integrated
Resource Plan, acknowledged through Order No. 25-503 in LC 87. The OPUC approved these
changes at its February 3, 2026, public meeting. Idaho Power plans to continue marketing the
program to all Oregon residential customers with a bill insert/brochure.
Demand-Side Management 202S Annual Report Page 67

Residential Sector—
Rebate Advantage
Rebate Advantage
2025 2024
Participation and Savings'
Participants(homes) 120 109
Energy Savings(kWh) 335,068 283,227
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider $156,688 $128,849
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider $10,818 $9,281
Idaho Power Base Rates $26,280 $38,604
Total Program Costs—All Sources $193,786 $176,734
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.039 $0.042
Total Resource Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.108 $0.115
Benefit/Cost Ratios'
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.27 1.16
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.51 0.47
'For jurisdictional-level participation and savings details,see Appendix 4.
22025 cost-effectiveness ratios include 2024 evaluation. If evaluation expenses were removed from the program's
cost-effectiveness,the 2025 UCT and TRC would be 1.32 and 0.54,respectively.
Description
Initiated in 2003, the Rebate Advantage program helps Idaho Power customers in Idaho and
Oregon with the initial costs associated with purchasing new, energy-efficient, NEEM-certified,
ENERGY STAR° qualified manufactured homes. This enables the homebuyer to enjoy the
long-term benefit of lower electric bills and greater comfort. The program also provides an
incentive to the sales consultants to encourage more sales of ENERGY STAR qualified homes
and more discussion of energy efficiency with their customers during the sales process.
In addition to offering financial incentives, the Rebate Advantage program educates
manufactured home buyers and retailers about the benefits of owning energy-efficient models.
NEEM, a consortium of manufacturers and state energy offices in the Northwest,
establishes quality control (QQ and energy efficiency specifications for qualified manufactured
homes and tracks their production and on-site performance. NEEM adds the classification
Eco-RatedTM for homes produced by factories that have demonstrated a strong commitment to
minimizing environmental impacts from the construction process.
In 2019, NEEM created the most stringent manufactured home energy standard in the country,
the ENERGY STAR with NEEM 2.0 specification, which was later renamed the ENERGY STAR with
NEEM+ certification. NEEM+ standards are engineered to save approximately 30% more energy
than ENERGY STAR standards. As a result, NEEM+ delivers the highest possible energy savings
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 68

Residential Sector—
Rebate Advantage
and the highest level of overall comfort. These homes are built to specifications tailored to the
Northwest climate.
Program Activities
In 2025, for each home sold under this program, the residential customer incentive was $1,000
and the sales staff incentive was $200. Idaho Power paid 120 incentives on new manufactured
homes, which accounted for 335,068 annual kWh savings. This included 113 homes sited in
Idaho and seven sited in Oregon. Of these 120 homes, 11 were NEEM+, 108 were ENERGY
STAR, and one was Eco-Rated.
In response to the prior year's evaluation, a program administration specialist was trained to
assist the program specialist in reviewing and processing program incentive applications to add
a layer of quality control.
In 2025, the savings for NEEM-certified manufactured homes were significantly reduced in the
RTF workbook, and as a result the program would not be cost-effective in its current form after
2025. The RTF determined that the market had been transformed and therefore the savings
were non-existent or dramatically reduced for efficient manufactured homes. Idaho Power
consulted with peer utilities and NEEM representatives and participated in regional discussions
on ways to navigate the change. The company sought program changes that might keep the
program cost-effective but ultimately were not able to identify any. The company discussed the
savings change and implications with EEAG in the August and November meetings and reached
alignment that the program would be suspended beginning January 1, 2026, in Idaho. It was
decided the program would be suspended and not ended because market conditions could
change, which could increase savings opportunities in the future. The company committed to
staying engaged with market conditions to determine if and when it would be possible to
restart the program and communicated this information at the Oregon EEAG meeting in
December. The program was suspended in Oregon on February 18, 2026.
Marketing Activities
Idaho Power continued to support manufactured home dealerships by providing them with
program marketing collateral.
In May, Idaho Power promoted the Rebate Advantage program with a bill insert sent to
293,767 residential customers. The insert continued to use the "Good Energy" style, had
information about potential energy and cost savings, and referred customers to the program
website. In August, paid social media ads received 1,340,305 impressions resulting in 740 clicks
to the program web page.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 69

Residential Sector—
Rebate Advantage
Cost-Effectiveness
The UCT and TRC for the program are 1.27 and 0.51, respectively. In 2025, Idaho Power used
the same savings and assumptions source used in 2024.
Despite the program being cost-effective from a UCT perspective in 2025, as mentioned in the
program activities section above, the reduction in RTF designated savings renders it not cost-
effective going forward. As a result, the program is suspended as of January 1, 2026, in Idaho
and February 18, 2026, in Oregon. For detailed information on all measures within the Rebate
Advantage program, see Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness.
2026 Plans
The program was suspended as of January 1, 2026, and February 18, 2026, in Idaho and
Oregon, respectively. The company will stay engaged in regional discussions and observe
market conditions throughout 2026 to determine whether building and manufacturing
standards lower enough to justify changing the baseline and restarting the program.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 70

Residential Sector—
_"4l%..�Residential New Construction Program
Residential New Construction Program
2025 2025
Participation and Savings'
Participants(homes) 101 92
Energy Savings(kWh) 274,680 304,424
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider $199,938 $209,809
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider $346 $0
Idaho Power Base Rates $33,301 $42,652
Total Program Costs—All Sources $233,585 $252,461
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.056 $0.055
Total Resource Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.119 $0.133
Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.03 1.04
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.55 1.09
'For jurisdictional-level participation and savings details,see Appendix 4.
Description
The Residential New Construction Program launched in Idaho in March 2018 as a pilot,
replacing the ENERGY STAR° Homes Northwest Program, and transitioned to a regular program
in 2021. The Residential New Construction Program offers builders a cash incentive to build
energy-efficient, single-family, all-electric homes that use heat pump technology in
Idaho Power's Idaho service area. These homes must meet strict requirements that make them
10, 15, or 20% more energy efficient than homes built to standard state energy code.
The RTF and NEEA have created specific modeling requirements and program guidelines to
ensure the program provides reliable energy savings for utilities across the northwest.
These homes feature high-performance HVAC systems, high-efficiency windows,
increased insulation values, and tighter building shells to improve comfort and save energy.
Idaho Power claims energy savings based on each home's individual modeled savings.
Builders must contract with a Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET)-certified rater to
ensure the home design will meet program qualifications. The rater will work with the builder
from the design stages through project completion; perform the required energy modeling
(REM) using REM/Rate modeling software; perform site inspections and tests; and enter,
maintain, and submit all required technical documentation in the REM/Rate modeling software
and the NEEA-maintained AXIS database. This data is used to calculate the energy savings and
the percent above code information needed to certify the home.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 71

Residential Sector—
Residential New Construction Program
Program Activities
Participating residential builders who built homes at least 10% above the standard state energy
code, as determined by the REM/Rate energy modeling software and AXIS database output,
were incentivized as follows:
• 10 to 14.99% above code: $1,200 incentive
• 15 to 19.99% above code: $1,500 incentive
• 20% or more above code: $2,000 incentive
In 2025, the company paid incentives for 101 newly constructed energy-efficient homes in
Idaho, accounting for 274,680 kWh of energy savings.
Marketing Activities
Idaho Power participated in the Snake River Valley Building Contractors Association (SRVBCA)
and the Building Contractors Association of Southwestern Idaho (BCASWI) builders' expos.
Idaho Power supported Parade of Homes events in 2025 with full-page ads in the Parade of
Homes magazines of the following BCAs: The Magic Valley Builders Association (MVBA), the
BCASWI, the SRVBCA, and the BCA of Southeast Idaho (BCASEI).
The company sent a bill insert to 284,453 Idaho customers in July to promote the program.
The program brochure was left at the City of Boise permitting office as a hard-copy handout.
Cost-Effectiveness
The savings for the energy-modeled homes averaged approximately 2,719 kWh per home
depending on which efficiency upgrades were included, a decrease from the average energy
modeled savings of 3,309 kWh per home in 2024. The decrease in savings per home is largely
driven by a decrease in homes built to the highest incentive level standards, as only 12.8%
were built to that level in 2025, compared to 68.5% in 2024. Savings are modeled on an
individual-home basis and are expected to fluctuate from year to year based on factors like
size and layout.
While savings are custom calculated for each of the 101 modeled homes, the incremental
participant costs over a code-built home are difficult to determine. The RTF's single-family new
construction workbook was used as proxy for the incremental costs and non-energy benefits.
The UCT and TRC for the program are 1.03 and 1.55, respectively. As part of the IRA, Section
45L Tax Credit for Energy Efficient New Homes was updated and extended. The TRC
cost-effectiveness considers this tax credit as a reduction to the incremental participant cost
component. For detailed information for all measures within the Residential New Construction
Program, see Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 72

Residential Sector—
Residential New Construction Program
2026 Plans
Idaho Power plans to continue to promote this program to Idaho builders and new home
buyers. These marketing efforts include ads in Parade of Homes magazines for the BCASWI,
SRVBCA, MVBA, and the BCASEI. The company also plans to continue supporting the general
events and activities of the IBCA and its local affiliates. Social media and other advertising will
be considered based on past effectiveness.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 73

Residential Sector—
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(Idaho)
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (Idaho)
2025 2024
Participation and Savings'
Participants(homes/non-profits) 129 157
Energy Savings(kWh) 228,592 366,428
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider $771,466 $638,289
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider $0 $0
Idaho Power Base Rates $64,427 $53,536
Total Program Costs—All Sources' $835,893 $691,825
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.526 $0.299
Total Resource Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.839 $0.474
Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.13 0.16
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.22 0.22
'For jurisdictional-level participation and savings details,see Appendix 4.
Description
The WAQC program provides financial assistance to regional CAP agencies in Idaho Power's
service area to help fund weatherization costs of electrically heated homes occupied by qualified
customers who have limited incomes. Weatherization improvements enable residents to
maintain a more comfortable, safe, and energy-efficient home while reducing their monthly
electricity consumption and are available at no cost to qualified customers who own or rent their
homes. These customers also receive educational materials and ideas on using energy wisely in
their homes. Regional CAP agencies determine participant eligibility according to federal and
state guidelines. The WAQC program also provides limited funds to weatherize buildings
occupied by non-profit organizations that primarily serve special needs populations, regardless of
heating source, with priority given to electrically heated buildings in Idaho.
In 1989, Idaho Power began offering weatherization assistance in conjunction with the State of
Idaho Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). This allows CAP agencies to combine Idaho
Power Base Rates with federal weatherization funds to serve more customers with special needs
in electrically heated homes.
Idaho Power has an agreement with each CAP agency in its service area for the WAQC program
that specifies the funding allotment, billing requirements, and program guidelines. Idaho Power
oversees the program in Idaho through five regional CAP agencies: Eastern Idaho Community
Action Partnership (EICAP), El Ada Community Action Partnership (EL ADA), Metro Community
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 74

Residential Sector-
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(Idaho)
Services (Metro Community), South Central Community Action Partnership (SCCAP),
and Southeastern Idaho Community Action Agency (SEICAA).
Program Activities
In 2025, Idaho Power made $1,567,913 available to Idaho CAP agencies. Of the available funds,
$1,088,760 were used to weatherize or re-weatherize 129 homes in Idaho; $989,782 directly
funded audits, energy efficiency measures, and health and safety measures for qualified
customers' homes (production costs); and $98,978 funded administration costs to Idaho CAP
agencies for those homes weatherized. There were no non-profit buildings weatherized in 2025.
Table 19 shows each CAP agency, the number of homes weatherized, production costs,
the average cost per home, administration payments, and total payments per county made by
Idaho Power in Idaho.
Table 19. Idaho WAQC activities and Idaho Power expenditures by agency and county in 2025
Number Production Average Administration Total
Agency/County of Homes Cost Cost Payment to Agency Payment
Idaho Homes
EICAP
Lemhi 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Agency Total 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
EL ADA
Ada 44 307,864 6,997 30,786 338,651
Elmore 12 128,606 10,717 12,861 141,466
Owyhee 7 58,533 8,362 5,853 64,386
Agency Total 63 $ 495,003 $ 7,857 $ 49,500 $ 544,503
Metro Community Services
Adams 1 9,897 9,897 990 10,886
Canyon 26 191,049 7,348 19,105 210,154
Gem 1 8,501 8,501 850 9,351
Payette 3 21,700 7,233 2,170 23,869
Valley 1 3,646 3,646 365 4,011
Agency Total 32 $ 234,792 $ 7,335 $ 23,479 $ 258,271
SCCAP
Gooding 3 21,265 7,088 2,127 23,392
Jerome 1 5,348 5,348 535 5,882
Lincoln 0 - - - -
Twin Falls 13 115,160 8,858 11,516 126,676
Agency Total 17 $ 141,773 $ 8,340 $ 14,177 $ 155,950
SEICAA
Bannock 8 57,537 7,192 5,754 $63,291
Bingham 6 49,109 8,185 4,911 $54,019
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 75

Residential Sector—
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(Idaho)
Number Production Average Administration Total
Agency/County of Homes Cost Cost Payment to Agency Payment
Power 3 11,569 3,856 1,157 12,726
Agency Total 17 $ 118,215 $ 6,954 $ 11,821 $ 130,036
Total Idaho Homes 129 $ 989,782 $ 7,673 $ 98,978 $ 1,088,761
Non-Profit Buildings
Owyhee 0 0 0 0 0
Twin Falls 0 0 0 0 0
Total Non-Profit Buildings' 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Total Program2 129 $ 989,782 $ 7,673 $ 96,467 $ 1,088,760
'There were no non-profit buildings weatherized in 2025.
'There is a variance of$5.65 in reported expenditures due to 11 jobs being completed in December and accrued based on the
agency's invoice estimate,which was less than the actual invoiced amount.
In 2024, as an outcome of the Idaho General Rate Case (IPC-E-23-11), the annual funding
obligation of$1.2 M was moved from base rates to recovery through the Idaho Rider
(Order No. 36042). The company was also ordered to work with staff and CAP agencies to
develop implementation and ongoing administration details related to the offering (Order
No. 36042). In 2024, Idaho Power completed this work and submitted a filing to the IPUC (IPC-
TAE-24-03/ IPC-E-24-39) requesting programmatic and tariff changes, with the IPUC ultimately
approving the following in Order No. 36406, effective December 1, 2024:
• Elimination of carryover funds.
• Allowance for services rendered in current year to be invoiced within 60 days of the
following year.
• Removal of the dollar limit that can be transferred between agencies.
• A one-time increase to the maximum annual average cost per home from $6,000
to $8,495.
• Modification of the re-weatherization options to allow for other electric equipment in
addition to HVAC.
Though the practice of carrying over unspent funds was eliminated in 2024, the funds
accumulated before the funding source was switched to the rider are still being carried over.
Carryover funds at the end of 2025 totaled $22,657. This amount will be added to the annual
base amount of$1,212,534 in 2026 for a total availability of$1,235,191 to agencies.
The maximum allowable annual average cost per home is specified in agreements between
Idaho Power and CAP agencies and allows the CAP agency flexibility to service some homes with
varying weatherization needs. It also provides a monitoring tool for Idaho Power to forecast year-
end outcomes. The average cost per home weatherized is calculated by dividing the total annual
Idaho Power production cost of homes weatherized by the total number of homes weatherized
that the CAP agencies billed to Idaho Power during the year. The maximum annual average cost
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 76

Residential Sector—
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(Idaho)
per home in the 2025 agreement was $8,495. In 2025, Idaho CAP agencies had a combined
average cost per home weatherized of$7,629, an increase of$625 over the $7,004 average cost
per home in 2024. Weatherization managers reported that higher costs of equipment caused
higher averages in 2025.
CAP agency administration fees are equal to 10% of Idaho Power's per-job production costs.
The average administration cost paid to agencies per Idaho home weatherized in 2025 was $763.
Not included in this report's tables are additional Idaho Power staff labor, marketing, and support
costs for the WAQC program totaling$67,961 for 2025. These expenses were in addition to the
WAQC program funding requirements in Idaho specified in IPUC Order No. 29505.
Table 20 details the 2025 base funding, available funds from 2024, and the total amount of 2025
spending in Idaho.
Table 20. WAQC base funding and funds made available in Idaho in 2025
Available Funds Total 2025
Idaho Agency 2025 Base from 2024 Allotment 2025 Spending
EICAP $ 12,788 $ 0 $ 12,788 $ 0
EL ADA' 568,479 0 568,479 544,503
Metro Community Services 302,259 202,686 504,945 258,271
SCCAP 167,405 0 167,405 155,950
SEICAA 111,603 152,693 264,296 130,036
Non-profit buildings2 50,000 0 50,000 0
Idaho Total' $ 1,212,534 $ 355,379 $ 1,567,913 $ 1,088,760
'There is a variance of$5.65 in EL ADA due to 11 jobs being completed in December and accrued based on the agency's invoice
estimate,which was less than the actual invoiced amount.
'There were no non-profit buildings weatherized in 2025.
'Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Weatherization Measures Installed in Idaho
Table 21 details home counts for which Idaho Power paid all or a portion of each measure's cost
during 2025 in Idaho. The home counts column shows the number of times any percentage of
that measure was billed to Idaho Power during the year. If totaled, measure counts would be
higher than total homes weatherized because the number of measures installed in each
home varies.
WAQC, like WAPs nationwide, are whole-house programs that offer several measures that have
costs but do not necessarily save energy, or for which the savings cannot be measured.
This includes health and safety measures and home energy audits. Health and safety measures
ensure weatherization activities do not cause unsafe situations in a customer's home or
compromise a home's existing indoor air quality (IAQ). Idaho Power contributes funding for the
installation of items that do not save energy, such as smoke and carbon monoxide detectors,
vapor barriers, electric panel upgrades, floor registers and boots, kitchen range fans, and venting
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 77

Residential S�ector—
torWeather
ization Assistance for Qualified Customero)
of bath and laundry areas. While these items increase health, safety, and comfort and ensure
certain energy saving measures work properly, they increase costs of the job.
Table 21. WAQC summary of measures installed in Idaho,2025
IP Pay Production
Counts Costs(no admin)'
Idaho Homes
Attic Insulation 48 $ 38,181
Audit and Education 57 42,243
Doors 53 25,284
Duct Installation 28 9,205
Duct Sealing 39 1,673
Electric Water Heater 38 23,285
Floor Insulation 26 27,256
Furnace to Air-Source Heat Pump 102 645,561
Furnace to Furnace 0 0
Health and Safety 128 20,580
HVAC Repair 5 1,040
Infiltration 126 4,084
Lighting-LEDs 38 1,134
Pipe Wrap 42 2,164
Wall Insulation 4 878
Windows 39 98,824
Zonal Heat to Heat Pump 10 51,144
Total Idaho Homesz $ 954,355
'Portions of productions costs for each of these measures come from other funding sources.
2Totals may not sum due to rounding.There is a variance of$5.65 in measures installed due to 11 jobs being completed in
December and accrued based on the agency's invoice estimate,which was less than the actual invoiced amount.
Re-Weatherization
In May 2022, with support from EEAG, Idaho Power filed a proposal (IPC-E-22-15) with the IPUC
designed to address an increase in carryover funds by expanding eligibility for weatherization to
include homes weatherized within the last rolling 14-year period that did not receive HVAC
upgrades. Because these homes are not eligible to receive federal funding for re-weatherization
within a rolling 14-year period based on Department of Energy (DOE) guidelines, Idaho Power's
proposal was to fund HVAC upgrades at 100% of the cost for these jobs through 2025 or until
carryover funds ran out. In November 2022, the IPUC approved the company's application in
Order No. 35583, and the newly approved re-weatherization option was implemented in
April 2023. In September 2024, the company filed to expand the application of re-weatherization
to allow for other electric equipment, in addition to HVAC, to be updated. In November 2024,
the IPUC approved the company's application in Order No. 36406.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 78

Residential�Sector—
torWeather
ization Assistance for Qualified Customero)
Re-weatherization jobs are invoiced to Idaho Power separately from regular WAQC jobs and are
paid with funds from each CAP agency's carryover of unused funds from previous years.
In 2025, three homes were re-weatherized, all in the Eastern region (Table 22).
Of the three homes weatherized, two were manufactured homes and one was a single-family
home. Each home had its central electric furnace upgraded to an ASHP.
Spending on re-weatherization jobs totaled $31,350, with $2,850 going toward administrative
costs and $28,500 to production costs. The average cost of the three re-weatherization jobs was
$9,500 (Table 23).
Table 22. WAQC re-weatherization job summary,2025
Number of Pre WAQC Pre WAQC Post WAQC
Idaho Region Jobs Structures A/C Type Heating Type Heating/Cooling Type
Eastern 3 1 single family Window A/C Central furnace Ducted heat pumps
2 manufactured
Total 3
Table 23. WAQC re-weatherization spending and average job cost,2025
Number Total Payment Average Cost
Agency of Jobs Production Cost Administration (includes admin) (excludes admin)
Eastern 3 $ 28,500 $ 2,850 $ 31,350 $ 9,500
Total 3 $ 28,500 $ 2,850 $ 31,350 $ 9,500
At the August EEAG meeting and then again at the November EEAG meeting the company
presented the results of the re-weatherization effort and discussed its future. Based on
discussions around the nearly depleted carryover and a limited pool of future re-weatherization
projects, it was determined that the option would be closed at the end of 2025.
Verification
Annually, Idaho Power verifies a portion of the homes weatherized under the WAQC program.
This is done through two methods. The first method uses a state monitoring process where
either an independent quality-control inspector or trained peers ensure measures were installed
to DOE and state WAP specifications. Utility representatives, weatherization personnel from
the CAP agencies, or IDHW visit homes weatherized by each of the CAP agencies. In 2025,
three Idaho Power funded homes were chosen for review.
For the second method, Idaho Power contracts with two companies that employ building
performance specialists to verify installed measures. After verification, any required follow-up is
done by CAP agency personnel. In 2025, 14 homes were verified. Of the 14 homes verified,
one was a re-weatherized home.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 79

Residential S�ector—
torWeather
ization Assistance for Qualified Customero)
Marketing Activities
Information about WAQC is available in a brochure (English and Spanish) and on the Income
Qualified Customers page of Idaho Power's website. Idaho Power regional energy advisors
promote WAQC to customers in their communities, at fairs, senior centers, and during other
presentations in their regions. The CAP agencies also promote the program through their
outreach activities.
Cost-Effectiveness
In 2025, the Idaho WAQC program's overall cost-effectiveness was 0.13 from the UCT perspective
and 0.22 from the TRC perspective. These ratios include the savings and costs associated with
re-weatherization. The UCT and TRC for the WAQC-only (excluding re-weatherization) portion of
the overall program are 0.12 and 0.21, respectively. The UCT and TRC for the re-weatherization
efforts alone are 0.12 and 0.13, respectively.
The savings values were last updated in 2020 based on a billing analysis of program participants
conducted by a third party; there were no changes to the values used for reporting from 2020 to
2025. Idaho Power performed a billing analysis in 2025 and will use the updated savings values in
the 2026 program year.
While final cost-effectiveness is calculated based on measured consumption data,
cost-effectiveness screening begins during the initial contacts between CAP agency
weatherization staff and the customer. For Idaho state's WAP, the agency weatherization auditor
uses the Ecos tool to conduct the initial audit of the home. The Ecos tool is used to compare the
efficiency of the home prior to weatherization to the anticipated efficiency after the proposed
improvements. The weatherization manager can split individual measure costs between
Idaho Power and the agency when a minimum of 15% is paid with agency funds.
The 2025 cost-effectiveness analysis continues to incorporate the following directives from IPUC
Order No. 32788:
• Applying a 100% net to gross (NTG) value to reflect the likelihood that WAQC
weatherization projects would not be initiated without the presence of a program
• Claiming 100% of project savings
• Including an allocated portion of the indirect overhead costs
• Applying the 10% conservation preference adder
• Claiming $1 of benefits for each dollar invested in health, safety, and repair measures
• Amortizing evaluation expenses over a three-year period
Finally, the cost-effectiveness calculation removes the impacts of any accruals and reversals
associated with unspent dollars carried over into the following year, as not including this amount
in the calculation would understate expenses in 2025. Idaho Power will continue to work with the
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 80

Residential S�ector—
torWeather
ization Assistance for Qualified Customero)
EEAG, as well as the managers who oversee the weatherization work, to discuss ways to improve
the program. For further details on the overall program cost-effectiveness assumptions,
see Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness.
Customer Education and Satisfaction
The CAP agency weatherization auditor explains to the customer where energy might be saved in
their home and how. Further education is done as the crew demonstrates the upgrades and how
they will help save energy and provide an increase in comfort. Idaho Power provides each CAP
agency with energy efficiency educational materials for distribution to customers during home
visits. Any customers whose homes are selected for the company's post-weatherization home
verification receive additional information and can ask the home verifiers more questions.
A customer survey was used to assess major indicators of customer satisfaction throughout the
service area. Program participants in all regions were asked to complete a survey after their
homes were weatherized. Survey questions gathered information about how customers learned
of the program, reasons for participating, how much customers learned about saving energy in
their homes, and the likelihood of household members changing behaviors to use energy wisely.
The results of the customer surveys include responses from 111 Idaho participants and one
Oregon participant, out of 132 households weatherized in 2025. Some highlights are listed below;
a complete summary of the survey is included in Supplement 2: Evaluation.
• Almost 52% of respondents learned of the program from a friend or relative, and almost
18% learned of the program from an agency flyer. Nineteen people mentioned they
learned of the program from an Idaho Power bill insert, employee, or website.
• Almost 68% of the respondents reported their primary reason for participating in the
weatherization program was to reduce utility bills, while almost 36% had concerns about
their existing furnace. Over 40%wanted to improve the comfort of their home.
• More than 63% reported they learned how air leaks affect energy use, and almost 52%
indicated they learned how to use energy wisely during the weatherization process, with
over 48% reporting they learned how insulation affects energy use.
• More than 49% of respondents said they learned how to program the new thermostat.
• Most respondents (over 93%) reported they were likely to change habits to save energy,
and almost 99% reported they have shared all the information about energy use with
members of their household.
• More than 90% of the respondents reported they think the weatherization they received
will significantly affect the comfort of their home, and most (over 99%) said they were
"very satisfied" with the program.
• Almost 78% of the respondents reported the habit they were most likely to change to
save energy was turning off lights when not in use, while almost 62% said they would
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 81

Residential Sector—
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(Idaho)
wash full loads of clothes. Turning the thermostat down in winter was reported by almost
61% of the respondents; turning the thermostat up in summer was reported by over 57%
as a habit they and members of the household were most likely to adopt to save energy.
Evaluations
In 2025, Idaho Power conducted an internal billing analysis to determine the kWh savings
produced by the Weatherization programs (WAQC Idaho and Oregon and Weatherization
Solutions for Eligible Customers) from program years 2018 to 2023. The analysis used a
difference-in-difference approach, which is the methodology used in previous analyses. This uses
a control group which serves as the counterfactual, or what is assumed would have been the kWh
usage for homes in the program had there not been weatherization measures implemented.
The control group is a collection of residential homes in Idaho Power's service area that are
matched to meters that were in the program. The control group consists of electrically heated
homes that are the same home type, zip code, city, and exist in the same year as homes in the
program, or the "treatment group." The kWh usage for homes in the treatment group is
compared to kWh usage in the control group. The difference between the two values after the
weatherization is complete is what is used to estimate kWh savings.
The findings from this analysis are similar to what was found in the prior analysis performed by a
third-party consultant in 2020. Across the weatherization programs, homes that received the
weatherization experienced savings of 1,472.28 kWh per year after the home was weatherized.
The 95% confidence interval is 1,179.69 kWh to 1,764.78 kWh. This is compared to 1,969 kWh of
annual savings estimated in the third-party consultant's report, which is greater than the updated
savings estimate.
As the results were statistically significant, Idaho Power plans to use the updated savings values
starting in 2026. See the complete billing analysis report in Supplement2: Evaluation.
In 2024, Idaho Power filed with the IPUC to request to match the annual average cost per job to
the DOE's maximum. This would increase the annual average cost per job to be paid to the
agencies from $6,000 to $8,495 (Case No. IPC-E-24-39). In Order No. 36406, the commission
approved the one-time increase to $8,495 and directed the company to "aggregate details about
the incremental savings from the additional funds available to qualifying measures," and to
include the details in the company's annual DSM report. The increase became effective in 2025.
Due to the way savings are determined for weatherization projects using the billing analysis
described above, the company needs 12 months of data on homes' usage after weatherization is
complete. Because the increase was implemented in 2025 and due to the number of projects
completed each year, the company expects to have enough usable data to isolate savings
changes by 2027 and will include results in the annual report after that time.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 82

Residential�Sector—
torWeather
ization Assistance for Qualified Customero)
2026 Plans
In 2026, Idaho Power will continue to make funds available to Idaho CAP agencies while
continuing to explore opportunities to improve program delivery.
The company will also continue to provide the most benefit possible to special needs customers
by working with Idaho WAP personnel and IDHW to develop recommendations and ideas to help
improve the program for qualified customers.
Idaho Power plans to continue the verification of homes weatherized under the WAQC program
with the goal of verifying 5-10% of completed jobs via home-verification companies and state
monitoring processes.
In 2026, Idaho Power expects to make available the base amount of$1,212,534 plus unused
funds of$22,657 for a total of$1,235,191 available for weatherization measures and agency
administration fees in Idaho. Of this amount, approximately $50,000 will be made available in the
non-profit pooled fund to weatherize buildings housing non-profit agencies that primarily serve
qualified customers in Idaho. Based on the required funding, Idaho Power estimates
approximately 140 homes in Idaho will be weatherized in 2026.
In 2026, Idaho Power removed the re-weatherization option from the CAP agency contracts and
filed with the IPUC in Tariff Advice No. IPC-TAE-26-01 to amend the WAQC tariff to remove
reference to the re-weatherization option. The IPUC approved this change at its February 17,
2026, decision meeting.
Idaho Power will continue to maintain the program content on its website and include it with
other marketing collateral.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 83

Residential Sector—
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(Oregon)
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (Oregon)
2025 2024
Participation and Savings'
Participants(homes) 3 1
Energy Savings(kWh) 3,069 1,023
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider $0 $0
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider $25,377 $418
Idaho Power Base Rates $0 ($12,500)
Total Program Costs—All Sources $25,377 ($12,082)
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost($/kWh) $1.160 $0.757
Total Resource Levelized Cost($/kWh) $1.534 $0.926
Benefit/Cost Ratios'
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.08 0.06
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.32 0.20
'For jurisdictional-level participation and savings details,see Appendix 4.
22024 and 2025 Total Program Costs include accounting accruals and reversals associated with unspent dollars carried over into the
next year.These accruals and reversals have been removed from the cost-effectiveness and levelized cost calculations.
Description
The WAQC program provides financial assistance to regional CAP agencies in Idaho Power's
service area to help fund weatherization costs of electrically heated homes occupied by qualified
customers who have limited incomes. Weatherization improvements enable residents to maintain
a more comfortable, safe, and energy-efficient home while reducing their monthly electricity
consumption. These improvements are available at no cost to qualified customers who own or
rent their homes. These customers also receive educational materials and ideas for using energy
wisely in their homes. Regional CAP agencies determine participant eligibility according to federal
and state guidelines.
In Oregon, Idaho Power offers weatherization assistance in conjunction with the State of Oregon
WAP. CAP agencies can combine Idaho Power funds with federal and state weatherization funds
or use Idaho Power funds exclusively to serve more customers with special needs in electrically
heated homes.
Idaho Power has an agreement with each CAP agency in its service area for the WAQC program
that specifies the funding allotment, billing requirements, and program guidelines. Idaho Power
oversees the program in Oregon through two regional CAP agencies: Community Connection of
Northeast Oregon, Inc. (CCNO), and Community in Action (CINA). The agencies receive an annual
base allotment of$50,000, combined, and can spend up to $20,000 per home. Unspent funds
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 84

Residential I ctor—
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(Oregon)
from any given year are carried forward and made available in addition to the next year's annual
base allotment.
Qualifying energy conservation measures include, but are not limited to, those specified in the
Oregon WAP.
Program Activities
In 2025, Idaho Power made $60,548 available to Oregon CAP agencies, consisting of the annual
base amount of$50,000 and the carryover of unused funds from 2024 of$10,548. In mid-2025,
when none of the funds had been spent, the company met with the CAP agencies to identify
barriers that might be preventing them from utilizing Idaho Power funds to complete WAQC jobs.
The agencies shared that they were having difficulty identifying measures that would meet the
requirements specified in the Oregon WAP, which was referenced as a requirement in the
company's tariff. As a result, the company filed ADV 1743/Advice No. 25-04 with the OPUC to
amend the tariff to allow the agencies to utilize a deemed measure priority list as an alternative to
meeting the Oregon WAP measure requirements. The commission approved the company's
request at its July 14, 2025, public meeting, resulting in the agencies' ability to complete WAQC
jobs in the remainder 2025.
Of the available funds, $17,906 were used to weatherize three homes in Oregon. Of the funds
paid, $15,467 directly funded audits, energy efficiency measures, and health and safety measures
for the qualified customer's home (production costs); $2,438 funded administration costs to the
Oregon CAP agencies.
Table 24 shows each CAP agency, the number of homes weatherized, production costs,
the average cost per home, administration payments, and total payments per county made by
Idaho Power in Oregon.
Table 24. Oregon WAQC activities and Idaho Power expenditures by agency and county,2025
Number of IP Production Average Administration Total
Agency/County Homes Cost Cost Payment to Agency Payment
CCNO-Baker 2 $ 11,009 $ 5,505 $ 1,101 $ 12,110
Agency Total 2 $ 11,009 $ 5,505 $ 1,101 $ 1,101
CINA-Malheur 1 4,458 4,458 1,337 5,795
Agency Total 1 4,458 4,458 1,337 5,795
Total Oregon Homes 3 $ 15,467 $ 5,155 $ 2,438 $ 17,905
Table 25 details the 2025 base funding, available unspent funds from 2024, and the total amount
of 2025 spending in Oregon. The 2025 unspent funds of$42,642 will be made available in addition
to the agencies' annual base amount in 2026.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 85

Residential Sector—
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(Oregon)
Table 25. WAQC base funding and funds made available in Oregon,2025
Available Funds Total 2025
Agency 2025 Base from 2024 Allotment 2025 Spending
CCNO $ 10,000 $ 2,110 $ 12,110 $ 12,110
CI NA 40,000 8,438 48,438 5,796
Oregon Total $ 50,000 $ 10,548 $ 60,548 $ 17,906
Note:There is a variance of approximately$296 in reported expenditures due to one job being completed in December and
accrued based on the agency's invoice estimate,which was lower than the actual invoiced amount.
Weatherization Measures Installed in Oregon
Table 26 details home counts for which Idaho Power paid all or a portion of each measure's cost
during 2025 in Oregon. The home counts column shows how many times any percentage of that
measure was billed to Idaho Power during the year. If totaled, measure counts would be higher
than total homes weatherized because the number of measures installed in each home varies.
WAQC, like WAPs nationwide, are whole-house programs that offer several measures that have
costs but do not necessarily save energy, or for which the savings cannot be measured.
This includes health and safety measures and home energy audits. Health and safety measures
ensure weatherization activities do not cause unsafe situations in a customer's home or
compromise a home's existing IAQ. Idaho Power contributes funding for the installation of items
that do not save energy, such as smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, vapor barriers,
electric panel upgrades, floor registers and boots, kitchen range fans, and venting of bath and
laundry areas. While these items increase health, safety, and comfort and ensure certain energy
saving measures work properly, they increase costs of the job.
Table 26. WAQC summary of measures installed in Oregon,2025
Total Counts-All Payment IP Pay Production Costs
Sources (no admin)
Attic Insulation 1 $ 5,597
Audit,Education,and Support 1 0
Doors 1 2,340
Electric HVAC Repair 1 800
Floor Insulation 1 4,458
Health and Safety 3 2,272
Infiltration 3 0
Lighting-LEDs 1 0
Pipe Wrap 1 0
Total Oregon Homes $ 15,467
Note:Dollars are rounded.
There is a variance of approximately$296 in reported expenditures due to one job being completed in December and accrued
based on the agency's invoice estimate,which was lower than the actual invoiced amount.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 86

Residential I ctor—
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(Oregon)
Marketing Activities
Information about WAQC is available in a brochure (in English and Spanish) and on the Income
Qualified Customers page of Idaho Power's website. Idaho Power regional energy advisors
promote WAQC to customers in their communities, at fairs, senior centers, and during other
presentations in their regions. The CAP agencies also promote the program through their outreach
activities.
Cost-Effectiveness
In 2025, the Oregon WAQC program's overall cost-effectiveness resulted in UCT and TRC ratios of
0.08 and 0.32 respectively. Oregon WAQC cost-effectiveness is calculated in a manner like that
described in the WAQC (Idaho) Cost-Effectiveness section.
See billing analysis in WAQC (Idaho) for savings calculations that will be used in 2026.
For further details on the overall program cost-effectiveness assumptions, see Supplement 1:
Cost-Effectiveness.
Customer Education and Satisfaction
The CAP agency weatherization auditor explains to the customer where energy might be saved in
their home and how. Further education is done as the crew demonstrates the upgrades and how
they will help save energy and provide an increase in comfort. Idaho Power provides each CAP
agency with energy efficiency educational materials for distribution to customers during home
visits. Any customers whose homes are selected for the company's post-weatherization home
verification receive additional information and can ask the home verifiers more questions.
A customer survey was used to assess major indicators of customer satisfaction throughout the
service area. Program participants in all regions were asked to complete a survey after their
homes were weatherized. Survey questions gathered information about how customers learned of
the program, reasons for participating, how much customers learned about saving energy in their
homes, and the likelihood of household members changing behaviors to use energy wisely.
The results of the customer surveys include responses from 111 Idaho participants and one
Oregon participant and can be found in the WAQC (Idaho) program Customer Education and
Satisfaction section. A complete summary of the survey is included in Supplement 2: Evaluation.
2026 Plans
In 2026, Idaho Power will continue to make funds available to Oregon CAP agencies while
exploring opportunities to improve program delivery.
Idaho Power plans to continue to verify approximately 5-10% of the homes weatherized under
the WAQC program via home-verification companies and state monitoring processes.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 87

Residential Sector—
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(Oregon)
In 2026, Idaho Power will make available the base amount of$50,000 plus unused funds from
2025 of$42,642 for a total of$92,642 available for weatherization measures and agency
administration fees.
Idaho Power will continue to maintain the program content on its website and include it with
other marketing collateral.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 88

Residential Sector—
Weath_"4l%.� erization Solutions for Eligible Customers
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers
2025 2024
Participation and Savings'
Participants(homes/non-profits) 25 18
Energy Savings(kWh) 39,571 25,784
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider $148,132 $111,940
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider $0 $0
Idaho Power Base Rates $7,343 $1,004
Total Program Costs—All Sources $155,475 $112,944
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.372 $0.326
Total Resource Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.372 $0.326
Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.17 0.14
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.24 0.21
'For jurisdictional-level participation and savings details,see Appendix 4.
Description
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers is an energy efficiency program designed to
serve Idaho Power residential customers in Idaho whose income falls between 175 and 250% of
the current federal poverty level. Initiated in 2008, the program is designed to mirror the
WAQC program. These customers often do not have disposable income to invest in energy
efficiency upgrades, and they typically live in housing similar to WAQC customers.
The program also benefits certain customers on the Idaho State WAP waiting list.
When customer income overlaps both programs, this program may offer an earlier
weatherization date than the state WAP, resulting in less wait time for the customer and
quicker energy savings.
Potential participants are interviewed by a participating contractor to determine household
occupant income eligibility, as well as to confirm the home is eligible. If the home is a rental,
the landlord must agree to maintain the unit's current rent for a minimum of one year, and to
help fund a portion of the cost of weatherization. If the customer is eligible, an auditor inspects
the home to determine which upgrades will save energy, improve indoor air quality,
and/or provide health and safety measures for the residents. To be approved, energy efficiency
measures must meet Idaho WAP requirements, or be necessary for the health and safety of
the occupants.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 89

Resigential Sector—
Weatherization Solutions foble Customers
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers uses a home audit tool called the HAT14.1.
The home is audited for energy efficiency measures, and the auditor proposes upgrades based
on the savings-to-investment ratio calculated by HAT14.1. Measures considered for
improvement are window and door replacement; ceiling, floor, and wall insulation; HVAC repair
and replacement; water heater repair and replacement; and pipe wrap. Also included is the
potential to replace lightbulbs and refrigerators. Contractors invoice Idaho Power for the
project costs, and if the home is a rental, a minimum landlord payment of 10% of the cost
is required.
Idaho Power's agreement with contractors includes a provision that identifies a maximum
annual average cost per home. The intent of the maximum annual average cost is to allow
contractors the flexibility to service homes with greater or fewer weatherization needs. It also
provides a monitoring tool for Idaho Power to forecast year-end outcomes.
Program Activities
In 2025, one contractor in the southern region weatherized 25 homes in Idaho. Of the
25 homes weatherized, six were single-family, four were manufactured homes, and 15 were
multifamily homes. The contractor reported increased costs for materials and equipment over
previous years.
An independent company performed random verifications of weatherized homes and visited
with customers about the program. In 2025, two homes were verified, and all measures were
found to be correctly installed and performing as anticipated.
Marketing Activities
Although the eligibility and some rules for Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers are
somewhat different than WAQC (i.e. higher income eligibility threshold and lower average job
cost allowance), for both programs customers are directed to connect with CAP agencies to
determine their eligibility. Therefore, to avoid unnecessary customer confusion, Idaho Power
markets both programs under the weatherization program umbrella. See the Marketing
Activities section of the WAQC Idaho program write-up for more details.
Cost-Effectiveness
In 2025, the Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers program cost-effectiveness UCT
and TRC ratios were 0.17 and 0.24 respectively.
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers projects, like WAQC program guidelines,
benefit from a prescreening of measure through a home audit process. The home audit process
ensures an adequate number of kWh savings to justify the project and provides more
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 90

Residential Sector—
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers
consistent savings for billing analysis. See the WAQC (Idaho) Cost-Effectiveness section for a
discussion of the audit and prescreening process, which is similar for both programs.
For further details on the overall program cost-effectiveness assumptions, see Supplement 1:
Cost-Effectiveness.
Customer Satisfaction
A customer survey was used to assess major indicators of customer satisfaction with the
program throughout the service area. Program participants were asked to complete a survey
after their homes were weatherized. Survey questions gathered the following information:
• How customers learned of the program
• Reasons for participating
• How much customers learned about saving energy in their homes
• The likelihood of household members changing behaviors to use energy wisely
Idaho Power received survey results all 25 households weatherized by the program in 2025.
Some highlights include the following:
• 64% of respondents learned of the program from a friend or relative, and 12% learned
of the program from an agency/contractor flyer.
• 60% of the respondents reported their primary reason for participating in the
weatherization program was to reduce their utility bills, and 32%wanted to improve the
comfort of their home.
• 100% of respondents said they learned how air leaks affect energy use, how insulation
affects energy use, how to reduce the amount of hot water used, and how to
understand what uses the most energy in their home.
• Almost 88% of respondents reported they think the weatherization they received will
significantly affect the comfort of their home, and 100% said they were "very satisfied"
with the program.
• 20% of respondents reported the habits they were most likely to change are washing
full loads of clothes and unplugging electrical equipment when not in use, and 16% said
turning off lights when not in use was the habit they were likely to adopt to save energy.
A summary of the survey is included in Supplement 2: Evaluation.
2026 Plans
Participation in the program is expected to remain low as workforce shortages persist,
supply costs continue to rise, and WAQC jobs, which leverage shared funding and have long
waiting lists, are prioritized over Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers jobs.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 91

Resigential Sector—
Weatherization Solutions foble Customers
If needed, additional marketing for the program may include bill inserts, emails, News Briefs,
website updates, and ads in various regional publications, particularly those with a senior
and/or low-income focus. Social media posts and boosts, coordinated partner content,
and employee education may be used to increase awareness. Regional marketing and targeted
digital ads will be considered based on need as evidenced by any regional contractor's waiting
list for Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers services.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 92

Commercial & Industrial Sector Overview
Commercial & Industrial Sector Overview
In 2025, Idaho Power's Commercial sector consisted of 80,838 commercial, governmental,
school, and small business customers. The number of customers increased by 1,336, or 1.65%,
since 2024. Energy use per month for customers in this sector is not as homogenous as other
customer sectors and can vary by several hundred thousand kWh each month depending on
customer type. In 2025, the commercial sector represented 26.85% of Idaho Power's total retail
annual electricity sales.
Industrial and special contract customers are Idaho Power's largest individual energy
consumers. In 2025, there were 143 customers in this category, representing approximately
23.29% of Idaho Power's total retail annual electricity sales.
Idaho Power's Commercial & Industrial (C&I) sector has many energy efficiency programs
available to commercial, industrial, governmental, schools, and small business customers.
The suite of options can help businesses of all sizes implement energy efficiency measures.
Additionally, the sector includes one demand response program to encourage C&I customers to
reduce load.
Table 27. C&I sector program summary,2025
Total Cost Savings
Annual Energy Peak Demand
Program Participants Utility Resource (kWh) (MW)l
Demand Response
Flex Peak Program............................ 250 sites $ 745,694 $ 745,694 23.8/38.8
Total.................................................................................................... $ 745,694 $ 745,694 23.8/38.8
Energy Efficiency
C&I Custom Projects ............................ 135 projects 10,095,942 30,505,960 60,037,800
C&I New Construction .......................... 151 projects 2,797,674 3,985,598 11,339,940
C&I Retrofits......................................... 520 projects 5,079,522 13,293,475 19,579,664
Small Business Lighting Program....... 101 projects 320,511 391,717 663,044
Total.................................................................................................... $ 18,293,649 $ 41,211,130 85,506,193
Notes:
See Appendix 3 for notes on methodology and column definitions.See Appendix 4 for jurisdictional-level participation and savings details.
Totals may not add up due to rounding.
Demand response program reductions are reported with 6.5%system loss assumptions.Maximum actual demand reduction/maximum potential
demand reduction.
Commercial and Industrial DSM Programs
In 2025, Idaho Power separated the C&I Energy Efficiency Program into its three main
component parts—C&I Custom Projects, C&I New Construction, and C&I Retrofits—each is
now reported on separately within their own program write-ups. Costs, savings,
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 93

Commercial & Industrial Sector Overview
and cost-effectiveness for these three programs have always been reported separately,
and that will continue unchanged. One customer project could include both prescriptive and
custom measures and thus be submitted under multiple programs. In this case, the incentives
would be paid, and savings would be claimed under each measure's respective program.
i
1
Figure 18. C&I energy efficient participant facility
C&I Custom Projects. This energy efficiency program is for projects not covered by the C&I New
Construction or C&I Retrofits programs. C&I Custom Projects offers incentives for qualifying
custom energy efficiency projects and energy-management measures, such as strategic energy
management (SEM) cohorts, tune-ups, system optimization, and retro-commissioning. Business
customers who wish to find ways to save energy and to quantify their savings can obtain a
scoping assessment and detailed assessment through this program. Additionally, the Green
Motors Program is now a measure under C&I Custom Projects.
C&I New Construction. This energy efficiency program offers specific incentives for designing
and building better-than-code energy-efficient features into a new construction,
major renovation, addition, expansion, or change-of-space C&I project. A Professional
Assistance Incentive (PAI) is available for the architect or engineer for supporting technical
aspects and documentation of the project.
C&I Retrofits.This energy efficiency program offers prescriptive incentives for energy-saving
retrofits to existing C&I equipment or facilities.
Flex Peak Program.This demand response program pays an incentive to C&I customers who
voluntarily reduce their demand during periods of high energy demand or for other
system needs.
Demand-Side Management 202S Annual Report Page 94

Commercial & Industrial Sector Overview
Small Business Lighting Program. This program targets typically hard-to-reach small business
customers in Idaho and Oregon who use up to 50,000 kWh annually, offering a free lighting
assessment. Qualified customers are paid an enhanced incentive of$0.40/kWh saved.
Oregon Commercial Audit.This statutorily required program offers free energy audits,
evaluations, and educational products to Oregon customers to help them achieve
energy savings.
Marketing
In 2025, Idaho Power continued to market the programs listed above through the following
methods and targeting the following customers: commercial, industrial, government, schools,
small businesses, electrical contractors, architects, engineers, and other design professionals.
Bill Inserts
A bill insert highlighting how Idaho Power's incentives can save customers money was
included in 36,662 business customer bills in March, and a version of the insert was included in
37,400 bills in July.
dr
' Ir•�
r bill
•lu.c�llWe`L1'pcTj�'F16r1:a��� -ln r iMilta �•,
�(trrtrlftarCNl�r '� jtMl1'�1Q�7. -ip �i:'��'_,�� '� _. ♦ ', �
Figure 19. C&I energy efficiency bill insert
Print and Digital Advertising
In 2025, print ads focused on promoting incentives and their availability to businesses of all
sizes. The company also continued to promote energy efficiency with messages around
providing safe, reliable, affordable energy in select publications.
Print ads ran in the Idaho Business Review in February, March, May, June,July, August,
October, and December. Ads also ran in the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA)
membership directory and symposium program, Idaho Business Review Top Projects Awards
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 95

Commercial & Industrial Sector Overview
publication, and the Idaho Association of General Contractors membership directory.
Additionally, Idaho Power sponsored the Construction section in the Idaho Business Review's
Book of Lists, which included an energy efficiency ad and an article highlighting an energy
efficiency project and the company's energy efficiency programs.
Idaho Power continued using search engine marketing to display Idaho Power's C&I Energy
Efficiency Program near the top of the search results with the paid search terms when
customers search for energy efficiency business terms. These ads received 186,554 impressions
and 31,884 clicks.
Airport Advertising
To reach business customers, Idaho Power displayed a two-sided hanging banner and a backlit
ad at the Boise Airport in 2025. The ad promotes cash incentives for businesses of all sizes
when they incorporate energy efficiency into their new or existing facilities.
Newsletters
Idaho Power produces and distributes Energy@Work, a quarterly newsletter featuring company
information and energy efficiency topics for business customers. In 2025, each newsletter was
delivered electronically, with the addition of a hard-copy newsletter in the second quarter.
• The spring issue was emailed to 20,077 customers in March. The issue focused on the
C&I Custom Projects program saving over 1 billion kWh since the program was created
in 2004, the increase in the C&I Custom Projects program incentive, what variable
frequency drives (VFD) are and how they save energy, and information on how to
participate in the Flex Peak Program.
• The summer issue was emailed to 20,839 customers and mailed to 25,264 in June.
The issue highlighted the Walker Center and their energy efficiency projects with
participation in the Campus Cohort, VFDs and Harmonics, how to participate in the
Small Business Lighting Program, outage preparedness, 2025 training opportunities,
and how to connect with your energy advisor.
• The fall issue was emailed to 20,112 customers in September. The issue included
information on energy efficiency incentives that benefited City of Nampa's Water
Renewal Facility, energy-efficient exterior lighting, how to calculate your emissions,
and how Idaho Power is keeping up with growth while maintaining reliability
and affordability.
• The winter issue was emailed in two installments: in December 2025 to 791 customers
and in January 2026 to 20,222 customers. The issue included a spotlight on Stay Well
Health Foods' participation in the Small Business Lighting Program, information
dispelling rumors that large-load customers were causing Idaho Power's latest rate
Demand-Side Management 202S Annual Report Page 96

Commercial & Industrial Sector Overview
increase, a peek into Veolia Water Idaho's success with Flex Peak, and a thank you to all
the Flex Peak participants with a season summary.
Radio
Idaho Power sponsored messages on public radio stations in Boise, Twin Falls, and Pocatello
from August through September. The company ran a total of 356 messages in Boise and
Twin Falls and 637 messages in Pocatello.
Social Media
Idaho Power continued using regular Linkedln posts focused on energy-saving tips,
program details, and incentives. When appropriate, these messages were also shared on
Idaho Power's Facebook page. Idaho Power ran paid ads on Linkedln focusing on C&I energy
efficiency programs and energy-saving tips. These ads received 191,123 impressions and
1,398 clicks.
�;111�)tG d'�•1V e
IF
t �161:atc-h�b�q�gKAa/6y� F�' ',�,: - •,�y�Vvr°�a3T V ,• ,
1'
,
� � � yrr ► r 7 r
',�!li;;�.• '1�7 ••tilt 1j
Figure 20. Linkedln ad for C&I energy efficiency programs
Customer Communications
Idaho Power provides communications support to customers who want to publicize the work
they have done to become more energy efficient. Upon request, Idaho Power creates
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report

Commercial & Industrial Sector Overview
large-format checks used for media events and/or board meetings. Idaho Power will continue
to assist customers with communications opportunities by creating certificates for display
within their buildings and participating in press events or opportunities, if requested.
These opportunities were coordinated for several companies in 2025, including City of Nampa,
Blaine County School District, and St. Luke's Health System.
The company provided an article for the Idaho Associated General Contractors (AGC) to
distribute. The article covered the energy efficient tools, incentives, trainings,
and resources that Idaho Power provides to contractors, developers, municipalities,
and industry professionals.
lot
Figure 21. Large-format check presented to the City of Nampa
Association and Event Sponsorships
Idaho Power's C&I Energy Efficiency Programs typically sponsor several associations and events.
Idaho Power is a sponsor of BOMA Idaho, which includes having the company logo at
membership events such as the Annual Excellence Awards. The company sponsored the BOMA
Commercial Real Estate Symposium in February 2025 and placed an energy efficiency ad and an
article highlighting an energy-efficient project in the event program. Before and during the
event, slides were presented with energy efficiency tips and program information that rotated
on the screen, and Idaho Power had a booth with materials promoting energy efficiency.
Energy efficiency and demand response program takeaway brochures were placed at each
table for the 485 attendees and Idaho Power's Customer Experience and Economic
Development director spoke on The State of Energy & Energy Efficiency. Idaho Power also
sponsored and hosted the BOMA Emergency Preparedness Event, held at Idaho Power's Skills
Training Center. Energy efficiency pop-up banners, program takeaway brochures, industry
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report

Commercial & Industrial Sector Overview
specific tips, and table tents were displayed prominently at the event. The cost was split
between energy efficiency rider funds and Idaho Power base rates.
.4
,
�.may' • ' It'p'i
t A4�
r� _
_
sir s+► _ -
Figure 22. Pop-up banner at the BOMA emergency preparedness event
Idaho Power remained a sponsor of the Idaho Business Review's Top Projects Awards held in
October in Boise. An ad to congratulate the top project finalists and associated professional
firms was placed in the event program with energy efficiency program information.
Customer Satisfaction
Idaho Power conducts the Burke Customer Relationship Index Survey each year. In 2025, on a
scale of zero to 10, small business survey respondents rated Idaho Power 7.93 regarding
offering programs to help customers save energy, and 7.73 related to providing information on
how to save energy and money. Approximately 10.40% of small business respondents indicated
they have participated in at least one Idaho Power energy efficiency program. Of the small
business survey respondents who have participated in at least one Idaho Power energy
efficiency program, 90.50% are "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with the program.
In 2025, on a scale of zero to 10, large C&I survey respondents rated Idaho Power
9.12 regarding offering programs to help customers save energy, and 8.85 related to
providing customers with information on how to save energy and money, and 48.80% of large
C&I respondents indicated they have participated in at least one Idaho Power energy efficiency
programs. Of the large C&I survey respondents who have participated in at least one
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 99

Commercial & Industrial Sector Overview
Idaho Power energy efficiency program, 98.0% are "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with
the program.
Training and Education
In 2025, Idaho Power engineers, program staff, field representatives, and hired consultants
continued to provide technical training and education to help customers learn how to identify
opportunities to improve energy efficiency in their facilities. The company has found these
activities increase awareness and participation in its energy efficiency and demand response
programs and enhance customer program satisfaction. To market this service and distribute
the training schedule and resources, Idaho Power used its website, email, and the
Energy@Work newsletter.
During each training session, a program engineer gave an overview of the C&I Energy Efficiency
Programs incentives available to customers.
As part of the training and education outreach activity, Idaho Power collaborated with and
supported stakeholders and organizations, such as the IDL and the American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). Using Idaho Power funding,
IDL performed several tasks aimed at increasing the energy efficiency knowledge of architects,
engineers, trade allies, and customers. Specific activities included sponsoring a BSUG,
conducting Lunch & Learn sessions at various design and engineering firms, and offering
the ERL.
Idaho Power delivered eight technical training sessions in 2025. Topics included the following:
• HVAC (Boise—In person only)
• Retrofits Lighting Update Workshops and Lighting Controls Training (Pocatello, Boise,
and Twin Falls—In person only)
• Pumps (Boise—Hybrid)
• Harmonics (Twin Falls—Hybrid)
• Compressed Air Challenge—Level 1 (Boise—Hybrid)
• Industrial Refrigeration (Boise—Hybrid)
• Motors and Fans (Boise—Hybrid)
• Energy Efficiency Incentives Workshop (Idaho Falls—In person only)
The level of participation in 2025 remained high, with 302 individuals attending the
technical sessions. Customer feedback indicated that the average satisfaction level was 93%.
Idaho Power's average cost to deliver the technical trainings in 2025 was approximately
$4,319 per class. Idaho Power continues to assess feedback from customers to offer relevant
courses as well as accommodate their technical training needs.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 100

Commercial & Industrial Sector Overview
Aside from the classes listed above, Idaho Power also partnered with Building Potential to
administer BOC Level I and Level II courses as well as their Fundamentals of Energy Efficient
Buildings course and Multifamily course. Idaho Power sponsored 21 customers who signed up
for the training and paid $900 of the $2,095 tuition cost for the Level I and Level II courses and
$625 of the $1,250 tuition cost of the Fundamentals course upon completion.
Field Staff Activities
Idaho Power continues to prioritize strong relationships with large power customers by
assigning them a dedicated key account energy advisor. These advisors provide personalized
support to help customers identify and implement energy solutions that align with their
operational and sustainability goals.
2025 Highlights
• Significant Growth: Idaho's commercial and industrial sectors experienced notable
expansion. Several existing large customers grew operations, and new customers
established facilities in the region, creating opportunities for substantial energy
efficiency improvements.
• Long-Term Projects: Many efficiency projects are multi-year efforts, with savings realized
gradually as build-outs progress. Idaho Power remains committed to supporting these
initiatives through technical expertise and incentive programs.
• Market Challenges: While growth dominated the year, market uncertainty and tariffs
introduced caution among some smaller businesses, slowing decision-making for certain
projects.
• Increasing Complexity: Energy projects now often incorporate not only traditional efficiency
measures but also strategies for resilience and clean energy to meet ambitious
sustainability objectives.
Looking Ahead
Idaho's trajectory continues to point toward sustained growth. Customer participation in both
energy efficiency and demand response programs will remain a critical focus to help manage
this expansion responsibly. These programs are integral to Idaho Power's long-term integrated
resource planning, ensuring the company can meet rising demand while supporting customers
in reducing costs and achieving sustainability targets.
Cohort Programs
Cohort programs play a vital role in sustaining energy-efficient behaviors and operational
practices. By bringing together groups of customers with similar goals, these programs foster:
• Collaboration and knowledge sharing
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 101

Commercial & Industrial Sector Overview
• Peer accountability
• Access to resources and support
Participants benefit from lasting changes in energy management strategies,
achieving measurable results that extend well beyond individual projects.
Commitment
Idaho Power's commitment to collaboration and innovation ensures that customers have the
tools and guidance they need to succeed in this evolving energy landscape.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 102

Commercial & Industrial Sector—
C&I Custom Projects
C&1 Custom Projects
2025 2024
Participation and Savings'
Participants(projects) 135 126
Energy Savings(kWh) 60,037,800 60,076,877
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider $9,350,459 $8,595,184
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider $267,583 $499,816
Idaho Power Base Rates $477,899 $484,826
Total Program Costs—All Sources $10,095,942 $9,579,826
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.022 $0.017
Total Resource Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.066 $0.046
Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.16 2.21
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.80 0.91
'For jurisdictional-level participation and savings details,see Appendix 4.
Description
Initiated in 2003, the C&I Custom Projects program provides incentives for energy efficiency
modifications to new and existing facilities. The goal is to encourage cost-effective energy
savings in Idaho and Oregon service areas by helping customers implement energy-efficient
capital upgrades or energy management projects that are beyond measures offered in
C&I Retrofits or C&I New Construction prescriptive programs. Interested customers submit a
pre-approval application to Idaho Power for potential upgrades, as identified by the customer,
Idaho Power, or a third-party consultant. Idaho Power reviews each application and works with
the customer and vendors to verify the estimated energy-savings calculations prior to
pre-approving the project. Then, the customer moves forward with the project.
In some cases, large, complex projects may take multiple years to complete. Once the project is
completed, customers submit a payment application. Each project is reviewed again to ensure
energy-saving measures are installed as expected, are operating, and energy savings are
achieved. An Idaho Power engineer or a third-party consultant verifies the energy-savings
methods and calculations. Through this verification process, the energy savings are finalized,
the total project costs are identified, and the final incentive is calculated. On the larger and
more complex projects, Idaho Power or a third-party consultant conducts on-site power
monitoring and verification (M&V) before and after project implementation to confirm energy
savings are obtained and adhere to program guidelines. If changes in project scope took place,
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 103

Commercial & Industrial Sector—
Idaho Power recalculates energy savings and incentive amounts based on the actual installed
equipment and performance.
Two types of projects are eligible for incentives under the C&I Custom Projects program:
1) capital projects and 2) energy management projects. To support project adoption and
advancement for energy efficiency, Idaho Power offers either free or cost-shared energy
assessments and technical training for customers.
Capital Projects
Incentive levels for custom capital projects are $0.18 (for projects that submitted requests for
pre-approval prior to December 11, 2024) or $0.20 (for projects that submitted requests for
pre-approval after December 11, 2024) per estimated kWh savings for one year, up to 70% of
the eligible project cost. There is a Streamlined Custom Efficiency (SCE) offering that works to
keep vendor engagement and customer satisfaction high, targeting specific measures that are
standard and have streamlined calculation and M&V methods developed. Currently, the SCE
offering provides custom incentives for refrigeration controllers for walk-in coolers and
freezers; process-related VFDs; compressed air system upgrades; and other small,
vendor-based projects that do not qualify for prescriptive incentives. Idaho Power contracts
with a third party to manage SCE data collection and analysis for each project.
Additionally, under the capital incentive structure, Idaho Power provides incentives for
conducting pressurized, underground water leak assessments and fixing those leaks.
The program reimburses $1,000 per five miles of pipe inspected with ultrasound leak detection
for a third-party leak assessment in addition to the standard capital project incentive
for repairs.
Idaho Power pays service centers $2.00 per horsepower (hp) for each National Electrical
Manufacturers Association-rated motor up to 5,000 hp that receives a Green Rewind. Half of
that incentive, or $1.00 per hp, is passed on to the customer as a credit on their rewind invoice.
Energy Management
The energy management incentive pays $0.025 per first-year kWh saved, up to 100% of the
eligible costs. Compared to typical custom capital projects, cost-effective energy management
projects tend to have the following:
• A shorter measure life
• Low cost of implementation
• O&M changes or measures that save energy without interrupting the customer's service
or production
Idaho Power operates SEM cohorts under the C&I Custom Projects energy management
offering. Idaho Power has SEM cohorts to engage with customers in group settings,
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 104

Commercial & Industrial Sector—
allowing interaction and economies of scale in working with multiple customers on SEM.
SEM consists of collaborative training workshops and one-on-one coaching to support
customers in the continuous improvement of energy performance over a long timeframe.
SEM relies on management's commitment to long-term energy performance goals,
energy planning and implementation, and having a system for measuring and reporting
energy performance.
The Industrial Energy Efficiency Cohort (IEEC), Campus Cohort for Energy Efficiency (CCFEE),
and the Continuous Energy Improvement (CEI) Cohort for Schools program offerings have
driven a significant number of new projects while providing high levels of customer satisfaction.
Reported cohort savings correlate to energy management incentives; any capital projects
promoted or identified in SEM are reported and incentivized through C&I Custom Projects,
C&I New Construction, or C&I Retrofits programs, not attributed to the cohort itself.
Cohorts are structured to offer three phases of support. Some customers progress quickly
through the following phases while others require more time:
1. The active phase, typically the first two years of engagement with strong consultant
support, includes energy team development, energy policy development, energy model
development (when possible), training and report-out workshops, energy champion and
team calls, and general energy efficiency awareness.
2. The maintenance phase includes medium consultant support and is typically during
years three to six. This phase includes consultant maintenance of facility energy models,
monthly energy champion calls, report-out workshops, and ongoing general
development to transition to self-sustaining operations.
3. The sustaining phase is typically beyond year five or six when the participants manage
activities on their own, including maintenance of energy models and ongoing focus on
energy-saving activities. Participants in this phase have the option to participate in
report-out workshops, but consultant support is minimal. Typically, energy models are
re-baselined on a five-year cycle and yearly energy savings are calculated with reference
to the most recent baseline.
Energy management extends beyond cohorts. Idaho Power also has a commercial
energy-savings offering called Find n' Fix. This offering uses an analysis tool and quick
engineering estimates, in conjunction with engineering services, to help identify and quantify
energy-savings opportunities for commercial customers associated with central building
control systems.
Compressed air system leak repairs are also eligible for payment under the energy
management incentive. Customers can use their own instrumentation, check out compressed
air leak detection equipment from the IDL at no cost, or work with one of Idaho Power's
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 105

Commercial & Industrial Sector—
third-party consultants to identify and document leaks. Energy savings achieved from fixing
leaks are quantified, and project costs are calculated by factoring in the material and labor cost
to fix the leaks. For many of these projects, the full cost of repair is offset by the incentive.
Finally, facility tune-ups are available for industrial customers to optimize the operation of
energy-intensive systems within their plants. Industrial facilities require periodic maintenance
and adjustments to operate at peak energy efficiency. Whereas Find n' Fix focuses on HVAC
controls opportunities, this offering focuses on low and no-cost adjustments to a variety of
energy systems including refrigeration, compressed air, pumps, fans, and other controls.
Assessment and Training
The C&I Custom Projects program also offers energy assessment services and customer training
to help identify, evaluate, and quantify potential energy-saving modifications or projects.
The program covers the cost of engineering services up to $6,000 to conduct energy Scoping
Assessments to encourage its larger customers to adopt energy-efficient improvements and
potential demand response solutions. Alternatively, Detailed Assessments are an
investment-grade analysis of specific systems with cost-effective energy efficiency potential
performed by a pre-approved third-party consultant. They are offered to customers as a
cost-share of 75% of the cost of the assessment, up to $12,500. Customers contract directly
with the consultants for Detailed Assessments and are reimbursed after a final report and
copies of invoicing for the work are received.
The company was contracted with six firms to provide Scoping Assessments,
Detailed Assessments, and general energy efficiency engineering support services through most
of 2025. In 2026, four consultants will be tasked to provide a wide array of engineering services,
including Scoping Assessments, Detailed Assessments, energy modeling, and implementation of
various energy management programs.
Program Activities
Incentive levels for custom capital projects were evaluated and increased in late 2024
from $0.18 to $0.20 per estimated kWh savings for the first year, up to 70% of the eligible
project cost. This change became effective on December 11, 2024. Projects with pre-approval
before December 11, 2024, are paid at $0.18 per estimated kWh saved. Projects that were
submitted for pre-approval after that date are paid at $0.20 per estimated kWh saved.
If project pre-approval was not in place prior to submission for payment, then invoice dates will
be used to determine which incentive rate to use. The energy management incentive of
$0.025 per first-year kWh saved, up to 100% of the eligible costs, remained unchanged in 2025.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 106

Commercial & Industrial Sector—
In 2024, Idaho Power contracted with a third-party evaluator to conduct an impact and process
evaluation of the C&I Custom Projects that were paid in 2023. Follow up on the three key
recommendations is ongoing, including:
• All projects continue to be reviewed by two engineers and a leader before being
pre-approved or authorized for payment.
• The company continues to emphasize the payback period of equipment installations,
as well as the longer-term return on investment, and continues to provide materials
that display the range of available C&I Custom Project options.
• Idaho Power staff continues to explore ways to increase communication and project
updates with customers related to their application status and progress.
The C&I Custom Projects program had a successful year in 2025 with a total of 135 completed
projects, a 3% increase compared to 2024, and achieved energy savings of 60,037,800 kWh
(Table 28), a 0.1% decrease compared to 2024.
In 2025, Idaho Power contractors completed 64 assessments for Idaho Power customers.
These assessments identified over 90,287,000 kWh of savings potential, which was used as the
basis of savings for some projects completed in 2025 and will be used to promote other
future projects.
Table 28. C&I Custom Projects annual energy savings by primary option measure,2025
Option Summary by Measure Number of Projects kWh Saved
Compressed Air 16 4,704,854
Controls 3 396,814
Energy Management 44 22,306,546
Fans 2 265,207
Green Motors Rewinds 5 13,356
HVAC 3 1,141,597
Other 13 12,055,344
Pump 3 1,697,381
Refrigeration 13 5,532,065
VFD 33 11,924,636
Total 135 60,037,800
C&I Custom Projects engineers and key account energy advisors visited large C&I customers to
perform facility walk-throughs, conduct commercial and industrial efficiency program
informational sessions, and train customers on specific technical energy-saving opportunities.
Idaho Power provided sponsorship for the 2025 ASHRAE Idaho Technical Conference that had
numerous energy-efficiency-related presentations and over 100 attendees. Idaho Power also
provided a sponsorship to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy for
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 107

Commercial & Industrial Sector—
membership to the North American SEM Collaborative. C&I Custom Projects engineers gave
presentations on Idaho Power programs and offerings at the Cohort for Schools Final
Workshop, Caldwell School District Board Meetings, the Idaho Climate and Health Symposium,
an Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Workshop for Idaho Power customers, and multiple
presentations at Cohort Workshops (virtual). Idaho Power sponsored an exhibit booth at
ASHRAE Idaho's Technical Conference.
Cohorts
Industrial Energy Efficiency Cohort(IEEC)
Year one of the IEEC officially began in September 2022 and it was an expansion on the prior
Industrial Wastewater Energy Cohort (IWEC) that was first launched in January 2016.
Recruitment efforts for the first year were limited to municipal wastewater facilities or large
industrial facilities that had their own wastewater treatment systems. Two municipal and
four industrial customers signed up to participate in the first year.
Program year two began in September 2023. There were seven active participants in year two.
One facility did not continue with the program due to exhausting their opportunities to save
energy and completing construction of their new wastewater system. Two new industrial
customers joined for year two as the cohort held an open enrollment period. In year two, the
cohort was adapted to incorporate a "holistic approach" that could support more than just
wastewater systems. Since the cohort includes large industrial customers, participants could
now include subsystems upstream of the wastewater treatment facilities. Examples of
subsystems include compressed air, refrigeration, HVAC, process equipment, and more. To this
end, the cohort was renamed from IWEC to IEEC.
The third program year began in September 2024 when three new customers joined the cohort,
and the year ended with 10 active participants. A focus in year three was to get solid
regression-based energy models built for all IEEC participants. These models track normalized,
site-wide energy savings with a high degree of accuracy. Seven of the ten participants had
working energy models, two large industrial customers had partial models, and one municipal
wastewater facility still relied on bottom-up calculations for energy-saving tracking purposes.
The fourth program year began in September 2025 with 10 active participants. Energy savings
associated with the cohort totaled 11,158,155 kWh in 2025.
Campus Cohort for Energy Efficiency(CCFEE)
The CCFEE kicked off in June 2023 with five customers enrolled and 21 sites. This cohort is for
any customer with a campus of facilities including, but not limited to, universities, hospitals,
correctional facilities, and government facilities. The cohort includes customer site visits for
HVAC scans and treasure hunts in which low- and no-cost energy efficiency opportunities are
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 108

Commercial & Industrial Sector—
documented and prioritized. The cohort also includes a series of four workshops focusing on
building energy efficiency into the culture at the customer's site as well as several one-hour
Lunch & Learn workshops on specific technologies and energy efficiency improvement
opportunities.
All but one cohort participant continued to year two, which concluded at the end of June 2025
with 4,535,304 kWh savings. Two participants, and a couple of sites from one participant,
chose to graduate from the program after year two. Through recruiting, four new participants
(one in Oregon) and six sites joined the cohort in the summer of 2025. Six customers with a
total of 21 sites currently participate in CCFEE.
Continuous Energy Improvement(CEI) Cohort for Schools
The goal of this cohort is to equip school district personnel with hands-on training and guidance
to help them get the most out of their energy systems while reducing energy consumption.
The eighth program year of the Cohort for Schools ran from June 2024 through May 2025 to
coincide with the standard school calendar; reported energy savings are based on the
program year.
Five school districts continued with the program in 2025, and two new school districts were
added, for a total of seven participating districts. Of the seven, three districts are modeling all
their schools. One district added one new facility, and another added three new facilities for a
total of 53 facilities engaged with the offering during the 2025 program year. The cohort is
implemented by a third-party consultant that provides final savings reports for each school
district, which totaled 986,951 kWh in 2025.
Activities in 2025 included managing a list of energy efficiency opportunities for each facility
detailing low- and no-cost opportunities to reduce energy consumption. The consultant worked
with each participant to complete as many identified opportunities as possible. Afterward, the
consultant checked in monthly by phone to review the list of opportunities and to discuss
current activities. Idaho Power provided program and incentive information, both in hard copy
and electronically, along with many other energy-saving resources pertinent to school facilities.
Over the last few years, this offering has supported DOE 50001 Ready development.
50001 Ready is a self-guided program for facilities to establish an energy management system.
It can help organizations achieve and sustain energy and cost savings through "informed and
systematic decision making," according to the DOE. As of 2025, 30 school facilities from the
cohort were listed by the DOE as having achieved 50001 Ready status.
Final program year workshops to report results were held October 1, 2025, in Boise and
October 2, 2025, in Twin Falls. Districts shared successes, lessons learned, and other details
pertinent to their energy-saving journeys.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 109

Commercial & Industrial Sector—
Idaho Power surveyed all current participants on the most valuable aspects of the program to
optimize efforts and keep the offering cost-effective moving forward. Survey results
highlighted the following as the most desired for customers: regular check-in meetings,
provision of heat maps, HVAC controls improvements, and a focus on low- and no-cost
energy-saving opportunities.
Marketing Activities
Idaho Power continued to primarily market the C&I Energy Efficiency Program as a single
offering to businesses. See the C&I Sector Overview for the company's additional efforts to
market the C&I Energy Efficiency Programs.
In addition to program-level marketing activities, Idaho Power updated multiple brochures,
including the C&I Custom Projects overview and the IEEC. Idaho Power continued to present
large-format checks to interested C&I Custom Projects participants and publicized these events
to local media, when applicable. Several of these opportunities were facilitated by key account
energy advisors in 2025.
Cost-Effectiveness
Projects submitted through the C&I Custom Projects program must meet certain cost-
effectiveness requirements, which include TRC, UCT, and/or PCT tests, depending on the state.
The program requires that all costs related to the energy efficiency implementation and
energy-savings calculations are gathered and submitted with the program application.
Payback is calculated with and without incentives, along with the estimated dollar savings for
installing energy efficiency measures. As a project progresses, any changes to the project are
used to recalculate energy savings and incentives before the incentives are paid to the
participant. To aid in gathering or verifying the data required to conduct cost-effectiveness and
energy-savings calculations, third-party engineering firms are sometimes used to provide an
assessment, or engineering M&V services are available under C&I Custom Projects.
The UCT and TRC ratios for the program are 2.16 and 0.80 respectively. Non-energy impacts
were applied in 2025 based on an estimated per-kWh value by C&I end uses. These values were
provided by a third party as part of the 2019 impact evaluation of the C&I New Construction
and C&I Retrofits programs. Details for the program cost-effectiveness are in Supplement 1:
Cost-Effectiveness.
2026 plans
Idaho Power will continue to provide the following:
• Activities and coaching for the SEM cohort participants
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 110

Commercial & Industrial Sector—
C&I Custom Projects
• In-person or virtual site visits and energy-scoping assessments via C&I Custom Projects
engineers or consultants to identify projects and energy savings opportunities
• Funding for detailed energy assessments for larger, complex projects
• M&V of larger, complex projects
• SCE, Find n' Fix, and general engineering services to support energy
savings opportunities
• Technical training for customers, presented virtually or in-person
Additionally, Idaho Power will do the following in 2026:
• Refocus the School Cohort objectives and scope to cost-effectively deliver energy
efficiency support to participants
• Expand Find n' Fix from exclusively HVAC controls to include broader industrial controls
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 111

Commercial & Industrial Sector—
C&I New Construction
C&I New Construction
2025 2024
Participation and Savings'
Participants(projects) 151 140
Energy Savings(kWh)2 11,339,940 18,161,615
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider $2,570,978 $3,696,504
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider $35,385 $23,328
Idaho Power Base Rates $191,311 $195,280
Total Program Costs—All Sources $2,797,674 $3,915,111
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.026 $0.023
Total Resource Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.037 $0.034
Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.15 2.46
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.14 2.32
'For jurisdictional-level participation and savings details,see Appendix 4.
'2025 cost-effectiveness ratios include evaluation. If evaluation expenses were removed from the program's cost-effectiveness,
the 2025 UCT and TRC would be 2.21 and 2.18,respectively.
Description
Initiated in 2004, the C&I New Construction program enables customers in Idaho Power's Idaho
and Oregon service areas to incorporate energy-efficient design features and technologies into
a new construction, major renovation, addition, expansion, or change-of-space project.
The customer may otherwise lose savings opportunities for these types of projects.
The C&I New Construction program currently offers incentives for 34 energy-saving
building and design features related to efficient lighting, lighting controls, building shell,
HVAC equipment, HVAC controls, variable speed drives, refrigeration, compressed air
equipment, appliances, and other equipment. A complete list of the measures offered through
New Construction is included in Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness. The new construction and
major renovation project design and construction process often encompasses multiple calendar
years. In addition to the customer incentive, a PAI is available to architects and/or engineers for
supporting technical aspects and documentation of a project.
Program Activities
In 2025, 151 total projects were completed, resulting in 11,339,940 kWh of energy savings in
Idaho and Oregon. The C&I construction industry was extremely active in Idaho Power's service
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 112

Commercial & Industrial Sector—
area in 2025, although the industry is still experiencing higher interest rates, causing delays for
some projects. C&I New Construction had an 8% increase in the number of projects and a
38% decrease in total savings compared to 2024. Average savings per project in 2025 was
75,099 kWh, compared to 129,726 kWh in 2024. The average savings per project is declining.
Regionally, other utilities have also experienced a decline in prescriptive program savings.
Maintaining a consistent offering is important for large projects with long construction periods;
however, some changes are necessary to enhance customers' choices or to meet new code
changes. Idaho Power strives to keep the C&I New Construction program consistent by making
changes approximately every other year.
In addition to the customer incentive, a PAI is available to an architect or engineer for
supporting technical aspects and documentation of a project. The PAI is equal to 20% of the
participant's total incentive with a maximum allowed of$5,000 per application.
The PAI increases the engagement with architects and engineers and is most beneficial to small
and medium businesses as they prepare project documentation. These customers typically do
not have staff with a technical background in construction, which can make completing
applications and submitting documentation a challenge.
In 2025, 70 projects, or 46% of projects paid, received the PAI compared to a total of
69 projects, or 49% of the projects paid, in 2024. The PAI will continue to be offered due to
positive feedback from customers, architects, and engineers.
In 2025, third-party on-site verification occurred on 18 of the 151 projects, or 12% of the total
projects completed.
The C&I New Construction engineer and Idaho Power energy advisors continued outreach to
customers, professionals, and professional organizations throughout 2025. Meetings were held
with specific customers or professionals to build relationships with the local design community
and to discuss Idaho Power's C&I New Construction program and other C&I energy efficiency
programs. An Idaho Power representative attended seven Lunch & Learn sessions provided by
the IDL to provide energy efficiency program information to attendees. Additionally,
Idaho Power energy advisors and the C&I New Construction engineer presented program
information to three professional organizations, three government agencies, one supplier,
and four design firms. The New Construction engineer and Idaho Power energy advisors met
with customers (in person and virtually) to discuss the C&I New Construction program and
incentive opportunities for their specific project.
Idaho Power energy advisors also provided energy efficiency program information during
customer visits and calls.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 113

Commercial & Industrial Sector—
C&I New Construction
In 2025, Idaho Power program engineer and leadership engaged with 13 firms, which included
30 total individuals in the architecture, engineering, and construction sector, to provide
program details and gather feedback. The feedback was largely positive, reflecting strong
satisfaction with the program and its management. A few minor suggestions were identified
and will be implemented to further improve the program.
See Supplement 2: Evaluation for the complete IDL report.
Marketing Activities
Idaho Power continued to primarily market the C&I Energy Efficiency Programs as a single
offering to businesses. See the C&I Sector Overview for the company's additional efforts to
market the C&I Energy Efficiency Programs.
Idaho Power sponsored the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Western Mountain Region
Design Conference. The sponsorship included a print advertisement in the publication, and a
prominent banner at the conference entrance. Additionally, table tents featuring Idaho Power's
energy efficiency programs and marketing brochures were placed on every table.
Cost-Effectiveness
To calculate energy savings for C&I New Construction, Idaho Power verifies the incremental
efficiency of each measure as compared to the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
or standard industry baseline (i.e., how the building would have used energy absent of energy
efficiency measures.) C&I New Construction offers prescriptive measures which are installed in
new buildings, a change in use of space, or expansions, and therefore previous measurable kWh
usage in the building is not usually appropriate or available to determine the baseline. In this
case, savings are calculated through two main methods. When available, savings are calculated
using actual measure parameters, including the efficiency of the installed measure compared to
code required efficiency; if no actual measure parameters are available, deemed savings are
used from the TRM. Deemed savings for lighting and non-lighting measures from the TRM or
the RTF are also used to calculate the cost-effectiveness.
C&I New Construction incentives are calculated mainly through a dollar-per-unit equation using
square footage, tonnage, operating hours, or kW reduction.
The UCT and TRC ratios for the program are 2.17 and 2.15, respectively. Non-energy impacts
were applied in 2025 based on an estimated per-kWh value by C&I end uses. These values were
provided by a third party as part of the 2019 impact evaluation of the C&I New Construction
and C&I Retrofits.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 114

Commercial & Industrial Sector—
Complete, updated measure-level details for cost-effectiveness can be found in Supplement 1:
Cost-Effectiveness.
Evaluations
In 2025, Idaho Power contracted with a third-party evaluator to conduct an impact and process
evaluation of the C&I New Construction program. The evaluation found a successfully run,
well managed program that actively engages with the marketplace. The evaluation team
identified only minor adjustments to claimed savings and calculated a realization rate of 99.7%.
Listed below are key recommendations from the evaluation (in italics) followed by
Idaho Power's response. See the complete impact and process evaluation report in
Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Standardize the COMcheck submittals lighting baseline.
Response: The company will review and determine the best way to standardize the COMcheck
lighting baseline in the review process. Standardizing the baseline will increase savings by 10%
on specific projects that choose the "Reduced Lighting Power" efficiency option.
Transition baseline efficiency metrics to EER2/SEER2.
Response: The TRM will be reviewed and updated to include efficiency metrics EER2/SEER2.
The New Construction program will be revised and updated to align with the TRM update and
the HVAC worksheet will be revised to use the IEER/SEER/SEER2 baseline values and
unit efficiencies.
Update baseline lighting zone usage in the TRM.
Response: The TRM will be reviewed and updated to provide better estimations for exterior
lighting in Idaho Power's service area. Idaho Power will continue to calculate the actual project
savings using the zone designation stamped by the engineer in the COMcheck submittal.
Continue maintenance on the consolidated contractor list.
Response: The company will continue to maintain, update and enhance the consolidated
contractor list. Maintaining the list will remain an ongoing effort.
Review options for the PAI level.
Response: The company will review the professional assistance incentive amount to determine
whether adjustments are necessary to ensure continued engagement from design
professionals.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 115

Commercial & Industrial Sector—
C&I New Construction
Review communication methods between Idaho Power staff, third-party reviewers,
and design teams.
Response: The company will review current communication methods and evaluate
opportunities and practices that can improve overall communication.
2026 plans
Idaho Power will continue to build relationships and enhance program awareness in 2026 by
sponsoring technical training through the IDL to address the energy efficiency education needs
of design professionals throughout Idaho Power's service area. Program engineer will engage
targeted design professionals and use insights from the 2025 design community outreach to
provide more in-depth training and strengthen program awareness and increase participation.
Idaho Power will update and finalize the TRM to ensure accuracy and alignment with industry
best practices and codes. The company will evaluate both existing and new measures to
identify opportunities for inclusion in the C&I New Construction program. Recognizing the
decline in prescriptive savings over recent years, Idaho Power will develop and launch a
Whole-Building option designed to promote holistic energy efficiency strategies and deliver
deeper savings. The new Whole-Building option will deliver added value for customers by
offering greater flexibility and resources to achieve long-term efficiency gains.
Idaho Power will explore non-lighting measures as part of a midstream program to enhance
adoption of cost-effective measures at the supplier or distributor level in the supply chain.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 116

Commercial & Industrial Sector—
C&I Retrofits
C&1 Retrofits
2025 2024
Participation and Savings'
Participants(projects) 520 467
Energy Savings(kWh) 19,579,664 12,066,417
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider $4,712,883 $3,117,026
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider $220,973 $64,382
Idaho Power Base Rates $145,666 $108,098
Total Program Costs—All Sources $5,079,522 $3,289,506
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.030 $0.031
Total Resource Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.078 $0.092
Benefit/Cost Ratios'
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.00 1.96
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.10 0.96
'For jurisdictional-level participation and savings details,see Appendix 4.
22025 cost-effectiveness ratios include evaluation. If evaluation expenses were removed from the program's cost-effectiveness,
the 2025 UCT and TRC would be 2.02 and 1.11,respectively.
Description
Initiated in 2007, the C&I Retrofits program is Idaho Power's prescriptive option for existing
facilities that offers incentives to customers in Idaho and Oregon for a defined list of energy
efficiency upgrade measures. Eligible measures cover a variety of energy-saving opportunities
in lighting, HVAC, building shell, food service equipment, and other commercial measures.
A complete list of the measures offered through C&I Retrofits is included in Supplement 1:
Cost-Effectiveness.
Program Activities
The C&I Retrofits program achieved 19,579,664 kWh of energy savings in 2025,
representing 520 projects. Lighting retrofits comprised most of the program's energy savings at
447 projects with 16,998,330 kWh saved; non-lighting retrofits projects totaled 73 with
2,581,334 kWh saved.
In an effort toward continuous improvement and ease of use, the C&I Retrofits lighting tool was
updated in May 2025 based on customer feedback.
Idaho Power provided a combined workshop to support trade allies and large customers in
Boise, Twin Falls, and Pocatello, Idaho on effectively using the lighting tool that included
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 117

Commercial & Industrial Sector—
education to support the lighting program and additional training on lighting controls.
There were 75 participants in the workshop.
A Lighting 101 training was held for internal Idaho Power employees to garner additional
knowledge on the lighting program that supports more effective discussions in the field when
working with customers on lighting projects. Idaho Power continued its contracts with various
consultants to provide ongoing program support for lighting and non-lighting project reviews
and inspections, and trade ally outreach.
Marketing Activities
Idaho Power continued to primarily market the C&I Energy Efficiency Programs as a single
offering to businesses. See the C&I Sector Overview for the company's additional efforts to
market the C&I Energy Efficiency Programs.
Cost-Effectiveness
Idaho Power calculates savings in the C&I Retrofits program in one of two ways depending on
the measure type. For all lighting measures, Idaho Power uses a Lighting Tool developed by a
third-party. An initial analysis is conducted to see if the lighting measures shown in the tool are
cost-effective based on the average input of watts and hours of operation, while the actual
savings for each project are calculated based on specific information regarding the existing and
replacement fixture. For most non-lighting measures, deemed savings from the TRM or the RTF
are used to calculate the savings and the cost-effectiveness.
The UCT and TRC ratios for the program are 2.00 and 1.10, respectively. Non-energy impacts
were applied in 2025 based on an estimated per-kWh value by C&I end uses. These values were
provided by a third party as part of the 2019 impact evaluation of the C&I New Construction
and C&I Retrofits programs.
Complete updated measure-level details for cost-effectiveness can be found in Supplement 1:
Cost-Effectiveness.
Customer Satisfaction
In 2025, a survey was sent to C&I Retrofits participants who had a lighting project installed by a
contractor to evaluate the customers' satisfaction levels. Survey questions gathered
information about how customers learned of the program and their satisfaction with the
program, contractor, and equipment.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 118

Commercial & Industrial Sector—
C&I Retrofits
The survey invitation was sent to 178 program participants, and Idaho Power received survey
results from 46 respondents. Some highlights include:
• More than 54% of respondents learned of the program from a contractor, and more
than 23% learned of the program from an Idaho Power employee.
• Approximately 89% of respondents said they were "very satisfied" with the program,
and approximately 8% of respondents indicated they were "somewhat satisfied."
• Approximately 93% of respondents said they were "very satisfied" with the contractor
they hired to install their equipment, and the remaining respondents said they were
"somewhat satisfied."
• Approximately 89% of respondents said they were "very satisfied" with the equipment
installed, and over 6% of respondents said they were "somewhat satisfied."
A copy of the survey results is included in Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Evaluations
In 2025, Idaho Power contracted with a third-party evaluator to conduct an impact and process
evaluation of the C&I Retrofits program. The evaluation team found a successfully run program
that balances the use of prescriptive assumptions and values with the data collection from
the project site and identified only minor adjustments to building hours of operation and
lighting control systems. Overall, the findings show that the program's savings calculations are
accurate and well documented, with an overall realization rate of 97.3%.
Listed below are key recommendations from the evaluation (in italics) followed by
Idaho Power's response. See the complete impact and process evaluation report in
Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Consider incorporating interactive effects into the Retrofits lighting tool.
Response: Idaho Power's current lighting tool does not incorporate the interactive effects of
the lighting wattage reduction on the HVAC load. Idaho Power is already collecting building
type in the application. Idaho Power has a lighting tool transition and update underway and will
implement this change in the new tool at that time.
Consider streamlining the Retrofits lighting tool to adopt stipulated hours of use by building
type for consistent savings calculations per project.
Response: Idaho Power has a lighting tool transition and update underway and will implement
this change in the new tool at that time.
Review delivery methods for program requirements and resources.
Response: Idaho Power offers resources such as eligibility and qualification guides, along with a
Quick Reference Check List for Project Submissions provided on the website and in the C&I
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 119

Commercial & Industrial Sector—
Retrofits Lighting Tool application. The recommendation, based on customer feedback, is to
review delivery methods that provide eligibility guides or self-service tool to verify program
eligibility. Idaho Power will perform a delivery methods review in 2026 and determine any
necessary next steps.
2026 plans
Idaho Power will continue to offer a menu of lighting and non-lighting incentives to commercial
customers in 2026 and explore how to increase participation in non-lighting measures, such as
a midstream option to enhance adoption at the supplier or distributer level in the supply chain.
Idaho Power plans to complete a broader marketing strategy for non-lighting Retrofit programs,
including potential advertisements in the Idaho Commerce Newsletter and Idaho Business
Review, and targeted emails to C&I customers.
Idaho Power will update and finalize the TRM to ensure accuracy and alignment with industry
best practices and codes. The company will evaluate both existing and new measures to
identify opportunities for inclusion in the C&I Retrofits program.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 120

Commercial &Industrial Sector—
Flex Peak Program
Flex Peak Program
2025 2024
Participation and Savings'
Participants(buildings) 250 309
Maximum Potential Demand Reduction (MW)Z 38.8 40.6
Maximum Actual Demand Reduction (MW)Z 23.8 34.7
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider $8,844 $7,783
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider $162,837 $205,573
Idaho Power Base Rates $574,013 $577,356
Total Program Costs—All Sources $745,694 $790,712
Cost-Effectiveness Values
Program Cost($/kW)' $26.75 $27.54
DR Benefit Value($/kW)4 $64.03 $62.39
'See Appendix 4 for jurisdictional-level participation and savings details
zDemand response program reductions are reported with 6.5%peak loss assumptions
3Maximum potential annual program cost divided by maximum potential capacity.See Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness for full
calculation details.
'See Cost-Effectiveness section of program write-up for details.
Description
Originating in 2009, the Flex Peak Program is a voluntary demand response program through
which large C&I customers in Idaho and Oregon are eligible to earn a financial incentive for
reducing load. The objective of the program is to reduce the demand on Idaho Power's system
when summer demand for energy is high or for other system needs.
Customers with the ability to offer load reduction of at least 20 kW are eligible to enroll in the
program. Customers have two ways they can participate: the manual option or the automatic
dispatch option. The manual option gives customers the flexibility to choose which loads will be
interrupted during each event, either by manually turning off their load or a portion of their
load for their participating site(s). Customers can participate in the automatic option by
allowing Idaho Power to install a DRU at the electrical panel(s) of the facility site(s) enrolled in
the program. The DRU allows Idaho Power to send a signal to interrupt a particular load or
service during an event.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 121

Commercial &Industrial Sector—
Flex Peak Program
Program event parameters are listed below:'
• Events occur during the active demand response season, from June 15 through
September 15 (excluding weekends, Independence Day, and Labor Day).
• A minimum of three events will occur each program season.
• Events can last between two and four hours per day and can occur between 3 p.m. and
10 P.M.
• Events will not exceed 16 hours per week or 60 hours per season.
• Idaho Power will notify participants four hours prior to the initiation of an event with
advanced notification beyond four hours for customers that can nominate an excess of
3 MW of demand.
• Idaho Power may cancel the event and notify participants of the cancellation up to
30 minutes before the event start time.
Program Incentives
The program includes both fixed and variable incentive payments.
The fixed-capacity incentive rewards participants for their average actual season performance
compared to their nominated demand reductions, and provides a simplified, tiered, fixed rate
for calculating payments (Table 29). The tiered fixed-capacity payment rate is determined by
the average actual season performance percentage during the program season. To calculate the
average season performance percentage, the customer's average actual demand reduction for
the season's events is divided by their average event day demand nomination. For example, if a
participant's average actual season performance percentage is 65%, their fixed-capacity
payment rate is $2.44 per kW (Table 29). The fixed-capacity incentive is then calculated by
multiplying the fixed-capacity payment rate by the customer's average actual demand
reduction and the number of weeks in the season (prorated for partial weeks). If customers
provide more reduction during an event than their nominated demand, they are eligible to
account for up to 20% above their nomination amount for that event.
The variable energy incentive is calculated by multiplying the demand reduction (kW) by the
event duration hours to achieve the total kWh reduction during an event. The variable incentive
payment is $0.20 per kWh and is provided for events that occur after the first three events of
the 2025 season. The proposal to change the variable incentive payment threshold from the
beginning of the fifth event to the beginning of the fourth event was approved in IPUC
'Program parameters do not apply to system emergencies.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 122

Commercial &Industrial Sector—
Flex Peak Program
Order No. 36449 and adopted by the OPUC at its January 21, 2025, public meeting, as described
in the Program Activities section in this report.
Incentives are calculated using Idaho Power's interval metering billing data. Participants can
elect to have their incentive checks mailed or their Idaho Power account credited within
45 days of the end of the program season. The incentive structure offered for the 2025 season
is outlined in Table 29.
Table 29. Flex Peak Program 2025 incentive structure
Fixed-Capacity Payment Rate 1 Variable Energy Payment Rate Z
Average Season Fixed-Capacity Payment
Performance(%) Rate per kW
75-120% $3.25
50-74.99% $2.44
$0.20 per kWh(actual kW reduction x hours of event)
25-49.99% $1.63
0-24.99% $0.81
1 To be prorated for partial weeks
z Does not apply to first three program events
Program Activities
Changes to the program for the 2025 season that were approved in IPUC Order No. 36449 and
adopted by the OPUC at its January 21, 2025, public meeting include:
• Changing the threshold for the variable incentive payment from beginning on the fifth
event (after four events) to beginning on the fourth event (after three events) to align
with the three minimum event requirement and reduce customer confusion.
• Establishing a reimbursement of up to $1,500 for participants who choose to automate
their system with DRUB.
• Updating the calculations for adjusted baseline caps on event days to 110% of maximum
load of any hour during the 10-day baseline period.
• Adding the ability to review day-of load adjustments in the case of outages or customer
shutdowns during the Day-of Adjustment Hour (DOA), defined as the hour before event
notification.
• Allowing customers to make daily nomination changes, instead of weekly.
These changes sought to improve the customer experience with program structure clarity and
more flexibility for nomination changes, to encourage participation in the automatic dispatch
program option, and to improve the process to determine baselines and day-of adjustments.
The threshold for variable incentive payments and the daily nomination changes were driven by
customer feedback.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 123

Commercial &Industrial Sector—
Flex Peak Program
Idaho Power offers support to large customers to determine potential for demand reduction
and to identify demand reduction tactics along with the potential for participation in other
energy efficiency programs.
Over the past year, company energy advisors focused on program participant retention with a
goal to follow up with participants after each event as an ongoing effort to better understand
program obstacles and help participants properly size their nominations. Each energy advisor
met with three customers who did not participate in 2024 to discuss curtailment opportunities
and encourage enrollment for 2025. A total of three customers were newly enrolled in the
program for the 2025 season because of advisor consultations; one additional customer will
start active participation in the 2026 season.
In 2025, 109 participants (100 in Idaho and 9 in Oregon) enrolled 250 sites in the program.
This was a total decrease of 10 participants and 62 sites from 2024. This decrease was seen
across national accounts (who attributed their drop out to macroeconomic changes),
customers in the middle of organizational restructuring or major construction projects, and low
performers who decided that the program wasn't a good fit for their operation.
Existing customers were automatically re-enrolled. 2025 was the third year that customers
could choose an automatic dispatch option. Customers who chose to participate in this way
used a DRU that Idaho Power operates. There were two automatic dispatch participants
controlling a total of nine sites in 2025; 108 participants chose the manual option across
244 sites.
Participants had a nominated demand reduction of 38.3 MW in the first week of the program
and ended the season with a nominated demand reduction of 29.8 MW. The maximum
potential demand reduction came from the nominated amount in the first week of the season
at 38.3 MW. The company uses the full nominated amount from the highest week for the
maximum potential demand reduction, as events can and have achieved the full nominated
demand reduction in prior years.
The maximum realization rate achieved during the season was 71%, and the season average for
the three events combined was 63%. The realization rate is the percentage of actual demand
reduction achieved versus the amount of demand reduction nominated for an event.
The maximum actual hourly demand reduction was 23.8 MW (at generation level) during the
August 12 event (Table 30), when 216 of 250 sites participated. Individual participant
performance as well as total program event performance can be found in
Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 124

Commercial &Industrial Sector—
Flex Peak Program
Table 30. Flex Peak Program demand response event details
Maximum Actual Hourly
Event Date Event Time Demand Reduction,Total (MW)
Thursday,July 17 6-10 p.m. 17.6
Wednesday,July 30 4-8 p.m. 22.7
Tuesday,August 12 5-9 p.m. 23.8
Figures 23 and 24 represent the enrolled participation by regional service areas and enrolled
nominations by business type (average daily nominations) for 2025, respectively.
Western,13
■ Canyon,49
■ Southerni4q
■ Oregon,8 NOON
Eastern,21
■ Capital,113
Figure 23. Enrolled participants by region,2025
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 125

Commercial &Industrial Sector—
Flex Peak Program
■ Refrigeration
12%
■ Agriculture
9%
■ Energy ■ Food Services
3% 16%
Water
17%
Industrial
8%
Mining
2%
Other
3%
Commercial Office
9%
■ School Asphalt
7% 15%
Figure 24. Enrolled nominations(%of average daily nomination)by business type,2025
Idaho Power uses interval metering data to calculate the actual demand reduction per site,
and to provide each participant and associated energy advisor with an individualized report
showing their hourly baseline, actual usage, and reduction after each event. The program
specialist identifies participants who under/over reduce, thus potentially needing to adjust their
nomination and/or demand-reduction strategy. The customer's energy advisor then works
directly with them to refine their nomination for future events.
Marketing Activities
In 2025, the program brochure and website were updated with language that was easier to
understand for new customers.
The company continued to run targeted display ads from March 1 through May 31.
This resulted in web users seeing a total of 2,190,300 display ads (animated GIF image ads
embedded on a website) based on their demographics, related to online articles they viewed,
or their use of a particular mobile web page or app. Users clicked the ads 4,106 times,
resulting in a click-through rate of 2.16%. Search engine marketing displayed Idaho Power's
Flex Peak Program near the top of the search results with the paid search terms when
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 126

Commercial &Industrial Sector—
Flex Peak Program
customers searched for Flex Peak and demand response terms. These ads received
21,477 impressions and 985 clicks.
New in 2025, the company also ran targeted ads on Linkedln to better target businesses and
business professionals who would be interested in the program. Ads were run from March 1
through May 31 and resulted in 117,566 impressions and 1,721 clicks.
The company's energy advisors shared program details with potential and current participants.
The Flex Peak Program continued to be included in the C&I Energy Efficiency Program collateral.
Additional details can be found in the C&I Sector Overview.
Cost-Effectiveness
Idaho Power determines cost-effectiveness for its demand response programs using the
approved method for valuing demand response under IPUC Order No. 35336 and approved by
the OPUC on February 8, 2022, in ADV 1355/Advice No. 21-12. Using financial and avoided cost
assumptions from the 2023 Integrated Resource Plan, the defined cost-effective threshold for
operating Idaho Power's three demand response programs for the maximum allowable
60 hours is $64.03 per kW under the current program parameters.
The Flex Peak Program was dispatched for 12 event hours and achieved a maximum actual
demand reduction of 23.8 MW and a maximum potential demand reduction of 38.8 MW.
The total cost of the program in 2025 was $745,694. Had the Flex Peak Program been used for
the full 60 hours, the potential cost would have been approximately $1.0 million. Using the
potential cost and the maximum potential demand reduction results in a cost of$26.75 per kW,
thus the program was cost-effective.
A complete description of Idaho Power cost-effectiveness of its demand response programs is
included in Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness.
Evaluations
To evaluate the program each year, Idaho Power prepares a Flex Peak Program End-of-Season
Report that presents actual demand reduction calculations and analysis, and detailed results
from the program season. See Supplement 2: Evaluation for the 2025 report. A brief overview
of the results is provided in this section.
Figure 25 compares the average and maximum actual demand reduction achieved for each
event. The maximum actual demand reduction achieved ranged from a low of 17.6 MW with a
realization rate of 52%to a high of 23.8 MW with a realization rate of 71%.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 127

Commercial &Industrial Sector—
Flex Peak Program
35 ■Average Demand Reduction
30 ■Maximum Demand Reduction
o 25 22.7 23.8
u 21.0 21.3
v 20 17.0 17.6
c 15
M
E
p 10
ii
5
a
0
7/17 7/30 8/12
Event Date
Figure 25. Average and maximum demand reduction achieved per event
The program contributed approximately 11.8% of the company's overall demand response
portfolio in 2025 and can be relied on to provide dispatchable demand reduction to the
electrical grid.
2026 Plans
There are no programmatic changes planned for the 2026 season. Idaho Power received
positive feedback from customers about the changes made in the 2025 season, especially the
daily nomination flexibility. Idaho Power will continue to listen for customer feedback and
program needs to inform any changes proposed in the future.
Idaho Power will maintain its focus on retaining currently enrolled participants and will be
restructuring the auto-enrollment process in 2026. The company will contact all participants to
ensure contact information for the site(s) is up to date. With high personnel turnover, it is
important to ensure active engagement and updated data to ensure smooth communication
and participation during the season. To boost program enrollment for new participants,
the program will use email marketing, paid search ads, and digital display ads.
Energy assessments conducted by Idaho Power engineers or contract engineers will be
offered to large customers to help determine potential for demand reduction and identify
specific demand response tactics and sequences that could be initiated for events.
The company will continue to assess customer interest, pursue participation from large national
accounts, and seek collaborative ways to expand the program. The program will also continue
to be marketed along with the C&I Energy Efficiency programs.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 128

Commercial &Industrial Sector—
Oregon Commercial Audit
Oregon Commercial Audit
2025 2024
Participation and Savings'
Participants(audits) 5 4
Energy Savings(kWh) n/a n/a
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider $0 $0
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider $9,249 $6,419
Idaho Power Base Rates $0 $0
Total Program Costs—All Sources $9,249 $6,419
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost($/kWh) n/a n/a
Total Resource Levelized Cost($/kWh) n/a n/a
Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio n/a n/a
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio n/a n/a
'For jurisdictional-level participation details,see Appendix 4.
Description
The Oregon Commercial Audit program identifies opportunities for all Oregon C&I building
owners, government agencies, schools, and small businesses to achieve energy savings.
Initiated in 1983, this statutorily required program (ORS 469.865) is offered under Oregon Tariff
Schedule No. 82.
Through this program, Idaho Power provides no-cost energy audits, evaluations,
and educational products to customers through a third-party contractor. The contractor
inspects the building shell, HVAC equipment, lighting systems, and operating schedules,
if available, and reviews past billing data. These visits provide an opportunity for the contractor
to discuss available incentives and specific business operating practices for energy savings.
The contractor may also distribute energy efficiency program information and remind
customers that Idaho Power personnel can offer additional energy-savings tips and
information. Business owners can decide to change operating practices or make capital
improvements designed to use energy wisely.
Program Activities
During 2025, five audits were completed, one each for five separate customers. The program
contractor conducted the audits, and an Idaho Power energy advisor was available to assist
customers. An additional two customers requested audits in 2025 that are scheduled for
completion in 2026.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 129

Commercial &Industrial Sector—
Oregon Commercial Audit
Marketing Activities
Idaho Power sent its annual direct-mailing to 1,810 Oregon C&I customers in November to
promote the program's no-cost or low-cost energy audits and the available incentives
and resources.
Cost-Effectiveness
The Oregon Commercial Audit program is a statutory program offered under Oregon Schedule
82, the Commercial Energy Conservation Services Program. Because the required parameters of
the Oregon Commercial Audit program are specified in Oregon Schedule 82 and the company
abides by these specifications, this program is deemed to be cost-effective. Idaho Power claims
no energy savings from this program.
2026 Plans
Idaho Power does not expect to make any operational changes in 2026. The company will
continue to market the program through the annual customer notification and will consider
additional opportunities to promote the program to eligible customers via its energy advisors.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 130

Commercial & Industrial Sector—
Small Business Lighting Program
Small Business Lighting Program
2025 2024
Participation and Savings'
Participants(projects) 101 9
Energy Savings(kWh) 663,044 22,967
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider $265,234 $13,050
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider $24,999 $0
Idaho Power Base Rates $30,278 $32,650
Total Program Costs—All Sources $320,511 $45,700
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.056 $0.230
Total Resource Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.068 $0.251
Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.04 0.25
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.29 0.35
'For jurisdictional-level participation and savings details,see Appendix 4.
Description
Idaho Power launched the Small Business Lighting (SBL) Program in late 2024 targeting typically
hard-to-reach, small business customers in Idaho and Oregon who use up to 50,000 kWh
annually. The program offers a free lighting assessment and pays an enhanced incentive of
$0.40/kWh saved for SBL project savings.
Program Activities
Eligible customers received a direct-mail letter explaining the program and offering a free
lighting assessment from a program participating contractor. Customers could reach out to a
participating contractor listed on the program website directly or contact Idaho Power and
request the company to assign a contractor to them. The participating contractors confirmed
the customers' eligibility as part of the free lighting assessments. Customers received a project
proposal from the contractor and decided if they wanted to participate in the program.
Idaho Power offered an SBL incentive of$0.40 per kWh saved, not to exceed 100% of project
cost. The incentive was paid directly to the participating contractor, with the customer owing
the contractor any remaining amount.
The SBL program completed 101 projects with a total of 663,043 kWh saved.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 131

Commercial & Industrial Sector—
Small Business Lighting Program
Marketing Activities
Over 17,500 direct-mail letters were sent to targeted customers in six separate mailings
throughout 2025. Over 300 outreach calls were made to follow up on direct mailings sent to
eligible SBL customers in Oregon. In August 2025, over 150 targeted emails were sent to eligible
Salmon, Idaho small businesses outlining the SBL program. Idaho Power also did social media
marketing on Linkedin targeting C&I customers.
There are 12 trade allies who have received training and are participating in the SBL Program.
A monthly email is sent to SBL trade allies on program updates, statistics, and marketing efforts
to sustain and grow engagement in the program. To encourage contractors to serve small
businesses in rural areas, the company offered a rural contractor marketing incentive;
13 projects qualified for the rural incentive in 2025.
Cost-Effectiveness
During program year 2025 the SBL Program had UCT and TRC ratios of 1.04 and 1.29,
respectively. Non-energy lighting impacts were applied in 2025 based on an estimated per-kWh
value by C&I end uses. These values were provided by a third party as part of the 2019 impact
evaluation of the C&I New Construction and C&I Retrofits programs.
Program year 2025 was the first full year for SBL and the average project drove 6,565 kWh in
electric savings. Of the total 663,044 kWh of savings in 2025, approximately 84% came from
interior lighting, 16%from exterior lighting and fewer than 1%from control measures.
Exterior lighting tends to have a higher avoided cost benefit value due to the savings occurring
during higher-risk hours thus providing greater system reliability benefits.
For more detailed information about the cost-effectiveness savings and assumptions, see
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness.
Customer Satisfaction
In 2025, a survey was sent to SBL customers who had a lighting project installed by a contractor
to evaluate the customers' satisfaction level. Survey questions gathered information about how
customers learned of the program and their satisfaction with the program, contractor,
and equipment.
The survey invitation was sent to 78 program participants, and Idaho Power received survey
results from 29 respondents. Some highlights include the following:
• More than 55% of respondents learned of the program from an Idaho Power
direct marketing letter and more than 20% learned of the program from an
Idaho Power employee.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 132

Commercial & Industrial Sector—
Small Business Lighting Program
• Approximately 86% of respondents said they were "very satisfied" with the program,
and close to 14% of respondents indicated they were "somewhat satisfied."
• Approximately 93% of respondents said they were "very satisfied" with the contractor
they hired to install their equipment.
• Approximately 86% of respondents said they were "very satisfied" with the equipment
installed, and over 13% of respondents said they were "somewhat satisfied."
A copy of the survey results is included in Supplement 2: Evaluation.
2026 Plans
After programmatic review of cost-effectiveness and considerations of the Oregon House
Bill 2531, it was decided to close the Oregon SBL Program effective March 31, 2026.
A supplemental email marketing effort was sent in January 2026 to all eligible Oregon small
businesses communicating the program closure, timeframe, and benefits of participation.
Marketing will continue to be shared with eligible small business customers in Idaho
throughout the year with direct mailings and emails. In addition, Idaho Power will continue to
send customer satisfaction surveys to SBL participants.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 133

Irrigation Sector Overview
Irrigation Sector Overview
The irrigation sector is comprised of agricultural customers operating water pumping or water
delivery systems to irrigate agricultural crops or pasturage. End-use electrical equipment
primarily consists of agricultural irrigation pumps and center pivots. The irrigation sector does
not include water pumping for non-agricultural purposes, such as domestic water supply or
irrigating lawns, parks, cemeteries, and golf courses.
• In July 2025, the active irrigation service locations totaled 21,825 system-wide, which is
an increase of 0.6% compared to July 2024. The increase is primarily caused by adding
service locations for pumps and center-pivot irrigation systems as land is converted
from surface irrigation (e.g., furrow) to sprinkler irrigation.
• Irrigation customers accounted for 2,043,628 MWh of billed energy usage in 2025,
versus 1,994,899 MWh in 2024. The approximately 2.4% increase is primarily because of
the substantially drier year.
• This sector represented nearly 12.6% of Idaho Power's total electricity sales,
and approximately 29.9% of July sales. Though annual electricity use may vary
substantially for weather-related reasons, and there are now more irrigation customers,
the energy-use trend for this sector has not changed significantly in many years because
of the following:
• The added energy use from new customers is relatively small compared to the
energy use of the average existing customer.
• Ongoing improvements through energy efficiency efforts and system replacement
offset much of the added energy use.
Figure 26. Irrigation sector customers provide opportunities for energy savings during Idaho's growing season
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 134

Irrigation Sector Overview
The Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program experienced increased annual savings,
from 4,289,877 kWh in 2024 to 5,400,154 kWh in 2025 (Table 31). This increase was due
primarily to an increase in the number of custom projects and menu applications.
Idaho Power re-enrolled the majority of the 2024 Irrigation Peak Rewards participants in 2025
with 2,702 service points for a maximum potential demand reduction of 267.6 MW (Table 31).
The maximum actual demand reduction for the program was 122.9 MW.
Table 31. Irrigation sector program summary,2025
Total Cost Savings
Annual Peak
Energy Demand
Program Participants Utility Resource (kWh) (MW)1
Demand Response
Irrigation Peak Rewards.................................. 2,702 service points $ 8,895,312 $ 8,895,312 122.9/267.6
Total.......................................................................................................... $ 8,895,312 $ 8,895,312 122.9/267.6
Energy Efficiency
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards.......................... 696 projects 2,183,783 20,939,267 5,400,154
Total.......................................................................................................... $ 2,183,783 $ 20,939,267 5,400,154
Notes:
See Appendix 3 for notes on methodology and column definitions.See Appendix 4 for jurisdictional-level participation and savings details.
Totals may not add up due to rounding.
Maximum actual demand reduction/maximum potential demand reduction.Demand response program reductions are reported with 6.5%system
loss assumptions.
Irrigation DSM Programs
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards. This energy efficiency program is designed to encourage
customers to replace or improve inefficient irrigation systems and components.
Customers receive incentives through the Custom Incentive Option for extensive retrofits and
new systems and through the Menu Incentive Option for small maintenance upgrades.
Irrigation Peak Rewards. This demand response program is designed to reduce demand from
irrigation pumps during periods of high energy demand or for other system needs. Participating
service points are automatically controlled by Idaho Power DRU or manually interrupted by the
customer for very large pumping installations, for certain system configurations, or when
switch communication is not available.
Marketing
In early 2025, the company mailed a winter edition of Irrigation News to all irrigation customers
in its service area. The newsletter shared information about energy efficiency incentives,
upcoming irrigation customer workshops, safety messaging, and enrollment information for the
Irrigation Peak Rewards program.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 135

Irrigation Sector Overview
An additional summer edition of Irrigation News was sent to all irrigation customers in July.
The newsletter provided relevant information on how to understand demand on an irrigation
system, account management, how to save energy and money by participating in efficiency
programs, the Idaho General Rate Case, power cost adjustment, and how to safely operate
farm equipment around power lines.
Two emails were sent in 2025 to irrigation customers in the service area, totaling 11,162 email
recipients with an average open rate of 56%.
The company also placed numerous print ads in agricultural publications to reach the target
market in smaller farming communities. Publications included the Capital Press, Potato Grower
magazine, Owyhee Avalanche,Argus Observer, and The Ag Expo East and West programs.
Idaho Power used radio advertising to show support for Future Farmers of America and Ag
Week conferences.
February through April, the company ran 1,718 radio ads promoting the Irrigation Efficiency
Rewards program. The 30-second spots ran in eastern and southern Idaho on a variety of
stations, including news/talk, classic rock, adult hits, and country.
Customer Satisfaction
Idaho Power conducts the Burke Customer Relationship Index Survey each year. In 2025, on a
scale of zero to 10, irrigation survey respondents rated Idaho Power 7.45 regarding offering
programs to help customers save energy, and 7.44 related to providing customers with
information on how to save energy and money. Over 19% of irrigation respondents indicated
they have participated in at least one Idaho Power energy efficiency program. Of the irrigation
survey respondents who have participated in at least one Idaho Power energy efficiency
program, more than 84% are "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with the program.
Training and Education
Idaho Power continued to market its irrigation programs by offering in-person workshops,
staffing booths at three agricultural shows/expos, conducting dealer presentations,
and offering individual presentations to irrigation customers. In 2025, Idaho Power provided
four in-person irrigation workshops (Figure 27), and one conference seminar. The workshops
focused on the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program, the Irrigation Peak Rewards program,
safety and reliability. Approximately 154 customers attended in-person workshops or
the seminar.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 136

Irrigation Sector Overview
j � J
toe
< 6
V
Figure 27. Postcard invitation to irrigation customer workshop
Field Staff Activities
Idaho Power agricultural representatives (ag reps) met with customers in 2025 to offer
Idaho Power energy efficiency and demand response program information, education, training,
and irrigation system assessments and audits across the service area.
In 2025, ag reps continued their engagement with agricultural irrigation equipment dealers
with the goal of sharing expertise about energy-efficient system designs and increasing
awareness about the program. Ag reps participated in training sponsored by the nationally
based Irrigation Association to maintain their Certified Irrigation Designer and Certified
Agricultural Irrigation Specialist accreditations.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 137

_`4l%....
Irrigation Sector—
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
2025 2024
Participation and Savings'
Participants(projects) 696 628
Energy Savings(kWh) 5,400,154 4,289,877
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider $1,764,797 $1,229,784
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider $50,707 $59,923
Idaho Power Base Rates $368,279 $363,757
Total Program Costs—All Sources $2,183,783 $1,653,465
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.044 $0.037
Total Resource Levelized Cost($/kWh) $0.426 $0.321
Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.61 1.65
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.69 3.86
'For jurisdictional-level participation and savings details,see Appendix 4.
Description
Initiated in 2003, the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program encourages energy-efficient
equipment use and design in irrigation systems. Qualified irrigators in Idaho Power's service
area can receive financial incentives and reduce their electricity usage through participation in
the program. Two options help meet the needs for major or minor changes to new or existing
systems: Custom Incentive Option and Menu Incentive Option. Irrigation customers can also
qualify for an incentive when they utilize a qualified motor shop to perform a "green rewind"
on their irrigation motors.
Custom Incentive Option
The Custom Incentive Option is offered for extensive retrofits to existing systems or installing
an efficient, new irrigation system.
For a new system, Idaho Power determines whether the equipment is more energy efficient
than the standard equipment before approving the incentive. If an existing irrigation system is
changed to a new water source, it is considered a new irrigation system under this program.
The incentive for a new system increased in 2025 from $0.25 to $0.30 per estimated kWh saved
in one year, not to exceed 10% of the project cost.
The incentives for existing system upgrades increased in 2025 from $0.25 to $0.30 kWh and
from $450 to $540 per kW. For existing system upgrades, the incentive is $0.30 per estimated
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 138

_`4l%�...
Irrigation Sector—
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
kWh saved in one year or $540 per estimated kW demand reduction, whichever is greater.
The incentive is limited to 75% of the total project cost.
The qualifying energy efficiency measures include hardware changes that result in a reduction
of the potential kWh use of an irrigation system or that result in a potential demand reduction.
Idaho Power reviews and analyzes each project, considering prior usage history,
irrigation system maps, system design details, invoices, and, in many situations,
post-installation demand data to verify savings and incentives.
Menu Incentive Option
The Menu Incentive Option covers a portion of the costs of repairing and replacing specific
components that help the irrigation system use less energy. This option is designed for systems
where small maintenance upgrades provide energy savings from these seven measures:
1. New flow-control type nozzles
2. New nozzles for impact, rotating, or fixed head sprinklers
3. New or rebuilt impact or rotating type sprinklers
4. New or rebuilt wheel-line levelers
5. New complete low-pressure pivot package (sprinkler, regulator, and nozzle)
6. New drains for pivots or wheel lines
7. New riser caps and gaskets for hand lines, wheel lines, and portable main lines
Incentives are based on a predetermined kWh savings per component from the RTF.
Incentives for all seven measures were increased in 2025. What was previously its own
program, Green Motors now falls under Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Menu Incentive Option as
a measure.
Program Activities
In 2025, a total of 696 projects were completed in Idaho and Oregon as shown in Table 32.
Table 32. Completed projects and energy savings,2025
Option Idaho Oregon Total Energy Savings
Menu Incentive 624 7 631 2,816 MWh
Custom Incentive 56 9 65 2,584 MWh
Total 680 16 696 5,400 MWh
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 139

Irrigation Sector—
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
Marketing Activities
In addition to activities mentioned in the Irrigation Sector Overview, Idaho Power ag reps,
program engineers, and program specialist worked one-on-one with irrigation dealers and
vendors who are key to the successful promotion of the program. The ag reps shared
Idaho Power's website and self-help tools. They also visited irrigation vendors in their area to
distribute custom and menu efficiency applications and talk about the program.
The company continued to use radio ads in 2025 to increase program awareness.
From February through April, the company ran 1,718 radio ads promoting the Irrigation
Efficiency Rewards program. Radio ads alternated weeks with the Irrigation Peak Rewards
spots, to avoid conflict and competition. The 30-second spots ran in eastern and southern Idaho
on a variety of stations, including news/talk, adult hits, classic rock, and country.
Cost-Effectiveness
Idaho Power calculates cost-effectiveness for the program's Custom Incentive Option and
Menu Incentive Option using different savings and benefits assumptions and measurements for
each.
Each application under the Custom Incentive Option received by Idaho Power undergoes an
assessment to estimate the energy savings that will be achieved through a customer's
participation. On existing system upgrades, Idaho Power calculates the savings of a project by
determining what changes will be made and comparing them to the service point's previous
five years of electricity usage on a case-by-case basis. On new system installations,
the company uses standard practices as the baseline to determine the efficiency of the
applicant's proposed project. Based on the specific equipment to be installed, the company
calculates the estimated post-installation energy consumption of the system. The company
verifies completion of the system installation through aerial photographs, maps, and field visits
to ensure the irrigation system is installed and used in the manner the applicant's
documentation describes.
Each application under the Menu Incentive Option received by Idaho Power also undergoes an
assessment to ensure deemed savings are appropriate and reasonable. Payments are
calculated on a prescribed basis by measure. In some cases, the energy-savings estimates are
adjusted downward from deemed RTF savings to better reflect known information on how the
components are being used. For example, a half-circle rotation center pivot will save half as
much energy per sprinkler head as a full-circle rotation center pivot. All deemed savings are
based on seasonal operating hour assumptions by region. If a system's usage history indicates it
has lower operating hours than the assumptions, like the example above, the deemed savings
are adjusted. For 2025, Idaho Power used the same savings and assumptions source used
in 2024.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 140

Irrigation Sector—
_`4l%�...Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
The UCT and TRC ratios for the program are 1.61 and 2.69, respectively.
Complete measure-level details for cost-effectiveness can be found in Supplement 1:
Cost-Effectiveness.
2026 Plans
The program will send Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program brochures to all irrigation
customers in spring 2026.
Program marketing plans typically include conducting customer-based irrigation workshops
across the service area to promote energy efficiency, technical education, and program
understanding. In 2026, the agricultural representatives will host workshops in Mountain
Home, Eden, and Wendell, Idaho. In addition to the three main workshops, agricultural
representatives will seek opportunities to host mini-workshop sessions at the producer
locations and irrigation dealers.
Idaho Power has committed to host a booth at the Western Idaho Ag Expo, the Southern Idaho
Ag Show, and the Idaho Potato Conference in 2026 to promote the program, educate attendees
on what they can do to save energy, and explain how to participate and earn an incentive.
Idaho Power was also a sponsor of and had a presence at the Nampa Ag Forum, hosted by the
Nampa Chamber of Commerce in February 2026.
Ag reps will continue to seek opportunities to present at irrigation equipment dealer
workshops. Marketing the program to irrigation supply companies will continue to be a priority,
as they are an important part of getting the program in front of customers.
The company will also promote the program in agriculturally focused editions of newspapers,
magazines, radio ads, the irrigation customer newsletter, email updates and reminders,
social media posts, and paid search ads. The radio ads will run during the winter and spring
throughout the company's South-East region.
Demand-Side Management 202S Annual Report Page 141

Irrigation Sector—
Irrigation Peak Rewards
Irrigation Peak Rewards
2025 2024
Participation and Savings'
Participants(service points) 2,702 2,517
Maximum Potential Demand Reduction (MW)z 267.6 258.7
Maximum Actual Demand Reduction (MW)z 122.9 200.8
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider $522,112 $413,658
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider $71,178 $115,986
Idaho Power Base Rates $8,302,021 $8,248,539
Total Program Costs—All Sources $8,895,312 $8,778,184
Cost-Effectiveness Values
Program Cost($/kW)3 $47.03 $45.43
DR Benefit Value($/kW)' $64.03 $62.39
1 For jurisdictional-level participation and reductions details,see Appendix 4.
z Demand response program reductions are reported with 6.5%system loss assumptions.
3 Maximum potential annual program cost divided by maximum potential capacity.See Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness for full
calculation details.
a See Cost-Effectiveness subsection of program write-up for details.
Description
Originating in 2004, the Irrigation Peak Rewards program is a voluntary demand response
program through which agricultural irrigation customers in Idaho and Oregon are eligible to
earn a financial incentive for reducing load. The objective of the program is to reduce the
demand on Idaho Power's system when summer demand for energy is high or for other
system needs.
There are two options for participating: an automatic dispatch option and a manual dispatch
option. Due to the size of the program, the participants are split into five approximately
equal-sized groups that can be used independently on different days, used all together at the
same time, or staggered out at different start times on a demand response event (event) day.
Automatic Dispatch Option. Pumps enrolled in the automatic dispatch option have one of two
types of devices installed that control the irrigation pump(s) via signal from Idaho Power.
This option requires that all pumps shut off at a site for the event. Approximately 98% of the
devices are DRUB and use Idaho Power's AMI to send a signal that opens the contactor and
shuts off the pump. The other 2% of automatic dispatch participants have an Idaho Power-
developed cellular device installed. The cellular device has the same load-control feature as the
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 142

Irrigation Sector—
_`4l%�... Irrigation Peak Rewards
DRU, except a cellular network signal is used to send the command for shut off during an event.
Hourly usage data is not available for cellular sites.
Manual Dispatch Option.The manual dispatch option is used for pumps with at least
1,000 cumulative hp that Idaho Power has determined to have limited communication
availability, or that have certain system configurations. Participants manually control which
pumps are turned off during an event. Manual participants are required to nominate a portion
of their overall load (kW) for reduction during the season. They may choose to shut down all or
partial demand at the site and are compensated according to the actual demand reduction
during the event. Aggregate customers participate manually by identifying a group of pumps
across multiple sites to participate as an aggregate. The customer nominates a demand
reduction for the aggregate and is compensated according to the actual demand reduction
during the event.
Program event parameters for both interruption options are listed below:'
• Events occur during the active demand response season, from June 15 through
September 15 (excluding Sundays, Independence Day, and Labor Day).
• A minimum of three events will occur each program season.
• Events may occur up to four hours per day between the hours of 3-10 p.m. (standard
interruption option), 3-11 p.m. (extended interruption option), or between 3 and 9 p.m.
(early interruption option).
• Events will not exceed 16 hours per week or 60 hours per season (applies to all
interruption options).
• Idaho Power notifies automatic participants by phone, email, and/or text message
four hours before the start of the event whenever possible.
• Idaho Power notifies manual participants by phone, email, and/or text message
four hours before the start of the event.
• Idaho Power may cancel the event and notify participants of the cancellation up to
30 minutes before the event start time.
The Irrigation Peak Rewards incentive structure includes fixed incentives (billing credits) and
variable event-related incentives. Participants receive fixed incentives that are not tied to
events: a demand credit and an energy credit. The fixed demand and fixed energy credits for
the automatic dispatch participants are applied to the monthly bill for billing dates June 15
through September 15.
' Program parameters do not apply to system emergencies.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 143

Irrigation Sector—
_`Ill%�... Irrigation Peak Rewards
• Fixed demand credits are calculated by multiplying the monthly billing kW by the
demand-related incentive rate
• Fixed energy credits are calculated by multiplying the total monthly billing kWh usage by
the energy-related incentive rate
The fixed demand and fixed energy credits (Table 33) for the manual dispatch participants are
paid with a check. Credits are prorated for periods when meter reading/billing cycles do not
align with the Irrigation Peak Rewards season dates.
Table 33. Monthly fixed billing credits for manual and automatic dispatch options
Fixed Demand Credit($/billing kW) Fixed Energy Credit($/billing kWh)
$2.75 Early Interruption Option $0.004 Early Interruption Option
$5.25 Standard/Extended Interruption Option $0.008 Standard/Extended Interruption Option
Variable incentives apply if more than three events occur in the season. Variable credits are
calculated by multiplying the monthly billing kW by the variable incentive rate for each hour of
the event. The variable incentive rate depends on the selected interruption option: early,
standard, or extended (Table 34).
Table 34. Variable Energy Credit per hour of the event,($/billing kW),paid after the third event
Early Interruption Option 3-9 p.m. Standard Interruption Option 3-10 p.m. Extended Interruption Option 3-11 p.m.
$0.09 $0.18 $0.25
Program rules allow customers to opt out of events while incurring an opt-out fee. The opt-out
fee is calculated by multiplying $6.25 (for standard and extended interruption options) or$2.75
(for the early interruption option) by the demand (kW) based on the current month's billing
(for automatic dispatch option participants) or demand reduction not achieved (for manual
dispatch option participants)). The demand reduction not achieved for the manual dispatch
option refers to the amount that was nominated minus the actual demand reduction that was
achieved. The opt-out penalties will not exceed the total incentive that would have been paid
with full participation.
Idaho Power has expanded the use of AMI technology with the use of DRUs installed at pump
locations. AMI technology provides the ability to turn off pumps during an Irrigation Peak
Rewards event by sending a command through the power line. The AMI system also allows
Idaho Power to analyze the interval metering data of participating pumps during events.
Interval metering reports provide data to help determine which DRUB functioned properly,
and which pumps were turned off and stayed off during the event. During the 2025 season,
2,833 DRUB were active and installed at 2,551 pump locations. Forty-two pump locations
currently use 52 cellular devices.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 144

Irrigation Sector—
Irrigation Peak Rewards
Program Activities
In January 2025, Idaho Power mailed Irrigation Peak Rewards enrollment packets to all
irrigation customers. The packets included an enrollment worksheet with estimated credits for
participation, contact worksheets, and a program brochure. Total billing demand was
391.2 MW with 2,702 pumps enrolled for the 2025 season (2,551 with DRUB, 42 with cellular
devices, and 109 participating under the manual option).
Percentage of participants by sub-region is shown on Figure 28. For purposes of the program,
the Canyon-West and South-East regions shown on Figure 2 (Introduction section) are further
divided into sub-regions: Western, Canyon, and Oregon (located primarily within the
Canyon-West region), and Southern and Eastern (located primarily within the South-East
region).
■ Eastern
45%
Oregon
1%
■ Capital
13%
Canyon A _"%�
2%
■ Western
3%
■ Southern
35%
Figure 28. Percentage of participants by sub-region,2025
In 2025, Idaho Power enrolled 2,702 (12.18%) of the eligible service points in its service area in
the program (Table 35), an increase of 7.35% over 2024. Program participants in 2025 had a
combined billing demand of 391,218 kW, an increase over the 2024 season, where participant
billing demand totaled 366,482 kW. Ag reps continued to play a key role in driving program
participation by contacting high-demand customers in the spring.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 145

Irrigation Sector—
_`4l%�... Irrigation Peak Rewards
Table 35. Eligible pump locations and participation levels by area
Idaho Power Eligible Service Manual Automatic Total Enrolled
Sub-Region Locations Dispatch Option Dispatch Option by Area Eligible Enrolled
Canyon 2,999 1 62 63 2.33%
Western 2,409 9 68 77 2.85%
Oregon 2,393 1 39 40 1.48%
Capital 1,883 94 261 355 13.14%
Eastern 3,586 0 1,213 1,213 44.89%
Southern 8,914 4 950 954 35.31%
Total 22,184 109 2,593 2,702 12.18%
Enrollment was higher in 2025, and the maximum potential demand response was higher,
even though there was a slight change in the system loss calculation due to the coincident
factor for pumps and a slight decrease in season peak load; changes in system loss and season
peak load were offset by an improvement in device failures and opt-outs, which can vary from
year to year due to weather and crop type.
Idaho Power actively monitors and maintains the reliability of participating devices both before
and during the season. Communication status reports are reviewed weekly to identify possible
issues. The company worked with three electrical contractors across the region in 2025 to
maintain, troubleshoot, repair, and exchange program devices.
In 2025, participants were organized into five groups, labeled A, B, C, D, and E, and the program
was used on seven days. Group E is new as of the 2025 season; participants in this group
receive a lower incentive but will not be called later than 9 p.m. Table 36 shows the event
performance by date. Event participation ranged from one group to three on a given day.
Each participant experienced 12 total event hours in the season. The program maximum
potential demand reduction was 267.6 MW, and the maximum actual demand reduction
achieved was 122.9 MW on July 14, 2025, with three groups participating (Table 36).
Demand reduction analytical methods and results are provided in the end-of-season report in
Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 146

Irrigation Sector—
Irri_'Il%�... �gation Peak Rewards
Table 36. Irrigation Peak Rewards demand response event details
Maximum Actual
Event Details Event Time' Groups High Temperature' Demand Reduction,Total Opt-outs
July 8 5-9 p.m. A 1047 61 MW 10
July 14 4-10 p.m. C,D,E 100°F 122.9 MW 17
July 18 5-9 p.m. B 97°F 33.9 MW 9
July 28 5-10 p.m. B,C 92'F 74.3 MW 7
July 29 4-10 p.m. A,D,E 97°F 105.8 MW 13
July 30 5-10 p.m. B,C 96°F 72.5 MW 16
August 12 4-10 p.m. A,D,E 101'F 114.2 MW 12
'National Weather Service,recorded in the Boise area
'Group times are often staggered and do not span the entire length of the event.
Marketing Activities
In 2025, Idaho Power continued to use workshops, direct-mail, and outreach calls to encourage
past participants to re-enroll in the program and potential new participants to enroll for the
first time. The brochure, enrollment worksheet, and contact worksheet were mailed to all
eligible participants in January 2025.
The company ran a My Account pop-up ad in April promoting enrollment to irrigation
customers. Twenty users clicked on the ad. Additionally, Facebook and Instagram ads
ran March through May promoting program enrollment, resulting in 277 clicks and
444,426 total impressions.
The company continued its marketing tactics from 2024, using digital display ads, search engine
marketing, and radio. Web users were exposed to 752,608 display ads (animated GIF image ads
embedded on a website) based on their demographics, related to online articles they viewed,
or their use of a particular mobile web page or app. Users clicked the ads 1,203 times,
resulting in a click-through rate of 0.16%. Search engine marketing displayed Idaho Power's
Irrigation Peak Rewards program near the top of the search results with the paid search terms
when customers searched for Irrigation Peak Rewards or demand response terms. These ads
received 102,668 impressions and 1,556 clicks. From March through May, the company ran
653 radio ads promoting the Irrigation Peak Rewards program. The 30-second spots ran in
Boise, eastern Idaho, and southern Idaho markets on a variety of stations, including news/talk,
classic rock, and country.
See the Irrigation Sector Overview section for additional marketing activities.
Cost-Effectiveness
Idaho Power determines cost-effectiveness for its demand response programs using the
approved method for valuing demand response under IPUC Order No. 35336 and approved by
the OPUC on February 8, 2022, in ADV 1355/Advice No. 21-12. Using financial and avoided cost
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 147

Irrigation Sector—
­4l%�... Irrigation Peak Rewards
assumptions from the 2023 Integrated Resource Plan, the defined cost-effective threshold for
operating Idaho Power's three demand response programs for the maximum allowable
60 hours is $64.03 per kW under the current program parameters.
The Irrigation Peak Rewards participants were each dispatched for three events, resulting in
36 event hours across seven days in the season, and achieving a maximum actual demand
reduction of 122.9 MW with a maximum potential demand reduction of 267.6 MW. The total
expenses in 2025 were $8.9 million and would have been approximately $12.6 million if the
program had been operated for the full 60 hours. Using the potential cost and the maximum
potential demand reduction results in a cost of$47.03 per kW, thus the program was
cost-effective.
A complete description of cost-effectiveness results for Idaho Power's demand response
programs is included in Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness.
Evaluations
Idaho Power Demand Reduction Analysis
To evaluate the program each year, Idaho Power prepares an Irrigation Peak Rewards Program
Report that presents demand reduction calculations and analysis and results from the program
season. See Supplement 2: Evaluation for the 2025 report. A brief overview of the program
results is provided in this section.
The program's maximum potential demand reduction is determined by looking at the maximum
coincidence for all participants in the program (all groups) for an event. Coincidence is defined
as the maximum potential demand that is on and available for shutoff during an event on any
given day throughout the season and is typically the highest at the end of June and the
beginning of July when a larger percentage of irrigation pumps are operating nearly 24 hours
per day, seven days per week. Later in the season, when many pumps are not operating due to
crop maturity and reduced watering demands, the coincidence is lower. The calculation for
maximum potential demand reduction also includes a performance reduction of 10.96% due
to the actual average device failure and opt-outs for 2025 for the events that occurred in
the season.
Program participants hit their peak season demand on July 1, 2025, reaching an overall
coincidence factor of 69.5% (including the 10.96% performance reduction mentioned above)
and a maximum potential demand reduction of 267.6 MW at the generation level for
the season.
A breakdown of the actual demand reduction for each event day and each event hour for the
2025 program season is shown in Table 37 and includes system losses of 6.5%.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 148

Irrigation Sector-
_`4l%�... Irrigation Peak Rewards
Table 37. Irrigation Peak Rewards program demand reduction(MW)for events,including system losses
Hourly Demand Reduction(MW)
Event Date Groups 3-4 p.m. 4-5 p.m. 5-6 p.m. 6-7 p.m. 7-8 p.m. 8-9 P.M. 9-10 P.M.
Tuesday,July 8 A - - 60.8 61.0 60.5 59.7 -
Monday,July 14 C,D,E 14.0 91.3 94.3 122.9 109.0 30.5 29.5
Friday,July 18 B - - 33.6 33.9 33.9 32.4 -
Monday,July 28 B,C - 1.8 36.7 73.8 74.3 68.7 36.0
Tuesday,July 29 A,D,E - 6.8 49.0 104.5 105.8 98.6 55.9
Wednesday,July 30 B,C 1.9 5.3 38.4 72.5 68.1 67.7 34.1
Tuesday,August 12 A,D,E - 33.0 53.1 114.2 113.6 80.6 60.7
Figure 29 shows the total hourly system demand for dispatched participants for the 24-hour
period on July 14, 2025. A reduction in system demand during the active event period from
hour ending at 4 p.m. through hour ending at 10 p.m. is clearly shown on the graph; the gradual
drop and subsequent rise in system demand is due to the staggered start/end times for the
three groups participating. The maximum actual demand reduction occurred during the hour
ending at 7 p.m., when all dispatched group overlapped. The small system demand shown for
that hour is attributed to opt-outs and load left on during the event.
140,000
Ln
a 120,000
U p
++ E
a 100,000
N pQ
u 80,000
� C C: -
E 60,000
v a,
0 a',
T �
0
o 'M 40,000
= a`
20,000
a _
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour Ending
Figure 29. Called participant demand(kW) by hour on event day July 14,2025
Third-Party Evaluation
In 2025, Idaho Power contracted with a third-party evaluator to conduct an impact and process
evaluation of the Irrigation Peak Rewards program. The evaluation team found a well-managed
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 149

Irrigation Sector—
_`Ill%�... Irrigation Peak Rewards
program and measured 100% of the load reduction claimed per event day, providing a high
level of confidence for the claimed load reduction.
Listed below are key recommendations from the evaluation (in italics) followed by
Idaho Power's response. See the complete impact and process evaluation report in
Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Consider providing the Idaho Power irrigation representatives with the Event Load Realization
metric for individual meters.
Response: As part of the Event Load Realization metric, baseline energy usage and actual event
performance are calculated for each participating meter. The Idaho Power program specialist
polled ag reps regarding their need for this data. Responses indicated that the data are not
needed for every pump for every event; this baseline and reduction data will be made available
to ag reps upon request. This approach ensures that detailed information is accessible when
needed without overwhelming stakeholders with unnecessary data.
Work to complete the comprehensive program handbook.
Response: Maintaining the Irrigation Peak Rewards program manual is an ongoing effort.
Current work includes updating process changes as they occur and removing content that is no
longer needed or relevant. In alignment with evaluator recommendations, highlights of ongoing
edits will be removed, and sections that were previously underdeveloped will be expanded to
provide greater clarity and completeness. Additionally, the program guide will be updated to
include detailed process steps for performing key tasks, ensuring users have clear,
actionable instructions.
2026 Plans
For the 2026 program season, all irrigation customers will receive a comprehensive enrollment
packet containing an informational brochure, enrollment worksheet and a contact worksheet.
For all new pump signups, a DRU will need to be installed by a contracted electrician prior to
the program season.
Idaho Power will have an informational booth at the local 2026 ag expos, including Western,
Eastern, and Southern regions. The Irrigation Peak Rewards program will be the focus of
in-person workshops presented by Idaho Power ag reps in winter 2026. For the upcoming
season, Idaho Power will continue its focus on retaining currently enrolled participants and will
consider using email marketing, radio, paid search ads, digital display ads, and other tactics to
boost program enrollment. The ag reps will continue to remind and inform customers and
encourage program participation in person and by phone.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 150

_'4l%...
Other Programs and Activities
Other Programs and Activities
Idaho Power's Internal Energy Efficiency Commitment
Renovation projects continued at the Idaho Power Corporate Headquarters (CHQ) in downtown
Boise, with a project to exchange the old T-12 parabolic lighting fixtures with LED fixtures.
Remodels across the enterprise continued to incorporate energy efficiency measures, such as
lower partitions for better transfer of daylight, transom lighting, and automated lighting
controls, along with LED upgrades and/or installs.
The CHQ building, along with five other sites across the enterprise, participated in the Flex Peak
Program again in 2025 and committed to reduce up to 200 kW of electrical demand during
events. Unlike other program participants, Idaho Power does not receive any financial
incentives for its participation. For the three events in 2025, Idaho Power averaged an
aggregated 9% reduction in power.
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG)
Formed in 2002, the EEAG provides input on enhancing existing DSM programs and on
implementing energy efficiency programs. Currently, the EEAG consists of members
representing a cross-section of Idaho Power customers from the residential, industrial,
commercial, and irrigation sectors, as well as individuals representing low-income households,
environmental organizations, state agencies, city governments, public utility commissions,
and Idaho Power.
The EEAG has traditionally met quarterly, and when necessary, Idaho Power facilitates
additional meetings and/or calls to address special topics. In 2025, a total of six EEAG meetings
were held. The Idaho meetings were held on February 6 (virtual meeting), May 6 (in-person
meeting), August 14 (virtual meeting), and November 12 (in-person meeting). As an outcome of
UE 426 in Oregon, the company agreed to form an Oregon-specific EEAG which meets twice
yearly. The Oregon meetings were held on May 28 and December 4 (both virtual meetings).
EEAG meetings are generally open to the public. Idaho Power appreciates the input from the
group and acknowledges the commitment of time and resources the individual members give
to participate in EEAG meetings and activities.
During these meetings, Idaho Power discussed new energy efficiency program ideas and new
measure proposals, marketing methods, and specific measure details. The company provided
the status of energy efficiency programs and expenses, gave updates of ongoing programs and
projects, and supplied general information on DSM issues and other important issues occurring
in the region.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 151

Other Programs and Activities
Idaho Power relies on input from the EEAG to provide a customer and public interest view of
energy efficiency and demand response. Additionally, Idaho Power regularly provides updates
on current and future cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency programs and how changes in the
IRP impact DSM alternate costs, which Idaho Power uses in calculating cost-effectiveness. In the
meetings, Idaho Power frequently requests input and feedback from EEAG members on
programmatic changes, marketing tactics, and incentive levels.
Throughout 2025, Idaho Power relied on input from the EEAG on existing and potential new
DSM programs. For complete meeting notes, see Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Market Transformation
Idaho Power's energy efficiency programs and activities are gradually transforming markets by
changing customers' knowledge, use, and application of energy-efficient technologies and
principles. The traditional market transformation definition is an effort to permanently change
the existing market for energy efficiency goods and services by engaging and influencing
large national companies to manufacture or supply more energy-efficient equipment.
Through market transformation activities, the adoption of energy efficient materials and
practices is promoted before they are integrated into building codes or become
standard equipment.
NEEA
Idaho Power has been a funder of NEEA and participated in NEEA activities since its inception in
1997. NEEA's role is to look to the future to find emerging opportunities for energy efficiency
and to create a path forward to make those opportunities a reality in the region.
Idaho Power participates in NEEA with funding from the Idaho and Oregon Riders.
NEEA's current business plan and funding cycle run from 2025-2029.
NEEA categorizes the savings it achieves in five categories: total regional savings, baseline
savings, local program savings, net market effects, and co-created savings created by NEEA and
its utility funders working collaboratively. For 2025 to 2029, NEEA expects 190 to 225 aMW of
co-created savings.
In 2025, Idaho Power participated in all NEEA committees and workgroups, including
representation on the Regional Portfolio Advisory Committee (RPAC) and the Board of
Directors. Idaho Power representatives participated in the two overarching coordinating
committees (Residential and Commercial & Industrial), the RPAC, the Cost-Effectiveness and
Evaluation Advisory Committee (CEAC), the Regional Emerging Technology Advisory Committee
(RETAC), and the Idaho Energy Code Collaborative. The company also participated in NEEA's
initiatives, including the Commercial Building Stock Assessment (CBSA), the Residential Building
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 152

Other Programs and Activities
Stock Assessment (RBSA), the Motor Systems Stock Assessment (MSSA), and Strategic Energy
Management (SEM).
NEEA provided 51 market-related reports, of which 30 were through third-party contractors for
energy efficiency initiatives throughout the Northwest. Links to these and other reports
mentioned below are provided in Supplement 2: Evaluation and on NEEA's website under
Resources & Reports. For information about all committee and workgroup activities, see the
NEEA Activities section below.
NEEA Marketing
To support NEEA efforts, Idaho Power continued to educate residential customers on heat
pump water heaters (HPWH) and participated in NEEA's HPWH marketing campaign, which was
active from September through November. The campaign, called Level Up, had a retro video
game theme and increased consumer awareness through social media, web banners,
and digital audio (Figure 30). The goal was to continue to drive consumer awareness and direct
them to utility websites via NEEA's HotWaterSolution.org website.
!
r
a �
L ('uVOOp 01 HewsFWMP*.ner.i.,r
�'�� , �glRrrhn�31R�{¢�nccii
4A'
Figure 30. Boost savings graphic and social media for the Level Up campaign
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 153

­4l%...
Other Programs and Activities
NEEA Activities: All Sectors
For the 2025 to 2029 funding cycle, NEEA and its funders reorganized the advisory committees
into two coordinating committees: the Residential Coordinating Committee and the
Commercial & Industrial Coordinating Committee.
The company currently has representation on both coordinating committees.
These committees provide utilities with the opportunity to give meaningful input into the
design and implementation of NEEA initiatives, as well as to productively engage with each
other. Quarterly meetings were held in 2025 for both committees. Working groups formed
during the previous funding cycles continued in 2025 to focus on topics relevant to all sectors,
as described below.
Additionally, NEEA and its funders form working groups as needed in consultation with the
RPAC. The RPAC continued, as well as the CEAC and the RETAC. The Idaho Energy Code
Collaborative also remained intact.
Cost-Effectiveness and Evaluation Advisory Committee
The advisory committee meets four times a year to review evaluation reports,
cost-effectiveness, and savings assumptions. One of the primary functions of the work group is
to review all savings assumptions updated since the previous reporting cycle. The committee
also reviews NEEA evaluation studies and data collection strategies and previews forthcoming
research and evaluations. In addition, in 2025, the committee spent time reviewing and
providing feedback on NEEA's natural market baseline assumptions.
Idaho Energy Code Collaborative
Since 2005, the State of Idaho has adopted a state-specific version of the IECC. The Idaho
Energy Code Collaborative was formed to assist the Idaho Building Code Board (IBCB) in vetting
and evaluating future versions of the IECC for the residential and commercial building sectors.
NEEA facilitates the group, comprised of individuals with diverse backgrounds in the building
industry and energy code development. Building energy code evaluations are presented by the
group at the IBCB public meetings. The group also educates the building community and
stakeholders to increase energy code knowledge and compliance. Idaho Power is an
active member.
The Idaho Energy Code Collaborative provided statewide resources to builders and related
stakeholders in support of the current building energy codes. The collaborative evaluated the
2021 and 2024 editions of the IECC for potential adoption by the State of Idaho. This work
started in 2024 and progressed through 2025. The results were provided to the IBCB.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 154

_`4ll%...
Other Programs and Activities
Other resources supporting current codes included monthly training sessions and a robust
website, IdahoEnergVCode.com. Idaho Power will continue to participate in the Idaho Energy
Code Collaborative.
Regional Emerging Technology Advisory Committee (RETAC)
Idaho Power participated in the RETAC, which met quarterly in 2025 to review RETAC's
emerging technology pipeline, developed with assistance from the Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA), NEEA, and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC).
Throughout 2025 RETAC focused primarily on space-heating and water-heating products for
residential and commercial markets. The technologies for these products centered on heat
pumps. RETAC discussed the current state of the technologies and their associated gaps and
issues. This work will continue in 2026.
Regional Portfolio Advisory Committee
RPAC is responsible for overseeing NEEA's market transformation programs and their
advancement through key milestones in the "Initiative Lifecycle." RPAC members must reach a
full consent vote at selected milestones for a program to advance to the next stage. In 2018,
NEEA and RPAC formed an additional group called the RPAC Plus (RPAC+), which included
marketing subject matter experts to help coordinate NEEA's marketing activities with those of
the funders. RPAC convenes quarterly meetings and adds other webinars as needed.
In 2025, RPAC conducted four quarterly meetings, three of which were virtual and one of which
was hybrid. Throughout 2025, RPAC received updates of savings forecasts, portfolio priorities,
and committee reports.
NEEA Activities: Residential
Residential Building Stock Assessment(RBSA)
The RBSA is a study conducted approximately every five years to determine common attributes
of residential homes and to develop a profile of the existing residential buildings in the
Northwest. The information is used by the regional utilities and the NWPCC to determine load
forecast and energy-savings potential in the region. NEEA completed the most recent RBSA in
April 2024.
In 2025, NEEA initiated work on the 2027 RBSA. Idaho Power participated in monthly
workgroup meetings to discuss the study's objectives, measures on which to focus,
and the Request for Proposal (RFP).
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 155

­4l%...
Other Programs and Activities
NEEA Activities: Commercial/Industrial
Commercial Building Stock Assessment(CBSA)
NEEA began work on the most recent CBSA under development in 2022, which is expected to
be completed and released in 2026. The CBSA is a study conducted approximately every five
years, and the information is used by utilities in the Pacific Northwest and the NWPCC to
determine load forecast and electrical energy-savings potential in the region.
For commercial customers who choose to participate in the study, the third-party contractor
schedules a site visit with a field technician who collects information on equipment and building
characteristics that affect energy consumption. This includes HVAC equipment, lighting,
building envelope, water heating, refrigeration and cooking, computers and miscellaneous
equipment, and cooling towers.
Idaho Power representatives have been engaged in the most recent CBSA's monthly working
group since August 2022. In 2023, the group selected vendors to lead the study and provide
engineering support. In 2024, the study design was finalized, and a sample of buildings was
identified. Initial outreach to the building owners and managers began in late 2024. Site visits
were held throughout 2025, and the report is slated for release in 2026.
Very High-Efficiency Dedicated Outside Air Systems(DOHS)
NEEA's High-Performance HVAC program focused on design of market intervention
strategies based on market and field research associated with very high-efficiency DOAS.
Very high-efficiency DOAS pairs a very high-efficiency heat/energy recovery ventilator
(HRV/ERV) type of DOAS with a high-efficiency heating and cooling system, while following set
design principles that maximize efficiency. The key area of focus was market development,
engaging with manufacturer distributors and representatives with targeted outreach in 2025.
NEEA developed case studies and informational articles to advance industry engagement with
identified target market actors. Additional resources for utilities are provided on the
BETTERBRICKS website.
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls (LLLC)
Throughout 2025, NEEA engaged with key manufacturers and their sales channels to encourage
promotion of LLLC to their customers and projects.
NEEA continued to offer a variety of LLLC educational resources for use by utilities and their
customers and trade allies. These materials are found at betterbricks.com. In addition, NEEA is
actively working with utilities in the Pacific Northwest to develop case studies of commercial
buildings that incorporated LLLC.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 156

_`Illl%...
Other Programs and Activities
NEEA Funding
In 2025, Idaho Power began its participation in the 2025-2029 five-year Regional Energy
Efficiency Initiative Agreement funding cycle with NEEA. Per this agreement, Idaho Power is
committed to fund NEEA based on a quarterly estimate of expenses up to the five-year total
direct funding amount of$20.3 million, or approximately $4.1 million annually, in support of
NEEA's implementation of market transformation programs in Idaho Power's service area.
Of this amount, 100% is funded through the Idaho and Oregon Energy Efficiency Riders.
On December 30, 2024, Idaho Power received IPUC Order No. 36436, supporting Idaho Power's
participation in NEEA from 2025 to 2029 with such participation to be funded through the
Idaho Rider and subject to an annual prudency review.
In 2025, Idaho Power paid $3,395,482 to NEEA: $3,239,863 from the Idaho Rider for the Idaho
jurisdiction and $155,619 from the Oregon Rider for the Oregon jurisdiction. Other expenses
associated with Idaho Power's participation in NEEA activities, such as administration and
travel, were also paid from the Idaho and Oregon Riders.
Final NEEA savings for 2025 will be released later in 2026. Preliminary estimates reported by
NEEA indicate Idaho Power's share of regional market transformation savings as 27,707 MWh.
These savings are reported in two categories: 1) codes-related and standards-related savings of
about 24,607 MWh (89%) and 2) non-codes-related and non-standards-related savings of about
3,101 MWh (11%).
In the Demand-Side Management 2024 Annual Report, preliminary estimated savings reported
were 24,501 MWh. The final NEEA savings for 2024 reported herein are 26,312 MWh
and include savings from code-related initiatives as well as non-codes-related initiatives.
Idaho Power relies on NEEA to report the energy savings and other benefits of NEEA's regional
portfolio of initiatives. For further information about NEEA, visit their website at neea.org.
Regional Technical Forum
The RTF is a technical advisory committee to the NWPCC that was established in 1999 to
develop standards to verify and evaluate energy efficiency savings. Since 2004, Idaho Power has
supported the RTF by providing annual financial support, regularly attending monthly meetings,
participating in subcommittees, and sharing research and data beneficial to the forum's efforts.
The forum is made up of both voting members and corresponding members from investor
owned and public utilities, consultant firms, advocacy groups, Northwest Power and
Conservation Council (Energy Trust of Oregon [ETO]), and BPA, all with varied expertise in
engineering, evaluation, statistics, and program administration. The RTF advises the NWPCC
during the development and implementation of the regional power plan regarding the
following RTF charter items:
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 157

_`4l%...
Other Programs and Activities
• Developing and maintaining a readily accessible list of eligible conservation resources,
including the estimated lifetime costs and savings associated with those resources and
the estimated regional power system value associated with those savings.
• Establishing a process for updating the list of eligible conservation resources as
technology and standard practices change, and an appeal process through which
utilities, trade allies, and customers can demonstrate that different savings and value
estimates should apply.
• Developing a set of protocols by which the savings and system value of conservation
resources should be estimated, with a process for applying the protocols to existing or
new measures.
• Assisting the NWPCC in assessing 1) the current performance, cost, and availability of
new conservation technologies and measures; 2) technology development trends;
and 3) the effect of these trends on the future performance, cost, and availability of
new conservation resources.
• Tracking regional progress toward achieving the region's conservation targets by
collecting and reporting regional research findings and energy savings annually.
In 2025, Idaho Power entered into a five-year agreement to sponsor the RTF for the 2025-2029
funding cycle. Under the 2025-2029 agreement, Idaho Power is the fourth-largest RTF funder,
at a rate of$868,500 for the five-year period. For this funding cycle, gas utilities and the gas
portion of dual-fuel utilities are also funding the RTF.
When appropriate and when the work products are applicable to the climate zones and load
characteristics in Idaho Power's service area, Idaho Power uses the savings estimates, measure
protocols, and supporting work documents provided by the RTF. In 2025, Idaho Power staff
participated in RTF meetings as a voting member and was represented on the RTF Policy
Advisory Committee.
Throughout the year, Idaho Power reviews any changes enacted by the RTF to savings, costs,
or parameters for existing and proposed measures. The company then determines how the
changes might be applicable to, or whether they impact, its programs and measures.
The company accounted for all implemented changes in planning and budgeting for 2025.
Residential Energy Efficiency Education Initiative (REEEI)
Idaho Power recognizes the value of general energy efficiency awareness and education in
creating behavioral change and customer demand for, and satisfaction with, its programs.
The REEEI promotes energy efficiency to the residential sector. The company achieves this by
creating and delivering educational materials and programs that result in wise and informed
choices regarding energy use and increased participation in Idaho Power's energy
efficiency programs.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 158

Other Programs and Activities
Kill A Watt Meter Program
The Kill A WattTM Meter Program remained active in 2025. Idaho Power continued promoting
the program through educational materials and online resources. Idaho Power's Customer Care
Center and field staff continued to encourage customers to learn about the energy used by
specific appliances and activities within their homes by visiting a local library to check out a Kill
A Watt meter (Figure 31).
+I I
i
i+
_` P.
7
Figure 31. Kill A Watt meter
Customer Education and Marketing
Idaho Power looks for ways to emphasize energy efficiency education in its Connections
newsletter, bill inserts, and digital channels. In addition, the company continues to build and
maintain its library of Energy Efficiency Guides and other collateral focusing on various
audiences and subject matter.
Idaho Power continued to increase customer awareness of energy-saving ideas via distribution
of the 96-page booklet 30 Simple Things You Can Do to Save Energy, a joint publishing project
between Idaho Power and The EarthWorks Group. The booklet was used to fulfill direct web
requests from customers, shared by energy advisors during in home visits, and sent to
customers in response to inquiries received by Idaho Power's Customer Care Center.
In 2025, Idaho Power published an updated Energy Efficiency Guide designed to help customers
reduce energy use at home. The guide includes a mini home assessment and practical, easy-to-
follow tips for saving energy. It also provides clear instructions on calculating the energy
consumption of household appliances, along with information on water heaters and strategies
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 159

_`Ill%...
Other Programs and Activities
for conserving energy when using hot water. The new Energy Efficiency Guide was made
available in both English and Spanish. The primary distribution channel was online. However,
hard copies were available at events and can be requested to be sent via U.S. mail.
Idaho Power continues to recognize that educated employees are effective advocates for
energy efficiency and Idaho Power's energy efficiency programs. Idaho Power energy efficiency
program specialists connected with energy advisors and other employees from each of
Idaho Power's geographical regions and the Customer Care Center to discuss educational
initiatives and answer questions about the company's energy efficiency programs.
REED distributed energy efficiency messages through a variety of other communication
methods in 2025. Idaho Power participated in more than 100 events highlighting energy
efficiency. Program specialists and education and outreach advisors shared information about
programs and other energy-saving ideas in nearly 1,000 presentations and trainings for
audiences of all ages throughout the year. To increase opportunities with adult audiences and
more secondary-school-aged young people, the education and outreach advisors carried out a
concerted marketing effort—establishing relationships with new community advocates and
decision-makers.
Idaho Power's social media channels and News Briefs focused on content designed to help
customers save energy, and quarterly bill inserts and emails provided all residential customers
with easy steps to get their home ready for each season, and behavioral tips for reducing
energy use. Throughout the year, nine separate News Briefs and 27 energy efficiency social
media posts offered timely suggestions and tips on ways to save (Figure 32).
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 160

Other Programs and Activities
, y
.lw
1f �
•
r
1^1 it
*A1 L
1 w ' ,
S4
� � n
1.
11 �t
Figure 32. Spring Energy Efficiency Guide
2026 Program
The initiative's 2026 goals are to improve customer awareness of the wise use of energy,
increase program participation, and promote educational and energy-saving ideas that result in
energy-efficient, conservation-oriented behaviors.
The initiative will continue to educate customers using a multi-channel approach to explore
new technologies and/or program opportunities that incorporate a behavioral component.
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab
Idaho Power is a founding supporter of the IDL (idlboise.com), which is dedicated to the
development of high performance, energy-efficient buildings in the Intermountain West.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 161

_`Illl%...
Other Programs and Activities
Idaho Power has worked with the IDL since its inception in 2004 to educate the public about
how energy-efficient building practices and strategies benefit the business and the customer.
In 2025, Idaho Power entered into an agreement with the IDL to perform the tasks and services
described below.
Foundational Services
The goal of this task is to provide energy efficiency technical assistance and project-based
training to building industry professionals and customers. Requests for IDL involvement in
building projects are categorized into one of three types:
1. Phase I projects are simple requests that can be addressed with minimal IDL time.
2. Phase II projects are more complex requests that require more involvement and
resources from the lab.
3. Phase III projects are significantly more complex and must be co-funded.
The IDL provided technical assistance on 23 new projects in Idaho Power's service area in 2025:
18 Phase I projects, four Phase II projects, and one Phase III project. Thirteen of the projects
were on new buildings, eight were on existing buildings, and two were general design
assistance. The number of projects increased by 20% compared to 2024. The related report is in
the IDL section of Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Lunch & Learn
The goal of the Lunch & Learn task is to educate architects, engineers, and other design and
construction professionals about energy efficiency topics through a series of educational
lunch sessions.
In 2025, the IDL provided 16 in-person and two hybrid technical training lunches. A total of
163 architects, engineers, designers, project managers, and others attended.
The topics of the lunches (and the number performed of each) were: The Architect's Business
Case for Energy Performance Modeling (4); Daylighting Multipliers—Increasing Daylighting
Harvesting Efficiency (1); Air Infiltration and Passive Systems (3); Energy Efficient Design Ideas
for Multifamily (2); High Performance Classrooms (1); The Future of Lighting Controls (1);
Value of Energy Performance Modeling Monitoring and Tracking (1); Thermal Energy Storage
Systems (2); HVAC Load Calculation—Tips and Tricks (1); and Envelope and Window Design
for Enhanced Energy Efficiency (2). The related report is in the IDL section of
Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Building Simulation Users Group (BSUG)
The goal of this task is to facilitate the Idaho BSUG, which is designed to improve the energy
efficiency related simulation skills of local design and engineering professionals.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 162

Other Programs and Activities
In 2025, six BSUG sessions were hosted by the IDL. All sessions were hosted in a hybrid format
so participants could choose to join in person or virtually. The sessions were attended by
170 professionals. Evaluation forms were completed by attendees for each session.
Analyzing results from the first six questions that rated the sessions on a scale of 1 to 5,
with 5 being "excellent" and 1 being "poor," the average session rating was 4.47 for 2025.
For the final question, "The content of the presentation was ..." on a scale of 1 to 5,
with 1 being "too basic," 3 being "just right," and 5 being "too advanced," the average session
rating was 3.25 for 2024.
Each presentation was archived for remote access anytime, along with general BSUG content
through the IDL website. The related report is in the IDL section of Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Energy Resource Library (ERL)
The ERL gives customers access to resources for measuring and monitoring energy use on
various systems. The goal of this task is to operate and maintain the library, which includes a
web-based loan tracking system, and to teach customers how to use the resources in
the library.
The inventory of the ERL consists of over 900 individual pieces of equipment. In 2025, a total of
14 new tools were added to the library to replace outdated data logging and power quality
analyzer equipment. The tools and manuals are available at no cost to customers, engineers,
architects, and contractors in Idaho Power's service area to aid in the evaluation of energy
efficiency projects and equipment they are considering. A contactless pick-up and drop-off
system is available if desired.
In 2025, loan requests totaled 33 with 29 loans completed, four loans on-going, and one loan
canceled. Loans were made to 10 different locations and 13 unique users, three were new ERL
users. Most tools were borrowed for principal investigations or audits, although loans were also
made for determining performance of energy efficiency measures implemented. The related
report is in the IDL section of Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Design Tools Updates
Over the years, the IDL has developed several digital design tools to assist local firms.
These tools require updating over time. In 2025, 21 tools were hosted on the IDL website and
made available for use and download, serving as a one-stop resource for engineers and
architects for early design considerations. In 2025, the IDL saw a total of 2,106 visits to the
home/landing page for the digital design tools. IDL provided priority for each tool and will
update in future tasks. Work in 2025 was primarily focused on developing visualization tools for
Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) 2018 data that was released in late
2022, and the IDL developed the additional four categories with the 2018 project/study:
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 163

_"Ill%...
Other Programs and Activities
Food Service, Public Assembly, Warehouse, and Service. Also, the Education building type was
further analyzed by its subcategories—Elementary, High School, Middle School, Multi-Grade,
Pre-School, and Other—with graphics developed for each.
The related report for this task is in the IDL section of Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Fan Savings from UV Lamps
In-duct Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation (UVGI) prevents microbial growth on cooling coils,
which can reduce fan energy and result in net energy savings depending on the building type
and airflow. The energy savings are a result of cleaner cooling coils having less of a pressure
restriction that the fan must overcome. In 2025, the IDL engaged with four clients to secure a
site visit for study. Initially, one school district, one government agency and two municipalities
indicated interest, however none of the clients were able to secure a suitable site for the study.
The related report for this task is in the IDL section of Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Efficient Building Facade Design
Building facades play a critical role in shaping both the visual identity and the energy
performance of urban environments. City zoning codes often require architectural variety
or fagade articulation to enhance visual appeal that can result in more exposed surfaces,
higher construction costs, and increased energy loss through infiltration.
In 2025, IDL reviewed the visual-interest requirements and recommendations in zoning codes
and design guidelines in Boise, Meridian, Nampa, Twin Falls, Ketchum, Hailey, and Pocatello.
A visual guide was created for designers that provide practical fagade strategies that balance
energy efficiency with architectural character. The related report for this task is in the IDL
section of Supplement 2: Evaluation.
2026 IDL Strategies
In 2026, the IDL will continue work on Foundational Services, Lunch & Learn sessions, BSUG,
ERL, and Design Tools Update.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 164

Other Programs and Activities
CONCLUSIONS
This DSM report provides a summary of activities performed by Idaho Power to offer DSM
programs to all its customers throughout 2025. Programs are generally designed to educate,
inform, and/or reward customers.
The savings from energy efficiency programs, including the estimated savings from NEEA,
were 153,099 MWh, and the energy efficiency portfolio was cost-effective from all three
benefit/cost methodologies (UCT, TRC, and PCT).
Idaho Power successfully operated its three demand response programs in 2025, with a total
maximum potential demand reduction of approximately 328 MW and a total maximum actual
demand reduction of approximately 161 MW.
The DSM programs are carefully managed and monitored for ways to improve savings,
cost-effectiveness, and value to the customer. One program was suspended because savings
were dramatically reduced and the RTF determined that the market had been transformed.
In addition to the residential, C&I, and irrigation programs, which are gradually transforming
markets by changing customers' knowledge and energy use, Idaho Power's collaboration with
multiple stakeholders is laying the groundwork for building a more energy-efficient future with
the long-term goal of permanently changing the existing market.
This DSM 2025 Annual Report satisfies the reporting obligation set forth by IPUC Order
No. 29419 in Case No. IPC-E-03-19.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 165

_"Il%....�
Glossary of Acronyms
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
A/C—Air Conditioning or Air Conditioner
Ad—Advertisement
AGC—Associated General Contractors
AIA—American Institute of Architects
AMI—Automated Metering Infrastructure
aMW—Average Megawatt
ASHRAE—American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers
ASHP—Air-Source Heat Pumps
B/C—Benefit/Cost
BCASEI—Building Contractors Association of Southeast Idaho
BCASWI—Building Contractors Association of Southwestern Idaho
BOC—Building Operator Certification
BOMA—Building Owners and Managers Association
BPA—Bonneville Power Administration
BSU—Boise State University
BSUG—Building Simulation Users Group
BYOT—Bring Your Own Thermostat
C&I—Commercial and Industrial
CAP—Community Action Partnership
CBECS—Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey
CBSA—Commercial Building Stock Assessment
CCFEE—Campus Cohort for Energy Efficiency
CCNO—Community Connection of Northeast Oregon, Inc.
CEAC—Cost-Effectiveness Advisory Committee
CEI—Continuous Energy Improvement
CEL—Cost-Effective Limit
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 166

Glossary of Acronyms
CHQ—Corporate Headquarters (Idaho Power)
CINA—Community in Action
CR&EE—Customer Relations and Energy Efficiency
DHP—Ductless Heat Pump
DOA—Day-of Adjustment Hour
DOAS—Dedicated Outside Air Systems
DOE—US Department of Energy
DR—Demand Response
DR—Demand Response Unit
DSM—Demand-Side Management
EEAG—Energy Efficiency Advisory Group
EICAP—Eastern Idaho Community Action Partnership
EL ADA—El Ada Community Action Partnership
EOEA—Education and Outreach Energy Advisors
ERL—Energy Resource Library
ERV—Energy Recovery Ventilator
ESK—Energy-Saving Kit
ETO—Energy Trust of Oregon
ft—Feet
gpm—Gallons per Minute
GWh—Gigawatt-hour
H&CE—Heating & Cooling Efficiency
HEA—Home Energy Audit
HER—Home Energy Report
hp—Horsepower
HPWH—Heat Pump Water Heater
HRV—Heat Recovery Ventilator
HVAC—Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 167

Glossary of Acronyms
IAQ—Indoor Air Quality
IBCA—Idaho Building Contractors Association
IBCB—Idaho Building Code Board
ID—Idaho
IDHW—Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
IDL—Integrated Design Lab
IEEC—Industrial Energy Efficiency Cohort
IECC—International Energy Conservation Code
IPMVP—International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol
IPUC—Idaho Public Utilities Commission
IRA—Inflation Reduction Act
IRP—Integrated Resource Plan
ISU—Idaho State University
IWEC—Industrial Wastewater Energy Cohort
kW—Kilowatt
kWh—Kilowatt-hour
LIHEAP—Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
LLLC—Luminaire Level Lighting Controls
M&V—Monitoring and Verification
MVBA—Magic Valley Builders Association
MW—Megawatt
MWh—Megawatt-hour
MSSA—Motor Systems Stock Assessment
n/a—Not Applicable
NEEA—Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
NEEM—Northwest Energy-Efficient Manufactured Housing Program
NCH—Non-Contributing Household
NPR—National Public Radio
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 168

Glossary of Acronyms
NTG—Net to Gross
NWPCC—Northwest Power and Conservation Council
O&M—Operation and Maintenance
OPUC—Public Utility Commission of Oregon
OR—Oregon
ORS—Oregon Revised Statute
OTT—Over-the-Top
PAI—Professional Assistance Incentive
PCA—Power Cost Adjustment
PCT—Participant Cost Test
QC—Quality Control
QR—Quick Response
RBSA—Residential Building Stock Assessment
RCT—Randomized Control Trial
REEEI—Residential Energy Efficiency Education Initiative
REM—Required Energy Modeling
RESNET—Residential Energy Services Network
RETAC—Regional Emerging Technology Advisory Committee
RFP—Request for Proposal
Rider—Energy Efficiency Rider
RIM—Ratepayer Impact Measure
RPAC—Regional Portfolio Advisory Committee
RPAC+—Regional Portfolio Advisory Committee Plus
RTF—Regional Technical Forum
SCCAP—South Central Community Action Partnership
SCE—Streamlined Custom Efficiency
SEEK—Student Energy Efficiency Kits
SEICAA—Southeastern Idaho Community Action Agency
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 169

Glossary of Acronyms
SEM—Strategic Energy Management
SRVBCA—Snake River Valley Building Contractors Association
TRC—Total Resource Cost
TRM—Technical Reference Manual
UCT—Utility Cost Test
UVGI—Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation
VFD—Variable Frequency Drive
WAP—Weatherization Assistance Program
WAQC—Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 170

Appendices
APPENDICES
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 171

Appendices
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 172

Appendices
Appendix 1. Idaho Rider,Oregon Rider,and NEEA payment amounts(January—December 2025)
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider
2025 Beginning Balance............................................................................................ $ 7,570,508
2025 Funding plus Accrued Interest as of 12/31/2025............................................. 34,740,692
Total 2025 Funds....................................................................................................... $ 42,311,200
2025 Expenses as of 12/31/2025.............................................................................. (28,945,938)
Ending Balance as of 12/31/2025............................................................................. $ 13,365,262
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider
2025 Beginning Balance............................................................................................ 1,706,318
2025 Funding plus Accrued Interest as of 12/31/2025............................................. 2,725,330
Total 2025 Funds....................................................................................................... $ 4,431,648
2025 Expenses as of 12/31/2025.............................................................................. (1,303,842)
Ending Balance as of 12/31/2025............................................................................. $ 3,127,807
NEEA Payments
2025 NEEA Payments as of 12/31/2025.................................................................... 3,395,482
$ 3,395,482
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 173

Appendices
Appendix 2. 2025 DSM expenses by funding source(dollars)
Sector/Program Idaho Rider Oregon Rider Non-Rider Funds Total
Energy Efficiency/Demand Response
Residential
A/C Cool Credit................................................................................. $ 744,318 $ 39,038 $ 392,064 $ 1,175,421
Educational Distributions.................................................................. 812,932 19,324 - 832,256
Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program........................................... 384,961 21,121 141,812 547,895
Home Energy Audit........................................................................... 115,931 - 85,641 201,572
Home Energy Report Program.......................................................... 767,603 17,423 59,703 844,730
Low-Income Energy Efficiency Education......................................... 119,804 - 31,735 151,540
Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program............................................. 458,832 687 7,335 466,854
Oregon Residential Energy Conservation Program........................... - 10,957 - 10,957
Rebate Advantage............................................................................ 156,688 10,818 26,280 193,786
Residential New Construction Programl.......................................... 199,938 346 33,301 233,585
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(Idaho)............ 771,466 0 64,427 835,893
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(Oregon)......... - 25,377 - 25,377
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers............................. 148,132 - 7,343 155,475
Commercial/Industrial
Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Program
C&I Custom Projects.................................................................... 9,350,459 267,583 477,899 10,095,942
C&I New Construction................................................................. 2,570,978 35,385 191,311 2,797,674
C&I Retrofits................................................................................ 4,712,883 220,973 145,666 5,079,522
Flex Peak Program............................................................................. 8,844 162,837 574,013 745,694
Small Business Lighting Program....................................................... 265,234 24,999 30,278 320,511
Irrigation
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards............................................................ 1,764,797 50,707 368,279 2,183,783
Irrigation Peak Rewards................................................................... 522,112 71,178 8,302,021 8,895,312
Energy Efficiency/Demand Response Total........................................ $ 23,875,912 $ 978,754 $ 10,939,111 $ 35,793,777
Market Transformation
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.............................................. 3,239,863 155,619 - 3,395,482
Market Transformation Total............................................................ $ 3,239,863 $ 155,619 $ - $ 3,395,482
Other Programs and Activities
Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency Overhead......................... 191,565 39,183 719,417 950,165
Energy Efficiency Direct Program Overhead..................................... 29,522 9,085 177,665 216,272
Oregon Commercial Audit................................................................. - 9,249 - 9,249
Residential Energy Efficiency Education Initiative............................ 204,664 7,291 33,284 245,239
Residential Energy Efficiency Overhead............................................ 961,805 50,472 207,359 1,219,636
Other Programs and Activities Total.................................................. $ 1,387,556 $ 115,281 $ 1,137,724 $ 2,640,561
Indirect Program Expenses
Energy Efficiency Accounting&Analysis.......................................... 440,027 48,935 729,479 1,218,441
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group..................................................... 2,240 - 11,004 13,244
Oregon Energy Efficiency Advisory Group........................................ - 5,299 - 5,299
Special Accounting Entries................................................................ 340 (47) (39,956) (39,663)
Indirect Program Expenses Total....................................................... $ 442,606 $ 54,187 $ 700,527 $ 1,197,320
Grand Total....................................................................................... $ 28,945,938 $ 1,303,842 $ 12,777,362 $ 43,027,141
12025 Idaho Rider expense initially charged to the Oregon Rider,correction planned for 2026.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 174

Appendices
Appendix 3. 2025 DSM Program Activity
Total Costs Savings Nominal Levelized Costs'
Program Peak Demand Measure Life Total Resource
Program Participants Administrator' Total Resource` Annual Energy[kWh) (MW) (Years) Utility($/kWh) ($/kWh)
Demand Response'
A/C Cool Credit............................................................................................. 16,235 homes 1,175,421 1,175,421 n/a 14.6/22.1 n/a n/a n/a
Flex Peak Program........................................................................................ 250 sites 745,694 745,694 n/a 23.8/38.8 n/a n/a n/a
Irrigation Peak Rewards................................................................................ 2,702 service points 8,895,312 8,895,312 n/a 122.9/267.6 n/a n/a n/a
Total....................................................................................................................................................................... $10,816,426 $10,816,426 n/a 161.3/328.4
Energy Efficiency
Residential
Educational Distributions............................................................................. 51,663 kits/giveaways 832,256 832,256 4,164,401 9 $0.028 $0.028
Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program....................................................... 676 projects 547,895 3,223,993 809,431 16 $0.066 $0.387
Home Energy Audit...................................................................................... 310 audits 201,572 233,307 10,339 12 $2.252 $2.606
Home Energy Report Program...................................................................... 100,875 treatment size 844,730 844,730 20,507,594 1 $0.040 $0.040
Low-Income Energy Efficiency Education..................................................... 139 hvac tune-ups 151,540 151,540 69,418 3 $0.760 $0.760
Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program......................................................... 7 projects 466,854 2,016,816 1,937,572 15 $0.024 $0.105
Oregon Residential Energy Conservation Program....................................... 7 audits/projects 10,957 9,287 0 45
Rebate Advantage........................................................................................ 120 homes 193,786 531,125 335,068 45 $0.039 $0.108
Residential New Construction Program........................................................ 101 homes 233,585 495,346 274,680 60 $0.056 $0.119
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers in Idaho....................... 129 homes/non-profits 835,893 1,797,176 228,592 30 $0.526 $0.839
WAQC.................................................................................................... 126 homes/non-profits 804,543 1,765,826 222,782 30
WAQC-Re-Weatherized Homes........................................................... 3 homes/non-profits 31,350 31,350 5,810 30
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers in Oregon.................... 3 homes/non-profits 25,377 40,844 3,069 30 $0.615 $0.989
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers......................................... 25 homes 155,475 155,475 31,046 30 $0.372 $0.372
Sector Total............................................................................................................................................................. $4,499,919 $10,331,894 28,371,210 5 $0.035 $0.081
Commercial/industrial
C&I Custom Projects..................................................................................... 135 projects 10,095,942 30,505,960 60,037,800 10 $0.022 $0.066
C&I New Construction.................................................................................. 151 projects 2,797,674 3,985,598 11,339,940 14 $0.026 $0.037
C&I Retrofits................................................................................................. 520 projects 5,079,522 13,293,475 19,579,664 12 $0.030 $0.078
Small Business Lighting Program.................................................................. 101 projects 320,511 391,717 663,044 12 $0.056 $0.068
Sector Total............................................................................................................................................................. $18,293,649 $48,176,750 91,620.448 11 $0.024 $0.064
Irrigation
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards........................................................................ 696 projects 2,183,783 20,939,267 5,400,154 13 $0.044 $0.426
Sector Total............................................................................................................................................................. $2,183,783 $20,939,267 5.400.154 13 $0.044 $0.426
Energy Efficiency Portfolio Total.............................................................................................................................. $24,977,351 $79,447,911 125,391,812 30 $0.026 $0.083
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 175

Appendices
Total Costs Savings Nominal Levelized Costsa
Program Peak Demand Measure Life Total Resource
Program Participants Administrator Total Resource` Annual Energy[kWh) (MW) (Years) Utility($/kWh) ($/kWh)
Market Transformation'
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance(codes and standards)............................................................................................ 24,606,637
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance(other initiatives)................................................................................................... 3,100,753
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Totals............................................................................................................. $3,395,482 $3,395,482 27,707,390
Other Programs and Activities
Residential
Residential Energy Efficiency Education Initiative............................................................................................................. 245,239 245,239
Commercial
Oregon Commercial Audit............................................................................ 5 audits 9,249 9,249
Other
Energy Efficiency Direct Program Overhead............................................................................................................. 2,386,073 2,386,073
Total Program Direct Expense $42,829,822 $96,300,381 153,099,202
Indirect Program Expenses 1,197,320 1,197,320
Total DSM Expense $43,027,141 $97,497,701
Endnotes:
a.Levelized Costs are based on financial inputs from Idaho Power's 2023 IRP and calculations include line-loss adjusted energy savings.
b.The Program Administrator Cost is the cost incurred by Idaho Power to implement and manage a DSM program.
c.The Total Resource Cost is the total expenditures for a DSM program from the point of view of Idaho Power and its customers as a whole.
d.Demand response program reductions are reported with 6.5%system loss assumptions.Maximum actual demand reduction/maximum potential demand reduction.
1.Peak Demand is the peak performance of each respective program and not combined performance on the actual system peak hour.
2.Savings have been reduced by 0.44%to avoid double counting of savings in other energy efficiency programs.
3.Savings are preliminary estimates provided by NEEA.Final savings for 2025 will be provided by NEEA April 2026.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 176

Appendices
Appendix 4. 2025 DSM Program Activity by State Jurisdiction
Idaho Oregon
Demand Reduction Program Demand Reduction
Program (MW)/Annual Energy Administrator (MW)/Annual Energy
Program Participants Administrator Costs Savings(kWh) Participants Costs Savings(kWh)
Demand Response'
A/C Cool Credit.................................................................................................. 16,069 homes 1,136,382 14.4/21.9 166 homes 39,038 0.1/0.2
Flex Peak Program............................................................................................. 242 sites 582,775 17.1/27.8 8 sites 162,919 6.7/11
Irrigation Peak Rewards..................................................................................... 2,662 service points 8,823,644 122.1/265.8 40 service points 71,667 0.8/1.8
Total........................................................................................................................................................................... $10,542,802 153.6/315.5 $273,625 7.7/13.0
Energy Efficiency
Residential
Educational Distributions................................................................................... 50,500 kits/giveaways 812,932 4,066,971 1,163 kits/giveaways 19,324 97,431
Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program............................................................ 663 projects 526,773 782,861 13 projects 21,121 26,570
Home Energy Audit............................................................................................ 310 audits 201,572 10,339
Home Energy Report Program........................................................................... 99,343 treatment size 827,307 20,196,143 1,532 treatment size 17,423 311,451
Low-Income Energy Efficiency Education........................................................... 139 hvac tune-ups 151,540 69,418
Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program.............................................................. 7 projects 466,167 1,937,572 0 projects 687 0
Oregon Residential Energy Conservation Program............................................ 0 audits/projects 0 0 7 audits/projects 10,957 0
Rebate Advantage.............................................................................................. 113 homes 183,212 318,670 7 homes 10,573 16,398
Residential New Construction Program............................................................. 101 homes 233,240 274,680 0 homes 346 0
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers in Idaho............................ 129 homes/non-profits 835,893 228,592
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers in Oregon......................... 0 homes/non-profits 0 3 homes/non-profits 25,377 3,069
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers............................................... 25 homes 155,475 31,046
Sector Total................................................................................................................................................................. $4,394,110 27,916,291 $105,808 454,920
Commercial
C&I Custom Projects.......................................................................................... 127 projects 9,828,354 59,011,896 8 projects 267,588 1,025,904
C&I New Construction....................................................................................... 150 projects 2,762,289 11,290,568 1 projects 35,385 49,372
C&I Retrofits...................................................................................................... 510 projects 4,858,549 18,611,225 10 projects 220,973 968,439
Small Business Lighting Program....................................................................... 93 projects 295,512 609,991 8 projects 24,999 53,053
Sector Total................................................................................................................................................................. $17,744,704 89,523,680 $548,945 2,096,768
Irrigation
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards............................................................................. 680 projects 2,129,331 5,287,863 16 projects 54,452 112,291
Sector Total................................................................................................................................................................. $2,129,331 5,287,863 $54,452 112,291
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 177

Appendices
Idaho Oregon
Demand Reduction Program Demand Reduction
Program (MW)/Annual Energy Administrator (MW)/Annual Energy
Program Participants Administrator Costs Savings(kWh) Participants Costs Savings(kWh)
Market Transformation
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance(codes and standards)................................................................................................ 24,111,304 495,332
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance(other initiatives)....................................................................................................... 2,895,172 205,581
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Totals; $3,239,863 27,006,476 $155,619 700,914
Other Programs and Activities
Residential
Residential Energy Efficiency Education Initiative................................................................................................................ 237,948 7,291
Commercial
OregonCommercial Audit.................................................................................................................................................... 5 audits 9,249
Other
Energy Efficiency Direct Program Overhead......................................................................................................................... 2,287,333 98,741
Total Program Direct Expense $40,576,090 $1,253,730
IndirectProgram Expenses................................................................................................................................................... 1,143,130 $54,190
TotalAnnual Savings................................................................................................................................................... 149,734,309 3,364,892
Total DSM Expense...................................................................................................................................................... $41,719,220 1,307,921
Endnotes:
1.Peak Demand is the peak performance of each respective program and not combined performance on the actual system peak hour.
2.Oregon adminstrator costs are negative due to account adjustments.Amount charged to the Oregon rider was reversed and charged to the Idaho rider
3.Savings are preliminary estimates provided by NEEA.Final savings for 2025 will be provided by NEEA April 2026.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 178

153, 099MWh 328 MW 5"o Increase
SAVED POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS
DEMAND REDUCTION YEAR-OVER-YEAR
010*0 POMRO
.
_ - .•y
di� •t t-
=T.- # e.u� - Demand-Side"anaJ ement
202SAnnual Report . -.
Supplement Lost-Effectiveness March-S, 2026

Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness................................................................................................. 1
Goals ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Methodology...........................................................................................................................2
Assumptions............................................................................................................................3
ConservationAdder...........................................................................................................5
Net-to-Gross......................................................................................................................6
Results.....................................................................................................................................7
Non-Cost-Effective Programs ............................................................................................8
Sector and Portfolio Cost-Effectiveness ............................................................................9
ExceptionRequests .........................................................................................................10
2025 DSM Detailed Expenses by Program.......................................................................11
2025 Demand Response Programs..................................................................................15
Cost-Effectiveness Tables by Program.......................................................................................16
Educational Distributions......................................................................................................17
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program...................................................................................19
Home Energy Report Program ..............................................................................................22
Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program .................................................................................23
RebateAdvantage.................................................................................................................26
Residential New Construction Program ................................................................................28
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (Idaho).................................................30
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (Oregon)..............................................31
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers..................................................................32
C&I Custom Projects..............................................................................................................33
C&I New Construction...........................................................................................................37
C&I Retrofits..........................................................................................................................42
SmallBusiness Lighting .........................................................................................................50
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards.................................................................................................52
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page i

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Cost-effectiveness summary by energy efficiency program, 2025 ..............................8
Table 2. 2025 non-cost-effective measures............................................................................11
Table 3. 2025 DSM detailed expenses by program (dollars)...................................................12
Table 4. 2025 Demand response program and portfolio $ per kW year.................................16
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page ii

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
SUPPLEMENT 1: COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Idaho Power considers cost-effectiveness of primary importance in the design, implementation,
and tracking of energy efficiency and demand response programs. Prior to the actual
implementation of new measures or programs, Idaho Power performs a preliminary analysis to
assess whether a potential program design or measure will be cost-effective. Incorporated in
the analysis are inputs from various sources that use the most current and reliable
information available.
When possible, Idaho Power leverages the experiences of other utilities in the region and/or
throughout the country to help identify specific program parameters. This is accomplished
through discussions with other utilities' program managers and researchers. Idaho Power also
uses electric industry research organizations, such as E-Source, Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance (NEEA), Regional Emerging Technology Advisory Committee (RETAC), the Consortium
for Energy Efficiency (CEE), American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE),
and Advanced Load Control Alliance (ALCA) to identify similar programs and their results.
Additionally, Idaho Power relies on the results of program impact evaluations and
recommendations from consultants.
Goals
Idaho Power's goal is for all energy efficiency programs to have benefit/cost (B/C) ratios greater
than 1.0 for the utility cost test (UCT) in Idaho, and the total resource cost (TRC) test in Oregon,
at the program and measure level. In addition, Idaho Power looks at both the UCT and TRC,
as well as the participant cost test (PCT) at the program and measure level, where appropriate.
Each cost-effectiveness test provides a different perspective, and Idaho Power believes each
test provides value when evaluating program performance. In 2020, Idaho Power transitioned to
the UCT as the primary cost-effectiveness test in Idaho as directed by the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission (IPUC) in Order No. 34503. Programs and measures offered in Oregon must still
use the TRC as the primary cost-effectiveness test as directed by the Public Utility Commission
of Oregon (OPUC) in Order No. 94-590. The company will continue calculating the UCT, TRC,
and PCT because each perspective can help inform the company and stakeholders about the
effectiveness of a particular program or measure.
Idaho Power's goal is for all demand response programs is to minimize or delay the need to
build new supply-side resources. Unlike energy efficiency programs or supply-side resources,
demand response programs must acquire and retain participants each year to maintain
deployable demand-reduction capacity for the company.
When an existing energy efficiency program or measure is not cost-effective or is expected to
become not cost-effective from either the UCT perspective in Idaho or the TRC perspective in
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 1

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
Oregon, Idaho Power works with the Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) in Idaho and the
Oregon Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (OEEAG) in Oregon to get additional input about next
steps. The company demonstrates why the non-cost-effective measures or programs were
implemented, or continue to be offered, and communicates the steps the company plans to
take to improve cost-effectiveness, suspend, or end the offering. This aligns with the
expectations of the IPUC and OPUC.
In OPUC Order No. 94-590, issued in UM 551, the OPUC outlines specific cost-effectiveness
guidelines for energy efficiency measures and programs managed by program administrators.
The OPUC expects that measures and programs offered in Oregon pass the TRC test. If Idaho
Power determines a program or measure is not cost-effective but meets one or more of the
exceptions set forth by Order No. 94-590, the company files an exceptions request with the
OPUC to continue offering the measure or program within its Oregon service area.
Non-cost-effective measures and programs may be offered by a utility if they meet one or more
of the following additional conditions specified by Section 13 of OPUC Order No. 94-590:
A. The measure produces significant non-quantifiable non-energy benefits (NEB).
B. Inclusion of the measure will increase market acceptance and is expected to lead to
reduced cost of the measure.
C. The measure is included for consistency with other demand-side management
(DSM)programs in the region.
D. Inclusion of the measure helps increase participation in a cost-effective program.
E. The package of measures cannot be changed frequently, and the measure will be
cost-effective during the period the program is offered.
F. The measure or package of measures is included in a pilot or research project intended
to be offered to a limited number of customers
G. The measure is required by law or is consistent with OPUC policy and/or direction.
For operational and administrative efficiency, Idaho Power endeavors to offer identical
programs in both its Oregon and Idaho jurisdictions; however, due to the different primary
cost-effectiveness tests in each state, measures may not be offered in both states.
Methodology
For its cost-effectiveness methodology, Idaho Power relies on the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI) End Use Technical Assessment Guide (TAG); the California Standard Practice
Manual and its subsequent addendum; the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency's (NAPES)
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 2

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
Understanding Cost Effectiveness of Energy Efficiency Programs: Best Practices,Technical
Methods,and Emerging Issues for Policy-Makers.
For energy efficiency programs, each program's cost-effectiveness is reviewed annually from a
one-year perspective. The annual energy-savings benefit value is summed over the life of the
measure or program and is discounted to reflect 2025 dollars.
Idaho Power determines cost-effectiveness for its demand response programs using the
approved method for valuing demand response under IPUC case IPC-E-21-32 (Order No. 35336)
and OPUC ADV 1355/Advice No. 21-12. The avoided cost calculation for demand response
programs is as follows:
(Levelized Fixed Costs—Additional Benefits)x Effective Load Carrying Capacity (ELCC) of Annual
DR Capacity Compared to Proxy Resource = $ per kW year DR Avoided Costs
Each of the three components were updated for the 2025 Program year:
1. From the 2023 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP),the 2025 levelized fixed cost value of a
Simple-Cycle Combustion Turbine (SCCT) was determined to be $149.73 per kW
per year.
2. From the 20231RP, to determine the additional ancillary benefits provided by the SCCT
compared to demand response, an analysis was performed where demand response
was replaced with an equivalent SCCT and the fixed costs of the SCCT were removed
from the model. The analysis resulted in additional SCCT benefits of$1.66 per kW
per year.
3. The updated ELCC of approximately 323 MW of demand response capacity compared to
a SCCT using 20231RP assumptions is 43.24%.
Assumptions
Idaho Power relies on third-party research to obtain savings and cost assumptions for various
measures. These assumptions are routinely reviewed internally and with EEAG and updated as
new information becomes available. For many of the residential and irrigation measures, savings
and costs were derived from either the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) or the Idaho Power
Energy Efficiency Potential Study conducted by Applied Energy Group (AEG).
The RTF regularly reviews, evaluates, and recommends eligible energy efficiency measures and
provides the estimated savings and costs associated with those measures. As the RTF updates
these savings and cost assumptions, Idaho Power applies them to current program offerings
and assesses the need to make any program changes. Idaho Power staff participates in the RTF
by attending monthly meetings as a voting member and by contributing to various
sub-committees. Depending on the workbook referenced, data from the RTF is in either 2012
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 3

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
or 2016 dollars and must be escalated to 2025 dollars. For costs in 2012 dollars, the costs
are escalated by 40.9%. For costs in 2016 dollars, the costs are escalated by 34.8%.
These percentages are provided by the RTF in workbook
RTFStandardlnformationWorkbook v5.xlsx.
Idaho Power uses a technical reference manual (TRM) developed by ADM Associates, Inc. for the
savings and cost assumptions in the Commercial and Industrial (C&I) New Construction and
C&I Retrofits, and the Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program. In 2020, the company began the
process to update the assumptions in the C&I TRM based on the 2018 International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC). The updated C&I TRM is the source for most prescriptive savings
values for the C&I New Construction and C&I Retrofits programs and have been implemented
as of mid-2021. In 2023, Idaho Power contracted with ADM Associates to create a
Multifamily TRM.
Idaho Power also relies on other sources for savings and cost assumptions, such as the
Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC), Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
(NEEA), the Database for Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER), the Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO),
the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), third-party consultants, and other regional utilities.
Occasionally, Idaho Power will also use internal engineering estimates and calculations for
savings and costs based on information gathered from previous projects.
The company freezes savings assumptions when the budgets and goals are established as part
of an annual planning process for the next calendar year unless a code changes, a standard
changes, or program updates necessitate a need to use updated savings. These assumptions are
discussed in more detail in the cost-effectiveness sections for each program in the Demand-Side
Management 2025 Annual Report. Generally, the 2025 energy savings reported for most
programs will use the assumptions set during the 2024 annual planning process.
The remaining inputs used in the cost-effectiveness calculations are obtained during the annual
planning process from the most recently filed IRP at that time, which is the source for avoided
cost inputs for the 2025 energy efficiency programs. As noted earlier, the 2023 IRP is also used
to determine the cost-effectiveness threshold for the demand response programs.
Idaho Power uses avoided costs from the most recently "filed" IRP rather than the most
recently "acknowledged" IRP for DSM program planning during its annual planning process to
reduce lag time between when the avoided costs are updated and used for program planning
and cost-effectiveness evaluations. On September 29, 2023, Idaho Power filed its 2023 IRP with
the IPUC under case IPC-E-23-23, which was acknowledged by the IPUC on June 18, 2024,
and with the OPUC under case LC 84, which was acknowledged on August 26, 2024.
Appendix C—Technical Appendix of Idaho Power's 2023 IRP contains the financial
assumptions—such as discount rate, escalation rate, and line losses—used in the energy
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 4

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
efficiency cost-effectiveness analysis. DSM avoided costs vary by season and time of day and
are applied to an end-use load shape to obtain the value of a particular measure or program.
DSM avoided energy costs are based on both the projected fuel costs of a peak-load serving
resource and forward electricity prices as determined by Idaho Power's power supply model,
AURORAxmp° Electric Market Model. The avoided capital cost of capacity is based on a gas-
fired, simple-cycle turbine. Transmission and distribution (T&D) benefits are also included in the
cost-effectiveness analyses.
As recommended by the NAPEE's Understanding Cost-Effectiveness of Energy Efficiency
Programs, Idaho Power's weighted average cost of capital (WACC) of 7.12% is used to discount
future benefits and costs to today's dollars. Once the DSM avoided costs and load shapes are
applied to the annual kWh savings of a measure or program, the WACC is used to calculate the
net present value (NPV) of the annual benefit for the UCT and TRC test B/C ratios. However,
determining the appropriate discount rate for participant cost and benefits is difficult because
of the variety of potential discount rates that can be used by participants. Because the
participant benefit is based on the anticipated bill savings of the customer, Idaho Power
believes an alternate discount rate in place of the WACC is appropriate.
The participant bill savings are based on Idaho Power's 2023 average customer segment rate
and are not escalated. The participant bill savings are discounted using a real discount rate of
4.405%, which is based on the 2023 IRP's WACC of 7.12% and an escalation rate of 2.6%.
The real discount rate is used to calculate the NPV of any participant benefits or costs for the
PCT or ratepayer impact measure (RIM) B/C ratios. The formula to calculate the real discount
rate is as follows:
((1 +WACC)_ (1 + Escalation))—1 = Real
Line-loss percentages are applied to the metered-site energy savings to find the energy savings
at the generation level. The Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report shows the
estimated electrical savings at the customer meter level. Cost-effectiveness analyses are based
on generation-level energy savings. The demand response program reductions are reported at
the generation level with the line losses. For the cost-effectiveness calculations of the energy
efficiency programs, the system line-loss factor of 6.0%and the summer peak line-loss factor of
6.5%from the 20231RP were utilized. The line-loss percentages were re-evaluated in
preparation for the 20231RP.
Conservation Adder
The Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Northwest Power Act)
states the following:
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 5

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
...any conservation or resource shall not be treated as greater than that of any
non-conservation measure or resource unless the incremental system cost of
such conservation or resource is in excess of 110 per centum of the
incremental system cost of the non-conservation measure or resource.
As a result of the Northwest Power Act, most utilities in the Pacific Northwest
add a 10%conservation adder in energy efficiency cost-effectiveness analyses.
In OPUC Order No. 94-590, the OPUC states:
We support the staff's position that the effect of conservation in reducing
uncertainty in meeting load growth is included in the ten percent cost adder
and that no separate adjustment is necessary.
Additionally, in IPUC Order No. 32788 in Case No. GNR-E-12-01, "Staff noted that Rocky
Mountain Power and Avista use a 10%conservation adder when calculating the cost-
effectiveness of all their DSM programs." Staff recommended the utilities have the option to
use a 10% adder, and the IPUC agreed with the recommendation to allow utilities to use the
10% adder in the cost-effectiveness analyses for low-income programs.
After reviewing the practices of other utilities in the Pacific Northwest, as well as the OPUC
Order No. 94-590 and IPUC Order 32788, Idaho Power applies the 10% conservation adder in all
energy efficiency measure and program cost-effectiveness analyses when calculating the TRC
test.
Net-to-Gross
Net-to-gross(NTG), or net-of-free-ridership(NTFR), is defined by NAPEE's Understanding
Cost-Effectiveness of Energy Efficiency Programs as a ratio that does the following:
Adjusts the impacts of the programs so that they only reflect those energy
efficiency gains that are the result of the energy efficiency program.
Therefore, the NTG deducts energy savings that would have been achieved
without the efficiency program (e.g., 'free-riders') and increases savings for
any'spillover' effect that occurs as an indirect result of the program. Since the
NTG attempts to measure what the customers would have done in the
absence of the energy efficiency program, it can be difficult to determine
precisely.
Capturing the effects of Idaho Power's energy efficiency efforts on free-ridership and spillover
is difficult. Due to the uncertainty surrounding NTG percentages, Idaho Power used an NTG of
100%for nearly all measure and program cost-effectiveness analyses.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 6

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
Sensitivity analyses are conducted to show what the minimum NTG percentage needs to be for
a program to remain (or become) cost-effective from either the TRC or UCT perspective.These
NTG percentages are shown in the program cost-effectiveness pages of this supplement.
Results
Idaho Power calculates cost-effectiveness on a program basis and, where relevant, a measure
basis.As part of Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness and where applicable, Idaho Power publishes
the
cost-effectiveness by measure, the PCT and RIM test at the program level, the assumptions
associated with cost-effectiveness, and the sources and dates of metrics used in the cost-
effectiveness calculation.
The B/C ratio from the participant cost perspective is not calculated for the following programs:
Educational Distributions, Home Energy Report Program, Weatherization Assistance for
Qualified Customers(WAQC) in Idaho and Oregon,and Weatherization Solutions for Eligible
Customers.These programs have few or no participant-related costs. For energy efficiency
programs, the cost-effectiveness analyses do not assume ongoing participant costs. However,
anticipated future costs are used to develop the life-cycle cost-effectiveness analysis for the
Home Energy Report Program.
This supplement contains annual cost-effectiveness metrics for each program using actual
information from 2025 and includes results of the UCT, TRC, PCT, and RIM. Current customer
energy rates are used in the calculation of the B/C ratios from a PCT and RIM perspective. Rate
increases are not forecasted or escalated. A summary of the cost-effectiveness by program can
be found in Table 1.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 7

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
Table 1. Cost-effectiveness summary by energy efficiency program,2025
Ratepayer Impact
Program/Sector UCT TRC Measure(RIM) PCT
Educational Distributions............................................................. 2.27 2.62 0.51 n/a
Heating&Cooling Efficiency Program.......................................... 0.89 0.17 0.33 0.41
Home Energy Report Program...................................................... 1.42 1.56 0.42 n/a
Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program........................................ 2.60 0.72 0.45 1.41
Rebate Advantage........................................................................ 1.27 0.51 0.28 1.73
Residential New Construction Program....................................... 1.03 1.55 0.29 5.60
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(Idaho)........ 0.13 0.22 0.10 n/a
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(Oregon)..... 0.08 0.32 0.07 n/a
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers......................... 0.13 0.20 0.10 n/a
Residential Energy Efficiency Sector'.......................................... 1.46 0.75 0.41 1.94
C&I Custom Projects..................................................................... 2.16 0.80 0.75 0.96
C&I New Construction.................................................................. 2.15 2.14 0.65 3.14
C&I Retrofits................................................................................. 2.00 1.10 0.66 1.45
Small Business Lighting Program.................................................. 1.04 1.29 0.50 2.23
Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency Sector......................... 2.09 1.00 0.71 1.28
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards........................................................ 1.61 2.69 0.63 2.81
Irrigation Energy Efficiency Sector.............................................. 1.61 2.69 0.63 2.81
Energy Efficiency Portfolio2......................................................... 1.70 1.37 0.62 1.78
'Residential sector cost-effectiveness excludes WAQC benefits and costs.If included,the UCT,TRC,RIM,and PCT would be 1.13,0.65,0.37,
and 1.83,respectively.
'Portfolio cost-effectiveness excludes WAQC benefits and costs.If included,the UCT,TRC,RIM,and PCT would be 1.64,1.34,0.61,and 1.78,
respectively.
Non-Cost-Effective Programs
In 2025, most of Idaho Power's energy efficiency programs were cost-effective from the UCT
perspective,except for Heating&Cooling Efficiency and the two weatherization programs for
income-qualified customers (Table 1).
The Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program had a UCT of 0.89 and TRC of 0.17.
Overall, program participation increased from 622 in 2024 to 676 in 2025, an increase of 8.7%.
Despite the increase in program participation, overall savings declined. The increase in
participation was primarily in measures with lower savings, either based on the measure or
because it was installed in a heating and cooling zone with lower savings, as compared to 2024.
In 2025, the HC&E program included $69,035 in administrative expenses from both a process
and impact evaluation, representing about 22% of total HCE program administrative expenses
for 2025. Without the evaluation cost, the program would have a UCT and TRC ratio of 1.02 and
0.18, respectively, which is an improvement from the UCT perspective over 2024. The next
scheduled process and impact evaluations for the program are in 2029.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 8

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
In 2024, Idaho Power began separating its cost-effectiveness reporting for the WAQC
program by state (Idaho and Oregon). WAQC Idaho had a UCT Ratio of 0.13 and a TRC of
0.22, which includes the savings and costs associated with re-weatherization. Excluding
re-weatherization, the program has a UCT ratio of 0.13 and TRC ratio of 0.21. The UCT and TRC
ratios for re-weatherization in Idaho are 0.12 and 0.13, respectively. WAQC Oregon had a UCT
Ratio of 0.08 and TRC of 0.32. Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers had a UCT of
0.13 and TRC of 0.20.
To calculate the cost-effectiveness for the income-qualified weatherization programs,
Idaho Power adopted the following IPUC staff recommendations from Case No. GNR-E-12-01:
• Applied a 100% NTG.
• Claimed 100%of energy savings for each project.
• Included indirect administrative overhead costs. The overhead costs of 5.152% were
calculated from the $1,197,320 of indirect program expenses divided by the total DSM
expenses of$43,027,141, as shown in Appendix 3 of the Demand-Side Management
2025 Annual Report.
• Applied the 10% conservation preference adder.
• Amortized evaluation expenses over a three-year period.
• Claimed one dollar of NEBs for each dollar of utility and federal funds invested in health,
safety, and repair measures.
While the WAQC and Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers remain not cost-effective,
Idaho Power will continue to offer the programs to the company's limited-income customers on
an ongoing basis, unless the Idaho and Oregon commissions direct otherwise. Idaho Power will
also continue to consult with EEAG and the weatherization managers at the Community Action
Partnerships to look for ways to improve the programs' cost-effectiveness.
Sector and Portfolio Cost-Effectiveness
The sector cost-effectiveness ratios include all the benefits and costs associated with programs
that produce quantifiable energy savings. The portfolio cost-effectiveness is the sum of all
energy efficiency activities, including those that do not have savings associated, such as
overhead expenses. For 2025, the commercial and industrial sector had a UCT of 2.09 and
TRC of 1.00, and irrigation sector had a UCT of 1.61 and TRC of 2.69. The residential portfolio
cost-effectiveness was calculated with and without the benefits associated with WAQC.
While the program provides real savings to customers that would otherwise be unable to afford
to weatherize their home, it remains not cost-effective. Presenting the cost-effectiveness of the
residential sector with and without WAQC remains consistent with how other Idaho utilities
present their sector and portfolio cost-effectiveness results. Without WAQC, the residential
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 9

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
sector has a UCT of 1.46 and TRC of 0.75 and the portfolio has a UCT of 1.70 and TRC of 1.37.
With WAQC, the residential sector has a UCT of 1.13 and TRC of 0.65 and the portfolio has a
UCT of 1.64 and TRC of 1.34.
Exception Requests
A total of 127 out of 319 individual measures in various programs are not cost-effective from
either the UCT or TRC perspective. Of the 127 measures, 45 are not cost-effective from the UCT
perspective. Twenty-six additional measures would be cost-effective without the inclusion of
administration expenses.
For most of the measures offered in Oregon that fail the TRC, Idaho Power filed
cost-effectiveness exception requests with the OPUC in compliance with Order No. 94-590.
Measures and programs that do not pass these tests may be offered by the utility if they meet
one or more of the additional conditions specified by Section 13 of Order No. 94-590.
These exception requests were approved under UM-1710 or with the specific program advice
filings. The filings and exception requests are noted in Table 2.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 10

Y.
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Table 2. 2025 non-cost-effective measures
Number of
Non-Cost-
Number of Effective Number Fail Number Fail
Program Measures Measures UCT TRC Notes
C&I Custom Projects 39 10 6 9 Six offerings fail UCT.Without admin costs,
all offerings pass UCT and all but three offerings
pass TRC.
C&I New Construction 60 25 13 23 13 measures fail UCT.Two measures pass UCT
with the exclusion of admin costs.No measures
change in TRC cost-effectiveness when admin
costs are excluded.
C&I Retrofits 127 52 15 47 One additional measure passes UCT when admin
costs are excluded.
Educational Distributions 3 0 0 0
Heating&Cooling 12 10 5 10 Five measures fail UCT,but all would pass UCT
Efficiency Program with admin costs excluded.Of the 10 measures
that fail TRC,two would be cost effective with
admin costs removed. Exception request for the
program requested and approved with ADV-1807,
Order No.25-11.
Irrigation Efficiency 42 1 3 0 Three measures fail UCT,but all would pass UCT
Rewards with admin costs excluded.
Multifamily Energy 19 14 0 14 All measures pass UCT.Of the measures that fail
Efficiency Program TRC,none would become cost-effective with
admin costs excluded.Exception request for the
program requested and approved with ADV-1540,
Order No.23-10.
Rebate Advantage 12 12 0 12 All measures pass UCT,no measures pass TRC.
Residential New 3 2 2 1 One additional measure passes UCT when admin
Construction costs are excluded.
Small Business Lighting 2 1 1 1 One additional measure passes UCT when admin
costs are excluded.
Total 319 127 45 117
2025 DSM Detailed Expenses by Program
Table 3 details the program expenses shown in Appendix 2 of the Demand-Side Management
2025 Annual Report. These expenses are broken out by funding source and major-expense type
(labor/administration, materials, other expenses, purchased services, and incentives).
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 11

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
Table 3. 2025 DSM detailed expenses by program(dollars)
Sector/Program Idaho Rider Oregon Rider Idaho Power Total Program
Energy Efficiency/Demand Response........................................... $ 23,875,912 $ 978,754 $ 10,939,111 $ 35,793,776.94
Residential.................................................................................... 3,936,287 106,053 457,579 4,499,918.69
Educational Distributions................................................................... 812,932 19,324 - 832,256.03
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... - - -
Materials&Equipment.................................................................. 789,641 18,303 807,944.21
Other Expense............................................................................... 23,291 1,021 - 24,311.82
Heating&Cooling Efficiency Program.......................................... 384,961 21,121 141,812 547,894.72
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... 91 6,136 141,812 148,039.76
Other Expense............................................................................... 89,740 3,934 - 93,674.49
Purchased Services........................................................................ 73,086 3,201 76,286.87
Incentives...................................................................................... 222,044 7,850 - 229,893.60
Home Energy Audit....................................................................... 115,931 85,641 201,571.56
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... 10 85,641 85,650.61
Materials&Equipment.................................................................. 519 - 519.38
Other Expense............................................................................... 27,619 27,618.99
Purchased Services........................................................................ 87,783 - - 87,782.58
Home Energy Reports................................................................... 767,603 17,423 59,703 844,729.50
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... - 999 59,703 60,702.50
Purchased Services........................................................................ 572,084 16,424 - 588,507.75
Incentives...................................................................................... 195,519 - - 195,519.25
Low-Income Energy Efficiency Education..................................... 119,804 31,735 151,539.73
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... - 31,735 31,735.31
Other Expense............................................................................... 6,879 - 6,879.02
Purchased Services........................................................................ 112,925 - - 112,925.40
Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program........................................ 458,832 687 7,335 466,853.80
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... - 315 7,335 7,649.75
Other Expense............................................................................... 8,400 372 - 8,771.65
Purchased Services........................................................................ 32,482 - 32,482.29
Incentives...................................................................................... 417,950 - 417,950.11
Oregon Residential Weatherization............................................. - 10,957 - 10,957.49
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... - 7,866 - 7,865.50
Purchased Services........................................................................ - 1,421 - 1,421.36
Incentives...................................................................................... - 1,671 - 1,670.63
Rebate Advantage........................................................................ 156,688 10,818 26,280 193,785.53
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... - 1,374 26,280 27,654.62
Other Expense............................................................................... 22,688 1,043 - 23,730.91
Purchased Services........................................................................ 19,800 1,200 21,000.00
Incentives...................................................................................... 114,200 7,200 - 121,400.00
Residential New Construction Program'...................................... 199,938 346 33,301 233,585.19
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... 4,645 - 33,301 37,946.12
Other Expense............................................................................... 40,743 346 - 41,088.63
Purchased Services........................................................................ 11,850 - 11,850.44
Incentives...................................................................................... 142,700 142,700.00
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 12

%6_
Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
Sector/Program Idaho Rider Oregon Rider Idaho Power Total Program
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(Idaho)....... 771,466 64,427 835,893.31
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... 501 64,427 64,928.30
Materials&Equipment.................................................................. 3 - 2.85
OtherExpense............................................................................... 33 32.66
Purchased Services........................................................................ 770,930 - 770,929.50
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(Oregon).... - 25,377 25,376.78
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... 7,193 7,193.26
Other Expense............................................................................... 574 573.52
Purchased Services........................................................................ - 17,610 - 17,610.00
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers......................... 148,132 - 7,343 155,475.05
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... - 7,343 7,343.44
Purchased Services........................................................................ 148,132 - - 148,131.61
Commercial/Industrial.................................................................. 16,899,554 548,941 845,155 18,293,649.31
C&I Custom Projects..................................................................... 2,570,978 35,385 191,311 2,797,674.18
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... 2,011 8,483 191,311 201,805.15
Materials&Equipment.................................................................. 57,947 2,542 - 60,488.82
Other Expense............................................................................... 359,110 11,342 370,452.07
Purchased Services........................................................................ 2,151,911 13,017 - 2,164,928.14
Incentives...................................................................................... 9,350,459 267,583 477,899 10,095,941.70
C&I New Construction................................................................... 13,314 21,666 477,899 512,878.73
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... 53 2 - 54.92
Other Expense............................................................................... 448,443 8,138 456,580.87
Purchased Services........................................................................ 2,453,056 66,046 2,519,102.01
Incentives...................................................................................... 6,435,594 171,731 6,607,325.17
C&I Retrofits.................................................................................. 4,712,883 220,973 145,666 5,079,522.26
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... 1,910 6,465 145,666 154,041.57
Other Expense............................................................................... 68,004 2,889 - 70p893.01
Purchased Services........................................................................ 611,276 27,319 638,594.75
Incentives...................................................................................... 4,031,693 184,300 - 4,215,992.93
Small Business Lighting(SBL)Program......................................... 265,234 24,999 30,278 320,511.17
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... - 1,267 30,278 31,544.39
Other Expense............................................................................... 17,817 2,249 - 20,066.33
Purchased Services........................................................................ 6,591 509 7,100.00
Incentives...................................................................................... 240,826 20,975 - 261,800.45
Irrigation....................................................................................... 1,764,797 50,707 368,279 2,183,782.74
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards........................................................ 1,764,797 50,707 368,279 2,183,782.74
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... 29,813 13,519 368,972 412,303.80
Materials&Equipment.................................................................. 64 3 - 66.88
Other Expense............................................................................... 30,647 883 (693) 30p836.60
Purchased Services........................................................................ - - -
Incentives...................................................................................... 1,704,272 36,303 1,740,575.46
arket Transformatio ,482.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance .......................................... 3,239,863 155,619 3,395,482.39
Purchased Services........................................................................ 3,239,863 155,619 3,395,482.39
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
Sector/Program Idaho Rider Oregon Rider Idaho Power Total Program
Other Programs and Activities.... $ 1,387,556 $ 115,281 $ 1,137,724 $ 2,640,jjjj&
Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency Overhead..................... 191,565 39,183 719,417 950,165.00
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... 33,191 32,403 719,417 785,010.62
Materials&Equipment.................................................................. 0 - - 0.01
Other Expense............................................................................... 124,340 5,283 129,622.27
Purchased Services........................................................................ 34,035 1,497 - 35,532.10
Energy Efficiency Direct Program Overhead................................. 29,522 9,085 177,665 216,272.17
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... - 7,778 177,665 185,442.62
Other Expense............................................................................... 29,522 1,307 - 30,829.55
Oregon Commercial Audit............................................................ - 9,249 - 9,249.28
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... 4,249 4,249.30
Other Expense............................................................................... 1,500 1,499.98
Purchased Services........................................................................ - 3,500 - 3,500.00
Residential Energy Efficiency Education Initiative........................ 204,664 7,291 33,284 245,238.79
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... 8 1,397 33,285 34,689.41
Other Expense............................................................................... 120,880 2,517 - 123,396.43
Purchased Services........................................................................ 83,777 3,377 (1) 87,152.95
Residential Energy Efficiency Overhead....................................... 961,805 50,472 207,359 1,219,636.21
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... 12,129 9,561 207,359 229,048.40
Other Expense............................................................................... 915,624 39,432 - 955,055.70
Purchased Services........................................................................ 34,052 1,480 35,532.11
Indirect Program Expenses................ 442,606 $ 54,187 $ 1,197,320.00
Energy Efficiency Accounting&Analysis...................................... 440,027 48,935 729,479 1,218,440.62
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... 6,052 32,403 729,403 767,858.22
Materials&Equipment.................................................................. (286,541) (12,562) (8,075) (307,177.74)
Other Expense............................................................................... 102,809 2,917 8,151 113,876.34
Purchased Services........................................................................ 617,706 26,178 - 643,883.80
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group................................................. 2,240 - 11,004 13,243.99
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... - 11,004 11,004.28
Other Expense............................................................................... 2,240 - - 2,239.71
Oregon Energy Efficiency Advisory Group.................................... - 5,299 5,298.80
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... 5,790 5,789.55
Other Expense............................................................................... - (491) (490.75)
Special Accounting Entries............................................................ 340 (47) (39,956) (39,663.41)
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... (136) (64) (39,956) (40,156.28)
Materials&Equipment.................................................................. 336 18 353.17
Other Expense............................................................................... 140 - 139.70
Purchased Services........................................................................ - -
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 14

_"ANlillii -
Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
Sector/Program Idaho Rider Oregon Rider Idaho Power Total Program
Demand Response........................................................................ $ 1,275,274 $ 273,053 $ 9,268,099 $ 10,816,426.20
Residential.................................................................................... 744,318 39,038 392,064 1,175,420.67
A/C Cool Credit............................................................................. 744,318 39,038 392,064 1,175,420.67
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... 2,551 3,097 66,985 72,633.14
Materials&Equipment.................................................................. 150,203 6,585 - 156,787.80
Other Expense............................................................................... 116,454 5,106 121,559.57
Purchased Services........................................................................ 475,111 20,877 - 495,987.23
Incentives...................................................................................... - 3,374 325,079 328,452.93
Commercial/Industrial.................................................................. 8,844 162,837 574,013 745,693.92
Flex Peak Program........................................................................ 8,844 162,837 574,013 745,693.92
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... 3,917 4,848 107,888 116,653.03
Other Expense............................................................................... 4,926 216 - 5,141.69
Purchased Services........................................................................ 1 - - 1.24
Incentives...................................................................................... - 157,772 466,126 623,897.96
Irrigation....................................................................................... 522,112 71,178 8,302,021 8,895,311.61
Irrigation Peak Rewards............................................................... 522,112 71,178 8,302,021 8,895,311.61
Labor/Administrative Expense....................................................... 2,307 6,327 153,502 162,136.13
Materials&Equipment.................................................................. 139,440 6,113 - 145,552.86
Other Expense............................................................................... 102,584 4,492 107,076.00
Purchased Services........................................................................ 280,060 11,782 - 291,842.20
Incentives...................................................................................... (2,278) 42,464 8,148,519 8,188,704.42
Grand Total................................................................................... $ 28,945,938 $ 1,303,842 $ 12,777,362 $ 43,027,140.78
Note:Totals may not sum due to rounding.
lA$346 amount was incorrectly split with Oregon and will be corrected in 2026.
2025 Demand Response Programs
The result of the one-year demand response perspective is shown in Table 4 and the
Cost-Effectiveness Tables by Program section in this supplement. Based on the avoided cost
calculation for demand response programs, the avoided cost threshold is $62.39 per kW year;
DR program costs must be less than this value to be considered cost-effective. The calculated
dollar per kW year for each demand response program in Table 4 shows all three programs
were cost-effective in 2025.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 15

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
Table 4. 2025 Demand response program and portfolio$per kW year
Maximum Maximum
Potential Demand Potential Demand 2025 Estimated Max
Program Reduction(MW) Reduction(kW) 2025 Expenses Expenses(60 Hours)' $per kW year
A/C Cool Credit 22.1 22,086 $1,175,421 $1,175,421 $53.22
Flex Peak Programs 38.8 38,757 $745,694 $1,036,622 $26.75
Irrigation Peak Rewards 267.6 267,597 $8,895,312 $12,584,101 $47.03
Total Demand Response 328.4 328,440 $10,816,426 $14,796,144 $45.05
Portfolio
2025 expenses with estimated variable payments based on maximum 60 hours of operation.Totals may not sum due to rounding.
$per kW year=2025 Estimated Max Expenses 60 Hours/Max Demand Capacity kW.
COST-EFFECTIVENESS TABLES BY PROGRAM
The following series of tables lists the annual program cost-effectiveness results,
including measure-level cost-effectiveness. Exceptions to the measure-level tables are
programs that are analyzed at the project level, such as the C&I Custom Projects,the Custom
Incentive Option of Irrigation Efficiency Rewards, Small Business Lighting Program, WAQC
(Idaho), WAQC (Oregon), and Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers.
The measure-level cost-effectiveness includes the following inputs: measure life,
energy savings, incremental cost, incentives, program administration cost, and non-energy
impacts/benefits. Program administration costs include all non-incentive costs, such as:
labor, marketing, training, education, purchased services, and evaluation. Energy and
expense data have been rounded to the nearest whole unit.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 16

4%6.
Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
Educational Distributions
Segment:Residential
2025 Program Results
Cost Inputs Ref Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Program Administration............................................................................................ $ 832,256 Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Program Incentives................................................................................................... - I UC Test...................................... $ 1,885,217 $ 832,256 2.27
Total UC............................................................................................................... $ 832,256 P TRC Test..................................... 2,177,442 832,256 2.62
RIM Test.................................... 1,885,217 3,666,502 0.51
Measure Equipment and Installation(Incremental Participant Cost)....................... $ - M PCT............................................ N/A N/A N/A
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
UC Test............................... =S*NTG =P
Net Benefit Inputs Ref TRC Test.............................. _(A+NUI+NEB)*NTG =P
Resource Savings RIM Test............................. =S*NTG =P+(B*NTG)
2025 Annual Gross Energy(kWh).................................................. 4,164,401 PCT...................................... N/A N/A
NPV Cumulative Energy(kWh)...................................................... 26,513,977 $ 1,885,217 S
10%Credit(Northwest Power Act)............................................... 188,522 Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Total Electric Savings....................................................................... $ 2,073,739 A Discount Rate
Nominal(WACC)................................................................................ 7.12%
Participant Bill Savings Real((1+WACC)/(1+Escalation))-1............................................. 4.41%
NPV Cumulative Participant Bill Savings........................................ $ 2,834,246 B Escalation Rate........................................................................................ 2.60%
Net-to-Gross (NTG)................................................................................. 100%
Other Benefits Minimum NTG Sensitivity........................................................................ 44%
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives..................................................... $ - NUI Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh................................................... $0.099
Non-Energy Benefits...................................................................... $ 103,704 NEB System Losses.......................................................................................... 6.00%
Notes:
NEBs for student kit include the NPV of therm savings.
No participant costs.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 17

Year:2025 Program:Educational Distributions Market Segment:Residential Program Type:Energy Efficiency
Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Tests
Gross Energy NPV Incremental
Measure Measure Savings Avoided Participant Incentive/ Admin Cost Source/
Measure Name Measure Description Replacing Unit End Use Life(Yrs)(a) (kWh/yr)"' Costs I`I NEB Cost(d) Unit ($/kWh)lel UCT Ratio(f) TRC Ratio'g' Notes
Nightlight Baseline
Giveaway LED night light lightbulb Lamp ResLightingExterior 8 12.00 $ 5.46 $ $ $ 0.200 2.27 2.50 (1)
2024-2025 kit offering.Kits
Include:high-efficiency
showerhead,shower timer,
Student Energy 2 LEDs,filter whistle,digital
Efficiency Kit thermometer,water flow ResLightinglnteriorAnd
(SEEK)Program rate bag,2 LED nightlight, No kit Kit Exterior 10 275.70 $ 147.08 $ 7.38 $ $ 0.200 2.67 3.07 (2)
Two LED lightbulbs,two
Welcome Kit nightlights. No kit Kit ResLightingExterior 8 24.00 $ 10.91 $ 0.25 $ $ 0.455 1.00 1.12 (1)
(a)Average measure life.
(b)Estimated kWh savings measured at the customer's meter,excluding system losses.
(c)NPV of DSM avoided costs.Based on the end-use load shape,measure life,savings including system losses,and avoided costs by pricing period as acknowledged in the 2021 IRP,TRC Test Benefit calculation includes 10%
conservation adder from the Northwest Power Act.
(d)No participant costs.
(e)Average program administration and overhead costs to achieve each kWh of savings.Calculated from 2025 actuals.
(f)LICT Ratio=(NPV DSM Avoided Costs)/((Admin Cost/kWh*kWh Savings)+Incentives)
(g)TRC Ratio=((NPV DSM Avoided Costs*110%)+NEB/((Admin Cost/kWh*kWh Savings)+Incentives+(Incremental Participant Costs-Incentives);
(1)DNV GL.Idaho Power Educational Distributions Impact and Process Evaluation.2020
(2)Tinker. Idaho Power Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program.School Year 2024-2025 Annual Report.2025.Nightlight savings modified to match other IPC nightlight offerings.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 18

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program
Segment:Residential
2025 Program Results
Cost Inputs Ref Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Program Administration............................................................................................ $ 318,001 Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Program Incentives................................................................................................... 229,894 1 UC Test...................................... $ 487,818 $ 547,895 0.89
Total UC............................................................................................................... $ 547,895 P TRC Test..................................... 552,419 3,223,993 0.17
RIM Test.................................... 487,818 1,486,517 0.33
Measure Equipment and Installation(Incremental Participant Cost)....................... $ 2,905,992 M PCT............................................ 1,184,335 2,905,992 0.41
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
UC Test............................... =S*NTG =P
Net Benefit Inputs Ref TRC Test.............................. _(A+NUI+NEB)*NTG =P+((M-I)*NTG)
Resource Savings RIM Test............................. =S*NTG =P+(B*NTG)
2025 Annual Gross Energy(kWh).................................................. 809,431 PCT...................................... =B+I+NUI+NEB =M
NPV Cumulative Energy(kWh)...................................................... 8,063,811 $ 487,818 S
10%Credit(Northwest Power Act)............................................... 48,782 Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Total Electric Savings....................................................................... $ 536,600 A Discount Rate
Nominal(WACC)................................................................................ 7.12%
Participant Bill Savings Real((1+WACC)/(1+Escalation))-1............................................. 4.41%
NPV Cumulative Participant Bill Savings........................................ $ 938,622 B Escalation Rate........................................................................................ 2.60%
Net-to-Gross (NTG)................................................................................. 100%
Other Benefits Minimum NTG Sensitivity........................................................................ 112%
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives..................................................... $ - NUI Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh................................................... $0.099
Non-Energy Benefits...................................................................... $ 15,819 NEB System Losses.......................................................................................... 6.00%
Note:
Participant costs offset by applicable tax credits available as part of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 19

Year:2025 Program:Heating&Cooling Efficiency Market Segment:Residential Program Type:Energy Efficiency
Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Tests
Gross Energy NPV Incremental
Measure Savings Avoided Participant Incentive/ Admin Cost Source/
Measure Name Measure Description Replacing Measure Unit End Use Life(Yrs)lai (kWh/yr)Ibl Costs I`I NEB Cost(d) Unit ($/kWh)lei UCT Ratio Ir1 TRC Ratio iai Notes
Existing and New
Construction Single Family
and Manufactured Home
Conversion with Controls
Commissioning and Sizing Electric
Ducted ASHP (Heating&Cooling Zone resistance/Oil/ R-AII-HVAC-ASHP-AII-
Conversion Weighted Average) Propane Unit All-E 18 3,149.92 $ 2,026.88 $ $ 12,493.24 $ 800.00 $ 0.393 0.99 0.16 1,2
Zonal to DHP.(Heating& R-AII-HVAC-
Ductless Heat Cooling Zone Weighted ERconvertDHP-
Pump Average) Zonal Electric Unit weighted 15 1,213.59 $ 587.02 $ $ 6,679.63 $ 500.00 $ 0.393 0.60 0.09 1,2,3
Electronically
Commutated Permanent
Motor(ECM) split capacitor
Blower Motor ECM Blower Motor (PSC)motor Unit R-All-Bld-Bldg-All-All-R 18 2,348.69 $ 1,555.97 $ $ 300.00 $ 50.00 $ 0.393 1.60 1.40 4
Evaporative Mechanical R-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-AII-
Cooler Evaporative Cooler cooling Unit E 12 653.12 $ 689.22 $ $ 220.70 $ 150.00 $ 0.393 1.70 1.59 5
Ground source heat pump- ASHP/Electric
Ground Source 3.5 COP(Heating&Cooling resistance/Oil/ R-AII-HVAC-ASHP-AII-
Heat Pump Zone Weighted Average) Propane Unit All-E 20 9,178.00 $ 6,135.42 $ $ 7,716.06 $ 3,000.00 $ 0.393 0.93 0.60 1,2,6
Weighted average of tier 2
and tier 3,heating and Electric
cooling zone,and indoor, resistance
Heat Pump basement,garage install storage water R-AII-WH-WHConvert-
Water Heater location. heater Unit All-All-N 13 1,715.27 $ 994.52 $ $ 463.86 $ 300.00 $ 0.393 1.02 0.96 2,8
High Efficiency Minimum 15 SEER but<17 Current
Central Air SEER/16.3 SEER2;minimum practice R-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-AII-
Conditioner 12 EER/11.5 EER2 baseline Unit E 18 94.45 $ 119.33 $ $ 181.59 $ 50.00 $ 0.393 1.37 0.60 2,9
High Efficiency Minimum 17 SEER/16.3 Current
Central Air SEER2;minimum 13 practice R-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-AII-
Conditioner EER/12.5 EER2 baseline Unit E 18 208.72 $ 263.71 $ $ 725.09 $ 150.00 $ 0.393 1.14 0.36 2,9
Existing and New
Construction Single Family
and Manufactured Home -
Open Loop 14.00 EER 3.5 COP(Heating ASHP/Electric
Water Source &Cooling Zone Weighted resistance/Oil/ R-AII-HVAC-ASHP-AII-
Heat Pump Average) Propane Unit All-E 20 8,188.33 $ 5,473.84 $ $ 11,465.01 $ 1,000.00 $ 0.393 1.30 0.41 2,7
Duct Tightness-PTCS Duct
Prescriptive Duct Sealing-Average Heating
Sealing-Single System.Weighted average Pre-existing R-AII-HVAC-ER-AII-AII-
Family of Heating Zones 1-3. duct leakage Unit E 20 468.70 $ 276.17 $ $ 593.12 $ 200.00 $ 0.393 0.72 0.39 1,2,10
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 20

Year:2025 Program:Heating&Cooling Efficiency Market Segment:Residential Program Type:Energy Efficiency
Gross Energy NPV Incremental
Measure Savings Avoided Participant Incentive/ AdminCost Source/
Measure Name Measure Description Replacing Measure Unit End Use Life(Yrs)(a) (kWh/yr)(') Costs'`) NEB Cost(d) Unit ($/kWh)I0I UCT Ratio Irl TRC Ratio lei Notes
non wi-fi
enabled
Smart thermostat/no R-AII-HVAC-ER-All-All-
Thermostat Smart Thermostat thermostat Unit E 7 316.37 $ 98.96 $ $ 253.64 $ 50.00 $ 0.393 0.57 0.29 1,2,11
Whole House Mechanical R-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-AII-
Fan Whole House Fan cooling Unit E 18 456.60 $ 576.89 $ $ 700.00 $ 200.00 $ 0.393 1.52 0.72 2,6
(a)Average measure life.
(b)Estimated kWh savings measured at the customer's meter,excluding system losses.
(c)NPV of DSM avoided costs.Based on the end-use load shape,measure life,savings including system losses,and avoided costs by pricing period as acknowledged in the 2021 IRP,TRC Test Benefit calculation includes 10%conservation
adder from the Northwest Power Act.
(d)Incremental participant cost prior to customer incentives.
(e)Average program administration and overhead costs to achieve each kWh of savings.Calculated from 2025 actuals.
(f)UCT Ratio=(NPV DSM Avoided Costs)/((Admin Cost/kWh*kWh Savings)+Incentives)
(g)TRC Ratio=((NPV DSM Avoided Costs*110%)+NEB/((Admin Cost/kWh*kWh Savings)+Incentives+(Incremental Participant Costs-Incentives))
(1)Measure cost-effective from UCT perspective with admin costs excluded.
(2)Measure not cost-effective from TRC persepective.
(3)RTF.ResDHPforZonal_v7_1.xlsm.2024.Weighted average of 2025 participants in heating and cooling zones 1-3.
(4)Idaho Power engineering calculations based on Integrated Design Lab inputs.
(5)New Mexico Technical Resource Manual for the Calculation of Energy Efficiency Savings.Evaporative Cooling.Sante Fe.Discounted by 44.4%for proportion evaporative coolers replacing refrigerated air.2019.
(6)Applied Energy Group(formally EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting)Idaho Power Energy Efficiency Potential Study.Single-family,existing vintage.
(7)RTF.ResSF&MHConversion&Upgrades_CDHP_v8_1.xlsm.2024.Weighted average of 2025 participants in heating and cooling zones 1-3.
(8)RTF.ResHPWH_v6_3.2023.
(9)RTF.ResEfficientCentralAC_v2_2.2023.
(10)RTF.ResSFDuctSealing_v7_3.xlsm.2023.
(11)RTF.ResConnectedTstats_v3.1.xlsm.2023.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 21

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
Home Energy Report Program
Segment:Residential
2025 Program Results
Cost Inputs Ref Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Program Administration............................................................................................ $ 844,730 Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Program Incentives................................................................................................... - I UC Test.................................. $ 1,200,412 $ 844,730 1.42
Total UC............................................................................................................... $ 844,730 P TRC Test................................ 1,320,453 844,730 1.56
RIM Test................................ 1,200,412 2,863,673 0.42
Measure Equipment and Installation(Incremental Participant Cost)....................... $ - M PCT........................................ N/A N/A N/A
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
UC Test............................... =S*NTG =P
Net Benefit Inputs Ref TRC Test.............................. _(A+NUI+NEB)*NTG =P
Resource Savings RIM Test............................. =S*NTG =P+(B*NTG)
2025 Annual Gross Energy(kWh).................................................. 20,507,594 PCT...................................... N/A N/A
NPV Cumulative Energy(kWh)...................................................... 20,507,594 $ 1,200,412 S
10%Credit(Northwest Power Act)............................................... 120,041 Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Total Electric Savings....................................................................... $ 1,320,453 A Discount Rate
Nominal(WACC)........................................................................... 7.12%
Participant Bill Savings Real((1+WACC)/(1+Escalation))-1......................................... 4.41%
NPV Cumulative Participant Bill Savings........................................ $ 2,018,943 B Escalation Rate........................................................................................ 2.60%
Net-to-Gross(NTG).................................................................................. 100%
Other Benefits Minimum NTG Sensitivity........................................................................ 70%
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives..................................................... $ - NUI Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh................................................... $0.099
Non-Energy Benefits...................................................................... $ - NEB System Losses.......................................................................................... 6.00%
Note:
Third-party reported 2025 savings as reported is 20,598,226 kWh.Idaho Power discounting savings by 0.44%for reporting and analysis as recommended by evaluators to
account for potential double-counting of savings.Percentage will be reviewed in future evaluations.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 22

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program
Segment:Residential
2025 Program Results
Cost Inputs Ref Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Program Administration............................................................................................ $ 48,904 Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Program Incentives................................................................................................... 417,950 1 UC Test.................................. $ 1,212,261 $ 466,854 2.60
Total UC............................................................................................................... $ 466,854 P TRC Test................................ 1,458,797 2,016,816 0.72
RIM Test................................ 1,212,261 2,690,820 0.45
Measure Equipment and Installation(Incremental Participant Cost)....................... $ 1,967,913 M PCT........................................ 2,767,227 1,967,913 1.41
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
UC Test............................... =S*NTG =P
Net Benefit Inputs Ref TRC Test.............................. _(A+NUI+NEB)*NTG =P
Resource Savings RIM Test............................. =S*NTG =P+(B*NTG)
2025 Annual Gross Energy(kWh).................................................. 1,937,572 PCT...................................... =B+I+NUI+NEB =M
NPV Cumulative Energy(kWh)...................................................... 19,021,936 $ 1,212,261 S
10%Credit(Northwest Power Act)............................................... 121,226 Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Total Electric Savings....................................................................... $ 1,333,487 A Discount Rate
Nominal(WACC)........................................................................... 7.12%
Participant Bill Savings Real((1+WACC)/(1+Escalation))-1......................................... 4.41%
NPV Cumulative Participant Bill Savings........................................ $ 2,223,966 B Escalation Rate........................................................................................ 2.60%
Net-to-Gross(NTG).................................................................................. 100%
Other Benefits Minimum NTG Sensitivity........................................................................ 39%
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives..................................................... $ - NUI Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh................................................... $0.099
Non-Energy Benefits...................................................................... $ 125,310 NEB System Losses.......................................................................................... 6.00%
Note:
Savings include multifamily measures from living units as well as shared common areas.
See C&I New Construction and C&I Retrofits for common-area measure assumptions.
NEB/impacts on a$/kWh for common-area measures.Based on 2019 impact evaluation of C&I programs.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 23

Year:2025 Program:Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program Market Segment:Residential Program Type:Energy Efficiency
Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Tests
Gross Energy Incremental
Measure Savings NPV Avoided Participant Incentive/ Admin Cost Source/Note
Measure Name Measure Description Replacing Measure Unit End Use Life(Yrs)(al (kWh/yr)lbl Costs I`I NEB Cost(d) Unit ($/kWh)(e) UCT Ratio lrl TRC Ratio Igl s
Existing R-AII-HVAC-CAC-
Building Shell Reflective roof treatment roofing Square Foot All-AII-E 15 0.09 $ 0.11 $ - $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.025 2.03 2.23 1
Continuous ENERGY STAR Continuous Standard R-AII-BId-Bldg-
Exhaust Fan Exhaust fan,bathroom exhaust fan Unit All-AII-R 19 125.83 $ 85.07 $ $ 103.17 $ 25.00 $ 0.025 3.02 0.88 2
Ductless Mini-split Heat
Ductless Heat Pump<5 tons,ENERGY R-AII-HVAC-
Pump STAR Zonal Electric Ton ASHP-AII-AII-E 15 415.92 $ 245.61 $ $ 1,300.00 $ 125.00 $ 0.025 1.81 0.21 2
Efficient Efficient windows in low rise Inefficient R-AII-HVAC-ER-
Windows,tier 1 buildings,3 stories or less. window Square Foot All-AII-E 45 2.76 $ 2.01 $ $ 0.71 $ 0.25 $ 0.025 6.30 2.84 2
Efficient Efficient windows in low rise Inefficient R-AII-HVAC-ER-
Windows,tier 2 buildings,3 stories or less. window Square Foot All-AII-E 45 5.81 $ 4.23 $ $ 1.50 $ 0.50 $ 0.025 6.55 2.83 2
Efficient Efficient windows in low rise Inefficient R-AII-HVAC-ER-
Windows,tier 3 buildings,3 stories or less. window Square Foot All-AII-E 45 9.99 $ 7.28 $ $ 2.57 $ 1.00 $ 0.025 5.82 2.84 2
Heat Pump(HP) Air-Source Heat Pumps(<5 IECC 2018 R-AII-HVAC-
Units tons),CEE Tier 1 Code Standard Ton ASHP-AII-AII-E 15 355.42 $ 209.89 $ $ 526.00 $ 75.00 $ 0.025 2.50 0.43 2
Heat Pump(HP) Air-Source Heat Pumps(<5 IECC 2018 R-AII-HVAC-
Units tons),CEE Tier 2 Code Standard Ton ASHP-AII-AII-E 15 380.90 $ 224.94 $ $ 578.00 $ 125.00 $ 0.025 1.67 0.42 2,3
Low E Storm Weatherization treatment Square foot R-AII-HVAC-ER-
Window fitted on existing window. Pre-conditions window area All-AII-E 20 20.11 $ 11.85 $ - $ - $ 1.00 $ 0.025 7.86 8.65 4
ENERGY STAR Most Efficient
Manual Exhaust Manual Exhaust Fan, Standard R-AII-BId-Bldg-
Fan bathroom exhaust fan Unit All-AII-R 19 178.50 $ 120.67 $ $ 136.00 $ 25.00 $ 0.025 4.09 0.94 2
Packaged Terminal Air
Package Conditioning,10%greater
Terminal Air than code,New
Conditioner Construction/Major Code R-AII-HVAC-CAC-
(PTAC) Renovation standards Ton All-AII-F 15 38.45 $ 45.30 $ $ 201.00 $ 25.00 $ 0.025 1.74 0.25 2
Package
Terminal Air Packaged Terminal Air
Conditioner Conditioning,10%greater R-AII-HVAC-CAC-
(PTAC) than code,Retrofit Existing PTAC Ton All-AII-E 15 85.47 $ 100.69 $ $ 1,599.00 $ 50.00 $ 0.025 1.93 0.07 2
Packaged Terminal Air
Package Conditioning,20%greater
Terminal Air than code,New
Conditioner Construction/Major Code R-AII-HVAC-CAC-
(PTAC) Renovation standards Ton All-AII-E 15 70.20 $ 82.70 $ $ 301.50 $ 50.00 $ 0.025 1.60 0.30 2
Package
Terminal Air Packaged Terminal Air
Conditioner Conditioning,20%greater R-AII-HVAC-CAC-
(PTAC) than code,Retrofit Existing PTAC Ton All-AII-E 15 117.12 $ 137.97 $ $ 2,499.00 $ 75.00 $ 0.025 1.77 0.06 2
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 24

Year:2025 Program:Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program Market Segment:Residential Program Type:Energy Efficiency
Gross Energy Incremental
Measure Savings NPV Avoided Participant Incentive/ Admin Cost Source/Note
Measure Name Measure Description Replacing Measure Unit End Use Life(Yrs)lal (kWh/yr)@I Costs'`) NEB Cost(d) Unit ($/kWh)lel UCT Ratio IFl TRC Ratio igi s
Packaged Terminal Heat
Package Pump,10%greater than
Terminal Heat code.New Construction/ Code
Pump(PTHP) Major Renovation standards Ton IPC_PTHP-MF 15 336.39 $ 186.64 $ $ 328.00 $ 75.00 $ 0.025 2.24 0.61 2
Package Packaged Terminal Heat
Terminal Heat Pump,10%greater than
Pump(PTHP) code.Retrofit Existing PTHP Ton IPC_PTHP-MF 15 586.05 $ 325.16 $ $ 1,783.00 $ 75.00 $ 0.025 3.62 0.20 2
Packaged Terminal Heat
Package Pump,20%greater than
Terminal Heat code.New Construction/ Code
Pump(PTHP) Major Renovation standards Ton IPC_PTHP-MF 15 394.90 $ 219.10 $ $. 2,170.50 $ 100.00 $ 0.025 1.99 0.11 2
Package Packaged Terminal Heat
Terminal Heat Pump,20%greaterthan
Pump(PTHP) code.Retrofit Existing PTHP Ton IPC_PTHP-MF 15 655.58 $ 363.74 $ $ 3,789.00 $ 100.00 $ 0.025 3.12 0.11 2
Non Wi-Fi
Smart enabled R-AII-HVAC-ER-
Thermostat Smart Thermostat thermostat Unit All-AII-E 7 337.23 $ 105.48 $ $ 210.24 $ 30.00 $ 0.025 2.74 0.53 5
(a)Average measure life.
(b)Estimated kWh savings measured at the customer's meter,excluding system losses.
(c)NPV of DSM avoided costs.Based on the end-use load shape,measure life,savings including system losses,and avoided costs by pricing period as acknowledged in the 2021 IRP,TRC Test Benefit calculation includes 10%conservation
adder from the Northwest Power Act.
(d)Incremental participant cost prior to customer incentives.
(e)Average program administration and overhead costs to achieve each kWh of savings.Calculated from 2025 actuals.
If)UCT Ratio=(NPV DSM Avoided Costs)/((Admin Cost/kWh*kWh Savings)+Incentives)
(g)TRC Ratio=((NPV DSM Avoided Costs*110%)+NEB/((Admin Cost/kWh*kWh Savings)+Incentives+(Incremental Participant Costs-Incentives))
(1)Idaho PowerTRM prepared by ADM Associates,Inc.2021.
(2)Idaho Power MultifamilyTRM prepared by ADM Associates,Inc.2023.
(3)Measure cost-effective when admin fees excluded.
(4)RTF.Res MFWeatherization_v6_1.xlsm.2023.
(5)RTF.ResConnectedTstats_v3_1.xlsm.2023.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 25

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
Rebate Advantage
Segment:Residential
2025 Program Results
Cost Inputs Ref Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Program Administration............................................................................................ $ 72,386 Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Program Incentives................................................................................................... 121,400 1 UC Test...................................... $ 245,924 $ 193,786 1.27
Total UC............................................................................................................... $ 193,786 P TRC Test..................................... 270,516 531,125 0.51
RIM Test.................................... 245,924 867,793 0.28
Measure Equipment and Installation(Incremental Participant Cost)....................... $ 458,739 M PCT............................................ 795,408 458,739 1.73
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
UC Test............................... =S*NTG =P
Net Benefit Inputs Ref TRC Test.............................. _(A+NUI+NEB)*NTG =P+((M-I)*NTG)
Resource Savings RIM Test............................. =S*NTG =P+(B*NTG)
2025 Annual Gross Energy(kWh).................................................. 335,068 PCT...................................... =B+I+NUI+NEB =M
NPV Cumulative Energy(kWh)...................................................... 4,809,820 $ 245,924 S
10%Credit(Northwest Power Act)............................................... 24,592 Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Total Electric Savings....................................................................... $ 270,516 A Discount Rate
Nominal(WACC)................................................................................ 7.12%
Participant Bill Savings Real((1+WACC)/(1+Escalation))-1............................................. 4.41%
NPV Cumulative Participant Bill Savings........................................ $ 674,008 B Escalation Rate........................................................................................ 2.60%
Net-to-Gross(NTG).................................................................................. 100%
Other Benefits Minimum NTG Sensitivity........................................................................ 79%
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives..................................................... $ - NUI Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh................................................... $0.099
Non-Energy Benefits...................................................................... $ - NEB System Losses.......................................................................................... 6.00%
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 26

Year:2025 Program:Rebate Advantage Market Segment:Residential Program Type:Energy Efficiency
Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Tests
Gross Energy Incremental
Measure Savings NPV Avoided Participant incentive/ Admin Cost
Measure Name Measure Description Replacing Measure Unit End Use Life(Yrs)I'I (kWh/yr)"' Costs(`) NEB Cost(d) Unit ($/kWh)I`I UCT Ratio TRC Ratio Irl Source/Notes
ENERGYSTAR Manufactured home built to R-
manufactured Housing and Urban CustomRebateAdvSh
home Estar_electric_HZl_CZ3 Development(HUD)code. Home ape 45 2,070.80 $ 1,520.99 $ - $ 3,424.83 $ 1,000.00 $ 0.216 1.05 0.43 1,2
ENERGYSTAR Manufactured home built to R-
manufactured Housing and Urban CustomRebateAdvSh
home Estar_electric_HZ2_CZ1 Development(HUD)code. Home ape 45 3,020.26 $ 2,218.36 $ - $ 3,424.83 $ 1,000.00 $ 0.216 1.34 0.60 1,2
ENERGYSTAR Manufactured home built to R-
manufactured Housing and Urban CustomRebateAdvSh
home Estar_electric_HZ2_CZ2 Development(HUD)code. Home ape 45 3,022.11 $ 2,219.72 $ - $ 3,424.83 $ 1,000.00 $ 0.216 1.34 0.60 1,2
ENERGYSTAR Manufactured home built to R-
manufactured Housing and Urban CustomRebateAdvSh
home Estar_electric_HZ2_CZ3 Development(HUD)code. Home ape 45 3,024.85 $ 2,221.73 $ - $ 3,424.83 $ 1,000.00 $ 0.216 1.34 0.60 1,2
ENERGYSTAR Manufactured home built to R-
manufactured Housing and Urban CustomRebateAdvSh
home Estar_electric_HZ3_CZ1 Development(HUD)code. Home ape 45 3,819.13 $ 2,805.12 $ - $ 3,424.83 $ 1,000.00 $ 0.216 1.54 0.73 1,2
ENERGYSTAR Manufactured home built to R-
manufactured Housing and Urban CustomRebateAdvSh
home Estar_electric_HZ3_CZ2 Development(HUD)code. Home ape 45 3,820.98 $ 2,806.48 $ - $ 3,424.83 $ 1,000.00 $ 0.216 1.54 0.73 1,2
NEEM Manufactured home built to R-
manufactured Housing and Urban CustomRebateAdvSh
home NEEM_electric_HZl_CZ3 Development(HUD)code. Home ape 43 2,612.39 $ 1,903.24 $ - $ 5,667.77 $ 1,000.00 $ 0.216 1.22 0.34 1,2
NEEM Manufactured home built to R-
manufactured Housing and Urban CustomRebateAdvSh
home NEEM_electric_HZ2_CZ1 Development(HUD)code. Home ape 43 3,733.25 $ 2,719.84 $ - $ 5,667.77 $ 1,000.00 $ 0.216 1.51 0.46 1,2
NEEM Manufactured home built to R-
manufactured Housing and Urban CustomRebateAdvSh
home NEEM_electric_HZ2_CZ2 Development(HUD)code. Home ape 43 3,735.67 $ 2,721.60 $ - $ 5,667.77 $ 1,000.00 $ 0.216 1.51 0.46 1,2
NEEM Manufactured home built to R-
manufactured Housing and Urban CustomRebateAdvSh
home NEEM_electric_HZ2_CZ3 Development(HUD)code. Home ape 43 3,739.15 $ 2,724.14 $ - $ 5,667.77 $ 1,000.00 $ 0.216 1.51 0.46 1,2
NEEM Manufactured home built to R-
manufactured Housing and Urban CustomRebateAdvSh
home NEEM_electric_HZ3_CZ1 Development(HUD)code. Home ape 44 4,679.39 $ 3,423.40 $ - $ 5,667.77 $ 1,000.00 $ 0.216 1.70 0.56 1,2
NEEM Manufactured home built to R-
manufactured Housing and Urban CustomRebateAdvSh
home NEEM_electric_HZ3_CZ2 Development(HUD)code. Home ape 44 4,681.81 $ 3,425.17 $ - $ 5,667.77 $ 1,000.00 $ 0.216 1.70 0.56 1 1,2
(a)Average measure life.
(b)Estimated kWh savings measured at the customer's meter,excluding system losses.
(c)NPV of DSM avoided costs.Based on the end-use load shape,measure life,savings including system losses,and avoided costs by pricing period as acknowledged in the 2021 IRP,TRC Test Benefit calculation includes 10%conservation adder from the
Northwest Power Act.
(d)Incremental participant cost prior to customer incentives.
(e)Average program administration and overhead costs to achieve each kWh of savings.Calculated from 2025 actuals.
(f)UCT Ratio=(NPV DSM Avoided Costs)/((Admin Cost/kWh*kWh Savings)+Incentives)
(g)TRC Ratio=((NPV DSM Avoided Costs*110%)+NEB/((Admin Cost/kWh*kWh Savings)+Incentives+(Incremental Participant Costs-Incentives);
(1)RTF.ResSF&MHExistingHVAC_v5_1.xlsx.2023.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 27

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
Residential New Construction Program
Segment:Residential
2025 Program Results
Cost Inputs Ref Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Program Administration............................................................................................ $ 90,885 Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Program Incentives................................................................................................... 142,700 1 UC Test.................................. $ 239,818 $ 233,585 1.03
Total UC............................................................................................................... $ 233,585 P TRC Test................................ 377,368 242,846 1.55
RIM Test................................ 239,818 828,955 0.29
Measure Equipment and Installation(Incremental Participant Cost)....................... $ 151,961 M PCT........................................ 851,638 151,961 5.60
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
UC Test............................... =S*NTG =P
Net Benefit Inputs Ref TRC Test.............................. _(A+NUI+NEB)*NTG =P+((M-I)*NTG)
Resource Savings RIM Test............................. =S*NTG =P+(B*NTG)
2025 Annual Gross Energy(kWh).................................................. 274,680 PCT...................................... =B+I+NUI+NEB =M
NPV Cumulative Energy(kWh)...................................................... 4,061,125 $ 239,818 S
10%Credit(Northwest Power Act)............................................... 23,982 Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Total Electric Savings....................................................................... $ 263,800 A Discount Rate
Nominal(WACC)........................................................................... 7.12%
Participant Bill Savings Real((1+WACC)/(1+Escalation))-1......................................... 4.41%
NPV Cumulative Participant Bill Savings........................................ $ 595,370 B Escalation Rate........................................................................................ 2.60%
Net-to-Gross(NTG).................................................................................. 100%
Other Benefits Minimum NTG Sensitivity........................................................................ 97%
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives..................................................... $ - NUI Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh................................................... $0.099
Non-Energy Benefits...................................................................... $ 113,569 NEB System Losses.......................................................................................... 6.00%
Note:
2018 International Energy Conservation Code(IECC)with amendments adopted in Idaho in 2021.
Participant costs offset by$2,500 tax credit available to the home builder as part of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022,Section 45L Tax Credit for Energy Efficient New
Homes.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 28

Year:2025 Program:Residential New Construction Program Market Segment:Residential Program Type:Energy Efficiency
Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Tests
Gross Energy Incremental
Measure Savings NPV Avoided Participant Incentive/ Admin Cost
Measure Name Measure Description Replacing Measure Unit End Use Life(Yrs)I'I (kWh/yr)I') Costs ie, NEB Cost(d) Unit ($/kWh)lel UCT Ratio TRC Ratio(g) Source/Notes
Next Step Home-
10%to 14.99% Next Step Home-average Home built to IECC 2018 RNC_Custom_Loads
above code per home savings. Code.Adopted 2021. Home hape 58 1,119.92 $ 975.93 $ 1,129.060 $ 2,886.70 $ 1,200.00 $ 0.331 0.62 0.68 1,2
Next Step Home-
15%to 19.99% Next Step Home-average Home built to IECC 2018 RNC_Custom_Loads
above code per home savings. Code.Adopted 2021. Home hape 60 2,201.61 $ 1,918.55 $ 1,232.550 $ 1,504.36 $ 1,500.00 $ 0.331 0.86 1.50 1,3
Next Step Home-
20%or more Next Step Home-average Home built to IECC 2018 RNC_Custom_Loads
above code' per home savings. Code.Adopted 2021. Home hape 58 10,469.61 $ 9,157.27 $ 1,359.630 $ 2,318.36 $ 2,000.00 $ 0.331 1.68 1.98 1
(a)Average measure life.
(b)Estimated kWh savings measured at the customer's meter,excluding system losses.
(c)NPV of DSM avoided costs.Based on the end-use load shape,measure life,savings including system losses,and avoided costs by pricing period as acknowledged in the 2021 IRP,TRC Test Benefit calculation includes 10%conservation adder from the
Northwest Power Act.
(d)Incremental participant cost prior to customer incentives.
(e)Average program administration and overhead costs to achieve each kWh of savings.Calculated from 2025 actuals.
(f)UCT Ratio=(NPV DSM Avoided Costs)/((Admin Cost/kWh*kWh Savings)+Incentives)
(g)TRC Ratio=((NPV DSM Avoided Costs*110%)+NEB/((Admin Cost/kWh*kWh Savings)+Incentives+(Incremental Participant Costs-Incentives);
(1)NEEA circuit rider code enforcement initiative.2025 average per home savings.Costs and NEBs from RTF.RESNCMTHouse_ID_v3_1_.xlsm.2019
(2)Measure not cost-effective.Will continue to be monitored in 2026.
(3)Measure cost-effective when admin is excluded.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 29

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (Idaho)
Segment:Residential
2025 Program Results
Cost Inputs WAQC Only Re-Weatherization Total Ref. Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Program Administration............................................................................... $ 164,089 2,850 166,939 Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Community Action Partnership(CAP)Agency Payments............................. 961,282 28,500 989,782 Total Program
Total LIC.................................................................................................. $ 1,125,371 31,350 1,156,721 P UC Test............................................ 152,429 1,188,909 0.13
TRC Test........................................... 414,099 1,869,444 0.22
Accruals/Reversal of Carryover Dollars........................................................ (320,828) - (320,828) RIM Test.......................................... 152,429 1,575,926 0.10
Total Program Expenses.......................................................................... $ 804,543 31,350 835,893 PCT.................................................. N/A N/A N/A
WAQC Only
Idaho Power Indirect Overhead Expense Allocation-2.783%..................... $ 31,316 872 32,188 OH UC Test............................................ 148,555 1,156,687 0.13
Additional State Funding.............................................................................. 680,535 - 680,535 M TRC Test........................................... 394,982 1,837,222 0.21
Net Benefit Inputs WAQC Only Re-Weatherization Total Ref. RIM Test.......................................... 148,555 1,533,867 0.10
Resource Savings PCT.................................................. N/A N/A N/A
2025 Annual Gross Energy(kWh).......................................................... 222,782 5,810 228,592 Re-Weatherization Only
NPV Cumulative Energy(kWh).............................................................. 2,925,994 76,308 3,002,301 UC Test............................................ $ 3,874 $ 32,222 0.12
Avoided Costs........................................................................................ $ 148,555 3,874 152,429 S TRC Test........................................... 4,262 32,222 0.13
10%Credit(Northwest Power Act)........................................................ $ 14,855 387 15,243 RIM Test.......................................... 3,874 42,059 0.09
Total Electric Savings............................................................................... $ 163,410 4,262 167,672 A PCT.................................................. N/A N/A N/A
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
Participant Bill Savings UC Test................................. =5*NTG =P+OH
NPV Cumulative Participant Bill Savings................................................ $ 377,181 9,837 387,017 B TRC Test................................_(A+NUI+NEB)*NTG =P+OH+M
RIM Test............................... =5*NTG =P+OH+(B*NTG)
Other Benefits PCT....................................... N/A N/A
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives.................................................................... $ - - - NUI Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Non-Electric Benefits.................................................................................... Discount Rate
Heath&Safety....................................................................................... $ 236,420 236,420 Nominal(WACC)...................................................................................... 7.12%
Repair..................................................................................................... $ 10,008 10,008 Real((1+WACC)/(1+Escalation))-1................................................... 4.41%
Other...................................................................................................... $ - - Escalation Rate.............................................................................................. 2.60%
Non-Energy Benefits.................................................................................... $ 246,427 246,427 NEB Net-to-Gross (NTG)....................................................................................... 100%
Minimum NTG Sensitivity.............................................................................. 780%
Notes: Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh......................................................... $0.099
Savings updated in 2020 and based on a billing analysis of the 2016-2018 weatherization projects. System Losses................................................................................................ 6.00%
Program cost-effectiveness incorporated Idaho Public Utilities Commission(IPUC)staff recommendations from case GNR-E-12-01.
Recommendations include:
Claimed 100%of savings;increased NTG to 100%;added a 10%conservation preference adder;health,safety,and repair non-energy
benefits,and allocation of indirect overhead expenses.
No customer participant costs.Costs shown are from the DOE state weatherization assistance program.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 30

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (Oregon)
Segment:Residential
2025 Program Results
Cost Inputs Ref Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Program Administration................................................................................................... $ 9,910 Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Community Action Partnership(CAP)Agency Payments.................................................. 15,467 UC Test.......................................................... $ 2,046 $ 26,083 0.08
Total UC...................................................................................................................... $ 25,377 P TRC Test......................................................... 11,420 35,375 0.32
RIM Test........................................................ 2,046 31,279 0.07
Accruals/Reversal of Carryover Dollars............................................................................. - PCT................................................................ N/A N/A N/A
Total Program Expenses.............................................................................................. $ 25,377
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
Idaho Power Indirect Overhead Expense Allocation-2.783%......................... $ 706 OH UC Test................................................... =S*NTG =P
Additional State Funding.................................................................................. 9,292 M TRC Test.................................................. =(A+NUI+NEB)*NTG =P+OH+M
Net Benefit Inputs Ref RIM Test................................................. =S*NTG =P+OH+(B*NTG)
Resource Savings PCT......................................................... N/A N/A
2025 Annual Gross Energy(kWh).............................................................. 3,069
NPV Cumulative Energy(kWh)................................................................... 40,308 $ 2,046 S Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
10%Credit(Northwest Power Act)............................................................ 205 Discount Rate
Total Electric Savings................................................................................... $ 2,251 A Nominal(WACC)................................................................................................... 7.12%
Real((1+WACC)/(1+Escalation))-1................................................................. 4.41%
Participant Bill Savings Escalation Rate............................................................................................................ 2.60%
NPV Cumulative Participant Bill Savings.................................................... $ 5,196 B Net-to-Gross(NTG)...................................................................................................... 100%
MinimumNTG Sensitivity............................................................................................ 1,628%
Other Benefits Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh....................................................................... $0.099
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives........................................................................ $ - NUI System Losses.............................................................................................................. 6.00%
NE Bs.................................................................................................................
Health and Safety....................................................................................... $ 8,369
Repair......................................................................................................... $ 800.00
Other.......................................................................................................... $ -
Non-Energy Benefits......................................................................................... $ 9,169 NEB
Notes:
Savings updated in 2020 and based on a billing analysis of the 2016-2018 weatherization projects.
Program cost-effectiveness incorporated Idaho Public Utilities Commission(IPUC)staff recommendations from case GNR-E-12-01.Recommendations include:
Claimed 100%of savings;increased NTG to 100%;added a 10%conservation preference adder;health,safety,and repair non-energy benefits,and allocation of indirect overhead expenses.
No customer participant costs.Costs shown are from the DOE state weatherization assistance program.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 31

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers
Segment:Residential
2025 Program Results
Cost Inputs Ref Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Program Administration............................................................................................ $ 21,526 Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Program Incentives................................................................................................... 133,949 UC Test...................................... $ 20,702 $ 159,801 0.13
Total Program Expenses...................................................................................... $ 155,475 TRC Test..................................... 32,188 159,801 0.20
Total UC............................................................................................................... $ 155,475 P RIM Test.................................... 20,702 212,797 0.10
Idaho Power Indirect Overhead Expense Allocation-2.783%.................................... $ 4,326 OH PCT............................................ N/A N/A N/A
Additional State Funding $ - M
Benefits and Costs Includec=S*NTG
Net Benefit Inputs Ref UC Test............................... =S*NTG =P+OH
Resource Savings TRC Test.............................. _(A+NUI+NEB)*NTG =P+OH+M
2025 Annual Gross Energy(kWh).................................................. 31,046 RIM Test............................. =S*NTG =P+OH+(B*NTG)
NPV Cumulative Energy(kWh)...................................................... 407,755 $ 20,702 S PCT...................................... N/A N/A
10%Credit(Northwest Power Act)............................................... 2,070
Total Electric Savings....................................................................... $ 22,772 A Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Discount Rate
Participant Bill Savings Nominal(WACC)........................................................................... 7.12%
NPV Cumulative Participant Bill Savings........................................ $ 52,995 B Real((1+WACC)/(1+Escalation))-1......................................... 4.41%
Other Benefits Escalation Rate........................................................................................ 2.60%
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives............................................................ $ - NUI Net-to-Gross (NTG)................................................................................. 100%
NEBs..................................................................................................... Minimum NTG Sensitivity........................................................................ 606%
Health and Safety.......................................................................... $ 6,098 Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh................................................... $0.099
Repair............................................................................................ $ 1,731.00 System Losses.......................................................................................... 6.00%
Other............................................................................................. $ 1,587.00
NEBsTotal..................................................................................... $ 9,416.00 NEB
Notes:
Savings updated in 2020 and based on a billing analysis of the 2016-2018 weatherization projects.
Program cost-effectiveness incorporated Idaho Public Utilities Commission(IPUC)staff recommendations from case GNR-E-12-01.Recommendations include:
Claimed 100%of savings;increased NTG to 100%;added a 10%conservation preference adder;health,safety,and repair non-energy benefits,and allocation of indirect
overhead expenses.
No customer participant costs.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 32

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
C&I Custom Projects
Segment:Industrial
2025 Program Results
Cost Inputs Ref Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Program Administration........................................................................................ $ 3,488,617 Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Program Incentives................................................................................................ 6,607,325 1 UC Test.................................. $ 21,756,769 $ 10,095,942 2.16
Total UC........................................................................................................... $ 10,095,942 P TRC Test................................ 24,500,158 30,505,961 0.80
RIM Test................................ 21,756,769 28,853,683 0.75
Measure Equipment and Installation(Incremental Participant Cost)................... $ 27,017,344 M PCT........................................ 25,932,778 27,017,344 0.96
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
UC Test............................... =S*NTG =P
Net Benefit Inputs Ref TRC Test.............................. _(A+NUI+NEB)*NTG =P+((M-I)*NTG)
Resource Savings RIM Test............................. =S*NTG =P+(B*NTG)
2025 Annual Gross Energy(kWh)............................................ 60,037,800 PCT...................................... =B+I+NUI+NEB =M
NPV Cumulative Energy(kWh)................................................. 377,177,841 $ 21,756,769 S
10%Credit(Northwest Power Act).......................................... 2,175,677 Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Total Electric Savings.................................................................. $ 23,932,446 A Discount Rate
Nominal(WACC)........................................................................... 7.12%
Participant Bill Savings Real((1+WACC)/(1+Escalation))-1......................................... 4.41%
NPV Cumulative Participant Bill Savings.................................. $ 18,757,741 B Escalation Rate........................................................................................ 2.60%
Net-to-Gross(NTG).................................................................................. 100%
Other Benefits Minimum NTG Sensitivity........................................................................ 46%
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives................................................ $ - NUI Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh................................................... $0.043
Non-Energy Benefits................................................................ $ 567,712 NEB System Losses.......................................................................................... 6.00%
Notes:
Energy savings are unique by project and are reviewed by Idaho Power engineering staff of third-party consultants.Each project must complete a certification inspection.
NEB/impacts on a$/kWh for each end-use.Based on 2019 impact evaluation of other C&I programs.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 33

Year:2025 Program:C&I Custom Projects Market Segment:Industrial Program Type:Energy Efficiency
Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Tests
Gross Energy Incremental
Measure Savings(kWh/yr) NPV Avoided Participant Cost Admin Cost UCT
Measure Name Measure Description Replacing Measure Unit End Use Life(Yrs)i', M costs NEB (d) Incentive/Unit ($/kWh)lel Ratio Irl TRC Ratio(g) Source/Notes
Campus Cohort
for Energy Strategic energy I-AII-SecTotal-All-All-
Efficiency management offering Baseline Cohort AII-E 1 4,535,304.00 $ 245,684.77 $ - $ 122,212.00 $ 113,382.61 $ 0.058 0.65 0.70 1,2
Compressed Air Strategic energy I-AII-SecTotal-AII-AII-
Leak Repairs management offering Baseline Cohort AII-E 1 607,829.00 $ 32,927.08 $ - $ 732,122.31 $ 15,195.73 $ 0.058 0.65 0.05 1
Continuous
Energy
Improvement
Cohort for Strategic energy Commercial-School-
Schools management offering Baseline Cohort Misc 1 986,951.00 $ 43,484.17 $ - $ 80,333.00 $ 24,673.79 $ 0.058 0.53 0.35 1,2
Energy Strategic energy I-AII-SecTotal-AII-AII-
Management management offering Baseline Cohort AII-E 1 765,241.00 $ 41,454.35 $ - $ 44,678.62 $ 19,131.04 $ 0.058 0.65 0.51 1,2
Strategic energy I-AII-SecTotal-All-All-
Find&Fix management offering Baseline Cohort AII-E 1 4,126,184.00 $ 223,522.08 $ $ 151,308.81 $ 68,263.73 $ 0.058 0.73 0.63 1,2
Industrial Energy Strategic energy I-WaterSupply-Mot-
Efficiency management offering Baseline Cohort All-All-All-U 1 11,158,155.00 $ 607,562.10 $ - $ 25,119.63 $ 25,119.63 $ 0.058 0.90 0.99 1,2
Green Motors
Program
Rewind:Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 15HP Motor size 15HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-All-S 6 389.84 $ 121.82 $ - $ 136.34 $ 15.00 $ 0.058 3.24 0.84 3
Green Motors
Program
Rewind:Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 20HP Motor size 20HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-All-S 6 521.64 $ 163.01 $ - $ 152.11 $ 20.00 $ 0.058 3.24 0.98 3
Green Motors
Program
Rewind:Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 25HP Motor size 25HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-All-S 7 622.21 $ 219.53 $ $ 173.79 $ 25.00 $ 0.058 3.59 1.15 3
Green Motors
Program
Rewind:Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 30HP Motor size 30HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-All-S 7 670.22 $ 236.47 $ - $ 190.88 $ 30.00 $ 0.058 3.43 1.13 3
Green Motors
Program
Rewind:Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 40HP Motor size 40HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-All-S 7 780.50 $ 275.38 $ - $ 233.27 $ 40.00 $ 0.058 3.23 1.09 3
Green Motors
Program
Rewind:Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 50HP Motor size 50HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-All-S 7 839.98 $ 296.37 $ - $ 258.24 $ 50.00 $ 0.058 3.00 1.06 3
Green Motors
Program
Rewind:Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 60HP Motor size 60HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-All-S 8 846.27 $ 330.31 $ - $ 304.56 $ 60.00 $ 0.058 3.03 1.03 3
Green Motors
Program
Rewind:Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 75HP Motor size 75HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-All-S 8 870.95 $ 339.94 $ - $ 329.19 $ 75.00 $ 0.058 2.71 0.98 3
Green Motors
Program
Rewind:Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 100HP Motor size 100HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-All-S 8 1,149.54 $ 448.67 $ - $ 408.38 $ 100.00 $ 0.058 2.69 1.04 3
Green Motors
Program
Rewind:Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 125HP Motor size 125HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-All-S 8 1,319.47 $ 515.00 $ - $ 458.64 $ 125.00 $ 0.058 2.55 1.06 3
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 34

Year:2025 Program:C&I Custom Projects Market Segment:Industrial Program Type:Energy Efficiency
Gross Energy Incremental
Measure Savings(kWh/yr) NPV Avoided Participant Cost Admin Cost UCT
Measure Name Measure Description Replacing Measure Unit End Use Life(Yrs)lal I"I costs I`I NEB (d) Incentive/Unit ($/kWh)le) Ratio Ifl TRC Ratio lal Source/Notes
Green Motors
Program
Rewind: Motor I-All-Other-Shift2-
size 150HP Motor size 150HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-S 8 1,568.48 $ 612.19 $ - $ 510.88 $ 150.00 $ 0.058 2.54 1.12 3
Green Motors
Program
Rewind: Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 200HP Motor size 200HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-S 8 2,080.47 $ 812.02 $ - $ 615.03 $ 200.00 $ 0.058 2.53 1.21 3
Green Motors
Program
Rewind: Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 250HP Motor size 250HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-S 8 2,750.98 $ 1,073.73 $ - $ 790.47 $ 250.00 $ 0.058 2.62 1.24 3
Green Motors
Program
Rewind: Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 300HP Motor size 300HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-S 8 3,284.11 $ 1,281.81 $ - $ 799.01 $ 300.00 $ 0.058 2.61 1.42 3
Green Motors
Program
Rewind: Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 350HP Motor size 350HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-S 8 3,828.65 $ 1,494.35 $ $ 837.45 $ 350.00 $ 0.058 2.61 1.55 3
Green Motors
Program
Rewind: Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 400HP Motor size 400HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-S 8 4,341.10 $ 1,694.37 $ - $ 935.35 $ 400.00 $ 0.058 2.60 1.57 3
Green Motors
Program
Rewind: Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 450HP Motor size 450HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-S 8 4,875.55 $ 1,902.97 $ $ 1,022.42 $ 450.00 $ 0.058 2.60 1.60 3
Green Motors
Program
Rewind: Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 500HP Motor size 500HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-S 8 5,424.83 $ 2,117.36 $ - $ 1,104.55 $ 500.00 $ 0.058 2.60 1.64 3
Green Motors
Program
Rewind: Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 600HP Motor size 600HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-S 8 5,895.51 $ 2,301.07 $ - $ 1,627.71 $ 600.00 $ 0.058 2.44 1.28 3
Green Motors
Program
Rewind: Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 700HP Motor size 700HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-S 8 6,848.91 $ 2,673.18 $ - $ 1,775.82 $ 700.00 $ 0.058 2.43 1.35 3
Green Motors
Program
Rewind: Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 800HP Motor size 800HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-S 8 7,810.72 $ 3,048.59 $ - $ 1,970.32 $ 800.00 $ 0.058 2.43 1.38 3
Green Motors
Program
Rewind: Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 900HP Motor size 900HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-S 8 8,768.45 $ 3,422.39 $ - $ 2,172.20 $ 900.00 $ 0.058 2.43 1.40 3
Green Motors
Program
Rewind: Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 1250HP Motor size 1250HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-S 8 11,451.18 $ 4,469.49 $ - $ 2,796.44 $ 1,250.00 $ 0.058 1.61 1.14 3
Green o ors
Program
Rewind: Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 1500HP Motor size 1500HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-S 8 13,712.46 $ 5,352.08 $ - $ 3,203.40 $ 1,500.00 $ 0.058 1.61 1.17 3
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 35

Year:2025 Program:C&I Custom Projects Market Segment:Industrial Program Type:Energy Efficiency
Gross Energy Incremental
Measure Savings(kWh/yr) NPV Avoided Participant Cost Admin Cost UCT
Measure Name Measure Description Replacing Measure Unit End Use Life(Yrs)lal IN Costs I`I NEB (d) Incentive/Unit ($/kWh)") Ratio") TRC Ratio Ial Source/Notes
een o ors
Program
Rewind: Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 1750HP Motor size 1750HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-All-S 8 15,930.61 $ 6,217.84 $ - $ 3,656.20 $ 1,750.00 $ 0.058 1.60 1.18 3
Green o ors
Program
Rewind: Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 2000HP Motor size 2000HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-S 8 18,130.04 $ 7,076.30 $ - $ 4,101.36 $ 2,000.00 $ 0.058 1.60 1.19 3
een o ors
Program
Rewind: Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 2250HP Motor size 2250HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-All-S 8 20,268.42 $ 7,910.92 $ - $ 4,468.11 $ 2,250.00 $ 0.058 1.59 1.21 3
Green o ors
Program
Rewind: Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 2500HP Motor size 2500HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-S 8 22,473.40 $ 8,771.54 $ - $ 4,888.48 $ 2,500.00 $ 0.058 1.59 1.22 3
een o ors
Program
Rewind: Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 3000HP Motor size 3000HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-All-S 8 26,799.70 $ 10,460.13 $ - $ 5,715.53 $ 3,000.00 $ 0.058 1.58 1.23 3
Green o ors
Program
Rewind: Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 3500HP Motor size 3500HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-S 8 31,201.25 $ 12,178.09 $ - $ 6,315.91 $ 3,500.00 $ 0.058 1.58 1.27 3
een o ors
Program
Rewind: Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 4000HP Motor size 4000HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-All-S 8 35,658.57 $ 13,917.82 $ - $ 7,051.42 $ 4,000.00 $ 0.058 1.58 1.29 3
Green Motors
Program
Rewind: Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size 4500HP Motor size 4500HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-S 8 40,032.49 $ 15,624.99 $ - $ 7,599.26 $ 4,500.00 $ 0.058 1.58 1.32 3
Green Motors
Program
Rewind: Motor I-AII-Other-Shift2-
size5000HP Motor size5000HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-S 8 1 44,388.16 $ 17,325.05 $ $ 8,111.84 $ 5,000.00 $ 0.058 1.58 1.35 3
(a)Average measure life.
(b)Estimated kWh savings measured at the customer's meter,excluding system losses.
(c)NPV of DSM avoided costs.Based on the end-use load shape,measure life,savings including system losses,and avoided costs by pricing period as acknowledged in the 2021 IRP,TRC Test Benefit calculation includes 10%conservation adder from the
(d)Incremental participant cost prior to customer incentives.
(e)Average program administration and overhead costs to achieve each kWh of savings.Calculated from 2025 actuals.
(f)UCT Ratio=(NPV DSM Avoided Costs)/((Admin Cost/kWh*kWh Savings)+Incentives)
(g)TRC Ratio=((NPV DSM Avoided Costs*110%)+NEB/((Admin Cost/kWh*kWh Savings)+Incentives+(Incremental Participant Costs-Incentives))
(1)2025 total cohort savings.
(2)Offering cost-effective when admin costs are excluded.
(3)RTF-Ind_and_Ag_GreenMotorRewind_v5_2.xlsm.2023.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 36

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
C&I New Construction
Segment:Commercial
2025 Program Results
Cost Inputs Ref Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Program Administration........................................................................................ $ 632,746 Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Program Incentives................................................................................................ 2,164,928 1 UC Test.................................. $ 6,023,530 $ 2,797,674 2.15
Total UC........................................................................................................... $ 2,797,674 P TRC Test................................ 8,524,055 3,985,598 2.14
RIM Test................................ 6,023,530 9,251,304 0.65
Measure Equipment and Installation(Incremental Participant Cost)................... $ 3,352,852 M PCT........................................ 10,516,730 3,352,852 3.14
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
UC Test............................... =S*NTG =P
Net Benefit Inputs Ref TRC Test.............................. _(A+NUI+NEB)*NTG =P+((M-I)*NTG)
Resource Savings RIM Test............................. =S*NTG =P+(B*NTG)
2025 Annual Gross Energy(kWh)............................................ 11,339,940 PCT...................................... =B+I+NUI+NEB =M
NPV Cumulative Energy(kWh)................................................. 103,806,412 $ 6,023,530 S
10%Credit(Northwest Power Act).......................................... 602,353 Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Total Electric Savings.................................................................. $ 6,625,883 A Discount Rate
Nominal(WACC)........................................................................... 7.12%
Participant Bill Savings Real((1+WACC)/(1+Escalation))-1......................................... 4.41%
NPV Cumulative Participant Bill Savings.................................. $ 6,453,630 B Escalation Rate........................................................................................ 2.60%
Net-to-Gross(NTG).................................................................................. 100%
Other Benefits Minimum NTG Sensitivity........................................................................ 41%
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives................................................ $ - NUI Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh................................................... $0.054
Non-Energy Benefits................................................................ $ 1,898,172 NEB System Losses.......................................................................................... 6.00%
Notes:
Non-energy benefits/impacts on a$/kWh for each end-use.Based on 2019 impact evaluation.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 37

Year:2025 Program:C&I New Construction Market Segment:Commercial Program Type:Energy Efficiency
Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Tests
Gross Energy Incremental
Measure Savings NPV Avoided Participant Incentive/ Admin Cost UCT Source/Not
Measure Name Measure Description Replacing Measure Unit End Use Life(Yrs)lal (kWh/yr)Ib� Costs I`I NEB Cost lal Unit ($/kWh)lel Ratio i`I TRC Ratio Igl es
Air Conditioners,Water
Cooled IECC 2018 Air Cooled AC C-All-HVAC-CAC-AII-
Air conditioning Any Size Code Standard Ton AII-E 15 67.00 $ 36.77 $ - $ 225.00 $ 40.00 $ 0.056 0.84 0.18 1
Air-cooled chiller with
condenser C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
Air conditioning IPLV:14.0 EER or higher IECC 2018 Code Standard Ton AII-E 20 102.00 $ 62.02 $ - $ 209.00 $ 80.00 $ 0.056 0.72 0.32 1,2,5
C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
Air conditioning Air-side Economizer IECC 2018 Code Standard Ton AII-E 15 197.00 $ 108.10 $ - $ 81.36 $ 75.00 $ 0.056 1.26 1.29 1,2
C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
Air conditioning Direct evaporative cooler IECC 2018 Code Standard Ton AII-E 15 315.00 $ 172.86 $ - $ 364.00 $ 200.00 $ 0.056 0.79 0.50 1,5
Evaporative Pre-Cooler on C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
Air conditioning Air-Cooled Chillers Air-cooled condenser coil Ton AII-E 15 63.00 $ 34.57 $ - $ 173.00 $ 30.00 $ 0.056 1.03 0.22 1,5
C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
Air conditioning Indirect evaporative cooler IECC 2018 Code Standard Ton AII-E 15 225.00 $ 123.47 $ - $ 1,553.00 $ 130.00 $ 0.056 0.87 0.09 1
Unitary Commercial Air
Conditioners,Air Cooled
(Cooling Mode).
Split system&single
package. C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
Air conditioning Part A:Base to CEE Tier 1 IECC 2018 Code Standard Ton AII-E 15 47.00 $ 25.79 $ - $ 79.00 $ 25.00 $ 0.056 0.93 0.35 1,2,3
Unitary Commercial Air
Conditioners,Air Cooled
(Cooling Mode).
Split system&single
package. C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
Air conditioning Part B:Base to CEE Tier 2 IECC 2018 Code Standard Ton AII-E 15 88.00 $ 48.29 $ - $ 123.00 $ 50.00 $ 0.056 0.88 0.42 1
Water-cooled chiller
electronically operated,
reciprocating and positive C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
Air conditioning displacement IECC 2018 Code Standard Ton AII-E 20 61.00 $ 37.09 $ - $ 103.00 $ 40.00 $ 0.056 0.85 0.38 2,5
Combined C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
Air conditioning Water-side Economizer IECC 2018 Code Standard chiller tonnage AII-E 10 153.00 $ 68.67 $ - $ 725.82 $ 50.00 $ 0.056 1.17 0.10 1
Appliances with Efficient Laundry Machines Commercial-Misc.
Electric dryer (electric dryer) IECC 2018 Code Standard Unit Com-Misc 9 814.50 $ 320.38 $ 2,143.930 $ 400.00 $ 200.00 $ 0.056 1.31 5.60 2,4
Automatic High- Commercial-
Speed Door Freezer to Dock Code standards Square foot Ref.warehouse-Misc 16 2,531.00 $ 1,369.68 $ - $ 167.00 $ 320.00 $ 0.056 2.97 4.89 1
Automatic High- Commercial-
Speed Door Freezer to Refrigerator Code standards Squarefoot Ref.warehouse-Misc 16 1,829.00 $ 989.79 $ - $ 167.00 $ 160.00 $ 0.056 3.78 4.05 1
Automatic High- Commercial-
Speed Door Refrigerator to Dock Code standards Squarefoot Ref.warehouse-Misc 16 360.00 $ 194.82 $ - $ 167.00 $ 80.00 $ 0.056 1.95 1.15 1
Square foot C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
Building Shell Reflective roof treatment IECC 2018 Code Standard roof area AII-E 15 0.12 $ 0.06 $ - $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.056 1.13 1.24 2
Commercial-Misc.
Compressed Air Air compressor VFD Code standards HP Com-Misc 13 949.00 $ 462.86 $ - $ 223.00 $ 200.00 $ 0.056 1.83 1.85 1
Efficient Compress Air Commercial-Misc.
Compressed Air Nozzle Code standards Unit Com-Misc 15 2,223.00 $ 1,163.63 $ - $ 85.00 $ 80.00 $ 0.056 5.70 6.12 1
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 38

Year:2025 Program:C&I New Construction Market Segment:Commercial Program Type:Energy Efficiency
Gross Energy Incremental
Measure Savings NPV Avoided Participant Incentive/ Admin Cost UCT Source/Not
Measure Name Measure Description Replacing Measure Unit End Use Life(Yrs) (kWh/yr)i°i Costs N NEB Cost(d) Unit ($/kWh)I`I Ratio Ui TRC Ratio iai es
Commercial-Misc.
Compressed Air Low Pressure Drop Filter Code standards HP Com-Misc 10 44.00 $ 19.75 $ - $ 10.00 $ 10.00 $ 0.056 1.51 1.66 1
Commercial-Misc.
Compressed Air No-Loss Condensate Drain Code standards HP Com-Misc 10 1,970.00 $ 839.60 $ - $ 194.00 $ 200.00 $ 0.056 2.71 3.04 1
Refrigerated Compressed Commercial-Misc.
Compressed Air Air Dryer Code standards CFM Com-Misc 13 10.62 $ 5.18 $ - $ 6.00 $ 3.00 $ 0.056 1.44 0.86 1,5
Demand Controlled Kitchen C-AII-Food-Cook-All-
Controls Ventilation Exhaust Hood No VFD HP All-C 15 4,590.00 $ 2,473.52 $ - $ 248.00 $ 250.00 $ 0.056 4.89 5.40 1
Energy Management
System(EMS)controls: C-AII-HVAC-Vent-All-
Controls Part A:1 strategy IECC 2018 Code Standard Ton of cooling All-E 15 227.00 $ 216.75 $ 19.200 $ 162.00 $ 60.00 $ 0.056 2.11 1.17 1
EMS controls: C-AII-HVAC-Vent-All-
Controls Part B:2 strategies IECC 2018 Code Standard Ton of cooling All-E 15 409.00 $ 250.67 $ 19.200 $ 198.00 $ 80.00 $ 0.056 1.98 1.19 1
EMS controls: C-AII-HVAC-Vent-All-
Controls Part C:3 strategies IECC 2018 Code Standard Ton of cooling All-E 15 473.00 $ 300.49 $ 32.010 $ 233.00 $ 100.00 $ 0.056 1.98 1.33 1
EMS controls: C-AII-HVAC-Vent-All-
Controls Part D:4 strategies IECC 2018 Code Standard Ton of cooling All-E 15 567.00 $ 326.98 $ 67.220 $ 269.00 $ 120.00 $ 0.056 1.87 1.26 1
EMS controls: C-AII-HVAC-Vent-All-
Controls Part E:5 strategies IECC 2018 Code Standard Ton of cooling All-E 15 617.00 $ 120.30 $ 67.220 $ 304.00 $ 140.00 $ 0.056 1.66 0.87 1
Guest room energy C-Lod-fan-SGS-AII-
Controls management system IECC 2018 Code Standard Ton All-S 11 550.00 $ 240.38 $ - $ 57.50 $ 50.00 $ 0.056 2.98 3.00 1
Part C:Variable speed drive
on Potato/Onion Storage C-AII-HVAC-Vent-All-
Controls Shed Ventilation No VFD HP All-E 10 1,193.00 $ 514.57 $ - $ 264.00 $ 250.00 $ 0.056 1.63 1.71 1
Variable speed drive on C-AII-HVAC-Vent-All-
Controls HVAC system applications Code standards HP All-E 15 582.00 $ 308.43 $ - $ 153.91 $ 125.00 $ 0.056 1.96 1.82 1
A-Da-Proc-
VFD on milking transfer MilkingSchedule-All-
Dairy VFD pump Code standards VFD All-S 10 7,687.00 $ 3,317.23 $ - $ 1,469.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 0.056 1.72 1.92 1
A-Da-Proc-
VFD on milking vacuum MilkingSchedule-All-
Dairy VFD pump Code standards HP All-S 10 548.00 $ 236.48 $ - $ 273.00 $ 170.00 $ 0.056 1.18 0.86 1,5
Energy Star
Commercial Energy Star Commercial Non-ENERGY STAR Commercial-Misc.
Dishwasher Dishwasher Dishwasher Unit Com-Misc 12 3,698.00 $ 1,734.17 $ - $ 2,297.00 $ 500.00 $ 0.056 2.46 0.76 6
Circulating Block Heater
Engine block Stationary pump-driven on a Backup Generator C-AII-HVAC-ER-AII-
heater cirulating block heater <200 kW Unit All-E 15 1,106.00 $ 589.41 $ - $ 239.00 $ 200.00 $ 0.056 2.25 2.16 1
Circulating Block Heater
Engine block Stationary pump-driven on a Backup Generator C-AII-HVAC-ER-AII-
heater cirulating block heater 201-500 kW Unit All-E 15 2,493.00 $ 1,328.56 $ - $ 573.00 $ 350.00 $ 0.056 2.72 2.05 1
Circulating Block Heater
Engine block Stationary pump-driven on a Backup Generator C-AII-HVAC-ER-AII-
heater cirulating block heater 501-1000 kW Unit All-E 15 4,385.00 $ 2,336.84 $ - $ 573.00 $ 500.00 $ 0.056 3.14 3.14 1
Engine block Engine Mounted engine C-AII-HVAC-ER-AII-
heater controls block heater Code standards Unit All-E 15 2,352.00 $ 1,253.42 $ - $ 120.00 $ 150.00 $ 0.056 4.46 5.49 1
Engine block Wall mounted engine block C-AII-HVAC-ER-AII-
heatercontrols heater Code standards Unit All-E 15 2,738.00 $ 1,459.12 $ - $ 70.00 $ 100.00 $ 0.056 5.77 7.20 1 1
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 39

Year:2025 Program:C&I New Construction Market Segment:Commercial Program Type:Energy Efficiency
Gross Energy Incremental
Measure Savings NPV Avoided Participant Incentive/ Admin Cost UCT Source/Not
Measure Name Measure Description Replacing Measure Unit End Use Life(Yrs) (kWh/yr)IbI Costs N NEB Cost IdI Unit ($/kWh)le' Ratio IrI TRC Ratio I') es
Heat Pumps,Air Cooled
(Cooling Mode).Split
system&single package. C-All-HVAC-CAC-AII-
Heat Pump Part A:Base to CEE Tier 1 IECC 2018 Code Standard Ton AII-E 15 72.00 $ 39.51 $ - $ 36.00 $ 50.00 $ 0.056 0.73 1.09 1,2
Heat Pumps,Air Cooled
(Cooling Mode).<=5 tons.
Split system&single
package.Part B:Base to C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
Heat Pump CEE Tier 2 IECC 2018 Code Standard Ton AII-E 15 104.00 $ 57.07 $ - $ 67.00 $ 70.00 $ 0.056 0.75 0.86 1,2
High Efficiency Battery
High Efficiency Chargers-Single or Three Commercial-
Battery Chargers Phase Code standards Unit Fleet_EV_Charger 15 3,337.00 $ 1,778.89 $ - $ 400.00 $ 200.00 $ 0.056 4.61 3.34 1
High Volume High Volume Low Speed I-AII-Other-Shift2-AII-
Low Speed Fan Fan Code standards Fan AII-S 15 16,732.50 $ 9,497.90 $ - $ 3,185.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 0.056 3.24 2.54 1,2
Heat Pumps,Water Cooled IECC 2018 Air Cooled AC C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
HP Any Size Code Standard Ton AII-E 15 133.00 $ 72.98 $ - $ 370.00 $ 100.00 $ 0.056 0.68 0.21 1
ENERY STAR Ice Machine Non-ENERGY STAR ice C-AII-Ref-Refrig-All-
Ice Machines <200 Ibs per day machine Unit All-C 9 285.00 $ 120.66 $ - $ 311.00 $ 100.00 $ 0.056 1.04 0.41 1,5
ENERY STAR Ice Machine>=Non-ENERGY STAR ice C-AII-Ref-Refrig-All-
Ice Machines 200lbs per day machine Unit All-C 9 2,608.00 $ 1,104.13 $ - $ 311.00 $ 300.00 $ 0.056 2.48 2.66 1
Indoor Pool Residential-Spa
Cover No pool cover Code standards Squarefoot Heater 10 23.50 $ 10.31 $ - $ 4.99 $ 2.00 $ 0.056 3.11 1.80 2,7
Exterior Light Load
Reduction:
Minimum of 15%below Commercial-Misc.
Lighting code. Code standards kW Com-ExtLight 15 4,059.00 $ 3,154.20 $ - $ 287.00 $ 200.00 $ 0.056 7.40 6.76 1,2
Lighting High Efficiency Exit Signs Code standards Sign IPC_8760 16 28.00 $ 15.76 $ - $ 10.83 $ 7.50 $ 0.056 1.74 1.40 1,2
Interior Light Load
Reduction:
Part A:10-19.9%below C-All-Lgt-LPD Int-AII-
Lighting code. Code standards Square foot All-E 14 0.43 $ 0.22 $ - $ 0.13 $ 0.10 $ 0.056 1.79 1.58 1,2
Interior Light Load
Reduction:
Part B:20-29.9%below C-All-Lgt-LPD Int-AII-
Lighting code. Code standards Square foot All-E 14 0.86 $ 0.44 $ - $ 0.25 $ 0.20 $ 0.056 1.79 1.64 1,2
Interior Light Load
Reduction:
Part C:Equal to or greater C-All-Lgt-LPD Int-AII-
Lighting than 30%below code. Code standards Square foot All-E 14 1.95 $ 1.01 $ - $ 0.58 $ 0.30 $ 0.056 2.46 1.61 1,2
Networked Lighting Commercial-Misc.
Lighting Controls-Exterior Code standards kWh Com-ExtLight 12 1.00 $ 0.69 $ - $ 0.33 $ 0.20 $ 0.056 2.72 1.96 1
Networked Lighting C-All-Lgt-LPD Int-AII-
Lighting Controls-Interior Code standards kWh AII-E 12 1 1.00 $ 0.48 $ - $ 0.33 $ 0.26 $ 0.056 1.51 1.35 1
C-All-Lgt-LPD Int-AII-
Lighting Occupancy sensors Code standards Unit AII-E 8 329.00 $ 120.89 $ - $ 134.00 $ 25.00 $ 0.056 2.79 0.87 1
Efficient Refrigeration C-Gro-Ref-AII-AII-AII-
Refrigeration Condenser Code standards Ton E 15 114.00 $ 65.41 $ - $ 192.00 $ 40.00 $ 0.056 1.41 0.36 1 1,5
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 40

Year:2025 Program:C&I New Construction Market Segment:Commercial Program Type:Energy Efficiency
Gross Energy Incremental
Measure Savings NPV Avoided Participant Incentive/ Admin Cost UCT Source/Not
Measure Name Measure Description Replacing Measure Unit End Use Life(Yrs) (kWh/yr)IbI Costs N NEB Cost IdI Unit ($/kWh)le' Ratio IfI TRC Ratio I') es
Evaporative Pre-Cooler on
Air-Cooled Refrigeration C-All-HVAC-CAC-AII-
Refrigeration Systems Air-cooled condenser coil Ton AII-E 15 110.00 $ 60.36 $ - $ 173.00 $ 30.00 $ 0.056 1.67 0.37 1,5
Variable Refrigerant Flow
Units.Air Conditioner.Part IECC 2018 Air Cooled AC C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
VRF AC B:Base to CEE Tier 1 Code Standard Ton All-E 15 87.00 $ 65.30 $ - $ 93.00 $ 35.00 $ 0.056 1.06 0.63 1
Variable Refrigerant Flow
Units.<=5 tons.Air
Conditioner.Part C:Base to IECC 2018 Air Cooled AC C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
VRF AC CEE Tier 2 Code Standard Ton All-E 15 119.00 $ 47.74 $ - $ 108.00 $ 55.00 $ 0.056 1.20 0.54 1
Air-cooled Variable
Refrigerant Flow Units.
Heat Pump.Part B:Base to IECC 2018 Air Cooled AC C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
VRF HP CEE Tier 1 Code Standard Ton All-E 15 97.00 $ 70.79 $ - $ 71.00 $ 85.00 $ 0.056 0.77 1.00 1,3
Air-cooled Variable
Refrigerant Flow Units.<=5
tons.Heat Pump.Part C: IECC 2018 Air Cooled AC C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
VRF HP Base to CEE Tier 2 Code Standard Ton All-E 15 129.00 $ 53.23 $ - $ 71.00 $ 85.00 $ 0.056 0.96 1.41 1
Variable Refrigerant Flow,
Water Cooled Heat Pump.
<=64 Tons.Base to CEE Tier IECC 2018 Air Cooled AC C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
VRF HP 1 Code Standard Ton AII-E 15 128.00 $ 70.24 $ - $ 145.00 $ 100.00 $ 0.056 0.66 0.51 1
(a)Average measure life.
(b)Estimated kWh savings measured at the customer's meter,excluding system losses
(c)NPV of DSM avoided costs.Based on the end-use load shape,measure life,savings including system losses,and avoided costs by pricing period as acknowledged in the 2021 IRP,TRC Test Benefit calculation includes 10%conservation adder from the
(d)Incremental participant cost prior to customer incentives.
(e)Average program administration and overhead costs to achieve each kWh of savings.Calculated from 2025 actuals.
(f)UCT Ratio=(NPV DSM Avoided Costs)/((Admin Cost/kWh*kWh Savings)+Incentives
(g)TRC Ratio=((NPV DSM Avoided Costs*110%)+NEB/((Admin Cost/kWh*kWh Savings)+Incentives+(Incremental Participant Costs-Incentives)
(1)Idaho Power Technical Reference Manual(TRM)prepared by ADM Associates,Inc.2021
(2)Measure also available under Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program
(3)Measure cost-effective when admin fees are excluded.
(4)Idaho Power TRM prepared by ADM Associates,Inc.2021.NEBs from water savings from RTF.ComClothesWashers_v7_l.xlsm.Simple average.2023
(5)Idaho only measure.
(6)RTF.ComDishwasher_va_2.xlsm.2024.
(7)Idaho Power Multifamily TRM prepared by ADM Associates,Inc.2023
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 41

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
C&I Retrofits
Segment:Commercial
2025 Program Results
Cost Inputs Ref Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Program Administration........................................................................................ $ 863,529 Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Program Incentives................................................................................................ 4,215,993 1 UC Test.................................. $ 10,144,139 $ 5,079,522 2.00
Total UC........................................................................................................... $ 5,079,522 P TRC Test................................ 14,676,458 13,293,475 1.10
RIM Test................................ 10,144,139 15,325,333 0.66
Measure Equipment and Installation(Incremental Participant Cost)................... $ 12,429,946 M PCT........................................ 17,979,709 12,429,946 1.45
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
UC Test............................... =S*NTG =P
Net Benefit Inputs Ref TRC Test.............................. _(A+NUI+NEB)*NTG =P+((M-I)*NTG)
Resource Savings RIM Test............................. =S*NTG =P+(B*NTG)
2025 Annual Gross Energy(kWh)............................................ 19,579,664 PCT...................................... =B+I+NUI+NEB =M
NPV Cumulative Energy(kWh)................................................. 167,233,545 $ 10,144,139 S
10%Credit(Northwest Power Act).......................................... 1,014,414 Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Total Electric Savings.................................................................. $ 11,158,552 A Discount Rate
Nominal(WACC)........................................................................... 7.12%
Participant Bill Savings Real((1+WACC)/(1+Escalation))-1......................................... 4.41%
NPV Cumulative Participant Bill Savings.................................. $ 10,245,811 B Escalation Rate........................................................................................ 2.60%
Net-to-Gross(NTG).................................................................................. 100%
Other Benefits Minimum NTG Sensitivity........................................................................ 50%
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives................................................ $ - NUI Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh................................................... $0.054
Non-Energy Benefits................................................................ $ 3,517,906 NEB System Losses.......................................................................................... 6.00%
Notes:
Measure inputs from Evergreen Consulting Group or the TRM prepared by ADM Associates,Inc.,unless otherwise noted
NEB/impacts on a$/kWh for each end-use.Based on the 2019 impact evaluation.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 42

Year:2025 Program:C&I Retrofits Market Segment:Commercial Program Type:Energy Efficiency
Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Tests
Gross Energy Incremental
Measure Savings NPV Avoided Participant Incentive/ Admin Cost UCT
Measure Name Measure Description Replacing Measure Unit End Use Life(Yrs)I'I (kWh/yr)I"I Costs Icl NEB Cost Idl Unit ($/kWh)lel Ratio If) TRC Ratio Igl Source/Notes
<=5 ton VRF.Base to CEE Working pre-existing C-All-HVAC-CAC-AII-
AC Units Tier 2 system Ton AII-E 15 161.00 $ 88.35 $ - $ 1,093.00 $ 100.00 $ 0.044 0.82 0.09 1,2
C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
AC Units Air-conditioning Tune Up ton AII-E 10 99.50 $ 44.66 $ - $ 35.00 $ 25.00 $ 0.044 1.52 1.25 1
Working pre-existing C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
AC Units Base to CEE Tier 2 system Ton AII-E 15 193.00 $ 105.91 $ - $ 984.00 $ 110.00 $ 0.044 0.89 0.12 1,3
Working pre-existing C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
AC Units VRF.Base to CEE Tier 1 system Ton AII-E 15 129.00 $ 70.79 $ - $ 1,078.00 $ 75.00 $ 0.044 0.88 0.07 1,2
Water-cooled AC that meets Working pre-existing C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
AC Units CEE Tier 1 system Ton AII-E 15 130.00 $ 71.34 $ - $ 1,237.00 $ 75.00 $ 0.044 0.88 0.06 1,2
Working pre-existing C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
AC Units Base to CEE Tier 1 system Ton AII-E 15 152.00 $ 83.41 $ - $ 940.00 $ 85.00 $ 0.044 0.91 0.10 3
Energy Management System
Automated (EMS)controls with 1 Proposed strategy not C-AII-HVAC-Vent-All-
Control Systems strategy existing(retrofit system) Ton of cooling AII-E 15 372.00 $ 197.14 $ 25.610 $ 198.00 $ 100.00 $ 0.044 1.69 1.13 1
Automated EMS controls with 2 Proposed strategy not C-AII-HVAC-Vent-All-
Control Systems strategies existing(retrofit system) Ton of cooling AII-E 15 622.00 $ 329.63 $ 19.200 $ 233.00 $ 150.00 $ 0.044 1.86 1.47 1
Automated EMS controls with 3 Proposed strategy not C-AII-HVAC-Vent-All-
Control Systems strategies existing(retrofit system) Ton of cooling AII-E 15 811.00 $ 429.79 $ 57.610 $ 269.00 $ 175.00 $ 0.044 2.04 1.74 1
Automated EMS controls with 4 Proposed strategy not C-AII-HVAC-Vent-All-
Control Systems strategies existing(retrofit system) Ton of cooling AII-E 15 1,728.00 $ 915.76 $ 307.280 $ 304.00 $ 200.00 $ 0.044 3.32 3.46 1
Automated EMS controls with 5 Proposed strategy not C-AII-HVAC-Vent-All-
Control Systems strategies existing(retrofit system) Ton of cooling AII-E 15 1,796.00 $ 951.80 $ 310.480 $ 340.00 $ 225.00 $ 0.044 3.13 3.24 1
Automated Lodging room occupancy C-Lod-fan-SGS-AII-AII-
Control5ystems controls Manual controls Unit S 11 643.00 $ 281.03 $ - $ 150.61 $ 75.00 $ 0.044 2.72 1.73 1
Automatic high Manual or electric Commercial-
speed doors Freezer to Dock warehouse door Square foot Ref.warehouse-Mist 16 2,812.00 $ 1,521.75 $ - $ 188.00 $ 320.00 $ 0.044 3.43 5.36 1
Automatic high Manual or electric Commercial-
speed doors Freezer to Refrigerator warehouse door Square foot Ref.warehouse-Misc 16 2,032.00 $ 1,099.64 $ - $ 188.00 $ 160.00 $ 0.044 4.41 4.36 1
Automatic high Manual or electric Commercial-
speed doors Refrigerator to Dock warehouse door Square foot Ref.warehouse-Misc 16 400.00 $ 216.47 $ - $ 188.00 $ 80.00 $ 0.044 2.22 1.16 1
Increase to R38 min. Insulation level,Fill or C-All-HVAC-ER-All-All
Ceiling Insulation insulation. less Square foot C 25 0.38 $ 0.25 $ - $ 1.45 $ 0.20 $ 0.044 1.17 0.19 1,2
Air-cooled chiller,IPLV 14.0 Working pre-existing C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
Chiller Units EER or higher system Ton AII-E 20 154.00 $ 93.63 $ - $ 784.00 $ 110.00 $ 0.044 0.80 0.13 2,3
Water-cooled chiller
electronically operated,
reciprocating and positive Working pre-existing C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
Chiller Units displacement system Ton AII-E 20 91.00 $ 55.33 $ - $ 596.00 $ 60.00 $ 0.044 0.86 0.10 2,3
Commercial
Kitchen Efficient Hot Food Holding Standard hot food holding C-AII-Food-Cook-All-
Equipment Cabinet(Double Size) cabinet Unit All-C 7 4,473.47 $ 1,498.41 $ - $ 5,028.96 $ 800.00 $ 0.044 1.50 0.32 2,4
Commercial
Kitchen Efficient Hot Food Holding Standard hot food holding C-AII-Food-Cook-All-
Equipment Cabinet(Full Size) cabinet Unit All-C 7 2,602.55 $ 871.74 $ - $ 4,463.97 $ 400.00 $ 0.044 1.69 0.21 2,4
Commercial
Kitchen Efficient Hot Food Holding Standard hot food holding C-AII-Food-Cook-All-
Equipment Cabinet(Half Size) cabinet Unit All-C 7 1 1,373.07 $ 459.92 $ - $ 1,237.94 $ 200.00 $ 0.044 1.77 0.39 1 2,4
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 43

Year:2025 Program:C&I Retrofits Market Segment:Commercial Program Type:Energy Efficiency
Gross Energy Incremental
Measure Savings NPV Avoided Participant Incentive/ Admin Cost UCT
Measure Name Measure Description Replacing Measure Unit End Use Life(Yrs) (kWh/yr)Ibl Costs I`I NEB Cost(d) Unit ($/kWh)I`I Ratio(f) TRC Ratio Isl Source/Notes
Commercial ENERGY STAR listed electric
Kitchen combination oven(15-28 C-AII-Food-Cook-All-
Equipment pans) Standard electric oven Oven All-C 10 5,640.26 $ 2,469.78 $ - $ 1,440.74 $ 800.00 $ 0.044 2.35 1.61 5
Commercial ENERGY STAR listed electric
Kitchen combination oven(29-40 C-AII-Food-Cook-All-
Equipment pans) Standard electric oven Oven All-C 10 11,633.69 $ 5,094.21 $ - $ 1,440.74 $ 800.00 $ 0.044 3.88 2.87 5
Commercial ENERGY STAR listed electric
Kitchen combination oven(3-4 C-AII-Food-Cook-All-
Equipment pans) Standard electric oven Oven All-C 10 1,306.90 $ 572.27 $ - $ 1,440.74 $ 300.00 $ 0.044 1.60 0.42 2,5
Commercial ENERGY STAR listed electric
Kitchen combination oven(5-14 C-AII-Food-Cook-All-
Equipment pans) Standard electric oven Oven All-C 10 6,428.11 $ 2,814.77 $ - $ 1,440.74 $ 800.00 $ 0.044 2.60 1.80 5
Commercial
Kitchen ENERGY STAR listed electric C-AII-Food-Cook-All-
Equipment convection oven Standard electric oven Oven All-C 10 1,206.40 $ 528.26 $ - $ 775.26 $ 180.00 $ 0.044 2.27 0.70 2,6
Commercial
Kitchen ENERGY STAR listed electric C-AII-Food-Cook-All-
Equipment fryer Standard fryer Fyer All-C 9 953.15 $ 385.30 $ - $ 2,017.73 $ 150.00 $ 0.044 2.01 0.21 2,7
Commercial
Kitchen ENERGY STAR listed electric C-AII-Food-Cook-All-
Equipment steamer-Any Size Standard steamer Pan All-C 8 1,689.45 $ 626.61 $ - $ - $ 30.00 $ 0.044 6.00 6.60 8
Commercial
Kitchen Steamer-Electric-3 to 4 C-AII-Food-Cook-All-
Equipment pans Standard steamer Unit All-C 8 4,574.56 $ 1,696.67 $ - $ - $ 120.00 $ 0.044 5.27 5.80 8
Commercial
Kitchen Steamer-Electric-5 to 6 C-AII-Food-Cook-All-
Equipment pans Standard steamer Unit All-C 8 9,273.74 $ 3,439.57 $ - $ - $ 180.00 $ 0.044 5.84 6.42 8
Commercial
Kitchen Steamer-Electric-7 to 12 C-AII-Food-Cook-All-
Equipment pans Standard steamer Unit All-C 8 16,572.95 $ 6,146.80 $ - $ - $ 360.00 $ 0.044 5.63 6.20 8
Efficient Compress Air Commercial-Misc.
Compressed Air Nozzle Standard air nozzle Unit Com-Misc 15 2,223.00 $ 1,163.63 $ - $ 85.00 $ 80.00 $ 0.044 6.54 6.99 1
Efficient Refrigerated Commercial-Misc.
Compressed Air Compressed Air Dryer Standard air dryer CFM Com-Misc 13 10.62 $ 5.18 $ - $ 6.00 $ 3.00 $ 0.044 1.49 0.88 1,2
Commercial-Misc.
Compressed Air Low Pressure Filter Standard filter HP Com-Misc 10 44.00 $ 18.75 $ - $ 10.00 $ 10.00 $ 0.044 1.57 1.73 1
Commercial-Misc.
Compressed Air No-Loss Condensate Drain Open tube with ball valve Unit Com-Misc 10 1,970.00 $ 839.60 $ - $ 244.00 $ 200.00 $ 0.044 2.93 2.79 1
Commercial-Misc.
Compressed Air VFD on air compressor No existing VFD HP Com-Misc 13 949.00 $ 462.86 $ - $ 223.00 $ 200.00 $ 0.044 1.91 1.92 1
Compressor SP or PSC with motors less
Head Fan Motor Compressor Head Fan than or equal to existing C-Gro-Ref-AII-AII-AII-
to ECM Motor to ECM motor size Unit E 15 345.61 $ 198.31 $ - $ 228.08 $ 100.00 $ 0.044 1.72 0.90 1,2
Connected No existing connected(web-No existing connected C-AII-HVAC-Vent-All-
Thermostat enabled)thermostat (web-enabled)thermostat Unit All-E 5 1,588.35 $ 394.62 $ - $ 300.00 $ 150.00 $ 0.044 1.79 1.17 2,9
Defrost Coil Defrost Coil Control-Cooler No evaporative coil C-Gro-Ref-AII-AII-AII-
Control or Freezer defrost control Fan E 10 195.50 $ 91.19 $ - $ 500.00 $ 50.00 $ 0.044 1.56 0.20 1,2
Demand
Controlled
Kitchen VFD installed on kitchen Kitchen hood with
Ventilation exhuast and/or makeup air constant speed C-AII-Food-Cook-All-
Exhaust Hood fan ventilation motor HP All-C 15 4,590.00 $ 2,473.52 $ - $ 469.00 $ 250.00 $ 0.044 5.47 4.05 1 1
Air-side economizer control C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
Economizers addition No prior control Ton of cooling All-E 15 279.00 $ 153.10 $ - $ 155.01 $ 100.00 $ 0.044 1.36 1.01 1,3
Air-side economizer control Non-functional C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
Economizers repair economizer Ton of cooling All-E 15 279.00 $ 153.10 $ - $ 73.65 $ 50.00 $ 0.044 2.46 1.96 1,3
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 44

Year:2025 Program:C&I Retrofits Market Segment:Commercial Program Type:Energy Efficiency
Gross Energy Incremental
Measure Savings NPV Avoided Participant Incentive/ Admin Cost UCT
Measure Name Measure Description Replacing Measure Unit End Use Life(Yrs)r'I (kWh/yr)Ibl costs I`I NEB Cost(d) Unit ($/kWh)I`I Ratio(f) TRC Ratio Isl Source/Notes
Water-side economizer Combined C-All-HVAC-CAC-AII-
Economizers control addition No prior control chiller tonnage All-E 10 153.00 $ 68.67 $ - $ 725.82 $ 50.00 $ 0.044 1.21 0.10 1,2
Electronically Shaded pole or
Commutated ECM/PMSM motor in HVAC permanent split capacitor C-AII-HVAC-Vent-All-
Motor(ECM) applications. motor HP All-E 15 8,815.25 $ 4,671.70 $ - $ 239.50 $ 200.00 $ 0.044 7.93 8.18 1
Engine block Engine-mounted engine standard engine block C-All-HVAC-ER-All-All.
heater block heater heater without controls Unit E 15 2,352.00 $ 1,253.42 $ - $ 170.00 $ 150.00 $ 0.044 4.94 5.04 1
Circulating Block Heater
Engine block Stationary pump-driven on a Backup Generator C-All-HVAC-ER-All-All
heater cirulating block heater <200 kW Unit E 15 1,106.00 $ 589.41 $ - $ 1,268.00 $ 200.00 $ 0.044 2.37 0.49 1,2
Circulating Block Heater
Engine block Stationary pump-driven on a Backup Generator C-All-HVAC-ER-All-All
heater cirulating block heater 201-500 kW Unit E 15 2,493.00 $ 1,328.56 $ - $ 2,152.00 $ 350.00 $ 0.044 2.89 0.65 1,2
Circulating Block Heater
Engine block Stationary pump-driven on a Backup Generator C-All-HVAC-ER-All-All
heater cirulating block heater 501-1000 kW Unit E 15 4,385.00 $ 2,336.84 $ - $ 2,645.00 $ 500.00 $ 0.044 3.37 0.91 1,2
Engine block Wall mounted engine block Standard engine block C-All-HVAC-ER-All-All.
heater heater heater without controls Unit E 15 2,738.00 $ 1,459.12 $ - $ 120.00 $ 100.00 $ 0.044 6.61 6.67 1
Evaporative Replacing standard AC C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
Coolers Direct evaporative cooler. unit Ton All-E 15 350.00 $ 192.06 $ - $ 1,178.00 $ 200.00 $ 0.044 0.89 0.18 1,2
Evaporative Replacing standard AC C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
Coolers Indirect evaporative cooler. unit Ton All-E 15 250.00 $ 137.19 $ - $ 2,367.00 $ 130.00 $ 0.044 0.97 0.06 1,2,10
Evaporative Pre-
Cooler on Air- Evaporative Pre-Cooler on Existing air-cooled C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
Cooled Chillers Air-Cooled Chillers condenser coil Ton All-E 15 63.00 $ 34.57 $ - $ 173.00 $ 30.00 $ 0.044 1.05 0.22 1,2
Evaporative Pre-
Cooler on Air-
Cooled Evaporative Pre-Cooler on
Refrigeration Air-Cooled Refrigeration Existing air-cooled C-AII-Ref-Refrig-All-
Systems Systems condenser coil Ton All-C 15 110.00 $ 61.99 $ - $ 173.00 $ 30.00 $ 0.044 1.78 0.38 1,2
Floating
Head/Suction Standard head pressure C-Gro-Ref-AII-AII-AII-
Pressures Head pressure controller control HP E 16 440.00 $ 259.02 $ - $ 311.90 $ 160.00 $ 0.044 1.44 0.86 1,2
Floating
Head/Suction Standard suction pressure C-Gro-Ref-AII-AII-AII-
Pressures Suction pressure controller control HP E 16 104.00 $ 61.22 $ - $ 86.91 $ 40.00 $ 0.044 1.37 0.74 1,2
Heat Pump(HP) Air Cooled HP.Base to CEE Working pre-existing C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
Units Tier 1 system Ton All-E 15 187.00 $ 102.62 $ - $ 888.00 $ 110.00 $ 0.044 0.87 0.13 1,2,3
High Efficiency High Efficiency Battery Commercial-
Battery Chargers Chargers Standard battery charger Unit Fleet_EV_Charger 15 3,337.00 $ 1,778.89 $ - $ 400.00 $ 200.00 $ 0.044 5.12 3.58 1
High Volume Low I-AII-Other-Shift2-AII-
Speed Fan High Volume Low Speed Fan Standard high speed fan Fan All-S 15 16,732.50 $ 9,497.90 $ - $ 4,185.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 0.044 3.47 2.12 1,3
<=5 ton Air-cooled VRF. Working pre-existing C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
HP Units Base to CEE Tier 2 system Ton All-E 15 175.00 $ 96.03 $ - $ 1,034.00 $ 110.00 $ 0.044 0.82 0.10 1,2
<=5 ton HP Unit.Base to Working pre-existing C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
HP Units CEE Tier 2 system Ton All-E 15 219.00 $ 120.18 $ - $ 919.00 $ 130.00 $ 0.044 0.86 0.14 1,2,3
Air-cooled VRF.Base to CEE Working pre-existing C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
HP Units Tier 1 system Ton All-E 15 143.00 $ 78.47 $ - $ 999.00 $ 90.00 $ 0.044 0.81 0.09 1,2
Water-cooled HP that meets Working pre-existing C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
HP Units CEE Tier 1 system Ton All-E 15 129.00 $ 70.79 $ - $ 971.00 $ 75.00 $ 0.044 0.88 0.08 1,2
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 45

Year:2025 Program:C&I Retrofits Market Segment:Commercial Program Type:Energy Efficiency
Gross Energy Incremental
Measure Savings NPVAvoided Participant Incentive/ Admin Cost UCT
Measure Name Measure Description Replacing Measure Unit End Use Life(Yrs)I'I (kWh/yr)Ibl Costs I`I NEB Cost jd) Unit ($/kWh)le' Ratio Ifl TRC Ratio Isl Source/Notes
Water-cooled VRF that Working pre-existing C-All-HVAC-CAC-AII-
HP Units meets CEE Tier 1 system Ton All-E 15 75.00 $ 41.16 $ - $ 1,187.00 $ 45.00 $ 0.044 0.85 0.04 1,2
HVAC Fan Motor C-AII-HVAC-Vent-All-
Belts Synchronous belt Standard fan belt HP All-E 4 213.00 $ 43.12 $ - $ 67.00 $ 25.00 $ 0.044 1.25 0.62 1,2
HVAC Fan Motor Type AX notched V-belt Type A solid V-belt C-AII-HVAC-Vent-All-
Belts Type BX notched V-belt Type B solid V-belt HP All-E 4 83.00 $ 16.80 $ - $ 4.40 $ 5.00 $ 0.044 1.94 2.29 1
C-AI I-Ref-Refrig-AI I-
Ice Machines Ice Machines(<200lbs/day) Code Unit All-C 9 285.00 $ 120.66 $ - $ 311.00 $ 100.00 $ 0.044 1.07 0.41 1,2
C-AI I-Ref-Refrig-AI I-
Ice Machines Ice Machines(>200lbs/day) Code Unit All-C 9 2,608.00 $ 1,104.13 $ - $ 311.00 $ 300.00 $ 0.044 2.66 2.85 1
Laundry Standard washer,electric Commercial-Misc.
Machines High efficiency washer dryer Machine com-Misc 9 1,370.00 $ 19.31 $ - $ 1,582.00 $ 200.00 $ 0.044 4.90 3.06 1,3,11
LED sign lighting Fixture using higher Commercial-All Com-
retrofit kit LED sign lighting retrofit kit wattage Fixture ExtLight 12 487.27 $ 538.88 $ 3,564.830 $ 172.05 $ 97.45 $ 0.044 2.07 2.53 12
Fixture using higher
LED Exit Sign LED Exit Sign wattage Unit IPC_8760 12 230.68 $ 328.20 $ - $ 63.77 $ 40.00 $ 0.044 2.76 1.87 12
LED sign lighting Fixture using higher Commercial-All Com-
retrofit kit LED sign lighting retrofit kit wattage Fixture IntLight 12 427.11 $ 112.84 $ - $ 161.34 $ 85.42 $ 0.044 2.25 1.68 12
HID LED screw-in Existing HID lamp using> Commercial-All Com-
LEDs replacement lamp input watts Fixture IntLight 12 662.71 $ 201.10 $ - $ 104.82 $ 49.23 $ 0.044 1.93 1.23 12
HID LED screw-in Existing HID lamp using> Commercial-All Com-
LEDs replacement lamp input watts Fixture ExtLight 12 743.75 $ 500.96 $ - $ 110.38 $ 47.64 $ 0.044 6.23 3.85 12
LED fixture or LED Level 2 Fixture using higher Commercial-All Com-
LEDs retrofit kit wattage Fixture IntLight 12 440.45 $ 312.03 $ - $ 178.93 $ 96.90 $ 0.044 3.98 2.56 12
LED fixture or LED Level 2 Fixture using higher Commercial-All Com-
LEDs retrofit kit wattage Fixture ExtLight 12 912.48 $ 207.38 $ - $ 279.77 $ 200.74 $ 0.044 1.78 1.15 12
LED fixture or LED Level 2
retrofit kit with multiple Fixture using higher Commercial-All Com-
LEDs control strategy wattage Fixture IntLight 12 631.13 $ 614.61 $ - $ 282.13 $ 170.40 $ 0.044 2.55 2.11 12
LED fixture or LED Level 2
retrofit kit with multiple Fixture using higher Commercial-All Com-
LEDs control strategy wattage Fixture ExtLight 12 753.43 $ 297.16 $ - $ 248.13 $ 170.40 $ 0.044 1.50 1.05 12
LED fixture or LED Level 2
retrofit kit with networked Fixture using higher Commercial-All Com-
LEDs control strategy wattage Fixture ExtLight 12 1,636.51 $ 507.48 $ - $ 524.84 $ 491.91 $ 0.044 2.49 1.98 12
LED fixture or LED Level 2
retrofit kit with
networked/luminaire level Fixture using higher Commercial-All Com-
LEDs lighting control strategy wattage Fixture IntLight 12 733.88 $ 1,102.28 $ - $ 347.57 $ 223.34 $ 0.044 1.95 2.03 12
LED fixture or LED Level 2
retrofit kit with single Fixture using higher Commercial-All Com-
LEDs control strategy wattage Fixture IntLight 12 518.33 $ 345.54 $ - $ 203.25 $ 129.58 $ 0.044 1.35 1.00 12
LED fixture or LED Level 2
retrofit kit with single Fixture using higher Commercial-All Com-
LEDs control strategy wattage Fixture ExtLight 12 951.89 $ 244.05 $ - $ 310.73 $ 237.97 $ 0.044 1.60 1.19 12
Fixture using higher Commercial-All Com-
LEDs LED Level 1 Retrofit Kit wattage Fixture IntLight 12 309.75 $ 641.15 $ - $ 75.17 $ 43.37 $ 0.044 2.29 2.00 12
Fixture using higher Commercial-All Com-
LEDs LED Level 1 Retrofit Kit wattage Fixture ExtLight 12 661.62 $ 145.84 $ - $ 132.28 $ 92.63 $ 0.044 2.56 1.81 12
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 46

Year:2025 Program:C&I Retrofits Market Segment:Commercial Program Type:Energy Efficiency
Gross Energy Incremental
Measure Savings NPV Avoided Participant Incentive/ Admin Cost UCT
Measure Name Measure Description Replacing Measure Unit End Use Life(Yrs) (kWh/yr)IbI costs I`I NEB Cost jdl Unit ($/kWh)IBI Ratio Irl TRC Ratio Isl Source/Notes
LED Level 1 retrofit kit with Fixture using higher Commercial-All Com-
LEDs multiple control strategy wattage Fixture IntLight 12 410.70 $ 445.64 $ - $ 140.40 $ 78.03 $ 0.044 3.66 3.04 12
LED Level 1 retrofit kit with Fixture using higher Commercial-All Com-
LEDs multiple control strategy wattage Fixture ExtLight 12 850.79 $ 193.37 $ - $ 202.36 $ 161.55 $ 0.044 2.01 1.34 12
LED Level 1 retrofit kit with
networked/luminaire level Fixture using higher Commercial-All Com-
LEDs lighting control strategy wattage Fixture IntLight 12 455.35 $ 573.06 $ - $ 142.98 $ 100.42 $ 0.044 2.88 2.63 12
LED Level 1 retrofit kit with
networked/luminaire level Fixture using higher Commercial-All Com-
LEDs lighting control strategy wattage Fixture ExtLight 12 933.44 $ 214.40 $ - $ 218.51 $. 205.68 $ 0.044 1.78 1.45 12
LED Level 1 retrofit kit with Fixture using higher Commercial-All Com-
LEDs single control strategy wattage Fixture IntLight 12 289.43 $ 628.72 $ - $ 127.38 $ 49.20 $ 0.044 2.55 2.66 12
LED Level 1 retrofit kit with Fixture using higher Commercial-All Com-
LEDs single control strategy wattage Fixture ExtLight 12 646.59 $ 136.27 $ - $ 167.32 $ 109.92 $ 0.044 2.20 1.07 12
Fixture using higher Commercial-All Com-
LEDs LED Tubes(type A, B&DM)wattage Fixture IntLight 12 203.00 $ 435.52 $ - $ 41.20 $ 18.29 $ 0.044 3.15 2.45 12
Fixture using higher Commercial-All Com-
LEDs LED Tubes(type A, B&DM)wattage Fixture ExtLight 12 287.20 $ 193.45 $ - $ 63.89 $ 18.12 $ 0.044 6.28 2.78 12
Fixture using higher Commercial-All Com-
LEDs LED Tubes(type C) wattage Fixture IntLight 12 310.10 $ 95.58 $ - $ 99.04 $ 31.01 $ 0.044 3.51 2.10 12
Fixture using higher Commercial-All Com-
LEDs LED Tubes(type C) wattage Fixture ExtLight 12 297.93 $ 200.67 $ - $ 113.66 $ 29.79 $ 0.044 4.67 1.74 12
Pin-base lamp using Commercial-All Com-
LEDs Pin-based LED higher wattage Fixture IntLight 5 125.30 $ 146.01 $ - $ 23.02 $ 4.30 $ 0.044 3.27 1.42 12
Pin-base lamp using Commercial-All Com-
LEDs Pin-based LED higher wattage Fixture ExtLight 5 141.25 $ 50.73 $ - $ 25.74 $ 4.18 $ 0.044 4.87 1.75 12
Commercial-All Com-
Lighting Controls Lighting Controls Manual controls Controls ExtLight 10 366.19 $ 30.79 $ - $ 109.09 $ 30.12 $ 0.044 3.13 1.19 12
Lighting Controls Commercial-All Com-
(Idaho) Lighting Controls Manual controls Controls IntLight 10 163.59 $ 221.68 $ - $ 71.73 $ 27.31 $ 0.044 4.79 1.95 2,12
Lighting Controls Commercial-All Com-
(Idaho) Lighting Controls Manual controls Controls ExtLight 10 366.19 $ 69.99 $ - $ 109.09 $ 30.12 $ 0.044 2.03 0.98 2,12
Lighting Controls Commercial-All Com-
(Oregon) Lighting Controls Manual controls Controls IntLight 10 139.18 $ 221.68 $ - $ 75.47 $ 25.00 $ 0.044 4.79 1.95 12
Lighting Controls Commercial-All Com-
(Oregon) Lighting Controls Manual controls Controls ExtLight 10 366.19 $ 59.55 $ - $ 109.09 $ 30.12 $ 0.044 1.91 0.80 12
New On-Demand New On-Demand Commercial-Grocery-
Overwrapper Overwrapper Standard overwrapper Unit Process 10 1,270.77 $ 221.68 $ - $ 322.36 $ 100.00 $ 0.044 4.79 1.95 13
Package Terminal
Air Conditioner C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
(PTAC) PTAC.>=14.4 EER Existing PTAC Ton All-E 15 1 279.49 $ 610.82 $ - $ 1,735.62 $ 75.00 $ 0.044 3.91 1.81 1 1,2,3
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 47

Year:2025 Program:C&I Retrofits Market Segment:Commercial Program Type:Energy Efficiency
Gross Energy Incremental
Measure Savings NPV Avoided Participant Incentive/ Admin Cost UCT
Measure Name Measure Description Replacing Measure Unit End Use Life(Yrs)I'I (kWh/yr)Ibl Costs I`I NEB Cost(d) Unit ($/kWh)le) Ratio(f) TRC Ratio Isl Source/Notes
Package Terminal
Air Conditioner C-All-HVAC-CAC-AII-
(PTAC) PTAC.13.2-14.3 EER Existing PTAC Ton All-E 15 231.30 $ 153.37 $ - $ 1,571.18 $ 50.00 $ 0.044 1.76 0.10 1,2,3
Package Terminal
Heat Pump C-AII-HVAC-Vent-All-
(PTHP) PTHP.>=14.4 EER Existing PTHP Ton All-E 15 560.12 $ 126.93 $ - $ 999.00 $ 75.00 $ 0.044 2.11 0.09 1,2,3
Package Terminal
Heat Pump C-AII-HVAC-Vent-All-
(PTHP) PTHP.13.2-14.3 EER Existing PTHP Ton All-E 15 436.45 $ 296.84 $ - $ 918.00 $ 50.00 $ 0.044 2.98 0.32 1,2,3
Permanent Commercial-All Com-
Fixture Removal Permanent Fixture Removal Fixture IntLight 2 873.61 $ 231.30 $ - $ 29.08 $ 22.69 $ 0.044 3.34 0.27 12
Permanent Commercial-All Com-
Fixture Removal Permanent Fixture Removal Fixture ExtUght 2 1,013.14 $ 84.14 $ - $ 28.00 $ 22.69 $ 0.044 1.37 1.37 12
Residential-Spa
Pool Cover Indoor/outdoor pool cover No pool cover Square foot Heater 10 44.00 $ 146.16 $ - $ 4.99 $ 2.00 $ 0.044 2.17 2.21 3,14
Premium LowU-value, U-factorof.30 Square foot C-All-HVAC-ER-All-All.
Windows or less Standard window window area C 25 9.00 $ 5.98 $ - $ 22.08 $ 2.50 $ 0.044 2.06 0.29 1,2
Adding reflective roof Non-reflective low pitch Square foot C-AII-HVAC-CAC-AII-
Reflective roofing treatment roof roof area All-E 15 0.12 $ 0.06 $ - $ 7.84 $ 0.05 $ 0.044 1.15 0.01 1,3
Med.temp case without C-Gro-Ref-AII-AII-AII-
Refrigeration Anti-sweat heat controls controls Linear foot E 8 220.00 $ 86.96 $ - $ 77.26 $ 50.00 $ 0.044 1.46 1.10 1,2
Low temp case without C-Gro-Ref-AII-AII-AII-
Refrigeration Anti-sweat heat controls controls Linear foot E 8 292.00 $ 115.42 $ - $ 77.26 $ 50.00 $ 0.044 1.84 1.41 1,2
Damaged auto-closer,low C-Gro-Ref-AII-AII-AII-
Refrigeration Install auto-closer-reach-in temp Door E 8 326.00 $ 128.86 $ - $ 736.00 $ 75.00 $ 0.044 1.44 0.19 1,2
Damaged auto-closer, C-Gro-Ref-AII-AII-AII-
Refrigeration Install auto-closer-reach-in med.Temp Door E 8 243.00 $ 96.05 $ - $ 736.00 $ 55.00 $ 0.044 1.46 0.14 1,2
No/damaged auto-closer, C-Gro-Ref-AII-AII-AII-
Refrigeration Installauto-closer-walk-in low temp Door E 8 2,509.00 $ 991.73 $ - $ 736.00 $ 400.00 $ 0.044 1.94 1.29 1,2
No/damaged auto-closer, C-Gro-Ref-AII-AII-AII-
Refrigeration Installauto-closer-walk-in med.Temp Door E 8 562.00 $ 222.14 $ - $ 736.00 $ 135.00 $ 0.044 1.39 0.32 1
C-G ro-Ref-AII-AII-AI(-
Refrigeration No-heat glass door Commercial glass door Door E 12 779.00 $ 401.27 $ - $ 664.00 $ 200.00 $ 0.044 1.71 0.63 1,2
Refrigerated case doors- No existing case door or C-Gro-Ref-AII-AII-AII-
Refrigeration med temp barrier Linear foot E 15 700.00 $ 401.65 $ - $ 342.73 $ 130.00 $ 0.044 2.50 1.18 15
Refrigeration Fixture using higher C-All-Lgt-LPD Int-AII-
Case Lighting Refrigeration Case Lighting wattage Lamp All-E 7 365.73 $ 121.44 $ - $ 107.23 $ 52.26 $ 0.044 1.78 1.08 1,2
C-G ro-Ref-AII-AII-AI(-
Strip Curtain For walk-in refrigerators No protective barrier Square foot E 4 78.00 $ 17.35 $ - $ 9.00 $ 5.00 $ 0.044 2.06 1.53 1
C-G ro-Ref-AII-AII-AI(-
Strip Curtain For walk-in freezers No protective barrier Square foot E 4 210.00 $ 46.71 $ - $ 9.00 $ 5.00 $ 0.044 3.28 2.81 1
Variable Speed Variable speed drive on Single speed HVAC system C-AII-HVAC-Vent-All-
Controls HVAC system application fan/ump HP All-E 15 622.00 $ 329.63 $ - $ 184.55 $ 125.00 $ 0.044 2.16 1.71 1,2
Variable speed drive on
Variable Speed potato and onion storage
Controls shed ventilation No existing VFD HP A-SpudOnionVFD 10 1,193.00 $ 483.39 $ - $ 264.00 $ 250.00 $ 0.0441 1.60 1.68 1,2
A-Da-Proc-
Variable Speed VFD on milking transfer Milking5chedule-All-
Controls pump No existing VFD HP All-S 10 11,777.00 $ 5,082.21 $ - $ 2,052.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 0.044 2.52 2.17 1,2
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 48

Year:2025 Program:C&I Retrofits Market Segment:Commercial Program Type:Energy Efficiency
Gross Energy Incremental
Measure Savings NPV Avoided Participant Incentive/ Admin Cost UCT
Measure Name Measure Description Replacing Measure Unit End Use Life(Yrs)I'I (kWh/yr)Ibl Costs I`i NEB Cost(d) Unit ($/kWh)I`I Ratio(f) TRC Ratio Ig) Source/Notes
A-Da-Proc-
Variable Speed VFD on milking vacuum MilkingSchedule-All-
Controls pump No existing VFD HP All-S 10 3,084.00 $ 1,330.86 $ - $ 356.00 $ 250.00 $ 0.044 3.45 2.98 1,2
Increase to R11 min. Insulation level,R2.5 or Square foot C-All-HVAC-ER-All-All.
Wall Insulation insulation. less wall area C 25 2.82 $ 1.87 $ - $ 0.64 $ 0.40 $ 0.0441 3.57 2.70 1 1,15
Increase to R19 min. Insulation level,R2.5 or Square foot C-All-HVAC-ER-All-All
Wall Insulation insulation. less wall area C 25 3.16 $ 2.10 $ - $ 0.85 $ 0.55 $ 0.044 3.05 2.34 1,15
(a)Average measure life.
(b)Estimated kWh savings measured at the customer's meter,excluding system losses.
(c)NPV of DSM avoided costs.Based on the end-use load shape,measure life,savings including system losses,and avoided costs by pricing period as acknowledged in the 2021 IRP,TRC Test Benefit calculation includes 10%conservation adder from the
Northwest Power Act.
(d)Incremental participant cost prior to customer incentives.
(e)Average program administration and overhead costs to achieve each kWh of savings.Calculated from 2025 actuals.
(f)UCT Ratio=(NPV DSM Avoided Costs)/((Admin Cost/kWh*kWh Savings)+Incentives)
(g)TRC Ratio=((NPV DSM Avoided Costs*110%)+NEB/((Admin Cost/kWh*kWh Savings)+Incentives+(Incremental Participant Costs-Incentives);
(1)Idaho Power Technical Reference Manual(TRM)prepared by ADM Associates,Inc.2021
(2)Idaho only measure.
(3)Measure also available under Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program
(4)RTF.ComCookingHotFoodCabinet_v5_1.2023.
(5)RTF.ComCookingCombinationOven_v5_0.2023
(6)RTF.ComCookingConventionOven_v5_1.2023
(7)RTF.ComCookingFryer_v5_1.2023
(8)RTF.ComCookingSteamer_v5_1.Calculated per pan savings.2023.
(9)RTF.ComConnectedThermostat_2_1.xlsm.2023.Savings shown based on average of 15 cooling Ton.
(10)Measure cost-effective when admin fees excluded.
(11)Idaho Power TRM prepared by ADM Associates,Inc.2021.NEBs from water savings from RTF. ComClothesWashers_v7_1.xlsm.Simple average.2023
(12)Evergreen Consulting Group,LLC.Idaho Power Lighting Tool.2024.
(13)RTF.ComOnDemanclOverwrappers_v3_2.2023.
(14)Idaho Power Multifamily TRIM prepared by ADM Associates,Inc.2023.
(15)Idaho Power engineering calculations.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 49

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
Small Business Lighting
Segment:Commercial
2025 Program Results
Cost Inputs Ref Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Program Administration........................................................................................ $ 58,711 Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Program Incentives................................................................................................ 261,800 1 UC Test.................................. $ 333,233 $ 320,511 1.04
Total UC........................................................................................................... $ 320,511 P TRC Test................................ 506,011 391,717 1.29
RIM Test................................ 333,233 662,604 0.50
Measure Equipment and Installation(Incremental Participant Cost)................... $ 333,006 M PCT........................................ 743,349 333,006 2.23
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
UC Test............................... =S*NTG =P
Net Benefit Inputs Ref TRC Test.............................. _(A+NUI+NEB)*NTG =P+((M-I)*NTG)
Resource Savings RIM Test............................. =S*NTG =P+(B*NTG)
2025 Annual Gross Energy(kWh)............................................ 663,044 PCT...................................... =B+I+NUI+NEB =M
NPV Cumulative Energy(kWh)................................................. 5,604,078 $ 333,233 S
10%Credit(Northwest Power Act).......................................... 33,323 Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Total Electric Savings.................................................................. $ 366,556 A Discount Rate
Nominal(WACC)........................................................................... 7.12%
Participant Bill Savings Real((1+WACC)/(1+Escalation))-1......................................... 4.41%
NPV Cumulative Participant Bill Savings.................................. $ 342,094 B Escalation Rate........................................................................................ 2.60%
Net-to-Gross(NTG).................................................................................. 100%
Other Benefits Minimum NTG Sensitivity........................................................................ 96%
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives................................................ $ - NUI Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh................................................... $0.054
Non-Energy Benefits................................................................ $ 139,455 NEB System Losses.......................................................................................... 6.00%
Notes:
NEB/impacts on a$/kWh for each end-use.Based on the 2019 impact evaluation of other C&I programs.
Program Launched in September 2024.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 50

Year:2025 Program:Small Business Lighting Market Segment:Commercial Program Type:Energy Efficiency
Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Tests
Gross Energy NPV Incremental
Measure Savings Avoided Participant Incentive/ Admin Cost
Measure Name Measure Description Replacing Measure Unit End Use Life(Yrs)lal (kWh/yr)Ibl Costs i`I NEB Cost(d) Unit ($/kWh)iel UCT Ratio(r) TRC Ratio lal Source/Notes
Commercial-All Com-
Exterior Lighting kWh ExtLight 12 1.00 $ 0.67 $ - $ 0.50 $ 0.40 $ 0.089 1.38 1.25 1
Commercial-All Com-
Interior Lighting kWh IntLight 12 1.00 $ 0.47 $ - $ 0.50 $ 0.40 $ 0.089 0.96 0.88 1 1,2
(a)Average measure life.
(b)Estimated kWh savings measured at the customer's meter,excluding system losses.
(c)NPV of DSM avoided costs.Based on the end-use load shape,measure life,savings including system losses,and avoided costs by pricing period as acknowledged in the 2021 IRP,TRC Test Benefit calculation includes 10%conservation adder from the
(d)Incremental participant cost prior to customer incentives.
(e)Average C&I program administration and overhead costs to achieve each kWh of savings.Used as placeholder until program-specific estimate can be calculated.
(f)UCT Ratio=(NPV DSM Avoided Costs)/((Admin Cost/kWh*kWh Savings)+Incentives)
(g)TRC Ratio=((NPV DSM Avoided Costs*110%)+NEB/((Admin Cost/kWh*kWh Savings)+Incentives+(Incremental Participant Costs-Incentives))
(1)RTF.NonResLightingMidstream_v6_2.xlsm.2023.
(2)Measure is cost-effective when admin costs are excluded.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 51

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
Segment:Irrigation
2025 Program Results
Cost Inputs Ref Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Program Administration.......................................................................................... $ 443,207 Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Program Incentives................................................................................................. 1,740,575 1 UC Test.................................. $ 3,512,426 $ 2,183,783 1.61
Total UC............................................................................................................. $ 2,183,783 P TRC Test................................ 56,260,352 20,939,267 2.69
RIM Test................................ 3,512,426 5,584,493 0.63
Measure Equipment and Installation(Incremental Participant Cost)..................... $ 20,496,060 M PCT........................................ 57,537,969 20,496,060 2.81
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
UC Test............................... =S*NTG =P
Net Benefit Inputs Ref TRC Test.............................. _(A+NUI+NEB)*NTG =P+((M-I)*NTG)
Resource Savings RIM Test............................. =S*NTG =P+(B*NTG)
2025 Annual Gross Energy(kWh).............................................. 5,400,154 PCT...................................... =B+I+NUI+NEB =M
NPV Cumulative Energy(kWh).................................................. 44,693,616 $ 3,512,426 S
10%Credit(Northwest Power Act)........................................... 351,243 Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Total Electric Savings................................................................... $ 3,863,669 A Discount Rate
Nominal(WACC)........................................................................... 7.12%
Participant Bill Savings Real((1+WACC)/(1+Escalation))-1......................................... 4.41%
NPV Cumulative Participant Bill Savings.................................... $ 3,400,710 B Escalation Rate........................................................................................ 2.60%
Net-to-Gross(NTG).................................................................................. 100%
Other Benefits Minimum NTG Sensitivity........................................................................ 62%
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives................................................. $ - NUI Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh................................................... $0.064
Non-Energy Benefits................................................................. $ 52,396,683 NEB System Losses.......................................................................................... 6.00%
Notes:
Energy savings are combined for projects under the Custom and Menu programs.Savings under each Custom project is unique and individually calculated and assessed.
For Custom option,NEBs include yield,labor,and other benefits reported by the customer.For Menu option,NEBs come from RTF.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 52

Year:2025 Program:Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Market Segment:Irrigation Program Type:Energy Efficiency
Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Tests
Gross Energy Incremental
Measure Savings NPV Avoided Participant Incentive/ Admin Cost
Measure Name Measure Description Replacing Measure Unit End Use Life(Yrs)lal (kWh/yr)IbI Costs I`I NEB Cost jdI Unit ($/kWh)I`I UCT Ratio ie TRC Ratio lal Source/Notes
New drainshand lines,
wheel lines or portable A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Drain Replacement mainline Worn drain Unit All-AII-E 6 9.84 $ 4.24 $ 6.270 $ 5.29 $ 4.00 $ 0.082 0.88 1.79 1,2
New gaskets for hand lines,
Gasket wheel lines or portable A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Replacement mainline Worn gasket Unit All-AII-E 6 13.39 $ 5.77 $ 4.480 $ 2.48 $ 2.00 $ 0.082 1.86 3.03 1
Rebuilt or new wheel line A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Levelers levelers Worn wheel line leveler Unit All-AII-E 7 3.64 $ 1.75 $ 8.590 $ 4.57 $ 1.50 $ 0.082 0.97 2.16 1,2
New flow-control-type
nozzles replacing existing
brass nozzles or worn out Brass nozzles or worn
flow control nozzles of out flow control nozzles A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Nozzle Replacement same flow rate or less. of same flow rate or less Unit All-AII-E 6 21.56 $ 9.29 $ 3.260 $ 7.59 $ 5.00 $ 0.082 1.37 1.44 1
New nozzles replacing
existing worn nozzles of Worn nozzle of same A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Nozzle Replacement same flow rate or less flow rate or less Unit All-AII-E 6 21.56 $ 9.29 $ 3.260 $ 1.29 $ 1.50 $ 0.082 2.84 4.41 1
Center pivot linear move:
Install new sprinkler
package on an existing A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Sprinklers system Worn sprinkler system Unit All-AII-E 6 26.02 $ 11.22 $24.940 $ 28.48 $ 10.00 $ 0.082 0.92 1.22 1,2
Rebuilt or new brass A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Sprinklers impact sprinklers Worn sprinkler Unit All-AII-E 6 1.91 $ 0.82 $ 15.420 $ 14.10 $ 0.55 $ 0.082 1.16 1.15 1
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Green Motors Program A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 15HP Rewind: Motor size 15HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 17 199.21 $ 160.22 $ - $ 136.34 $ 15.00 $ 0.082 5.11 1.15 3
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Green Motors Program A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 20HP Rewind: Motor size 20HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 17 266.57 $ 214.40 $ - $ 152.11 $ 20.00 $ 0.082 5.12 1.36 3
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Green Motors Program A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 25HP Rewind: Motor size 25HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 19 331.20 $ 278.12 $ - $ 173.79 $ 25.00 $ 0.082 5.33 1.52 3
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Green Motors Program A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 30HP Rewind: Motor size 30HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-All-E 19 356.76 $ 299.58 $ - $ 190.88 $ 30.00 $ 0.082 5.05 1.50 3
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Green Motors Program A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 40HP Rewind: Motor size 40HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-All-E 19 415.45 $ 348.88 $ - $ 233.27 $ 40.00 $ 0.082 4.71 1.44 3
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Green Motors Program A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 50HP Rewind: Motor size 50HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-All-E 19 447.11 $ 375.46 $ - $ 258.24 $ 50.00 $ 0.082 4.33 1.40 3
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Green Motors Program A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 60HP Rewind: Motor size 60HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-All-E 21 467.34 $ 407.95 $ - $ 304.56 $ 60.00 $ 0.082 4.15 1.31 3
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Green Motors Program A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 75HP Rewind: Motor size 75HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-All-E 21 480.97 $ 419.85 $ - $ 329.19 $ 75.00 $ 0.082 3.67 1.25 3
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Green Motors Program A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 100HP Rewind: Motor size 100HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-All-E 21 634.81 $ 554.14 $ - $ 408.38 $ 100.00 $ 0.082 3.64 1.32 3
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 53

Year:2025 Program:Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Market Segment:Irrigation Program Type:Energy Efficiency
Gross Energy Incremental
Measure Savings NPV Avoided Participant Incentive/ Admin Cost
Measure Name Measure Description Replacing Measure Unit End Use Life(Yrs)(a) (kWh/yr)(b) Costs I0I NEB cost jdj Unit ($/kWh)I`I UCT Ratio TRC Ratio lal Source/Notes
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Green Motors Program A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 125HP Rewind: Motor size 125HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 21 780.97 $ 681.73 $ - $ 458.64 $ 125.00 $ 0.082 3.61 1.43 3
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Green Motors Program A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 150HP Rewind: Motor size 150HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 21 928.36 $ 810.39 $ - $ 510.88 $ 150.00 $ 0.082 3.58 1.52 3
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Green Motors Program A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 200HP Rewind: Motor size 200HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 21 1,231.40 $ 1,074.92 $ - $ 615.03 $ 200.00 $ 0.082 3.57 1.65 3
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Green Motors Program A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 250HP Rewind: Motor size 250HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 21 1,567.67 $ 1,368.46 $ - $ 790.47 $ 250.00 $ 0.082 3.61 1.64 3
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Green Motors Program A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size300HP Rewind: Motor size300HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 21 1,871.47 $ 1,633.66 $ - $ 799.01 $ 300.00 $ 0.082 3.60 1.89 3
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Green Motors Program A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 350HP Rewind: Motor size 350HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 21 2,181.78 $ 1,904.54 $ - $ 837.45 $ 350.00 $ 0.082 3.60 2.06 3
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Green Motors Program A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size400HP Rewind: Motor size400HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 21 2,473.80 $ 2,159.45 $ - $ 935.35 $ 400.00 $ 0.082 3.58 2.09 3
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Green Motors Program A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 450HP Rewind: Motor size 450HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 21 2,778.36 $ 2,425.31 $ - $ 1,022.42 $ 450.00 $ 0.082 3.58 2.13 3
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Green Motors Program A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size SOOHP Rewind: Motor size 500HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 21 3,091.38 $ 2,698.55 $ - $ 1,104.55 $ 500.00 $ 0.082 3.58 2.19 3
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Green Motors Program A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 600HP Rewind: Motor size 600HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 21 4,463.74 $ 3,896.52 $ - $ 1,627.71 $ 600.00 $ 0.082 4.03 2.15 3
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Green Motors Program A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 700HP Rewind: Motor size 700HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 21 5,185.59 $ 4,526.65 $ - $ 1,775.82 $ 700.00 $ 0.082 4.02 2.26 3
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Green Motors Program A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 800HP Rewind: Motor size 800HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 21 5,913.82 $ 5,162.34 $ - $ 1,970.32 $ 800.00 $ 0.082 4.02 2.31 3
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Green Motors Program A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 900HP Rewind: Motor size 900HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 21 6,638.95 $ 5,795.33 $ - $ 2,172.20 $ 900.00 $ 0.082 4.01 2.35 3
Green Motors Green Motors Program
Program Rewind: Rewind: Motor size A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 1000HP 1000HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 21 1 7,345.44 $ 6,412.04 $ - $ 2,340.96 $ 1,000.00 $ 0.0821 3.20 2.11 1 3
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 54

Year:2025 Program:Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Market Segment:Irrigation Program Type:Energy Efficiency
Gross Energy Incremental
Measure Savings NPV Avoided Participant Incentive/ Admin Cost
Measure Name Measure Description Replacing Measure Unit End Use Life(Yrs)(a) (kWh/yr)(b) Costs I0I NEB cost jdj Unit ($/kWh)I`I UCT Ratio ie TRC Ratio lal Source/Notes
Green Motors Green Motors Program
Program Rewind: Rewind: Motorsize A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 1250HP 1250HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 21 7,632.48 $ 6,662.61 $ - $ 2,796.44 $ 1,250.00 $ 0.082 2.84 1.88 3
Green Motors Green Motors Program
Program Rewind: Rewind: Motorsize A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 1500HP 1500HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 21 9,139.67 $ 7,978.28 $ - $ 3,203.40 $ 1,500.00 $ 0.082 2.84 1.94 3
Green Motors Green Motors Program
Program Rewind: Rewind: Motorsize A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 1750HP 1750HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 21 10,618.13 $ 9,268.86 $ - $ 3,656.20 $ 1,750.00 $ 0.082 2.83 1.97 3
Green Motors Green Motors Program
Program Rewind: Rewind: Motorsize A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 2000HP 2000HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 21 12,084.09 $ 10,548.55 $ - $ 4,101.36 $ 2,000.00 $ 0.082 2.82 1.99 3
Green Motors Green Motors Program
Program Rewind: Rewind: Motorsize A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 2250HP 2250HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 21 13,509.37 $ 11,792.71 $ - $ 4,468.11 $ 2,250.00 $ 0.082 2.81 2.02 3
Green Motors Green Motors Program
Program Rewind: Rewind: Motor size A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 2500HP 2500HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 21 14,979.04 $ 13,075.63 $ - $ 4,888.48 $ 2,500.00 $ 0.082 2.80 2.04 3
Green Motors Green Motors Program
Program Rewind: Rewind: Motor size A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size3000HP 3000HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 21 17,862.63 $ 15,592.79 $ - $ 5,715.53 $ 3,000.00 $ 0.082 2.79 2.07 3
Green Motors Green Motors Program
Program Rewind: Rewind: Motor size A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size3500HP 3500HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 21 20,796.36 $ 18,153.73 $ - $ 6,315.91 $ 3,500.00 $ 0.082 2.79 2.14 3
Green Motors Green Motors Program
Program Rewind: Rewind: Motor size A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 4000HP 4000HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 21 23,767.27 $ 20,747.12 $ - $ 7,051.42 $ 4,000.00 $ 0.082 2.79 2.18 3
Green Motors Green Motors Program
Program Rewind: Rewind: Motor size A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size4500HP 4500HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 21 26,682.59 $ 23,291.98 $ - $ 7,599.26 $ 4,500.00 $ 0.082 2.79 2.24 3
Green Motors Green Motors Program
Program Rewind: Rewind: Motor size A-Irr-Irr-Irrigation-
Motor size 5000HP 5000HP Standard rewind practice Motor All-AII-E 21 29,585.75 $ 25,826.23 $ - $ 8,111.84 $ 5,000.00 $ 0.082 2.78 2.29 3
(a)Average measure life.
(b)Estimated kWh savings measured at the customer's meter,excluding system losses.
(c)NPV of DSM avoided costs.Based on the end-use load shape,measure life,savings including system losses,and avoided costs by pricing period as acknowledged in the 2021 IRP,TRC Test Benefit calculation includes 10%conservation adder from the
(d)Incremental participant cost prior to customer incentives.
(e)Average program administration and overhead costs to achieve each kWh of savings.Calculated from 2025 actuals.
(f)UCT Ratio=(NPV DSM Avoided Costs)/((Admin Cost/kWh*kWh Savings)+Incentives)
(g)TRC Ratio=((NPV DSM Avoided Costs*110%)+NEB/((Admin Cost/kWh*kWh Savings)+Incentives+(Incremental Participant Costs-Incentives))
(1)RTF.Aglrrigation Hardware_v6_2.xlsm.2024.Weighted average of Western Idaho(18.78%),Eastern Washington&Oregon(1.16%),and Eastern&Southern Idaho(80.06%).
(2)Measure is cost-effective with admin costs excluded.
(3)RTF.Ind_and_Ag_GreenMotorRewind_v5_2.xlsm.2023.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 55

Supplement 1:Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 56

153, 099MWh 328 MW 5"o Increase
SAVED POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS
DEMAND REDUCTION YEAR-OVER-YEAR
010*0 POMRO
Demand-Side Management
2025 Annual Report
Supplement 2: Evaluation March 15, 2026

Supplement 2: Evaluation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Evaluation and Research Summary............................................................................................... 1
EvaluationPlan .............................................................................................................................3
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group Notes.......................................................................................5
NEEA Market Effects Evaluations................................................................................................67
IntegratedDesign Lab.................................................................................................................69
Research/Surveys......................................................................................................................233
Evaluations................................................................................................................................263
OtherReports ...........................................................................................................................509
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page i

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page ii

Supplement 2: Evaluation
EVALUATION AND RESEARCH SUMMARY
Idaho Power considers program evaluation an essential component of its demand-side
management (DSM) operational activities. The company contracts with third-party contractors
to conduct impact, process, and other evaluations on a scheduled and as-required basis.
Third-party contracts are generally awarded using a competitive bid process managed by
Idaho Power's Corporate Services. In some cases, research and analysis is conducted internally
and managed by Idaho Power's Research and Analysis team within the Customer Relations and
Energy Efficiency (CR&EE) department.
Idaho Power uses industry-standard protocols for its internal and external evaluation efforts,
including the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency—Model Energy Efficiency Program
Impact Evaluation Guide, the California Evaluation Framework, the International Performance
Measurement and Verification Protocol(I PMVP), the Database for Energy Efficiency Resources,
and the Regional Technical Forum's (RTF) evaluation protocols.
The company also supports regional and national studies to promote the ongoing validation of
energy savings and demand reduction, and the efficient management of its programs.
Idaho Power considers primary and secondary research, potential assessments, impact and
process evaluations, and customer surveys as important resources in providing accurate and
transparent program savings estimates. Recommendations and findings from evaluations and
research are used to continuously refine and improve Idaho Power's DSM programs.
In 2025, Idaho Power contracted with third-party evaluators to conduct impact and process
evaluations for the following programs: A/C Cool Credit, C&I New Construction, Heating &
Cooling Efficiency Program, Irrigation Peak Rewards, and Retrofits. A third-party was contracted
to conduct an impact evaluation for Home Energy Report Program.
Additionally, Tinker LLC conducted a program summary analysis of Student Energy Efficiency
Kits, and Harris Utility Consumer Analytics, Inc., conducted a summary analysis for the Home
Energy Report Program. The company also conducted internal analyses for the A/C Cool Credit,
Flex Peak, and Irrigation Peak Rewards programs.
In 2025, Idaho Power administered surveys regarding energy efficiency programs to measure
customer satisfaction. Some surveys were administered by a third-party contractor;
other surveys were administered by Idaho Power either through traditional paper and
electronic surveys or through the company's online Empowered Community. An evaluation
schedule and final reports from all evaluations, research, and surveys listed above are included
in this Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report, Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 1

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 2

Supplement 2: Evaluation
EVALUATION PLAN
Energy Efficiency 2013-2027 Program Evaluation Plans
Program Evaluation Schedule ___. 2026 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021
Residential Energy Efficiency Programs
Educational Distributions................................................................ I
Heating&Cooling Efficiency Program............................................ I/P I/P
HomeEnergy Audit......................................................................... I/P
Home Energy Report Program........................................................ 1/0 1
Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program........................................... I/P
RebateAdvantage.......................................................................... I/P
Residential New Construction Program.......................................... I/P 0 1
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(Idaho).......... O
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(Oregon)....... O
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers............................ 0
Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency Programs
C&I Custom Projects....................................................................... I/P I/P I/P
C&I New Construction.................................................................... I/P I/P
C&I Retrofits................................................................................... I/P I/P
Small Business Lighting Program.................................................... I/P
Irrigation Energy Efficiency Programs
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards.......................................................... I/P I
Demand-Response Programs
A/C Cool Credit............................................................................... 0 0 I/P/O 0 0 0 1
Flex Peak Program.......................................................................... 0 I/P/O 0 0 0 0 1/0
Irrigation Peak Rewards.................................................................. 0 0 I/P/O 0 O O 1/0
Evaluation Type: I=Impact,P=Process,0=Other
Program not yet in existence: ������
WAQC program evaluations were combined(Idaho and Oregon)before and including 2024;program evaluations separated beginning 2025.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 3

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Program Evaluation Schedule 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 20151 2014 2013
Residential Energy Efficiency Programs
Educational Distributions............................................................ I/P
Heating&Cooling Efficiency Program........................................ I/P P
HomeEnergy Audit..................................................................... I P
Home Energy Report Program.................................................... P
Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program.......................................
Rebate Advantage...................................................................... I I/P
Residential New Construction Program...................................... I/P
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(Idaho)...... 0 O P
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(Oregon)... 0 0 P
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers........................ 0 0 P
Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency Programs
C&I Custom Projects................................................................... I P I/P
C&I New Construction................................................................ I P I
C&I Retrofits............................................................................... I P I P
Small Business Lighting Program................................................
Irrigation Energy Efficiency Programs
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards...................................................... I/P I/P P/O I/P
Demand-Response Programs
A/C Cool Credit........................................................................... 0 1 O 0 1 1 0
Flex Peak Program...................................................................... 0 O 0 0 1/0 1/0 P/O P/O
Irrigation Peak Rewards.............................................................. 0 0 1 0 0 0 1/0 0 O
Evaluation Type: I=Impact,P=Process,0=Other
Program not yet in existence: ��������/
1 Energy efficiency programs evaluated in 2015 have since been combined with another program or eliminated
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 4

Supplement 2: Evaluation
ENERGY EFFICIENCY ADVISORY GROUP NOTES
The following pages include notes from EEAG meetings held on February 6, May 6, August 14,
and November 12, 2025, in Idaho; and meetings held on May 28, and December 4, 2025,
in Oregon.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 5

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 6

Idaho Power Idaho EEAG Meeting
Idaho Energy Efficiency Advisory Group Meeting
February 6, 2025
Present
Connie Aschenbrenner— Idaho Power Matt Fuxon —Charlies Produce
Emily Her—Office of Energy and Mineral Quentin Nesbitt— Idaho Power
Resources Sidney Erwin — Idaho Irrigation Pumpers
Derek Goldman — NW Energy Coalition Association
Jason Talford — Idaho Public Utilities Steve Hubble—City of Boise-Public Works
Commission
Not Present
Ken Robinette —South Central Community Action Partnership
Taylor Thomas— Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Christian Douglas— NW Power & Conservation Council
Don Strickler-J.R. Simplot Company
Guest & Presenters*
Andee Morton — Idaho Power Mary Alice Taylor— Idaho Power
Annie Meyer* — Idaho Power Matt O'Conner— Idaho Power
Becky Arte Howell — Idaho Power Melissa Kosla - ADM
Billie McWinn* — Idaho Power Melissa Thom — Idaho Power
Ben Hemson — Idaho Power Michelle Toney— Idaho Power
Callie Freeman — Idaho Power Mindi Shodeen — Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen* — Idaho Power Nathan Black— Idaho Power
Cheryl Paoli — Idaho Power Nicholas Ackerman — Idaho Power
Chris Pollow— Idaho Power Ray Short— Idaho Power
Dahl Bietz— Idaho Power Sedge Lucas* —ADM
Jeff Rigby— Idaho Power Shelley Martin — Idaho Power
Jordyn Neerdaels— Idaho Power Sheree Willhite— Idaho Power
Katie O'Neil —City of Boise Sophie Croome — Idaho Power
Landon Barber— Idaho Power Todd Greenwell — Idaho Power
Laura Conilogue — Idaho Public Utilities
Commission
Note Taker: Michelle Toney
Meeting Facilitator. Quentin Nesbitt

Idaho Power Idaho EEAG Meeting
9:32 A.M. Welcome & Announcements
Derek Goldman with NW Energy Coalition introduced himself as Idaho EEAG new member.
Quentin mentioned the Idaho Commission issued an order on the company's request for a
prudence determination on 2023 DSM expenses.
There were no comments or questions about the November 2024 notes.
9:41 A.M. 2024 YTD Financials & Savings—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin presented the overall energy savings and expenses results for the 2024 programs,
savings, and costs. He then discussed 2024 DSM program incentives, savings, and costs by
program type and sector, and the company's plan for future evaluations.
Discussion
There were no questions or comments.
9:51 A.M. Residential Programs—Billie McWinn
Billie presented the residential program highlights, savings, and participation for the 2024
program year. She also discussed the Home Energy Report (HER) program, the Idaho
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (WAQC) program and provided marketing
updates.
Discussion
WAQC Expense
One member asked about the maximum amount that can be spent per project for non-profits.
Billie replied that there are no per-project caps for non-profit projects. Cheryl added the graph
includes 41 apartments switching from baseboard heating to heat pumps.
Program Participation Changes HER & HEA:
One member asked about the differences between the audits and the reports. Billie described
the differences between Home Energy Reports and Home Energy Audits.
Another member asked about the impacts of the Home Energy Audit marketing and if the
participation might have been different, absent the marketing. Billie responded that we do not
know how many people might not have participated absent the marketing.

Idaho Power Idaho EEAG Meeting
The member then asked about the HEA cost-effectiveness with the program's marketing costs.
Billie explained that this program is not subject to cost-effectiveness as it's intended as an
educational program, therefore, it is not subject to the standard cost-effectiveness model.
Program Participation Changes Heating & Cooling (H&C)
One member asked about weather impacts and if the program participation fluctuates based
on extreme weather. Billie answered that weather can certainly impact participation and added
that participation in 2020, 2021, and 2022 was greater than expected, likely because people
were spending more time in their homes and potentially retiring equipment earlier than they
would have otherwise.
HER Program
One member asked about how the company determines the end use in the reports. Billie
answered that the company provides the customer's usage to the vendor who then uses
algorithms to disaggregate usage and determine the usage by category. She added the vendor
does this by using proprietary methods, and the results are shown in the reports as a bar chart.
Another member asked for clarification about how the usage is modeled and if it is directly
based on each customer. Billie replied yes, and customers do have the ability to login to their
Home Energy Profile through My Account and add their home details for a more accurate
report.
One member asked if participation in some programs fluctuates based on how severe a winter
is. Mindi replied that weather can directly impact participation in programs. She also noted that
after customers receive their bills after a cold or hot month, there's an increase in Home Energy
Audit applications.
HER 2024 Evaluation Control Group:
One member asked about the evaluation for a peer utilities program, and whether they
specified how large the control group needed to be. Billie answered that the evaluator
recommends at least 10,000 participants that have the same characteristics, which is more
difficult to achieve with a smaller group.
Another member inquired about the deemed savings model, and if there is an assumption
about how long the savings last for each participant. Billie answered that a peer utility's initial
study did identify deemed savings that would be associated with each participant based in part
on how long they have participated in the program and the ramp rates accounted for.
3

Idaho Power Idaho EEAG Meeting
One member asked about the treatment group and how often they receive the report. Billie
replied that the report generally goes out quarterly, but sometimes monthly because the new
platform varies, depending on what group the customer is in.
Another member asked about validated savings and if there have been any follow-up surveys
about whether customers have changed behaviors based on the HER. Billie said the company
validates savings through evaluations that analyze billing data.
Feedback on the HER Next Steps
One member stated that more information is needed to guide an educated decision. The
member agreed that industry trends need to continue to be monitored, but would like to know
how many people are excluded based on which category they were in. The member would also
like a potential increase in the treatment group sizes but recognizes there could be additional
issues to consider.
Billie commented that the company is capturing this feedback and will include this input for the
future planning of the HER program.
WAQC Program
One member asked about how long the re-weatherization funds would be available. Billie
answered that the funds are currently available through 2025, at which time the program will
be re-evaluated. She added there are things to consider, like how much money is still available
(if any) and how much potential there is for re-weatherization.
Another member asked if the carryover funds were going to be eliminated as of 2024. Billie
explained that funds are now collected by the rider and the carryover funds that were
previously collected through base rates will be available until they are spent. She added that
since the rider acts as a balancing account rather than collecting funds in advance, besides
those previously collected through base rates there will no longer be a need to carry balances
forward.
The member then asked about how the re-weatherization funds were being spent. Billie said
hundreds of thousands of dollars of the carryover have been able to be utilized towards re-
weatherization over the last couple of years.
Residential New Construction Program
One member asked about the lead time for the residential new construction incentives and if
the number of future projects is known, especially with the forecasted growth in the area. Billie
4

Idaho Power Idaho EEAG Meeting
answered that the home energy raters do often submit their projects to a database which
allows the company to see their anticipated completion dates.
Becky added that the company works with the raters on individual projects and there are some
large projects that have not yet been added to the database. She explained that once the
projects are uploaded into the database and completed, a quality assurance contractor certifies
those homes before the applicant receives the incentives.
Billie noted that with the growth in the company's service area, it is assumed there will be more
projects for this program. She added there is a struggle with the engagement of the rater
network, and the raters work directly with the developers.
One member commented that they anticipate a lot of forecasted growth coming up.
Another member added that it will be interesting to see what opportunities have been missed.
Residential Marketing
One member thanked the company for the bilingual residential marketing brochures.
10:52 A.M. Break
10:57 A.M. Commercial, Industrial, & Irrigation—Chellie Jensen
Chellie presented the 2024 Year in review, overall CI&I performance, individual performance,
BOMA sponsorship, Flex Peak pre-season activities, training plan for 2025, and Irrigation
outreach efforts.
Discussion
2024 Top 5 Highlights
One member asked if the Retrofit program is offered in both states and does the data include
savings. Chellie replied that the Retrofits program is offered in both jurisdictions, however,
some measures are not applicable in Oregon due to cost-effectiveness. She advised both
jurisdictions' savings are included in the data presented.
One member asked if the marketing is comparable to the residential programs and if there are
opportunities to increase marketing efforts. Chellie answered that the programs are marketed
5

Idaho Power Idaho EEAG Meeting
differently, and the company is always looking for ways to reach each type of customer and
welcomes EEAG feedback.
The member commented about how a Key Account Energy Advisor and other Idaho Power
program staff presented to the city, noting the city is excited about participating and asked how
they could learn more. Chellie thanked the member for the comments and added that it is ideal
to present to multiple people at a customer's facility, as it is a challenge to get information to
the right people. She said the company has engineering staff and Energy Advisors who meet
with customers to help them understand and participate in the programs. Chellie stated the
company has many other ways to reach customers such as paid Linkedln ads, newsletters,
direct mail, and other marketing tactics.
New Construction
One member asked about the interactions with architects and engineers and if there had been
any feedback to help make the program more successful. Chellie said the company has visited
five firms and they responded that they are busy, and it takes extra work for them to get the
necessary documentation to confirm the installed materials and equipment meet the program
requirements, but they do appreciate the Professional Assistance Incentive. She added that
there is an opportunity to remind them of the programs offered for incentives, the company
needs to find ways to make it easier to obtain the necessary information.
Marketing
One member commented about the great marketing and suggested adding the QR codes to the
presentation slides. Chellie thanked the member for the comment and agreed that they are
easy and quick to use.
Overall Questions & Comments
One member asked if the company knew what the biggest opportunities for C&I programs were
in 2025. Chellie replied that to increase enrollment for Flex Peak, the company needs to get the
attention of the national accounts in our service area. She added that the Retrofits and New
Construction, non-lighting measures pose a challenge because incentives can be small (due to
c/e) compared to the cost of the product such as with HVAC measures. Chellie mentioned there
is a disconnect between those who operate the system and those who own buildings, and the
building owners are concerned with upfront construction costs and not always considering
long-term energy costs. She added the company is looking at ways to increase participation in
non-lighting measures, and as discussed in November EEAG, exploring midstream offering pros
and cons.

Idaho Power Idaho EEAG Meeting
11:44 A.M. Marketing—Annie Meyer
Annie presented the 2024 marketing wrap-up. She discussed the marketing mission, tactics,
social media, website visits, public relations, residential campaign results &tactics, TV ads, and
what to expect in 2025.
Discussion
One member asked about the ads and how they compare to the previous campaign with
Wattson the dog. Annie answered that the company did a survey on the first two ads and
received positive feedback. She added that they also received feedback from the previous
campaign that customers were ready for new commercials.
Another member highly complimented the new commercials, saying they look sharp.
11:55 P.M. Lunch
1:04 P.M. 2024 ADM Evaluations—Sedge Lucas & Melissa Kosla
Melissa and Sedge introduced themselves and the ADM team, then presented on the 2024
evaluations. Sedge-discussed the scope, overview of the programs, and the methodologies,
results, and recommendations.
Discussion
Rebate Advantage
One member asked about how it is determined what analysis might be better suited for a
program. Sedge answered that the measure is well understood, and the methodology used
along with the deemed savings applied are validated. He explained that a well-understood
measure in the savings is clearly validated, but another detail to consider is whether there is
good billing and data and if so, then a billing analysis is an option. One key detail is the savings
associated with the program must be large enough to distinguish those savings in the pre-
period as compared to the post-period. Sedge added that another detail to keep in mind is the
number of participants. Melissa said if the savings estimation is expected to be small, that
means more participants would be necessary.
Another member asked if the manufactured homes were from Idaho or shipped from out of
state. Sedge answered that the manufactured homes were from Idaho. Billie verified the homes
are from Idaho.

Idaho Power Idaho EEAG Meeting
One member asked about the incentive differences between NEEM 1.1 and NEEM 2.0. Billie
replied that it is how the program originated, but the company plans to explore incenting more
for the NEEM 2.0 homes and potentially reduce the incentive for the NEEM 1.1 homes, which
has more participation.
Commercial and Industrial (C&I) Custom Projects
One member asked about taking out energy savings and attributing them to Variable Frequency
Drives (VFDs) vs the device they are regulating, and how the savings would be allocated to the
VFD versus lumping it in with HVAC savings. Sedge answered that it comes down to what device
is installed on the VFD. Melissa added that they look at the consumption data from before and
after the measure is installed and then verify there are no other facility changes that would
contribute to the difference in consumption.
Recommendations
One member asked about the compressed air, refrigeration, and VFDs savings and if those were
higher because there were more projects or because of larger savings. Sedge replied that a
portion of is that there are more of those projects. He added that there was a wide variance of
savings on the projects. Melissa added that those projects have the highest per-project savings.
Another member asked if the focus should be on marketing the higher savings measures, and if
some measures work better together. Sedge explained that it depends on the facility type as
certain facilities are going to have different combinations based on the work they do. Melissa
added that energy management can help identify any inefficiencies in the facility operations,
and if certain measures are already looked at, it would be worth it to explore other
opportunities for low-cost savings.
Chellie added when the company visits industrial customers, individual opportunities are
discussed. She explained that there is marketing in specific sectors based on the typical
measures found in those types of facilities, such as food processing always having refrigeration
and compressed air. Chellie also mentioned that other customers who complete a large
equipment upgrade and receive an incentive can be approached to discuss strategic energy
management (SEM) if they are ready to invest time into strategically managing their energy
long term. She pointed out that company staff often meets with the customers individually
because there are different options for them.
One member asked about how the company compares to other utilities. Sedge answered that
when comparing Rebate Advantage, there were quite a few similarities between the rebate
advantage program implemented by Idaho Power and other manufactured homes programs.
8

Idaho Power Idaho EEAG Meeting
Melissa added that she has worked with other custom C&I programs that have lower
participation, so that says something about the marketing and communication that Idaho
Power does with its customers.
2:10 P.M. Wrap-up/Open Discussion
Thanks for this opportunity. Virtual is quieter than in-person. It is interesting with all the CI&I
changes and I am excited to see how those changes develop as they are implemented. I know
planning is in the works for demand response, but I think the considerations that are going
around on the HER program have my attention and I am looking forward to getting more
information.
I am still absorbing a lot of information. It is clear you are doing a lot of work to make sure
these programs are successful.
It has been interesting and exciting to hear about what the company is doing for DR and EE. Is
the A/C season, in terms of DR, underway and what are your plans for recruiting?
Billie answered that the closer to the season the company will increase marketing efforts. She
added that with EEAG's support, the company is pursuing a filing to add the new BYOT option
to the ACCC program. She explained that the company will be filing this spring with hopes to
have the new option available this upcoming season, which will increase participation.
Thank you for the presentations and for emailing those in advance. Though I prefer in person,
asking questions is easier in a virtual meeting. How are the energy efficiency savings from these
programs connected to the IRP?
Quentin answered through the energy efficiency potential study. The study is used to predict a
20-year stream of energy efficiency, which the company incorporates into the IRP. The
potential study estimates are done by a third-party consultant looking at applicable energy
efficiency measures and past program performance.
Thanks for having us. As always, I find these meetings interesting. I liked the ADM presentation
and findings. Keep up the good work.
2:20 P.M. Adjourn

Idaho Power Company Idaho EEAG Meeting
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group Meeting
May 6, 2025
Present
Christian Douglass— Northwest Power& Katie O'Neil—City of Boise Public Works
Conservation Council (Virtual) (Representing Steve Hubble)
Connie Aschenbrenner— Idaho Power Ken Robinette—South Central Community
Derek Goldman— Northwest Energy Coalition Action Partnership
Don Strickler—J.R. Simplot Company Matt Fuxon—Charlies Produce
Emily Her—Office of Energy and Mineral Quentin Nesbitt— Idaho Power
Resources Sidney Erwin— Idaho Irrigation Pumpers
Jason Talford— Idaho Public Utilities Association (Virtual)
Commission
Not Present
Steve Hubble—City of Boise-Public Works
Guest & Presenters*
Ali Ward*— Boise School District Michael Cooper—South Central Community
Andee Morton— Idaho Power Action Partnership
Anita Keil*—ESI Construction Michelle Toney— Idaho Power
Becky Arte Howell— Idaho Power Mindi Shodeen— Idaho Power
Billie McWinn*— Idaho Power Nathan Black— Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen*— Idaho Power Riley Maloney— Idaho Power
Cheryl Paoli — Idaho Power Ryan Trail*—St Lukes
Chris Pollow— Idaho Power Shelley Martin— Idaho Power
Landon Barber— Idaho Power Sheree Willhite— Idaho Power
Laura Conilogue— Idaho Public Utilities Sophie Croome— Idaho Power
Commission Stephanie Wicks—St Lukes
Matt Scheel— Idaho Power Todd Greenwell— Idaho Power
Tonja Dyke— Idaho Power
Note Takers
Michelle Toney
Meeting Facilitator
Quentin Nesbitt

Idaho Power Company Idaho EEAG Meeting
9:33 A.M. Welcome & Announcements—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin started the meeting with safety and introductions. He mentioned the company filed its
annual prudence review with the Idaho Commission on March 141n
9:40 A.M. 2025 YTD Financials & Savings—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin presented the company's YTD financials, savings, and impact and process evaluation
plans.
Discussion
One member asked about the total savings for the first quarter and how they compare to
future projections. Quentin answered that energy efficiency savings are lower than expected
but more projects are expected towards the end of the year, and most will be Commercial &
Industrial (C&I) Custom projects.
Another member asked about the most common measures for C&I New Construction (NC).
Chellie advised those measures are lighting, controls, HVAC, and building shell measures.
One member asked about what "Other" evaluations meant for the Flex Peak evaluation plan.
Quentin answered that the "Other" (box checked for the Flex Peak evaluations) is an impact
evaluation that the company does internally every year.
Another member asked if a third-party does the impact and process evaluations. Quentin
answered typically yes, and the company uses the "Other" category for internal evaluations or
for other evaluations that are not categorized as full impact or process evaluations.
9:50 A.M. — Residential Programs—Billie McWinn
Billie presented the Residential Programs savings and participation. She then provided updates
on the Bring Your Own Thermostat (BYOT) offering, Home Energy Report (HER) evaluation, and
marketing.
Discussion
Annual Savings by Program

Idaho Power Company Idaho EEAG Meeting
One member asked about the number of projects in the pipeline for the Multifamily Program.
Chellie answered that there are twenty-two pre applications, and four projects paid to date.
Program Participation
One member commented on the Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (WAQC)
participation, noting the lag in the first quarter. The member stated the Community Action
Partnership (CAP) Agencies must pivot because the contracts with Department of Energy (DOE)
are not signed due to the DOE being, for the most part, shut down, and without DOE funding it
will be hard to leverage. The member then added there are only thirty-five project officers to
cover the entire United States.
Billie thanked the member for the information and said the company will also continue to
monitor this issue.
Another member asked about why HER savings are up, but participation is down. Billie
reminded everyone that the reported savings are preliminary, and approximately 8% per year is
due to expected attrition. She added that some savings can continue at a reduced amount for
those homes that no longer receive reports, and inclement weather can affect the potential for
savings per household. Billie concluded that these are some of the reasons you could achieve a
savings increase year-over-year, even with fewer people receiving reports.
One member asked about the Easy Savings Program. Billie explained that it is a low-income
education program, which originally distributed energy efficiency kits to low-income customers,
but is now providing HVAC tune-up coupons. She added the CAP Agencies provide the coupons
and when the customer redeems them, a licensed contractor tunes up the HVAC, and then
provides education on the home's energy use and how to maintain the HVAC system.
One member asked about the frequency customers can receive a tune-up. Billie answered that
the customer can receive one every year, which ensures the system continues to operate
properly. Another member reminded everyone that the coupons are for low-income qualified
customers with electric heat.
A/C Cool Credit and BYOT Update
One member asked about the season start date. Billie responded that the Demand Response
(DR) season starts June 151", but BYOT will not be available at that time. Quentin added the
program might be available mid-season.
Another member asked about the attrition of the switch program and if the company will be
keeping it going forward. Billie advised the switch option will still be available and the BYOT will
be an additional way to participate.
Page 2

Idaho Power Company Idaho EEAG Meeting
One member asked about BYOT participants opting out from their phones. Billie answered that
customers can opt out from their phone, but to get the incentive they must participate in more
than half of the events.
HER Evaluation
One member asked about the validated actual saving vs deemed savings. Billie said the groups
could be run concurrently but it would be difficult because the savings would have to be
validated retroactively. The member then asked if the deemed savings are from actual. Billie
answered that the actuals are used as an industry marker. Quentin added that keeping the
control group is to help verify the deemed savings.
Another member asked which organization determines the deemed savings. Billie answered
that the same evaluator who does this year's impact evaluation will also provide the deemed
savings. She added the company ensures evaluators have experience with other utilities
utilizing deemed savings. The member asked for clarification about the service areas they have
evaluated. Billie replied that the evaluators do have experience with peer utilities in Idaho.
One member asked about how the company accounts for double counting measures. Billie
answered that it is not known, but there is a percentage taken off the savings, assuming that
some are achieved through the company's energy efficiency programs. The member then asked
about the measure life. Billie answered that the savings are one-year measure life.
Another member asked if the company will be working with the same evaluator that creates
the deemed savings. Billie responded that once they provide the company with these
deliverables, the evaluators contract expires. She added that through the normal Request for
Proposal process, the company can choose to engage them in the future.
The member then asked if the impact evaluation measures Click Through Rates or other kind of
metrics to see how people are engaging with the emails. Billie advised that is not part of the
evaluation. The member commented that it would be an interesting metric.
Another member asked about opting in. Billie responded that it is not possible with the
control/treatment group method. Quentin added that the deemed savings model being
considered would allow more customers to be eligible to receive the reports.
10:25 A.M. — Commercial, Industrial, & Irrigation Programs—Chellie
Jensen
Page 3

Idaho Power Company Idaho EEAG Meeting
Chellie presented the overall and individual CI&I program performance, DR preseason
enrollment, Small Business Lighting (SBL), a new Whole Building Approach exploration, and C&I
trainings planned for 2025.
Discussion
C&I Flex Peak
One member asked if there was a cutoff date and is it possible for customers to enroll anytime.
Chellie responded that customers could enroll during the season, but the incentive would be
prorated. Quentin added the company works diligently to have customers enrolled by the start
of the season, June 15cn
Irrigation Peak
One member asked about the crops that might prevent enrollment, such as potatoes.
Chellie answered that some crops, like potatoes, can be more challenging due to water needs
while some, like grain crops, are more flexible.
The member then asked about the regional concentration. Chellie responded that the number
of pumps are approximately equal across the groups. She added that there are five groups:
Group A is Eastern, Group B is Southern, and Group C is capital and western region combined
but there is also a Group D which is the extended hour and Group E, the early hour option, both
are across all regions. Quentin added that the kW reductions per pump are larger in the
Southern and Eastern Idaho due to deep well pumping causing larger horsepower pumps.
Another member asked about the farms purchased by larger entities and why they do not
participate. Chellie answered it is due to labor, as they need someone to go out and make sure
those pumps came back on. Quentin added the incentive is not enough to cover the labor cost
for someone to check on those pumps that late at night.
SBL Program
One member asked about the percentage of the overall savings in the SBL offering. Shelley
answered that the savings averages around 2,300 kWh and 4,000 kWh per project (it varies per
customer) and is a small percentage of the overall savings in the CI&I portfolio. She added there
have been 12 projects paid this year.
Another member asked if the Return on Investment (ROI) is tracked for the customer. Chellie
said there is a robust lighting tool for each project that shows the ROI as a simple payback, the
cost of waiting, the kwh savings, and the incentives.
The member then asked if the carbon emissions are noted on the tool. Chellie answered no, but
the information is available, if customers ask.
Page 4

Idaho Power Company Idaho EEAG Meeting
The member then commented that even though the SBL offering isn't necessarily free, the
incentive checks are important and to be celebrated, but above that, the tool can estimate the
monthly savings on customers' bills. The member added that in general, customers tend to
forget how much they are saving every month.
Shelley added that from conversations with contractors and energy advisors, most customers
on the eligible list for SBL already have upgraded to LED. Chellie also added that the company
scrutinizes the list to make sure there has not been a significant amount of lighting incentive for
that customer in the past.
The member then asked if a customer could get incentives for installing controls. Shelley
answered that the focus for SBL has been on replacing fluorescent lighting with LEDs. The
contractors are asked to look for control opportunities when they come upon customers that
already have LEDs.
Custom Program
One member commented on custom projects, saying in their experience, to calculate the
savings, often the company measures the real savings.
Chellie confirmed that there are robust calculations on the front end of the project prior to pre-
approval so the customer can be confident of what incentive to expect. She added that
depending on the size and complexity of the project, there is data to perform a measurement
and verification analysis with a third party, post project and prior to paying the incentive.
Chellie continued that the scope of the project is verified as well as confirming all energy
measures were installed. She concluded that this often ends up being a commissioning effort
where the team finds the project has additional work to do prior to completion that would
positively impact their savings.
Multifamily Whole Building Approach—Asking for Feedback
One member asked about the length of time that a multifamily project would take to design.
Sheree responded that it takes 1-2 years depending on the size of the project. The member
then asked if the Whole Building Approach will be available to HUD and Idaho Housing and if
there is an analysis for market value versus tax subsidized. Sheree answered that it isn't known
how many are at market value in the company's service area, however, the existing multifamily
offering and the potential whole building approach would be available to any multifamily
building that meets the criteria. She added that the company can research whether it makes
sense to connect with Idaho Housing.
Another member asked about the analysis, inquiring if it was a proprietary model. Chellie
answered the analysis is done by a third-party evaluator, and it is a proprietary model, but
based on DOE-2 framework, a widely used and accepted building energy modeling software.
Page 5

Idaho Power Company Idaho EEAG Meeting
The member then asked about the savings and how those are determined. Chellie replied that
the model uses the energy code as the baseline and then the energy efficiency bundles that are
presented by the implementer then the design team selections are input into the model.
The member asked about the feedback to improve the model. Chellie said the company will
research this to see if there could be improvements to the model.
One member asked about the different kinds of multifamily projects, if those are New
Construction or Retrofits and why is the documentation needed to verify. Chellie answered that
those projects are New Construction. Sheree stated the documentation is to confirm the
installation of the equipment.
One member stated that since the savings are from the model, it would be good to verify those
savings for the Commercial New Construction Program and not just use model estimates.
Chellie thanked the member for the comment and added the company would take this under
consideration.
Another member said that they like the Whole Building Approach because of the options and
the company getting involved early in the pre-design phase, which is ideal. Chellie agreed and
added the company always encourages early engagement.
One member commented that with any new construction project, there already is engagement
with the company for design and electrical service. The member asked why this does not trigger
a conversation about energy efficiency. Chellie replied that new construction projects
sometimes begin with the business development team and energy advisors who loop in the
energy efficiency department. Quentin added that it is often too late because by the time they
request new construction electrical service with the design team, the architect and engineering
project design is already done.
Another member said, as for the perspective of the city, they have a voluntary Green Code
which could plug the program at the permitting level. Chellie thanked the member and will
follow up.
One member asked about the baseline code the model is based off, but not off the city's Green
Code. Chellie answered that the builders often build to the minimum energy code adopted by
the State. She added that the company is trying to educate engineers, architects, and
contractors about energy efficiency, programs, and incentives offered to help cover the
additional costs of building beyond code.
Another member added that most architects and engineers are not all local and that makes it
even more challenging to educate them. Chellie agreed. The member then asked about the
successes with this approach in other service areas. Sheree replied that this approach is used
across the US and the NW region is moving in the direction of a Whole Building Approach. She
added that Snohomish County PUD has had a Whole Building Approach since 2021, Seattle City
Page 6

Idaho Power Company Idaho EEAG Meeting
Light rolled out their program in 2025 and are going to close their prescriptive program, while
Xcel Energy is offering both.
One member supports the company's plans but commented that it would be good to research
the cost effectiveness of switching the programs from Prescriptive to a Whole Building
Approach and would like the company to consider an evaluation.
Another member likes this whole building approach noting that it will be helpful getting input
about energy efficiency measure options up front before the design phase and seeing the
whole picture with a modeled building instead of piece by piece with the typical prescriptive
measures.
Trainings
One member commented on how valuable these offerings are to the customer and added that
these trainings are free.
11:15 P.M. — Break
11:39 A.M. — State of the Construction Industry — Anita Keil, ESI
Chellie introduced Anita Keil, Preconstruction Director with ESI. Anita introduced ESI and
presented a brief history of the company and the construction market overview. She discussed
the strengths and challenges of the market, case studies, City of Boise permits, and potential
impacts from tariffs.
Discussion
Energy Efficient Design Case Study#1
One member asked about the agile elevator. Anita responded that it is a destination dispatch
system that is responsive by communicating on the control side that is a lot more efficient.
Mega Project Labor Needs
One member asked about the 4,000 total craft jobs for Micron. Anita answered that Micron is
now one project but has contracts with many workers with different disciplines (drywallers to
electricians). They need 4000 workers, 32 cranes, and 100 + elevators to complete their
projects and the work varies by job on many project sites.
Page 7

Idaho Power Company Idaho EEAG Meeting
12:15 P.M. — Lunch
1:00 P.M. Strategic Energy Management (SEM) — Chellie Jensen, Ali
Ward Boise School Dist., and Ryan Trail St Lukes
Chellie presented the SEM processes and why it is important. She then introduced Ali Ward,
Boise School District Sustainability Supervisor and Ryan Trail with St. Lukes who presented their
experiences with Idaho Power and their respective organization's participation in the SEM
cohorts.
Discussion
One member asked about becoming a member of the cohort. Chellie answered that the
company has recruiting sessions that are offered to all customers that meet the intent of the
specific type of cohort. She added that the company's Energy Advisors help the program
managers by engaging applicable customers who can commit the time and effort to long term
venture.
One member appreciates the presentations and acknowledged the importance to partner with
the company. The member then added that many of these businesses who have worked with
the company have received the Governor's Award for Leadership in Energy Efficiency.
1:59 P.M. Wrap-up/Open Discussion
Thank you, I have learned a great deal today. I do appreciate being in-person.
I also appreciate the in-person format, thank you.
I appreciate being part of EEAG and having the opportunity to provide feedback on future
programs, especially the BYOT program. It is satisfying to see the success of your EE programs.
I enjoyed the topics presented today and have learned a great deal.
Highly informative and exciting. I do have a question about the percentage that the company
matches to cohorts and if Ali and Ryan's time would be eligible. Quentin responded that the
incentives provided are based on the savings. Chellie added that the incentive is 2.5 cents per
kWh saved, up to 100% of eligible costs and eligible incentive costs do include labor and
materials and the company also covers 100% of the third-party implementors costs.
Page 8

Idaho Power Company Idaho EEAG Meeting
Connie and Quentin thanked everyone for their time and participation.
2:15 P.M. Meeting Adjourned
Page 9

Idaho Power Company
EEAG Virtual Meeting August 14, 2025
Present
Christian Douglass—Northwest Power& Quentin Nesbitt— Idaho Power
Conservation Council Riley Mahoney— Idaho Power
Don Strickler—J.R. Simplot Company Steve Hubble—City of Boise Public Works
Derek Goldman—NW Energy Coalition Sidney Erwin — Idaho Irrigation Pumpers
Jason Talford — Idaho Public Utilities Association
Commission
Not Present
Matt Fuxon—Charlie's Produce
Ken Robinette—South Central Community Action Partnership
Emily Her—Office of Energy and Mineral Resources
Connie Aschenbrenner— Idaho Power
Guest & Presenters*
Aleia Peterson — Idaho Power Julie Rosandick— Idaho Power
Andee Morton— Idaho Power Landon Barber*— Idaho Power
Annie Meyer— Idaho Power Laura Conilogue— Idaho Public Utilities
Becky Arte Howell — Idaho Power Commission
Billie McWinn*— Idaho Power Mary Alice Taylor— Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen*— Idaho Power Michelle Toney— Idaho Power
Cheryl Paoli — Idaho Power Mindi Shodeen — Idaho Power
Chris Pollow— Idaho Power Nathan Black— Idaho Power
Dahl Bietz— Idaho Power Nick Ackerman— Idaho Power
Danielle Ready— Idaho Power Ray Short— Idaho Power
Gina Powell— Idaho Power Shelley Martin — Idaho Power
Jeff Rigby— Idaho Power Sophie Croome— Idaho Power
Jordyn Neerdaels— Idaho Power Todd Greenwell — Idaho Power
Note Taker: Michelle Toney with Sophie Croome
Meeting Facilitator: Quentin Nesbitt

Idaho Power Company
9:32 A.M. Welcome & Announcements—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin opened the meeting with introductions. There were no questions or comments about
May's meeting notes.
9:37 A.M. 2025 YTD Financials & Savings—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin presented on the YTD expenses and savings. He then went over the evaluation
categories and the process.
Discussion
One member asked about the Custom program and asked about examples of projects since
they are the largest savings. Quentin answered that the projects in the Custom category include
our large commercial and industrial customers' non-prescriptive capital type projects, as well as
their participation in our Cohorts and other energy management projects.
9:49 A.M. Cost Effectiveness—Landon Barber
Landon presented on 2025 cost effectiveness with a short refresher and updates to the 2025
forecast. Landon then went over reporting on the portfolio level for EE programs and compared
program costs and avoided costs overtime.
Discussion
Standard Tests
One member commented on the UCT example and stated they assume an example for avoided
"capacity" costs is new generation resources &tax infrastructure, whereas avoided "energy"
cost is the actual kWh of usage avoided. Landon replied that yes, avoided energy costs are
volumetric per kWh and are from the IRP. Landon added there are also other factors such as
month and time of day that the savings occur.
Forecast Components
One member asked about the commercial SBL forecasting and if the C/E can always be
borderline. Landon answered that this forecast does not have any bearing in future years,just
specific to the current year.
Another member mentioned that Quentin did not show the Cohort 2025 expenses and savings
as a line-item in Q2 and does not understand how the Cohorts are also borderline without line-
Page 1

Idaho Power Company
item data.The member would like to see those broken out. Landon replied that those are
under the Custom Project umbrella. Quentin added that there are accounting mechanisms to
track the expenses separately, and they are shown separately in the DSM Supplement 2 report.
One member asked about the IRP forecast and the utilization of avoided costs and at what
point was there a transition to updating those costs. Landon answered the company uses the
latest IRP which is typically filed in June of every odd year and locked in at the beginning of the
year for two years. He added the information for the 2026 and 2027 program years will be from
the 2025 IRP.
Another member needed clarification about which program Landon stated is extremely
successful. Landon advised that it was the Multifamily program.
Program Changes
HER
One member then asked about the HER being borderline and why sudden changes were made
when it was one of the most successful programs. Landon answered that C/E considers the
program costs and savings over the life of the measure, but this program has a measure life of
only one year, which impacts the C/E.
The member then asked if the program is expected to expand and if that is considered. Landon
answered yes, but there are added costs, and the savings are not yet known until the end of the
year. He added that there is an evaluation in the process which will look at the success of this
program and why it is borderline.
H&CE
One member asked about the HP and DHP and the performance at the measure level and
whether they were borderline C/E because H&CE has a lot of complex components. Landon
answered that the program does pass C/E at the program level. He added that there is also an
evaluation this year which adds to the administration costs, and participation needs to come up
to offset those additional costs.
Another member asked about the program planning and if the C/E ratio being 1.0 or higher.
Landon advised that it depends on the program. The company does not hyper-optimize to a 1.0
and when designing incentive levels, the measure level is optimized based on each program
with many considerations including whether the incentive will affect the market.
Billie added that when determining measure level incentives, we look at what might impact a
customer's decision in relation to the cost of the measure and other customer motivations. The
goal is not to underpay or overpay.
Page 2

Idaho Power Company
Quentin then added the company does not design programs to a ratio of 1.0 because they
would be more likely to not be C/E if assumptions were not exact.
10:37 A.M. — Break
10:50 A.M. Residential Programs—Billie McWinn
Billie presented preliminary savings & participation through Q2, program updates, and
marketing. She provided updates on BYOT, HERS and City of Boise's collaboration with Idaho
Power's HEA program. She then discussed changes to the savings for Efficient Manufactured
Homes and asked for feedback on WAQC Re-Weatherization options.
Discussion
HER
One member asked about customers being removed from the program because they did not
remember receiving a report recently. Billie explained that there has only been one set of
reports this year. She added that the reports should start to go out quarterly. There was one
treatment group (T5) that was removed during a pilot phase because there were not enough
savings due to them being lower energy users.
Another member asked about how to participate. Billie answered that to accurately measure
savings from the usage of the control group, participants of the treatment group must be
randomly selected, otherwise it could skew the usage of the treatment group. She noted the
company is exploring a different model using deemed savings that might include more
participation at the customer's request.
One member asked about the savings per home. Landon replied that last year the average
treatment home used 190 kWh less than the average control home.
HEA/ City of Boise Collaboration
One member commented that the city will be marketing the program to Boise residents. Billie
responded that the company will be working with the city and will adjust as necessary to
ensure the program auditor can handle the applications as they come in to prevent a backlog
and a negative customer experience.
Efficient Manufactured Homes
One member thanked Billie for the presentation, saying they learned a lot and appreciated the
company exploring all the alternatives.
Page 3

Idaho Power Company
Another member asked about the reduced savings and if it really is close to that 100% NEEM
1.1 standard. Billie answered that per our dealerships, Idaho Power's service area is also seeing
nearly 100% of homes being sold at a minimum rating of NEEM 1.1.
WAQC ReWx
One member asked about the $50,000 and if it went to all Agencies for qualified nonprofits for
the year. Billie answered that nonprofit funds were a pooled amount that were historically
carried over if left unspent. Going forward, unused nonprofit funds will not be carried over as
the $50,000 is made available per year.
The member then asked if the money is eligible for any nonprofit. Billie replied that there are
income requirements. Cheryl added that nonprofits need to be specific to special needs of
customers, such as a senior center in Gooding that is going to be completed this year. She
noted other projects included children's homes and camps, and the company encourages
projects in all regions.
The member then asked about unused money. Billie responded that the previously unused
carryover funds were fully utilized by two large projects in 2024.
Another member commented that they did not understand how the Rider funds worked
compared to other company funds. Billie replied that the company would present on this topic
in the future. Quentin answered that Rider funds are collected from customers' bills, and the
company will present on that in an upcoming EEAG.
One member asked if the company has any recommendations for re-weatherization options.
Billie answered that the company supports ReWx to utilize unspent carryover funds.
Another member asked about the water heater projects and what the potential looks like.
Cheryl answered that there have not been any water heater conversions because agencies are
not focused on ReWx but they favor keeping that option.
The member then asked about what happens to the funds left over if that program closes at the
end of the pilot. Billie answered that the carryover funds will be spent on standard
weatherization until those carryover dollars are fully spent.
One member asked if one option costs more to manage, stating they prefer the option to leave
ReWx open until carryover funds are spent if it does not increase the company's management
resource requirements. Billie stated that the only additional effort on the company's side is
reporting and that it is minimal.
Another member asked about the $527,000 carryover and if it is only for ReWx. Billie advised
that the money is available for ReWx but is also available for standard weatherization.
Page 4

Idaho Power Company
The member then asked about whether the normal operation of spending down that balance
and leaving ReWx open gives more options to spend. Billie said yes.
The member asked if there will be a filing with the Commission if it is decided to leave ReWx
open past the end of 2025. Billie advised the company will look into the language in the ReWx
application and subsequent Commission Order and determine if a filing is needed.
The member stated this should be a consideration in deciding whether to keep it available.
Another member suggested having other CAP agencies involved. Billie advised that Cheryl
frequently communicates with the CAP agencies, and they prefer to have the ReWx remain
open.
One member commented that they want the program to remain open.
Another member voiced concerns about a possible filing for leaving ReWx open and any
roadblocks that come with that. The member added that if there is no filing required, it makes
more sense to leave it open, but if there is a filing required, then the first option to close it at
the end of the year would be less work and potentially a better option.
One member added that they prefer option two (leaving it open) for accelerated energy
savings.
Another member commented that they have no concerns with leaving it open given the
company and CAP agencies feedback.
11:30 A.M. Fuel Conversion Baseline Assumptions—Chellie Jensen &
Billie McWinn
Chellie started the presentation with an introduction to the fuel conversion baseline
assumptions then gave C&I project examples, went over benchmarking, offered some options
to consider, and then requested feedback.
Billie presented the residential current practices and options to consider, then requested
feedback.
Discussion
One member asked about the gas boilers and why the usage is so high or if it is a kWh
comparison. Chellie answered that it is the BTU equivalent shown in kWh units.
Page 5

Idaho Power Company
Another member commented that the table is correct, and they are pressured by customers
and the community to electrify. The member pointed out that the community does not
understand the impacts and costs. The member added that natural gas is less expensive and
anything to help make electricity less expensive is helpful, and if a company is going to fuel-
switch, it might make more sense to spend the money upfront to save money in the future.
Chellie thanked the member and mentioned that is why the company wants to discuss the topic
with the members with the overall goal to influence EE options for customers that choose
electric as their fuel choice and support customers in making educated decisions about
technology.
Another member agreed and commented about the complexities of these issues and pointed
out that as a customer working to electrify, they are looking forward to incentive opportunities
and making better EE choices. Chellie stated that there are many things to consider, and the
company will go into this topic further in November.
Multiple members had clarifying questions around what was being presented and the C&I
project example table.
One member commented that if gas technologies are selected, there are still electric EE
measures to take advantage of such as adding a VFD for a combustion blower or feed water
pump.
12:16 P.M. — Lunch
1:00 P.M. Fuel Conversion Baseline Assumptions Continued—Chellie
Jensen & Billie McWinn
Discussion
C&I
One member commented about how the council and RTF have dealt with this issue and have
chosen to use a blended baseline and industry standard as a baseline. People make their fuel
choice decisions independent of incentives available, so they use baseline as industry standard
practice and would be happy to share a supporting whitepaper on this topic.
Another member stated that it is tricky to come up with best practice because of the many
different technologies. There are clear examples of some really good reasons to include electric
resistance in the baseline.
Page 6

Idaho Power Company
One member commented that they do support spending money upfront to install efficient
electric measures, and if an incentive were available, it would make that decision more
economical. The member appreciates that the company is considering that as an option if they
are mindful about which baseline is chosen.
Another member asked about the incentives and if those would be only for ASHP or would
GSHP also qualify. Chellie answered that once a baseline methodology is decided upon,
incentives would be available on all C/E measures that fit the structure of the program.
One member noted their appreciation for the analysis, which is based on the customer's
perspective, but has concerns with one of the options of using an equivalent BTU to kWh
methodology. The member added that trying to use natural gas as a baseline would not achieve
savings because an electric utility will not see natural gas on the system.
One member disagrees with another member's assertion that incentives do not motivate fuel
choice decisions, noting they have incentives for HP water heaters, and customers are choosing
to install based on the incentive.
Another member suggested additional subjects for future training, such as industrial HPs and
other efficient electric technologies.
Chellie agreed and noted the available HVAC training where different technologies are
discussed but will look to enhance the trainings with industrial heat pumps and other new
efficient technologies.
Residential
One member supports the concern of residential messaging by highlighting solar PV installers
that create their own spin on economics. The member said the offerings could be messaged in a
way that would alleviate these concerns and keep the company from being blamed for the end
results.
Another member had a comment about new construction and going all electric is assumed to
be more expensive, but that might not be the case, especially with higher EE standards. The
member added this program is not a one size fits all like retrofits. The member shared their
own experience of not receiving heat pump incentives. The member agrees that the company
has a tremendous reputation but encourages the company to focus on the UCT as a regulatory
driver.
Billie said the baseline for the UCT is the tricky part when having to determine what goes into
customers' decision-making. She added that the company does offer RNC where NC is available.
One member advised from a commercial perspective, electric may not always be more
expensive. The member added that gas prices are low now but might not be in the future, and a
new HP may be more energy efficient and less economically burdensome.
Page 7

Idaho Power Company
Another member agrees with the assumption about gas prices and the economics of electric
heating are different when combined with rooftop solar natural gas should not be assumed as
less expensive option in the future.
Billie replied that it could be up for a future discussion.
One member stated that this is an excellent discussion and agrees the baseline considerations
can be fuzzy with the fuel conversion issue. The member commented that when gas is
available, the electric baseline is zero, but in a fuel switching scenario the baseline might be the
alternative fuel.
Billie agreed that it matters whether they would be going electric regardless.
Another member had a comment that with electrification the existing infrastructure may need
to be upgraded or modernized, which is an extra cost. Also, reliability is already a concern for
commercial and industrial customers and support to reduce electric usage would help.
One member stated that if you separate customers broadly into two groups, those that make
their decision based on cost and those that want to use electricity, the group that wants to use
electricity is going to be better off financially with a heat pump than an electric resistance
furnace, especially considering the lifetime of the unit. They added that for the group making
their decision based on cost, the messaging should be controlled and there could also be a
place to talk about lifetime of the system if there's a difference in NPV (as was seen in the
commercial example) with need to replace, etc.
Another member clarified that the economics of switching from gas to electricity are different
for a customer purchasing all their electricity from the utility, versus a customer with (or
planning) a rooftop installation.
1:33 P.M. Commercial, Industrial, & Irrigation Programs—Chellie
Chellie presented the CI&I DR current enrollment and events. She then discussed preliminary
overall EE savings through Q2 and marketing. Chellie then presented the YTD individual
program performance, cohort success, SBL progress, the Whole Building Approach program and
Midstream approach status, announced an engineering intern, and discussed C&I customer
trainings.
Discussion
Irrigation Peak Rewards
One member complimented the gains in DR and participation.
Whole Building Feedback
Page 8

Idaho Power Company
One member asked about the evaluations on the first five projects once they paid out and if
there will be a full program evaluation, and if so, is it considered a pilot. Chellie answered that
the program evaluation purpose is to see if there needs to be any adjustments and review the
C/E. Billie added that it is not a pilot but a soft launch. Chellie advised that the five projects
could take multiple years, from design to complete build out and measurement/verification and
incentive payout.
The member then asked about the offering and if it would be on hold while the five projects
were evaluated. Chellie replied that continuity would be best and it would not be necessary due
to the ongoing verification of each project and utilizing the IDL to construct a parallel model to
determine if the results are accurate and the program is successful. The benchmarking with
other utilities have led to very positive results, and we aren't anticipating any showstopping
issues.
Another member stated that with the last couple DSM filings, energy models have been
highlighted, with one instance still an open topic a and then asked about the timeline and if it
would accommodate a potential change if warranted. Billie replied that it is important to
recognize the distinctions between the modeling for this program and Residential New
Construction. We see this modeling differently than what is being done in RNC.
The member then stated that the calculation behind the savings is an energy model, which has
similarities to the other applications. Landon responded that not all models are the same as
they are customized specific to NC and Multifamily. Landon added there are more
opportunities for transparency and detail than in residential, and the company views this as a
tool to incent these buildings.
The member added that there are differences, but there is an energy model behind both and
while one has a more detailed and transparent energy model, the member still has thoughts
about whether any changes need to be made based on any Commission directives.
Landon commented that the company has addressed modeling concerns, it is about the
assumptions. He added this program will have good and easy audit options and the IDL will
verify that the model itself is working as it should.
Chellie added that the company can discuss this option more if there is additional feedback
before the next steps.
The member then commented that if there is something that is directed, we should be
prepared to incorporate that to ensure the modeling of this program aligns with actual savings.
The member added that through the evaluations, hopefully we can find what is needed and
make any adjustments necessary.
Page 9

Idaho Power Company
Midstream
One member thinks this is a great idea and asked about other utilities and if they have
Midstream programs. Chellie answered, yes other utilities do have Midstream programs.
Another member also complimented the program and would like to see a deep dive
presentation before the launch. Chellie said the company will present additional information on
Midstream during the November meeting.
2:23 P.M. Wrap-up/Open Discussion
Quentin discussed the retirements of Shelley and Cheryl and due to CHQ onsite construction,
he advised that there will be a slight change in the next meeting location November 121" EEAG
meeting.
Members provided the following feedback:
"Congratulations Cheryl and Shelley! I appreciate the meeting and the engagements."
"Super informative. Thanks!"
"I love feedback requested! It is always a good sign when there is great discussions and input.
Thank you!"
2:30 P.M. Meeting Adjourned
Page 10

Idaho Power Company
Glossary of Acronyms
ASHP—Air-Source Heat Pumps Q2—Quarter 2
BTU—British Thermal Units SBL—Small Business Lighting
BYOT— Bring Your Own Thermostat ReWx— Re-Weatherization
C&I—Commercial and Industrial Rider—Energy Efficiency Rider
CAP—Community Action Partnership RNC— Residential New Construction
C/E— Cost Effective(ness) RTF—Regional Technical Forum
CHQ—Corporate Headquarters (Idaho UCT—Utility Cost Test
Power) VFD—Variable Frequency Drive
DHP—Ductless Heat Pump WAQC—Weatherization Assistance for
DR—Demand Response Qualified Customers
DSM—Demand-Side Management WAQC ReWx— Re-Weatherization
EEAG—Energy Efficiency Advisory Group YTD—Year to Date
EE— Energy Efficiency
GSHP— Ground Source Heat Pump
H&CE—Heating & Cooling Efficiency
HEA— Home Energy Audit
HER—Home Energy Report
HP— Heat Pump
HVAC—Heating, Ventilation, and Air
Conditioning
IDL—Integrated Design Lab
IRP—Integrated Resource Plan
kW—Kilowatt
kWh—Kilowatt-hour
MW—Megawatt
NC— New Construction
NEEM—Northwest Energy-Efficient
Manufactured Housing Program
NPV— Net Present Value
PV—Solar Photovoltaic

Idaho Power Company
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group Meeting
November 12, 2025
Present
Christian Douglass— Northwest Power& Rebecca Cottrell — Idaho Public Utilities
Conservation Council (Virtual) Commission
Derek Goldman — NW Energy Coalition Riley Maloney— Idaho Power
Emily Her—Office of Energy& Mineral Steve Hubble— City of Boise Public Works
Resources Sidney Erwin — Idaho Irrigation Pumpers
Jason Talford — Idaho Public Utilities Association (Virtual)
Commission
Quentin Nesbitt— Idaho Power
Not Present
Don Strickler—J.R. Simplot Company
Matt Fuxon —Charlie's Produce
Guests & Presenters*
Alexis Freeman — Idaho Power Laura Conilogue— Idaho Public Utilities
Annie Meyer— Idaho Power Commission
Becky Arte Howell— Idaho Power Mary Alice Taylor— Idaho Power
Billie McWinn*— Idaho Power Michelle Toney— Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen*— Idaho Power Mindi Shodeen— Idaho Power
Cheryl Tuning — Idaho Power Matt Scheel — Idaho Power
Danielle Ready— Idaho Power Nathan Black— Idaho Power
Donn English— Idaho Public Utilities Nick Ackerman — Idaho Power
Commission Ray Short— Idaho Power
Elena Radcliffe— Idaho Power Sheree Willhite— Idaho Power
Gina Powell — Idaho Power Sophie Croome— Idaho Power
Landon Barber*— Idaho Power Todd Greenwell — Idaho Power
Note Takers Michelle Toney with Sophie Croome
Meeting Facilitator Quentin Nesbitt

Idaho Power Company
9:32 A.M. Welcome & Announcements—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin started the meeting and after introductions, he discussed the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission's November 2025 DSM prudence order.
There were no questions or comments about the August meeting notes.
9:38 A.M. 2024 YTD Financials, Savings, & Evaluations—Quentin
Nesbitt
Quentin presented the 2025 YTD financials, savings, and evaluations. He went over program
changes including name changes, new programs, and discontinued programs.
Quentin then discussed program evaluations and went over the pros and cons of moving the
Multifamily and SBL evaluations from 2026 to 2027.
Discussion
Financials
One member asked about the departure in the total savings compared to the same quarter last
year. Quentin answered that there was some departure But, overall, it was similar and
explained that Billie and Chellie would go into more detail.
Multifamily Evaluation
One member asked about participation and if there would be enough data to run an analysis
with two years of operations. Billie answered that there were two participants last year and five
this year and more participation would allow for better evaluation methods. Quentin added
that this is a new program, but a process evaluation could provide suggestions for
improvement.
Another member asked about the expected number of participants for 2026. Billie replied that
it isn't possible to know but she expects more participants compared to 2025. Chellie added
that there are a few projects from participants expected to be completed in 2026 and we have
a good pipeline of potential projects.
The member then asked if there is a minimum number of participants required for a better
evaluation. Quentin stated more participation is better for the evaluation. Landon added that
with a smaller group, the evaluator would look at all participants to get a 90% confidence level
and more participation would contribute to that.

Idaho Power Company
The member then asked about the C/E. Quentin answered that the C/E is a concern when
participation is this low and savings are low, but it's the same with all smaller programs.
Another member asked about the evaluation method and if it would include a billing analysis.
Quentin replied that typically the prescriptive measures are from the TRM. Landon added that
it is industry best practice to include a billing analysis as it is done with the NC program, but it is
the evaluators who decide how they run the analysis.
One member stated that with low participation, they likely want to wait until a year when there
will be more participation.
Another member asked for clarification around program participation. Billie answered it has
been all new builds, but the program includes retrofits, though there has been no participation
for retrofits yet. The member then asked about the HER program and if it is included with the
MF program. Billie replied that HER is independent from the MF program.
One member asked about the measures being risky on the C&I side of the TRM and if they are
in flux. Chellie answered that the C&I measures are typical measures that we utilize with
existing C&I programs and MF bundles existing measures from the other programs with new
MF-specific measures.
Another member asked about the significance of the evaluation's timeline. Quentin replied that
it is a commitment the company has made to staff and EEAG the assurance the EE programs are
prudent. He added that evaluations are typically conducted every two or three years by an
external evaluator. Billie stated that the company uses the process evaluation
recommendations for process improvements and the impact evaluations to validate savings.
One member asked about how it is decided whether to do a process or impact evaluation.
Quentin answered that impact evaluations are more important because they relate to savings,
whereas process evaluations are less needed for well-run, mature programs, but the company
weighs the pros and cons of each, including the costs and timing. The member then concluded
that pushing out the evaluation makes the most sense.
Small Business Lighting Evaluation
One member asked about the timeline of the program. Quentin answered that the program life
is expected to be short due to the market being transformed to LEDs.
The member then asked about pushing the evaluation back a year and if there are risks doing
two back-to-back evaluations. Quentin answered that the company would not do back-to-back
evaluations on this program.
Another member asked if the evaluation showed good results, would that change the
company's decision of whether it would be short lived. Quentin answered no, and that the
short term for this program is because the lighting market is transforming to LEDs.
Page 2

Idaho Power Company
One member questioned the C/E of the program if it is extended. Quentin answered that the
evaluations of small programs are costly in comparison to the savings, but if the evaluations are
put off a year, it would have more savings to justify the cost of an evaluation.
Another member asked about how the transformation of lighting in the C&I sectors differs from
the residential sector. Quentin answered that the C&I sector transformation is slow with tube
lights, but screw-ins are completely transformed. Chellie added the company is monitoring the
region and confirmed Idaho is moving slower as there is a lot of inefficient lighting in the area.
She noted that retrofit projects increased in quantity with increased incentives.
The member then commented that conducting the evaluation this year could be more helpful
in scoping out the potential and getting a better understanding of the program's lifespan.
Landon responded that evaluations tend to look at the current state of the program and not the
program's future.
Billie added that there is a potential study scheduled for 2026.
Quentin advised that, per the conversation, the evaluations will be pushed back a year. There
were no further comments.
10:05 A.M. Residential Programs—Billie McWinn
Billie presented the residential programs focusing on AC Cool Credit, Efficient Manufactured
Homes, WAQC Re-weatherization (looking for feedback), and the NEEA Marketplace pilot. She
concluded her presentation with residential marketing.
Discussion
Year-to-Year Savings
One member asked about the RNC decreasing. Billing answered that participation is largely
impacted by a decrease in home energy raters available in the rater network. She added raters
are hard to recruit as they are in short supply and, currently, there is only one in the Treasure
Valley, but that Idaho Power is working with a regional reviewer company to recruit raters and
offer trainings. Billie stated this rater shortage is not unique to Idaho Power's service area, and
that it is an issue throughout the northwestern region.
Another member asked if RNC was all single-family construction. Billie confirmed yes.
Page 3

Idaho Power Company
AC Cool Credit
One member asked about the customer satisfaction rating when there is an event and if the
company monitors that. Billie replied that the company conducts surveys for customer
satisfaction ratings.
The member then asked about customers opting out. Billie answered that customers can opt
out of an event at any time, but they typically do not opt out of individual events. If they call in,
it is usually to remove themselves from the program entirely.
Efficient Manufactured Homes
One member asked about the level of difficulty it will be to bring the program back once it is
suspended. Billie answered that it would be easier to restart than other programs because it
involves a handful of retailers. She stated that the company would bring the topic back to EEAG
if the market changed enough to warrant restarting it.
Another member expressed concerns about the expiring tax credits. Billie replied that the
expiring tax credits are one of the things that the RTF and regional partners will be monitoring
to determine what impacts they will have on builder practices.
One member asked about the program pausing date and how long the company will monitor.
Billie answered that the program would be suspended as of January 1, 2026, and the timing for
restarting the program would depend entirely on the market changes.
Another member commented that this is a hard call as it reminds the member of the Shade
Tree Program. The member suggested potential assessments but added that since the company
has put in a lot of thought into pausing this program, there were no concerns and thanked Billie
for the company's effort.
WAQC Re-Wx
One member asked about the amount of funds that go to agencies each year for WAQC. Billie
advised that just over $1.2 million is funded through the Rider and does not carry over year-to-
year.
Another member asked about whether the agencies were okay with not carrying the re-
weatherization option forward. Billie answered that the company had communicated with the
agencies and while they thought it was a nice option to have available to customers, they
understood that carryover funds were nearly depleted, and they did not have an active pipeline
to justify extending the option.
Page 4

Idaho Power Company
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Incentive Updates
Billie presented changes in incentive levels for ductless heat pumps and air-conditioners due to
changes in cost-effectiveness that result from applying the 2025 IRP DSM's avoided costs. She
shared that the changes would become effective January 1, 2026.
NEEA Marketplace Pilot
Billie presented three options regarding the NEEA Marketplace pilot. Option one was to join the
pilot at a lower level to be able to use it for educational purposes. Option two was to join the
pilot at a higher level to be able to offer incentives and other benefits through it. Option three
was to not join the pilot. One member asked about the loss of incentive opportunities for
option one. Billie answered there would be a loss of incentive opportunities which is one reason
the company preferred option two. Billie explained that option one would allow customers to
see when the company had incentives through its existing programs, but that those incentives
would be paid through the traditional route so customers would have to go through additional
steps to apply. She added that option one would not allow for additional incentives and the
opportunity for customers to apply online through the site.
The member asked if this is on the marketing side. Billie answered that this would be
considered more educational than marketing.
Another member asked about whether option one would link the marketplace to the
company's website for more program information and give direction for the customer to apply
for incentives. Billie answered that the link could be on the company's site but also the
marketplace could contain links to the company's website. The member then commented that
this causes attrition. Billie agreed that it could contribute to attrition.
One member asked about the $15 rebate processing fee and if it gets in the way of lower cost
items. Billie answered that the incentives the company was considering already included the
$15 rebate processing fee.
One member asked about C/E for option 2 without the educational funds. Billie answered that
it likely would not be C/E without those education funds from a UCT perspective. Billie
reiterated option 2 is reliant on part of the expenses being paid for by education funds. Quentin
added that the web traffic tracking can provide insight into education being provided to
customers.
The member then asked about the participation data and what NEEA would provide. Billie
answered that the participation data from NEEA would provide the concrete information
needed to determine incentives and savings for cost-effectiveness calculations and reporting.
Page 5

Idaho Power Company
Another member asked about other peer utility commitments. Billie replied that there are a
handful who have expressed interest, but she is unsure of who or how far down the path they
are yet.
Another member has expressed interest in option 2 but would like to know more about peer
utilities. The member has concerns about the company shouldering all the funding and would
like to see what other funding options are available. The member is not sure about this option.
Billie responded that NEEA is funding the pilot with all member funds, and it's up to the
individual utilities whether they want to provide additional funding to build out benefits to their
individual utilities. She added that regardless of how many other utilities did or did not
participate, this would still be the cost.
One member asked about whether the company would have control over the retailers with
option two. Billie answered the company would have control over things like the categories
displayed, but not the retailers.
One member said the marketplace seemed like a great opportunity and that they completely
supported it. Two other members agreed.
10:58 A.M. — Break
11:12 A.M. Commercial, Industrial, & Irrigation Programs—Chellie
Jensen
Chellie introduced new team members and then presented on DR, CI&I Q3 program
performance. She gave an update on the exploration of a Whole Building Approach and
Midstream offering and asked for feedback.
Discussion
Flex Peak
One member asked about participation in Flex Peak. Chellie answered that it is intended for all
commercial and industrial customers to participate that can reduce a minimum of 20 kW during
an event.
The member then asked about the multiple Irrigation groups. Chellie answered that the Flex
Peak program is only commercial and industrial and there is only one dispatch group.

Idaho Power Company
Another member asked for clarification on why the commercial and industrial program only has
one group. Quentin replied that it is because of the size of the program, and that it's not big
enough to split up into groups.
One member asked if the events can be broken out into small groups when there is a hot
summer, so customers aren't participating in frequent events. Chellie answered that Flex Peak
customers sign up for a max of events (15) and hours (60) in a season and hours in a week (16),
and they can opt out if they don't want to participate. However, opting out will impact the total
incentive they receive at the end of the season.
Irrigation Peak
One member asked about the late group and what time they are scheduled. Chellie answered
that an event can be run for Group D in an extended hour window until 11pm with
extra incentive. Enrollment is yearly and enrollment packets are sent to all irrigation
customers.
The member than asked about each group's participation numbers and if they were the same.
Chellie answered that the early group, Group E, is smallest and the extended group, Group D, is
largest, and the other groups A-C were similar sizes, but it does depend on the region.
One member commented that it's interesting that the max load reduction day was different
from the Flex Peak day. Chellie responded that C&I customers are not as weather dependent
as irrigators and there are more pumps on in July than August, so the max potential is higher.
New Construction
One member asked if the program is linear. Chellie said that it depends on what is happening in
the market.
The member then asked about the number of projects that will be completed by the end of the
year. Chellie answered that there are a couple of large projects that the department is working
on to be completed by December 315t, but completion is highly dependent on customers'
project schedules
The member then asked if the program is expected to be cost-effective. Chellie answered, yes.
Custom
One member asked about the savings and if those are calculated before the construction is
completed. Chellie replied that the savings and potential incentives are typically calculated on
the front end of a project and then final savings and associated incentives are claimed and paid
after completion and verification of a project.
Page 7

Idaho Power Company
Another member asked about the different phases in which a project is paid. Chellie answered
that some projects are paid as they complete a phase and are verified. She then provided
examples of multiple buildings (building A and then building B) or paying on different process
systems like a whole chilled water system or the building shell as one project. It depends on the
size and scope of work for each project as well as customer preference.
One member asked if the Custom program is more customer driven. Chellie replied that the
timeline is customer driven as it's based on the project and construction time. She added the
Company is involved with the process often from conception of an energy efficiency
opportunity and then fully engaged with the customer during the construction process.
IBR Top Protects
One member asked about the incentive that was paid on the Arthur. Chellie answered that the
incentive was for windows, heat pumps and light load reduction.
The member then asked if one of the incentives was for the color or coating of the windows.
Chellie explained that it's the window system itself(called glazing) that met the efficient criteria
outlined by the program.
Whole Building Approach
One member asked about the meaning of"once bundle is determined." Chellie replied that the
implementer establishes different combinations of efficient measures and their associated
overall savings and then the owner and design team decide which combination of measures
they will pursue.
Another member asked about third-party implementers vs company provided implementer and
if Path 2 means that whoever is developing the project gets to pick the architect and engineer
they want to work with, and their model used. Chellie answered that Path 2 is typically a design
team of architects and engineers that are contracted for the design. They often have modeling
capabilities, and we wanted to outline a pathway for them to participate.
The member then asked about the potential opposite of Path 2. The member added that there
is possibility that the architect/engineer doesn't have the modeling skills that are wanted or
needed for the project. Chellie replied that these two paths offer flexibility for the owner and
design firm to pick the best fit and the best option for their project.
The member then asked for clarification that Path 1 is when the implementer gets a separate
incentive. Chellie clarified that yes, Path 1 offers a separate incentive that goes to the
implementer. The member asked if the customer picks one path or the other and Chellie
answered yes.
Another member asked about program eligibility. Chellie answered that there is no minimum
size as the company is trying to get deeper savings than the current prescriptive program offers.
Page 8

Idaho Power Company
Quentin added that the company is also viewing this as an additional option to the Custom new
construction program.
Midstream
No feedback or questions.
12:15 P.M. — Lunch
1:00 P.M. Cost Effectiveness—Landon Barber
Landon presented 2026 cost-effectiveness by first giving the group a refresher on what C/E is
and gave examples. He then provided updates and future forecast.
Discussion
Standard Tests
One member asked about other utilities looking at the cost of carbon. Landon replied that there
is some debate on whether to include that or not, but it is not a standard.
Quentin added that other things like carbon, which tend to be non-quantifiable, tend to not be
included
IRP Avoided Costs
One member asked about the avoided costs graph going up in 2026 then slowly declining.
Landon answered that the graph includes capacity and savings based on the 2025 IRP. Quentin
added that there was a modest increase in capacity from $148 per kW, in the 2023 IRP, to $158
per kW in the 2025 IRP, but that fuel costs went down from the 2023 IRP.
The member then asked about how the company feels about the costs increasing. Quentin
answered that higher avoided costs make energy efficiency look better and more cost effective.
When avoided costs are lower it is difficult for measures to be cost effective.
The member then asked about how accurate the model is at predicting avoided costs. Quentin
said that this is an IRP team question but added that it is an imperfect prediction.
The member then clarified that this could make a measure not cost-effective even though it's
wrong. Quentin replied that yes, that is the reality.
Other IRP Assumptions
Page 9

Idaho Power Company
One member asked about the decrease in line losses and assumed it would increase the DSM
benefits. Landon replied that it is less savings claimed but the system is more efficient.
Another member asked about whether the company has ever considered marginal line losses
instead of averages. Quentin responded that he would look into this and will get back to the
member. Quentin did receive an email from the IRP team and had a side conversation with the
member after the meeting concluded and discussed that the company does not think it
appropriate to use marginal line losses for the purposes of DSM savings.
Other Questions
One member asked about the avoided costs and if those would be recalculated annually or only
with a new IRP. Landon advised they are updated only with each IRP.
The member then asked about the slide that projected avoided costs going up a little next year,
then starting to decline and if there will be big changes in the programs next year. Landon
answered that there are no expected changes.
The member then asked to go back to the avoided cost chart and explain the differences in
avoided costs calculated using the 2023 IRP vs the 2025 IRP, and what accounts for the
differences. Quentin stated this is another question for the IRP team but suspects it has to do
with gas price forecast and renewable resources, which bring down the expected future cost of
energy.
1:35 P.M. Baseline for Fuel Switch ing—Chellie Jensen & Billie McWinn
Chellie and Billie presented on the Fuel Conversion Baseline Assumptions and are asking for
feedback on what should be considered as baseline and if we should change how we are
incenting where NG is available or in use or if code is not applicable, such as in industrial
applications.
Discussion
One member asked about why there are no proposed changes to the 2026 incentives. Billie
answered that the company is still monitoring conditions because what is known today doesn't
justify incentive changes. Quentin added that in the two most common residential
applications, HPWHs and HPs, there isn't a more efficient option to do something different.
One member doesn't necessarily believe the company should change what is currently being
done. The member sees the line of thought from a customer perspective where they may be
choosing electric regardless, but on the flip side, it could incent fuel switching. Quentin brought
up his experience with receiving an incentive from the gas company for an efficient gas furnace
even though he was replacing a heat pump. Billie asked the member that stated he didn't
Page 10

Idaho Power Company
believe IPC should change what we're currently doing whether that would be different for an
industrial customer coming to us with a specific project where they are planning to go electric.
One member asked about the gas company's offerings and if there is a fuel conversion
incentive. Quentin responded that the gas company didn't ask what he was converting from
when he got an incentive, and that he had converted from a heat pump.
Another member responded that if a customer is already choosing electric, they are narrowing
the baseline options for Idaho Power. However, if they haven't already made the decision to
choose electric, it could incent them to choose electric to get an incentive.
Quentin commented that the company does not want to promote fuel switching but wants to
offer an incentive for a more efficient option for situations where the customer is going electric
anyways. He added that this is a conservative approach and, when there is a more efficient
option, they could be incented on the difference between the less efficient option of that same
technology.
Chellie added that if the incentive is too low, you might not actually persuade them to choose
the more efficient option and that is why baselines are so important.
One member commented that the baseline that is selected makes a big difference and if the
costs are high, the incentive also needs to be high.
Another member commented that the blended market rate would lower incentives where
natural gas is not available, which is where it is most needed.
Billie commented that if there is an established baseline for only where natural gas is available,
not service-wide, savings and incentives could be kept where they are currently. Specifically,
where natural gas is not available is where the incentives are most beneficial. Multifamily is an
example of where we have that market data and can utilize a blended market baseline.
One member asked about whether natural gas being available is defined as having it at the
street or to the structure. Quentin answered that if it is available in the street, the company has
considered that as available.
Another member stated that it is important to think of energy efficiency as a marathon and not
as a sprint. The member then added that this does come back to C/E, and the UTC does not
consider the customer's perspective and whether their decision is economical. The member
stated that we should be working toward the most efficient use of electricity and what fuel is
available is speculative. The member added that there should be a way to drive people to make
decisions that cause them to use significantly less energy and most believe low incentives are
better than no incentives.
Page 11

Idaho Power Company
One member questioned whether the electric forced-air furnace is the lowest-efficiency
technology or whether baseboard heaters should be the baseline and if it makes a difference in
the analysis. Billie replied that baseboard heating is not being installed for residential NC.
Another member asked about if there has been any benchmarking with other utilities to see
how they are handling this baseline issue. Quentin replied that yes, there has been some
benchmarking with others and some states are even calculating savings and paying incentives
based on carbon reduction. He added that some areas are using the most conservative
approach of just paying for the higher efficiency unit of the same technology.
The member said it has come up in the analysis of some of their conversion projects where
emissions were net negative at the start. Chellie added that some utilities are normalizing
energy units' usage to equivalent Btu's or kWh and evaluate incentives based on lower overall
energy use, but this may be for dual-fuel utilities. Some are using a fully electric baseline, and
some are operating as we are and not incenting something that's potentially not economically
viable.
Chellie then commented that in the Custom program for industrial projects, the team looks at
industry standards to establish a baseline because there is not a code. She asked the members
whether they would support the company to look at electrification projects similarly on a case-
by-case basis and bringing examples to EEAG for future discussions.
One member said this approach makes sense as a discussion is always good. The member
added that residential is easier to understand but hard to compare to C&I and thinks industrial
examples would make it clearer.
Another member stated that residential customers may consider rooftop solar if they have the
right incentive to replace their hot water heater and HVAC from gas to electric.
Quentin commented that the company could bring specific custom industrial examples and/or
specific prescriptive examples back to EEAG in the future with a specific ask.
Everyone agreed that it was good to keep discussing the concept in future meetings.
One member stated that we should keep load building situations in mind for future discussions
and pondered whether the issue of residential heat pumps not seeing savings would apply on
the commercial & industrial side.
Quentin stated that in the commercial market, contractors are more educated and installing to
better practices that avoid the issues that prevent savings, unlike in the residential market.
Another member commented that discussing and seeing real examples would be helpful. The
member did point out that it is customers who are driving this concept, so it does make sense
to continue to explore it.
Page 12

Idaho Power Company
One member asked about whether the company is capturing air conditioning savings from heat
pumps. Chellie answered that the air-conditioning savings for heat pumps in the programs are
claimed.
Quentin reiterated that for the next meeting we would discuss a specific project, incentive, or
prescriptive measures.
2:49 P.M. Wrap-up/Open Discussion
Great meeting and great topics!
I always learn a lot and IPC is light years away from other utilities in the region on DR efforts.
I appreciate these meetings and notes so I can provide feedback to my team.
I want to express my appreciation to all the work that goes into these EEAG meetings,
especially Billie's presentations.
Great feedback! It gives us a lot to think about.
Thank you for the hard work. I enjoyed the baseline topic which gave me a lot to think about.
You put a lot of thought into how we can encourage more EE purchases.
Kudos! I encourage all of you who receive the HER to take that information and make better
products decisions.
3:05 P.M. Meeting Adjourned
Page 13

t,•�E� r 1,k �INy 3la Pit[}��1(.(l�jr,{ty�JiF�Y f��y1+1�C1� !•.ti_�I• �I`• - J < 1�111�r ; ,, .
I11 1. !► Ni , '� <I�Iik �r fit, �vlS��y,f�r�I�r911` �l��r / 11II•.'' ' s
1 1 - f �1 ' 7 ����.i. 'vc?11rY.f� I 4 J yZ /• .. 1 .�. . 1 VI (
/1YNa;r �••. � = 9!r-.,IJ.V C� 7 >r'R�>Ikpti.. IT> • ', /11 ►1• •,�'� .1�1•� <ti1
1 fr tlI' �,ii t � ! 7'B� t 7 �,6,� f � I+,S'C,� •.. ' .,'( 1 t �}'- •. .� �'
A
lljl�'r�' }•
r ` f�'jl•
r, �'k�'M�Y J Y` 1.Yi� :.? +rJj\ f� 11�r 4r1' ! i•�, �ll 1� 1•�� t.r 1 `1 , '
li 11 (� ►`!1 y ,t r 4u� l Yr t{''1�1 i''' 111 I���ia/'�',. Vli ��
�o1'l ' � �• �'1 fii�11�tl�l..�
/ r _
�1;� tIl,j c ''1 .;•I.I f Li�1:►�,I�.f { Y'M'd j 1c,!�I�X{t,`� j�'I�� , t�'��t,i� r �t lit +�11`�•r�,
), 1 Y!t!�Ky,,�.�,jt�,r•1!J t:�•a•4 h,w1'i�i�/l�',I`�i.(.�y�tfJ�li,��}1►, �_'!� bJ ,`'1/F ''� ���•1
i1[t4� sf>,<'"�YfY�'�JrrlT I�ur��fd�1' ;''1 1' v j• j�
I!. xsT`s�et :z� ;j1 '• t' t• .� i -�•1•: ,� `i. !3
' - -- — ' -c.,�_ ><r. _. �f.�_r •• tom'}��.11a Ll I .��/ •tT:;A
<� f 4'• WWW `s
_•.. �1r1�•,'•,r'�'-�-=eF-=�t- �3-���„�<'ri�l.�ti r���t' �♦�j.,/ '`�! •a• ,•i �,S/•, fr�
ray •��fr•/i� 'i\t1�
ILI
� ,i� t °��"� �'i•r� ' Y t� tr�^r,4'''r'�� ��4j�•. j ��ll. �J'.
/fM�ie'
F �I {' if rL ,.;. .'I' .'1. ••t�.\r t' 1_r ,, •1 ,f.C+h' f.J.1 ^19
t •;'a- f { r j`,. t t3`l Itt i yl let '?•?��,-llv'ep
' V�H� i ..t T♦t'�� sl�N ?i .�-�•�`•` ��� II�'.l��'r�.}� ,r,K`lr
rot • _ �.
Lt�am�•• .-p ki t N, + c c--i �.nt '.•.L.«-�rryj 1�1 l •l.<-. i,
HFA _ * '€- -Try. �i!(ya�J•'£--'G' r}~ r'� �.1t F,r,
7K ♦ 3 .•.f �'��'E
♦t. ]r. -a�r+a..• �-' �K'•'<' -�1r���'�' 1 �jj,
iT=`I
k 'r. , LI i i� t•..�j' } � �'"•tit,
[ yet r # ch--.-
`t / '�Y.,,a^ �a''' �.,IStt�ful t ±11• 1 ✓E 'ft=y i :tiltyb !.�� ,JrA.TJ �., ,.tiT (' �I
-'"�_� t '� •�I LZ i' �r 'f7r 1,' .. I '1 11,) I
�! {I ,.rli r yn n, :IS ! 11sN1� 1,{tY tti �i i 1� r -} ' I� •,1 �tj T'•1} ` tl 1 1 , . • 1 ',�1
t y'� ••+n. Ibv 4i .{� t t- tt 1rF.a ¢ Jlt � ��'7• • .s t QI1L
�Ir1t 'S1 rr�fflr/IT � � �, r�r �H"0`IIi �J•�s_sA L xZ.37Z�2a'•� J 1_ l ,�r;�a'�-s�� ��y -- -- 'ff; ',11 , ( .\1 1 ' 1 i ,
` 7til.��/N3 Jil' ..� i., r 5'•w ��w �ls-��'#`'ttz�E>•�hl'�1 i� Ea!' 1j i>•'•.• , , r11' ') 1'i rl
hri'1 1, t �i.�iii
t• �1 ;~ Jn t ''� -,� � t�, �bf`h��t" �----,��- .: � f 1", L 51r-y.= '1�i.l - - `',I• r r�, 1
, •
,t.I�+d.:l.�ri'Il• _ Y7Y � '�1hw F"1 ,YGy 2�:3rx•�"•i � � �5u Cam'
:t,[�Y ,�{ � - �' - _�s,i.lt. Tf r�r��4.= , I' 'r ,
rj F.��� w F �I,�9{,, M71 � i r ._.+R£_r g ••x � ' 'r f•1;} 'Y.� 1 •:�<sr.' . ,'. r
y'!tti>GN• L' 1`19; L �u�f� ��T� 4 ta.:1.I'I I 1 , r''I
r r_..l ► •` ii ♦- �' 1'•, •'tiN P7, S Ilk 1 1 ,• I,i. ,,1 I' ,
�`<.•..`. ini $�.•� "=ry y: �,(�� �1•, }L rpN`••�•,I�,.►•� •. 0 1J • t. l�, q
r ; ZV� t � 1 �;•• 2 i�iY ,'Y.1'.' �•'1 1. 1 � 1, , �r 1 111
<t:Nt #r1 r rY��
�I/t►-_' _-• 7 -'.. s r� r .�t.
Alt♦ -, �'. r r u I RCS � C rtr.e`• . �• 11 ;'�I . • (�, (1 ,� 11 1'1 ,�,„ ' r ' , ,
fir•+ l•• �� �y ..�,,y 4 r/ [ �"' '(sr rJ�r�t•4t � rr��l. `i ,) �'' '1/ I ' 1.I', 1'lll,llr'il 1•�•� y
...,..���' ;,� •�¢wllr�•�?lie�i�t. ,1(14�r;�tPSA �,I�'���1�{. f, (i( ' � ►�tt j� � `•I Il'I��tl�� ��1� I 1 .;.i ,111 li,lii,I�,
•r•.�,li���', -.; __ .3 �,.� �r.l. 1[,�!..fy .�», 7v� 't3::���� •IT'��} 1 -�tttti- .�3,}�`71'� ' �II'11 ����,1�1111',1",'I
;• ► .�,rtr 1~. 11#1�� �� f��7�p (�� 't 6 T }.y{��_ u
'1j! •. d ' ' t f+��/S''' s J�'�
'. - 11�4•i ti��l+��•!S_.::r,' �►•71t�'- � �y,i � (}j�4'7� y�'I I'�r���t�t •.�i ;' (}S�/ s t�'. �r �1 t
VJA
- _._ , 'r�l I� I'I` __ / 7�•:; ' i'j �tli ,4���'�.r'SI• 1 `1, I�'1/I���II
�1�:1141q�
1 ^Ff 7g,"
1 1 1 r
- •�� �•'� ��-r:` .;1'tv ' '' Jil�s�, 5111 i� �`• •` i 1 � 1 1,.1% :1
�"•' 1�1 ;�;:�:�0•��_ �t.',�� ••�.1�-r,. ..7 ty� ,.Il ��,,.�• '/1,1I�
—� / :'- Lr ~ �^ 1' - ''1��, 1( �I'1 r 1 :Itll/�'
I •:1 ,{ 1 1 = %._�'J ' -_ ' 1 1 1' r 1
4.
_ T . I 1 t •'
�: , '��,1'�-• f..''-'fir^' 'LA 1 i (Y�'r 4jln���1 i 11 f)1 1I I t lil(

Idaho Power Company
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group Meeting
May 28, 2025
Present
Andy Cameron —Oregon Department of Lindsay Grosvenor— Oregon Food Bank
Energy Southeast Oregon Services
Connie Aschenbrenner—Idaho Power Rebecca Feuerlicht—Oregon Public Utilities
Brent Stanger—Grant 4D Farms Commission
Quentin Nesbitt— Idaho Power Joe Hayes—Community Connection of NE
Oregon, Inc
Not Present
Judge Dan Joyce— Malheur County Sarah Hall — Oregon Public Utilities
Commissioner Commission
Amanda Welch —Oregon Department of Mark Clagett—Ashgrove Cement
Energy Stephan Crow—Salon Salon and Spa
Dan Elliot— Oregon Housing & Community
Services
Guest & Presenters*
Aleia Peterson — Idaho Power Chris Pollow— Idaho Power
Annie Meyer— Idaho Power Landon Barber— Idaho Power
Andee Morton — Idaho Power Mary Alice Taylor— Idaho Power
Becky Arte Howell — Idaho Power Matt Scheel — Idaho Power
Ben Hemson — Idaho Power Michelle Toney— Idaho Power
Billie McWinn* — Idaho Power Nathan Black— Idaho Power
Charles Lockwood —Oregon Public Utilities Nick Ackerman — Idaho Power
Commission Riley Maloney— Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen* — Idaho Power Sophie Croome — Idaho Power
Cheryl Paoli — Idaho Power Todd Greenwell — Idaho Power
Note Taker.* Michelle Toney & Sophie Croome
Meeting Facilitator Quentin Nesbitt

Idaho Power Company
9:35 A.M. Welcome & Announcements—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin started the meeting with members introductions. There were no questions or
comments on the November 2024 notes.
9:40 A.M. 2025 YTD Financials & Savings—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin discussed the Demand Side Management (DSM) Annual Report and the filing date in
Oregon. He then presented the 2024 and 2025 year-to-date (YTD) financials, savings, and the
2025 evaluations.
Discussion
One member asked about how the 2025 expenses and kWh savings are calculated for the
Education Distributions Program. Quentin replied that this is a school kit program and the
savings in Idaho and Oregon are reported from a survey in the kits sent to schools.
Billie added that the Welcome Kits are based on the widgets and assuming a rate of install. She
added that there are also LED nightlight giveaways at shows are also included.
9:54 A.M. 2025 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP)—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin presented the planning of the company's IRP for Energy Efficiency (EE) & Demand
Response (DR) future loads. The presentation included the overall process, avoided cost
comparisons, and the EE potential study.
There were no comments or questions.
10:06 A.M. Residential Programs—Billie McWinn
Billie presented the residential 2024 annual & 2025 YTD savings and participation, residential
programs offered in Oregon, and marking updates.
Discussion
Rebate Advantage
One member asked about the marketing for the Rebate Advantage Program. Billie answered
that all programs use marketing materials like bill inserts. Becky added that Annie has also done
online marketing targeting homeowners. Quentin also added that the program is also driven by
Page 1

Idaho Power Company
salespeople. Billie said the company does maintain relationships with building associates,
builders, and retailers of manufactured homes. She added that along with the relationships
with those salespeople, the company also markets to home buyers.
Oregon Residential Energy Conservation
One member asked about the jump from 2023 to 2024. Billie answered that because of the
October 2023 bill insert, there were a handful of projects from 2023 that were completed in
early 2024.
The member than asked if COVID had an impact. Billie replied that in 2021 COVID completely
shut down and in 2022 contractors were still not able to go inside homes. She added that slowly
the program picked back up when contractors were able to go into homes with masks on.
SEEK & Welcome Kits
Gina in chat - I did have a neighbor reach out to me yesterday and their child got a kit in their
school, and they said it was very cool and were surprised the utility did this and helped to
educate children.
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (WAQC)
One member commented about how they are impressed by the company expanding the
funding and eligibility for WAQC funds. The member state they have clients who have benefited
greatly from this weatherization assistance program.
Billie thanked both members who actively attend to customer's needs.
One member praised the WAQC presentation then asked about the many changes from 2023 to
2024, but the uptake was less and if those were due to the System Infrastructure Replacement
(SIR) barrier or something else, and if the company has any lessons learned to share with the
group. Billie replied that the changes were approved late 2024 so those were not reflected in
the 2024 activity. She added that the company expects 2025 will show those impacts but it
depends on funding sources. Billie noted that there are a lot of uncertainties because SIR has
identified that if the company were to overcome those barriers with a priority list, there would
be more opportunities for them to complete projects. We are moving towards that.
10:41 P.M. — Break
Page 2

Idaho Power Company
10: 55 A.M. Commercial, Industrial, & Irrigation Programs—Chellie
Jensen
Chellie presented the 2024 annual, and the 2025 first quarter DR pre-season enrollment and
performance for commercial, industrial, and irrigation sectors. She discussed the Oregon House
Bill 2351 in detail and what it means for the lighting programs. She is asking for feedback for the
lighting program.
Discussion
Oregon House Bill 2531 (Mercury Ban)
Lighting Options— Feedback
One member stated that they do run large school programs, totaling $8.5 million in projects
and they are aware of the school's exemption, but have concerns about ban and the major
impact, especially on smaller districts. The member said they are commenting to add some kind
of global context to this ban.
Chellie thanked the member for sharing and added that there will be big changes in lighting
with this ban.
Another member added that many of the Oregon-based businesses and schools will likely
continue to purchase the banned lighting in Idaho or online.
Chellie thank the member for the comment and agreed that is the company's line of thought as well.
11:46 A.M. Wrap-up/Open Discussion
I appreciate the simplicity of applying for incentives. Idaho Power has kept this very simple and
from a customer standpoint, I appreciate that.
Thank you. This was very informative.
Thank you. It is good to be informed about what is going on.
I echo the thank you's. This is my first meeting, and I have a lot to learn. These presentations
are very informative I will be following up internally about the commercial programs with my
colleges and let you know if they have questions or comments.
Page 3

Idaho Power Company
Great presentations. The were very easy to understand. I appreciate Idaho Power!
I appreciate the presentations, and the data presented. I also have a lot to learn.
Thank you. I thought it was helpful. I do have a procedural question about Environment Justice
(EJ) Advocates and if they are invited to these meetings or is it more for Oregon's governmental
bodies. This is my first meeting, and I participate in Oregon's Community Benefits and Impacts
Advisory Group (CBIAG), which is a completely different group meeting.
Connie answered that the formation of this group came about the 2023 rate case where we
coalesce a body of customer groups from all sectors. We look at those who represent the
community, OPUC staff, and local and state government agencies. We encourage
representatives for our service area and do our best to strike a balance and have a broad
community representation.
Connie—Thank you for taking time out of your day. We appreciate your questions and
comments and encourage you to share with our customers as we are trying to work with them.
We appreciate this group because it is an important voice for customers. Please let us know if
you have any feedback or other ideas for us to bring to the table.
Quentin —Thank you everyone for your participation. The next meeting is Thursday, December
4t" and could also be virtual, depending on the in-person participation.
11:54 P.M. Meeting Adjourned
Page 4

Idaho Power Company
Oregon Energy Efficiency Advisory Group Virtual
Meeting December 4, 2025
Present
Amanda Welch —Oregon Department of Quentin Nesbitt — Idaho Power
Energy Lindsay Grosvenor —Oregon Food Bank
Judge Dan Joyce — Malheur County Southeast Oregon Services
Commissioner Rebecca Feuerlicht—Oregon Public Utilities
Riley Malony— Idaho Power Commission
Brent Stanger—Grant 4D Farms
Not Present
Andy Cameron —Oregon Department of Sarah Hall —Oregon Public Utilities
Energy Commission
Dan Elliot—Oregon Housing & Community Mark Clagett —Ashgrove Cement
Services Joe Hayes — Community Stephan Crow —Salon Salon and Spa
Connection of NE Oregon, Inc Joe Hayes—
Community Connection of NE Oregon, Inc
Guests & Presenters*
Alexis Freeman — Idaho Power Gina Powell — Idaho Power
Andee Morton — Idaho Power Landon Barber* — Idaho Power
Becky Arte Howell — Idaho Power Mary Alice Taylor— Idaho Power
Billie McWinn* — Idaho Power Matt Scheel — Idaho Power
Charles Lockwood —Oregon Public Utilities Michelle Toney— Idaho Power
Commission Nathan Black— Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen* —Idaho Power Nick Ackerman — Idaho Power
Cheryl Tuning — Idaho Power Sophie Joinnides — Idaho Power
Chris Pollow — Idaho Power Todd Greenwell —Idaho Power
Elena Radcliffe —Idaho Power
Note Takers Michelle Toney & Sophie Joinnides
Meeting Facilitator Quentin Nesbitt
i

Idaho Power Company
9:33 A.M. Welcome & Announcements—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin started the meeting with introductions. There were no questions or comments on the
May 2025 notes.
9:54 A.M. 2025 YTD Financials & Savings—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin discussed the Demand Side Management (DSM) Annual Report and the filing date in
Oregon. He then presented the 2025 year-to-date (YTD) financials, savings, and evaluations and
discussed why evaluations are done.
10:02 A.M. Residential Programs—Billie McWinn
Billie presented on the residential programs including ACCC, HER, Manufactured Homes,
H&C, WAQC, Marketplace, and concluded with marketing updates.
Discussion
HER
One member asked what the numbers referred to on the cadence and delivery table that Billie
had presented. Billie answered that the table is showing the frequency and mode of sending
reports. She added that, as an example, for the customers who have an email on file,
participants will receive 4 paper reports and 6 emailed reports per year.
Deemed Model
Billie asked for feedback on using a deemed savings model for Home Energy Reports versus the
current randomized control trial (RCT) model.
One member wanted to know if reports could be opened up to more customers. The member is
concerned about the cost of mailing the report and paying a third-party vendor and asked if the
vendor can be eliminated to save on cost. Billie replied that even if the company considered
moving the reports in-house, they would still likely have a vendor generate the reports and
added that the bulk of the cost is in the work they do behind the scenes. Billie then noted that
it would save on costs to email the reports.
Another member stated that because the program has been going since 2018, there is likely
good historical data to back up eliminating or reducing the control group and would like the
company to expand the offering to a wider customer base. The member added that the email-
only option would be a good way to save on costs.
Page 1

Idaho Power Company
Another member commented that capitalizing on the My Account app could be another good
option.
Billie advised that this will not be the last conversation about the HER program and the
company will have more updates in 2026. She then confirmed that the members support the
program and with the company's experience and history, members agree to move forward with
a smaller group and away from mailing paper reports to email and the app. Billie advised she
heard no red flags about continuing to explore a deemed savings model, knowing that the
company still has more work to do.
Manufactured Homes
Billie asked for feedback on suspending the Efficient Manufactured Homes program.
One member agreed with not making any permanent changes as the federal landscape is likely
to change soon. The member then asked if the company will be monitoring the market to
possibly bring it back and what is the next milestone. Billie answered that the company would
stay engaged in regional conversations and research, including regular meetings with ETO and
representatives from NEEM,who are and will be in manufacturers' plants to monitor building
practices. She added that the company would check in with local retailers to know what was
being stocked and sold in Idaho Power's service area.
Another member asked about when the company plans to suspend the incentive payouts. Billie
advised January 1, 2026, but that depends on the tariff filing timeline
H&C Efficiency
One member asked about the proposed changes to the program tariff in Oregon, and whether
the company will be asking for tariff modifications in Idaho. Billie answered that there are no
tariffs in Idaho for H&C Efficiency, but that the company planned to make the same changes in
Idaho. She added that the company brought these tentative changes to its Idaho EEAG and,
with their support, will move forward with those changes.
WAQC
One member stated that it was wonderful news to see the new projects in the fourth quarter.
NEEA Marketplace Pilot
Billie presented three options regarding the NEEA Marketplace pilot. Option one was to join the
pilot at a lower level to be able to use it for educational purposes. Option two was to join the
pilot at a higher level to be able to offer incentives and other benefits through it. Option three
was not to join the pilot.
Page 2

Idaho Power Company
One member asked about whether the Marketplace had been launched. Billie provided the link
in the chat.
One member commented that the NEEA website was such a great resource, and it seemed to
be user friendly.
One member stated they trust the company's opinion about which is the best option.
Another member supports option 2, although they are concerned about the additional cost of
the added benefits.
One member agreed that option 2 was the best option.
11:01 A.M. Break
11:20 A.M. Commercial, Industrial, & Irrigation Programs—Chellie
Jensen
Chellie presented on the CI&I programs including 2025 DR program results, total program
performance to date by sector, and individual program performance through Q3.
Discussion
Flex Peak
One member asked about the differences between capacity and performance. Chellie
answered that the max capacity for the program is based on maximum nomination of all
enrolled participants at the generation level, which includes line losses. She added the program
performance is summed for all participants and is based on actual metered data for individual
participants and actual performance as calculated from an adjusted baseline. Chellie discussed
the baseline and how it looks at the average KW during the event hours of the highest 3 energy
days in the last 10 non-event business days and is adjusted with a scaler value based on the
participant's usage at the time of the hour before nomination.
Custom
One member asked if the kWh savings for each custom project are evaluated individually.
Chellie answered that each custom project is calculated individually.
Page 3

Idaho Power Company
Irrigation EE
One member asked about the incentives shown on the Irrigation Energy Efficiency Custom slide
and if they are specific to a certain project. Chellie answered that this slide is not specific to a
certain project, rather, it depicts the incentive structure for any custom irrigation project.
The member commented on how they have participated in Irrigation Menu and Irrigation
Custom with a few VFD projects and pumps. They also have participating potato storage and
fan units. They might have additional opportunities for custom type projects. The member also
expressed that they work with Idaho Power when they have a custom project in mind, and
Idaho Power gives them an incentive estimate which is generally close to the actual incentive
received.
12:08 P.M. — Lunch 1 HR
1:00 P.M. Cost Effectiveness—Landon Barber
Landon presented on the 2026 C/E outlook starting with a refresher on what C/E is with
examples. He then discussed updates to 2026 based on the 2025 IRP, and program forecasts.
Discussion
C/E Exceptions
One member asked about the exceptions and why they apply to measures instead of programs.
The member was specifically interested the SBL program and whether the decision to end the
program was made at the program level. The member asked for clarity on why the company is
considering the program cost effectiveness as opposed to measure cost-effectiveness. Landon
answered that the cost-effective exceptions at the program level cover all measures within the
program unless it is new and wasn't included at that time. Billie added that the company
applies cost-effectiveness at the measure level without admin, and if it doesn't pass at the
measure level, the company could apply for an exception. Billie stated that the company also
does cost-effectiveness at the program level, which includes admin, and if it doesn't pass, an
exception request could also be filed. So, a cost-effectiveness exception can be at either the
program or measure level.
Landon commented that SBL had two categories of measures that were evaluated —interior
and exterior lighting, which no longer meet TRC thresholds due to the RUL adjustment. He
added that the past cost-effectiveness exception indicated that SBL would become cost-
effective in the future; however, that had now changed with updated information.
Page 4

Idaho Power Company
2026 Changes
One member asked about the source of updates to measures. Landon answered that it varies
because the RTF is the primary source for load shapes and savings assumptions, but that the
company also utilizes the TRM, which is undergoing extensive updates. Landon added that the
TRM is put together by a third-party and contains measures not covered by the RTF. Most
program measure savings assumptions originate from one of those two sources.
End/Pausing a Program
One member asked what is considered before asking for an exception when a measure is not
cost-effective. Landon answered that the company looks at all possibilities. He added that in OR
where TRC is the main test, the incentive is treated as a pass through so if there are C/E issues,
adjusting the incentive level doesn't tend to be a way to resolve it. He added that the company
pursues exceptions only when there aren't other feasible solutions to make something pass
C/E. Quentin added that the first thing that is looked at is if there are changes to be made
and how those are administered to the program and if there is a way to reduce the costs. He
stated that the company also considers additional non-energy benefits that hadn't been
previously considered and explores whether we are using the correct assumptions about the
measures within the program.
1:30 P.M. Wrap-up/Open Discussion
Quentin asked the members if they had any comments or further questions.
No final comments.Thank you for all your time.
Thanks, nothing to add.
Nothing to add for me. Thank you for this meeting, it is well run and informative.
Nothing from me. Thank you all for your time and presentations.
Thanks for organizing this.
Riley said he appreciates everyone taking time out of their day to participate in the Oregon
EEAG meeting, and he does look forward to future discussions.
Quentin thanked the members for their time and feedback. He advised that the company will
be determining meeting times for 2026 and to watch for the calendar invites.

Idaho Power Company
1:40 P.M. Meeting Adjourned
Page 6

Idaho Power Company
Glossary of Acronyms
BTU—British Thermal Units
BYOT— Bring Your Own Thermostat
C&I—Commercial and Industrial
CAP—Community Action Partnership
C/E—Cost Effective(ness)
CHQ—Corporate Headquarters (Idaho Power)
DHP—Ductless Heat Pump
DR—Demand Response
DSM—Demand-Side Management
EEAG—Energy Efficiency Advisory Group
EE— Energy Efficiency
GSHP—Ground Source Heat Pump
H&CE—Heating & Cooling Efficiency
HEA—Home Energy Audit
HER—Home Energy Report
HP— Heat Pump
HVAC—Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IDL—Integrated Design Lab
IRP—Integrated Resource Plan
kW—Kilowatt
kWh—Kilowatt-hour
MW—Megawatt
NC— New Construction
NEEM—Northwest Energy-Efficient Manufactured Housing Program
NPV— Net Present Value
PV—Solar Photovoltaic
Q4— Fourth Quarter
SBL—Small Business Lighting
Rider—Energy Efficiency Rider
RNC— Residential New Construction
RTF—Regional Technical Forum
UCT—Utility Cost Test
VFD—Variable Frequency Drive
WAQC—Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
WAQC ReWx—Re-Weatherization
YTD —Year to Date

Supplement 2: Evaluation
NEEA MARKET EFFECTS EVALUATIONS
Study
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By Manager
2025 Operations Plan Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
2026 Operations Plan Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q1 2025 MRE Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q1 2025 Quarterly Report Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q2 2025 MRE Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q2 2025 Quarterly Report Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q3 2025 MRE Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q3 2025 Quarterly Report Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q4 2024 Market Progress Report Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q4 2025 MRE Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Code Baseline and Assumption Review Residential and Industrial Economics NEEA
Commercial
Code Savings Technical Assumptions Review Residential and Energy 350 NEEA
Commercial
Idaho 2018 Commercial New Construction Code Compliance Evaluation Commercial Opinion Dynamics NEEA
Montana Commercial New Construction Code Evaluation Study Commercial Michaels Energy NEEA
Montana Residential Code Compliance Evaluation Residential Resource Refocus NEEA
Oregon Residential Code Compliance Evaluation Residential Industrial Economics NEEA
Q1 2025 Codes Standards and New Construction Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q2 2025 Codes and Standards Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q2 2025 Codes and Standards Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q3 2024 Codes Standards and New Construction Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q4-2024 Codes Standards and New Construction Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Commercial Heat Pump Tumble Dryers Report Commercial Kannah Consulting NEEA
Connected Consumer Products Market Research Report Residential Level 7 Market Research NEEA
Ductless Heat Pumps 2025 Market Diffusion Evaluation#3 Residential OWL Research Partners NEEA
Gas Fired Absorption Heat Pump Hybrid System Approach Field Study Residential GTI Energy NEEA
High Performance HVAC MPER#1 Residential and NMR Group,Apex Analytics NEEA
Commercial
Q1 2025 Emerging Technology Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q2 2025 Emerging Technology Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 67

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Study
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By Manager
Q3 2025 Emerging Technology Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
Q4 2025 Emerging Technology Newsletter Residential and NEEA NEEA
Commercial
2025 CBSA Webinar#5 Slides Commercial NEEA NEEA
2025 CBSA Webinar#6 Slides Commercial Energy Use Studies NEEA
Agricultural Pump Market Research Commercial Resource Innovations NEEA
BetterBricks Commercial Building Decision Maker Study Commercial ETHNO Insights NEEA
Calculating In Situ Fan Energy Index Commercial Cascade Energy NEEA
Commercial HVAC Specifier Market Research Report Commercial OWL Research Partners NEEA
Commercial and Industrial Air Compressor Federal Standards Commercial Michaels Energy NEEA
Evaluation
Dual Fuel HVAC White Paper Residential GTI Energy NEEA
Dual Fuel Systems Analysis Residential Larson Energy Research NEEA
Efficient Roof Top Units MPER#1 Residential and Apex Analytics NEEA
Commercial
ENERGY STAR Windows Doors and Skylights Version 7.0 Evaluation Residential Apex Analytics NEEA
Extended Motor Products MPER#1 Commercial ADM Associates NEEA
High Efficiency Gas Water Heater Research Residential ILLUME Advising NEEA
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls Market Progress Evaluation Report#3 Commercial Cadmus NEEA
Market Research on Existing Water Heaters in Select Commercial Commercial Lieberman Research NEEA
Buildings Final Report
National Efficient Rooftop Unit Energy Modeling Commercial A2 Efficiency NEEA
NW Market Characterization Study Residential LD Consulting NEEA
Parking Lot Lighting MPER 2 Commercial Cadmus NEEA
Portable Air Conditioner Federal Standard Evaluation Residential Michaels Energy NEEA
Stand Alone Fan Manufacturer Representative and Specifier Market Commercial DNV Energy Insights NEEA
Activity Research
Validation Analysis of the Power Index Calculation Procedure Commercial NEEA NEEA
Titles appearing in blue are links to the online versions of the reports.A PDF of this supplement can be found at
idahopower.com/ways-to-save/energy-efficiency-program-reports/.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 68

Supplement 2: Evaluation
INTEGRATED DESIGN LAB
Analysis Study Study/Evaluation
Report Title Sector Performed By Manager Type
2025 Task 1:Foundational Services— Commercial IDL Idaho Power Assistance and
Summary of Projects Education
2025 Task 2: Lunch and Learn—Summary of Commercial IDL Idaho Power Training and
Effort and Outcomes Education
2025 Task 3: BSUG—Summary of Effort Commercial IDL Idaho Power Training and
and Outcomes Education
2025 Task 4:Energy Resource Library— Commercial IDL Idaho Power Assistance and
Summary of Effort and Outcomes Education
2025 Task 5: Digital Design Tools—Summary Commercial IDL Idaho Power Assistance and
of Effort and Outcomes Education
2025 Task 6:Fan Savings from UV Lamps Commercial IDL Idaho Power Education and
Research
2025 Task 7:Efficient Building Fagade Design Commercial IDL Idaho Power Education
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 69

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 70

DES1014 LAB,.
r, • y �
2025 TASK 1 : FOUNDATIONAL SERVICES
SUMMARY OF PROJECTS
II)Anv r-UvvtK l►vivirHim i EX i tRNAL N tAR-END
REPORT
December 31, 2025
Prepared for.
Idaho Power Company
Author:
Damon Woods
Report Number: 2025_001-01
POMR®
An IDACORP Company

This page left intentionally blank.
ii

Prepared by:
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab I Boise
322 E. Front St., Suite 360, Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl
IDL Director:
Damon Woods
Author:
Damon Woods
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Contract Number:
IPC KIT # 8112
Please cite this report as follows: Woods, D. (2025). 2025
TASK 1: Foundational Services— Summary of Projects
(2025_001-01). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab,
Boise, ID.
iii

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

This page left intentionally blank.
v

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

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 1
2025 Task 1: Foundational Services-Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_001-01)
The University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) provided technical design
assistance in 2025 for energy efficiency building projects through the Foundational
Services task. This program, supported by Idaho Power (IPC), offered three phases of
assistance from which customers could choose. A marketing flyer shown in Figure 1
outlines the three phases. Phase I includes projects with budgets less than $2,000,
Phase II is limited to projects from $2,000 to $4,000, and Phase III is any project with a
budget greater than $4,000.
.1 - rr
AO
. - _ a %.W ' l
P;ar;;'a Phase 11 Phan III
NEI
Figure 1: Foundational Services Flyer Outlining Phases
Information on the Foundational Services program was provided at each Lunch
and Learn and BSUG presentation. Advertising for the program was also offered over
the course of the year to local government officials, developers, and the architects and
engineers who interacted with IDL.
PROjECT SUMMARf-
The IDL worked on over 23 Foundational Service projects in 2025. This was a
15% increase in projects compared to 2024. Projects ranged from commercial to
municipal and the IDL worked with both architecture and engineering firms within Idaho

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 2
2025 Task 1: Foundational Services-Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_001-01)
Power Service territory. Most project intake came through an email directly to Dylan or
Damon and some through the online intake form on the IDL website.
Projects consisted of outreach events and lectures, email responses, personal
trainings, technical reports, and memos. In total, there were 18 Phase I projects, four
Phase II projects, and one Phase III projects. The full list of projects is shown in Table 1
below.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 3
2025 Task 1: Foundational Services-Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_001-01)
Table 1: Summary of 2025 Foundational Services Projects
Projects Client Phase Notes Retro/New Ft2 Location .-
Building Government Carryover from 2024-
efficiency agency 2 completed in May'25 New N/A Boise Govt.Agency
standards
Uneven
cooling and School 1 Carryover from 2024- Retro 25,800 Nampa Education
heating at completed in March '25
Idaho School
Carryover from 2024-
Energy audit Energy trainings complete and
training consultant 2 consultant now doing Retro 71,770 Caldwell Education
audits independently as
of August 2025
TMYx short Memo on use of accurate
explanation Idaho Power 1 weather information for New N/A N/A N/A
energy savings
Career
opportunities Idaho non Presentation delivered on
in energy profit 1 April 29th New N/A Boise N/A
efficiency
OSB framing
insulation Idaho start- Assisted with product
(thermal d 1 concept and thermal New N/A Boise Retail
analysis) analysis for new wall type
Energy
efficiency School 1 Presentation delivered in N/A N/A N/A N/A
lecture May 2025
Energy Agricultural Explored energy
monitoring operation 1 monitoring options for Retro N/A Gooding Agriculture
machinery

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 4
2025 Task 1: Foundational Services-Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_001-01)
Presentation
on business Idaho non- 1 Presentation delivered in N/A N/A N/A N/A
case of profit May 2025
efficiency
New Collected information
construction Agriculture 1 and assisted with New 20,000 Rupert Agriculture
incentives incentive pre-application
Idaho
Insulation properties construction 1 ERL tools used New N/A Boise N/A
company
Ground- Contacts and resources
source HP School 1 shared on ground-source Retro 37,000 Boise Education
feasibility heat pump capacities and
savings
Shared IDL and ERL
Efficiency Municipality 1 resources with public Retro N/A Meridian Municipal
roadmap works department
Multifamily Idaho Power 1 Memo on whole-building
modeling modeling for multifamily New N/A N/A Multifamily
IES VE-
Assessment of suitability
energy
modeling Idaho Power 1 of software for building New N/A N/A N/A
energy analysis
software
Assisted with use of
EnergyStar benchmarking tools to
support Municipality 1 track energy use and Retro N/A Hailey Municipal
savings

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 5
2025 Task 1: Foundational Services-Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_001-01)
Indoor Air Assessment of energy
Equipment savings potential of using
Quality supply 1 different calculation Retro 11,000 Boise Daycare
Procedure company method to reduce
savings
ventilation loads
Multifamily Assessed energy savings
modeled Idaho Power 3 and incremental costs of New 420,000 Boise Multifamily
savings review
efficiency upgrades for
the project
Cooling Emailed with cooling
Municipality 1 New N/A Boise Municipal
savings efficiency resources
GSHP resources and
Geothermal memo provided along
feasibility Municipality 1 with meeting with project New N/A Boise Transportation
tea m
Networked Working with school
lighting School 2 facility managers to Retro 200,000+ Boise Education
savings develop retrofit roadmap
Worked with firm North
Daylighting Idaho to assess appropriate
options for architecture 2 energy modeling and New 5,000 Gooding Education
school firm daylighting tools for this
project
Efficiency Worked with firm on
Idaho efficient fagade options
options for new architecture 1 and cost-efficient New 100,000 Boise Education
construction firm efficiency measures for
new building

INTEGRATED
DESIGN LAB
Universityof Idaho
2025 TASK 2: LUNCH AND LEARN
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT
December 15, 2025
Prepared for.
Idaho Power Company
Authors:
Dylan Agnes
Report Number: 2025_002-01
SN PAW
OWER®
An IDACORP Company

This page left intentionally blank.

Prepared by.,
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab I Boise
322 E Front Street, Suite #360 Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl
lDL Director.,
Damon Woods
Authors:
Dylan Agnes
Prepared for.-
Idaho Power Company
Contract Number.•
IPC KIT #8112
Please cite this report as follows-Agnes, D., (2025). 2025 TASK
2: Lunch and Learn - Summary of Effort and Outcomes
(2025_002-01). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab,
Boise, ID.
iii

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

This page left intentionally blank.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. 2025 Summary and Cumulative Analysis................................................................................9
2. Session Summaries.................................................................................................................14
2.1 Session 1: The Architect's Business Case For Energy Modeling (03/20/2025)..........14
2.2 Session 2: Air Infiltration and Passive Systems (04/03/2025).....................................14
2.3 Session 3: Air Infiltration and Passive Systems (04/08/2025).....................................15
2.4 Session 4: The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling (04/28/2025)............15
2.5 Session 5: Envelope and Window Design For Enhanced Energy Efficiency
(05/20/2025)..........................................................................................................................16
2.6 Session 6: Value of Energy Performance Modeling, Monitoring, and Tracking
(10/01/2025)..........................................................................................................................17
2.7 Session 7: Energy Efficient Design Ideas for Multifamily (10/09/2025)......................17
2.8 Session 8: Daylighting Multipliers Increasing Daylight Harvesting Efficiency
(10/10/2025)..........................................................................................................................18
2.9 Session 9: The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling (10/16/2025)............18
2.10 Session 10: Energy Efficient Design ideas for Multifamily (10/23/2025).................19
2.11 Session 11: Thermal Energy Storage Systems (10/28/2025)....................................19
2.12 Session 12: The Future of Lighting Controls (11/03/2025) .......................................20
2.13 Session 13: High Performance Classrooms (11/04/2025) ........................................21
2.14 Session 14: Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency
(11/06/2025)..........................................................................................................................21
2.15 Session 15: HVAC Load Calculation - Tips and Tricks (11/13/2025) .......................22
2.16 Session 16: Air Infiltration and Passive Systems (11/18/2025)................................22
2.17 Session 17: The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling (11/20/2025).......23
2.18 Session 18: Thermal Energy Storage Systems (12/02/2025)....................................23
3. Future Work..............................................................................................................................24
4. Appendices...............................................................................................................................26
4.1.1 Session 1: The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling(03/20/2025).....26
4.1.2 Session 2: Air Infiltration and Passive Systems (04/03/2025)..............................27
4.1.3 Session 3: Air Infiltration and Passive Systems (04/08/2025)..............................28
4.1.4 Session 4: The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling(04/28/2025).....29
vi

4.1.5 Session 5: Envelope and Window Design For Enhanced Energy Efficiency
(05/20/2025) ......................................................................................................................31
4.1.6 Session 6: Value of Energy Performance Modeling, Monitoring, and Tracking
(10/01/2025) ......................................................................................................................32
4.1.7 Session 7: Energy Efficient Design Ideas for Multifamily (10/09/2025)...............33
4.1.8 Session 8: Daylighting Multipliers Increasing Daylight Harvesting Efficiency
(10/10/2025) ......................................................................................................................34
4.1.9 Session 9: The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling(10/16/2025).....35
4.1.10 Session 10: Energy Efficient Design Ideas for Multifamily (10/23/2025)..........36
4.1.11 Session 11: Thermal Energy Storage Systems (10/28/2025).............................38
4.1.12 Session 12: The Future of Lighting Controls (11/03/2025) ................................39
4.1.13 Session 13: High Performance Classrooms (11/04/2025).................................40
4.1.14 Session 14: Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency
(11/06/2025) ......................................................................................................................41
4.1.15 Session 15: HVAC Load Calculation - Tips and tricks (11/13/2025).................42
4.1.16 Session 16: Air Infiltration and Passive Systems (11/06/2025).........................44
4.1.17 Session 17: The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling(11/20/2025)45
4.1.18 Session 18: Thermal Energy Storage Systems (12/02/2025).............................46
vii

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

1. 2025 SUMMARY AND CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
Table 1: 2025 Lunch and Learn Summary
Date Title Presenter Group/Location Attendees
1 03/20 The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling Damon Woods AO1 26
2 04/03 Air Infiltration and Passive Systems Damon Woods AF1 7
3 04/08 Air Infiltration and Passive Systems Damon Woods EF1 8
4 04/28 The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling Dylan Agnes EF2 7
5 05/20 Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency Farnaz Nazari OPEN 8
6 10/01 Value of Energy Performance Modeling Monitoring and Tracking Dylan Agnes OPEN 7
7 10/09 Energy Efficient Design Ideas for Multifamily Dylan Agnes EF3 7
8 10/10 Daylighting Multipliers Increasing Daylight Harvesting Efficiency Dylan Agnes EF2 7
9 10/16 The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling Dylan Agnes EF4 14
10 10/23 Energy Efficient Design Ideas for Multifamily Dylan Agnes AF2 6
11 10/28 Thermal Energy Storage Systems Damon Woods EF5 6
12 11/03 The Future of Lighting Controls Dylan Agnes EF3 8
13 11/04 High Performance Classrooms Damon Woods AF3 9
14 11/06 Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency Farnaz Nazari AF2 3
15 11/13 HVAC Load Calculation -Tips and Tricks Damon Woods EF6 8
16 11/18 Air Infiltration and Passive Systems Damon Woods AF4 6
17 11/20 The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling Dylan Agnes EF6 19
18 12/2 Thermal Energy Storage Systems Damon Woods AF4 7
Total Attendees 163
9

Table 1 on the previous page summarizes all Lunch and Learn presentations given in 2025. The statistics in this
section are cumulative for the 18 presentations. At each presentation participants were asked to sign in and fill out an
evaluation form. Presentations were judged on a scale of 1 to 5, (see table 2). All lunch and learn presentations given in 2025
were in-person presentations with the option of having online attendance when possible.
Table 2: Evaluation Form Scale
Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5
In general,today's presentation was: Not Useful Somewhat Useful Very Useful
The content of the presentation was: Too Basic About Right Too Advanced
Please rate the following parts of the presentation:
Organization,Clarity, Opportunity for Questions, Instructor's Knowledge Needs Improvement Good Excellent
of Subject Matter,and Delivery of Presentation
Table 3: Overall Attendance Breakdown
Architect: 57 Electrician: 0
Engineer: 25 Contractor: 0
Mech. Engineer: 11 Other: 19
Elec. Engineer: 0 None Specified: 65
Total (In-Person): 160
Total (Online): 3
10

Profession of Attendee Breakdown
Arch
32%
None Sped
37%
Engineer
0
Mechanical
Engineer
6%
Figure 1:Attendee Profession
11

■Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session 4
HVAC Load Calculation-Tips and Tricks
High Performance Classrooms
The Future of Lighting Controls .
Thermal Energy Storage Systems
Daylighting Multipliers Increasing Daylight Harvesting Efficiency
Energy Efficient Design Ideas for Multifamily
Value of Energy Performance Modeling Monitoring and Tracking
Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency
Air Infiltration and Passive Systems
The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure 2:Attendee Count by Title and Number per Session
12

*1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful **1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced ***1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
■*In general,today's presentation was: ■***Rate organization: ■***Rate clarity: ■***Rate opportunity for questions:
■***Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: ■***Rate delivery of presentation: ■**The content of the presentation was:
5.00 ff-
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
The Architects Air Infiltration and Air Infiltration and The Architects Envelope and Value of Energy Energy Efficient Daylighting The Architects Energy Efficient Thermal Energy The Future of High Performance Envelope and HVAC Load Air Infiltration and The Architects Thermal Energy
Business Case for Passive Systems Passive Systems Business Case for Window Design Performance Design Ideas for Multipliers Business Case for Design Ideas for Storage Systems Lighting Controls Classrooms Window Design Calculation-Tips Passive Systems Business Case for Storage Systems
Energy Modeling Energy Modeling for Enhanced Modeling Multifamily Increasing Energy Modeling Multifamily for Enhanced and Tricks Energy Modeling
Energy Efficiency Monitoring and Daylight Energy Efficiency
Tracking Harvesting
Efficiency
Figure 3:Average Evaluations by Session Title
5.00 4.53 4.58 4.54 4.64 4.87 4.57
4.00 3.38
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
*In general,today's ***Rate organization: ***Rate clarity: ***Rate opportunity for ***Rate instructor's ***Rate delivery of **The content of the
presentation was: questions: knowledge of the subject presentation: presentation was:
matter:
Figure 4:Overall Averages of Evaluations for all Sessions
13

2. SESSION SUMMARIES
After each lunch and learn session, an evaluation form was handed out to participants. The
feedback will be used to improve future sessions. The feedback received from participants is generally
constructive criticism used to keep sessions updated but also to propose future potential topics and
questions to the Integrated Design Lab.
2.1 SESSION 1: THE ARCHITECT'S BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY MODELING (03/20/2025)
Title:The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling
Description: Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise.The truth is that more models and simulations are
performed, and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the process and how to utilize the
output.A building energy model can provide the architect an iterative process to increase the real-world effectiveness of
energy systems within a building.This session will explore the value-add of energy modeling from the architect's perspective,
providing a business case for more active involvement in avocation for energy performance modeling.
Presentation Info:
Date: 03/20/25
Location: A01 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 2 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 24
Total (In-Person): 26
2.2 SESSION 2: AIR INFILTRATION AND PASSIVE SYSTEMS (04/03/2025)
Title:Air Infiltration and Passive Systems
Description: Each year, $11 billion in energy costs are wasted through infiltration in commercial buildings according to a 2021
study from the Department of Energy. Learn how envelope design affects both comfort and energy costs in Idaho's buildings.
Participants will learn about pressure management and using it to design for passive strategies including stack and cross-
ventilation and some of the inherent challenges of doing so.The lecture will cover why infiltration is especially important to
manage in Idaho due to the health impacts of wildfire smoke,which can infiltrate a leaky building.The main takeaway is to
design buildings that deliver clean filtered air to the occupants in a way that minimizes utility costs and maximizes comfort.
Presentation Info:
14

Date: 04/03/25
Location: AF1 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 2 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 3
Total (In-person): 7
*Other included: ID & BIM.
2.3 SESSION 3: AIR INFILTRATION AND PASSIVE SYSTEMS (04/08/2025)
Title:Air Infiltration and Passive Systems
Description: Each year, $11 billion in energy costs are wasted through infiltration in commercial buildings according to a 2021
study from the Department of Energy. Learn how envelope design affects both comfort and energy costs in Idaho's buildings.
Participants will learn about pressure management and using it to design for passive strategies including stack and cross-
ventilation and some of the inherent challenges of doing so.The lecture will cover why infiltration is especially important to
manage in Idaho due to the health impacts of wildfire smoke,which can infiltrate a leaky building.The main takeaway is to
design buildings that deliver clean filtered air to the occupants in a way that minimizes utility costs and maximizes comfort.
Presentation Info:
Date: 04/08/25
Location: EF1 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: 4 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 3
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 1
Total (In-Person): 8
*Other included: Civil Engineering(x3).
2.4 SESSION 4: THE ARCHITECTS BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY MODELING (04/28/2025)
Title:The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling
Description: Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise.The truth is that more models and simulations are
performed, and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the process and how to utilize the
15

output.A building energy model can provide the architect an iterative process to increase the real-world effectiveness of
energy systems within a building.This session will explore the value-add of energy modeling from the architect's perspective,
providing a business case for more active involvement in avocation for energy performance modeling.
Presentation Info:
Date: 04/28/25
Location: EF2 - Meridian, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: 3 Electrician:
Engineer: 2 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 7
*Other included: Designer(x2)
2.5 SESSION 5: ENVELOPE AND WINDOW DESIGN FOR ENHANCED ENERGY EFFICIENCY (05/20/2025)
Title: Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency
Description: Understanding the critical role of envelope design in determining heating and cooling loads,this lecture delves
into various energy-efficient design metrics, and their sensitivity analysis to discern their impact effectively. Participants will
gain insights into passive envelope design measures aimed at increasing energy efficiency through strategic leveraging of
orientation,shading,thermal properties, and building shape considerations.Additionally,the lecture offers insights into the
window glazing properties such as U-factor,Solar Heat Gain Coefficient(SHGC),Visible Transmittance (VT), and emittance.
Special emphasis is placed on the advantages of Low-E Glass, particularly in colder climates, enhancing participants'
understanding of how such features contribute to energy conservation. Geared towards architects and constructors,this
session offers resources for deeper exploration and understanding of envelope design's pivotal role in energy efficiency.
Presentation Info:
Date: 05/20/25
Location: OPEN - Boise, ID
Presenter: Farnaz Nazari
Attendance:
Architect: 2 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 3
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 3
Total (In-Person): 5
16

Total (Online): 3
*Other included: Facility chief, Energy advisor, and Planner.
2.6 SESSION 6: VALUE OF ENERGY PERFORMANCE MODELING, MONITORING, AND TRACKING (10/01/2025)
Title:Value of Energy Performance Modeling, Monitoring, and Tracking
Description:This course introduces energy modeling as a powerful tool for predicting building performance before
construction.Through simulation, designers can evaluate efficiency measures, estimate cost savings, and support design
decisions with data. Participants will also learn how tracking energy use helps building owners identify inefficiencies, reduce
costs, and optimize operations. ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager is a free online platform for monitoring and improving energy
performance across buildings.
Presentation Info:
Date: 10/01/25
Location: OPEN - Mountain Home, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 1
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 6
Total (In-Person): 7
*Other included: RCEA
2.7 SESSION 7: ENERGY EFFICIENT DESIGN IDEAS FOR MULTIFAMILY (10/09/2025)
Title: Energy Efficient Design Ideas for Multifamily
Description:This course explores energy efficiency strategies tailored to multifamily buildings, addressing design challenges,
code compliance, and utility incentives. Participants will learn how to integrate passive and active systems, navigate IECC
2018 and ENERGY STAR requirements, and leverage Idaho Power's multifamily incentive programs to enhance building
performance and occupant comfort.
Presentation Info:
Date: 10/09/25
Location: EF3 - Meridian, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
17

Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 7
Total (In-Person): 7
2.8 SESSION 8: DAYLIGHTING MULTIPLIERS INCREASING DAYLIGHT HARVESTING EFFICIENCY (10/10/202S)
Title: Daylight Multipliers Increasing Daylight Harvesting Efficiency
Description:This session will explore the role that daylighting multipliers are used when trying to increase the efficiency of
daylighting or daylight harvesting in a building,such as, light shelves, manufactured glazing, and material specification.
Furthermore, we will explore the rate of return,the ranges of efficiency,and appropriate uses between daylighting strategies
and multipliers.
Presentation Info:
Date: 10/10/25
Location: EF2 - Meridian, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: 5 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 7
*Other included: Designer(x2)
2.9 SESSION 9: THE ARCHITECTS BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY MODELING (10/16/202S)
Title:The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling
Description: Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise.The truth is that more models and simulations are
performed, and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the process and how to utilize the
output.A building energy model can provide the architect an iterative process to increase the real-world effectiveness of
energy systems within a building.This session will explore the value-add of energy modeling from the architect's perspective,
providing a business case for more active involvement in advocation for energy performance modeling.
18

Presentation Info:
Date: 10/16/25
Location: EF4 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: 7 Electrician:
Engineer: 2 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 5
Total (In-Person): 14
2.10 SESSION 10: ENERGY EFFICIENT DESIGN IDEAS FOR MULTIFAMILY (10/23/2025)
Title: Energy Efficient Design Ideas for Multifamily
Description:This course explores energy efficiency strategies tailored to multifamily buildings, addressing design challenges,
code compliance, and utility incentives. Participants will learn how to integrate passive and active systems, navigate IECC
2018 and ENERGY STAR requirements, and leverage Idaho Power's multifamily incentive programs to enhance building
performance and occupant comfort.
Presentation Info:
Date: 10/23/25
Location: AF2 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: 5 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 1
Total (In-Person): 6
2.11 SESSION 11: THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS (10/28/2025)
Title:Thermal Energy Storage Systems
Description:Thermal Energy Storage Systems(TES)are gaining popularity as a way to mitigate peak energy use.This lecture
will explore the use of things like ice-storage and ponds to minimize chiller and boiler use.This technology can be paired with
ground-source heat pumps, radiant systems, and natural ventilation. Idaho typically has large temperature swings between the
19

high and low temperatures(sometimes up to 30 F), which makes our state especially suited to shifting when heating and
cooling equipment should operate. By understanding more about TES, engineers and architects alike can design unique
configurations that can increase efficiency and enhance resiliency in their buildings.
Presentation Info:
Date: 10/28/25
Location: EF5 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: 5 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 1
Total (In-Person): 6
2.12 SESSION 12: THE FUTURE OF LIGHTING CONTROLS (11/03/2025)
Title:The Future of Lighting Controls
Description:Although LEDs have shown,they are a big game changer in the commercial lighting realm; lower lighting power
density is not the only area of value when considering lighting.We can further increase savings from these highly efficient
lighting systems by introducing control systems that collect data and user input to create an evolving feedback loop that seeks
peak system operation. While LLLC's(Luminaire Level Lighting Control) use this feature,they still use the same infrastructure
as the lighting and control system that have come before it,which can be a limitation for expanding the systems efficiency and
integration to other building systems.We believe the internet of things(IoT)will change the lighting and controls industry,
providing an excellent medium for an integrated, multi-service IoT platform. Why?Where there are people,there are lights;
where there are people,there will also be the need for connectivity. New and connected lighting controls provide a means to
deliver valuable IoT services and increased energy savings.
Presentation Info:
Date: 11/03/25
Location: EF3 - Meridian, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 8
Total (In-Person): 8
20

2.13 SESSION 13: HIGH PERFORMANCE CLASSROOMS (11/04/2025)
Title: High Performance Classrooms
Description:Student enrollment in Ada County is projected to grow by 1,000 students per year for the next ten years and at
least six capital projects are planned in the West Ada District alone to meet this demand.This session will cover a variety of
issues facing the design of an efficient, healthy, and productive classroom environment.A quick look at the state of the last 50
years of school design will give an introduction to the problems faced by designers.This session will highlight several case
studies of high performance schools in the Northwest to address daylighting, natural ventilation, and integration of mechanical
systems. Each passive strategy will be addressed in detail with regional examples and performance research.
Presentation Info:
Date: 11/04/25
Location: AF3 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 3 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 1
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 5
Total (In-Person): 9
Others included: Interior design.
2.14 SESSION 14: ENVELOPE AND WINDOW DESIGN FOR ENHANCED ENERGY EFFICIENCY (11/06/2025)
Title: Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency
Description: Understanding the critical role of envelope design in determining heating and cooling loads,this lecture delves
into various energy-efficient design metrics, and their sensitivity analysis to discern their impact effectively. Participants will
gain insights into passive envelope design measures aimed at increasing energy efficiency through strategic leveraging of
orientation,shading,thermal properties, and building shape considerations.Additionally,the lecture offers insights into the
window glazing properties such as U-factor,Solar Heat Gain Coefficient(SHGC),Visible Transmittance (VT), and emittance.
Special emphasis is placed on the advantages of Low-E Glass, particularly in colder climates, enhancing participants'
understanding of how such features contribute to energy conservation. Geared towards architects and constructors,this
session offers resources for deeper exploration and understanding of envelope design's pivotal role in energy efficiency.
Presentation Info:
Date: 11/06/25
Location: AF2 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Farnaz Nazari
21

Attendance:
Architect: 3 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 3
2.15 SESSION 15: HVAC LOAD CALCULATION - TIPS AND TRICKS (11/13/2025)
Title: HVAC Load Calculation - Tips and Tricks
Description: Load calculations are one of the key logistics to designing a high performing building. But, how does one capture
the nuance of today's post-covid hybrid office environments?What about conference rooms that are full in the mornings, but
empty in the afternoons? For those in the Treasure Valley,ASHRAE's design temperatures have changed - we have hotter
summers and milder winters than 20 years ago.The IDL will share updated weather data sources and several load calculation
tools freely available to engineers. Participants will learn the distinction between ASHRAE's different load calculation methods
- (90.1 vs 183).The lecture will cover how to use energy modeling tools to predict loads in different scenarios and apply
ASHRAE 55's thermal comfort standard during the design process. Practitioners will be able to use these tools to add dynamic
loads to their designs and conduct robust post-occupancy evaluations to ensure energy efficient operation and client
satisfaction.
Presentation Info:
Date: 11/13/25
Location: EF6 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: 8 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 8
2.16 SESSION 16: AIR INFILTRATION AND PASSIVE SYSTEMS (11/18/2025)
Title:Air Infiltration and Passive Systems
Description: Each year, $11 billion in energy costs are wasted through infiltration in commercial buildings according to a 2021
study from the Department of Energy. Learn how envelope design affects both comfort and energy costs in Idaho's buildings.
Participants will learn about pressure management and using it to design for passive strategies including stack and cross-
ventilation and some of the inherent challenges of doing so.The lecture will cover why infiltration is especially important to
22

manage in Idaho due to the health impacts of wildfire smoke,which can infiltrate a leaky building.The main takeaway is to
design buildings that deliver clean filtered air to the occupants in a way that minimizes utility costs and maximizes comfort.
Presentation Info:
Date: 11/18/25
Location: AF4 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 5 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 1
Total (In-Person): 6
2.17 SESSION 17: THE ARCHITECTS BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY MODELING (11/20/2025)
Title:The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling
Description: Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise.The truth is that more models and simulations are
performed, and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the process and how to utilize the
output.A building energy model can provide the architect an iterative process to increase the real-world effectiveness of
energy systems within a building.This session will explore the value-add of energy modeling from the architect's perspective,
providing a business case for more active involvement in advocation for energy performance modeling.
Presentation Info:
Date: 11/20/25
Location: EF6 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: 14 Electrician:
Engineer: 3 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 19
*Other included: Director of design,Senior project manager.
2.18 SESSION 18: THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS (12/02/2025)
Title:Thermal Energy Storage Systems
23

Description:Thermal Energy Storage Systems(TES)are gaining popularity as a way to mitigate peak energy use.This lecture
will explore the use of things like ice-storage and ponds to minimize chiller and boiler use.This technology can be paired with
ground-source heat pumps, radiant systems, and natural ventilation. Idaho typically has large temperature swings between the
high and low temperatures(sometimes up to 30 F), which makes our state especially suited to shifting when heating and
cooling equipment should operate. By understanding more about TES, engineers and architects alike can design unique
configurations that can increase efficiency and enhance resiliency in their buildings.
Presentation Info:
Date: 12/02/25
Location: AF4 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 6 Electrician:
Engineer: 1 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 7
3. FUTURE WORK
24

Feedback was gathered from the 95 Lunch and Learn evaluations received throughout 2025.The comments from
these were valuable in defining possible future Lunch and Learn topics.The IDL will propose new topics for lectures based on
this feedback for 2026.The Integrated Design Lab has two additional lunch and learn lectures scheduled for January 2026.
One is scheduled for January 20th and the other is scheduled for January 22nd. Due to scheduling conflicts these lectures could
not be scheduled in 2025.
25

4. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: SESSION SUMMARIES
At the conclusion of each lunch and learn session,an evaluation form was requested from each participant.The
feedback will be used to improve future sessions. Below are summaries of session information, attendance counts, and the
feedback received from the evaluation forms. It should be noted that comments recorded from evaluations have not been
edited in most cases, many appear exactly how the participant entered them online or how they were interpreted for
translation from hand-written forms.
4.1.1 SESSION 1: THE ARCHITECTS BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY MODELING (0 312 012 0 2 5)
Title:The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling
Description: Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise.The truth is that more models and simulations are
performed, and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the process and how to utilize the
output.A building energy model can provide the architect an iterative process to increase the real-world effectiveness of
energy systems within a building.This session will explore the value-add of energy modeling from the architect's perspective,
providing a business case for more active involvement in avocation for energy performance modeling.
Presentation Info:
Date: 03/20/25
Location: A01 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 2 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 24
Total (In-Person): 26
*Other included:
26

Scale
Evaluations:
In general,today's presentation was: 0.0 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 0.0 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• No evaluations were collected.
What attendees found most valuable:
• No evaluations were collected.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• No evaluations were collected.
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• No evaluations were collected.
4.1.2 SESSION 2: AIR INFILTRATION AND PASSIVE SYSTEMS (0 410 312 0 2 5)
Title: Air Infiltration and Passive Systems
Description: Each year, $11 billion in energy costs are wasted through infiltration in commercial buildings according to a 2021
study from the Department of Energy. Learn how envelope design affects both comfort and energy costs in Idaho's buildings.
Participants will learn about pressure management and using it to design for passive strategies including stack and cross-
ventilation and some of the inherent challenges of doing so.The lecture will cover why infiltration is especially important to
manage in Idaho due to the health impacts of wildfire smoke,which can infiltrate a leaky building.The main takeaway is to
design buildings that deliver clean filtered air to the occupants in a way that minimizes utility costs and maximizes comfort.
Presentation Info:
Date: 04/03/25
Location: AF1 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 2 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 3
Total (In-Person): 7
27

*Other included: ID & BIM.
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.8 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.0 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Very good,very knowledgeable.
• N/A
What attendees found most valuable:
• The data presented.
• Last trip+tricks for application.
• Responsiveness to questions.
• The updated on the code.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AIA(x3), NOMA
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• More info on trade barriers.
• More energy efficient construction methods =good.
4.1.3 SESSION 3: AIR INFILTRATION AND PASSIVE SYSTEMS (0 410 812 0 2 5)
Title:Air Infiltration and Passive Systems
Description: Each year, $11 billion in energy costs are wasted through infiltration in commercial buildings according to a 2021
study from the Department of Energy. Learn how envelope design affects both comfort and energy costs in Idaho's buildings.
Participants will learn about pressure management and using it to design for passive strategies including stack and cross-
ventilation and some of the inherent challenges of doing so.The lecture will cover why infiltration is especially important to
manage in Idaho due to the health impacts of wildfire smoke,which can infiltrate a leaky building.The main takeaway is to
design buildings that deliver clean filtered air to the occupants in a way that minimizes utility costs and maximizes comfort.
Presentation Info:
Date: 04/08/25
Location: EF1 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
28

Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: 4 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 3
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 1
Total (In-Person): 8
*Other included: Civil Engineering(x3).
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.0 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.8 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Good job.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Programs to save power.
• Saving on power. Leakage issue and prevent them.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• No comments were made for this section.
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• No comments were made for this section.
4.1.4 SESSION 4: THE ARCHITECTS BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY MODELING (0 412 812 0 2 5)
Title:The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling
Description: Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise.The truth is that more models and simulations are
performed, and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the process and how to utilize the
output.A building energy model can provide the architect an iterative process to increase the real-world effectiveness of
energy systems within a building.This session will explore the value-add of energy modeling from the architect's perspective,
providing a business case for more active involvement in avocation for energy performance modeling.
29

Presentation Info:
Date: 04/28/24
Location: EF2 - Meridian, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: 3 Electrician:
Engineer: 2 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 7
Other included: Designer(x2)
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.6 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.6 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Great Job!
• When you ask if anyone has questions, recommend waiting 5-10 seconds, I need a few seconds to process my
questions.
• Show examples of case studies.
What attendees found most valuable:
• List of services by the IDL
• The modeling, data processing and code section references.
• Energy Paths, compliance options.
• Go thru process for engaging IDL for energy model services.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AIA(x3), NCARB(x2)
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Energy code compliance using trade-off method.
• Any!We don't get enough L&Ls anymore.
30

4.1.5 SESSION 5: ENVELOPE AND WINDOW DESIGN FOR ENHANCED ENERGY EFFICIENCY (0512012025)
Title: Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency
Description: Understanding the critical role of envelope design in determining heating and cooling loads,this lecture delves
into various energy-efficient design metrics, and their sensitivity analysis to discern their impact effectively. Participants will
gain insights into passive envelope design measures aimed at increasing energy efficiency through strategic leveraging of
orientation,shading,thermal properties, and building shape considerations.Additionally,the lecture offers insights into the
window glazing properties such as U-factor,Solar Heat Gain Coefficient(SHGC),Visible Transmittance (VT), and emittance.
Special emphasis is placed on the advantages of Low-E Glass, particularly in colder climates, enhancing participants'
understanding of how such features contribute to energy conservation. Geared towards architects and constructors,this
session offers resources for deeper exploration and understanding of envelope design's pivotal role in energy efficiency.
Presentation Info:
Date: 05/20/25
Location: OPEN - Boise, ID
Presenter: Farnaz Nazari
Attendance:
Architect: 2 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 3
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 3
Total (In-Person): 5
Total (Online): 3
*Others included: Facility chief, Energy Advisor, and Planner
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 5.0 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.7 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• None,great presentation.
• Maybe more case studies w/ practical application.
What attendees found most valuable:
31

• The information was spot on.
• Depth of content.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AEE,AIA, ULI, USGBC
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• More general overview on passive or active solar geothermal, etc.
• Energy modeling workflow workshop.
4.1.6 SESSION 6: VALUE OF ENERGY PERFORMANCE MODELING, MONITORING, AND TRACKING (1 010 112 0 2 5)
Title:Value of Energy Performance Modeling, Monitoring, and Tracking
Description:This course introduces energy modeling as a powerful tool for predicting building performance before
construction.Through simulation, designers can evaluate efficiency measures, estimate cost savings, and support design
decisions with data. Participants will also learn how tracking energy use helps building owners identify inefficiencies, reduce
costs, and optimize operations. ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager is a free online platform for monitoring and improving energy
performance across buildings.
Presentation Info:
Date: 10/01/25
Location: OPEN - Mountain Home, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 1
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 6
Total (In-Person): 7
Other included: RECA
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.6 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.7 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
32

Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• None, covered all areas.
• Time was short so presentation was very quick. Informative.Some handouts might be beneficial.
• Lots of information covered - short time period. Perhaps slow down, more explanations.
• Less acronyms, more of an intro before diving in. More examples of how this applies to the customer.
• None - you provided interesting content, in an engaging approachable way. Easy to follow,good pace, and eye
contact.
What attendees found most valuable:
• All of it.
• Being an EE,the focus on lighting was valuable to me.
• Everything.
• Dylan's sharing of available resources, especially energy star portfolio manager.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• IPC, LEED.
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• More of lighting.
4.1.7 SESSION 7: ENERGY EFFICIENT DESIGN IDEAS FOR MULTIFAMILY (1010912025)
Title: Energy Efficient Design Ideas for Multifamily
Description:This course explores energy efficiency strategies tailored to multifamily buildings, addressing design challenges,
code compliance, and utility incentives. Participants will learn how to integrate passive and active systems, navigate IECC
2018 and ENERGY STAR requirements, and leverage Idaho Power's multifamily incentive programs to enhance building
performance and occupant comfort.
Presentation Info:
Date: 10/09/25
Location: EF3 - Merdian, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 7
Total (In-Person): 7
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 3.8 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.2 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.4 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
33

Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.2 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Diagrams and Images.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Tools to go to the architect to drive design.
• Everything.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• Useful equipment to integrate into building to make them more efficient.
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• No comments were made for this section.
4.1.8 SESSION 8: DAYLIGHTING MULTIPLIERS INCREASING DAYLIGHT HARVESTING EFFICIENCY (1 011 012 02 5)
Title: Daylighting Multipliers Increasing Daylight Harvesting Efficiency
Description:This session will explore the role that daylighting multipliers are used when trying to increase the efficiency of
daylighting or daylight harvesting in a building,such as, light shelves, manufactured glazing, and material specification.
Furthermore, we will explore the rate of return,the ranges of efficiency,and appropriate uses between daylighting strategies
and multipliers.
Presentation Info:
Date: 10/10/25
Location: EF2 - Meridian, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: 5 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 7
*Other included: Designer(x2)
34

Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.8 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.4 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.4 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• More images, limit amount of text.
• Go thru example of running a project through some of the tools.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Great links.
• Resources available thru IDL website.
• Tool and resources.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AIA(x2), NCARB(x2).
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Wall thermal performance.
• Energy code updates.
4.1.9 SESSION 9: THE ARCHITECTS BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY MODELING (1011612025)
Title:The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling
Description: Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise.The truth is that more models and simulations are
performed, and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the process and how to utilize the
output.A building energy model can provide the architect an iterative process to increase the real-world effectiveness of
energy systems within a building.This session will explore the value-add of energy modeling from the architect's perspective,
providing a business case for more active involvement in advocation for energy performance modeling.
Presentation Info:
Date: 10/16/25
Location: EF4 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: 7 Electrician:
Engineer: 2 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
35

Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 5
Total (In-Person): 14
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 3.9 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.1 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 3.9 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 3.9 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.5 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Stand in front.
• As a second language user prefer to hear a presentation with a low speed.
• More interactive, questions to audience about energy savings strategies.
• A more deliberate or reference model.
• The instructor was very knowledgeable but I felt that some items were slightly advanced.
• Very little lead in. Not sure how the information gets used by professional. (ASHRAE 209 overhauled what does
that mean to me on a daily basis).
What attendees found most valuable:
• The software and CFD using in building.
• Websites and resources.
• Overview of strategies and resources available.
• The training and option to assist clarification of levels.
• I felt that it was very informative.
• Energy EFF changes.
• A reminder to check on daylighting and environment at early stages of design.
• Resources for energy modeling and analysis.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AIA
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Energy modeling and CFD anything.
• Energy modeling software.
• Passive design strategies for common project types. Not mechanized or electronically controlled systems.
• Preliminary energy design tools and ways to make project better at energy use with cost awareness.
• Incentives, potentially more on modeling programs available that can show understandable info to the client. Wo
generally doesn't have an understanding for the subject matter.
• Modeling.
4.1.10 SESSION 10: ENERGY EFFICIENT DESIGN IDEAS FOR MULTIFAMILY (1 012 312 0 2 5)
Title: Energy Efficient Design Ideas for Multifamily
36

Description:This course explores energy efficiency strategies tailored to multifamily buildings, addressing design challenges,
code compliance, and utility incentives. Participants will learn how to integrate passive and active systems, navigate IECC
2018 and ENERGY STAR requirements, and leverage Idaho Power's multifamily incentive programs to enhance building
performance and occupant comfort.
Presentation Info:
Date: 10/23/25
Location: AF2 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: 5 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 1
Total (In-Person): 6
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.5 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.0 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• None. It was great presentation and knowledge sharing.
• Some of the graphs were a little confusing to understand.
• More case studies.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Energy saving techniques and incentives.
• The good "rules of thumb" are great to know and keep in mind.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AIA(x2)
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Green design.
• Practical ways to convince developers for efficiencies.
37

4.1.11 SESSION 11: THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS (1012812025)
Title:Thermal Energy Storage Systems
Description:Thermal Energy Storage Systems(TES)are gaining popularity as a way to mitigate peak energy use.This lecture
will explore the use of things like ice-storage and ponds to minimize chiller and boiler use.This technology can be paired with
ground-source heat pumps, radiant systems, and natural ventilation. Idaho typically has large temperature swings between the
high and low temperatures(sometimes up to 30 F), which makes our state especially suited to shifting when heating and
cooling equipment should operate. By understanding more about TES, engineers and architects alike can design unique
configurations that can increase efficiency and enhance resiliency in their buildings.
Presentation Info:
Date: 10/28/25
Location: EF5 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: 5 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 1
Total (In-Person): 6
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.8 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.5 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Good presentation.
• Maybe some more specific install examples in or area.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Cost data for various proposed systems.
• Pointing out building types that benefit more from thermal storage.
• Available resources.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• ASHRAE, ISDF, NFPA.
38

Other types of training attendees would find useful
• More in-depth on this topic.
4.1.12 SESSION 12: THE FUTURE OF LIGHTING CONTROLS (1 110 312 0 2 5)
Title:The Future of Lighting Controls
Description:Although LEDs have shown,they are a big game changer in the commercial lighting realm; lower lighting power
density is not the only area of value when considering lighting.We can further increase savings from these highly efficient
lighting systems by introducing control systems that collect data and user input to create an evolving feedback loop that seeks
peak system operation. While LLLC's(Luminaire Level Lighting Control) use this feature,they still use the same infrastructure
as the lighting and control system that have come before it,which can be a limitation for expanding the systems efficiency and
integration to other building systems.We believe the internet of things(IoT)will change the lighting and controls industry,
providing an excellent medium for an integrated, multi-service IoT platform. Why?Where there are people,there are lights;
where there are people,there will also be the need for connectivity. New and connected lighting controls provide a means to
deliver valuable IoT services and increased energy savings.
Presentation Info:
Date: 11/03/25
Location: EF3 - Merdian, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 8
Total (In-Person): 8
Evaluations: No evaluations were filled out. Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.8 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.8 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
39

Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Suggest control strategy example - open office/conference typical day.
• Break up slides a little more.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Overview of technology was very helpful.
• Information of how to apply tech.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• ASHRAE.
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Energy modeling.
4.1.13 SESSION 13: HIGH PERFORMANCE CLASSROOMS (1 110 412 0 2 5)
Title: High Performance Classrooms
Description:Student enrollment in Ada County is projected to grow by 1,000 students per year for the next ten years and at
least six capital projects are planned in the West Ada District alone to meet this demand.This session will cover a variety of
issues facing the design of an efficient, healthy, and productive classroom environment.A quick look at the state of the last 50
years of school design will give an introduction to the problems faced by designers.This session will highlight several case
studies of high performance schools in the Northwest to address daylighting, natural ventilation, and integration of mechanical
systems. Each passive strategy will be addressed in detail with regional examples and performance research.
Presentation Info:
Date: 11/04/25
Location: AF3 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 3 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 1
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 5
Total (In-Person): 9
Others included: Interior design.
40

Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.9 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.0 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Nothing,you did great!
• Possibly dive into solutions earlier.
• Explain basic description of systems, i.e. DOAS.
• Nothing, info was great.
What attendees found most valuable:
• The options for changes
• Resources available
• Basic intro + resources for lighting,venting, etc.
• The fact that you weren't boring orjust reading off the slides
• Very educational! Graphics were very helpful!
• content+available resources
• CO2 discussion
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• UL, NAIOP, NCLDQ, GID
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Acoustics, remodel wall efficiency
• retrofits and renovations
• Residential
• Different levels of education and the effects.
• same content applicable to restaurants
• Energy Tools
4.1.14 SESSION 14: ENVELOPE AND WINDOW DESIGN FOR ENHANCED ENERGY EFFICIENCY (1 110 612 0 2 5)
Title: Envelope and Window Design for Enhanced Energy Efficiency
Description: Understanding the critical role of envelope design in determining heating and cooling loads,this lecture delves
into various energy-efficient design metrics, and their sensitivity analysis to discern their impact effectively. Participants will
gain insights into passive envelope design measures aimed at increasing energy efficiency through strategic leveraging of
orientation,shading,thermal properties, and building shape considerations.Additionally,the lecture offers insights into the
window glazing properties such as U-factor,Solar Heat Gain Coefficient(SHGC),Visible Transmittance (VT), and emittance.
Special emphasis is placed on the advantages of Low-E Glass, particularly in colder climates, enhancing participants'
understanding of how such features contribute to energy conservation. Geared towards architects and constructors,this
session offers resources for deeper exploration and understanding of envelope design's pivotal role in energy efficiency.
41

Presentation Info:
Date: 11/06/25
Location: AF2 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Farnaz Nazari
Attendance:
Architect: 3 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 3
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.5 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 3.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 3.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.3 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• No comments were made.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Energy savings graphs w/ projections,window types, Orientation.
• Windows!
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AIA(x2)
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Convincing developers who plan to seal bldg. about savings through passive design.
4.1.15 SESSION 15: HVAC LOAD CALCULATION - TIPS AND TRICKS (1 111 312 0 2 5)
Title: HVAC Load Calculation-Tips and Tricks
Description: Load calculations are one of the key logistics to designing a high performing building. But, how does one capture
the nuance of today's post-covid hybrid office environments?What about conference rooms that are full in the mornings, but
empty in the afternoons? For those in the Treasure Valley,ASHRAE's design temperatures have changed - we have hotter
summers and milder winters than 20 years ago.The IDL will share updated weather data sources and several load calculation
42

tools freely available to engineers. Participants will learn the distinction between ASHRAE's different load calculation methods
- (90.1 vs 183).The lecture will cover how to use energy modeling tools to predict loads in different scenarios and apply
ASHRAE 55's thermal comfort standard during the design process. Practitioners will be able to use these tools to add dynamic
loads to their designs and conduct robust post-occupancy evaluations to ensure energy efficient operation and client
satisfaction.
Presentation Info:
Date: 11/13/25
Location: EF6 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: 8 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 8
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.8 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.4 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.4 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.2 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• State more clearly where each tool can be found.
• Perhaps go through slides a little slower.
What attendees found most valuable:
• The quick HEPSEC design load tool
• The user comfort resources
• Different types of useful information online and where to find it/use it.
• All the additional tools for modeling and information.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• ASHRAE(x3)
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Tutorial on using energy modeling software.
• Specifying systems after modeling.
43

4.1.16 SESSION 16: AIR INFILTRATION AND PASSIVE SYSTEMS (1 110 612 0 2 5)
Title:Air Infiltration and Passive Systems
Description: Each year, $11 billion in energy costs are wasted through infiltration in commercial buildings according to a 2021
study from the Department of Energy. Learn how envelope design affects both comfort and energy costs in Idaho's buildings.
Participants will learn about pressure management and using it to design for passive strategies including stack and cross-
ventilation and some of the inherent challenges of doing so.The lecture will cover why infiltration is especially important to
manage in Idaho due to the health impacts of wildfire smoke,which can infiltrate a leaky building.The main takeaway is to
design buildings that deliver clean filtered air to the occupants in a way that minimizes utility costs and maximizes comfort.
Presentation Info:
Date: 11/06/25
Location: AF4 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 5 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 1
Total (In-Person): 6
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.5 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.5 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Talk about how we can use this information to our own practice and apply it other building.What is our role as
architects to use this information specifically
• As always. I want more!
• Maybe some asterisks at the base of slides on any acronyms.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Code updates
• information devices and methods to implement and practice within our home and or buildings we are designing
• Practice application so we can implement
44

• Infiltration amounts in buildings
• Air change per hour and penetration sizing.
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AIA(x2), NCARB (x2), LEED
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Passive house
• Geothermal Practices in boise and modern day architecture
• Breathability of buildings what's the proper amount.
• Building lifetime and how to extend the life of building systems before significant renovation or demolition.
4.1.17 SESSION 17: THE ARCHITECTS BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY MODELING (1 112 012 0 2 5)
Title:The Architects Business Case for Energy Modeling
Description: Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise.The truth is that more models and simulations are
performed, and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the process and how to utilize the
output.A building energy model can provide the architect an iterative process to increase the real-world effectiveness of
energy systems within a building.This session will explore the value-add of energy modeling from the architect's perspective,
providing a business case for more active involvement in advocation for energy performance modeling.
Presentation Info:
Date: 11/20/25
Location: EF6 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: 14 Electrician:
Engineer: 3 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 19
*Other included: Director of design,Senior project manager
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.2 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.4 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.4 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
45

Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Did not know what all the acronyms are may explain
• Very well done,thanks!
• Maybe explain daylight harvesting.Architects think the electrical engineer works to make that happen. I can
control the lights, but I can't bring in more daylight.
• Focus on Architectural impact a little more
• None
What attendees found most valuable:
• Clients think in kWh.Something I didn't think about
• The balance of daylight harvesting
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• ASHRAE(x2)
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• LLLCs
4.1.18 SESSION 18: THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS (1 210 212 0 2 5)
Title:Thermal Energy Storage Systems
Description:Thermal Energy Storage Systems(TES)are gaining popularity as a way to mitigate peak energy use.This lecture
will explore the use of things like ice-storage and ponds to minimize chiller and boiler use.This technology can be paired with
ground-source heat pumps, radiant systems, and natural ventilation. Idaho typically has large temperature swings between the
high and low temperatures(sometimes up to 30 F), which makes our state especially suited to shifting when heating and
cooling equipment should operate. By understanding more about TES, engineers and architects alike can design unique
configurations that can increase efficiency and enhance resiliency in their buildings.
Presentation Info:
Date: 12/02/25
Location: AF4 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 6 Electrician:
Engineer: 1 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 7
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.7 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
46

Rate opportunity for questions: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.0 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Show a geothermal or open looped system diagram in this presentation
• Help finding/showing more real world examples
• None
• Overall pretty good,just a couple of times where?'s where and then given.Some info should witch
chronologically
What attendees found most valuable:
• Comparison of all the different systems
• 1 like that is was kept fairly basic and didn't get too far into the weeds or details
• Ground source heating
Professional associations of which attendees are members:
• AIA(x2), NCARB(x2), LEED
Other types of training attendees would find useful
• Stacked ventilation.
• Just more!
• Water retention.
47

APPENDIX B: LUNCH AND LEARN 2025 TOPICS OFFERED
IDAHO POWER COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROGRAM
This session will be an overview of Idaho Power's Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Programs. Idaho Power offers
incentives for businesses of all sizes for energy-efficient equipment and strategies in new or existing facilities.Aside from
incentives offered to businesses, customers can take advantage of training opportunities, energy assessments, and cohort
programs to improve energy use in their facility.
ENERGY EFFICIENT DESIGN IDEAS FOR MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS (TOPIC 2502)
With the rapid population growth in Idaho, multifamily projects are in great demand.When embarking on a new multifamily or
mixed-use project, it is important to understand the major energy uses for multifamily developments.This presentation will
include case studies and information from ASHRAE's Advanced Energy Design Guide on multifamily projects.Some of the
technologies covered include enhanced insulation (for both thermal comfort and privacy), efficient ventilation strategies, and
the advantage of tight envelopes.The presentation will also offer an overview of energy code requirements and energy
efficiency options encouraged by the International Energy Code Council.The focus will be on design strategies tailored to the
southern Idaho and eastern Oregon climate.
DIFFERENT GLAZING TYPES AND THEIR ENERGY SAVINGS & COST EFFECTIVENESS (TOPIC 2501)
Windows significantly impact a building's energy efficiency, influencing heating, cooling, and daylighting performance.This
presentation explores various types of glazing,from single and double glazing to advanced options like low-emissivity(Low-E)
coatings,tinted glass, and dynamic glazing technologies like photochromic, electrochromic, and thermochromic glasses. We
will examine how each type affects thermal performance, energy savings, and cost-effectiveness, helping designers, engineers,
and building owners make informed decisions.Through real-world applications and comparative analysis, attendees will gain
insight into selecting glazing solutions that balance upfront costs with long-term energy savings benefits for different building
functions and projects.
ENVELOPE AND WINDOW DESIGN FOR ENHANCED ENERGY EFFICIENCY(TOPIC 2401)
Understanding the critical role of envelope design in determining heating and cooling loads,this lecture delves into various
energy-efficient design metrics, and their sensitivity analysis to discern their impact effectively. Participants will gain insights
into passive envelope design measures aimed at increasing energy efficiency through strategic leveraging of orientation,
shading,thermal properties, and building shape considerations.Additionally,the lecture offers insights into the window glazing
properties such as U-factor,Solar Heat Gain Coefficient(SHGC),Visible Transmittance(VT),and emittance.Special emphasis is
placed on the advantages of Low-E Glass, particularly in colder climates,enhancing participants' understanding of how such
features contribute to energy conservation. Geared towards architects and constructors,this session offers resources for
deeper exploration and understanding of envelope design's pivotal role in energy efficiency.
LUMINAIRE LEVEL LIGHTING CONTROLS: NETWORKING AND MAPPING LIGHTS (TOPIC 2403)
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls have sensors and controls within individual fixtures that enable them to be controlled
remotely or on a case-by-case basis. Remote control allows users to adjust the programming criteria or illumination levels
without replacing the fixtures. In conventional lighting systems, lighting zones are defined as a collective unit and thus are
centrally controlled. Each fixture has the potential to become a semi-autonomous zone that is capable of responding to small
changes in the area under each fixture.While new technologies are often exciting and useful there can be some growing pains
48

or a learning curve to become `comfortable' using the new technology.The following scenarios are the two most common
encounters I have had in the field working on lighting system. I have Luminaire Level Lighting Controls installed in my building,
but I don't know how to connect to the software.The lighting system was commissioned for a standard lighting controls and
programming and therefore as a result we can't fully utilize the lighting system.This can also cause issues with the user
interface which often frustrates building occupants when they interact with the lighting controls.This lecture will go in-depth to
lighting control strategies, maximizing settings for energy efficiency,working with Information Technology personnel, and lastly
mapping lights to your environment.
AIR INFILTRATION AND PASSIVE SYSTEMS (TOPIC 2301)
Each year, $11 billion in energy costs are wasted through infiltration in commercial buildings according to a 2021 study from
the Department of Energy. Learn how envelope design affects both comfort and energy cost in Idaho's buildings. Participants
will learn about pressure management and using it to design passive strategies including stack and cross-ventilation and some
of the inherent challenges of doing so. The lecture will cover why infiltration is especially important to manage in Idaho due to
the health impacts of wildfire smoke,which can infiltrate a leaky building.The main takeaway is to design buildings that deliver
clean filtered air to the occupants in a way that minimizes utility costs and maximizes comfort.
HVAC LOAD CALCULATION (TOPIC 2302)
Load calculations are one of the key logistics to designing a high performing building. But, how does one capture the nuance of
today's post-covid hybrid office environments?What about conference rooms that are full in the mornings, but empty in the
afternoons? For those in the treasure Valley,ASHRAE's design temperatures have changed - we have hotter summers and
milder winters than 20 years ago.The IDL will share updated weather data sources and several load calculation tools freely
available to engineers. Participants will learn the distinction between ASHRAE's different load calculation methods - (90.1 vs
183).The lecture will cover how to use energy modeling tools to predict loads in different scenarios and apply ASHRAE 55's
thermal comfort standard during the design process. Practitioners will be able to use these tools to add dynamic loads to their
design and conduct robust post-occupancy evaluations to ensure energy efficient operation and client satisfaction.
HIGH PERFORMANCE CLASSROOMS (TOPIC 2001)
Student enrollment in Ada County is projected to grow by 1,000 students per year for the next ten years and at least six capital
projects are planned in the West Ada District alone to meet this demand.This session will cover a variety of issues facing the
design of an efficient, healthy, and productive classroom environment.A quick look at the state over the last 50 years of school
design will introduce the problems faced by designers.This session will highlight several case studies of high-performance
schools in the Northwest to address daylighting, natural ventilation, and integration of mechanical systems. Each passive
strategy will be addressed in detail with regional examples and performance research.
DAYLIGHTING MULTIPLIERS: INCREASING DAYLIGHT HARVESTING EFFICIENCY(TOPIC 2003)
This session will cover the role that daylighting multipliers play when trying to increase the efficiency of daylight harvesting in a
building through design applications,such as, light shelves, manufactured glazing, and material specification. Participants will
learn about the rate of return and energy efficiency cost effectiveness for daylighting strategies, building form, location, and
multipliers.The class will explain how the layers of daylighting/electric lighting strategies and control systems and how they
add or subtract to the overall efficiency of the design.
LUMINAIRE LEVEL LIGHTING CONTROLS (LLLCS) (TOPIC 1904)
LLLCs have sensors and controls within individual fixtures that enable them to be controlled remotely or on a case by case
basis. Remote control allows users to adjust the programming criteria or illumination levels without replacing the fixtures. In
conventional lighting systems lighting zones are defined as a collective unit and thus are centrally controlled. LLLCs however,
incorporate sensors such as occupancy, daylight,temperature or receive/broadcast signals into each fixture.Therefore, each
fixture has the potential to become a semi-autonomous zone that is capable of responding to small changes in the area the
49

fixture serves.And, individual fixtures can communicate with other fixtures, using wireless or infrared signals,to share data for
an even greater potential to increase energy savings and user satisfaction.
THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS (TOPIC 2202)
Thermal Energy Storage Systems(TES)are gaining popularity as a way to mitigate peak energy use.This lecture will explore the
use of things like ice-storage and ponds to minimize chiller and boiler use.This technology can be paired with ground-source
heat pumps, radiant systems, and natural ventilation. Idaho typically has large temperature swings between the high and low
temperatures(sometimes up to 30 F), which makes our state especially suited to shifting when heating and cooling equipment
should operate. By understanding more about TES,engineers and architects alike can design unique configurations that can
increase efficiency and enhance resiliency in their buildings.
FUTURE OF LIGHTING CONTROLS (TOPIC 1901)
Although LEDs have shown they are a big game changer in the commercial lighting realm, lower lighting power density is not
the only area of value when considering lighting. We can further increase savings from these highly efficient lighting systems
by introducing control systems that collect data and user input to create an evolving feedback loop that seeks peak system
operation. While LLLC's(Luminaire Level Lighting Controls) use this feature,they also use the same infrastructure as the
lighting and control system that have come before them,which can be a limitation for expanding the systems efficiency and
integration into other building systems. Many lighting experts believe the internet of things (IoT)will change the lighting and
controls industry, providing an excellent medium for an integrated, multi-service IoT platform.Why?Where there are people,
there are lights. And, where there are people,there will also be the need for connectivity. New and connected lighting controls
provide a means to deliver valuable IoT services and increased energy savings.
THE ARCHITECTS' BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY PERFORMANCE MODELING (TOPIC 1902)
Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise.The truth is that more models and simulations are performed,
and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the process and how to utilize the output.A building
energy model can provide the architect an iterative process to increase the real-world effectiveness of energy systems within a
building.This session will explore the value-add of energy modeling from the architect's perspective, providing a business case
for more active involvement in advocation for energy performance modeling.
LED TECHNOLOGY'S IMPACT ON SAVINGS AND EFFICIENCY(TOPIC 2201)
We will examine the effect LED technology has had on energy savings, control strategies, and future implications with
continued efficient lighting technology.As lighting technology becomes more efficient it will adjust codes, incentives from
utilities,and energy efficiency standards. More importantly, it will change the cost benefit analysis regarding lighting, control
strategies, and occupant comfort.The LED revolution for lighting is not done and, in this lecture,we will discuss the current
state of LEDs as well as the direction we are going and what we might find when we arrive.
ULTRA VIOLET GERMA AIR IRRADIATION - (TOPIC 2203)
With the arrival of COVID,there has been a surge of interest in Ultra Violet Germicidal Irradiation. During our research,the IDL
found that UV systems can actually save on operational costs by reducing fan energy.Attendees will learn about the different
UV technologies available,the strength needed to kill pathogens in air streams, and how to minimize the energy used to run
these systems.This lecture will draw from leading researchers such as William Bahnfleth, who chaired ASHRAE's Epidemic
Task Force. By installing UVGI systems in front of cooling coils,these can help prevent microbial growth and ensure better
airflow throughout the building. With building occupants increasingly mindful of airborne contaminates, it's important for
architects and engineers to be aware of these systems and how they can be integrated into a building.
50

NTEP,At EW,
. f DESIGN LABe.
`LJvit,ersi v +�`�U2r�0
2025 TASK 3: BSUG
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT
December 15, 2025
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Author:
Farnaz Nazari
Report Number: 2025_003-01
M.

This page left intentionally blank.

Prepared by:
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab I Boise
322 E Front Street, Suite #360 Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu
IDL Director:
Damon Woods
Author:
Farnaz Nazari
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Contract Number:
IPC KIT#8112
Please cite this report as follows: Nazari, F. (2025). 2025 TASK 3:
BSUG — Summary of Effort and Outcomes (2025_003-01).
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab, Boise, ID.

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

This page left intentionally blank.

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Table of Contents...................................................................................................................1
2. Acronyms and Abbreviations................................................................................................. 2
3. Introduction...........................................................................................................................3
4. 2025 Summary and Cumulative Analysis ...............................................................................3
2025 Attendance.......................................................................................................................4
2025 Evaluations .......................................................................................................................5
5. Session Summaries ................................................................................................................6
Session 1: Al Driven HVAC Optimization with Tagup (5/21/25).................................................6
Session 2: ASHRAE Standard 90-1-2022 Appendix G Performance Rating Method (06/18/25).6
Session 3: Maximizing HVAC Efficiency and Resiliency in Cold Climates with Air-Source Heat
Pumps and DOAS (08/27/25).....................................................................................................7
Session 4: Low Temperature Geothermal Systems (09/17/25) .................................................8
Session 5: BIM to BEM -Agile Energy Modeling for High Performance Building Design
(10/08/25).................................................................................................................................8
Session 6: Going Digital — Modeling Infrastructure Resilience for Sustainable Urban
Development (12/03/25)...........................................................................................................9
6. Website Maintenance and Statistics....................................................................................10
7. Other Activities and Suggestions for Future Improvements ................................................ 10
8. Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 12
Appendix A: BSUG 2025 Evaluations .......................................................................................12

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 2
2. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS W
AIA American Institute of Architects
App Application
ARUP London based multi-discipline firm
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
BCVTP Building Controls Virtual Test-Bed
BEMP Building Energy Modeling Professional
BESF Building Energy Simulation Forum (Energy Trust of Oregon)
BIM Building Information Modeling
BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association
BSME Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering
BSUG Building Simulation Users' Group
CBECS Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey
Comm Commercial
Elec. Electrical
HePESC Heat Pump Energy Savings Calculator
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IBPSA International Building Performance Simulation Association
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IPC Idaho Power Company
LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
LEED Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design
LLLC Luminaire Level Lighting Control
M. Arch Masters of Architecture
ME Mechanical Engineer(ing)
Mech. Mechanical
MEP Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing
MS Arch Masters of Science Architecture
NCARB National Council of Architectural Registration Boards
RDA Revit Daylighting Analysis
TMY Typical Meteorological Year
UDC Urban Design Center
UI University of Idaho
USGBC U.S. Green Building Council

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 3
3. INTRODUCTION
The 2025 Idaho Power scope of work for the Building Simulation Users' Group (BSUG)task included planning, organization and
hosting of six meetings, recording attendance and evaluations, archiving video of the presentations, and maintaining the BSUG 2.0 on
the IDL website which can be found here: (http://www.idlboise.com/content/bsug-20).
4. 2025 SUMMARY AND CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
In 2025, six sessions were coordinated and hosted. Sessions are summarized below with details in the following sections.
Table 1: Overall Summary of Sessions
RSVPs Attendees
Date Title Presenter Presenter Company In-personOnline In-person Online
05/21 Al Driven HVAC Optimization with TagUp Robert Lauer TagUp 14 10 2 5
ASHRAE Standard 90-1-2022 Appendix G
06/18 Olivia Brady Karpman Consulting 8 38 2 23
Performance Rating Method
Maximizing HVAC Efficiency and Resiliency in Cold
08/27 Climates with Air-Source Heat Pumps and DOAS Jordan Pratt Energy 350 19 41 10 14
09/17 Low Temperature Geothermal Systems Carter Johnson Egg Geo LLC 15 81 8 54
BIM to BEM - Agile Energy Modeling for High
10/08 Krishnan Gowri EnergySolutions 20 43 15 24
Performance Building Design
Going Digital — Modeling Infrastructure Resilience
12/03 Dru Crawley Bentley Systems Inc. 6 35 1 12
for Sustainable Urban Development
82 248 38 132
330 170

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 4
2025 Attendance
Number of Attendees min-Person ■Online
Going Digital Modeling Infrastructure Resilience for 1 12
Sustainable Urban Development
BIM to BEM-Agile Energy Modeling for High Performance 15
Building Design*
Low Temperature Geothermal Systems 8
Maximizing HVAC Efficiency and Resiliency in Cold Climates 10 14
with Air-Source Heat Pumps and DOAS
ASHRAE Standard 90-1-2022 Appendix G Performance Rating 2 23
Method
Al Driven HVAC Optimization with Tagup 2 5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure 1:Attendee Count by Session and Type
Table 2: Overall Attendance Breakdown
Architect: 2 Electrician: 0
Engineer: 20 Contractor: 0
Mech. Engineer: 13 Other: 15
Elec. Engineer: 0 None Specified: 120
Total (In-Person): 38
Total (Online): 132
Total (Combined): 170
Architect
1% Engineer
10% Mech.
Engineer Total(In-
'Ad" 6% Person)
22%
Other
I 8% Total(Online)
None Specified 78%
75%
Figure 2:Attendee Profession Breakdown Figure 3:Attendee Type Breakdown

Integrated Design Lab Boise 5
2025 Evaluations
ialuation Metric Scale
'...today's presentation was' 1 Not Useful -5 Very Useful
'The content...' 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
'Rate ....' 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Average Evaluation Scores By Session
■In general,today's presentation was: Rate organization: Rate clarity:
■Rate opportunity for questions: Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: Rate delivery of presentation:
■The content of the presentation was:
5
4 ■■ 1
3
2
1
0
Al Driven HVAC Optimization ASHRAE Standard 90-1-2022 Maximizing HVAC Efficiency Low Temperature BIM to BEM-Agile Energy Going Digital Modeling
with Tagup Appendix G Performance and Resiliency in Cold Geothermal Systems Modeling for High Infrastructure Resilience for
Rating Method Climates with Air-Source Performance Building Sustainable Urban
Heat Pumps and DOAS Design* Development
Figure 4:Average Evaluations by Session
5 4.15 4.40 4.51 4.65 4•77 4.31
4
3.25
3
2
1
0
In general,today's Rate organization: Rate clarity: Rate opportunity for Rate instructor's Rate delivery of The content of the
presentation was: questions: knowledge of the presentation: presentation was:
subject matter:
Figure 5:Average Evaluation Scores for All Sessions (excluding joint ASHRAE session)
*This session was co-hosted with ASHRAE, resulting in a different audience profile, and was excluded from the statistics to avoid bias.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 6
5. SESSION SUMMARIES
Session 1: Al Driven HVAC Optimization with Tagup (5/21/25)
Title: Al Driven HVAC Optimization with Tagup
Date: 05/21/25
Description: Tagup's optimization platform combines machine learning and physics to optimize HVAC
equipment in real time, in response to changes in anticipated weather and load. By using HVAC
engineering principles as a scaffolding for training, the platform can estimate the impact of operational
changes on operating cost or carbon emission before collecting sensor data,and then continuously refine
the models. Once deployed, it can optimize multiple control points—including condenser and chilled
water temperature set points—to improve system efficiency while simultaneously ensuring the system
delivers the projected cooling load. In this talk, we will provide an overview of the technology, how it is
being deployed via integrations with building automation or distributed control systems, how it performs
at different sites, and what is next in terms of development.
Presenter: Dr. Robert Lauer
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: 2 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 5
Total (In-Person): 2
Total (Online): 5
*If'Other' was noted:
Session 2:ASHRAE Standard 90-1-2022 Appendix G Performance Rating Method (06/18/25)
Title: ASHRAE Standard 90-1-2022 Appendix G Performance Rating Method
Date: 06/18/25
Description: The session provides an overview of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2022 Appendix G
Performance Rating Method. This session will highlight key updates from the 2019 to the 2022 version,
explore how Appendix G has evolved over time, and showcase examples of projects that achieve—or fall
short of—compliance. We'll also compare Appendix G to the Energy Cost Budget method, the other
performance-based compliance path in 90.1. Finally, discover how using alternative metrics like site
energy, source energy, or greenhouse gas emissions can impact compliance results.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 7
Presenter: Olivia Brady
Attendance:
Architect: 2 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 1 *Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 22
Total (In-Person): 2
Total (Online): 23
*If'Other' was noted:
Session 3: Maximizing HVAC Efficiency and Resiliency in Cold Climates with Air-Source Heat
Pumps and WAS (08/27/25)
Title: Maximizing HVAC Efficiency and Resiliency in Cold Climates with Air-Source Heat Pumps and DOAS
Date: 08/27/25
Description: With the ever-increasing environmental impacts of local pollution and global emissions,
there is a necessity for resilient,flexible, and efficient HVAC systems. Unfortunately, while HVAC systems
are critical to our comfort and well-being, conventional systems are costly to operate and contribute to
more than 50%of total building energy usage in commercial buildings.
Dedicated outdoor air systems (DOAS) with decoupled heat pumps are a proven solution for reducing
energy consumption since they optimize the control and functionality of ventilation and thermal comfort
separately. When using very high efficiency heat recovery ventilation (>82 sensible recovery), inverter
driven heat pumps, and thoughtful design decisions, this solution can work well in cold climates like 5B
and 6B with design temperatures down to-15°F and below.
In this presentation, attendees will learn about the following key learning objectives:
• What are very high efficiency dedicated outdoor air systems and how they decouple ventilation
from comfort conditioning as well as help decouple system performance from outside air
conditions
• When DOAS with air-source heat pump solutions work well
• How these systems perform in the field
• What technologies help enable high performance in cold climates
Presenter:Jordan Pratt
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: 9 Contractor:

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 8
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 13
Total (In-Person): 10
Total (Online): 14
*If'Other' was noted: Sales, Utility
Session 4: Low Temperature Geothermal Systems (09/17/25)
Title: Low Temperature Geothermal Systems
Date: 09/17/25
Description:This presentation will focus on ambient to low temperature geothermal systems and thermal
energy networks. It will begin with a quick review on how heat pumps work,the advantages to using them
over traditional HVAC systems, then an in-depth description of the various ways they are coupled to the
subsurface. This will include open loop, closed loop, novel technologies, and how to decide on the
technology depending on local geology. This section will also briefly touch on low temperature systems
and direct use technology.
The second portion of the presentation will widen the scope and explore the various ways geothermal
systems can be connected to thermal energy networks. It will cover additional technologies/techniques
used to store thermal energy, shave peak loads, and connect various sources and sinks. Last, this section
will include two examples of thermal energy networks that utilize the techniques discussed in this
presentation.
Presenter: Carter Johnson
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: 1 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 61
Total (In-Person): 8
Total (Online): 54
*If'Other' was noted:
Session 5: BIM to BEM - Agile Energy Modeling for High Performance Building Design
(10/08/25)
Title: BIM to BEM -Agile Energy Modeling for High Performance Building Design

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 9
Date: 10/08/25
Description:Agile energy modeling provides a framework for robust energy modeling practices based on
iterative development starting with BIM models, where the energy model evolves through collaboration
between architect, MEP designers and a self-organizing cross-functional team of energy modelers. The
collaborative and communicative nature of agile energy modeling needs a scalable infrastructure that can
support building model management, analysis as well as delivery of modeling outcomes with software
tools and infrastructure solutions. This presentation will introduce the concepts, best practices and
evolving workflows that help automate the energy model creation from BIM for early design analysis to
detailed design.
Presenters: Dr. Krishnan Gowri
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: 2 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 37
Total (In-Person): 15
Total (Online): 24
*If'Other' was noted:
Session 6: Going Digital — Modeling Infrastructure Resilience for Sustainable Urban
Development (12/03/25)
Title: Going Digital—Modeling Infrastructure Resilience for Sustainable Urban Development
Date: 12/03/25
Description: It is now possible to quickly model a city using 3D technologies such as photogrammetry,
LiDAR, and BIM. By federating the data from these sources, it is possible to evaluate the resilience and
energy performance of a city under different planning and disaster scenarios. This presentation includes
example models of several cities, including Philadelphia and Helsinki. The photogrammetry model of
downtown Philadelphia created for the Pope's visit is merged with the Philadelphia building benchmark
data, which includes energy, water, and other data. For Helsinki, the 26 kmz (10 miz) reality model is
shown along with disaster planning and automated asset identification using deep learning
algorithms.These integrated urban models can also support energy benchmarking, retrofit planning, and
climate resilience at the city level.
Presenter: Dru Crawley

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 10
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: 5 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 8
Total (In-Person): 1
Total (Online): 12
*If'Other' was noted:
6. WEBSITE MAINTENANCE AND STATISTICS
The Google site "BSUG 2.0," retired in 2020, remains fully integrated into the idlboise.com
website.Throughout the year, monthly presentation details were posted on the Events and News
pages, along with links for both webinar and in-person registration. Monthly email
announcements directed subscribers either to these pages or directly to the registration links.
When a session included a webinar recording,the video was edited and uploaded to our YouTube
channel and linked from the BSUG video archive. In addition, the IDL continued developing the
blog section within the BSUG content area, posting updates on past topics, emerging
technologies, and simulation workflow strategies.
7. OTHER ACTIVITIES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
A round table meeting was held on December V, 2025, to provide feedback on topics
presented this year as well as suggestions for 2025 lecture topics. The suggested list of potential
topics for the upcoming year is summarized below.
• Data center modeling / ASHRAE 90.4 — Exploring energy modeling approaches
and efficiency requirements for data centers under ASHRAE Standard 90.4.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 11
• Montana State geothermal district — A case study of the design, operation, and
performance of Montana State University's geothermal district energy system.
• Industrial heat pump modeling — Methods for modeling industrial-scale heat
pumps and evaluating their energy and decarbonization potential.
• Heat recovery chillers (modeling) — Techniques for simulating heat recovery
chillers and assessing their impact on building heating and cooling loads.
• Energy modeling drivers (value propositions) — Understanding how LEED,
policies, and code compliance influence modeling priorities and project decision-
making.
• Whole building program — Overview of utility or regional programs that
encourage comprehensive whole-building performance analysis.
• Appendix G performance factors — Guidance on using performance cost index
(PCI) targets and performance factors within ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G.
• NREL's ComStock—Introduction to the Comstock building stock energy model and
how it supports large-scale energy and policy analysis.
• EPA's E-Grid tool — Using EPA's E-Grid database to understand grid emissions
factors and evaluate carbon impacts of energy use.
• Micron case study — A project-focused session highlighting energy efficiency
strategies and lessons learned from Micron facilities.
• Joint session with ASHRAE — Idaho energy codes — A collaborative session
reviewing current and upcoming Idaho energy code requirements and
implications.
• Commercial efficiency options(new 2024 table)—Overview of the 2024 efficiency
option tables and their applications for commercial buildings.
• ENERGY STAR benchmarking — Best practices for benchmarking building
performance and interpreting ENERGY STAR scores.
• Server room temperatures — Discussion of recommended temperature ranges
and strategies for managing small server rooms efficiently.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 12
• Simple models for conservation estimation — Review of lightweight calculation
methods for quickly estimating savings from common energy measures.
• Advanced windows program (NEEA) — Insights into NEEA's advanced window
technologies for new construction and retrofits, including tints and high-
performance glazing.
• LEED v5: energy modeling&certification tools—Overview of new LEED v5 energy
modeling requirements and the USGBC tools that support certification.
8. APPENDICES
Appendix A: BSUG 2025 Evaluations
Summaries of evaluations for each of the 6 sessions are recorded below. It should be
noted that comments typically collected with evaluation are unavailable due to restriction from
the ZOOM platform.
Session 1 (05/21/25):Al Driven HVAC Optimization with Tagup
Presentation Info:
Date: 05/21/2025
Location: Boise, ID
Presenter: Dr. Robert Lauer —TagUp
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: 2 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 5
Total (In-Person): 2
Total (Online): 5
*If'Other' was noted:
Evaluations: Scale
In general, today's presentation was: 3.8 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 13
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.5 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• No comments were made.
What attendees found most valuable:
• Good practical example of Al implementation
Professional associations of what attendees are members:
• ASHRAE, USGBC
Other types of training attendees would find useful:
• No comments were made.
Session 2 (06/18/25):ASHRAE Standard 90-1-2022 Appendix G Performance Rating Method
Presentation Info:
Date: 06/18/2025
Location: Boise, ID
Presenter: Olivia Brady— Karpman Consulting
Attendance:
Architect: 2 Electrician:
Engineer: 1 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 22
Total (In-Person): 2
Total (Online): 23
*If'Other' was noted:
Evaluations: Scale
In general,today's presentation was: 4.3 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 2.9 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• the BPFs and how they impact the design and performance should have been more of a discussion.
• examples throughout the presentation

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 14
• Handouts would be very helpful.
What attendees found most valuable:
• No comments were made.
Professional associations of what attendees are members:
• ASHRAE (x5), USGBC,AEE, IBPSA
Other types of training attendees would find useful:
• thermal storage. alternative renewables.
• Energy simulations
Session 3 (08/27/25): Maximizing HVAC Efficiency and Resiliency in Cold Climates with Air-Source
Heat Pumps and DOAS
Presentation Info:
Date: 08/27/2025
Location: Boise, ID
Presenter: Jordan Pratt—Energy 350
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: 9 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 13
Total (In-Person): 10
Total (Online): 14
*If'Other' was noted: Sales, Utility
Evaluations: Scale
In general, today's presentation was: 4.5 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.3 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• A bit more design guidance
• None, was a great speaker
What attendees found most valuable:
• awesome data presentation and charts
• Available follow up with resources
• Presenting the info in ways to show it is widely applicable

Integrated Design Lab Boise 15
• Helpful illustrations
• Tell us about the betterbricks website and how it can be used
Professional associations of what attendees are members:
• ASHRAE (x3), EXYTE
Other types of training attendees would find useful:
• BAS Controls Optimization Strategies
• Industrial HVAC Applications
• Whole Building Energy Modeling,Title 24 modeling
Session 4 (09/17/25): Low Temperature Geothermal Systems
Presentation Info:
Date: 09/17/202S
Location: Boise, ID
Presenter: Carter Johnson—Egg Geo LLC
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: 1 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 61
Total (In-Person): 8
Total (Online): 54
*If'Other' was noted:
Evaluations: Scale
In general, today's presentation was: 4.1 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 3.8 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.1 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 3.9 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.2 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• Larger print on slides
• Could go into a bit more detail, including giving definitions, for the layperson (me) listening.
• Get videos to work
• Test Pres. Modes prior to presentations
• 1 would enjoy more of these
What attendees found most valuable:
• The explanation of how these geothermal systems work
• 1 liked the use of examples

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 16
• Didn't know about DCL.That is an interesting new loop option
• The way the aquifers work and installation info
• Amazing overview of the technology
• 1 enjoyed the diagrams, they helped visualize the content better
• The NYC example and the process taken to make a decision.
• Geothermal is not something I was super familiar with, this presentation was a great opening
to it, good information but not overwhelming
• Realizing the possibilities and restrictions of geothermal sources.
• the articulation of different solutions was helpful.
• Real world examples and potential of geothermal energy source
• the information about wells
• How we can improve heating and cooling systems, but going underground.
Professional associations of what attendees are members:
• AIA, ASHRAE (x3), University of Idaho (x3), IDEA, IBPSA,AEE (x2),ASTM,Trane Technologies
Other types of training attendees would find useful:
• Solar+Win -applications in southern Idaho
• I'd love to learn more topics like this that I'm unfamiliar with
• Solar energy could be interesting.
• Data Center Power Bottleneck, or really anything about thermal management for data centers
Session 5 (10108/25): BIM to BEM-Agile Energy Modeling for High Performance Building Design
Presentation Info:
Date: 10/08/2025
Location: Boise, ID
Presenter: Dr. Krishnan Gowri—EnergySolutions
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: 2 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 37
Total (In-Person): 15
Total (Online): 24
*If'Other' was noted:
Evaluations: For this session no evaluations were collected.
This session was co-hosted with ASHRAE;therefore,attendee numbers and audience composition
differed from the typical BSUG audience. As a result, it was excluded from the statistics to ensure
the results remain representative.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 17
Session 6 (12/03/25): Going Digital — Modeling Infrastructure Resilience for Sustainable Urban
Development
Presentation Info:
Date: 12/03/2025
Location: Boise, ID
Presenter: Dr. Dru Crawley—Bentley Systems Inc.
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: 5 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: *Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 8
Total (In-Person): 1
Total (Online): 12
*If'Other' was noted:
Evaluations: Scale
In general, today's presentation was: 4.1 1 Not Useful-5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement-5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.4 1 Too Basic-3 Just Right-5 Too Advanced
Comments:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
• No comments were made.
What attendees found most valuable:
• No comments were made.
Professional associations of what attendees are members:
• No comments were made.
Other types of training attendees would find useful:
• No comments were made.

INTEGRATED
DESIGN LAB
Universityof Idaho
2025 TASK 5: ENERGY RESOURCE LIBRARY
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT
December 15, 2025
Prepared for.
Idaho Power Company
Authors:
Dylan Agnes
Report Number: 2025_005-05
EMPOMR.
An IDACORP Company

This page left intentionally blank.

Prepared by.-
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab I Boise
322 E Front St. Suite 360 Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl
lDL Director,
Damon Woods
Authors:
Dylan Agnes
Prepared for.•
Idaho Power Company
Contract Number.•
IPC KIT #8112
Please cite this report as follows-Agnes, D. (2025). 2025 TASK
5: Energy Resource Library - Summary of Effort and Outcomes
(2025_005-05). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab,
Boise, ID.
iii

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

This page left intentionally blank.
v

Table of Contents
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................8
2. Marketing...................................................................................................................................9
3. New Tools & Tool Calibration Plan..........................................................................................12
4. 2025 Summary of Loans........................................................................................................14
5. Appendices...............................................................................................................................20
vi

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

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 8
2025 Task 5: -Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_005-05)
1. Introduction
The Energy Resource Library (ERL) is a resource supported by Idaho Power Company
(IPC) and managed by the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL). The ERL at the
UI-IDL is modeled after the Lending Library at the Pacific Energy Center, which is supported
by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E).
The primary goal of the ERL is to help customers with energy efficiency (EE) needs,
through the use of sensors and loggers deployed in buildings of various types. Loans are
provided to individuals or businesses at no charge to the customer. Over 900 individual
pieces of equipment are available for loan through the ERL. The equipment is focused on
measuring parameters to quantify key factors related to building and equipment energy use,
and factors which can affect worker productivity.
The loan process starts when a customer creates a user account. Then the user has
access to submit a resource questionnaire and fill out a form describing their intent and
project information. Customers can also add tools to their "cart" and complete a checkout
process if they don't require the IDL assistance. When completing a resource questionnaire
or the checkout process, the customer includes basic background information, project and
data measurement requirements, and goals. When a request is submitted, UI-IDL staff
members are alerted to a request via email. The customer and staff members communicate
to verify and finalize equipment needs. An approval email is sent, and tools are picked up at
the UI-IDL or shipped at the customer's expense.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 9
2025 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_005-05)
2. Marketing
Marketing for the ERL was done at various UI-IDL and IPC activities throughout 2025,
as well as on the idlboise.com website. The brochure for the ERL, Figure 1 and 2, reflects
the changes to the ERL overall structure for checking out tools and new
categories/organization. In addition, a catalog was created that contains the full directory of
tools available for check out as well as information about other Idaho Power sponsored
programs.
The ERL was promoted in presentations given by the UI-IDL staff, including the Lunch
and Learn series and lectures to professional organizations such as the American Institute
of Architects (AIA), ASHRAE, and the City of Boise.
The ERL flyer and program slides direct potential users to the ERL website for more
information about the library. The main UI-IDL website hosts the ERL portal where customers
can submit a resource questionnaire for assistance or a request for specific tools, all online.
In 2025, the ERL home page had 3,914 visitors. Changes and progress on the ERL
homepage can be found in Appendix C. (http://www.idlboise.com/about-erl)

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 10
2025 Task 5: Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_005-05)
�tjJ 4• .. __ I 1.: -1 -.i.� I - Jill = , 1 If•." � . � _ _
�. Mll h.l•: h4EE\II^+,I.l� �'Y 113 t1+��Y• I��l+V IY���
.,;I ' I:}>,11 r I, _,ey 1/7• III _ A / I� ` y �'
- .� r�.rkY•I I J:: .y ttT!{11,•L�1 N �� � !' {T•1y�'�1
I I. �l:ldr•-�,,. _ ,�. _.s., ,M �.-r i ��1�,(1�1'!4�r;``. iii rr1 j'�lQ;,(f��Y � �,
SL
in!N+e +F,ran1�:�11n�Mr,',pk'••mlol,lo�•il.. ,- y.,, F •� Imo• -,���` .'• f�l V_��1�IN'' Mxf"I.I� � I••f!ii I '�M �1/1 �
�I ��• _ 1. r . .I - rdt5•� ;�tir�(i?PTr f, ��YYy�t;� 1 ,�'
��)� 1 f l ►�1 , 1 1
' �{"If"InTa x l :t F'I�•: , `1,�t1 I,_'�''�i-'/• d111 �j+Lfy lad
,. .-.•ice�(�C li - r�~�{'1 111 ��'�1"f�_`�
'rymJ3Qt31;
jj
'l:76
FIGURE 1: ERL BROCHURE FRONT

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 11
2025 Task 5: -Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_005-05)
qr
761,
t• lit1 jj `t
I'C.1 ,, f,y•.'✓yJ :� r � f��, ►l��ll�(Ft'� F+►1,�'•-�t 1 � _ � .rZ� 1 � Yr �
� r � �� I r•�� tea- _���
. trCl�T'h�•�t ", �•i•-1•. • t lit -
-o
.•,� .. ,� - - r'_t f1J� f t'•� '1�I Y,`=y �� ( L' - �r 1 L .1_
lit
�_ir1�!•!�!'llbi�'7hJ111�rLlO•� a'�1_Rf'.w: i,, r -•
Md
't �i�' t1 �Hr. �S .Jf.•1iu�'rr'l��M L���Tf•'�'�r•W����'�' !� - -•
.y,: ^ �•!r(',t'�I Yr,'��714�� "�#R�fa3 i _i✓ _.�-✓��I,r1r•ry!y r''I•d'!1AI�tni�fari f!��,h�'{c4'e1�l'J,J�u�1��Ir*(/►�--��_����W"�'Vt' /J fruYl.•.,t�,►�b1>l .` f1
y � M"Ao'-
""Al'� f'. f�S-T►�TY,l�..'�a�-^[`�.I,3t1rCF r.�,h.`c.��7.�-`.�•�•1.'{-:'.+�'-�.-'c_-���-��vC-�s u #.-t W_!A.,.yY'.k` f. t,rt '_)e1i•�1S��.��l(rir�r 1
�M !•_1•y�f
•_�r:- ~-- � �I�4 •s k �;t'J i.1
I ' ' -' - l-1 r 4�- N r y�r3M}•.•'aC�/y.I,.1 ;,,�
1- .S ,rt.:E �'�:'t'-' •� f - * .. 13rgy1*= 9
I '''1.7�. f� 1•ro trills - -. K I+iyrrh�.l' _r-`"M'.�' ti /'' •''. •
7 o.s1a '
u ft's53 n?�'�IPU i s- = t' rc�N>i4d}:19a01M�E'� � � ♦t
v i '4�i1(1Sa'skruMCr aAR� VWMP t ` edY�!' 4>I /' rv.T ,.? ✓ - •
r. 1�t T 1b',.. l`� '� . i♦ _ =i Ifk�l�TlVWtwufl��6L'1Qp, � �= Jr
at
dov
- vec! r,. � 7iftilasT''94�c7Qfa t�s
I:w ��n y '-"'i.• �� '7�51akcr • ri�l�7vf1•^yYJ�I �s{r�•• - _ •y�••!�
_%Ok 'A- ? .'� -.,,-'�' t'- �� i?�tllA!':•fl61Q.';'vt1R�Ytr1104+�Q�
' :t►urr�t' �i '� •+b�f+�MrV_- etM.tlO 1f+Lre�t'�S3►_th'fit�'s� �
- - _-'µ_-.--_�, :--r^- =' _ •�3i;R•tal9lAtii'�V�f/�3�Its+;}_• • ' 1
14
Figure 2: ERL Brochure Back

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 12
2025 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_005-05)
3. New Tools & Tool Calibration Plan
In 2025, fourteen new tools were added to the ERL to replace old data logging
models and an outdated power quality analyzer.
Equipment in the tool loan program typically has a guaranteed calibration period
between 1 and 3 years from the manufacturer. While many items may remain within
recommended tolerances for years after the guaranteed calibration period ends, verifying
the item is properly calibrated after initial and subsequent periods is recommended.
Calibration services are available on most tools, sometimes from the manufacturer, and
from certified calibration services nationwide.
Third party (31P), certified tool calibration is ideal, but an extensive 3P calibration
program would be expensive. Based on research and pricing from quotes, formal calibration
would be cost prohibitive for much of the library tools. In several cases, cost of calibration
can exceed 30% or more of the item's original cost. A certified calibration is typically only
valid for 1-2 years, an alternative measurement and verification plan for most sensors and
loggers is recommended. The management of the ERL has been adapted to integrate the
measurement and verification method of calibration. However, a few exceptions to this must
be made on a case by case basis to allow for factory calibration of items that cannot be
compared or tested in any other way. An example of one item in this category would be the
Shortridge Digital Manometer or the Air-Data Multimeter which would have to be
recalibrated by the manufacturer.
The IDL performs the following to ensure items are within specified calibration
tolerances:

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 13
2025 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_005-05)
1. Equipment is cross-checked against new equipment of the same type for
accuracy in a test situation where data is logged. The IDL cross-checks older
items against multiple newer items at the end of each calibration period (i.e.
every two years) to ensure readings are within specified tolerances.
2. Those items found to be out of tolerance will be assessed for factory re-
calibration or replacement.
Calibration tracking has been added to the inventory spreadsheet, which allows the
IDL to determine which items are due for calibration testing. Updates to calibration and
references to testing data are maintained in the inventory spreadsheet and has been
expanded to include tool use, quotes, and budget estimates.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 14
2025 Task 5: -Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_005-05)
4. 2025 Summary of Loans
In 2025, loan requests totaled 33 with 29 loans completed, 4 loans are on-going,
and 1 was canceled. The third quarter had the highest volume of loans at 14 total. Loans
were made to 10 different locations and 13 unique users and 3 new ERL users. A wide
range of tools were borrowed, as listed in Figure 8. Most tools were borrowed for principal
investigations or audits, although loans were also made for determining performance of
EEMs that were implemented. Tools were borrowed to verify these EEMs as well.
The cutoff date for the report is December 11t", 2025. All loans made between
December 111" to December 31st, 2025, will be reported at the kickoff meeting for 2026.
Table 1 and the following figures outline the usage analysis for ERL in 2025.
TABLE 1: PROJECT AND LOAN SUMMARY
#of
Request Date Location Project Type of Loan Tools
Loaned
1 ID A02 Pre-Implementation 0
2 1/28/2025 Boise ID B01 Pre-Implementation 1
3 1/28/2025 Boise ID CO3 Pre-Implementation 2
4 2/19/2025 Boise ID D04 Pre-Implementation 2
5 2/20/2025 Boise ID E05 Post-Implementation 1
6 2/26/2025 Caldwell ID CO3 Pre-Implementation 2
7 3/12/2025 Meridian ID D04 Pre-Implementation 1
8 3/28/2025 Caldwell ID H08 Pre-Implementation 25
9 4/1/2025 Boise ID B01 Pre-Implementation 1
10 4/9/2025 Boise ID J10 Pre-Implementation 1
11 4/18/2025 Boise ID H08 Pre-Implementation 8
12 4/25/2025 Pocatello ID L12 Pre-Implementation 1
13 5/12/2025 Boise ID M13 Pre-Implementation 8
14 6/30/2025 Boise ID M13 Pre-Implementation 5
15 7/18/2025 Boise ID 015 Pre-Implementation 9
16 7/22/2025 Boise ID M13 Pre-Implementation 1
17 7/29/2025 Fruitland ID CO3 Pre-Implementation 2
18 7/30/2025 Boise ID B01 Pre-Implementation 1
19 7/30/2025 Eagle ID S19 Pre-Implementation 3
20 8/7/2025 Meridian ID CO3 Post-Implementation 1

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 15
2025 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_005-05)
21 8/28/2025 Boise ID B01 Pre-Implementation 2
22 8/12/2025 Eagle ID V22 Pre-Implementation 2
23 8/13/2025 Boise ID D04 Pre-Implementation 3
24 8/26/2025 Garden City ID X24 Pre-Implementation 1
25 9/5/2025 Sun Valley ID Y25 Pre-Implementation 1
26 9/3/2025 Boise ID CO3 Pre-Implementation 1
27 9/9/2025 Payette ID CO3 Pre-Implementation 4
28 9/12/2025 Payette ID CO3 Pre-Implementation 1
29 10/3/2025 Nampa ID D04 Pre-Implementation 3
30 10/31/2025 Pocatello ID DD30 Pre-Implementation 2
31 11/24/2025 Payette ID CO3 Pre-Implementation 1
32 11/25/2025 Garden City ID D04 Pre-Implementation 8
33 12/15/2025 Boise ID B01 Pre-Implementation 1

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 16
2025 Task 5: -Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_005-05)
Loans by Type Number of Loans per Quarter
35 16
14
30 14
25 12
20
10 9
15
10
8
5 6 5 5
0 MEN"= ---oi- 4
1. Preliminary 2. Pre- 3. Post- (blank)
Investigation/Audit implementation/ implementation/ 2
/Study to Identify Baseline Verification
Energy Efficiency Measurements of Measures of 0
Measures(EEMs) Particular EEMs Particular EEMs Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
■Q1 Q2 ■Q3 ■Q4 ■Q1 ■Q2 ■Q3 ■Q4
FIGURE 3: LOANS BY TYPE FIGURE 4: NUMBER OF LOANS PER QUARTER
Number of Loans per Month
7 6
6 5
5
4 3 3 3 3 3
3 2 2
2 1 1 1
1
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
FIGURE 5: NUMBER OF LOANS PER MONTH

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 17
2025 Task 5: -Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_005-05)
Loans by Location Tool Summary
Y DD30
Co (blank) 1
Y25
Payette 3 X24
Nampa 1 V22
-
Fruitland S19
015 -
Meridian 2 M13
Caldwell ■ L12 -
0
J10
Sun Valley
H08
Pocatello ■
E05
Garden City ■ D04
■ CO3
Eagle
B01
Boise A02
0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10
2025 2025
FIGURE 6: NUMBER OF LOANS BY LOCATION FIGURE 7: NUMBER OF LOANS BY USER

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 18
2025 Task 5: -Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_005-05)
TOTAL TOOLS LOANED: 105 Q1=36 Q2=18 Q3=37 Q4=14
Tool Summary
VOC and Temperature Monitor w/Data Logging, Bapi
UX100-014M
UFX Flow Meter
Thermal Camera 3
Temperature Sensor -
State Pulse Run-Time Data Logger
Power Logger
Portable Liquid Flow Meter
Plug Load Data Logger
Personal 03 Monitor
Occupancy and Light Data Logger-Wide
MX1104 Data Logger
MX1101 Data Logger
MX 1104
Light Meter w/Data Logging
IR Thermometer
HVAC/R Environmental Meter
HOBO Current Transformer 50 Amp -
HOBO Current Transformer 200 Amp -
HOBO Current Transformer 20 Amp
Fundamentals of HVAC Control Systems
Fluke Infrared Thermometer
Fluke Energy Logger
FLIR E50bx
FLIR C5 Portable Thermal Imaging Camera
FLIR C2 Portable Thermal Imaging Camera 02
FLEXIM Ultrasonic Flow Meter
FLEX.US Ultrasound Leak Detector
Extech Thermo-Anemometer
Extech Light Meter -
CO2 Logger
CANCELED
Acoustic Imager
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
■2025
FIGURE 8:SUMMARY OF TOOLS LOANED

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 19
2025 Task 5: Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_005-05)
to
17 T-
At-
-.i,� � . - . - .p�'�Y� '- _ ]]��t • - ram,.. - _�_ _� _ '`` «^�1� �••� _' ` ~ _ _ _
'-` -` .- - • - _. /"j�__ ���`- - ._ � � _ - .• '` ` ' .,. Y �_ __� J+J �'_ • it
. _
12
l� It
- ....Ma..1�,�Jf!, `.'I+Il��iti/1� trwy► it(:?'a� ...�. �IIf17-
FIGURE 9: LOANS PER QUARTER SINCE 2020

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 20
2025 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_005-05)
5. Appendices
APPENDIX A: Equipment List
The equipment in the library is tracked via excel, website, and in ERL Catalog. The
website inventory is organized through several webpages, but a complete listing can be
found here: http://www.idlboise.comLerl
In addition, the ERL Catalog can be found on the idlboise.com website and is
available for download here: http://www.idlboise.com/content/erl-catalog-2020

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 21
2025 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_005-05)
APPENDIX B: Website Progress
The Integrated Design Lab will be launching a trial run of the website in 2026 using
new digital infrastructure from myTurn.com. The software provided by myTurn is used
for other lending libraries such as PG&E. If the new website is approved the cost to
maintain the software subscription would be $50/month or $540/year. The
Integrated Design Lab is rebuilding the idlboise.com website since the current
software version, Drupal 7, will become obsolete in 2026. The new website will be
built using Drupal 11 and is scheduled to be completed by the end of the year.

INTEGRATED
DESIGN LAB
41 Universityof Idaho
2025 TASK 8: DIGITAL DESIGN TOOLS
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY INTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT
December 15, 2025
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Author:
Dylan Agnes
Report Number: 2025_003-01
IDA W
PC�IMR.
An IDACORP Company

This page left intentionally blank.

Prepared by:
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab I Boise
322 E Front Street, Suite #360 Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu
IDL Director:
Damon Woods
Author:
Dylan Agnes
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Contract Number:
I PC KIT#8112
Please cite this report as follows: Agnes, D. (2025). 2025 TASK 8:
Digital Design Tools—Summary of Effort and Outcomes
(2025_003-01). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab, Boise,
ID.

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

This page left intentionally blank.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tableof Contents............................................................................................................................ 1
1. Acronyms and Abbreviations...................................................................................................... 3
2. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4
3. Design Tools................................................................................................................................ 4
2025 Summary of Work .............................................................................................................. 6
2025 New Design Tools............................................................................................................... 7
2018—CBECS Data Visualization................................................................................................. 9
2018—CBECS Micro Master........................................................................................................ 9
2012 CBECS Data Visualization Infographics............................................................................... 9
2012 CBECS Micro Master v2.................................................................................................... 10
WeatherNormalization............................................................................................................. 10
EnergyPlus Fan Energy Calculator............................................................................................. 11
LM-83 Three-Phase Daylight Simulation Script......................................................................... 12
Infiltration Equations & Conversions ........................................................................................ 12
The Climate Responsive Design Web Tool Sets ........................................................................ 13
Climate Design Resources— 1St & 2nd Generation Tool Sets..................................................... 14
Thermal Energy Savings Tabulator (TEST)................................................................................. 15
Construction Insulation Value Calculator.................................................................................. 16
Sustainable Design & Practice Benefits..................................................................................... 16
DaylightPattern Guide.............................................................................................................. 17
Cost and Efficiency of IAQ Devices............................................................................................ 18
IPC Meter Analysis Template .................................................................................................... 18
Building Performance Database - LBNL .................................................................................... 19
Energy Charting & Metrics (ECAM)........................................................................................... 19
4. Design Tools Maintenance........................................................................................................ 21
IPC Meter Analysis Template .................................................................................................... 21
2018 CBECS Data Visualization Infographics............................................................................. 21
2018 CBECS Micro Master......................................................................................................... 21

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 2
2012 CBECS Data Visualization Infographics............................................................................. 21
2012 CBECS Micro Master v2.................................................................................................... 21
WeatherNormalization............................................................................................................. 21
EnergyPlus Fan Energy Calculator............................................................................................. 21
LM-83 Three-phase Daylight Simulation Script......................................................................... 21
Infiltration Equations & Conversions ........................................................................................ 22
The Climate Responsive Design Web Tool................................................................................ 22
Climate Design Resources - 1st & 2nd Generation Tool Sets ................................................... 22
Thermal Energy Savings Tabulator (TEST)................................................................................. 22
Construction Insulation Value Calculator.................................................................................. 22
Sustainable Design & Practice Benefits..................................................................................... 22
DaylightPattern Guide.............................................................................................................. 22
5. Design Tools Statistics............................................................................................................... 23
6. Future Work & Design Tools..................................................................................................... 24
Developing Guides/How-to for Design Tools............................................................................ 24
EnergyPlus Fan Energy Calculator............................................................................................. 24
WeatherNormalization............................................................................................................. 24

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

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 4
2. INTRODUCTION
Over the years, the Integrated Design Lab has developed several digital design tools to
assist local firms. These include ventilation calculators, daylighting methodologies, thermal
envelope calculators, and climate visualization assistants. These tools have been collected and
hosted on the IDL website in 2021, but some require updating. IDL is working to update these
tools to the latest design temperatures (which have increased over time) and link to other tools
available to designers so that the IDL website can serve as a one-stop resource for local
engineers and architects for early design considerations.
3. DESIGN TOOLS
In 2025, twenty-one design tools were available for use and download. The Design Tools
are summarized below and are current as of December 121h, 2025.
Table 1: Design Tools
# Status Priority Name
1 Review Low CBECS Data Visualization Infographics 2012
2 Review Low CBECS Micro Master v2 2012
3 Review/Feedback Low Weather Normalization
4 Review/Feedback Low EnergyPlus Fan Energy Calculator
5 N/A None LM-83 Three-phase Daylight Simulation Script
6 N/A None Infiltration Equations & Conversions
7 N/A None The Climate Responsive Design Web Tool
8 N/A None Climate Design Resources- 1st& 2nd Generation Tool
Sets
9 N/A None Thermal Energy Savings Tabulator(TEST)
10 N/A None Construction Insulation Value Calculator
11 N/A None Sustainable Design & Practice Benefits
12 N/A None Daylight Pattern Guide
13 N/A None MIT—Sustainable Design Lab (New)
14 N/A None IPC Meter Analysis Template
15 N/A None Cost and Efficiency of IAQ Devices
16 High High CBECS Data Visualization Infographics 2018
17 N/A None CBECS Micro Master 2018

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 5
18 N/A None Building Performance Database
19 N/A None Energy Charting& Metrics(ECAM)
20 New None CBECS Education Visualization Infographics 2018
21 New None CBECS Expanded Visualization Infographics 2018

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 6
2025 Summary of Work
Design tools were assigned a priority during the initial proposal of the task. A design
tool's priority determines the probability of receiving an update for the current year. In the
future, a design tool's priority level will be assessed in the kick-off meeting for the project task.
For 2025, high priority was assigned to one design tool: CBECS Data Visualization Infographics.
Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) 2018 data was expected to be
released in 2020, however, the COVID-19 pandemic has continually delayed the release of data
from the study. An update in August 2022 indicated that the complete study, including micro
data, would be released to the public in the fourth quarter of 2022. All available public data for
the CBECS 2018 study was downloaded in December 2022 and January 2023. The IDL converted
the Excel sheet format and added column headers to identify areas of study more readily. Then
combined three separate Excel sheets into a single master Excel spreadsheet with the following
information:
• General building information & energy end uses
• Heating and cooling equipment
• Lighting equipment
This master Excel sheet was treated as the master file that all data was extracted from
to develop graphics based on specific building type and size. Four building types were given
preference in 2023 which were Office, Retail, Education, and Lodging. These were given
preference based on the 2012 CBECS visualization project. The IDL thought it was crucial to
connect the 2018 study to the 2012 study. However, it was discovered that the 2012
study/project was intended to have a total of eight categories but only four categories were

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 7
completed due to budget. Therefore, in 2025 we developed an additional four categories with
the 2018 project/study which are the following: Food Service, Public Assembly, Warehouse, and
Service. Also, the Education building type was further analyzed by it's sub categories,
Elementary, High School, Middle School, Multi-Grade, Pre-School, and Other with graphics
developed for each.
2025 New Design Tools
2018—CBECS Expanded Data Visualization
Link: https://www.idlboise.com/content/2018-cbecs-additional-data-visualization-infographics
Description:Sponsored by the Idaho Power Company,the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-
IDL) developed this series of infographics to communicate how four different building types consume
energy on both a regional and national level.The data used to create them has been gathered from The
Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey(CBECS),which is a national-level sample survey of
commercial buildings and their energy suppliers conducted quadrennially by the Energy Information
Administration (EIA).The survey collects key benchmark information on U.S. commercial buildings,their
characteristics, and how they consume energy. It is used by private and public stakeholders to track
industry progress and gain a high-level understanding of how similar buildings compare and inform
policy decisions. Architects and engineers can also use this information for goal setting and prioritizing
energy efficiency measures within the integrated design process for high performance projects.These
infographics make detailed consumption data per building type easily accessible to design teams
without having to filter the CBECS database themselves. Information from CBECS is reported on the
EIA's website in the form of summary tables, which provide tabular breakdowns of high-level energy
consumption statistics based upon general building characteristics.The information is also available as
public use microdata spreadsheets that can be downloaded, filtered, and organized with much more

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 8
flexibility than the summary tables.These spreadsheets contain much more detailed information from
the building characteristics survey in its entirety and serve as the origin of information for this series of
infographics.
2018—CBECS Education Data Visualization
Link: https://www.idlboise.com/content/2018-cbecs-education-data-visualization-infographics
Description:Sponsored by the Idaho Power Company,the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-
IDL) developed this series of infographics to communicate how four different building types consume
energy on both a regional and national level.The data used to create them has been gathered from The
Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey(CBECS),which is a national-level sample survey of
commercial buildings and their energy suppliers conducted quadrennially by the Energy Information
Administration (EIA).The survey collects key benchmark information on U.S. commercial buildings,their
characteristics, and how they consume energy. It is used by private and public stakeholders to track
industry progress and gain a high-level understanding of how similar buildings compare and inform
policy decisions. Architects and engineers can also use this information for goal setting and prioritizing
energy efficiency measures within the integrated design process for high performance projects.These
infographics make detailed consumption data per building type easily accessible to design teams
without having to filter the CBECS database themselves. Information from CBECS is reported on the
EIA's website in the form of summary tables, which provide tabular breakdowns of high-level energy
consumption statistics based upon general building characteristics.The information is also available as
public use microdata spreadsheets that can be downloaded, filtered, and organized with much more
flexibility than the summary tables.These spreadsheets contain much more detailed information from
the building characteristics survey in its entirety and serve as the origin of information for this series of
infographics.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 9
2018—CBECS Data Visualization
Priority: High
Link: http:Hidlboise.com/content/cbecs-data-visualization-infographics
Description:Sponsored by the Idaho Power Company,the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-
IDL) developed this series of infographics to communicate how four different building types consume
energy on both a regional and national level.The data used to create them has been gathered from The
Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey(CBECS),which is a national-level sample survey of
commercial buildings and their energy suppliers conducted quadrennially by the Energy Information
Administration (EIA).The survey collects key benchmark information on U.S. commercial buildings,their
characteristics, and how they consume energy. It is used by private and public stakeholders to track
industry progress and gain a high-level understanding of how similar buildings compare and inform
policy decisions. Architects and engineers can also use this information for goal setting and prioritizing
energy efficiency measures within the integrated design process for high performance projects.These
infographics make detailed consumption data per building type easily accessible to design teams
without having to filter the CBECS database themselves. Information from CBECS is reported on the
EIA's website in the form of summary tables, which provide tabular breakdowns of high-level energy
consumption statistics based upon general building characteristics.The information is also available as
public use microdata spreadsheets that can be downloaded, filtered, and organized with much more
flexibility than the summary tables.These spreadsheets contain much more detailed information from
the building characteristics survey in its entirety and served as the origin of information for this series of
infographics.
Currently,there are nine double-sided 11x17" infographics.The first is an introduction to the project
and the CBECS database developed in 2023.The first four building types developed in 2023 include
office, retail, education and lodging.
Last updated: 2024
2018—CBECS Micro Master
Priority: None
Link: N/A
Description:This file contains the CBECS microdata,which can be filtered for benchmarking and goal
setting functions. Users can generate their own graphics or perform analysis as needed.
Last updated: 2024
2012 CBECS Data Visualization Infographics
Priority: Low

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 10
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/cbecs-data-visualization-infographics
Description:Sponsored by the Idaho Power Company,the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-
IDL) developed this series of infographics to communicate how four different building types consume
energy on both a regional and national level.The data used to create them has been gathered from The
Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey(CBECS),which is a national-level sample survey of
commercial buildings and their energy suppliers conducted quadrennially by the Energy Information
Administration (EIA).The survey collects key benchmark information on U.S. commercial buildings, their
characteristics, and how they consume energy. It is used by private and public stakeholders to track
industry progress and gain a high-level understanding of how similar buildings compare and inform
policy decisions. Architects and engineers can also use this information for goal setting and prioritizing
energy efficiency measures within the integrated design process for high performance projects.These
infographics make detailed consumption data per building type easily accessible to design teams
without having to filter the CBECS database themselves. Information from CBECS is reported on the
EIA's website in the form of summary tables, which provide tabular breakdowns of high-level energy
consumption statistics based upon general building characteristics.The information is also available as
public use microdata spreadsheets that can be downloaded, filtered, and organized with much more
flexibility than the summary tables.These spreadsheets contain much more detailed information from
the building characteristics survey in its entirety and served as the origin of information for this series of
infographics.
Currently,there are five double-sided 11x17" infographics.The first is an introduction to the project and
the CBECS database.The next four delve specifically into the office, retail, education and lodging
building type.
Last updated: 2021
2012 CBECS Micro Master v2
Priority: Medium
Link: N/A
Description:This file contains a good portion of the CBECS microdata, which can be filtered for
benchmarking and goal setting functions.
Last updated: 2021
Weather Normalization
Priority: Low
Link: http://www.idlboise.com/content/weather-normalization

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 11
Description:This spread sheet was created to aid the processing and analysis of building energy usage.
To operate this spread sheet,you will need the following bills for each month in the period you wish to
analyze:
• Natural Gas
• Electricity
• Geothermal (if applicable)
In addition, weather data for the location of project is needed.This information can be obtained from
the provided link with the instructions below.
• NOAA National Weather Service
• Select the nearest data center.
• Go to the NOWData Tab and refine the location if needed.
• Under the "Product" select"Monthly Summarized Data".
• Input the desired range of years.
• Set the "variable" drop down to either CDD or HDD.
• Click go and copy data to the Data Entry tab of this file.
The sheet will automatically calculate actual and expected energy usage and create graphs that can be
found in the "Output Figures" tab. More detailed analysis can be found in the "Calculated Values" and
"Regression Visualization" tabs.
Last updated: 2021
EnergyPlus Fan Energy Calculator
Priority: Low
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/energyPlus-fan-energy-calculator
Description:This spreadsheet was created to aid with determining the fan inputs into EnergyPlus via
equations from ASHRARE 90.1 Appendix G (for baseline systems) and fan specifications (for proposed
systems).Three key inputs are needed in EnergyPlus:
• Supply Fan Total Efficiency
• Supply Fan Delta Pressure{Pa}
• Supply Fan Motor Efficiency
To calculate these inputs,this spreadsheet will lead you through a series of steps, depending on the
system type required for your building type.The tabs of this spreadsheet are as follows:
• Introduction
• Systems 1 & 2
• Systems 3 &4
• Systems 5 -8
• Proposed System

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 12
• Resources
Colored cells signify inputs, outputs, links, and instructive text.
Last updated: 2021
LM-83 Three-Phase Daylight Simulation Script
Priority: None
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/Im-83-12-three-phase-daylight-simulation-script
Description: Annual simulation of dynamic/complex fenestration systems under LM-83 guidelines.This
script will generate its own folder structure beyond the starting directories required, which are outlined
below.
Version 1.2.0 (August 25, 2017)
Author: Alen Mahic, Ery Djunaedy (Energy Studies in Buildings Laboratory University of Oregon;
Integrated Design Lab University of Idaho)This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution
3.0 Unported License.To view a copy of this license, visit GPL v.3
In plain English: you are free to use this script, distribute it, make changes to it, as long as (1)you
acknowledge Alen Mahic, Ery Djunaedy and the Integrated Design Lab as the original authors, and (2)
you acknowledge that the script is provided as-is with absolutely no warranty, and that the authors and
the University of Idaho are not liable to anything that happens or does not happen in relation to the use
of this script.
Radiance 5.0+ is required.
Last updated: 2022
Infiltration Equations &Conversions
Priority: Low
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/infiltration-equations-conversions-0
Description:A key factor in building heat gain and loss may be the infiltration rate, or the rate at which
outdoor air is exchanged with conditioned interior air through the envelope.This spreadsheet tool
outlines a set of simplified equations aimed at converting typical, real world infiltration measurements
into metrics that can be input into EnergyPlus. In using methods outlined in the document Infiltration
Modeling Guidelines for Commercial Building Energy Analysis by the Pacific Northwest National

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 13
Laboratory,we were able to convert common metrics of 175 and ACH50, into ones that could be
conveniently input into an Energy Plus Model (Idesign and ACHnat).
NOTE:At this time,this calculation tool does not take into account infiltration from stack pressure, only
horizontal wind pressure.
Key Definitions
• ACH50-The number of complete air changes that occur within an hour when the building is
pressurized at 50 Pascals. This metric is usually used in residential infiltration measurement.
• ACHnat-The number of natural air changes that occur with an hour when the building is
naturally pressurized.
• 175-The infiltration flow rate of air in cubic feet per minute per square foot of exterior exposed
surface area when the building is pressurized at 75 Pascals. This metric is more commonly used
in commercial infiltration measurement.
• Idesign-The infiltration flow rate of air in cubic feet per minute per square foot of exterior
exposed surface area when the building is naturally pressurized.
Spreadsheets
• Spreadsheets 1 and 2 can be used to convert 175 into Idesign. Spreadsheet "1. 175 to Idesign
Text," explains the method and equations for the conversion. "2. 175 to Idesign Calculations," is
an interactive spreadsheet that takes your project's input and provides an output that can be
used in EnergyPlus.
• Spreadsheets 3 and 4 can be used to convert ACH50 into ACHnat.As in spreadsheets 1-2, "3.
ACH50 to ACHnat Text," explains the method and equations for the conversion. "4. ACH50 to
ACHnat Calculations," is an interactive spreadsheet that takes your project's input and provides
an output that can be used in EnergyPlus.
• Spreadsheets 5 and 6 are for comparing ACH50 into Idesign metrics.As in spreadsheets 1-4, "5.
Compare ACH and I Text," explains the method and equations for the conversion. "6. Compare
ACH to I Calculation," is an interactive spreadsheet that takes your project's input and provides
an output of comparisons between the different metrics.
• Spreadsheet 7 provides a reverse calculation. "7. Reverse Calcs" allows you to convert from an
EnergyPlus input into 175.
• Spreadsheet 8 is a reference tab. "8. Appendix" contains useful reference charts for
spreadsheets 1-7.
Last updated: 2021
The Climate Responsive Design Web Tool Sets
Priority: None
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/climate-responsive-design-web-tool

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 14
Description:The Climate Responsive Design web tool is designed to graphically illustrate the feasibility
and potential energy benefits of several climate responsive design strategies.The tool is intended to
help designers and owners make correct early decisions that will result in buildings that are more energy
efficient.The output of the tool are graphic data plots designed to illustrate not only conventional
climate data, such as temperature and relative humidity, but also more complex interactions of these
raw weather data with building specific user input data and a rule set for various energy efficient design
strategies.
The Climate Responsive Design web tool requires viewing in Firefox internet browser.
Last updated: 2021
Climate Design Resources- 15Y& 2nd Generation Tool Sets
Priority: None
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/ui-idl-climate-design-resources-1st-2nd-generation-tool-sets
Description:The Idaho Power Company funded the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) to
produce a series of climate design resources to help assist in the conceptual and early design of passive
strategies.Through their support, the UI-IDL has developed two generations of spreadsheet calculators
that are capable of analyzing building loads and energy consumption impacts of a range of different
design strategies over three reference cities. You can download the tools and both the 1st and 2nd
generation research reports at the bottom of this webpage.The reports provide insight into the
methodology of the research used to develop the tools as well as information on how to use them most
effectively. Currently,there are seven different calculation spreadsheets that span across two different
generations of tool development:
FIRST GENERATION TOOLS
• Heat Gain Calculations
• Cross Ventilation
• Stack Ventilation
• Night Ventilation Thermal Mass
SECOND GENERATION TOOLS
• Balance Point Calculation
• Passive Solar
• Earth Tube
Each spreadsheet contains multiple tabs and a step-by-step process that directs the user to define the
critical baseline and performance parameters of the building. These factors are linked to pre-defined
equations within the spreadsheet that automatically provide the peak cooling loads, cooling capacities,

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 15
and describe other critical design criteria. Charts, line graphs, and other forms of graphic information
also automatically populate the workspace to provide rich visual feedback to the user.The spreadsheets
also contain a reference tab that consolidates a myriad of textbook, code, and other sources needed to
complete the step-by-step instructions. Additionally, a variety of weather data, including hourly
information from TMY weather files, are embedded into the calculations based upon three different
reference cities within the Idaho Power Company service territory. Once each tab is filled out, the
results pages of the spreadsheets contains all of the important outputs needed to evaluate how much
the passive design measure can contribute to the peak loads or energy savings of the building. Changes
to the building parameters are instantaneous, making the Climate Tools Package an ideal instrument
used to explore different design iterations and how they might facilitate passive design strategies.
Goals
The ultimate goal of the Climate Tools Package is to reduce the loads and energy consumption of a
building through passive design measures.This happens mainly by embedding, early in the design
process, the analysis of the performance capabilities of different passive cooling and heating strategies.
Once a performance capacity is calculated and compared against peak loads of a building, a qualitative
decision can be made whether or not to pursue more detailed analysis. If certain passive strategies are
proven to meet some or all of the peak load,this may warrant further development. Potential next steps
could involve more advanced analysis such as building simulation to quantify annual energy savings
based on actual weather data.
Last updated: 2021
Thermal Energy Savings Tabulator (TEST)
Priority: None
Link: http://www.idlboise.com/content/thermal-energy-savings-tabulator-test
Description:This tool aims to provide designers, engineers, and manufacturers a quick and easy way to
calculate energy savings from the application of different heat pump HVAC technologies early in the
design process. Specifically,the tool supports analysis of air-source heat pumps (ASHP), water-source
heat pumps (WSHP), and variable refrigerant flow (VRF) systems.The spreadsheet was developed by the
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) with funding from Idaho Power Company.To learn
more about the development of the tool, please visit the UI-IDL's website here- idlboise.com.
The tool provides the means for detailed input of a custom building, geometry,and program,while
using pre-cooked,whole-building simulations to aid in HVAC energy calculations.The tool always
compares a baseline condition to a proposed condition.The baseline condition can represent a new
construction code baseline, or could be used to define an existing building.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 16
The spreadsheets contain color coded cells that represent different functionalities. All cells, except for
those that require user input, are locked to avoid confusion. However,the cells can be unlocked without
a password for custom manipulation or for further insight into equations used for calculations.
Last updated: 2021
Construction Insulation Value Calculator
Priority: None
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/construction-insulation-value-calculator
Description:This spreadsheet is designed to calculate insulation values of individual material layers and
whole constructions of EnergyPlus objects.
Last updated: 2021
Sustainable Design & Practice Benefits
Priority: None
Link: http://idIboise.com/content/sustainable-design-practice-benefits
Description:Sponsored by the Idaho Power Company,the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-
IDL) developed this series of infographics to communicate sustainable design & practice Benefits of five
different building types for their bottom line impact on efficiency for each building type. Architects and
engineers can also use this information to make early design decisions with compelling numbers for
additional non-energy benefits of energy efficient design. Currently,there are five printable, single-sided
8.5X11" infographics describing specific benefits and strategies for Grocery, Hotel, Multi-family Housing,
Office, and Retail building types.
EXPECTED BENEFITS
• Broadening the scope of sustainable design effectiveness beyond simple utility cost payback
gives a more accurate picture of the financial benefits available through sustainable design
• Strategies for specific occupancy types highlight the solutions that are most effective and easiest
to achieve for each unique set of needs. Efficiency tips for additional building types can be found
at Idahopower.com/business
• Better information during the design phase means a more accurate prediction of a building's
performance, avoiding costly changes down the road

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 17
• Readily available and easily understandable information means increased participation in
efficiency programs by designers, employees, and users of a space
• Energy strategies that go beyond building design and highlight savings opportunities in day to
day operation mean greater energy savings with minimal cost
• Sustainable design and responsible energy consumption can increase a user's comfort and
appreciation, leading to more positive user experiences and an increase in community support
and interaction
• Power companies offer financial incentives to help offset the costs of implementing sustainable
design strategies. Available for new construction, retrofits, custom projects, and flex peak
programs, Idaho Power helps to make it more affordable than ever to incorporate sustainable
and energy-efficient design decisions into your project. Additional information on Idaho Power
incentive programs can be found at Idahopower.com/business
Energy and cost savings attributed to efficiency measures are well documented. However, with
additional opportunities to increase comfort, efficiency, community involvement, and customer
satisfaction, sustainable design and practice could have an impact on your bottom line far beyond
reduced utility bills.
Last updated: 2021
Daylight Pattern Guide
Priority: None
Link: http:Hidlboise.com/content/cbecs-data-visualization-infographics
Description:The Daylighting Pattern Guide is the newest offering in the Advanced Buildings suite of
tools and resources to help design teams create high performance commercial buildings.This no-cost,
interactive design tool uses a combination of real-world built examples and advanced simulation to set
the stage for substantial reductions in lighting power consumption and overall building energy use. It
was developed through a partnership between New Buildings Institute (NBI), University of Idaho and
University of Washington.
High quality daylighting design has the potential to increase user satisfaction and productivity and save
substantial energy. However, successfully designing daylighting into buildings in a manner that supports
high ratings of visual comfort while also saving energy can be a complex and challenging process.
The Daylighting Pattern Guide presents 19 prime examples of well-designed daylit spaces around the
United States. Each project was photographed, physically measured and simulated using the Radiance
simulation tool. Sensitivity analysis of key design variables was conducted on each project to
demonstrate whether the outcome was optimized and to illustrate the impact of multiple 'alternate
design decisions' on the daylighting performance.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 18
Key daylight patterns, or variables including orientation, glazing layout, area, shading strategies,
furniture layout, ceiling height,that contribute to the success or failure of a daylighting design were also
identified.This information allows users to differentiate between well built examples of daylit space,the
information generated by design analysis tools, and the 'rule of thumb'guidelines that designers
commonly apply.
Project types included in analysis are offices, schools, libraries, laboratories, museums, industrial
facilities, and recreational facilities across a diverse set of regional climates.
Last updated: 2021
Cost and Efficiency of IAQ Devices
Priority: None
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/covid-impact-modeling
Description: Sponsored by the Idaho Power Company,the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-
IDL) developed this series of infographics to communicate how COVID-19 has brought the issue of
indoor air quality to the forefront of building science.Virus mitigation strategies range in effectiveness,
efficiency, and costs depending on the building type, use types, and local climate. Using Open Studio and
Energy+,the IDL examined the energy and cost impacts of six different mitigation strategies for
commercial buildings in the Treasure Valley.
Last updated: 2024
IPC Meter Analysis Template
Priority: None
Link: http://www.idIboise.com/content/idaho-power-company-meter-analysis-template
Description:This spreadsheet is designed to handle meter data provided in the Idaho Power format. IPC
provides hourly kW data in a table where each row is a day and each column is an hour.This
spreadsheet will format that information so it can be more easily graphed or summed.This should help
to analyze seasonal behavior and the building's hourly profile. In order to use this spread sheet, copy
and past the information you need over the IPC data sheet. Be careful that your data set is formatted
the same way it appears in the current IPC data sheet in this workbook. Also be sure to delete the
information currently in this workbook's IPC data sheet, so you don't mix the two sets of data. Once you
are sure that information in the spreadsheet you receive from the Idaho Power representative is the
same as what appears in the IPC data sheet.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 19
Last updated: 2023
Building Performance Database - LBNL
Priority: None
Link: https://www.idIboise.com/content/Ibnl-building-performance-database
Description:The Building Performance Database (BPD) is the nation's largest dataset of information
about the energy-related characteristics of commercial and residential buildings.The BPD combines,
cleanses and anonymizes data collected by federal,state and local governments, utilities, energy
efficiency programs, building owners and private companies, and makes it available to the public.The
website allows users to explore the data across real estate sectors and regions, and compare various
physical and operational characteristics to gain a better understanding of market conditions and trends
in energy performance.
The BPD allows users to create and save custom peer group datasets based on specific variables
including building types, locations,sizes, ages, equipment, operational characteristics and more.The
BPD also allows users to compare any two peer groups using statistical or actuarial methods.
The BPD has both a graphical web interface as well as a web API (application programming interface)
that allows applications and services to dynamically query the BPD.
Last updated: 2024
Energy Charting& Metrics (ECAM)
Priority: None
Link: https://www.idlboise.com/content/sbw-energy-charting-metrics-ecam
Description: ECAM provides a standardized and transparent means for measurement and verification
(M&V) of energy savings. Its consistent, repeatable methodology for measuring savings adheres to the
International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol—IPMVP (Efficiency Valuation
Organization, 2012). ECAM uses methods from ASHRAE Guideline 14, Measurement and Verification of
Energy and Demand Savings. The ECAM methods are also compatible with the FEMP M&V Guidelines:
Measurement and Verification for Federal Energy Projects.
Bill Koran conceived and created ECAM, and continues to lead new improvements. Gina Hicks
implemented many of the most recent features and made ECAM more robust and easier to learn.
This tool was created with partial funding by the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, New Buildings
Institute,the California Commissioning Collaborative, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,the (Pacific
Northwest) Regional Technical Forum, and the Bonneville Power Administration.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 20
The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has contributed significantly to recent ECAM development.
Recent new features funded by BPA include further automation and additional charts to support
Strategic Energy Management, improvements to data resampling to better handle energy data as well
as power data, and more flexible ways to organize the data for modeling. BPA also funded the updating
of the User Guide to include the new features as well as previously undocumented features.
Improvements currently being funded by BPA include automated downloads of historical and TMY3
weather data, an all-fuels model, statistical identification of changes in energy use behavior,
identification and handling of outlier points, and additional M&V model checking and guidance.
Improvements in the estimation of energy savings uncertainty will also be part of the next ECAM
release.
Last updated: 2024

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 21
4. DESIGN TOOLS MAINTENANCE
IPC Meter Analysis Template
Added in November 2023 there is no maintenance currently planned.
2018 CBECS Data Visualization Infographics
Added in December 2023. Expanded in 2025 to include additional building types.
2018 CBECS Micro Master
Added in December 2023. Expanded to include additional building types in 2024.
2012 CBECS Data Visualization Infographics
Cataloged in 2023, ready for updates. Data will be reorganized and presented in a
manner that allows it to better correlate to the 2018 data.
2012 CBECS Micro Master v2
Cataloged in 2023, ready for updates. Data will be reorganized and presented in a
manner that allows it to better correlate to the 2018 data.
Weather Normalization
Cataloged in 2022, ready for updates.
EnergyPlus Fan Energy Calculator
Cataloged in 2022, ready for updates.
LM-83 Three-phase Daylight Simulation Script
Cataloged in 2022, no updates needed.

Integrated Design Lab Boise 22
Infiltration Equations &Conversions
None to date and there is no maintenance currently planned.
The Climate Responsive Design Web Tool
None to date and there is no maintenance currently planned.
Climate Design Resources - 1st & 2nd Generation Tool Sets
None to date and there is no maintenance currently planned.
Thermal Energy Savings Tabulator (TEST)
None to date and there is no maintenance currently planned.
Construction Insulation Value Calculator
None to date and there is no maintenance currently planned.
Sustainable Design & Practice Benefits
None to date and there is no maintenance currently planned.
Daylight Pattern Guide
None to date and there is no maintenance currently planned.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 23
5. DESIGN TOOLS STATISTICS
We saw a total of 2,106 visits to the home/landing page for the digital design tools
(http://www.idIboise.com/content/design-tools). The table below shows the number of visits
to a design tools page as of December 121", 2025.
# Name Page Visits
1 CBECS Data Visualization Infographics 2012 208
2 CBECS Micro Master v2 2012 N/A
3 Weather Normalization 293
4 EnergyPlus Fan Energy Calculator 455
5 LM-83 Three-phase Daylight Simulation Script 290
6 Infiltration Equations&Conversions 1,122
7 The Climate Responsive Design Web Tool 409
8 Climate Design Resources-1st&2nd Generation Tool Sets 309
9 Thermal Energy Savings Tabulator(TEST) 1,015
10 Construction Insulation Value Calculator 255
11 Sustainable Design & Practice Benefits 308
12 Daylight Pattern Guide 476
13 MIT—Sustainable Design Lab 245
14 IPC Meter Analysis Template 277
15 Cost and Efficiency of IAQ Devices 202
16 CBECS Data Visualization Infographics 2018 1,087
17 CBECS Micro Master 2018 586
Total 7,537

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 24
6. FUTURE WORK& DESIGN TOOL
Developing Guides/How-to for Design Tools
While most design tools include an introduction or instructions to assist users with using
the tool, we don't have any examples or tutorials they can reference. An example or tutorials
would include using the tool, when to use the tool, and when not to use the tool. While we
didn't have time this year to explicitly develop guides for customers, the Integrated Design Lab
has been researching how we can integrate Al features into the design tools. The intent is to
help guide customers through using the various tools of which some can be complex.
EnergyPlus Fan Energy Calculator
The EnergyPlus fan energy calculator was created to aid with determining the fan inputs
into EnergyPlus via equations from ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G (for baseline systems) and fan
specifications (for proposed systems). The tool continues to be used by energy modelers and is
referenced several times on Unmet Hours website, however, you can specify the required
inputs (Fa nSystemModel, design PowerSizingMethod, and PowerPerFlow) to calculate fan
power in terms of W/cfm. IDL will be testing these inputs as well as if the tool still works with
the latest version of standard ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G. A progress update to the latest
standard ASHRAE 90.1-2019 will be posted once the new idlboise.com website is published.
Weather Normalization
The weather normalization was created in order to aid with the processing and analysis
of building energy usage. Since the tool's creation the national weather service (NOAA) has
changed how it distributes data which affects the tools performance. The data, heating and
cooling degree days, is no longer formatted correctly where users can copy and paste

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 25
seamlessly. The IDL has identified another source for acquiring the appropriate data that would
be seamless for users but needs to be rigorously tested before recommending it to users.

NTEGRATED �.
■
2025 TASK 07: FAN SAVINGS FROM UV
LAMPS
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END
REPORT
December 31, 2025
Prepared for.
Idaho Power Company
Authors:
Damon Woods
Report Number: 2025_001-07
/b,'-rrl_rn-"TWr,

This page left intentionally blank.
ii

Prepared by:
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab I Boise
322 E. Front St., Suite 360, Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl
IDL Director:
Damon Woods
Authors:
Damon Woods
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Contract Number:
IPC KIT # 5277
Please cite this report as follows: Woods, D. and Nazari,
F. (2025). 2025 TASK 7: Fan Savings from UV Lamps
(2025_001-07). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab,
Boise, ID.
iii

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

This page left intentionally blank.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 7
2. Project Summary ..................................................................................................................... 7
3. Appendix — Project Reports ................................................................................................... 9
ACRONYMS AND ' •
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning
Engineers
DOAS Dedicated Outdoor Air System
EMS Energy Management System
EUI Energy Use Intensity [kBtu/ft2/yr]
HEPA High Efficiency Particulate Air Filter
HVAC Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning
IAQ Indoor Air Quality
IEQ Indoor Environmental Quality
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IPC Idaho Power Company
MERV Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value
NEEA Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
NBPI Needle Point Bi-Polar Ionization
PNNL Pacific Northwest National Lab
RTU Rooftop Unit
UI University of Idaho
UVGI Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation
VAV Variable Air Volume
VRF Variable Refrigerant Flow
vi

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 7
2025 Task 07: Fan Savings from UV Lamps-Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_001-07)
nu • • � •
This project was launched in 2023. In the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, the
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) examined the energy impacts of
various indoor air quality devices. The IDL found that there could be energy savings
through adding in-duct Ultraviolet Irradiation. This was the only technology that reduced
energy consumption, while increasing the equivalent air change rates. Ultraviolet Lamps
have been shown to reduce fan energy by keeping the evaporative coil clear of mold
and mildew. William Bahnfleth et al. have conducted studies showing up to a 20%
reduction in pressure drop across the coil. The goal of this task was to investigate the
effectiveness of adding UV lamps to new or existing HVAC units in IPC territory and
monitor the energy consumption over the course of a year using tools from the Energy
Resource Library. The goal was to find several sites where two identical HVAC units
(such as RTUs with similar zones) that could be used as case studies. The IDL team
was to record the fan energy over time while taking velocity and airflow measurements.
By measuring performance, the IDL hoped to learn the extent of savings in climate 5B
for UV installation.
2. WORK SUMMARY
2.1 Comparing the mitigation strategies
The IDL worked with four different clients to secure a site for study in 2025. This
included a school district, a government agency, and two municipalities. Unfortunately,
none of the clients was able to secure a suitable site for the study. The IDL struggled to
get feedback from the facility technicians. One municipality, showed great interest, but a

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 8
2025 Task 07: Fan Savings from UV Lamps-Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_001-07)
tour of their facilities revealed that there were no two identical BTUs serving equivalent
zones that could be used — the loads between each RTU were too different for
comparison. A second municipality also showed interest, but again, the IDL could not
get consistent responses from the individual facility management personnel. Things
progressed furthest with a government agency, with several follow-up emails and the
selection of a particular building. The HVAC technicians had some safety concerns
regarding the lights and the UV supplier did not provide enough of a satisfactory
response. Therefore, the IDL did not charge any time to this task in 2025 because a site
could not be secured. There is indication this technology could save energy and
maintenance time. However, the IDL will close this project for the time being. If a site
does become available, the IDL will use funds from NEEA to purchase the equipment
and provide reporting to Idaho Power through the Foundational Services task.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 9
2025 Task 07: Fan Savings from UV Lamps-Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_001-07)
-WORKS3. APPENDIX DD •
Appendix A: Bibliography:
"ASHRAE 185.1-2020: Method of Testing UV-C Lights for Use in Air-Handling Units or Air Ducts
to Inactivate Airborne Microorganisms (ANSI Approved)." 2020. ASHRAE.
"ASHRAE 185.2-2020: Method of Testing UV-C Lights for Use in Air-Handling Units or Air Ducts
to Inactivate Airborne Microorganisms (ANSI Approved)." 2020. ASHRAE.
"ASHRAE Handbook for HVAC Applications Chapter 62. Ultraviolet Air And Surface Treatment."
2023. ASHRAE.
"ASHRAE Handbook for HVAC Systems and Equipment Chapter 17: Ultraviolet Lamp Systems."
2020. ASHRAE.
ASHRAE. "ASHRAE Epidemic Task Force." Core Recommendations for Reducing Airborne
Infectious Aerosol Exposure, 2021, Accessed 2021.
ASHRAE. "Filtration and Air Cleaning Summary." ASHRAE, 25 May 2021, [e-mail].
Accessed 10 Sept. 2021.
ASHRAE Handbook-HVAC Systems and Equipment. 2016, pp. 29.2-29.12.
Bahnfleth, William P. 2017. "Cooling Coil Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation."
Bean, Meghan, et al. 2020, Air Cleaner Specification and Baseline Assessment Review.
Firrantello, Joseph, and William Bahnfleth. "Simulation and Monetization of Collateral Airborne
Infection Risk Improvements from Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation for Coil
Maintenance." Science and Technology for the Built Environment, vol. 24, no. 2, 2017, pp.
135-148., https://doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2017.1409267.
Formusa, Brian, and Tim Ross. "Covid-10 Recommendations for Facilities." Hailey, ID, June
2020.
"Fundamentals of UVGI." ASHRAE, 12 May 2021, Online Webinar
HVAC Engineering. "Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation Lamps Can Help Clean Coils and Improve
Indoor Air Quality ." UVGI Design Basics for Air and Surface Disinfection , Department of
Architectural Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, 2000, Accessed 2021.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 10
2025 Task 07: Fan Savings from UV Lamps-Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_001-07)
"IUVA UV Disinfection for COVID-19." 2020. 2020. 2020. Available online: https: //iuva.org/iuva-
covid-19-faq.
Kowalski, Wladyslaw J. Immune Building Systems Technology. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.,
2003.
Lee, Bruno. "Effects of Installation Location on Performance and Economics of in-Duct
Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation Systems for Air Disinfection ." RAPID, 2013.
Luo, Hao, and Lexuan Zhong. "Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation (UVGI) for in-Duct Airborne
Bioaerosol Disinfection: Review and Analysis of Design Factors." Building and
Environment, vol. 197, 2021, p. 107852., https://doi.org/10.1016/J*.buildenv.2021.107852.
Luongo,Julia C., et al. "Ultraviolet Germicidal Coil Cleaning: Impact on Heat Transfer
Effectiveness and Static Pressure Drop." Building and Environment, vol. 112, 2017, pp.
159-165., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.11.022.
Nicas, Mark, and Shelly L. Miller. 1999. "A Multi-Zone Model Evaluation of the Efficacy of
Upper-Room Air Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation." Applied Occupational and
Environmental Hygiene 14 (5): 317-28. https:Hdoi.org/10.1080/104732299302909.
Pirouz, Behrouz, Stefania Anna Palermo, Seyed Navid Naghib, Domenico Mazzeo, Michele
Turco, and Patrizia Piro. 2021. "The Role of HVAC Design and Windows on the Indoor
Airflow Pattern and ACH." Sustainability 13 (14): 7931.
https:Hdoi.org/10.3390/sul3l47931.
Ryan, R M, G E Wilding, R J Wynn, R C Welliver, B A Holm, and C L Leach. 2011. "Effect of
Enhanced Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation in the Heating Ventilation and Air
Conditioning System on Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in a Neonatal Intensive Care
Unit."Journal of Perinatology 31 (9): 607-14. https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2011.16.
Tawfik, Aly, et al. Fresno, CA, 2020, COVID-19 Public Transit Bus Air Circulation Study .
Truffo, Davide, Jose Miguel Pena Suarez, Juan Bandera Cantalejo, Maria Del Carmen Gonzalez
Muriano, Francisco Garcias Vacas, and Francisco Fernandez Hernandez. 2022.
"Comparative Study of Purifications Technologies and Their Application to HVAC
Systems." Edited by C. Zilio and F. Busato. E3S Web of Conferences 343: 03005.
https:Hdoi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202234303005.

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 11
2025 Task 07: Fan Savings from UV Lamps-Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_001-07)
"Ultraviolet Air and Surface Treatment ." 2019 Ashrae Handbook: Heating, Ventilating, and Air-
Conditioning Applications, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 2011, pp. 62.1-62.17, Accessed 2021.
Appendix B: Simulation Results
Annual Energy Use
14.00
12.00
> 10.00
LL 8.00
6.00
= .00 2 1.18 n
Y .00 0.00 0.14 0.29 0.67
0.00 — o 0
-2.00 -0.05
Oaye\\�e �0ti3 oc4)\e\ x�eP 0��
J
Figure 1: Energy use increase for each of the technologies averaged for the eight building types studied
Table 1: Representative Members of Organism Groups from ASHRAE Handbook
for HVAC Svstems and Equipment chapter 17: Ultraviolet Lamp Svstems
IIP�'8fli'af41 f,PUU(t '11tn11)vi rtr�ii'�111'(}
,1
. 1'l+t'!%l1�li!>It;ll� 1'1"�?►e �fffr'r�illP 1ltP�r,� 'rl1�)57'
lfr�',JlJ, l(fC*41ji I1jrl'r1
X_
i
t _ 1{r.�r;illil,• ',f'r111'lr�
L ay� 'i�ritl 1 F'I ri4,4i j I ve Olt)i
rrr•

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 12
2025 Task 07: Fan Savings from UV Lamps-Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_001-07)
-tit .,T'
7.
�iroaa'�+rN=�
1
Figure 2:Potential Applications of UVC to Control Microorganisms in Air
and on Surfaces from ASHRAE Handbook for HVAC Applications
chapter 62. Ultraviolet Air and Surface Treatment

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 13
2025 Task 07: Fan Savings from UV Lamps-Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_001-07)
IP;rT4}i;�titit� tt�af�t�RtiJ' F ti•,` �. �� r, ..
O'cat
DV'>1NFE4
IL
.:.,,- ••• :aim •R a. .: _ - -
P
� A
�C,AIX`6
lf1,Fi.li�t
••- •� ,��, R• _• 1'', 'I•, I ,I i,,i;1,;Fr'f�j�� ,11 Yy���� ktii41flll .�•r�ZY _ '.�•ri _.:.i
• 1 1 I� 1 u��::it�' ,P'I'i�h 1 �I�N���IIP��I���++�ty �f�1 f�� � �� x. `��•i j_ ��- YL;';`�7,�.}..f 7
i. : ; r�y'�,• ����•i��/1�,��''1jj�!,I�)j' (�( ,��i1�t��,I{�f�'a c ��r-•-��a�� •� -:�I.F r.��•
ILZ._•• -•_ - 7
3.
� '� Ala• �, ,� 1. �c -4;�, - —
te
4
4"A��, .} :,.� .: •�{3W~, • - `

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 14
2025 Task 07: Fan Savings from UV Lamps-Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_001-07)
I YS,, iD a. •
AI
G ! �r r 1 ►, �rl, ♦ —
�Ik io {?+~�VfIT`4 it1: til 1{'lR1A'1S414k t;':�. •� ''
�r
Eo
L �_ •� F 11I
�'-. ' ✓''Ta •r sir 'I .,1, __ __ '.. .,-� 'r'r'!% '�•
J j rr}iWj,Yyl,l?Ir TC I.:.A ? OD'�'ll�laj'pfll plc. . II
k, n ='k .�t� r�c.
L—
`:ISI/w�.�anl��s+g,,tsp��etAa�`• 'y�.jp1x�...le.�hry.�^e44t+��.pctKeeci�:w„ -..
.Y KVAI�."lWrr.Wri��FA ^!�F^a.ans!••edunot -
,,, t w•waa+,,w,•ti�i»+mod

t
2025 TASK 07: EFFICIENT BUILDING FAQADE
DESIGN
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END
REPORT
December 15, 2025
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Authors:
Damon Woods
Farnaz Nazari
Report Number: 2025_001-07
IDA.W
.POWER.
An 0ACOPP Company

This page left intentionally blank.
ii

Prepared by:
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab I Boise
322 E. Front St., Suite 360, Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidano.eauiiai
IDL Director:
Damon Woods
Authors:
Damon Woods
Farnaz Nazari
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Contract Number:
IPC KIT # 5277
Please cite this report as follows: Woods, D and Nazari,
F. (2025). 2025 TASK 7: Efficient Building Fagade Design
(2025_001-07). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab,
Boise, ID.
iii

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

This page left intentionally blank.
v

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 6
2025 Task 07: -Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_001-07)
SUMMARY1. EXECUTIVE
This visual guide develops energy-efficient facade strategies that satisfy Idaho
cities' zoning requirements for visual interest while reducing energy loss and improving
building performance.
INTRODUCTION2.
Building facades play a critical role in shaping both the visual identity and the
energy performance of urban environments. Many city zoning codes require
architectural variety or fagade articulation to enhance visual appeal but can also result
in more exposed surfaces, higher construction costs, and increased energy loss through
infiltration. Alternative fagade strategies—such as light shelves, double-skin facades,
solar walls, and Trombe walls—offer opportunities to satisfy zoning requirements for
visual interest while also improving energy performance. The Integrated Design Lab
(IDL) team proposes developing a series of energy-efficient fagade types that comply
with zoning requirements, such as those outlined in the design section 11 .04.06-D in the
Boise zoning code and the architectural typology guide in Meridian zoning code. This
work includes a review and comparison of commercial zoning code requirements across
the major cities in Idaho Power Company's (IPC) service territory, along with an
assessment of how different fagade interventions perform in the southern Idaho climate.
. •
The IDL team began by reviewing the visual-interest requirements and
recommendations in the zoning codes or design guidelines of Boise, Meridian, Nampa,
Twin Falls, Ketchum, Hailey, and Pocatello. A summary of this review was prepared,
after which the findings were consolidated into one unified list of similar elements.
Energy-efficiency strategies that can help meet these requirements were then

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 7
2025 Task 07: -Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_001-07)
integrated. The resulting guide is presented as a visual report in the Appendix, providing
practical fagade strategies that balance energy efficiency with architectural character.
1. City of Boise. (2025). Boise zoning code: Title 11 — Development Code. Retrieved
from https://www.cityofboise.org/departments/planning-and-development-
services/planning/zoning/zoning-code/
2. City of Meridian. (2021). Architectural Standards Manual. Retrieved
from https://meridiancity.org/media/zongqxgu/architectural-standards-160802.pdf
3. City of Nampa. (2024, April 1). Chapter 34: Design Review(Title 10, Zoning Ordinance). City of
Nampa Planning &Zoning Department. Retrieved from
https://www.cityofnampa.us/DocumentCenter/View/l 3742/Chapter-34---Design-Review---Updated-
04-01-2024?bid Id=
4. City of Twin Falls. (2017, February 27). Design Guidelines for the Twin Falls Downtown Historic
District&Twin Falls City Park Historic District(Ordinance No.2017-09). Retrieved from
https://www.tfid.org/DocumentCenter/View/6880
5. City of Ketchum. (2024, February 20). Code of Ordinances of the City of Ketchum, Idaho. City of
Ketchum. Retrieved from
https://Iibrary.municode.com/id/ketchum/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeld=TlTl 7ZORE_CH 17.96D
ERE
6. City of Hailey. (2025). Design Standards: Section 17.06.080, Hailey, ID Code of Ordinances.
Retrieved from https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/haileyid/latest/hailey_id/0-0-0-19195
7. City of Pocatello. (2024, July 18). Pocatello Downtown Historic District Design Standards. Retrieved
from https://pocatello.gov/DocumentCenter/View/10922/Pocatello-Downtown-Historic-District-Design-
Standards-PDF?bid Id=

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 8
2025 Task 07: -Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_001-07)
REPORT
Y
r Interest and
� I
Edeerf- or c
21125 2026
'- �il�("�-' �_1 _,J�- ra � fJ l-f'�I :��'�. - -,�1: t-'-,�id� '•�—����tb fi���!���?('�p„[�„y _
� Ask_ -
k _ _ �%� .�� • . _
t'�tW
40
' . � fit. � •ITS iF �'• �, � --• �
ti

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 9
2025 Task 07: -Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_001-07)
- �• � rii..',I,I r.1 i�1'i�','1 i•,1�,�'/'.Ir J� '.,I r rr I
i I . 4 •J Ilr 1 r,'� I 1
•+�'-��l �II ��4i�S. 'L,- rr vj!It11"It �� ri.'. n 'i •ri n�< P.L{�ff=l E'I_7
. _ r'�L91i"�t1r.'hj4plul C.I ' "_-.,__� il'�' •�rtp�6;-` `-I', I -jt.c_ ._. r --� l - i _- ?- - -..I, _ _ •
-'-- -'��}�Tr --_{I{IEr,. 'I''•+•\p'�I�F+i �P"y,'�l�:.7= �1K:•if'�.�"I �1�� ��'-I. -I � �� _i11(r-
-_�1V{}_-- ' '- 'IIrI,T� _'h` �C+ M' ij{l ,`-r`.1/t } "i'I,y' {��" �C�r�'11�ii{'�r'r�}.�t'i
���}IY.uL�:�r ,I . : rlb 111 �i 4„! '��"I�M'I��tj,, Tf � 1 } • VT��'I� .�IW9� F���r� �"`r�:►r�'W�. / ��f�;�.�
Rk Y: , �I Ij• !!1 •j5� 1 l -�7'^+f ia'Z f�}`""F.'1( �7lilE'f f ��� Y
Ito
•, r�i Mt
�{� ++li�r► 1 �Ur ► �w��V,'�c�°y+� tip, �t �l �'' �a1i ' ►4r1�
rnri_, .�I" :''i � ih, IjeL dy� 1 tilr� �`Nt}Wd1��E+41�11°�Flill't l ,
�li'�r .�I }tj�ll ..I•Ny � ' p"� Yi��f�nr t+�1ltlh� k't�r=i�.•r ,i.:., N'%� �!!fit{'I71/U����•Ir�il; ''.
_ _ 7;•- 'fit, t., ;` r, I�
�'I},��
�
r •�,� -Il .pr c1Jo f. r.1,l,1-tmii hl .r,r Y lry ltlyp poHWllla't a. C [..yQ(FJQ'.�
t PK!•i� i M�Jf Itiff2A[4►ff"- iTj'�1�7741v �1r7}t1R 6 ripE?tiGttrdur'
o T.Kr rrl_,�it'Jp�fee�-_ 4vutl�uurupB�R jp14 Ni�NMA1R'fli1�NYG1�7W.11a7llW('711:Dq�ail�luliRc.LArl lllCl+Q�d�.[
ice.^I�1-7�Ila�gllr'rtn'�..� �NMTK.��IrC!`Jh?$C�1f"�('W1TNIm.NJ
Giymdaldati,�2���i�'lra�r2U'M.rolrhlCB-Maax.Oh11+1±'.'SryM1!�Nrn,rd3ranT%Y-�.N"�nmA..�•d,rrmrhwp���rRaS.,�rrb.lr�c�v9?"'�'-'ml
' oWt6W471r�C.11gl1�afF1'�rT��•39B�.CH7�,?ti9i�C�'.. ._.. -
ry,Wile+•t?.E[ISIR�tis►�m�QRSiir.;lmrl'I'�`--bc�'>= y_I1�C.�ec(Dld.r•acK.H�rmn ittaersndEhblat�^r�.v rvnoar�rrelbimwze�q��
t,•�O�JbrfillLS�Nu�4u�.Pn�IklI1pWM1lM!►ti�E1fQ�lAI�YrS1Yk�11'[diYYINrMT':/•r.11b11L;9tE41��d��:�+rle�n,:.�mr�4�lir4'14�.f��oeas
1
I
/J e {i

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 10
2025 Task 07: -Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_001-07)
l
�- _— 4.Y'•,-: � fi-i. � mil., 1�` ,-- i 1-II
411.
.L - '' I•i"1qw4 '
co
V IL
JV
� �
f ;•',.ai'.'_� rtl.:•IiIT`i/1< f -EC x.r I'"(,I,ai p a 'tC-r r/
• ��r-, ---crl�h@>' �' :=�T i[IT�;;,,t,it - t _ -- i�r���-I ��}��—^7 __ '� � • � -=--

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 11
2025 Task 07: -Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_001-07)
1,
, � (J�l•'7�11 2•+3� '`�Ll� ,�''{{'�iAA��r"�I��J"� .'"t•'r�p�" 'I�Wi�S„a( 1r:� 1.j�.•,� _ °��-'Y
r'CII:j k1 iI71' 41
i
r Wu t i�
I '
ti,�`l.A,1' � h� r
r ti , � — •fir'
, 1
joy
1'i I rL a l F I f L b.�A t�u�YLL�;60 t
� -Nam•/M— �r—. _ ��. �t ��_. •i !}f r7f{�.-.� 9 �f.F�, 1 �' � 'r '�

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 12
2025 Task 07: -Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_001-07)
Now
oil
- _ .(-Vic",►�;i —�f, �i�►��E�1�-� I r ,I .��� T'�;���•i�-,� - - _
a . r��i ;1�r�1�9,fli 'I' � �� Ii •iG`:.I. •It[^ -I.
tih r �• w#itla:tnllgl`
.� � '� S�Y�ili l'_ �D°tl•:��lr!7,Ip,��"`IR_.•y�r�.
r+ l! lad]; t !a
i ► � � j191r�•. . • �llfl{I�Millti �y� � I i
411
to
♦t Td�.i .�� rl _
to
• �' IRS •'�►^"n'�Ir';y ';.�ti'1�,"l;��sT♦!"'i nt'.i � �' r' ,�r� .
r `^ 1 I •�1 cat
.h T
'r I1 '� '1 .i �•1 t1 Il.�.i�il � •i I r .q / � � F� ��'17-t.i til f l/�f191 +I•titt • r� OTT •
L .'Ilk
AI "+lr� 4�' keH�:. , ;, �1�1 t��� ,S� ({r►1 M"h. .
�11.. ( •`•- l ;1... , M "!I�"f3>lc�tttres.'t �sel.c�s:.Eiu�erc:)rr�s..' ,
.n_r l i � I F � �t.•ts
F SO r r

Integrated Design Lab I Boise 13
2025 Task 07: -Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report#2025_001-07)
#71
77 ail711'I?V
g ,I�.,i4�
l
I .�itil� , }_ Ji,I :•tl_�;l.� hUl•.i I,II LI�,..II I,1.���Fll ;�t.. �t��t'r., ' r•,,: �tiI �dE'�^5�����►��,I�r�{b�:d
IYN1} or In 11 4 �
I'Siu�(S��4r��� ���4-'1�E"t3�lii'3';r � �i:rlly/ ♦frt•�:.off �:1.-.i!1�� y't��Il'+til I � ��I��lilMj�t�F�fllf Gl�ift:' -
_,al !3lu7Fl�tt# i[E�1s= 9J►1]ri01+--z:J=1.Ifit► t(1�_�#N`+';��J��#�l.-6�.� sri?�1;PPit��--
FPiyf�_;�Sl�cn -
. t -
if tU}}�II�.1iI�l�1fj��11Y 11�1 ';+i:r _IfdfIU11 U1il ilf'I'i f����lVli'P1►u11U'fltp.� f?},7� ►'.,t,�ila��lC'I�} �fk'� yflEllJr'
l
y,1n1;�:�a+t(arar+s� 4(� zlirltt�s
y.a��-'�t'r�cpty_'Tlf'��el!kffb33i'I'•�t`Ji��l�r_.e��llf�� I �Ilt�il,•1':I'��Ic_ -
in'twt�'
O�tt9R1�F!' al�iot!txr

Supplement 2: Evaluation
RESEARCH/SURVEYS
Analysis Study Study/Evaluation
Report Title Sector Performed By Manager Type
2025 Home Energy Audit Program Survey Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2025 Idaho Power Weatherization Assistance Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
for Qualified Customers Program Survey
2025 Idaho Power Weatherization Solutions Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
for Eligible Customers Program Survey
2025 Low-Income Energy Efficiency Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Education Survey
2025 Retrofits Survey Commercial/Industrial Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2025 Small Business Lighting Survey Commercial/Industrial Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 233

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 234

2025 Home Energy Audit Program Survey
What motivated you to participate in the Home Energy Audit program?Select all that apply.
Answer Response Percent
Learn how my home uses energy 5 16.67%
Learn how to reduce my home's energy consumption 8 26.67%
Conserve energy to help protect the environment 5 16.67%
Reduce my monthly utility costs 7 23.33%
Become as energy efficient as my friends or neighbors 1 3.33%
Receive a discounted energy audit 2 6.67%
Receive energy saving improvements installed at no additional cost 2 6.67%
Total 30
After applying for the Home Energy Audit program,how long did it take before the auditor contacted you to schedule the
visit?
Answer Response Percent
Within 3 days 0 0.00%
4-7 days 2 16.67%
8-14 days 3 25.00%
Over 14 days 2 16.67%
1 don't remember 5 41.67%
Total 12
How would you rate the process of scheduling your home energy audit?
Answer Response Percent
Very difficult 0 0.00%
Difficult 1 8.33%
Neutral 2 16.67%
Easy 4 33.33%
Very easy 5 41.67%
Total 12

Thinking about your auditor:
Did the auditor arrive on time?
Answer Response Percent
Yes 11 91.67%
No 1 8.33%
1 don't remember 0 0.00%
Total 12
Did the auditor ask you if there were any specific issues with your home you wanted to address?
Answer Response Percent
Yes 11 91.67%
No 0 0.00%
I don't remember 1 8.33%
Total 12
Did the auditor discuss with you the energy savings you might achieve by making the recommended improvements?
Answer Response Percent
Yes 11 91.67%
No 0 0.00%
I don't remember 1 8.33%
Total 12
Did the auditor install any energy-saving items,such as LED lights,pipe wrap,etc.?
Answer Response Percent
Yes 4 33.33%
No 8 66.67%
1 don't remember 0 0.00%
Total 12
Did the auditor leave a packet of energy efficiency information behind?
Answer Response Percent
Yes 10 83.33%
No 0 0.00%
I don't remember 2 16.67%
Total 12

Did the auditor explain recommendations in a clear and easy to understand way?
Answer Response Percent
Yes 10 100.00%
No 0 0.00%
I don't remember 0 0.00%
Total 10
Did you receive a follow up call from the auditor 1-2 weeks after the audit to go over the report?
Answer Response Percent
Yes 2 20.00%
No 4 40.00%
1 don't remember 4 40.00%
Total 10
After receiving your audit through Idaho Power,please indicate if you have taken any of the following actions:
I visited the Idaho Power website
Answer Response Percent
Yes 5 41.67%
No 5 41.67%
Not sure 0 0.00%
Not applicable 2 16.67%
Total 12
1 unplugged appliances when not in use
Answer Response Percent
Yes 8 66.67%
No 4 33.33%
Not sure 0 0.00%
Not applicable 0 0.00%
Total 12
1 wash my clothes in cold water
Answer Response Percent
Yes 11 91.67%
No 1 8.33%
Not sure 0 0.00%
Not applicable 0 0.00%
Total 12

I adjusted the temperature on my thermostat(higher in the summer,lower in the winter)
Answer Response Percent
Yes 6 50.00%
No 4 33.33%
Not sure 0 0.00%
Not applicable 2 16.67%
Total 12
1 reduced the temperature of my water heater
Answer Response Percent
Yes 3 27.27%
No 6 54.55%
Not sure 0 0.00%
Not applicable 2 18.18%
Total 11
I shared my energy audit experience with relatives and/or friends
Answer Response Percent
Yes 9 81.82%
No 2 18.18%
Not sure 0 0.00%
Not applicable 0 0.00%
Total 11
Since receiving your audit through Idaho Power,please indicate when,or if,you will complete any of the following improver
Increase attic,wall or underfloor insulation
Answer Response Percent
Already completed 2 16.67%
Plan to complete 4 33.33%
Do not plan to complete 3 25.00%
Not sure 2 16.67%
Wasn't recommended 1 8.33%
Total 12

Seal air leaks
Answer Response Percent
Already completed 3 25.00%
Plan to complete 5 41.67%
Do not plan to complete 0 0.00%
Not sure 2 16.67%
Wasn't recommended 2 16.67%
Total 12
Seal duct work
Answer Response Percent
Already completed 3 25.00%
Plan to complete 2 16.67%
Do not plan to complete 0 0.00%
Not sure 4 33.33%
Wasn't recommended 3 25.00%
Total 12
Install efficient windows or doors
Answer Response Percent
Already completed 4 33.33%
Plan to complete 2 16.67%
Do not plan to complete 3 25.00%
Not sure 1 8.33%
Wasn't recommended 2 16.67%
Total 12
Install LED lighting
Answer Response Percent
Already completed 11 91.67%
Plan to complete 0 0.00%
Do not plan to complete 0 0.00%
Not sure 1 8.33%
Wasn't recommended 0 0.00%
Total 12

How likely or unlikely are you to recommend the Idaho Power Home Energy Audit program to a friend or relative?
Answer Response Percent
Very unlikely 0 0.00%
Unlikely 0 0.00%
Neutral 2 16.67%
Likely 3 25.00%
Very likely 7 58.33%
Total 12

.Agency/Contractor Name:
Metro Community Services 32 28.57%
Eastern Idaho Community Action Partnership 0 0.00%
El Ada Community Action Partnership 57 50.89%
South Central Community Action Partnership 17 15.18%
Southeastern Idaho Community Action Agency 5 4.46%
Community Connection of Northeast Oregon 1 0.89%
Community in Action 0 0.00%
did you learn about the weatherization program?
Agency/Contractor flyer 19 17.92%
Idaho Power employee 7 6.60%
Idaho Power web site 11 10.38%
Friend or relative 55 51.89%
Letter in mail 1 0.94%
Other (Please specify) 13 12.26%
,Other • . • . -
Online
Through my husband's social worker
Internet
I Googled help for water heater
WICAP
Idaho Housing
I saw metro working on a house here and talked to the owner & Idaho Power & signed up for
assistance.
AD
ELADA
Other (Please specify)
Community Council of Idaho
Other (Please specify)
Google Search

.What was your primary reason for participating in the weatherization program?
Reduce utility bills 76 67.86%
Improve comfort of home 45 40.18%
Furnace concerns 40 35.71%
Water heater concerns 23 20.54%
Improve insulation 22 19.64%
Other (please specify) 10 8.93%
,Other • . •ther (please specify)]
Really cold in winter
Furnance went out
Windows
My hous need the work done. Improvement.
Furnance did not work and wiring caught fire, it was 36 yrs old
Had broken window and could see light under front door.
No heat or other resources to repair
Windows broken
Roof was bad
Problems with the oven
If you received any energy efficiency equipment upgrade as part of the weatherization, how well
was the equipment's operation explained to you?
Completely 90 85.71%
Somewhat 13 12.38%
Not at all 2 1.90%
Which of the following did you learn about from the auditor or crew during the weatherization
.process? (Check all that apply)
How air leaks affect energy usage 71 63.39%
How insulation affects energy usage 54 48.21%
How to program the new thermostat 55 49.11%
How to reduce the amount of hot water used 26 23.21%
How to use energy wisely 58 51.79%
How to understand what uses the most energy in my home 53 47.32%
Other (Please specify) 1 0.89%
,Other • . • . -
Already knew

Based on the information you received from the agency/contractor about energy use, how likely
.are you to change your habits to save energy? M
Very likely 77 74.76%
Somewhat likely 19 18.45%
Not very likely 4 3.88%
Not likely at all 3 2.91%
How much of the information about energy use have you shared with other members of your
,househ. .
All of it 65 74.71
Some of it 21 24.14%
None of it 1 1.15%
household,MW
If you shared the energy use information with other members of your how likely . .
householdyou think members will change habits to save energy?
Very likely 44 48.89%
Somewhat likely 40 44.44%
Somewhat unlikely 5 5.56%
Very unlikely 1 1.11%
MENEZ
What habits are you d other members of your household most likely to change to save energy?
apply).(check all that
Washing full loads of clothes 69 61.61%
Washing full loads of dishes 53 47.32%
Turning off lights when not in use 87 77.68%
Unplugging electrical equipment when not in use 51 45.54%
Turning the thermostat up in the summer 64 57.14%
Turning the thermostat down in the winter 68 60.71%
Other (please specify) 6 5.36%
,Other • . • . -
Do all already
Keeping doors/windows shut if air is on
Other (please specify)
Keeping good airflow
Weatherizing home adequately
I'm fully aware of saving energy so I help save the planet.

,How much . . you think the weatherization you received will affect the comfort of your home?
Significantly 91 90.10%
Somewhat 5 4.95%
Very little 2 1.98%
Not at all 3 2.97%
Rate the Agency/Contractor based on your interactions with them.
Courteousness
Excellent 96 91.43%
Good 8 7.62%
Fair 1 0.95%
Poor 0 0.00%
Professionalism
Excellent 94 90.38%
Good 9 8.65%
Fair 1 0.96%
Poor 0 0.00%
Explanation of work to be performed on your home
Excellent 89 87.25%
Good 9 8.82%
Fair 4 3.92%
Poor 0 0.00%
Overall experience with Agency/Contractor
Excellent 92 90.20%
Good 9 8.82%
Fair 1 0.98%
Poor 0 0.00%
Mere you aware of Idaho Power's role in the weatherization of your home?
Yes 72 68.57%
No 33 31.43%

.Overall how satisfied are you with the weatherization program you participated in?
Very satisfied 104 99.05%
Somewhat satisfied 1 0.95%
Somewhat dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Very dissatisfied 0 0.00%
IT
How has your opinion of Idaho Power changed as a result of its role in the weatherization
Improved 89 82.41%
Stayed the same 19 17.59%
Decreased 0 0.00%
people,,How many
0 26 24.53%
1 20 18.87%
2 21 19.81
3 13 12.26%
4 8 7.55%
5 5 4.72%
6 or more 13 12.26%
.How long have you been an Idaho Power customer?
Less than 1 year 4 3.85%
1-10 years 17 16.35%
11-25 years 30 28.85%
26 years or more 53 50.96%
LWIL
.Please select the category below that best describes your age:
Under 25 2 1.90%
25-34 9 8.57%
35-44 22 20.95%
45-54 11 10.48%
55-64 17 16.19%
65-74 30 28.57%
75 or older 14 13.33%

response
.Select the
Less than High School 15 14.291%
High School graduate or GED 39 37.14%
Some College or Technical School 31 29.52%
Associate Degree 8 7.62%
College Degree (including any graduate school or graduate degrees) 12 11.43%

[Please share any other comments you may have regarding Idaho Power's weatherization programs. TI.
Best power company in the USA. Tidier caulking.
Client unresponsive
Everyone who worked on the project was great. In the hot days our house was noticeably cooler and it
been warmer and more sealed now that it's cold.
Everything has been great. Notices savings already with new heat pump and weatherization.
Everything is wonderful!
Gracias por su ayuda me siento mas comodo en mi hogar.
I am so glad I found this program and can't wait for my level pay to go down now with all the
improvements done to my home.
LOT.
I am very grateful for everything. They helped me a lot with everything they fixed. Especially in winter
when prices are incredibly high, the fact that programs like this exist is a great help and a huge relief to
our economic situation, and with the situation we are living in today, it's fabulous. Many thanks to
everyone who contributed to this project
I appreciate everything that Idaho Power offers and has done for the people in the communities.
I appreciate the work that has been done. It will make my life a lot better. Thanks
I have always held you in high regard in my book. It is a wonderful program.
I prefer non-digital controls. To me they are the most efficient and easily set or adjusted. I can't handle
the digital junk.
I'm so grateful for this program. Thank you
It has significantly changed the comfort and safety, and efficiency of my home.
It would be a wonderful thing for more seniors to know about your wonderful program.
It would be interesting to see a program that replaces the damaged siding on a home. The other
programs are excellent otherwise.
It would be nice if the people doing the job would pay attention to the mess they make and keep it in
check a bit. Especially for people limited in movement. ELADA Comment -There was some insulation
left for installation. Advised installer to clean and make sure next time.
Its a wonderful thing to do for people.
Just a heartfelt thank you for partnering with El Ada to help keep Idahoans safe and warm! We
appreciate all the help from Idaho Power and their partners.
Life Savers!
Much appreciated. I've always been low income, their programs have kept my living conditions safe
and affordable, escpecially the winters money is from energy assistance.
Probably one of the best things we were able to improve in our home. Thank you, Idaho Power/El-Ada,
for everything you provided for us and family. Thank you!! Once again!
So appreciated the gifts! I call them 'gifts' because that's what all the new items and improvements are
to me and my home. I've worked so hard for! :)
Thankyou
Thankyou
Thank you for helping those that truly are in need of assistance with power bills and this is truly
appreciated to help lower our monthly bills.

Thank you for the program. It has been a blessing for me. You helped me save my home from
deterioration with a new roof and helped me where I had no means for the improvement.
Thank you very much. This has helped me and my father immensely! No more cold drafts in winter or
broken windows!! I can thank you enough! Our crew was really great and saved my father's life.
done.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! We wouldn't have made it through the winter without you. <3
Thanks and Lord bless you all for what you done, and do. Thank you!
Everyone at ELADA was amazing. The door insulation guy seems to have limited knowledge of
installation.
The team that came out and worked on our house exceeded all expectations! They are professional
and courteous. Thi si a wonderful program and we can already feel the difference.
The young men that were here, patient, kind, understanding, very non-judgmental,just a great bunch
of guys. Would definitely spread the word of them and what they stand for us, underdogs, misfits,
really appreciate this program. Thanks, guys for making me feel good and ok.
They are very kind, good workers, and very professional.
They were phenomenal in explaining everything. I recommend to everyone. I also recommend the
Weatherization program to family &friends. 5 stars
This help came at a really hard time for us and gave us comfort and the feeling of safety knowing we
were going to be taken care of. Thank you.
Very good program
Very grateful!
Very helpful
Very pleased with the employees and the work. Very professional.
Very pleased with the work.
We want to thank you and EIAda for this generous gift! We truly appreciate it.
Well, the contractors were very nice and efficient.
safe.

2025 Weatherization Solutions for Eligible
Customers Program Survey
How did you hear about the weatherization program?
Answer Response Percent
Friend or relative 16 64.00%
Agency/Contractor flyer 3 12.00%
Idaho Power employee 2 8.00%
Letter in mail 2 8.00%
Other(Please specify) 2 8.00%
Idaho Power web site 0 0.00%
Total 25
What was your primary reason for participating in the weatherization program?
Answer Response Percent
Reduce utility bills 15 60.00%
Improve comfort of home 8 32.00%
Furnace concerns 1 4.00%
Improve insulation 1 4.00%
Water heater concerns 0 0.00%
Other(please specify) 0 0.00%
Total 25
If you received any energy efficiency equipment upgrade as part of the weatherization,how well was the equipment's
operation explained to you?
Answer Response Percent
Completely 2 8.00%
Somewhat 0 0.00%
Not at all 23 92.00%
Total 25

Which of the following did you learn about from the auditor or crew during the weatherization process?(Check all that
apply)
Answer Response Percent
How air leaks affect energy usage 25 100.00%
How insulation affects energy usage 25 100.00%
How to reduce the amount of hot water used 25 100.00%
How to use energy wisely 25 100.00%
How to understand what uses the most energy in my home 24 96.00%
How to program the new thermostat 0 0.00%
Other(Please specify) 0 0.00%
Total 25
Based on the information you received from the agency/contractor about energy use,how likely are you to change your
habits to save energy?
Answer Response Percent
Very likely 14 56.00%
Somewhat likely 10 40.00%
Not very likely 1 4.00%
Not likely at all 0 0.00%
Total 25
How much of the information about energy use have you shared with other members of your household?
Answer Response Percent
All of it 8 100.00%
Some of it 0 0.00%
None of it 0 0.00%
Total 8
If you shared the energy use information with other members of your household,how likely do you think household
members will change habits to save energy?
Answer Response Percent
Very likely 6 75.00%
Somewhat likely 2 25.00%
Somewhat unlikely 0 0.00%
Very unlikely 0 0.00%
Total 8

What habits are you and other members of your household most likely to change to save energy?(check all that apply)
Answer Response Percent
Other(please specify) 11 44.00%
Washing full loads of clothes 5 20.00%
Unplugging electrical equipment when not in use 5 20.00%
Turning off lights when not in use 4 16.00%
Washing full loads of dishes 3 12.00%
Turning the thermostat up in the summer 2 8.00%
Turning the thermostat down in the winter 1 4.00%
Total 25
How much do you think the weatherization you received will affect the comfort of your home?
Answer Response Percent
Significantly 21 87.50%
Somewhat 3 12.50%
Very little 0 0.00%
Not at all 0 0.00%
Total 24
Rate the Agency/Contractor based on your interactions with them.
Courteousness
Answer Response Percent
Excellent 25 100.00%
Good 0 0.00%
Fair 0 0.00%
Poor 0 0.00%
Total 25
Professionalism
Answer Response Percent
Excellent 25 100.00%
Good 0 0.00%
Fair 0 0.00%
Poor 0 0.00%
Total 25

Explanation of work to be performed on your home
Answer Response Percent
Excellent 25 100.00%
Good 0 0.00%
Fair 0 0.00%
Poor 0 0.00%
Total 25
Overall experience with Agency/Contractor
Answer Response Percent
Excellent 24 96.00%
Good 1 4.00%
Fair 0 0.00%
Poor 0 0.00%
Total 25
Were you aware of Idaho Power's role in the weatherization of your home?
Answer Response Percent
Yes 22 88.00%
No 3 12.00%
Total 25
Overall how satisfied are you with the weatherization program you participated in?
Answer Response Percent
Very satisfied 25 100.00%
Somewhat satisfied 0 0.00%
Somewhat dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Very dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Total 25
How has your opinion of Idaho Power changed as a result of its role in the weatherization program?
Answer Response Percent
Improved 15 60.00%
Stayed the same 10 40.00%
Decreased 0 0.00%
Total 25

How many people,beside yourself,live in your home year-round?
Answer Response Percent
0 18 72.00%
1 4 16.00%
2 0 0.00%
3 2 8.00%
4 1 4.00%
5 0 0.00%
6 or more 0 0.00%
Total 25
How long have you been an Idaho Power customer?
Answer Response Percent
Less than 1 year 0 0.00%
1-10 years 7 29.17%
11-25 years 5 20.83%
26 years or more 12 50.00%
Total 24
Please select the category below that best describes your age:
Answer Response Percent
25-34 0 0.00%
35-44 2 8.00%
45-54 1 4.00%
55-64 6 24.00%
65-74 5 20.00%
75 or older 11 44.00%
Total 25
Select the response below that best describes the highest level of education you have attained:
Answer Response Percent
High School graduate or GED 6 24.00%
Some College or Technical School 8 32.00%
Associate Degree 4 16.00%
College Degree(including any graduate school or graduate degrees) 5 20.00%
Total 25

They made sure my heating system was working properly. 64 98.46%
They left furnace filters with me. 61 93.85%
They provided energy saving tips and this customer satisfaction survey. 62 95.38%
They reminded me to complete the customer satisfaction survey and sign my
coupon. 64 98.46%
LWIL
.During the visit, what did apply.
How my Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system works 61 93.85%
How to change my furnace filters 57 87.69%
How often to change my furnace filters 60 92.31%
How to set my thermostat to save energy 60 92.31%
The importance of maintaining my heating system 61 93.85%
advised?EL
.Are you committed to changing your furnace filters as the contractor
Yes 63 96.92%
No 0 0.00%
.Thinking back on your interactions with the contractor, please rate how well the contactor:
Below
Statement Poor average Average Good Excellent Overall
Communicated information about my HVAC 0 0 1 6 57 64
maintenance 0.00% 0.00% 1.56% 9.38% 89.06% 100.00%
0 0 1 6 58 65
Answered questions about my thermostat 0.00% 0.00% 1.54% 9.23% 89.23% 100.00%
Answered questions about how my heating 0 0 1 6 58 65
system works 0.00% 0.00% 1.54% 9.23% 89.23% 100.00%
Communicated information about my HVAC maintenance
Poor 0 0.00%
Below average 0 0.00%
Average 1 1.56%
Good 6 9.38%
Excellent 571 89.06%

Answered questions about my thermostat
Poor 0 0.00%
Below average 0 0.00%
Average 1 1.54%
Good 6 9.23%
Excellent 581 89.23kwL
Answered questions about how my heating system works
Poor 0 0.00%
Below average 0 0.00%
Average 1 1.54%
Good 6 9.23%
Excellent 58 89.23%
. •
.Please rate your overall experience with the Easy Savings
Very satisfied 59 90.77%
Satisfied 5 7.69%
Unsure 1 1.54%
Dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Very dissatisfied 1 0 0.00%

about�Please share any comments you have .
Appreciate the service from both contractor and CC1. Justin Wells client #498762
Ben from Rays was great!
Did amazing work and professional. Javier Wells client# 660570
Everything was good.
Friendly, professional, got back to me right away
Give Jerry a raise. He's awesome. Thank you so much for this service! God Bless!
Gun Burshong client #663705
1 appreciate the time taken that Ethan explained about the furnace. He is very prompt, friendly
& kind :)
I feel so satisfied with Plews service knowing they are true word about my system.
I would recommend this program to anyone, it has helped out a lot. Thank you :)
Juana Martinez client# 629917
Needs to help more people with this program.
Never knew the furnace had a battery. The tech helped change it out!
Really thankful for the program. I really needed the help. My furnace needed it.
Thankyou!
They were quick to get me an appointment. Great service. Very polite.
Very helpful and answered all my questions. I am very pleased.
Very nice

0
0
0
0
65
0
0
0
0
0
65
0
65

2025 Retrofits Program Survey
How did you learn about the Retrofits program?
Answer Response Percent
Idaho Power employee 11 23.91%
Contractor 25 54.35%
Equipment supplier 6 13.04%
Other business owner 0 0.00%
Other(please specify) 4 8.70%
Total 46
Overall,how satisfied are you with the Idaho Power Retrofits incentive program?
Answer Response Percent
Very satisfied 41 89.13%
Somewhat satisfied 4 8.70%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 1 2.17%
Somewhat dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Very dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Total 46
How satisfied are you with the contractor that you hired to install the equipment?
Answer Response Percent
Very satisfied 43 93.48%
Somewhat satisfied 3 6.52%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Somewhat dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Very dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Total 46
How satisfied are you with the equipment that was installed?
Answer Response Percent
Very satisfied 41 89.13%
Somewhat satisfied 5 10.87%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Somewhat dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Very dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Total 46

2025 Small Business Lighting Program Survey
Overall,how easy was it for you to participate in the Small Business Lighting program?
Answer Response Percent
Very easy 24 82.76%
Somewhat easy 5 17.24%
Neither easy nor difficult 0 0.00%
Somewhat difficult 0 0.00%
Very difficult 0 0.00%
Total 29
Overall,how satisfied are you with the Small Business Lighting program?
Answer Response Percent
Very satisfied 25 86.21%
Somewhat satisfied 4 13.79%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Somewhat dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Very dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Total 29
How satisfied are you with the contractor that you hired to install the equipment?
Answer Response Percent
Very satisfied 27 93.10%
Somewhat satisfied 1 3.45%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 1 3.45%
Somewhat dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Very dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Total 29
How satisfied are you with the equipment that was installed?
Answer Response Percent
Very satisfied 25 86.21%
Somewhat satisfied 4 13.79%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Somewhat dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Very dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Total 29
How did you learn about the Small Business Lighting program?
Answer Response Percent
Idaho Power letter 16 55.17%
Idaho Power employee 6 20.69%
Other business owner 0 0.00%
Contractor 7 24.14%
Other(please specify) 0 0.00%
Total 29

What is the main reason you chose to participate in the Small Business Lighting program?
Answer Response Percent
Reduce overall electrical usage 11 37.93%
Improve lighting at my business 10 34.48%
Reduce maintenance costs 2 6.90%
Incentive offset most/all project costs 6 20.69%
Seems like the right thing to do 0 0.00%
Other(Please Specify) 0 0.00%
Total 29

Supplement 2: Evaluation
EVALUATIONS
Analysis Study Study/Evaluation
Report Title Sector Performed By Manager Type
Impact and Process Evaluation of the 2024 Idaho Power Residential Tetra Tech Idaho Power Impact and
A/C Cool Credit Program Process Evaluation
Impact and Process Evaluation of the 2024 Idaho Power Commercial Tetra Tech Idaho Power Impact and
C&I New Construction Program &Industrial Process Evaluation
Impact and Process Evaluation of the 2024 Idaho Power Commercial Tetra Tech Idaho Power Impact and
C&I Retrofits Program &Industrial Process Evaluation
Impact and Process Evaluation of the 2024 Idaho Power Residential Tetra Tech Idaho Power Impact and
Heating&Cooling Efficiency Program Process Evaluation
Impact and Process Evaluation of the 2024 Idaho Power Irrigation Tetra Tech Idaho Power Impact and
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Process Evaluation
Impact Evaluation of Idaho Power's 2024 Home Energy Residential Qualus Idaho Power Impact Evaluation
Report Behavioral Program
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 263

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 264

Idaho Power Company
Idaho Power Company Residential
A/C Cool Credit Program
2024 Program Year Impact and Process Evaluation Results
AV
a w
TETRA TECH
January 16, 2026

L I=-,
lbm
TETRA TECH
6410 Enterprise Lane, Suite 300 1 Madison, WI 53719
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
tetratech.com
©2025 Tetra Tech, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
TETRA TECH
O II
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................1
1.1 Program Description .........................................................................................................1
1.2 Methodology......................................................................................................................1
1.3 Findings and Recommendations.......................................................................................2
1.3.1 Impact Recommendations .......................................................................................2
1.3.2 Process Recommendations .....................................................................................3
2.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................4
2.1 Program Overview ............................................................................................................4
2.1.1 Demand Response Events ......................................................................................4
2.1.2 Marketing and Outreach...........................................................................................5
2.1.3 Tracking and Reporting............................................................................................6
2.2 Evaluation Overview .........................................................................................................8
2.2.1 Evaluation Activities .................................................................................................8
3.0 IMPACT EVALUATION RESULTS......................................................................................10
3.1 Methodology....................................................................................................................10
3.1.1 Terminology ...........................................................................................................11
3.1.2 Data Preparation....................................................................................................11
3.2 Impact Evaluation Review...............................................................................................12
3.2.1 Assessment of Using a 25 Percent Sample...........................................................12
3.2.2 Evaluation Model....................................................................................................13
3.2.3 Temperature Variations Across Events..................................................................15
3.2.4 Percentage of Non-Contributing Household ..........................................................19
4.0 PROCESS EVALUATION....................................................................................................22
4.1 Methodology....................................................................................................................22
4.2 Process Review Results .................................................................................................22
4.2.1 Program Staff Interviews........................................................................................23
4.2.2 Materials and Outreach Review.............................................................................24
4.2.3 Logic Model............................................................................................................26
4.2.4 Benchmarking ........................................................................................................27
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. PY2021 ACCC Program Evaluation — Impact Recommendations..................................2
TETRA TECH III
O
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

Table 2. 2024 Demand Response Events ....................................................................................5
Table 3. Claimed Peak Reduction by Event Day..........................................................................7
Table 4. 2024 ACCC Non-Contributing Household Ratio.............................................................7
Table 5. A/C Cool Credit Program Evaluation Activities ...............................................................8
Table 6. Mixed Model Results Comparison ................................................................................15
Table 7. 2024 ACCC End-of-Season Report Published NCH Percentages ...............................20
Table 8. Evaluator NCH Percentage...........................................................................................21
Table 9. Utility Territory and Residential Customer Base ...........................................................28
Table 10. Technologies Employed..............................................................................................30
Table 11. Eligibility Requirements...............................................................................................31
Table 12. Incentive Levels ..........................................................................................................33
Table 13. Load Control Details ...................................................................................................34
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Impact Evaluation Activities...........................................................................................1
Figure 2. Process Evaluation Activities.........................................................................................1
Figure 3. ACCC Usage Model Categories....................................................................................6
Figure 4. Impact Evaluation Activities.........................................................................................10
Figure 5. Average Usage — 25 Percent Sample Versus Full Data..............................................13
Figure 6. Temperatures During July 10 and July 24 Events (Boise)...........................................16
Figure 7. Comparison of Temperature and Usage — July 23 Baseline Day................................17
Figure 8. July 10 Event— Model Performance............................................................................18
Figure 9. July 24 Event— Model Performance............................................................................18
Figure 10. NCH Percentage Analysis Steps...............................................................................20
Figure 11. Process Evaluation Activities.....................................................................................22
TETRA TECH iv
O
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the individuals who contributed to the 2024 evaluation of the
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit program, including Mindi Shodeen, Landon Barber, and Billie
McWinn of Idaho Power, who provided invaluable insight into the program and operations.
These individuals participated in ongoing evaluation deliverable reviews and discussions, and
graciously responded to follow-up questions, data, and documentation requests.
The Tetra Tech evaluation team included: Kimberly Bakalars, Mark Bergum, William Lindsey,
Jack Call, Abigail Bishop, Haley Padfield, Carter Crowley, and Darling Vang.
TETRA TECH v
O
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Tetra Tech is pleased to provide Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power) with this report, which
covers the process and impact evaluation of the 2024 A/C Cool Credit (ACCC) program. This
report section includes an introduction that describes the program, outlines evaluation activities,
and presents key findings and recommendations.
1.1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The ACCC program, started in 2005, is a voluntary, dispatchable demand response (DR)
program for residential customers in Idaho and Oregon. The ACCC program reduces energy
use during peak demand periods by utilizing a direct load control device installed on the air
conditioning unit. The season runs from June 15 to September 15, excluding weekends and
holidays. Eligible customers receive a $5 monthly incentive for four months during the program
season to participate in curtailment events. Customers' A/C units are controlled using switches
that communicate by powerline carrier (PLC) using the same system utilized by Idaho Power's
advanced metering infrastructure (AMI).
1.2 METHODOLOGY
The evaluation began with a review of program data sources and consumption data, followed by
the identification of baseline and event consumption for load reduction calculations. Finally, we
incorporated the non-measured participants into the final evaluated results.
Figure 1. Impact Evaluation Activities
• validate Assess model and event
Verify rates of Non-
Reviewconsumption •. . saving Contributing Households for
each event
Tetra Tech also conducted a process evaluation for the A/C Cool Credit program. Figure 2
highlights the activities undertaken to address the process research objectives.
Figure 2. Process Evaluation Activities
Interview with k _ Review program Develop a logic Conduct a
L1 program livery materials model benchmarking
OF'OF staff study
TETRA TECH
O 1
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

1.3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As part of the impact evaluation, Tetra Tech reviewed Idaho Power's progress against the
impact evaluation recommendations made during the last evaluation of the 2021 program. The
table below highlights Idaho Power's actions to address each of the previous impact
recommendations.
Table 1. PY2021 ACCC Program Evaluation —Impact Recommendations
PY2021 Impact evaluation
recommendations PY2024 implementation Status
Calculations Utilize a mixed model or Idaho Power runs a code that OCOO)
regression model to estimate utilizes the mixed model results
savings for the programs to estimate event savings.
Complete
Calculations Utilize proxy event days to Idaho Power runs a code that
estimate bias and error when uses proxy days to estimate bias
determining which model to and error in determining the
select for estimating baseline selection. Complete
usage
Implementation Calling DR events on days with Idaho Power calls days that
the highest forecasted CDD to have the greatest need for
maximize program demand demand reduction; this tends to
reductions. correlate with the highest CDD Complete
forecasted days.
1.3.1 Impact Recommendations
Idaho Power implements the ACCC program, achieving accurate savings through a consistent
code that provides results based on raw meter data from participants. In 2024, the program
determined savings using a sample of the participants that accurately reflected the overall
performance. The event that yielded the maximum savings experienced a drop in temperature
during the event, resulting in atypical results for 2024 reporting; however, the analysis of
demand remained consistent.
The following impact recommendations are provided for Idaho Power's consideration:
Continue using the current model to claim savings. The current model used by Idaho
Power produces reasonable results. Alternate models are available which can reduce the
amount of analysis and simplify the process but the results are similar. The model
developed through this evaluation is a simplified version of the current process.
Analyze all participants to determine the demand reduction. Analysis of all the meters
is the most comprehensive way to determine the demand reduction per event. However,
the random 25 percent sample Idaho Power used for the 2024 analysis yielded accurate
results and could be used if Idaho Power encounters computational issues in the future.
IExclude results from events where the participant's average kW for event hours
varies because of temperature changes across the event. The July 24 event
O TETRA TECH 2
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

experienced a rapid temperature drop of 16 degrees across the event, which did not
impact the mixed model baseline but significantly affected the actual demand. The current
baseline model does not account for significant variations in temperature during the event
and therefore provides a savings output that does not accurately match the real reduction.
Clarify the definition of a Non-Contributing Household (NCH) and how the NCH
percentage is calculated. The current description of the NCH and the NCH percentage
calculation does not accurately capture how the reported percentages were generated
using Idaho Power's current model. Amend the definition of each step in the NCH
percentage calculation to more accurately capture how devices are classified as NCH, or
update the model to match the current definition of these steps.
1.3.2 Process Recommendations
Idaho Power adheres to best practices by maintaining a comprehensive program handbook.
This, and all other program documentation, is valuable in managing a well-run program and
providing guidance during staffing changes. Idaho Power systematically approaches customers
moving into or out of enrolled homes. They also utilize a variety of outreach options to market
their ACCC program. Continuing to maintain these marketing and outreach efforts may help
combat a decline in program participation.
The following process recommendations are provided for Idaho Power's consideration:
Continue working on completing the program handbook. The ACCC handbook is
currently a work in progress, and some aspects of the document are still being finalized.
Some tasks that remain include removing highlights of ongoing edits and expanding on
sections that are brief or seem to lack information. Besides completing ongoing edits,
consider adding a definitions section and a links/file path location section.
Consider smart thermostat capabilities. Research suggests that smart thermostats
increase participation in DR programs, though the impact is strongest when offered
alongside DRUs. In addition, smart thermostats reduce more average hourly kW per
participant compared to DRUs. Including smart thermostats in the program could help
address participation concerns, increasing program enrollment and savings per participant
compared to DRUs.
Consider offering an enrollment bonus. Nine out of ten benchmarked utilities offer an
additional $254100 incentive at enrollment or at the end of the season. Studies found that
up to 60 percent of demand response program participants enrolled because they were
motivated by the incentive (Parks Associates, 2025). This type of bonus for enrollment or
at the end of season may also increase program enrollment and retention.
O TETRA TECH 3
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit-PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROGRAM OVERVIEW
The ACCC program is a voluntary, dispatchable demand response (DR) program for residential
customers in Idaho and Oregon. The ACCC program curtails energy use during peak demand
periods via a direct load control device installed on the air conditioning unit. Eligible customers
are provided with a $5 monthly incentive from June through September to participate in
curtailment events. Customers' A/C units are controlled using switches that communicate by
powerline carrier (PLC) using the same system utilized by Idaho Power's advanced metering
infrastructure (AMI).
Using communication hardware and software, Idaho Power cycles participants' central air
conditioning (A/C) units or heat pumps via a direct load control device, commonly referred to as
a switch or DRU (demand response unit). The switch is installed on each participating
customer's A/C unit, allowing Idaho Power to control the unit during a cycling event. Idaho
Power chooses cycling events to reduce system capacity needs during times when the summer
peak load is high.
The direct load control switch is a small, weather-resistant plastic box attached to the exterior of
a participant's house or air conditioning unit. A certified field technician installs the equipment.
The switches cycle participating customers' A/C units during "event days."
The program event day guidelines are as follows:
• June 15 through September 15 (excluding weekends, July 4, Labor Day);
• Up to four hours per day (no more than 16 hours per week);
• A maximum of 60 hours per season; and
• At least three events per season.
Each event day has a defined cycling rate, which is the percentage of an hour the switch turns
off the A/C unit. For example, with a 50% cycling rate, the switch cycles the A/C unit off for
approximately 30 (nonconsecutive) minutes of each hour during the event. Idaho Power defines
the cycling rate for each event day and tracks the communication levels for each unit to validate
whether the control signal reaches the switch.
The cycling rate was 55% for four of the events and 65% for one event, and the communication
level exceeded 86% for each event. With 17,641 customers participating in 2024 (22,500 in
2021), this resulted in a peak demand reduction calculated at 21.9 MW. (up from 19.4 in 2021).
Idaho Power has been working on a new Bring Your Own Thermostat (BYOT) option for the
program in 2025. With this option, customers will be able to participate in A/C Cool Credit
events through their smart thermostats as an alternative to the currently utilized DRUs.
2.1.1 Demand Response Events
Five demand response events were called throughout July and August of 2024, as displayed in
Table 2.
TETRA TECH 4
O
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

Table 2. 2024 Demand Response Events
� . Event Timop.m.) Cycling rate High temperature
July 10 (W) 5-8 55% 108
July 24 (W) 4-7 65% 106
August 1 (Th) 5-8 55% 102
August 2 (F) 6-9 55% 104
August 19 (M) 4-7 55% 97
2.1.2 Marketing and Outreach
Idaho Power employed various marketing methods to promote the A/C Cool Credit program in
2024.
January through July—All non-participating customers in homes with existing DRUs received
a direct-mail letter, followed by a reminder email, offering a $25 gift card for signing up.
Additionally, a postcard reminder was sent to all current participants, reminding them of the
upcoming season.
April through June-A 30-second radio ad aired on the digital music streaming service
Spotify, garnering 330,442 impressions with a complete listen rate of 98%. A total of 540 radio
ads were aired on stations throughout the service area, reaching 18% of the target audience in
Boise, 34% in Twin Falls, and 29% in Pocatello. The target audience was exposed to the ad an
average of 5.5 times over the three-month campaign.
April through June-Web users were exposed to 6,466,925 promotional display ads
(animated GIF image ads embedded on a website) based on their demographics, related to
online articles they viewed, or their use of a particular mobile web page or app. Users clicked
the ads 5,730 times, resulting in a click-through rate of 0.1%. A digital pop-up ad also appeared
on My Account in May, where 102,114 customers viewed the ad, resulting in 2,629 clicks.
Spring/Summer- New in 2024, Idaho Power created a one-minute and forty-second A/C Cool
Credit awareness video about the program, highlighting its key details and simple sign-up
process. The link to the video was shared in the program marketing email and was included in a
QR code in the Connections newsletter and the marketing letter mailed out to customers. The
video was translated into a 15-second pre-roll advertisement and placed on YouTube. The
YouTube pre-roll video received 812,288 impressions and 520 clicks. The full video is also
hosted on the A/C Cool Credit web page.
Spring/Summer- Idaho Power used phone calls, direct-mail letters, and home visits with door
hangers to recruit customers moving into houses with existing DRUs and previous program
participants who moved into new homes without DRUs.
Spring/Summer- Idaho Power held a "Sizzlin' Summer Savings" contest. They sent four
recruitment letters to over 94,000 residential customers, encouraging them to sign up and
participate in the enrollment contest. Customers who successfully enrolled in A/C Cool Credit
during the months of May through August were entered into the "Sizzlin' Summer Savings"
contest. Drawings were held in May, June, July, and August. The prize packages included a
propane BBQ, patio umbrella, misting fan, LED movie projector, outdoor patio lights, and a
Bluetooth speaker. Over 559 sign-ups were received during the enrollment contest, resulting in
300 successful enrollments.
TETRA TECH 5
O
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

Summer/Fall — Participating customers received a thank-you and credit reminder message on
their summer bills, and Idaho Power concluded the season by sending them a thank-you
postcard.
2025 Plans — Idaho Power will continue to actively market the A/C Cool Credit program, with a
strong focus on recruiting customers who have a DRU installed for a previous occupant. All
marketing materials will include quick response (QR) codes to direct customers to the
awareness video on Idaho Power's website, helping to educate them about the A/C Cool Credit
program and its benefits.
2.1.3 Tracking and Reporting
The ACCC participants enroll residences in the program and can have multiple devices per
residence if there is more than one A/C unit. Each residence is tracked by the device location
(DevLoc) of the meter, and the number of devices is tracked per DevLoc. The CLRIS database
provided a spreadsheet output to the evaluation team with participant characteristics. The initial
spreadsheet provided includes the following data points for each DevLoc:
• Site DRU Count
• Site City
• Site Region Name
• Site Address
• Site Rate Category Code
• ACCC Enroll Date
• Customer Agreement Start Date
• DRU Install Date
Savings Calculation & Reporting
The ACCC uses the evaluation framework and tool created by the 2021 impact evaluation. This
process requires four data points from each participant: a list of participating demand response
switches, hourly meter reads for all participants for the cycling season, hourly weather reads for
the service area, and the date and time of all demand response events. Each household energy
consumption pattern is evaluated for the best fit of five different statistical models. These
models fall into two categories, shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3.ACCC Usage Model Categories
Weather-adjusted Linear Fixed Effect
Regression (LFER)
•This is a regression model that controls -This model is tuned with various eligibility
for variables including Cooling Degree periods and offset methods. The possible
Days, Heating Degree Days, and hour of eligibility periods are 3-of-5 and 3-of-10.
the day, and treats each household as an An offset factor determines how the
individual fixed effect. model scales usage based on usage
prior to the event start. The possible
methods are additive and multiplicative.
The best-fit model was assessed based on how well it predicted the household's energy
consumption across four proxy days, which represent the hottest non-event days of the current
season. Consumption during both proxy days and event days is excluded from the data set
TETRA TECH 6
O
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

when the model determines the best fit. The LFER model is the best fit for the largest number of
participants.
The program claimed savings are aggregated from the household level results of the individual
best fit model during the hours of the event. The demand response events were called on five
days, Table 3 shows the average participant reduction and the total reduction from the
aggregated best fit models.
Table 3. Claimed Peak Reduction by Event Day'
� . Event Time (p.m.) I Average Reduction (M) I Total Reduction (MW)
July 10 (W) 5-8 0.88 15.50
July 24 (W) 4-7 1.24 21.90
August 1 (Th) 5-8 0.74 13.10
August 2 (F) 6-9 0.85 14.90
August 19 (M) 4-7 0.60 10.70
Program Metrics
The program measures non-contributing households (NCH) as a metric for understanding the
overall impacts of the demand response efforts and identifying characteristics of event days that
work better. The impact of the NCHs are not included in the claimed peak savings, so the
identification of the NCH does not adjust savings. The NCH calculation process is described in
three steps.
Q 1. The first calculation is a Cumulative Sum (CSUM) analysis, which is a technique
■■� that evaluates the slope of a smoothed curve of energy usage data for the hours
■■■ before and during the event, and compares the ratios of these slopes to determine
■■■ if there is a significant change in demand due to the event. Devices with a slope
ratio less than one are considered contributing devices.
2. The second calculation is the linear decrease analysis, which involves comparing
the demand for the hour prior to the event to the demand during the first hour of
the event. Devices that do not see a 10 percent reduction in this step are
considered noncontributing devices.
The published NCH values are shown below in Table 4.
Table 4. 2024 ACCC Non-Contributing Household Ratio
Event Date Non-Contribution Ratio
July 10 (W) 18.5%
July 24 (W) 12.7%
August 1 (Th) 16.9%
August 2 (F) 11.8%
August 19 (M) 17.8%
' Demand reduction includes line loss factor
TETRA TECH 7
O
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit- PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

2.2 EVALUATION OVERVIEW
The following impact and process evaluation goals were outlined in the RFP. The objectives will
be addressed through the various evaluation activities:
Impact Evaluation
• Determine the demand impacts attributable to the 2024 summer program using Idaho
Power's current methodology.
• Document findings and observations, and provide recommendations to enhance future
demand response calculations and transparent reporting of program impacts.
• Assess the existing baseline calculations and offer suggestions for improvement.
Process Evaluation
• Review program implementation, including quality control, operational practices, and
outreach efforts.
• Examine program forms, manuals, and marketing materials, and provide
recommendations for improvement.
• Evaluate program administration, including oversight, staffing, management, training,
documentation, and reporting processes.
2.2.1 Evaluation Activities
The evaluation activities for the A/C Cool Credit program are summarized in the table below.
This section also discusses evaluation goals and the sampling strategy.
Table 5.A/C Cool Credit Program Evaluation Activities
ObjectiveActivity Sample Size
Interviews with program 1 Understand program design and delivery. Obtain program
delivery staff staff perspective on program successes and challenges.
Identify researchable issues. Draft program logic model.
Review of program 11 Materials such as marketing brochures, program manuals,
delivery and marketing outreach plans, and the program website will be reviewed
materials for messaging and communication of benefits.
Review and validate 2024 Review and identify variations of individual meter data
meter consumption data. participants points for baseline and event days.
Calculate baseline and 2024 Evaluate the load reduction for each devloc at each event
load reduction participants using the best-fit method.
Logic model draft 1 Document the inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes of
the program delivery.
Benchmarking 10 Compare and contrast other residential demand response
programs with the ACCC program.
Program Delivery Staff Interview
TETRA TECH 8
O
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

Tetra Tech interviewed Program Delivery Staff from Honeywell who provided information on the
processes used for fielding customer service calls, program participation and opt-out rates, as
well as provided program feedback.
Program and Marketing Material Review
Tetra Tech reviewed a total of 11 documents provided by Idaho Power. There were six outreach
and marketing material documents and five program delivery documents.
Baseline and Meter Data Review
Tetra Tech reviewed the usage data of the participating devices as well as the results of running
the current model used for reporting on a 25 percent sample of all devices. The evaluation team
then investigated ways to improve and simplify the model.
Logic Model Development
Tetra Tech created a program logic model for the ACCC program. This model serves as a visual
representation of the program's theory, illustrating a set of interrelated program activities that
combine to produce a variety of outputs, ultimately leading to key outcomes. The program's
logic model serves as a roadmap to develop and inform various audiences about program
design, as well as to guide a systematic approach to EM&V activities.
Benchmarking Study
Tetra Tech conducted a benchmarking study to characterize programs like the ACCC program,
providing a synopsis of general industry trends to Idaho Power. The information collected
included program control strategies (both LCR-type and smart thermostats), eligibility
requirements, and incentive structures.
TETRA TECH 9 O
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit-PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

3.0 IMPACT EVALUATION RESULTS
The impact evaluation goals for the 2024 ACCC program include:
• understanding the program operations and impact calculation,
• calculating the load reduction attributable to the 2024 AC Cool Credit program using a
variety of demand reduction estimations,
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the current models in use,
• Assess opt-out/non-contributor percentages, and
• Provide recommendations to enhance the effectiveness and accuracy of future demand
response calculations.
Idaho Power achieves accurate savings through the use of a consistent R code that provides
results based on raw meter data from participants. The impact evaluation determined that the
claimed demand reduction is reasonable using the existing analysis process, and the current
model effectively estimates savings under typical conditions.
The evaluation team collected the raw meter data and independently wrote analysis code to
estimate program performance and identify opportunities to increase the accuracy of future
demand response calculations. In addition to verifying that the program's claimed demand
reduction is acceptable, the evaluation team found that the 2024 practice of sampling 25
percent of participants to determine average participant savings is also acceptable. The
evaluation team also noted improvements in the accuracy of future claimed results by isolating
specific events with temperature variations during the event. The non-contributor percentage
analysis revealed inconsistencies between the metric description and the percentage of non-
contributors, for which the evaluation recommends revising the description.
3.1 METHODOLOGY
The impact methodology consisted of the three primary evaluation activities shown in Figure 4.
Each activity is explained in more detail below.
Figure 4. Impact Evaluation Activities
Review • validateAssess model and event of •
consumption data and weather
Contributing Households
•. . • event
Q Review and validate meter consumption data and weather data
The data files received were reviewed to determine that the electricity consumption of
participants was complete for the program season being evaluated. A tracking spreadsheet and
event days and times was also provided. Idaho Power provided the results of its modeling on
the 25 percent sample of participants used to claim 2024 savings. Tetra Tech confirmed that
each file was complete, with no missing data, and examined the variables shared between
multiple files to ensure consistency among them.
Tetra Tech collected hourly weather data files from the Boise Municipal Airport and the Twin
Falls/Joslin weather station. These records included all records except 10 hourly entries across
the evaluation period. A forward fill was used to bridge these few gaps. Everything else
appeared in line with expectations.
TETRA TECH 10
O
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

/1-11, Assess model and event saving
etra Tech conducted a thorough review of the model description and prepared a new
independent analysis code to generate the results. The Idaho Power data and the evaluation
analysis code results were compared to identify variations and determine their significance.
Using the evaluation code, we also attempted to simplify the LFER analysis model to reduce the
computational resources required to determine savings.
Confirm percentages of Non-Contributing Households for each event
The percentage of Non-Contributing Households (NCH) for each event is a metric that does not
impact results. However, it is useful to identify areas for improvement in participation. Tetra
Tech attempted to recreate the NCH classification process used by Idaho Power and produced
an evaluated NCH to compare to the program results.
3.1.1 Terminology
The following terms will appear in the description of evaluation efforts and impact results:
• Demand Response Events (events) are designated hours in which customers' energy
usage is decreased in order to reduce load during peak usage hours
• Demand Response Units (DRU) are devices that are installed onto participating air
conditioning systems and are used to cycle the devices on and off during the demand
response events.
• Baseline Days are days in which typical usage is expected. These are days that satisfy
the following criteria
o Not an event day
o Not a weekend
o Not a holiday (Independence Day on July 4 or Labor Day on September 2)
• Customer Baselines (CBLs) are models in which baseline days with high usage are
used to estimate the expected usage during an event
• Non-Contributing Households (NCH) are houses that did not significantly reduce
energy usage during an event
• Program Model is the baseline development model used by the ACCC program to
determine demand reduction.
• Evaluation Model is the baseline development model independently developed by the
evaluation team to determine demand reduction.
3.1.2 Data Preparation
The usage data received contains hourly usage data for 17,448 air conditioners from June 1,
2024, to October 31, 2024. The file contains a total of 64,038,408 rows of data, with no missing
values. To mitigate processing issues of the large dataset, the following measures were taken:
• The CSV file originally received was saved instead as feather file, a format that cannot
be manually read through like a CSV or an Excel file, but is quicker to import into a data
structure for any programming language.
• When calculating customer baselines on each event day, only data during the event day
and the selected baseline days were used.
O TETRA TECH 11
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

• The regression model was fit using only usage and weather data from July and August.
This decision was made because it created the most reasonable model, but the faster
processing time was an additional benefit.
3.2 IMPACT EVALUATION REVIEW
The ACCC program called demand reduction events on five days in 2024 for 17,448
participating devices. The impact evaluation found that the program's calculation of claimed
savings was acceptable, as it reproduced similar results using an independently developed
analysis code applied to the same meter data. As part of the scope of work, the evaluation team
analyzed aspects of the program to determine whether there is an opportunity to improve the
accuracy of the claimed savings or the calculation process.
The following sections discuss the evaluation of the savings calculation process for sampling
and modeling, the acceptance of model results in abnormal conditions, and the assessment of
the non-contributing households during events. The evaluation team found the sampling and
modeling acceptable but identified potential to simplify the model to further streamline the
program baseline development. The assessment of the abnormal temperature variation for the
July 24, 2024, event revealed that the program's calculation process does not adequately
account for savings during such events, and recommends that the ACCC program implement
guidelines to exclude events with abnormal temperature variations. The assessment of the Non-
Contributing Household metric found that the current definition does not fully describe the
analysis steps, but this did not affect program operations or claimed savings. The evaluation
recommends adjusting the description of the metric so that it is better understood for the future.
3.2.1 Assessment of Using a 25 Percent Sample
To claim savings for the 2024 program, Idaho Power sampled 25 percent of the participating
meters to determine the average kilowatt (kW) reduction for program participants. Historically,
the program analyzed every meter for each event; however, the calculation process changed for
determining savings in the 2024 program. The sampling was implemented because the
computing power required exceeded the capabilities of the ACCC program's technology at the
time.
The evaluation team assessed the accuracy of this approach by comparing the average hourly
demand of the 25 percent sample with that of the entire population for each event. The
averages overlapped for each event, as shown for the July 10 event in Figure 5. This provides
strong evidence that the sample was representative and that the sampling approach is
acceptable for future programs.
TETRA TECH 12
O
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

Figure 5.Average Usage—25 Percent Sample Versus Full Data
July 10
4
3.5 `
m 3 /
—' 2.5 .01
0
= 2
a 1.5
100
a) 0.5
0)
CO 0L
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Q
Hour Ending
25% Usage Full Usage
3.2.2 Evaluation Model
Tetra Tech developed an independent model (evaluation model) to simplify the analysis of
participant peak demand reduction, thereby reducing the computational burden and providing
results that are similarly accurate. For each participant, we set up the following regression to
determine the baseline at the meter:
23
kWhi = al + R1 * CDHi + R2 * HDHi + Y,yj * hourij + Ei
j=1
Where, for each participant is
kWhi is the hourly consumption at the meter. This is also equivalent to the hourly
average kW.
ai is the intercept, which corresponds to consumption (kWh) at the midnight hour
on weekdays when there is no heating or cooling (HDH and CDH equal zero).
The coefficient, Q1 is the model cooling slope, representing the average change
in hourly usage resulting from a one-degree increase in CDH.
CDHi is the CDH assuming a cooling set-point of 72°F.
The coefficient, R2 is the model heating slope, representing the average change
in hourly usage resulting from a one-degree increase in HDH.
HDHi is the HDH assuming a heating set-point of 65°F.
The coefficients, yj are the model hour slopes, representing the average change
in consumption at each hour j (hours 1 through 23) compared to average
consumption at midnight (hour 0).
hourij are indicator variables for the hour of the day (1 through 23).
O TETRA TECH 13
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

The error term, Ei encapsulates any variance that occurs.
The evaluation regression model estimates the temperature's impact on usage. The model was
run for each participant on all days in July and August, excluding event days, holidays, and
weekends, using temperature data from either the Boise Municipal Airport (ASOS Station Code
BOI) or the Twin Falls/Joslin weather station (at the Magic Valley Regional Airport, ASOS
Station Code TWF), depending on which airport was closer to the participant. The coefficients
were then applied to event-day temperatures to estimate usage in the absence of the event.
The evaluation model differs from the program's model currently in a few ways. The program
model includes two additional independent variables, one for a 24-hour moving average of CDH
and another for the day of the week. The evaluation model removed these because the moving
average is not independent of the CDH variable, which can lead to untrustworthy results. Since
we removed weekends from the dataset for the regression, the variable measuring the day of
the week was no longer needed.
These two changes lead to a simpler evaluation model that still predicts usage during events.
The average F-statistic across participants using the above model was 62.4, with an average
associated p-value of 0.0009, indicating that the model's explanatory variables significantly
predict usage. Additionally, an average R2 value of 54.8 percent shows that the model explains
more than half the variance in usage.
The evaluation team also adjusted the other models in the mixed model approach for the
evaluation model. In both the evaluation and program models, the Customer Baselines (CBLs)
were created using the ten and five most recent baseline days for each event, then selecting the
three in each set with the highest average usage throughout the whole day. The evaluation
model used a three-hour offset window, which was a factor comparing the usage in the three
hours before the event's start to the average in the same three hours on the baseline days,
instead of the one-hour window in the program model for both the additive and multiplicative
adjustments. This was done to improve consistency and prevent extreme data points in the hour
preceding the event from severely affecting individual baseline results.
Finally, the evaluation model adjusted the mixed model approach to produce estimates of the
usage patterns on similar baseline days to each event. The program model selects the model
that produces the closest estimates on the four hottest days for each household and uses that
distribution of model selections for each event. The evaluation model determined similarity by
identifying which of the 10 most recent baseline days had the lowest RRMSE for the 12 hours
immediately preceding the event's starting hour. This likely resulted in different models being
selected for each meter, but the output is not available to confirm this variation.
It is not necessarily possible to tell whether the program or evaluation models produce more
"accurate" results, because they estimate usage that did not occur. However, by developing an
independent model and plotting the average participant's predicted kWh per hour consumption
(kW demand), the evaluation team determined that either model is acceptable for estimating
savings for typical events. See Section 3.2.3 for an evaluation of atypical events.
Table 6 shows the results of the two mixed models; both appear to be reasonable at predicting
demand reductions. The model results vary because of the adjustments described above. The
overall outcome is that the evaluation model's results are slightly lower because the baseline
estimated is slightly lower. Although the analysis does not identify whether the variation is
because the mixed model selected different models, variation in baseline days, or regression
model differences. The evaluation team recommends that Idaho Power can confidently continue
TETRA TECH 14
O
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

to use the current program model. The evaluation model is another lens through which to view
the data and estimate the overall impact, which requires less computing power.
Table 6. Mixed Model Results Comparison
Average • D' - Average Hourly
Event Date Evaluation Model (kW) Program Model (kW)
July 10 0.64 0.88
July 24 1.10 1.24
August 1 0.59 0.74
August 2 0.69 0.84
August 19 0.40 0.6
3.2.3 Temperature Variations Across Events
For most demand response events, the afternoon temperatures remain relatively constant. The
analysis code assumes that the temperature is consistent with other similar afternoons.
However, when there is a shift in temperatures during the event, the baseline models do not
adjust well to the post-temperature shift conditions.
Temperature variations that are not forecasted are a rare event, although it did occur during the
second event of the 2024 season, on July 24 from 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM. A temperature drop
began 1 hour after the event started and dropped by over 15 degrees by the end of the event.
The Boise weather station detected a drop in temperature from 104 degrees Fahrenheit at 5:00
PM (hour ending) to 93 degrees at 6:00 PM - an 11-degree drop over the course of an hour-
and then another five-degree drop to 88 degrees at 7:00 PM. Figure 6 displays the difference in
temperature between a typical event on July 10 and the July 24 event. The shaded area is the
event period.
2 Demand reduction includes line loss factor
TETRA TECH 15
O
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit- PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

Figure 6. Temperatures During July 10 and July 24 Events (Boise)
110
105
100
95
90
m
a
E 85
a)
80
75
70
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour Ending
24-J u I 10-J u I
The hourly energy consumption (demand) of the HVAC systems controlled through the ACCC
program is highly correlated with the temperature at the weather station. Figure 7 displays the
average usage and the average temperature at each hour for July 23, which is one of the
baseline days used in the CBL models. As the temperature rises and falls throughout the day,
so too does the energy usage with a slight delay. This graphic is typical of residential HVAC
loads
TETRA TECH 16 O
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

Figure 7. Comparison of Temperature and Usage—July 23 Baseline Day
4
105
3.5
100
3 95
2.5 90
3 85
O 2
2 N
80 Q
0) 1.5 E
c� �
75 ~
1
70
0.5 65
0 60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour Ending
Average Usage Average Temperature
The program demand reduction is calculated as the difference between the actual demand and
the estimated demand from a mixed model. The actual demand reacts to the temperature
variations in the real world, and when the temperature drops, the demand will also drop with a
short delay. However, the mixed model option is selected based on the participant's demand,
which happens in the hours leading up to the event, and assumes that the remainder of the
event day is a typical day.
The first event of the program year, July 10, was typical, and the actual demand and the
Program's estimated demand is displayed in Figure 8. During the event, the demand decreases
and remains relatively stable through the event, until the end of the event, when it snaps back
and increases to slightly above the estimated modeled demand.
TETRA TECH 1 7
O
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

Figure 8. July 10 Event—Model Performance
4
3.5
3
Y
> 2.5
CO
T
O 2
2
1.5
CO
Z) 1
0.5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour Ending
Actual Mixed Model (IPC)
In contrast, a change in temperature, such as the one seen on July 24 is shown in Figure 9. The
modeled demand has a similar pattern to the July 10 event, although the actual demand differs
by decreasing throughout the event. It decreases to a level that, when the snapback occurs at
the end of the event, it does not exceed the modeled demand. The actual reduction of the
demand between hours ending 17 and 19 is about 15% greater on July 24 than on July 10,
corresponding to the temperature drop from 105 degrees to 90 degrees.
Figure 9. July 24 Event—Model Performance
4
3.5
3
> 2.5
2
0
1.5
(D
0)
vCOi 1
0.5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour Ending
Actual Usage Mixed Model (IPC)
O TETRA TECH 18
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

The evaluation determined that the Program's modeled demand baseline development does not
account for either positive or negative abnormal temperature changes during an event.
Temperature changes affect actual consumption, but each event is specific to the impact of
weather conditions on the individual HVAC systems. The evaluation recommends that Idaho
Power review participants' average demand to identify unexpected increases or decreases in
demand on event days when temperatures or other weather conditions change.
The evaluation does not recommend an alternative baseline development model to address this
condition. A model designed to manage the temperature variation condition will become
increasingly complex and is not expected to improve the results for the standard event
temperature profile. Implementing the current model or a simpler one will yield acceptable
results for almost all the called events. The current or simpler model also reduces the computing
power required and increases the understanding of the participant's participation.
Further study is required to develop indicators that the modeled savings results are acceptable
based on demand profiles, temperature, or other weather-related measurements. When an
indicator exceeds the limitations, the demand reduction results should be invalidated. As the
indicators are developed, the evaluation recommends that Idaho Power implement a minimum
limitation that the temperature does not vary more than 10 degrees between the start and end of
the event.
3.2.4 Percentage of Non-Contributing Household
Non-Contributing Households (NCH) are "households during each event that did not produce a
statistically noticeable demand reduction," as defined in the 2024 DSM Supplement. Idaho
Power used the NCH percentage for each event to track the program's performance. All meters,
regardless of their NCH classification, are included in the demand reduction results.
There are several reasons why participants may not contribute during an event. Some examples
include residents being away from their homes during the event, the DRU failing, or the air
conditioner needing repair. The determination of non-contributing households is completed
through a data analytics process that includes these and other explanations.
The evaluation team attempted to recreate the NCH percentages from the data provided using
the explanation in the 2024 ACCC End-of-Season Report in the DSM Supplement 2. The
following is the published explanation of the data analytics process and the published results:
"The model uses a three-step calculation process to identify NCHs:
1. The first calculation is a Cumulative Sum (CSUM) analysis, which is a technique that
evaluates the slope of a smoothed curve of energy usage data for the hours before
and during the event, and compares the ratios of these slopes to determine if there is
a significant change in demand due to the event. Devices with a slope ratio less
than one are considered contributing devices.
2. The second calculation is the linear decrease analysis, which involves comparing the
demand for the hour prior to the event to the demand during the first hour of the
event. Devices that do not see a 10% reduction in this step are considered non-
contributing devices.
3. Finally, the model performs a check for signs of a snapback effect, which is the
increase above baseline usage that frequently occurs at the conclusion of a demand
O TETRA TECH 19
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

response event as an A/C unit works to return to the household to normal set
temperature. Households that were labeled as non-contributing by the first two
tests but show signs of a snapback effect are reclassified as contributing
households."
Table 7. 2024 ACCC End-of-Season Report Published NCH Percentages
Event INICH Percentage
July 10 18.5%
July 24 12.7%
August 1 16.9%
August 2 11.8%
August 19 17.8%
The evaluation team attempted to recreate these results following the steps above. The
expectation is that the values are identical. However, this was not the result.
Following the steps described above produced much higher percentages than the published
percentages. The evaluation team then rearranged and reinterpreted the steps to produce
results more closely aligned with the published results, although they were still not an exact
match. The steps are identified in Figure 10, with the primary difference being that the first step
is moved to be the last step, and it is used to identify contributors instead of non-contributors.
Figure 10. NCH Percentage Analysis Steps
NIIIIIIII End-Of-Season Report steps Evaluator Adjusted steps
1.If the CSUM ratio is greater than 1, the 1.If the decrease in the first hour of the
device is considered non-contributing event is under 10% of the usage in the
2.If the decrease in the first hour of the hour before the event, the device is
event is under 10% of the usage in the considered non-contributing
hour before the event, the device is 2.If a non-contributing device produces a
considered non-contributing snapback effect as described in step 3 in
3.If a non-contributing device produces a the DSM, the device is relabeled as
snapback effect as described in step 3 in contributing.
the DSM, the device is relabeled as 3.If a non-contributing device produces a
contributing. CSUM ratio less than one, the device is
relabeled as contributing.
The primary reason for the higher percentages following the End-of-Season report steps is that,
in the first step, a CSUM ratio greater than one identified many non-contributors. By adjusting
this step to only classify contributors, the evaluation team reduced the percentages to similar
levels as those in the published results. This is the evaluation team's best estimate of what
matches the existing code used to identify the NCH percentage.
TETRA TECH 20
O
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit- PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

Table 8. Evaluator NCH Percentage
End-of-Season Evaluator
Event Published report steps adjusted steps
July 10 18.5% 33.0% 18.3%
July 24 12.7% 28.8% 11.3%
August 1 16.9% 28.8% 17.3%
August 2 11.8% 27.4% 10.6%
August 19 17.8% 31.0% 19.9%
The NCH percentage does not affect program performance; therefore, there are no
recommendations for the values. However, if the NCH percentage per event informs decision-
makers, it is crucial to understand the definition of the measurement. The current definition in
the End-of-Season report does not accurately describe the analysis steps to determine the NCH
percentage. Idaho Power can review its existing code and refine the classification process, or it
can adopt a new code that aligns with either the existing definition or a revised classification
process.
TETRA TECH 21
O
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

4.0 PROCESS
The following sections provide a detailed review of the process evaluation methodology,
evaluation results, and recommendations from the evaluation activities.
4.1 METHODOLOGY
The process methodology consisted of four primary evaluation activities, shown in Figure 11
and explained below.
Figure 11. Process Evaluation Activities
Interview
IIIL� _ _ Review program Develop logic Conduct
� �� �staff benchmarking
materials model
study
Program Delivery Staff Interview
Tetra Tech interviewed program delivery staff from Honeywell, who were involved in fielding
customer service calls for the A/C Cool Credit program, on September 17, 2025. The interview
provided information on the processes used for fielding customer service calls, program
participation, and opt-out rates, as well as provided some program feedback.
Program and Marketing Material Review
Tetra Tech reviewed the program documentation and marketing outreach material provided by
Idaho Power. The program materials reviewed included the Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit
Program Handbook, the Idaho Power Website Information for ACCC document, and three
flowcharts. The outreach and marketing documents included an email, a mailed letter, a social
media post, a postcard sent in June of 2023, a "connections" newsletter included in a bill insert
sent in July of 2024, and "pop-up content".
Development of the Logic Model
Tetra Tech created a program logic model for the ACCC program. This model serves as a visual
representation of the program's theory, illustrating a set of interrelated program activities that
combine to produce a variety of outputs, ultimately leading to key outcomes. The program's
logic model serves as a roadmap to develop and inform various audiences about program
design, as well as to guide a systematic approach to EM&V activities.
Benchmarking Study
Tetra Tech conducted a benchmarking study to characterize programs similar to the ACCC
program, providing a synopsis of general industry trends to Idaho Power. The information
collected included program control strategies (both LCR-type and smart thermostats), eligibility
requirements, and incentive structures.
4.2 PROCESS REVIEW RESULTS
Overall, the program is operating as designed, although it is challenged by low participation.
Idaho Power has systematically reached out to customers who have moved into or out of
TETRA TECH 22
O
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit- PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

previously participating homes to maintain participation levels. Program documentation and
outreach materials are thorough, clear, and provide good coverage. Benchmarking of other
utility programs reveals that the ACCC program aligns with most other programs but would
benefit from the addition of smart thermostats and enrollment incentives, both of which Idaho
Power is currently implementing.
4.2.1 Program Staff Interviews
As part of the process evaluation, Tetra Tech interviewed Honeywell to gather feedback on the
program and insights into their processes. Honeywell's responsibilities include client
communication, such as answering calls from customers for various reasons, including
equipment issues and program opt-out requests. Honeywell will work with customers to
troubleshoot problems with their AC units or switches or schedule a field technician visit to
resolve the issue. Honeywell fields these calls and either resolves them or forwards them to
Idaho Power for further assistance. This occurs when switches need to be turned off by Idaho
Power due to equipment problems or when customers choose to opt out of the program.
Woof previous participants of people who move
continue to participate in program after into a home with an existing device
moving into a new home decide to participate in the program
Honeywell also discussed participation and enrollment rates in the program. They noted that
approximately 12 percent of previous participants continue to participate in the program after
moving into a new home, and 5.5 percent of people who move into a home with an existing
device decide to participate in the program. The reasons customers decide not to participate
include a misunderstanding of the program, feeling that the incentive amount is too low, and
older units being unable to maintain a comfortable temperature, leading to an uncomfortably
warm home for customers. Additionally, if the AC unit is 25 years or older, or if it is a new high-
efficiency model—such as those with variable speeds, core sense diagnostics, or timer features
that impact the switch, or is a two-stage unit with ductless heat pumps—it does not qualify for
the program. For customers who do not qualify because of new or aging AC units, Honeywell
will mention Idaho Power's Heating and Cooling Efficiency program.
There are three types of opt-out alternatives: single event, seasonal, and permanent. Single-
event opt-outs can occur up to twice per season and may occur because customers are not
notified of an event. Once participants start to feel their house getting warmer, they may call to
opt out of the event, as they feel the incentive amount is not sufficient to continue with the
program. Seasonal opt-outs typically occur when long-time program participants wish to take a
break from the program. Permanent opt-outs are also typically initiated by long-term program
participants. The main complaint that leads to the permanent opt-out is that their home is
uncomfortably warm, or the customer is elderly or has health concerns, and the program no
longer works well for them as it had previously.
Because Honeywell finds that Idaho Power is receptive to its ideas and feedback during
discussions, Honeywell has some suggestions for improvements to the ACCC program. One
suggestion is to consider whether newer AC units should be eligible for the program. Honeywell
also suggests maintaining marketing and outreach to customers, as the program appears to be
experiencing a decline in participation size.
TETRA TECH 23
O
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

4.2.2 Materials and Outreach Review
Tetra Tech reviewed a total of 11 documents provided by Idaho Power. There were six outreach
and marketing documents, and five program material documents. Idaho Power offers a wide
variety of descriptive and detailed program and outreach materials. Documentation review is
discussed in more detail below, divided into program delivery documentation and marketing
material review.
4.2.2.1 Program delivery
Tetra Tech reviewed five different program documents provided by Idaho Power. These
documents included the Idaho Power A/C Coo/ Credit Program Handbook, the Idaho Power
Website Information for ACCC document, and three flowcharts: one on inventory, one on the
marketing and device add process, and one on the cycling event process.
Handbook
The Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit Program Handbook was last updated in April 2024 and
contains file path links to program files, as well as the annual report, IRP, and budgeted goals.
The appendix includes various resources such as the marketing plan, calendar, and materials. It
also includes links to find information on tariffs for Idaho and Oregon. The ACCC handbook
contains sections discussing:
1. A/C Cool Credit program description and overview - including the history of the
program, information on demand impact, customer enrollment and satisfaction, and the
hardware and software used in the program.
2. Contact information —for program support, program partners, contractors and vendors,
and groups that Idaho Power is part of.
3. Various tasks and ongoing program activities —such as links, file paths, and
instructions for the daily, weekly, monthly, seasonal, and annual tasks.
4. Process flow and analysis — including links and file paths to the process flow diagram,
evaluation documentation, and the cost effectiveness spreadsheet.
5. Curtailment calculator— including a brief description describing the use of the
calculator, and includes the file path.
6. Customer service — including information about Honeywell's service and links to their
processes, training, and documentation.
7. Quality assurance — including a brief description of the quality assurance process.
8. Software— including a file path for instructions on operating their TNS software.
Some improvements that could be made to the handbook include creating a definitions section
and a links/file path location section, as well as adding additional details and finalizing edits.
There are multiple instances in the handbook where acronyms are used without definition.
TETRA TECH 24
O
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

Adding a section for definitions will be beneficial to new hires or those unfamiliar with the
acronyms. Additionally, there are a few sections that appear somewhat bare and could benefit
from more detail, or they may only list the file path or a link to find additional information. These
sections include Quality Assurance, Process Flow Diagrams, and Annual IRP/Budgeted Goals
and Progress. For sections that contain only links and file path locations, it may be beneficial to
create a dedicated section for file paths and links to specific resources, rather than creating a
separate section for each resource. Similarly, a few sections include highlights to add
information or paragraphs that are crossed out, indicating edits or deletions need to be made.
These sections include DR Weekly Meeting Prep and Contractor (Honeywell) Supplies under
the Seasonal Tasks header.
Idaho Power Website Information
The Idaho Power Website Information for ACCC document provides an outline for the
information listed on the Idaho Power website for the ACCC program. It includes links to the
various sections of the website, and all the information included in the outline is present on the
website.
• The first section is the program application website. The website provides information
about the program's participation requirements, an application form, and additional
contact details.
• The second section is the Program Terms and Conditions website. It includes
information about receiving the bill credit, program eligibility requirements and
qualified units, details about the application submission, warranty disclaimers, and
information release. The site also features a link in the margins to an informational
booklet on ways to save energy in the home, as well as information about the Idaho
Power mobile app.
• The third section is the program FAQs. The FAQs featured relate to the equipment,
what cycling means, whether the program reduces energy consumption, and
information on how to opt out of the program on a single day. This site also features a
link in the margins to the informational booklet and information about the Idaho Power
mobile app, identical to the previous section.
Flowcharts
The three flowcharts documented the inventory process, the marketing and device add process,
and the cycling event process. These flowcharts use the same layout and corresponding colors
across all three, which enhances the visual appeal and information clarity.
• The first flowchart details the tasks associated with the inventory process. These
tasks involve communication among the program specialist, Honeywell, meter support
or the meter test facility, marketing staff, and stores/receiving facilities.
• The second flowchart details four overarching steps in the marketing and device add
process: prepare marketing campaign, enrollment, installation, and data transfer and
error corrections. These tasks involve communication among the meter test facility,
the marketing specialist, the program specialist, the meter support or TNS operators,
Honeywell, the customer, and the mailroom.
O TETRA TECH 255
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

• The third flowchart details six overarching steps in the cycling events process. These
steps are training, scheduling an event, pre-event, during the event, post-event, and
post-season. These tasks involve communication among the program specialist,
generation dispatch, LSO (Load Serving Operations), Honeywell, meter support, and
the customer.
4.2.2.2 Marketing and Outreach
Tetra Tech reviewed six documents provided by Idaho Power, which were used as outreach
and marketing materials. The documents included an email, a mailed letter, a social media post
on Facebook and Instagram, a postcard sent in June of 2023, a "Connections" newsletter
included in a bill insert sent in July 2024, and "pop-up content". The outreach material is visually
appealing and concise, presenting information clearly and aesthetically. All the documents
contained multiple forms of contact information, including website links, phone numbers, and
email addresses. The Connections newsletter and the mailed letter also included a QR code
that linked to a video providing additional program details. Additionally, three of the documents,
including the Connections newsletter, the email, and the letter, contained information about a
"Summertime Chill" prize drawing, which encouraged new customers to enroll in the program
and be entered into a drawing to win a prize package.
The Connections newsletter provided basic information about the ACCC program, including its
purpose, how the program works, and the dates of the event season. The newsletter also
included information about the Heating and Cooling Efficiency program, as well as a section
offering tips on how to save energy in the kitchen. The pop-up content, the postcard, and the
social media post all feature images with large, eye-catching text that is easy to read quickly
and is visually appealing.
4.2.3 Logic Model
A program logic model is a visual representation of the program's theory that illustrates a set of
interrelated program activities that combine to produce a variety of outputs, leading to key
outcomes. The program's logic model serves as a roadmap to develop and inform various
audiences about program design, as well as to guide a systematic approach to EM&V activities.
A program logic model can lead to a cost-effective plan to determine program effectiveness in
meeting its goals and objectives. Logic models can be linked to performance indicators to
provide ongoing feedback to program managers.
The models flow from top to bottom and are typically organized into four basic categories, as
shown below.
• Inputs or Resources: These identify the key financial, staffing, and infrastructure
resources that support each activity. When possible, specific budgets or systems are
identified.
• Program Activities: Program logic models are structured around overarching
activities that describe the major components of the program. Examples may include
developing program infrastructure, recruiting program allies, marketing to customers,
energy assessments, enrollments, and payments.
O TETRA TECH 26
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

• Outputs: The program logic models include metrics resulting from the activities.
These tend to be measurable "bean counting" results (e.g., provide outreach events
at five community fairs). The outputs can be tracked or measured to ensure the
activities are conducted as expected.
• Outcomes: The models specify expected outcomes or stretch goals that result from
the program activities beginning in the first year. Specific goals are attached to those
outcomes when possible. Examples include: annual energy savings, participating
customers, and knowledgeable trade allies. Specific examples include: "an energy
efficient industry is established", and "the measure becomes standard practice."
These may be associated with a full program plan cycle.
Stepping through the activities enumerated in the logic model indicates an approximate `flow' in
the sequence of activities. For example, the logic models begin with the program infrastructure
and end with the activity that results in direct energy savings. In each column, the resources
needed or allocated are specified above each activity, and the activity's direct outputs are then
listed. The outcomes are causally linked to the various outputs in each column of the logic
model. In other words, it is expected that the specified output (e.g., installed measures) will
result in the specified outcome (e.g., energy savings). Where available, the program logic
models include quantitative data on both the expected and actual outputs from each activity.
Outcomes tend to detail program objectives at a high level and capture market effects. These
outcomes may be based on program plans for expected performance, current actual results, or
general program goals.
It is essential to recognize that external factors can also affect the program's outcomes. External
influences include City, State, and Federal Codes and Standards (existing and evolving), other
utility programs, EPA/DOE ENERGY STAR® national and regional program activities,
equipment and technology options (current and evolving), political and economic factors,
inflation, and the prices of oil, electricity, and natural gas.
The draft logic model was developed based on a review of program documentation and
interviews with program staff. A draft model was provided to the program manager for review
and comment before finalizing.
4.2.4 Benchmarking
The Tetra Tech team conducted a benchmarking study to characterize programs similar to the
AC Cool Credit program, providing a synopsis of general industry trends to Idaho Power. The
information collected included program control strategies (both DRU-type and smart
thermostats), eligibility requirements, and incentive structures. The benchmarking information
gathered was collected by assessing publicly available program documentation for 10 utilities
and their residential demand response programs. The table below outlines each utility, its
service territory, and the number of residential customers served.3
3 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-861 2023 data files, released October 7, 2025. EIA-
861 includes self-reported data on accounts, revenues, demand response portfolios, and other pertinent
utility data. The report is released annually in November for the prior operating year. More can be found
at https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia861.
TETRA TECH 27
O
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

Table 9. Utility Territory and Residential Customer Base
Number of Residential
Service Territory Customers Served
7AESIndiana
r Idaho and Oregon 539,849
Indiana 469,499
Alabama Power Alabama 1,332,911
Alliant Energy Iowa and Wisconsin 854,364
Consumers Energy Michigan, Iowa, and Oregon 1,683,516
Duke Energy Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, South Carolina,
North Carolina, and Ohio 7,409,922
Entergy Arkansas Arkansas 608,363
Evergy Kansas Kansas and Missouri 644,314
Georgia Power Georgia 2,452,488
MidAmerican Iowa 624,956
PSCo Colorado 1,365,053
4.2.4.1 Key Findings
In this section, we separate our findings from the DRU-type and smart thermostat programs to
provide Idaho Power with the most accurate reflection of the current DR landscape. Idaho
Power's current demand response program is implemented similarly to other DRU-type
programs. When compared to other DRU-type programs, Idaho Power's DRU program follows
similar eligibility requirements (e.g., customers must either own their home or receive landlord
approval), incentive structures, and load control seasons. Most benchmarked programs require
the participant customer to either own their home and receive landlord approval, offer monthly
payments or bill credits, and operate the program in the summer months.
Based on our discussions with Idaho Power, they are planning to include smart thermostats in
future load control seasons. For the new program offering, we provide a summary of eligibility
requirements, incentive level structures, and load control seasons for other smart thermostat
programs. In general, smart thermostat programs have similar requirements:
• Eligibility requirements: a compatible HVAC system and an always-on Wi-Fi network
• Incentive level structures: $15-$75 per season, plus $20-$100 bonus upon enrollment or
at the end of the season
• Load control season: most summer programs are offered between June and September,
winter programs are typically offered between November and March
Since Idaho Power plans to offer smart thermostats in its demand response program, we
provide a few additional findings on smart thermostats. Our findings include:
• Utilities adopting smart technologies are typically running the smart device options in
parallel to the direct control units. This is due to direct control device costs incurred by
utilities and the longevity of device life. Additional research suggests the greatest impact
on DR program participation is offering both passive (e.g., smart thermostats) and active
(e.g., DRUs) equipment. Since the lack of control is a common challenge in DR
O TETRA TECH 28
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit- PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

programs, offering smart technologies with the opportunity to opt out of events increases
customers' comfort as their perceived risk decreases.4 Offering smart thermostats as a
stand-alone technology in DR programs has a larger impact on participation than DRUs.
Though offering the two types of equipment has the highest impact:
"The highest impact is observed when both types of participation are
combined, meaning that customers retain the ability to override
automated and/or remote controls settings."
• While one-way direct control units are an effective means of reducing peak loads during
a demand response event, two-way smart metering and smart thermostats allow for
energy savings to accrue beyond demand response events. When applied across
customer segments, behavioral changes and technological adaptation to customer
needs can allow energy savings to accrue beyond event days. This is primarily due to an
additional degree of customer engagement with these technologies. When combined
with customer-accessible software platforms, smart thermostats enable customers to
monitor their energy usage, receive tips on how to reduce it, and gain insight into their
historical energy consumption. For example, AES Indiana found that smart thermostats
achieve higher annual demand reduction and energy savings compared to DRUs,
primarily due to cycling, which considers household characteristics and customer
preferences.5 AES Indiana found that the Nest, ecobee, and Emerson smart thermostats
averaged between 0.98 and 1.19 kW per unit, compared to the L+G and Cannon switch,
which averaged between 0.63 and 0.97 kW per unit. Similar results are found at CPS
Energy. An evaluation of CPS Energy's programs found that the DR programs that
offered smart thermostat capabilities had the most energy savings in comparison to
other DR programs offered by CPS Energy.6
• The growth of smart technologies in demand response is expected to continue over the
coming years. The Southeast Power Administration (SEPA)7 noted that demand
response programs using smart thermostats are growing in popularity and that a
substantial amount of enrolled capacity was dispatched among this subset of demand
response participants. Furthermore, SEPA noted that more utilities are looking to pair
distributed energy resources with demand response programs and plan to harness the
growing inventory of electric vehicles being utilized nationwide to store excess
renewable energy generated and curtail charging during peak hours.
4.2.4.2 Detailed Results
Below are detailed findings from the benchmarking research, summarized under program
control strategies, eligibility requirements, incentive structures, and demand response event
timing. All program details are reflective of research completed in November 2025.
Program Control Strategies
Over the past decade, the emergence of smart technologies has provided utilities with options
to implement demand response programs and other offerings that help customers manage their
4 Customer enrollment and participation in building demand management programs: A review of key
factors - ScienceDirect
146081 AES IN Submission of AES Indiana's 2024 EMV Full Report 062625 (5).pdf
6 FY2023STEPEvaluation Report.pdf
https://www.energy.gov/sepa/southeastern-power-administration
TETRA TECH 29
O
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

energy consumption. The growth is primarily driven by the utilities' need to offset demand during
peak periods or emergencies, as well as to reduce overall demand. Customers' comfort and
satisfaction with demand response programs are also improving. In 2025, 35 percent of demand
response customers reported not noticing a difference in comfort during an event, and 34
percent stated that their comfort was not as unpleasant as they had expected.$ Overall, demand
response programs are transitioning from one-way devices to two-way communication due to
these technological advancements and increased customer satisfaction. Table 10 outlines
utilities' demand response programs and the technologies employed.
Table 10. Technologies Employed
Programs . . . Employed
Idaho Power AC Cool Credit Direct Control Unit
AES Indiana Cool Cents Smart Thermostat, Smart Water Heater, Smart
Water Heater Controller, Electric Vehicle Chargers
Alabama Power Smart Peak Rewards Smart Thermostat
Company
Alliant Energy Smart Hours Smart Thermostat
Consumers Smart Thermostat Smart Thermostat
Energy Program
Peak Time Rewards/ Manual adjustment during an event
Critical Peak Pricing
Duke Energy EnergyWise Direct Control Unit
Power Manager Direct Control Unit, Smart Thermostat
Entergy Arkansas Smart DLC Smart Thermostat
Summer Advantage Direct Control Unit
Evergy Kansas Thermostat Cycling Smart Thermostat
MidAmerican SummerSaver Direct Control Unit, Smart Thermostat
Georgia Power Temp JTA9 and Flex Hours Smart Thermostat
PSCo Savers Switch Direct Control Unit
AC Rewards Smart Thermostat
4.2.4.3 Eligibility Requirements
Eligibility requirements are generally consistent across the benchmarked programs. To
participate in any of the programs involving direct control unit installation, customers must own
their home or be approved as eligible renters and have a central air conditioner, water heater, or
heat pump. Some utilities, such as Consumers Energy, Duke Energy, and AES Indiana, have
expanded their programs to include pool pumps, home generators, and electric vehicle
chargers. Households hoping to participate in demand response programs with smart
thermostats must have an always-on Wi-Fi-enabled internet connection.
$ 20% of Smart Thermostat Homes Now in Demand Response Programs I Resideo
TETRA TECH 30 O
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit- PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

The equipment controlled through the smart thermostat is similar to the equipment cycled by
direct control units: electric heat or central air-cooling systems such as furnaces, air
conditioners, and heat pumps. The table below summarizes eligibility requirements across the
10 benchmarked utilities.
Table 11. Eligibility Requirements
Program Name Eligibility
Idaho Power AC Cool Credit Homeowners or approved renters with a central air system or an
air-source heat pump
Requires a direct control unit to be installed
MidAmerican SummerSaver Residential homeowner
Must receive the residential rate
Have an eligible smart thermostat
AES Indiana Cool Cents Residential and business customers
Homeowners or approved renters with a smart thermostat
Must have electric heating or central cooling
Must have a compatible HVAC system
Must have working Wi-Fi
Alabama Smart Peak Residential, electric customer
Power Rewards Must have a central air conditioner or heat pump
Must have an eligible Wi-Fi-enabled smart thermostat
Must have an always-on home Wi-Fi network
Must be on an eligible rate code
Alliant Energy Smart Hours Must have an always-on home Wi-Fi network
Must have an eligible Wi-Fi-enabled smart thermostat
Must have a central air conditioner
Consumers Smart Be a residential, electric customer with the electric service in your
Energy Thermostat name
Program Have an eligible Wi-Fi-enabled smart thermostat in your home
Not be currently participating in a disqualifying rate code or
program
Peak Time Must be an electric-only or combination (electric and natural gas)
Rewards/Critical customer
Peak Pricing
Duke Energy EnergyWise Must be a residential customer
Home (FL) Have centrally ducted electric heating and cooling OR heating
and water heating using equipment compatible with program
technology
Must meet minimum energy requirements
Power Manager Smart Thermostat Option:
(KY) Have an eligible, qualified smart thermostat connected to Wi-Fi
Be a residential customer with the electric service in your name
Must not be enrolled in the AC Control Device Option
AC Control Device Option:
O TETRA TECH 31
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

Program . .
Be a residential customer who owns their single-family home
Have central AC with an outside compressor
Must not be a time-of-use or net metering or enrolled in the AC
control device option
Entergy Smart Direct Homeowners or approved renters
Arkansas Load Control Have central air conditioning
Have home Wi-Fi service
Summer Any Entergy Arkansas residential, electric customer(renter or
Advantage owner)who has a central air conditioner or air source heat pump
Program Has the direct load control unit installed to their equipment
Renters must receive landlord approval
Evergy Thermostat Homeowners or approved renters
Kansas Cycling Program Electric residential customer
Have an eligible Wi-Fi enabled thermostat linked to an active
account
Have central AC cooling system or heat pump
Have a wireless network
Must not already be enrolled in Evergy Kansas Cycling
Thermostat program
Georgia Temp JTM and Have an eligible Wi-Fi smart thermostat
Power Flex Hours Have an always-on home Wi-Fi network
Have an all-electric heat pump, or electric heat connected to your
smart thermostat
Must not be in a disqualifying rate program
PSCo Saver's Switch Homeowners or approved renters with central air conditioning
Requires direct control unit to be installed
Cannot also participate in AC Rewards program
AC Rewards Residential electric customer with central air conditioning
Smart Install or have an eligible thermostat
Thermostat
Have Wi-Fi
Program
4.2.4.4 Incentive Structures
Incentives varied depending on the type of technologies employed in each demand response
program. Whether the demand response program included a direct control unit or smart
thermostat, customer participation incentives were typically provided in the form of bill credits on
either a monthly or annual basis, ranging from $5 to $100. On the higher end, Duke Energy
provides its Florida participants with up to $141 in annual bill credits.
In addition to participation incentives, many demand response programs offer further incentives
at the time of enrollment or equipment installation. These other incentives may be distributed to
customers through a prepaid or gift Mastercard or bill credit. These `one-time' incentives range
from $25 to $100. A detailed summary of incentives is shown in the table below.
TETRA TECH 32
O
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

Table 12. Incentive Levels
Program
Name Monthly I Yearly Incentives One-time Incentives
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit $5 bill credit per summer month, up None
to$20 per season
AES Indiana Cool Cents $5 bill credit per summer month, up None
to$20
Alabama Smart Peak $25 Prepaid Mastercard after each $200 off the purchase of a new,
Power Rewards season eligible smart thermostat after
Company enrollment
Alliant Smart Hours $25 prepaid Mastercard for each $50 (Iowa)or$25 (Wisconsin)
Energy season prepaid Mastercard for enrolling
Consumers Smart $25 prepaid Mastercard annual $100 Prepaid Mastercard if the
Energy Thermostat incentive at the end of each season customer already has an eligible
Program of participation smart thermostat
OR
$100 instant rebate towards the
purchase of an eligible smart
thermostat
Peak Time $1 in bill credits per kWh for shifts None
Rewards/ during energy savings event days
Critical Peak OR
Pricing 15%-20% discounted rate for
shifting energy away from critical
peak times
Duke Energy EnergyWise Up to$141 in annual bill credits None
(Florida) Incentives paid without events
Power Smart thermostat: $25 bill credit Smart thermostat: $75 bill credit
Manager(KY) each year of participation upon enrollment
AC: Up to $18 in annual bill credits AC: up to $35 installation bill
credit
Entergy Smart Direct Annual incentive depends on the BYOT: $50 upon enrollment
Arkansas Load Control number of opt-out events: Free professionally installed
0-1 events: $40 thermostat, if the customer does
2-3 events: $25 not have an eligible thermostat
4 or more events: $0
Summer Customers can choose if they want If the customer chooses to run
Advantage the DCU to run 50% or 75% less. 50% less:
Program If the customer chooses to run 50% Earn $25 just for installing the
less: $50 ($25/year after year one) DCU
If the customer chooses to run 75% If the customer chooses to run
less: $80 ($40/year after year one) 75% less:
Earn $40 just for installing the
DCU
O TETRA TECH 33
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

• . . .
Name Monthly/Yearly Incentives One-time Incentives
Evergy Thermostat $25 for each year of participation BYOT: $100 upon enrollment
Kansas Cycling
Program
Georgia Temp JTm and $15 for each year of participation $50 prepaid Mastercard upon
Power Flex Hours enrollment for purchasing a
qualifying smart thermostat
through the marketplace
MidAmerican SummerSaver None $40 bill credit upon enrollment
PSCo Saver's Switch $8 each month of participation, None
plus $2.50 each month for enrolling
an electric water heater
PSCo AC Rewards $25 annual bill credit $100 bill credit upon enrollment
Smart
Thermostat
4.2.4.5 Demand Response Event Timing
During an event, the utility can control eligible equipment for a set amount of time each day
during a specified period. More details on the timing of and the maximum number of demand
response events are summarized in the table below. Not all information was readily available
through publicly available documentation or filings.
Table 13. Load Control Details
ProgramUtility and
needed) Limitations
Idaho Power June 15—August 15 Late afternoon— Unknown
Not including holidays Evening
or weekends
MidAmerican - June 1 —September 2:00 p.m. —7:00 p.m. Unknown
SummerSaver 30
Not including holidays
and weekends
�AES Indiana June—September Unknown Unknown
Alabama Power- Summer: April 1- Summer: 1:00 p.m. — Up to 3 hours (winter) or 4
Smart Peak October 31 5:00 p.m. hours (summer) per event
Rewards Winter: November 1- Winter: 6:00 a.m. — Maximum of 15 events each
March 31 9:00 a.m. season
Not including holidays
and weekends
Alliant Energy— Summer: June 1 — Unknown Up to 15 times each season
Smart Hours September 30 Events will not last longer than
Winter: December 1 — 4 hours
March 31
O TETRA TECH 34
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

Utility and Program
needed) Limitations
Not on weekends or
holidays
Consumers Energy Select Summer days, 10:00 a.m. —8:00 Up to 4 hours
—Smart Thermostat not on weekends or p.m. Up to 7 events
Program holidays
Consumers Energy June 1 —August 31 2:00 p.m. —6:00 p.m. Up to 14 energy-saving event
— Peak Time Not including days
Rewards/Critical weekends or holidays
Peak Pricing
Duke Energy- Year-round program, Events typically occur Unknown
EnergyWise or winter program, on weekdays (rarely
offered from on weekends or
December through holidays) on weekday
February afternoons
Duke Energy- Power May 1 —October 31 2:00 p.m. —6:00 p.m. Up to 3.5 hours
Manager Not on weekdays
Entergy Arkansas - June 1 - September 12:00 p.m. —7:00 Usually 4 events per year
Smart Direct Load 30 p.m.
Control Not including holidays
or weekends
Entergy Arkansas - June 1 - September 12:00 p.m. —7:00 Up to 4 hours per event
Summer Advantage 30 p.m. No more than 3 consecutive
Program Not including holidays event days in a row
or weekends
Evergy Kansas High-demand days, all Unknown Up to 4 hours per event
yearlong Maximum of 20 events each
season, typically around 15
events each season
Georgia Power— Summer: June 1 — Summer: 2:00 p.m.— Up to 4 hours per event
Temp ✓TM and Flex September 30 7:00 p.m. Maximum of 10 events each
Hours Winter: October 1 — Winter: 6:00 a.m. — season
March 31 10:00 a.m.
Not including holidays
or weekends
PSCo—Saver's Summer 2:00 p.m. —7:00 p.m. Cycled in 15—20-minute
Switch intervals
PSCo—AC Summer Unknown Unknown
Rewards Smart
Thermostat
TETRA TECH 35
O
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

. - - BENCHMARKING REFERENCES
The table below provides references for the benchmarked utilities and their demand response
program.
Program
Cool Cents Customers' thermostat will be CoolCents®air conditioning
adjusted during high-demand management I AES Indiana
AES Indiana energy events.
Alabama Power Smart Peak Customers'thermostat will be Smart Thermostat Program
Company Rewards adjusted during high-demand
energy events.
Alliant Energy Smart Hours Customers' smart thermostats Alliant Energy-Alliant Energy®
pre-heat and pre-cool their Smart Hours for Iowa Customers
home before a high energy- Alliant Energy-Alliant Energv@
demand event. Smart Hours for Wisconsin
customers
Consumers Smart Customers' thermostat will be Consumers Energy Smart
Energy Thermostat adjusted during high-demand Thermostat Program FAQ
Program energy events.
Peak Time Customers receive $1 per kWh Peak Time Rewards Program I
Rewards/ saved (or 15%-20% discount) Consumers Energy
Critical Peak when they shift their energy Critical Peak Pricing Program I
Pricing use during events Consumers Energy
Duke Energy EnergyWise Customers receive up to $141 Get Bill Credits- Duke Enerqv
in bill credits for participating
and having a DRU installed
Power Customers may participate in Power Manager-Smart
Manager either the smart thermostat or Thermostat- Duke Energy
DRU program and receive Power Manager-AC Control
annual bill credits and Device - Duke Energy
enrollment incentives
Entergy Smart DLC Customers may bring their Smart Direct Load Control Pilot
Arkansas own thermostat and receive Program—new customers -
$50 enrollment or have a new, Entergy Arkansas
eligible smart thermostat
installed for free. Incentives
range depending on the
number of events opted-out
per season.
Summer Customers may choose to Summer Advantage Program -
Advantage install a DCU and receive Entergy Arkansas
annual bill credits based on
how much they run their AC.
O TETRA TECH 36
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

ProgramDescription •
Evergy Kansas Thermostat Customers' smart thermostats Get Started - Smart Thermostat
Cycling pre-heat and pre-cool their Program
home before a high energy- ks-thermostat-program-terms-
demand event. Customers can and-conditions.pdf
bring their own thermostat and
receive an enrollment
incentive or buy a new, eligible
thermostat through the
marketplace.
MidAmerican SummerSaver Customers' smart thermostats SummerSaver
pre-heat and pre-cool their
home before a high energy-
demand event
Georgia Power Temp JTM and Customers' shift their energy Georgia Power I Save Money on
Flex Hours use out of the hours when it is Electricity and Get Rewards
most in demand.
PSCo Savers Switch Customers'AC unit will cycle Savers Switch I Residential
off and on at 15 to 20 minute Services I Xcel Energy
intervals. Customers may also
choose to enroll their electric
water heater for additional
savings.
AC Smart Customers'thermostat will be AC Rewards I Residential
Thermostat adjusted during high-demand Services I Xcel Energy
Rewards energy events.
O TETRA TECH 37
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 16, 2026

Idaho Power Company
Idaho Power Company
Commercial and Industrial Energy
Efficiency Program - New Construction
2024 Program Year Impact and Process Evaluation Results
• .1Pdik
6,4
� y'�ir.�(i��y��,J�y�'��'�'W' �—�^� =_ :. � 7 :"'•�.:•:it { a��1��►. � � l •t.
*1 �, �� 11.W{�.r•wifC-,•:C- t1A:.�;•,`' 3 � �� - •• 7 11 _ �t�_Cr•_� .� .� -y�: -
w�M.R�` , 1 ` tYs.w. 1�P�o,..�+� i� ► Z _fir.
TETRA TECH
December 19, 2025

L I=-,
11WIN
TETRA TECH
6410 Enterprise Lane, Suite 300 1 Madison, WI 53719
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
tetratech.com
©2022 Tetra Tech, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
O TETRA TECH II
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................1
1.1 Program Description .....................................................................................................................1
1.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................................1
1.3 Findings and Recommendations ..................................................................................................2
1.3.1 Impact Recommendations ...................................................................................................2
1.3.2 Process Recommendations.................................................................................................4
2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................7
2.1 Program Overview........................................................................................................................7
2.2 Evaluation Activities......................................................................................................................9
2.2.1 Evaluation Goals..................................................................................................................9
3.0 IMPACT EVALUATION....................................................................................................................11
3.1 Methodology ...............................................................................................................................11
3.2 Impact Review Results ...............................................................................................................13
3.2.1 Lighting...............................................................................................................................15
3.2.2 HVAC.................................................................................................................................18
3.2.3 Controls..............................................................................................................................19
3.2.4 Compressed Air .................................................................................................................20
3.2.5 Building Shell .....................................................................................................................21
4.0 PROCESS EVALUATION................................................................................................................22
4.1 Methodology ...............................................................................................................................22
4.2 Process Review Results .............................................................................................................22
4.2.1 Third-party Reviewer Interviews.........................................................................................23
4.2.2 Materials and Outreach Review.........................................................................................24
4.2.3 Design Team Interviews.....................................................................................................25
4.2.4 Participant Feedback .........................................................................................................30
O TETRA TECH III
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. PY2024 New Construction Offering Realization Rate.................................................................2
Table 2. PY2021 CIEE New Construction Program — Impact Recommendations Review.......................3
Table 3. PY2021 CIEE New Construction Program — Process Recommendation Review.......................4
Table 4. PY2024 New Construction Offering Evaluation Activities...........................................................9
Table 5. PY2024 New Construction Sampling Summary .......................................................................12
Table 6. PY2024 Realization Rates for Measure Categories .................................................................13
Table 7. PY2024 New Construction Lighting Impact Results Summary.................................................15
Table 8. PY2024 New Construction HVAC Impact Results Summary....................................................18
Table 9. PY2024 New Construction Controls Impact Results Summary................................................19
Table 10. PY2024 New Construction Compressed Air Impact Results Summary..................................20
Table 11. PY2024 New Construction Building Shell Impact Results Summary......................................21
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Impact Evaluation Activities.......................................................................................................1
Figure 2. Process Evaluation Activities.....................................................................................................2
Figure 3. C&I New Construction Option Process......................................................................................8
Figure 4. PY2024 C&I New Construction Participants and Savings by Program Year Rules...................8
Figure 5. Process for Verifying Program Savings...................................................................................11
Figure 6. COMcheck Lighting Efficiency Calculation Factors .................................................................14
Figure 7. COMcheck Lighting Baseline Development Practices.............................................................15
Figure 8. Process Evaluation Activities...................................................................................................22
O TETRA TECH iv
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the many individuals who contributed to the 2024 impact and process
evaluation of the New Construction offering of the Idaho Power Commercial and Industrial Efficiency
program. This evaluation effort would not have been possible without their help and support.
We would like to thank Sheree Willhite, Landon Barber, and Chellie Jensen of Idaho Power, who
provided invaluable insight into the Program and operations. These individuals participated in ongoing
evaluation deliverable reviews and discussions, and graciously responded to follow-up questions, data,
and documentation requests. Tetra Tech also received valuable assistance from Idaho Power Energy
Advisors with scheduling verification visits.
The Tetra Tech Evaluation Team consisted of the following individuals: Kimberly Bakalars, Mark
Bergum, Graham Thorbrogger, Mohammad Qandil, Carter Crowley, Haley Padfield, Hailey McBryde,
and Darling Vang.
O TETRA TECH v
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Tetra Tech is pleased to provide Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power) with a report for the 2025
impact and process evaluation of the 2024 New Construction and Major Renovations (New
Construction) offering of the Idaho Power Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency (CIEE) program.
The Idaho Power CIEE program offers a comprehensive suite of incentives and services to facilitate the
implementation of cost-effective energy efficiency improvements for commercial and industrial (C&I)
customers. Incentives cover retrofits, new construction and major renovation projects, and custom
incentives for cost-effective projects not covered on the menu of incentives.
This report section includes (1) an introduction describing the program, (2) methodology, and (3) key
findings and recommendations. The detailed impact results are available in Section 3, with process
results detailed in Section 4.
1.1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The New Construction offering provides incentives for designing and building better-than-code energy-
efficient features into new construction, major renovation, addition, expansion, or change-of-space
projects. The New Construction offering, which originated in 2004, currently offers a menu of 34
measures, including efficient lighting and controls, building shell, HVAC equipment, HVAC controls,
variable speed drives, refrigeration, compressed air equipment, appliances, and other equipment.
Incentives are available for prescriptive measures that are not already required by code.
The program offers both customer and professional assistance incentives (PAI). Customer incentives
are calculated for each specific measure based on eligibility criteria and applicable units. PAls are
available to architects and engineers for up to 20 percent of the participants' total incentive, with a
maximum of$5,000 per application.
Customers complete the Preliminary Application tab of the New Construction application if they are
interested in receiving New Construction incentives. Idaho Power reviews each application and works
with the customers and vendors to gather sufficient information. Qualification specifications are shared
with the design team, and projects are completed. Then, customers finish the New Construction
application process by submitting all required documentation and emailing it to Idaho Power. Site
verifications are conducted on ten percent of completed projects.
1.2 METHODOLOGY
To address the evaluation objectives, which included verifying energy impacts attributable to the 2024
program, providing estimates of realization rates, and suggesting enhancements to the savings
analysis and reporting, the evaluation team conducted the impact evaluation activities shown in
Figure 1.
Figure 1. Impact Evaluation Activities
Review data a • Complete desk Conduct site Verify kilowatt-hour
conduct sampling reviews verification savings
O TETRA TECH 1
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

Tetra Tech also conducted a process evaluation for the New Construction offering. Figure 2 highlights
the activities undertaken to address the process research objectives.
Figure 2. Process Evaluation Activities
•• Materials and Design Team
interviews outreach review interviews
1.3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The process and impact evaluation for the New Construction offering of the CIEE program found a
successfully run program that actively engages with the marketplace on new construction projects,
influencing the design and construction of new commercial and industrial (C&I) facilities. The program
stays current with code requirements and collaborates with individual buildings to ensure they meet or
exceed code for the applicable design and construction period. The program has historically been
heavily dependent on lighting, which is expected to decrease as more projects in the pipeline update to
the IECC 2018 code.
Overall, the impact evaluation found that the program measures and savings are well-supported and
documented. The evaluation team determined that the realization rate is 99.7 percent for the PY2024
New Construction program.
Table 1. PY2024 New Construction Offering Realization Rate
Program
Program
2024 140 18,162 18,113 99.7%
1.3.1 Impact Recommendations
As part of the impact evaluation, Tetra Tech reviewed Idaho Power's progress against the
recommendations made during the last impact evaluation of the 2021 program. The table below
highlights Idaho Power's actions to address the previous impact recommendations.
O TETRA TECH 2
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

Table 2. PY2021 CIEE New Construction Program—Impact Recommendations Review
MErecommendation Key finding and
Documentation Document project This recommendation has been implemented oceo
worksheets at stages using the internal program file structure by
throughout the process. categorizing documents into folders labeled
'Received', 'Working', and 'Final'. Complete
Calculations Increase program review Idaho Power has strengthened its review of Oe*)
and feedback of the COMcheck submittals by increasing the
submitted code-checking project verification and comparing onsite
software, COMcheck. inspections with the COMcheck submittal. Complete
Calculations Document the HVAC This recommendation has been implemented
control systems that meet using the Controls tab on the reviewer's COOcode and exceed code. project checklist. Each central system has a
checklist for the tons of HVAC equipment and
an indication whether it exceeds or meets Complete
code.
The following impact recommendations are provided for Idaho Power's consideration:
1.3.1.1 PY2024 Impact Recommendations
Standardize the COMcheck submittals lighting baseline. Currently, some projects utilize the
"Reduced Lighting Power" efficiency option. One efficiency option is required for IECC 2018
code compliance, and this option reduces the baseline lighting power density in COMcheck by
10 percent, while the other options do not impact the program-calculated electric savings. To
ensure consistent program implementation across participants, the evaluation team
recommends applying an adjustment only to projects that selected that option, either (a)
increasing the COMcheck-calculated energy savings by 10 percent, or (b) increasing the lighting
baseline used for program-claiming by 10 percent for those projects. This adjustment will
provide similar program claimed savings for projects that use any efficiency option in the 2018
IECC.
Transition Baseline Efficiency Metrics to EER2/SEER2. Idaho Power currently allows
designers to select either the legacy EER/SEER metrics or the newer EER2/SEER2 metrics. In
PY2026, all newly purchased units less than 65,0000 btu/hr will have EER2/SEER2 efficiency
metrics, and the evaluation team recommends updating the primary baseline in the TRM,
application tool, and retrofit worksheet to use this metric. This will align the energy savings with
the updated test conditions, which more accurately reflect actual conditions.
Update the equations in the HVAC worksheet in the New Construction Application Tool.
The evaluation recommends adjusting the energy savings calculation to use the
IEER/SEER/SEER2 baseline values and actual unit efficiencies from the specification sheets to
calculate energy savings. The current HVAC worksheet converts the EER to IEER/SEER using
a conversion factor (0.857).
O TETRA TECH 3
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

Consider adjusting the high-volume low-speed (HVLS) fan measure to differentiate
between conditioned and non-conditioned spaces. The application tool currently applies a
single deemed savings amount for HVLS fans, whereas TRM 2020 specifies two distinct
savings values based on the HVAC configuration of the space. Calculating savings in
accordance with the TRM would yield more accurate electricity savings per participant;
however, the current process accurately estimates program savings, so the adjustment is not a
critical change.
Update baseline lighting zone usage in the TRM. The baseline power densities for exterior
lighting were derived from Lighting Zone 4 in the 2018 IECC. This is the highest level of lighting
and does not match the typical new construction site in Idaho Power territory. We recommend
adjusting the TRM baseline tables to Exterior Lighting Zone 2 or 3 to provide better estimations
in program planning. Continue to calculate the actual project savings using the zone designation
stamped by the designer in the COMcheck submittal.
1.3.2 Process Recommendations
As part of the process evaluation, Tetra Tech reviewed Idaho Power's progress against the
recommendations made during the last process evaluation of the 2021 program. The table below
highlights Idaho Power's actions to address each of the previous process recommendations.
Table 3. PY2021 CIEE New Construction Program— Process Recommendation Review
MEKey findings and
recommendations PY2021 implementation Status
Training Continue to expand in-person In-person training is available, including
outreach and program overview the Idaho Integrated Design Lab and
training where possible lunch-and-learns. 000*
Complete
Tracking Consider developing a IPC has compiled a comprehensive list
consolidated contractor and of contractors and design teams, which
design team list across CIEE includes company and contact names,
programs with substantial contact information (such as phone
overlap numbers and email addresses), license Complete
details, and addresses.
Marketing Consider a leave-behind IPC Energy Advisors leave materials
brochure for contractors with all during visits, the Program Specialist OCO.J
CIEE program offerings provides materials, and materials are
available at sponsored events. Complete
The results of the process evaluation of the New Construction offering of the CIEE program show that it
is a well-managed initiative. Program materials are comprehensive and well-organized, and design
teams felt they received all the necessary information and were generally satisfied with the New
Construction program. Idaho Power staff have followed through on previous recommendations to
create a consolidated list of overlapping CIEE program design teams and contractors, as well as to
expand training opportunities. Some current recommendations involve further extending these efforts.
The following process recommendations are provided for Idaho Power's consideration.
O TETRA TECH 4
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

1.3.2.1 PY2024 Process Recommendations
Continue to maintain program documentation. Idaho Power adheres to best practices by
maintaining a comprehensive program handbook. This, and all other program documentation, is
valuable in managing a well-run program and providing guidance in the event of staffing
changes.
Continue maintenance on the consolidated contractor list. Idaho Power has developed a
detailed consolidated contractor list for the CIEE programs. As we reviewed the list and utilized
it for evaluation outreach, we identified a few areas for potential improvement that will further
enhance the accuracy and benefits of the list.
• Create a data dictionary tab to define variables, which will help new viewers understand the
list. Some variables, like the "active" and "status check" column headers, are unclear, so
having a definitions tab will reduce confusion.
• Including a column that indicates which contact at a firm is the primary contact or who is
involved with program applications will help ensure they receive emails and updates. This
will also aid in future process evaluations, ensuring accurate representation of experiences
with the program application.
• Performing regular maintenance and recording the updated dates will help keep names,
phone numbers, email addresses, and physical addresses accurate and current. During
outreach for contractor interviews, about 23 percent of contacts were outdated or incorrect,
including wrong phone numbers, contact names of individuals who no longer work at those
companies, or undeliverable email addresses.
Consider creating an application checklist. There is substantial overlap among third-party
reviewers and firms regarding the difficulty in gathering and submitting program documentation.
Some firms said that program participation is not always worthwhile, as the program
documentation is time-consuming, especially for smaller projects. Specifically, the third-party
reviewers and firms expressed frustration with collecting information from multiple parties (e.g.,
invoices, proof of purchase letters, and owner signatures). The third-party reviewers suggested
creating an application checklist. A Quick Reference Check List for Project Submissions is
available for the Retrofit program, located in the Idaho Power Commercial & Industrial Energy
Efficiency Program Retrofits 2024 Handbook and the Retrofit Lighting Tool application.
Developing a similar checklist for the New Construction program and making it accessible on
the IPC website or within the New Construction application could help design teams and
contractors ensure all documents are included in the submittal. This could reduce frustration
and the need for as much follow-up by program staff and third-party reviewers.
Review options for the Professional Assistance Incentive level. Interviews conducted by
Tetra Tech and Idaho Power revealed similar findings with the Professional Assistance
Incentive level. Many firms felt that the incentive level is not proportional to the amount of work
required for the program, with some firms stating that they break even on these projects. The
PAI does not need to be so high that it makes the design team whole, but not covering enough
time may result in design teams avoiding the New Construction offering.
IReview communication methods between Idaho Power staff, third-party reviewers, and
design teams. Idaho Power has continued to hold in-person training sessions, most notably
O TETRA TECH 5
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

with the IDL and lunch-and-learns. There is also extensive documentation on the New
Construction website regarding program eligibility and requirements. However, a few design
teams have expressed interest in additional training topics, such as program procedures,
program changes, information about incentives, and updates, as well as details about
application and eligibility requirements. Although IPC already provides extensive documentation
to address these questions, some design teams are seeking further clarification.
O TETRA TECH 6
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROGRAM OVERVIEW
The CIEE program's New Construction offering provides incentives for designing and building better-
than-code energy-efficient features into new construction, major renovation, addition, expansion, or
change-of-space projects. The offering originated in 2004 and currently offers a menu of 34 measures,
including efficient lighting and controls, building shell, HVAC equipment, HVAC controls, variable speed
drives, refrigeration, compressed air equipment, appliances, and other equipment. Incentives are
available for prescriptive measures that are not already required by code.
The program offers both customer and Professional Assistance Incentives (PAI). Customer incentives
are calculated for each specific measure based on eligibility criteria and applicable units. PAls are
available to architects and engineers for up to 20 percent of the participants' total incentive, with a
maximum of$5,000 per application.
Customer incentives • - •
• Specific to measure type and • 20 percent of total participant
calculated by sq ft, kWh saved, incentive
cooling capacity, per hp, per unit, etc • Maximum of$5,000 per applicant
• Eligibility requirements outlined in
New Construction brochure
Idaho Power's New Construction offering manual outlines all the incentives available and the steps to
participate in the program. The PAI increases the engagement with architects and engineers and is
most beneficial to small- and medium-sized businesses that typically do not have staff with a technical
background in construction, which makes completing applications and submitting documentation
challenging.
If they are interested in receiving new construction incentives, customers complete the Preliminary
Application tab of the New Construction application. Idaho Power reviews each application and works
with the customers and vendors to gather sufficient information. Qualification specifications are shared
with the design team, and projects are completed. Then, customers finish the New Construction
application process by submitting all required documentation and emailing it to Idaho Power. Site
verifications are conducted on ten percent of completed projects.
O TETRA TECH 7
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

Figure 3. C8d New Construction Option Process
Assess
Design for Begin New Complete Complete
Energy Construction Project Final
Efficiency(EE) Application Application
Opportunities
Discuss EE Download and Collect spec • Attach
options with complete sheets documentation
design team preliminary Collect proof of including
Research tab performance invoices and
requirements Email for IPC documentation proof of
for incentive review payment
qualification Share Attach
qualification COMcheck if
specs wtih needed
design team Attach control
(Professional strategy
Design summary if
Assistance needed
incentive) Email for IPC
review
The New Construction offering introduces a new program format roughly every other year. Each update
adjusts savings according to the current code, conditions, and information documented in the Technical
Reference Manual (TRM) at that time. When customers submit a preliminary application, they are
assigned the savings and incentives available under that program format for the entire duration of the
project. Since new construction projects often have lengthy construction periods, they require
consistent and reliable incentives. Therefore, savings and incentives may be recorded years later. The
latest 2023 application format, introduced on September 5, 2023, reflects the current code, costs, and
savings in TRM Version 3.
In 2024, the program completed 140 projects, resulting in total savings of 18,162 MWh. Most of the
savings were generated using the 2021 savings program rules, and only 16 percent of the savings used
the 2016 version of the program rules. About 23 percent of the savings were attributed to projects using
the 2018 program rules version.
Figure 4. PY2024 CBI New Construction Participants and Savings by Program Year Rules
Participants 216 2018 1021
Savings 2018 2021
(MWh) MIWL 11,177
■2016 ■2018 2021
O TETRA TECH 8
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

The program savings in PY2024 were over 67 percent in lighting and controls. The categories of HVAC,
building controls, and compressed air contribute most of the remaining savings, with a limited number
of measures installed in refrigeration, building shell, and appliances. This breakdown of savings is
typical for a C&I New Construction program and identifies the risk to program savings as lighting code
baselines increase efficiency, reducing lighting savings.
2.2 EVALUATION ACTIVITIES
The evaluation activities conducted for the New Construction offering projects are summarized in Table
4. Researchable issues are also discussed in this section.
Table 4. PY2024 New Construction Offering Evaluation Activities
Outcome
-Activity Sample size
Program delivery staff 3 Understood the program design and delivery and obtained
interview program staff perspectives on program successes and
challenges. Confirmed the researchable issues.
Program delivery and N/A Reviewed the marketing brochures, program manuals,
marketing material review outreach plans, and the program website for messaging and
communication benefits.
Tracking system review N/A Reviewed the tracking system to determine if all necessary
inputs are tracked and if reporting tools contain sufficient
information for program review.
Desk reviews 16 Reviewed project documentation and calculations to assess
the accuracy of savings claimed for each project. This
included review of the energy savings calculations for
conformance to the TRM for the version year identified.
Verification on-site visits 8 Completed site visits to verify the installation of measures
and assumptions in savings calculations. Verified that the
locations matched projects that had a completed desk
review.
Architect and engineer 10 Collected feedback from builders and design engineers
interviews working with the program, which included satisfaction and
suggested improvements.
2.2.1 Evaluation Goals
The impact and process evaluation goals outlined in the RFP were addressed through the evaluation
activities listed above.
Impact Evaluation
• Review the tracking database to determine and verify the energy (kilowatt-hour) impacts
attributable to the 2024 program.
• Complete file reviews and verify engineering calculations with 90/10 (relative error of no more
than 10 percent with 90 percent confidence) confidence and precision.
• Provide credible and reliable program energy and non-energy impact estimates and ex-post
realization rates for projects finalized in 2024.
O TETRA TECH 9
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

• Report findings and observations and provide recommendations that enhance the effectiveness
of future ex-ante savings analyses and the accurate and transparent reporting of program
savings.
• Verify installation and operating conditions of equipment.
Process Evaluation
• Assess program design, including mission, logic, and use of industry best practices.
• Review program implementation, including quality control, operational practices, and outreach
for all project types.
• Evaluate program administration, including oversight, staffing, management, training,
documentation, and reporting processes.
• Evaluate the program's major successes, challenges, and opportunities for potential savings.
• Document findings and observations and provide recommendations to enhance program
effectiveness.
O TETRA TECH 10
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

3.0 IMPACT EVALUATION
The following sections provide a detailed review of the impact evaluation methodology, evaluation
results, and recommendations from the evaluation activities.
3.1 METHODOLOGY
The impact methodology consisted of the four primary evaluation activities shown in Figure 5. Each
activity is explained in more detail below.
Figure 5. Process for Verifying Program Savings
Review .. . .and Complete desk Conduct site Verify kilowatt-hour
conduct samplingreviews verification savings
Review Data and Conduct Sampling
The tracking system and documentation were provided to the evaluation team for review, which
included information from Idaho Power and the participants. The participants provided information
through the Project Pre-Approval and Final Applications for the New Construction offering. It included
the following:
• account information, including business name and account number, installation address, and
contact information
• a project description
• estimated project costs and savings
• project timeline information (dates)
• payee information, if different from the account holder
Idaho Power logged this information and stored it in the program tracking database, CLRIS. In addition
to the information above, the CLRIS database includes:
• a customer ID
• the IPC project representative and region
• customer rate class, SIC code, building type, and owner-occupant status
• version year and report year
• pre-application, final application, and inspection dates
• project type and area
• participant, architect, and applicable engineer contact information
• measure description and category type
• gross kilowatt and kilowatt-hour savings and incentives per measure
O TETRA TECH 11
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

The documentation files provided for the New Construction offering included both the application
submittal and the verification analysis, along with a post-installation final project review document. The
files Idaho Power provided included:
• the application
• engineering analysis and calculations
• verification report
• tracking system screenshot of project closeout
• a post-installation project description
In addition to output from CLRIS and documentation files, Idaho Power program staff made the
following supporting manuals available to the Tetra Tech team for review:
• New Construction offering tracking database download for program year (PY) 2024
• Technical Reference Manuals (TRM) Version 3.2
• New Construction Verification Process 2023
• New Construction Handbook 2025
• New Construction Program Instructions 2025
• Simple Process Flow Diagram
Sampling was conducted at the project level. Using tracking data from the New Construction database,
the sampling was stratified to ensure that the random sample would better align with the evaluation's
goals. The stratum was selected to isolate critical measures of new construction projects. The sampling
is summarized in Table 5.
Table 5. PY2024 New Construction Sampling Summary
ProgramTotal
Measure Projects Savings Projects Savings
(Total Qty.)* percentage (Total Qty.)* percentage
Air-Conditioning 73 8.237. 7 1.36%
Appliances w/ Electric Water Heating I 5 0.05% - -
Building Shell 31 0.90% 3 0.20%
Compressed Air Equipment 24 5.49% 3 0.96%
Controls 41 17.35% 4 3.92%
Lighting 93 67.97% 9 16.99%
Refrigeration 1 0.02% - -
Total 140 100.00% 16 23.43%
"Individual projects may have savings in multiple categories.The sum of the number of projects in each measure category is more than the
total number of projects.
The objective of the impact evaluation was to meet the precision requirement of 90/10 (relative error of
no more than 10 percent with 90 percent confidence). Most projects were selected using a probability
proportional to size (PPS) method, based on kWh savings, ensuring that projects contributing larger
energy savings had a correspondingly higher probability of inclusion. However, to maintain balance and
avoid oversampling of large projects, stratified random sampling was applied within measure and size
O TETRA TECH 12
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

categories. In total, 16 projects were selected to provide a comprehensive and regionally balanced
sample that supports robust evaluation of program impacts.
The list of sampled projects was delivered to Idaho Power. Individual project files were securely
delivered to the evaluation team via an internet-based file-sharing site that required login access. The
files delivered included:
• applications and worksheets (administrative copies),
• submitted project documents and emails,
• equipment specifications,
• post-install site verification reports, and
• incentive payment verification.
Complete Desk Reviews and Site Verifications
Tetra Tech staff conducted desk reviews of the sampled project files. This engineering documentation
review was conducted to describe the project, confirm tracking data, identify key assumptions, and
determine critical questions before the site verification phase.
Tetra Tech engineers conducted site verification visits from September 29 to October 3 and from
October 6 to 10. Staff completed site visits by interviewing participants and verifying quantities,
equipment specifications, and operating parameters.
Verify Kilowatt-Hour Savings
The final step of the impact evaluation combined information from desk reviews and site verifications to
provide quality assurance for each reviewed project, describe any revisions to project assumptions and
actual conditions, and update calculations to finalize evaluated savings.
The data gathered from the site verifications was reconciled with the information from the initial desk
reviews. Desk reviews and site verifications were completed for eight participants, and the remaining
eight had only a desk review completed.
3.2 IMPACT REVIEW RESULTS
Overall, the evaluators found that the New Construction offering had a realization rate of 99.7 percent
with a relative precision of 2.45 percent at the 90 percent confidence interval. The overall and measure-
category realization rates of the sample are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. PY2024 Realization Rates for Measure Categories
Ex-postMeasure category Ex-ante kWh
Air-Conditioning 247,339 255,001 103.1%
Building Shell 36,759 36,760 100.0%
Compressed Air Equipment 174,857 174,858 100.0%
Controls 711,584 657,444 92.4%
Lighting 3,085,326 3,120,294 101.1%
4,255,865 4,244,358
O TETRA TECH 13
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

The New Construction offering documentation is clear, and the application workbook generally provides
sufficient direction and communication of project parameters from design teams and contractors to
Idaho Power. Program staff are currently adjusting the application form to simplify the data entry and
pre-approval process, providing the necessary information to utilize EER2/SEER2/HSPF2 efficiency
ratings.
Savings calculations for the reviewed projects were aligned with the TRM 2020 methodology and
consistently followed the appropriate code for the savings analysis. The evaluation team found that the
HVAC calculator either converts EER to IEER/SEER using a 0.857 conversion factor or applies EER
directly before estimating savings. In contrast, the reviewed approach used IEER/SEER values sourced
directly from TRM 2020 and from the equipment specification sheets included in the project
documentation and the HVAC calculator. This approach eliminates discrepancies introduced by
intermediate conversions, ensuring consistency, transparency, and comparability across projects and
reporting periods. Adopting the TRM 2020 equations simplifies and standardizes HVAC savings
calculations going forward.
Each project submits a COMcheck report for the lighting and HVAC equipment. This document includes
assumptions for the building design and operation that are determined by the Architect or Engineer of
record. Several components impact the energy efficiency calculation, but the most significant
assumptions are the details of the lit area, exterior lighting zone area type, and the interior lighting
efficiency package selection. These selections set the baseline allowable wattage for interior and
exterior areas and can dramatically impact the energy savings for a project.
Figure 6. COMcheck Lighting Efficiency Calculation Factors
Interior {
•Space by Space method or Building Area Method selection is most
Area Calculation impactful for buildings with unique spaces, like atriums or performance
spaces.
•In IECC 2018 the design team must select and efficiency package, one of
Efficiency Package the packages is the "Reduced Lighting Power"decreases the allowable
lighting wattage by 10/o while other packages do not impact the electric
energy efficiency calculations.
Exterior {
•Different types of exterior lighted areas have difference baseline
Area Calculation wattages. Breaking the areas into parking/drive, canopies, loading
dock, and walkways have the most impact for Commercial Buildings.
-The lighting zone assumption ranges from 1 to 4 (rural to city center).
Lighting Zone Each exterior lighting zone has a different allowable wattage and
savings increases as the lighting zone increase. The majority of new
construction is in zones 2 and 3.
The four selections identified in Figure 6 have a variable impact on each individual building and cannot
be consistently adjusted without further tracking. Tracking these items from the COMcheck will enable
Idaho Power to understand the impact of the COMcheck assumptions and normalize energy savings
calculations between participants by providing a consistent approach to lighting baseline development.
Figure 7 provides practices that can be used to normalize the development of the lighting baseline.
O TETRA TECH 14
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

Figure 7. COMcheck Lighting Baseline Development Practices
Interior
Area Calculation •Continue to allow either Space by Space method or Building Area
Method selection.
Efficiency Package •If the "Reduced Lighting Power" efficiency package is selected in the
submitted, increase the allowable watts per square foot by 10%.
Exterior
Area Calculation •Review areas submitted and ensure that all lighted area types for the
project are selected.
r -When a project is submitted with the Exterior Lighting Zone 4 selected,
create a conversion table to adjust the allowable wattage to Zone 3 or
Lighting Zone Zone 2.
•If full consistency is required, develop a similar table to transfer
between Zone 2 and Zone 3 to the selected baseline
Overall, the evaluation team found that the confirmation of proposed or installed equipment was
consistent, with only minor adjustments to equipment quantities. The savings adjustments outside the
COMcheck adjustments were based on the evaluation team's use of third-party testing results from the
Design Lights Consortium (DLC) and the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) to
determine the capacity, efficiency, and wattage of the equipment.
3.2.1 Lighting
Lighting projects account for approximately 68 percent of the 2024 New Construction offering savings.
The sample included nine projects with lighting components, accounting for about 72 percent of the
sampled kilowatt-hours. Five of the sampled projects included at least one other non-lighting project.
Table 7 shows realization rates for each project, with a total realization rate for lighting savings claimed
at 101.1 percent.
Table 7. PY2024 New Construction Lighting Impact Results Summary
Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization rate
16469 2,316,880 2,316,880 100.0%
21167 261,270 268,920 102.9%
18512 190,453 188,752 99.1%
21373 159,032 177,742 111.8%
21360 88,672 98,834 111.5%
18160 47,633 47,746 100.2%
21497 13,926 13,939 100.1%
21519 6,901 6,921 100.3%
O TETRA TECH 15
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

Project
21295 559 559 100.1%
Overall 3,085,326 3,120,294 101.1%
The lighting energy efficiency calculations were determined by identifying the code-allowable lighting
power density (LPD) and subtracting the installed lighting wattage. Evaluation adjustments from
savings occurred for four primary reasons:
1. COMcheck efficiency package selection,
2. adjustment to the lighting area or space type in the LPD determination,
3. adjustment of the lighting quantity based on the evaluation and the on-site visits, and
4. adjustment of lighting fixture wattage based on third-party certification used by the
evaluation team.
The most significant risk to the accuracy of future program energy savings is the adjustments made
based on interior and exterior lighting area and type for the LPD determination. The individual project
calculation used the results of the COMcheck, which relies on the accuracy of the COMcheck submittal
to meet minimum code requirements. The energy efficiency calculations may vary because the design
team is not using the COMcheck to detail the energy savings to the level desired by the program. The
most significant factor in these assumptions for the evaluated projects was the exterior lighting zone,
which was adjusted in the evaluated energy savings calculations and could be responsible for up to a
10 percent variation in the energy savings.
The second item that impacted lighting energy savings in COMcheck was the selection of the Efficiency
Package in projects that utilized the IECC 2018. IECC 2018 requires the selection of one of eight
Efficiency Packages. One package, the "Reduced Lighting Power", reduces the baseline allowable
wattage by 10 percent in COMcheck, which decreases the difference between the installed equipment
and the baseline and leads to claimed savings that are approximately 11 percent lower than those of a
project that selects any of the other seven Efficiency Packages. The evaluation team removed the
impact of the selection of the "Reduced Lighting Power" Efficiency Package so that all participants'
projects are treated equally in the energy efficiency calculation. This change impacted three of the
sampled participants (IDs 18512, 21360, and 21373).
The TRM lighting equipment specification section identifies the Qualified Product List (QPL) for each
lighting fixture installed, allowing for exceptions. The lighting input wattage collected is entered on the
product type sheet; however, using the QPL-listed wattages is not specified. The evaluation team
adjusted wattages to meet the QPL listing on about one-third of the sampled projects. The evaluation
team adjusts wattages to match the DLC QPL-listed wattages, as third-party independent testing of
individual fixture energy consumption ensures consistency across lighting fixtures in the marketplace.
Since the lighting input wattage increased and decreased through this adjustment, the overall impact of
these adjustments is minimal at the program level.
The descriptions below detail the evaluation findings for each lighting savings adjustment.
Project ID 16469: The site is a barn, classified as a warehouse type, where NC LED lighting is being
installed. An on-site visit was conducted for this location. We found no discrepancies between the
tracking system data and documentation. The realization rate is 100 percent.
O TETRA TECH 16
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

Project ID 21167: A manufacturing facility installed new DLC-qualified LED lighting with controls.
Fixture wattages were updated per the DLC certificates. We adjusted the occupancy sensor
quantities from 189 to 190 as per the provided lighting plans. The realization rate is 102.9 percent.
Protect ID 18512: The project involved installing interior and exterior LED lighting controls in a new
warehouse. An on-site visit was conducted to verify existing conditions. The interior LPD was
adjusted from 0.43 to 0.48 to match the 2018 IECC requirement for warehouses. Fixture wattages
were updated per the DLC certificates, and interior fixture quantities were revised according to the
provided lighting plans. For the exterior, the parking area was refined from 141,995 ft2 to 128,750 ft2
based on Google Earth measurements. Non-tradable illuminated-area baseline wattages were
removed from the calculation, as per ComCheck. The lighting zone was adjusted from Zone 4 to
Zone 2 in accordance with the 2018 IECC definitions and the building's location. As a result, the
calculated energy savings decreased slightly, yielding a lighting savings realization rate of 99.1
percent.
Project ID 21373: A new warehouse building was fitted with LED exit signs, interior LED lighting with
occupancy sensors, and exterior LED lighting. We found that the claimed savings relied on
unattributed deemed per-unit values. We calculated the savings using the IPC TRM 2020
algorithms. For exterior lighting, the baseline for evaluated savings equals the sum of the allowed
wattages for the three outdoor areas defined in the Idaho TRM 2020 calculations, plus a 500 W
allowance; claimed savings added 485 W to an otherwise identical baseline. The interior lighting
power density (LPD) was adjusted from 0.43 to 0.48 to match the 2018 IECC requirement for
warehouses. For the occupancy sensors, we used the sensor-specific algorithms from the Idaho
TRM 2020. The resulting realization rate for lighting savings is 111.8 percent.
Project ID 21360: A school was built with interior and exterior LED fixtures. The interior lighting LPD
was adjusted from 0.73 to 0.81 to match the value in IECC 2018 for a school/university. An on-site
visit was conducted for this location. Fixture wattages were updated per the DLC certificates.
Fixture quantities were adjusted based on the site visit. The resulting realization rate for lighting
savings is 111.5 percent.
Project ID 18160: This project for a new airplane hangar with office space was equipped with interior
and exterior LED lighting and LED exit signs. We found that the claimed savings relied on
unattributed deemed per-unit values. The evaluated savings were calculated using the IPC TRM
2020 algorithms. As a result, the energy savings increased slightly, yielding a lighting realization
rate of 100.2 percent.
Project ID 21497: Interior LED lighting, occupancy sensors, and LED exit signs were installed in an
indoor storage building. An on-site visit was conducted to verify existing conditions. We found two
types of exit signs: two signs at 1 W each and three signs with emergency lights at 2 W each. We
adjusted the HCIF-Energy factor for exit signs from 0.8 to 1.03 to match the conditioned-storage
value for Weather Zone 5. As a result, the energy savings increased slightly, yielding a lighting
realization rate of 100.1 percent.
Project ID 21519: The site is a new office building with LED exit signs and LED interior lighting
installed. We changed the exit sign wattages from 2W to 1.5W to match the spec sheet and the
'LED Exit Sign, 1.5W Lamp, Single Sided' Installed fixture wattage from Table 2-15 in the IPC2020
TRM. The resulting realization rate for lighting savings is 100.3 percent.
Project ID 21295: The site is a small retail store that installed two occupancy sensors. We found no
discrepancies between the tracking system data and documentation. The realization rate is 100.1
percent.
O TETRA TECH 17
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

3.2.2 HVAC
HVAC projects account for about eight percent of the 2024 New Construction offering savings. The
sample included seven projects, which accounted for around six percent of the total sampled energy
savings. Table 8 shows the realization rate for the claimed savings is 103.1 percent.
Table 8. PY2024 New Construction HVAC Impact Results Summary
Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization rate
21450 167,325 166,070 99.2%
18160 33,926 33,664 99.2%
21167 20,167 31,926 158.3%
21382 16,732 16,105 96.3%
21360 7,442 3,805 51.1%
21295 1,091 3,230 296.0%
21439 656 201 30.7%
Overall 247,339 255,001 103.1%
The HVAC category has one major adjustment; however, because the savings represent a relatively
small portion of the entire program, the overall impact was limited. This adjustment addressed the
calculation tool's methodology, which did not fully follow the TRM 2020 guidelines.
The descriptions below detail the evaluation findings for each HVAC project savings adjustment.
Project ID 21450: The site is an industrial facility that installed ten high-volume, low-speed fans. An on-
site visit was conducted for this location. In accordance with TRM 2020, we adjusted the per-fan
savings rate from 16,732.5 kWh to 16,105 kWh for the six fans in the unconditioned warehouse
area, and to 17,360 kWh for the four fans in the conditioned office area. The resulting realization
rate for the HVAC component is 99.2 percent.
Protect ID 18160: The project consisted of installing an air source heat pump at a new airplane hangar
with office space. The savings calculation was adjusted to match the savings equations in the TRM
2020. The discrepancy arises because the in-house calculator converts EER to SEER (using a
0.857 factor) or applies the straight EER and then multiplies it by the equivalent full-load hours
(EFLH) to estimate savings. We followed the TRM 2020 methodology, using IEER/SEER values
directly from TRM 2020 for the baseline and from the unit's specification sheet for the installed
equipment. The resulting realization rate for this measure is 99.2 percent.
Project ID 21167: The project included installing five VRF heat pump units at a manufacturing facility.
The capacity values for the YVAHR360B42S (VRF-201, VRF-202, VRF-203, and VRF-204) units
were adjusted from 30 tons to 29 tons per AHRI certifications. The savings calculation was adjusted
to match the savings equations in the TRM 2020. The discrepancy arises because the in-house
calculator converts EER to SEER (using a 0.857 factor) or applies the straight EER and then
multiplies it by the EFLH to estimate savings. We followed the TRM 2020 methodology, using
IEER/SEER values directly from TRM 2020 for the baseline and from the unit's specification sheet
for the installed equipment. The combined adjustments resulted in a 158.3 percent realization rate
for HVAC.
O TETRA TECH 18
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

Project ID 21382: The site is an industrial facility that installed a high-volume low-speed fan. We
adjusted the savings rate from 16,732.5 kWh per fan to 16,105 kWh per fan, in accordance with
TRM 2020. The resulting realization rate is 96.3 percent for the HVAC component.
Project ID 21360: The project consisted of 53 heat pump units and three split units for a primary
school. An on-site visit was conducted for this location. The savings calculation was adjusted to
match the savings equations in the TRM 2020. The discrepancy arises because the in-house
calculator converts EER to SEER (using a 0.857 factor) or applies the straight EER and then
multiplies it by the EFLH to estimate savings. We followed the TRM 2020 methodology, using
IEER/SEER values directly from TRM 2020 for the baseline and from the unit's specification sheet
for the installed equipment. The resulting realization rate for this measure is 51.1 percent.
Project ID 21295: The HVAC portion of this project consisted of two RTU units at a small retail store.
The capacity values for the RTU units were adjusted from 6.5 tons to 6.2 tons per AHRI
certification. The savings calculation was adjusted to match the savings equations in the TRM 2020.
The discrepancy arises because the in-house calculator converts EER to SEER (using a 0.857
factor) or applies the straight EER and then multiplies it by the EFLH to estimate savings. We
followed the TRM 2020 methodology, using IEER/SEER values directly from TRM 2020 for the
baseline and from the unit's specification sheet for the installed equipment. The combined
adjustments resulted in a 296 percent realization rate for HVAC.
Project ID 21439: The site is a small retail store that installed a 60,000 Btu/hr RTU. The savings
calculation was adjusted to match the savings equations in the TRM 2020. An on-site visit was
conducted for this location. The discrepancy arises because the in-house calculator converts EER
to SEER (using a 0.857 factor) or applies the straight EER and then multiplies it by the EFLH to
estimate savings. We followed the TRM 2020 methodology, using IEER/SEER values directly from
TRM 2020 for the baseline and from the unit's specification sheet for the installed equipment.
Based on the on-site visit, we adjusted the unit model number from YHC067E3 to YHC060F3, and
the full-load efficiency EER from 13 to 12.85, as well as the part-load efficiency SEER from 17 to
15. The combined adjustments resulted in a 30.7 percent realization rate for HVAC.
3.2.3 Controls
Controls projects account for 17 percent of the 2024 New Construction offering savings. The sample
included four projects, which accounted for 17 percent of the sampled kilowatt-hours. Table 9 shows
that the realized rate for the claimed savings is slightly over 92.4 percent.
Table 9. PY2024 New Construction Controls Impact Results Summary
Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization rate
21440 357,900 357,900 100.0%
21167 158,304 158,304 100.0%
18512 153,300 100,769 65.7%
21360 42,080 40,471 96.2%
Overall 711,584 657,444 92.4%
The control projects in the sample primarily involved variable frequency drives (VFDs) installed on fans,
and we found that no adjustments were needed for these. However, the remaining projects used
multiple control strategies for HVAC systems. The main adjustment for those control projects involved
aligning the HVAC unit capacities with the provided documentation.
O TETRA TECH 19
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

The descriptions below detail the evaluation findings for each control savings adjustment.
Project ID 21440: This project included the installation of 12 VSDs on 12 ventilation fan motors for an
onion storage area. An on-site visit was conducted for this location. There were no discrepancies
between the tracking system data and documentation. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 21167: This project consisted of the installation of 12 VSDs on supply, return, and exhaust
fans for eight HVAC units for a manufacturing facility. There were no discrepancies between the
tracking system data and documentation. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 18512: The project included installing an energy management system with three control
strategies on six RTUs. An on-site visit was conducted for this location, although the strategies
could not be verified by the site contact. The evaluation team found that the installed control system
creates efficiencies above the code-required control system. We adjusted the total controlled
tonnage for the RTUs from 300 to 232 tons as per the HVAC schedules. The resulting realization
rate is 65.7 percent.
Project ID 21360: This project involved the installation of two condenser water pumps, each equipped
with 15 HP VSD motors; two kitchen hood exhaust VSD fans (one 5 HP and one 0.333 HP); and
the installation of optimum start/stop mode controllers on four package units for a new primary
school. An on-site visit was conducted for this location. We adjusted the total controlled tonnage for
the RTUs from 55 to 48 tons per HVAC submittal. The resulting realization rate is 96.2 percent.
3.2.4 Compressed Air
Compressed air projects account for about six percent of the total 2024 New Construction offering
savings. The sample included three projects, which accounted for about four percent of the sampled
kilowatt-hours. Table 10 shows the realization rate for each project.
Table 10. PY2024 New Construction Compressed Air Impact Results Summary
Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization rate
21133 101,877 101,878 100.0%
21367 49,255 49,255 100.0%
21344 23,725 23,725 100.0%
Overall 174,857 174,858 100.0%
The descriptions below detail the evaluation findings; no adjustments were made for the compressed
air measures.
Project ID 21133: The site was an industrial facility that installed two air compressors with VSD, two
refrigerated compressed air dryers, and two no-loss condensate drains. No discrepancies were
found between the tracking system data and documentation. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 21367: The site was an industrial facility that installed one air compressor with VSD and one
refrigerated compressed air dryer. An on-site visit was conducted for this location. No discrepancies
were found between the tracking system data and documentation. The realization rate is 100
percent.
O TETRA TECH 20
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

Protect ID 21344: An industrial facility installed a 25 hp air compressor with a VSD. No discrepancies
were found between the tracking system data and documentation. The realization rate is 100
percent.
3.2.5 Building Shell
Building shell projects account for less than one percent of the total 2024 New Construction, offering
savings. The sample included three projects, which accounted for less than one percent of the sampled
kilowatt-hours. Table 11 shows the realization rate for each project.
Table 11. PY2024 New Construction Building Shell Impact Results Summary
Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization rate
18512 17,969 17,969 100.0%
21167 14,494 14,495 100.0%
21360 4,296 4,296 100.0%
Overall 36,759 36,760 100.0%
The descriptions below detail the evaluation findings; no adjustments were made for the building shell
measures.
Project ID 18512: This project consists of the installation of a reflective roof for a new warehouse. An
on-site visit was conducted for this location. No discrepancies were found between the tracking
system data and documentation. The realization rate for this measure is 100 percent.
Protect ID 21167: This project consists of the installation of a reflective roof for a new manufacturing
facility. No discrepancies were found between the tracking system data and documentation. The
realization rate for this measure is 100 percent.
Project ID 21360: This project consists of the installation of a reflective roof for a new primary school.
An on-site visit was conducted for this location. No discrepancies were found between the tracking
system data and documentation. The realization rate for this measure is 100 percent.
O TETRA TECH 21
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

EVALUATION4.0 PROCESS i
The following sections provide a detailed review of the process evaluation methodology, evaluation
results, and recommendations from the evaluation activities.
4.1 METHODOLOGY
The process methodology consisted of three primary evaluation activities, shown in Figure 8. Each
activity is explained below.
Figure 8. Process Evaluation Activities
Program staff Materials and Contractor interviews
interview outreach review
Program Staff and Third-party Reviewer Interviews
Idaho Power staff responsible for the program delivery provided Tetra Tech staff with an overview of
the program design, objectives, staffing, outreach, procedures, tracking, and achievements. Idaho
Power program staff also responded to evaluation questions and provided any requested materials.
Tetra Tech staff also interviewed two third-party reviewers in September 2025 about the C&I New
Construction offering. kW Engineering and Evergreen Energy provided insights into their processes and
feedback about the program.
Materials and Outreach Review
Tetra Tech reviewed the program and outreach materials provided by Idaho Power. The program
material reviewed included process flow diagrams, program handbook, program instructions, and the
verification process. The outreach material review included brochures, bill inserts, a Linkedln post, and
a book advertisement in the Idaho Business Review. The program logic model was also reviewed.
Design Team Interviews
Customers collaborate with architects and engineers to design energy-efficient buildings that qualify for
Idaho Power's New Construction program, which offers incentives. Idaho Power provided a list of 116
firms that had completed projects in the past, and Tetra Tech sampled 62 of these firms. All contacts
associated with each firm were emailed and followed up with via telephone, and Tetra Tech was able to
complete 10 interviews with individuals who could provide feedback on the New Construction offering.
Along with interviews conducted by Tetra Tech staff, Idaho Power staff also carried out feedback
interviews with 12 firms that received New Construction incentives. Tetra Tech reviewed these results
for consistency or discrepancies with our interview findings.
4.2 PROCESS REVIEW RESULTS
Idaho Power follows program management best practices with a program manual and logic model
developed for the CIEE suite of programs. Communication between Idaho Power, architects, and
engineers is working well, and engineers find the program worthwhile. However, they make
suggestions for improving the program documentation and incentive levels.
O TETRA TECH 22
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

4.2.1 Third-party Reviewer Interviews
Tetra Tech staff interviewed two third-party reviewers about the New Construction program. kW
Engineering and Evergreen Energy provided insights into their processes and feedback about the
program.
kW Engineering reviews the completeness of different submitted documents, including design
submittals, equipment schedules, and control proposals, and follows up on any missing information or
documents. Their team also conducts site verifications as needed. After the paperwork is submitted and
completed, the project is cleared and sent to Idaho Power for final approval and payment.
Evergreen Energy conducts reviews and site verifications for new construction lighting projects. The
verification involves verifying the design specifications of installed fixtures and ensuring that lighting
controls are properly commissioned. Any discrepancies and findings are documented to determine the
project's eligibility for incentives. Evergreen Energy also reviews submitted applications to ensure that
all required fields are completed correctly for submitted projects. During the payment process, their
team compares submitted invoices and spec sheets with the application and follows up on any missing
or conflicting information. After the savings are confirmed, the project is cleared and sent to Idaho
Power for final approval and payment.
kW Engineering WMFVergreen Energy
• Lighting projects • Lighting projects
• Non-lighting projects • Application verification
• Application verification • Site verification
• Site verification • Contractor follow-up
• Contractor follow-up
Both Evergreen Energy and kW Engineering stated that they are satisfied with the communication with
Idaho Power staff and that Evergreen Energy's verification workflow is a streamlined process and is
"fun to do". kW Engineering noted that equipment selections and controls specifications are influenced
by early involvement, and that long-term customer relationships help sustain success with the program.
[Monthly meeting with IPCJ is "helpful to get on the
same page with all the projects we are working on. "
— kW Engineering
Regarding program feedback, one issue that kW Engineering sometimes faces is that files occasionally
have missing forms or incorrect forms are attached, such as incorrect invoices, spec sheets, or
signatures that require follow-up and correction. To address this, kW Engineering proposed creating an
online eligibility guide or self-service tool for design teams and contractors to use in verifying program
requirements. Another suggestion was to create a standardized "application checklist" that can be
distributed to trade allies, including the forms, signature lines, and other required documents. These
suggestions can help to ensure that applications are submitted with more complete and correct forms.
Additionally, kW Engineering suggests using a whole-building model for a more "customer-centric
approach" as it emphasizes building long-term customer relationships, which can assist in sustaining
program success.
"The more you are with customers, the more projects
you are going to find" — kW Engineering
O TETRA TECH 23
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

4.2.2 Materials and Outreach Review
Tetra Tech reviewed material related to program delivery and outreach, including process flow
diagrams, handbooks, program instructions, verification processes, brochures, bill inserts, banners,
online and print advertisements, and the program logic model.
Program delivery
Tetra Tech reviewed four documents provided by Idaho Power, which describe how the program is
delivered. The documents include a process flow diagram, program instructions, program handbook,
and the verification process.
The process flow diagram outlines the steps involved in processing pre-applications from potential
program participants, including the Macro Pre-App Process, CLRIS, and the frequency of emails sent
regarding pre-applications. It also documents the final application process and the timeline for payment.
The verification report details the program process, including the scheduling of on-site verification, the
verification report, the final application, and the incentive payment.
The New Construction handbook contains the following sections:
1. New Construction program description
2. Contact information for engineers, program partners, IPC support personnel,
contractors, and vendors (Evergreen and kW Engineering), and the location of program
files
3. Annual budgeted goals and progress charts
4. A link to the Idaho Power New Construction program website, including worksheets and
forms needed to participate in the program
5. Ongoing activities for programs, and their associated contacts
6. Analysis
7. Field staff information
The New Construction handbook included references to the New Construction program instructions that
were updated in February 2025. This document provides information on the processing of preliminary
and final applications, as well as the support documentation required for measures to process incentive
payments.
Outreach
Tetra Tech reviewed seven documents provided by Idaho Power that were used as outreach materials.
Idaho Power continues to promote the New Construction offering alongside all CIEE offerings, including
a few documents specifically tailored to the New Construction program. These documents included two
brochures, a Linkedln post from September 24, 2024, print advertisements, a bill insert, banners, and
an advertisement in the Idaho Business Review. Idaho Power also sponsored the Build a Better Idaho
Innovative Construction Symposium on April 24, 2024.
One brochure included program descriptions, incentive levels, website links, and emails for all CIEE
program offerings. The other brochure was tailored to the New Construction offering and included
specifications for equipment and incentive levels across various measure categories: lighting, air
conditioning, building shell, controls, appliances and equipment, refrigeration, compressed air
equipment, and pool covers. The New Construction brochure also provided information on eligibility
requirements, step-by-step instructions for both pre-application and final application processes, details
O TETRA TECH 24
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

and incentive levels for the Professional Assistance Incentive, and additional resources. These
brochures were used in the American Institute of Architects (AIA) publication.
The Linkedln post, print advertisement, and bill inserts promoted all CIEE program offerings, including
the Flex Peak Program, and explained the benefits of participating, such as cash incentives and energy
and cost savings. The bill insert lists ways customers can use the program and the types of equipment
that qualify for incentives. The bill insert was sent to 37,889 business customers in March 2024 and to
37,172 in July 2024. All advertisements include links that viewers can use to visit Idaho Power's
website for more information.
Banners were used on specific construction projects throughout 2024, including a medical center and a
luxury apartment building. They were also displayed at Boise Airport to promote other CIEE offerings.
Idaho Power sponsored the Construction section in the Idaho Business Review book and provided a
use case of a local elementary school that utilized the program to make energy-efficient upgrades. The
advertisement describes the benefits the school will receive, including cash incentives, energy, and
cost savings. It also explains how the Professional Assistance Incentive is used during projects. This
use case was also used as a promotional story in the September 2024 newsletter. The newsletter was
sent to 19,585 customers.
Logic Model
Our review of the CIEE logic model, developed in 2018 in response to a previous evaluation
recommendation, reveals that the New Construction offering closely aligns with the program design and
delivery steps outlined in the logic model. The major steps— (1) Idaho Power outreach, (2) customer
submission of preliminary application, (3) customer implementation, and (4) customer submission of
final application—are all in line with the current program delivery as outlined in the program policies and
procedures manual. In addition, the short- and long-term outcomes of the New Construction offering
are being realized.
4.2.3 Design Team Interviews
A mix of 62 architecture and engineering firms were contacted from a list provided by Idaho Power;
interviews were completed with 10 firms in October and November 2025. Idaho Power staff also
conducted 12 feedback interviews throughout the year, and their responses are included in the sections
below.
Eight of Tetra Tech's discussions were with architects, one was with an engineering firm, and one was
with a building shell contractor who stated that she participated in the New Construction offering, rather
than the Retrofit offering.
+95% projects 75% projects minimal projects
within Idaho Power's service territory within Idaho Power's service territory within Idaho Power's service territory
Firms work with a large range of market segments, most notably healthcare (5 firms) and education (4
firms). Other segments included airports, multifamily, government, and hospitality. Half of the firms (5
out of 10) report that 95% or more of their projects are within Idaho Power's service territory. One firm
had 75% of its projects within Idaho Power's territory, and two firms had very minimal projects in Idaho
Power's territory.
The firms we spoke with have been involved with Idaho Power for varying amounts of time. Two firms
stated that they began working with the New Construction program over 20 years ago, while two firms
O TETRA TECH 25
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

reported starting their involvement in the last three years. A small percentage of projects completed by
the firms received incentives, ranging from 5% to 25%. None of the firms reported working with other
energy efficiency programs offered by Idaho Power.
Awareness and Interactions
Most firms (7 out of 10) reported receiving assistance from Idaho Power, and all were satisfied with the
level of guidance. Four firms said they received assistance with the application and documentation
process, and three firms were specifically satisfied with Idaho Power's responsiveness to their
questions, and one firm thought aspects of the documentation process were confusing (e.g.,
prescriptive vs. performance, timing of submittals). Two firms mentioned receiving support for the
Integrated Design Lab. The remaining two firms state that they have not received support from Idaho
Power; one specifically mentioned that Idaho Power's representatives' responses can be slow due to
staffing issues.
"We had an occupancy sensor in a light fixture and
had questions about whether that should be counted as
a standalone occupancy sensor. We had hundreds of
those fixtures, so their responsiveness to our questions
and the amount of meetings we had was helpful. "
Education and Outreach
Overall, firms are aware of the training and education available to them through various channels,
specifically the Integrated Design Lab and lunch-and-learns. Four firms requested additional education
on the program process, application, eligibility requirements, and changes to the incentive level.
Most firms (6 out of 8) are aware of the various training courses available to them. Two firms mentioned
the Integrated Design Lab, and three firms mentioned lunch-and-learns. The firms suggested that the
Integrated Design Lab should offer internship opportunities and conduct daylight savings analyses.
Discussions with Idaho Power affirm that internship opportunities are available through the Integrated
Design Lab, though they are not directly managed by Idaho Power. The firms also suggested including
more details about application requirements and sharing recordings of trainings via email. Discussions
with Idaho Power confirm that hybrid training is offered, and the available trainings on their website are
recorded. Two firms were unaware of any training but expressed interest in more information about
eligibility requirements, program procedures, and updates. Firms' recommendations on hiring student
interns, recording trainings, and providing more program information suggest that outreach, marketing
efforts, and website content may not align with how firms get program information.
"It's important that we're covering our bases with the
owner and educating them on the programs out there
so they can take advantage if they choose to. It's
important for IPC to keep us informed so we can be a
good asset and a good team partner to the owner. "
Most (8 out of 9)firms prefer receiving program updates and changes via email. Two firms mentioned
that lunch-and-learn presentations are an effective way to share program information because keeping
up with emails can be difficult.
Firms did not believe that the program influenced their sales or recommendation practices. One firm
mentioned that knowing about the program benefits their business, and two firms stated that customers
O TETRA TECH 26
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

are unaware of the program, so it does not affect their sales.
"We are the ones bringing the program to clients; they
are not really aware it exists. 70% of the time, we are
bringing the program to clients. "
Firms believe Idaho Power is effectively reaching certain market segments, including resort and
hospitality, multifamily, and commercial and industrial. Segments that are not being reached as well are
residential. One firm said that residential customers "don't really understand what they have to gain
from higher energy design solutions," specifically mentioning their own lack of knowledge about Idaho
Power incentives for their homes.
Program Procedures and Design
All firms (8 out of 8) reported that enrolling a project in the program is easy and straightforward. When
asked about difficulties, half of the firms (4 out of 8) said that the documentation process was
challenging and time-consuming. Factors included the project scope (larger projects take longer to
finalize specifications), the time from project start-up to close-out (filing documentation and then
needing to find it again), obtaining invoices from contractors, and distinguishing between prescriptive
and performance incentives. Firms that spoke with Idaho Power staff reported similar issues with the
final application, mentioning their struggles in obtaining the proof of purchase letter, invoices, and
signatures. Some firms noted that the effort required to complete the paperwork makes the program not
worthwhile, especially for smaller projects. During the feedback interviews, firms showed interest in a
whole-building performance incentive, which could help those who found separating prescriptive and
performance-based approaches difficult. Firms stated:
"We work with a lot of different utilities and something
that is really difficult for IPC NC is the breakout
between prescriptive and performance incentives.
When we break them out, the program isn't seeing
them as a whole. "
"I think the whole building performance incentive
would be good. We could educate the owner with the
option in our proposal, if our design team has enough
time to include that. It would be an enrichment to our
proposal. "
"Getting all the information is fairly difficult and time-
consuming. By the time the project has ended, the
information is all buried and filed in places and it
takes us a while to dig everything back up. What we
found is the time and effort it takes to gather all the
information for the PA incentive, we are usually
O TETRA TECH 27
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

spending twice the amount of hours as the incentive
covers.
In general, firms believe the program is effectively achieving savings for its customers. Four firms
provided recommendations on how Idaho Power could maximize its impact: increasing awareness,
loosening eligibility requirements to include facilities that had previously undergone lighting
replacement, and enhancing guidelines around equipment incentives. They state:
"There should be some guidelines about equipment
that would get you more incentive. "
Idaho Power offers a Professional Assistance Incentive to third-party architects and engineers who
support participants with technical aspects of their projects. The incentive level is equal to 20 percent of
the customer incentive, up to $5,000. Nearly all firms (7 out of 9) are aware of the Professional
Assistance Incentive, and four firms reported being directly involved in the process. Two of the three
firms that could recall the incentive level were dissatisfied with the amount, stating that the incentive
level is not proportional to the work required. Interviews with Idaho Power staff revealed similar
findings; design teams are breaking even with the amount of work involved and the Professional
Assistance Incentive level. Some firms recommended establishing a minimum incentive level to make
participation worthwhile for smaller projects. Responses from firms may indicate a disconnect between
the perceived and actual incentive levels.
"For a $10 million project and the owner incentive is
$100,000, the incentive the architect gets back from
submitting everything is $1,500. Same thing if the
project is $1 million, the incentive is still $1,500, so it's
not proportional.
"The PA incentive is not enough to cover the work we
actually put in, it doesn't even come close. "
"Comparing the hours to how much we do, it's low or
breaking even. We want to be more profitable with our
time. If the client brings up the rebate program, we'll
do it but it's not profitable. If it was higher, we'd bring
it up right away and increase participation. "
"Increase the PAI to 30% or a minimum $5,000 to
make sense for us. If PAI is $1,000, we break even. "
Some of the firms (3 out of 8) believed that customers are influenced by the level of incentives,
reporting that customers want to maximize their return on investment and reduce the upfront cost of the
project. Two firms stated that customers are not influenced by incentives and rely on engineers to
select the best equipment, while one firm noted that the ease of participation would encourage more
program involvement. All firms responding (5 out of 5) thought the customers were satisfied with the
O TETRA TECH 28
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

incentive level.
"Customers want the maximum return on their
investment so anything they could do to get dollars
backfor themselves is important to them, especially in
these huge industrial projects. "
"They do it if they can; the easier it is to go through
the program the more people will be encouraged to go
through the program. "
Market Response
Firms were divided on whether the New Construction program affected their design choices. Three
firms believed the program had an influence during the design phase, while four did not. These firms
cited other factors that influence their design decisions, including project cost, size, and environmental
goals set by the government.
Five of the firms had different experiences depending on whether the customer was interested in
energy-efficient features or involved in the New Construction program. Three firms said they had
mentioned the program to the customer, and two reported that their customers were already interested.
Interviews with Idaho Power staff showed similar feelings; some customers look for energy-efficient
incentives, while others are unaware. Larger companies appear to be more aware of the available
opportunities.
"Our clients approach us about energy efficiency
where it makes common sense for the project. I think
we generally recommend the IPC program. "
"Mostly, it comes from our end. It's a good way to add
value to what you're already doing. Clients typically
have it low on their priority, especially commercial
customers who don't have the time or knowledge of
systems. "
None of the firms stated that their customers voluntarily choose not to participate in the program. The
only reasons customers would not participate were lack of awareness (3 firms) or ineligibility (1 firm).
Firms were asked to identify the factors that could affect their future participation in the program. Four
firms mentioned cost factors (such as tariffs, inflation, tax credits, and building costs); two firms
highlighted fluctuations in incentive levels (for owners and the Professional Assistance Incentive); and
two firms pointed out changes in building codes.
"Over the last 10-1 S years, building codes have gotten
increasingly stringent on efficiency requirements,from
envelope to equipment, mechanical and electrical. "
O TETRA TECH 29
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

"They don't pay the design professional anymore for
filling out the applications. I've received payment in
the past but I think they got rid of it. "
Satisfaction
Overall, architecture and engineering firms are satisfied with the New Construction offering, finding the
Idaho Power staff to be pleasant to work with and valuing the program's existence, which promotes the
development of energy-efficient buildings. One firm mentioned that the documentation is time-
consuming, especially regarding performance reviews and working with output files. Another firm
repeatedly noted that the Professional Assistance Incentive level does not adequately reflect the effort
needed to complete the documentation.
The firms we interviewed were asked to provide suggestions for improving the New Construction
program. Two firms highlighted the need for better information about program requirements and
incentive levels, with one specifically recommending yearly updates. Two firms suggested that Idaho
Power should strengthen their outreach efforts to boost participation and clearly explain the program's
benefits, such as return on investment, to potential participants. One firm offered many suggestions,
including simplifying the prescriptive and performance documentation and reassessing incentive levels
for certain equipment. One firm proposed that the Professional Assistance Incentive be proportional to
the project cost.
4.2.4 Participant Feedback
As part of the on-site visits for the impact evaluation, participating customers were asked about their
satisfaction with the IPC New Construction program. All seven of the participants interviewed stated
that they were satisfied.
IThis was the best experience I have ever had dealing
with a utility. "
O TETRA TECH 30
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

APPENDIX A: DESIGN 1
IDAHO POWER EM&V
COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL NEW CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
DESIGN TEAM INTERVIEW GUIDE
Interviewee Name:
Company:
Territory & Program
Interviewer Name:
Interview Date:
In-depth interviews will be conducted by senior Tetra Tech staff via telephone. The interviews will be
semi-structured. Therefore, the interview protocol will serve as a guide to ensure certain topics are
covered; however, evaluators will follow the flow of the interview and adjust questions as needed to suit
the interviewee's circumstances and the natural progression of conversation.
We will attempt to schedule interviews with respondents in advance to accommodate each trade ally's
schedule. Interviewers will adjust the probing to limit the interview time to 30 minutes.
Introduction
Hello, may I speak to ? My name is and I work with Tetra Tech. Idaho Power has
hired us to evaluate its Commercial Retrofits program. The information you provide will help us assess
the program and find the most effective ways to serve the nonresidential market.
The interview should last less than 30 minutes. Before we begin, may I record our call? This is for note-
taking purposes to make sure we accurately represent your responses.
Company, Role, and General Experience Information
1) To get us started, could you briefly tell me a little bit about your business?
• What is your role?
• What type(s) of services do you provide?
• What proportion of your projects are within IPC service territory?
2) What types of new construction projects does your firm typically do? [PROBE: market segments
(e.g., commercial, educational, healthcare, lodging, manufacturing, offices, public safety,
religious)]
3) How many new construction projects did your company work on in 2024? What proportion
received incentives through the Idaho Power New Construction program?
Awareness and Interactions with the Commercial New Construction program
4) When did your company become involved with Idaho Power's Commercial New Construction
program? [PROBE: approximate year] How did your company first learn about the program?
O TETRA TECH 31
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

5) What is your typical role for projects that receive an Idaho Power incentive? [PROBE: technical
assistance, project review, incentive assistance, working with clients on decision making]
6) What type of support have you received from Idaho Power? How important has the technical
assistance that Idaho Power provides been? Why do you say that? Has this changed since you
first became involved?
7) Using a four-point scale where 1 means "not at all satisfied," and 4 means "extremely satisfied,"
how satisfied are you with the guidance and assistance provided by Idaho Power? Why do you
say that? Is there anything you would recommend changing?
8) Does your company work with any other Idaho Power efficiency programs?
IF YES, which ones?
Education and Outreach
9) What type of program-specific training has been made available to you and your staff? Would
you like to see more training or outreach activities offered by Idaho Power to support the
program?
• IF YES, what sort of training or outreach would you like to see added or expanded?
10) How would you like to be notified of program updates and changes?
11) How, if at all, does the program affect your sales and recommendation practices?
12) Are there markets that you feel Idaho Power's program is reaching well? Are there markets that
you feel the program is not reaching well?
Program Procedures and Design
13) How difficult or easy is it to enroll a project into the program? What about taking it through
construction and final project close-out? Do you help customers fill out the application?
[PROBE: Have you noticed a change in the amount of time required for participation in the
program?]
14) Do you think the program is effectively achieving savings for its participants? How can Idaho
Power maximize its impact?
15) Were you aware that Idaho Power offers a Professional Assistance incentive to third-party
architects and engineers who support participants with the technical aspects of their projects
that receive an incentive?
• What role do you have in making sure the customer receives the New Construction
incentive? How has that process worked for you or your customers?
• What influence has the Professional Assistance incentive had on how you work with
customers?
• What is the current Professional Assistance incentive level? Has it changed at all since you
started working with the program? How satisfied are you with the Professional Assistance
incentive level?
16) How are customers influenced by the program incentives? Are customers satisfied with the
incentive levels? How are customers receiving the incentives?
Market Response
17) For your projects, how much do you see Idaho Power's Commercial New Construction program
influencing your initial design choices? What about for your clients?
18) Do you find that your clients typically approach you in seeking energy-efficient features or
involvement in the program? Why?
O TETRA TECH 32
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

19) Do any of your clients choose not to participate in the program? What are the current barriers to
program participation?
20) Do you work with your clients who are not participating in the Idaho Power Commercial New
Construction program to design energy-efficient features?
• IF YES, how different are these facilities in their overall energy efficiency than those that go
through the program? [PROBE: comparable efficiency level (e.g., more efficient, less
efficient, about the same efficiency)]
21) To what degree do you see the program increasing the interest and demand for energy-efficient
new construction building design? [PROBE: comparable degrees of increased interest and
demand (e.g., no increase, some increase, significant increase)] Why is that?
22) What issue(s) may affect future program participation or performance? [PROBE: example
issues (e.g., tariffs, changes to building codes and standards, program incentive levels)].
Conclusion
23) Overall, how satisfied are you with the program? Are you...
1 Not at all satisfied
2 Somewhat satisfied
3 Very satisfied
4 Extremely satisfied
24) Why did you rate your satisfaction this way?
25) If you were to recommend anything to Idaho Power regarding program design or operations,
what would it be?
Those are all the questions I have today. If you think of anything you would like to add, please feel free
to contact us. Thank you very much for your time.
O TETRA TECH 33
Idaho Power CIEE New Construction—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

Idaho Power Company
Idaho Power Company
Commercial and Industrial Energy
Efficiency Program - Retrofits
2024 Program Year Impact and Process Evaluation Results
Il, N'1ifiNl'
to
t> 11 16
-
445
4 Awn,
*1 �, � .11-:y l .r tr�1A:'y;r. � �' �� __ - •• 7 - 1 _ ?} 'r•:- � � � - _ �
iti✓ , { Y h Gam, a Af' lr '�_ f►•ry M i If' C 9 ~� t
TETRA TECH
December 19, 2025

L I=-,
11WIN
TETRA TECH
6410 Enterprise Lane, Suite 300 1 Madison, WI 53719
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
tetratech.com
©2025 Tetra Tech, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
O TETRA TECH II
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................1
1.1 Program Description .....................................................................................................................1
1.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................................1
1.3 Findings and Recommendations ..................................................................................................2
1.3.1 Impact Recommendations ...................................................................................................2
1.3.2 Process Recommendations.................................................................................................4
2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................6
2.1 Program Overview........................................................................................................................6
2.2 Evaluation Activities......................................................................................................................7
2.2.1 Evaluation Goals..................................................................................................................7
3.0 IMPACT EVALUATION......................................................................................................................9
3.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................................9
3.2 Impact Review Results ...............................................................................................................11
3.2.1 Lighting...............................................................................................................................12
3.2.2 Non-Lighting.......................................................................................................................15
4.0 PROCESS EVALUATION................................................................................................................18
4.1 Methodology ...............................................................................................................................18
4.2 Process Review Results .............................................................................................................18
4.2.1 Third-party Reviewer Interviews.........................................................................................19
4.2.2 Materials and Outreach Review.........................................................................................20
4.2.3 Contractor Interviews .........................................................................................................21
4.2.4 Participant Feedback .........................................................................................................23
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. PY2024 Program Realization Rates ...........................................................................................2
Table 2. PY2021 CIEE Retrofits Program — Impact Recommendations...................................................2
Table 3. PY2021 CIEE Retrofits Program — Process Recommendations.................................................4
Table 4. PY2024 Retrofits Summary by Project Measure Type ...............................................................6
Table 5. PY2024 Retrofits Offering Evaluation Activities..........................................................................7
Table 6. PY2024 Retrofits Sampling Summary ......................................................................................10
O TETRA TECH III
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

Table 7. PY2024 Realization Rates of Sampled Projects.......................................................................11
Table 8. PY2024 Retrofits Lighting Impact Results Summary................................................................13
Table 9: PY2024 Non-Lighting Impact Results Summary.......................................................................16
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Impact Evaluation Activities.......................................................................................................1
Figure 2. Process Evaluation Activities.....................................................................................................2
Figure 3. Process for Verifying Program Savings.....................................................................................9
Figure 4. Process Evaluation Activities...................................................................................................18
O TETRA TECH iv
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the many individuals who contributed to the 2024 impact and process
evaluation of the Retrofits offering of the Idaho Power Commercial and Industrial Efficiency program.
This evaluation effort would not have been possible without their help and support.
We would like to thank Landon Barber, Shelley Martin, Cheryl Tuning, and Chellie Jensen of Idaho
Power for providing invaluable insight into the program and operations. These individuals participated in
ongoing evaluation deliverable reviews and discussions, and graciously responded to follow-up
questions, data, and documentation requests. Tetra Tech also received valuable assistance from Idaho
Power Energy Advisors with scheduling verification visits.
The Tetra Tech Evaluation Team consisted of the following individuals: Kimberly Bakalars, Mark
Bergum, Graham Thorbrogger, Mohammad Qandil, Carter Crowley, Haley Padfield, Hailey McBryde,
and Darling Vang.
O TETRA TECH v
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Tetra Tech is pleased to provide Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power) with a report for the 2025
impact and process evaluation of the 2024 Retrofits offering of the Idaho Power Commercial and
Industrial Energy Efficiency Program (CIEE Program). The Idaho Power CIEE Program offers a
comprehensive range of incentives and services to facilitate the implementation of cost-effective energy
efficiency improvements for commercial and industrial customers. Incentives cover retrofits, new
construction, and major renovation projects, as well as custom incentives for cost-effective projects not
listed in the menu of incentives.
This report section consists of(1) an overview of the program design, (2) evaluation methodology, and
(3) key findings and recommendations. The detailed impact results can be found in Section 3.0, with
process results detailed in Section 4.0.
1.1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Retrofits (Retrofits) offering of the CIEE program provides incentives for prescriptive energy-saving
retrofit measures to existing equipment or facilities. This part of the program encourages customers in
Idaho and Oregon to implement energy efficiency upgrades by offering incentives on a defined list of
measures. Eligible measures encompass a range of energy-saving opportunities, including lighting,
HVAC, building shell, food service equipment, and other commercial measures. Customers can also
apply for non-standard lighting incentives.
Customers interested in receiving Retrofit incentives complete the pre-approval application if the
estimated incentives are $2,000 or greater. Application forms are specific to lighting or non-lighting
measures, and customers are required to use the form that matches their measure type. Both forms are
completed if the project includes both lighting and non-lighting equipment.
IPC reviews each application and works with the customer and vendors to gather sufficient information.
Licensed electrical contractors are required for most lighting project installations. Once the eligible
equipment is installed, the customer completes the application process by submitting the payment
application with all required documentation and emailing it to IPC. If the customer wishes to have the
incentive payment sent to a third party, they must provide information regarding the third party.
1.2 METHODOLOGY
To address the evaluation objectives, which included verifying energy impacts attributable to the 2024
program, providing estimates of realization rates, and suggesting enhancements to the savings
analysis and reporting, the evaluation team conducted the impact evaluation activities shown in
Figure 1.
Figure 1. Impact Evaluation Activities
Review data a Complete desk Conduct site Verify kilowatt-hour
OF Plk conduct samplingreviews verifications savings
O TETRA TECH 1
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

Tetra Tech also conducted a process evaluation for the Retrofits offering. Figure 2 highlights the
activities undertaken to address the process research objectives.
Figure 2. Process Evaluation Activities
Program staff Materials and Contractor
interviews outreach review 101*1 interviews
1.3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The impact evaluation for the Retrofits offering found a successfully run program that balances the use
of prescriptive assumptions and values with the data collection from the project site. The program stays
current with baseline requirements and market conditions for measures, and documents its calculation
methods and assumptions in template spreadsheets. During the on-site visits, the evaluation team
found minor adjustments to building hours of operation and lighting control systems. Still, overall, the
findings from the impact evaluation show that the program's savings calculations are accurate and well-
documented. The overall realization rate for the program is 98.2 percent, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. PY2024 Program Realization Rates
ProgramIVIWh
Number of MWh
Measure type projects claimed evaluated realization rate
Lighting and controls 423 10,011 9,796 97.9%
Non-lighting 44 2,056 2,056 100.0%
Total 467 12,066 11,852 98.2%
1.3.1 Impact Recommendations
As part of the impact evaluation, Tetra Tech reviewed Idaho Power's progress against the
recommendations made during the last impact evaluation of the 2021 program. The table below
highlights Idaho Power's actions to address each of the previous impact recommendations.
Table 2. PY2021 CIEE Retrofits Program—Impact Recommendations
Category recommendations ,Key findings and
Calculations Develop the exterior Idaho Power implemented the recommendation to
lighting controls develop separate savings factors for exterior
savings factors lighting controls. OCO),
Complete
Calculations Document lighting The Retrofits offering now documents lighting
control savings for control savings separately from lighting equipment
transparency to the savings and enables selecting a control type for COO)applicant. each fixture. Control-specific savings percentages
are applied per fixture, making the savings
transparent to applicants and supporting clearer Complete
discussions about access, operation, and
expectations of control systems.
O TETRA TECH 2
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

Category recommendations Key findings and
Deemed Consider adjusting The recommendation to adjust the anti-sweat
savings the anti-sweat heater measure to differentiate between medium-
heater measure to and low-temperature refrigeration has not yet been
differentiate implemented. Idaho Power continues to apply a OV
between medium- single blended savings value for anti-sweat heaters Reviewed, But No
and low-temperature across both refrigeration types. This approach Action Required
refrigeration. provides an acceptable savings value, so the
recommendation is not a required change.
As a result of implementing previous evaluation recommendations and current evaluation findings,
Tetra Tech has the following impact recommendations for the 2024 CIEE Retrofits offering. These
recommendations aim to further improve savings accuracy, but implementation is not required to
continue to deliver the program effectively:
1.3.1.1 PY2024 Recommendations
Consider incorporating interactive effects into the Retrofits lighting tool. Idaho Power's
current lighting tool does not incorporate the interactive effects of the lighting wattage reduction
on the HVAC load. The electric savings are conservative without this component of the energy
savings because the retrofit reduced the lighting wattage, which in turn reduces the internal heat
gain to the building. The reduced internal heat gain decreases cooling load while increasing the
heating load. Incorporating interactive effects into the lighting tool can provide more accurate
reports of energy savings based on actual site conditions. Table 2-11 of the 2020 TRM lists the
Heating and Cooling Interactive Factors by Building Type and Weather Zone, which is
acceptable to use for all commercial retrofits. Idaho Power is already collecting building type in
the application, although it might not exactly match the TRM list.
Consider adopting stipulated lighting hours of use defaults. The current lighting calculation
tool collects the specific hours of operation for the facility to determine the kWh savings. This
approach is more accurate for an individual building, although it introduces an additional
variable to properly assume on each project. Streamlining the Retrofits lighting tool to adopt
stipulated lighting hours of use (HOU) by building type (per Table 2-7 of the 2020 TRM) would
yield more consistent savings calculations per project, reduce administrative paperwork, simplify
program oversight, and remove the incentive to overstate the HOU. This evaluation adjusted the
HOU on four projects; however, the resulting realization rate indicates that the current process
consistently identifies verified savings.
O TETRA TECH 3
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

1.3.2 Process Recommendations
As part of the process evaluation, Tetra Tech reviewed Idaho Power's progress against the
recommendations made during the last process evaluation of the 2021 program. The table below
highlights Idaho Power's actions to address each of the previous process recommendations.
Table 3. PY2021 CIEE Retrofits Program — Process Recommendations
Key findings and
recommendations PY2021 implementation Status
Training Continue to increase in- IPC is offering a range of in-person
person program overview training options, including lunch-and-
training where possible. learns. IPC staff frequently visit 0&
customers and contractors. Complete
Tracking Consider developing a IPC has created a consolidated contractor
consolidated contractor list list that includes company and contact
across CIEE programs with names, contact information such as COO)
substantial overlap. phone numbers and email addresses,
license information, and addresses. Complete
Marketing Consider a leave-behind IPC Energy Advisors leave materials 0@9*
brochure for contractors that during visits, and materials are available
includes all CIEE programs. at sponsored events.
Complete
The results of the process evaluation of the CIEE Retrofits offering indicate a well-run program.
Program materials are detailed and well-organized, and contractors felt that they received all the
necessary information, which contributed to their overall satisfaction. Idaho Power staff have acted on
previous recommendations to create a consolidated list of overlapping CIEE program contractors, and
one of the current recommendations is to extend that effort. The following process recommendations
are provided for Idaho Power's consideration:
1.3.2.1 PY2024 Recommendations
Continue to maintain program documentation. Idaho Power adheres to best practices by
maintaining a comprehensive program handbook. This, and all other program documentation, is
valuable in managing a well-run program and providing guidance during staffing changes.
Review delivery methods for program requirements and resources. While IPC offers
resources such as eligibility and qualification guides, along with a Quick Reference Check List
for Project Submissions provided on the website and in the Retrofit Lighting Tool application,
feedback gathered through the third-party reviewer interviews indicated a need for an online
eligibility guide or self-service tool to verify program requirements, as well as a standardized
application checklist. There appears to be a disconnect between the firms and contractors
requesting this information and the available IPC resources. Some of the disconnect may be a
result of evaluation calls with contacts who are less familiar with program requirements than
others in their organization, or customers not paying enough attention to the available materials
and support.
O TETRA TECH 4
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

Continue maintenance on the consolidated contractor list. Idaho Power has developed a
detailed consolidated contractor list for the CIEE programs. As we reviewed the list and utilized
it for evaluation outreach, we identified a few areas for potential improvement that will further
enhance the accuracy and benefits of the list.
• Create a data dictionary tab to define variables, which will help new viewers understand the
list. Some variables, like the "active" and "status check" column headers, are unclear, so
having a definitions tab will reduce confusion.
• Including a column that indicates which contact at a firm is the primary contact or who is
involved with program applications will help ensure they receive emails and updates. This
will also aid in future process evaluations, ensuring accurate representation of experiences
with the program application.
• Performing regular maintenance and recording the updated dates will help keep names,
phone numbers, email addresses, and physical addresses accurate and current. During
outreach for contractor interviews, about 30 percent of contacts were outdated or incorrect,
including wrong phone numbers, contact names of individuals who no longer work at those
companies, or undeliverable email addresses.
• Additionally, removing the phone numbers listed in the email column and instead noting that
no email is available for that contact would help keep the spreadsheet organized and
accurate.
O TETRA TECH 5
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROGRAM OVERVIEW
The Retrofits offering of the Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency program (CIEE) provides
incentives for prescriptive energy-saving retrofit measures to existing equipment or facilities.
This part of the program encourages customers in Idaho and Oregon to implement energy efficiency
upgrades by offering incentives on a defined list of measures. Eligible measures encompass a range of
energy-saving opportunities, including lighting, HVAC, building shell, food service equipment, and other
commercial measures. Customers can also apply for non-standard lighting incentives.
Customers interested in receiving Retrofit incentives complete the pre-approval application if the
estimated incentives are $2,000 or greater. Application forms are specific to lighting or non-lighting
measures, and customers are required to use the form that matches their measure type. Both forms are
completed if the project includes both lighting and non-lighting equipment.
Pre-approval Install Payment
Application equipment application
•Download lighting tool or L •Adjust pre-approval
non-lighting application •Must use licensed information if needed
and worksheets; contractor for certain
complete applicable measures •Download if not
sections preapproved and fill
•Inspections may out
•Gather specification occur before or after
sheets project installation •Include specification
sheets
•Email for IPC review
•Email for IPC review
IPC reviews each application and works with the customer and vendors to gather sufficient information.
Licensed electrical contractors are required for most lighting project installations. Once the eligible
equipment is installed, the customer completes the application process by submitting the payment
application with all required documentation and emailing it to IPC. If the customer wishes to have the
incentive payment sent to a third party, the information for the third party is required.
In 2024, 467 projects were completed through the program, with a total savings of 12,066 MWh. Over
80 percent of the projects and savings are from the lighting and controls measure category. Although
the non-lighting portion of the program contains various measures, it is not used by local contractors as
much as the lighting component.
Table 4. PY2024 Retrofits Summary by Project Measure Type
Number of projects MWh saved_�
Lighting and controls 423 10,011
Non-lighting 44 2,056
Total 467 12,066
O TETRA TECH 6
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

2.2 EVALUATION ACTIVITIES
The evaluation activities conducted for the Retrofits offering are summarized in Table 5. This section
also discusses research issues and the sampling strategy for desk reviews and on-site visits.
Table 5. PY2024 Retrofits Offering Evaluation Activities
Activity Sample size
•
Interviews with program 3 Understood program design and delivery. Obtained
delivery staff program staff perspective on program successes and
challenges. We also confirmed researchable issues and
updated the program logic model
Review of program N/A Reviewed materials such as marketing brochures, program
delivery and marketing manuals, outreach plans, and the program website for
materials messaging and communication benefits.
Tracking system review N/A Reviewed the tracking system to determine if all necessary
inputs are tracked and if reporting tools contain sufficient
information for program review.
Desk reviews 30 Reviewed project documentation and calculations to assess
the accuracy of savings claimed for each project. This
included a review of the energy savings calculations to
ensure conformance to the TRM for the specified version
year.
Customer interviews 16 Completed visits to a sample of sites to verify the
Installation verification installation of incentivized measures and check
site visits assumptions used in savings calculations. The locations
were matched to projects that have had a completed desk
review.
Trade Ally interviews 10 Collected feedback from contractors working with the
program, which included satisfaction and suggested
improvements.
2.2.1 Evaluation Goals
The impact and process evaluation goals below were addressed through the various evaluation
activities:
Impact Evaluation
• Review the tracking database to determine and verify the energy (kilowatt-hour) impacts
attributable to the 2024 program.
• Complete file reviews and verify engineering calculations with 90/10 (relative error of no more
than 10 percent with 90 percent confidence) confidence and precision.
• Complete installation verification to support file reviews.
• Provide credible and reliable program energy and non-energy impact estimates and ex-post
realization rates attributed to the program for the 2024 program year.
O TETRA TECH 7
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

• Report findings and observations and provide recommendations that enhance the effectiveness
of future ex-ante savings analysis and the accurate and transparent reporting of program
savings.
• Verify installation and operating conditions of equipment.
Process Evaluation
• Assess program design, including mission, logic, and use of industry best practices.
• Review program implementation, including quality control, operational practices, and outreach
for all project types.
• Evaluate program administration, including oversight, staffing, management, training,
documentation, and reporting processes.
• Evaluate the program's major successes, challenges, and opportunities for potential savings.
• Document findings and observations and provide recommendations to enhance program
effectiveness.
O TETRA TECH 8
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

3.0 IMPACT EVALUATION
The following sections provide a detailed review of the impact evaluation methodology, evaluation
results, and recommendations from the evaluation activities.
3.1 METHODOLOGY
The impact methodology consisted of the four primary evaluation activities shown in Figure 3. Each
activity is explained in more detail below.
Figure 3. Process for Verifying Program Savings
Review data . • Complete desk Conduct site Verify kilowatt-hour
conduct • reviews verifications savings
Review Data and Conduct Sampling
The tracking system and documentation were provided to the evaluation team for review; the tracking
data included a combination of information from Idaho Power and participants. The Project Applications
for the Retrofits offering collected information from the program applicant, including the following:
• account information, including business name and account or meter number, installation
address, and contact information;
• a project description (non-lighting);
• estimated project costs and savings (only on lighting projects);
• project timeline information (dates);
• vendor or installer information; and
• Payee information.
Idaho Power logged this information and stored it in the program tracking database, CLRIS. In addition
to the information above, the CLRIS database includes:
• a project ID;
• customer rate class;
• participant region and Idaho Power energy advisor;
• project type (lighting or non-lighting);
• project measure;
• application status, including interim dates of Idaho Power actions, such as application
submission, payment to the participant, and final inspection;
• incentive details; and
O TETRA TECH 9
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

• gross kilowatt and kilowatt-hour savings and incentives per measure.
Additional database tables are kept, which connect the project ID and information above with the
measure-level information listed below. Some information is carried over, which is not represented in
the list.
• premise and landlord type;
• project application unique name;
• project building type;
• non-energy benefit (NEB) value;
• units of measure for equipment quantity;
• existing equipment notes, size, and quantity with the estimated energy consumption of the
baseline;
• proposed equipment notes, size, and quantity with the estimated energy consumption of the
new energy-efficient equipment; and
• measure-level savings claimed and incentive.
Sampling was conducted at the project ID level using tracking data. The sample was stratified to ensure
that the random sample matched the evaluation goals, allowing for an understanding of both the non-
lighting and lighting and controls sectors. The sampling is summarized in Table 6.
Table 6. PY2024 Retrofits Sampling Summary
Total . .
Sampling stratum (total quantity) savings percentage (total quantity) percentage
Lighting and controls 423 83.0% 21 8.3%
Non-lighting 44 17.0% 9 4.9%
Total 467 100.0% 30 13.2%
The objective of the impact evaluation was to meet the precision requirement of 90/10 (relative error of
no more than 10 percent with 90 percent confidence). The sampling employed a probability
proportionate to size (PPS) approach, where the kilowatt-hour savings for each project were
proportional to its size. In this approach, every participant has a known probability of selection, but the
probability is no longer equal. Instead, a participant with twice the kilowatt-hour savings as another
participant has twice the likelihood of being selected. The resulting evaluated savings and realization
rates should be unbiased and more accurately represent the population (i.e., with a smaller sampling
error).
In addition to the PPS sampling, Tetra Tech applied several other criteria to ensure the distribution of
the projects matched the evaluation goals. The following criteria were included in the sampling:
• In the non-lighting stratum, a minimum of four projects from PY2024.
• In the lighting stratum, a minimum of two projects per Idaho Power region.
The list of sampled projects was delivered to Idaho Power. The individual project files were securely
delivered to the evaluation team by an internet-based file-sharing site that required login access. The
files delivered included:
O TETRA TECH 10
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

• applications,
• lighting tool calculator (administrative version),
• measure worksheet scans for non-lighting projects,
• labor-and-materials invoices,
• equipment specification sheets and certifications,
• post-installation inspections (when available),
• photos, and
• a screenshot of the tracking system project closeout.
Complete Desk Reviews
Tetra Tech staff conducted desk reviews of the sampled project files. This engineering documentation
review was conducted to describe the project, confirm tracking data, identify key assumptions, and
determine critical questions before the site verification phase.
Conduct Site Verification
Tetra Tech engineers conducted site verification visits from September 29 to October 3 and October 6-
10. Idaho Power staff were invited to attend the site visits. While on-site, Tetra Tech engineers
conducted a walkthrough of the building and interviewed site representatives to verify the installation
and operation of energy-efficient equipment. Parameters verified included lighting and HVAC quantities,
equipment specifications, the functionality of lighting controls, and operating hours for lighting. Verifying
key operating assumptions and equipment performance confirms the installation and attention to the
operating parameters. Finally, the evaluation inspectors posed key questions to confirm their
assumptions and assess satisfaction with the program process.
Verify Kilowatt-Hour Savings
The final step of the impact evaluation combined desk review and site verification information to provide
quality assurance for each reviewed project, describe any revisions to project assumptions and actual
conditions, and update calculations to finalize evaluated savings.
The data gathered from the site verifications was reconciled with the information from the initial desk
reviews. Desk reviews and site verifications were completed for 16 participants, and the remaining 14
had only a desk review completed.
3.2 IMPACT REVIEW RESULTS
Overall, the evaluation found that the Retrofits offering had an impact realization rate of 98.2 percent for
the sampled projects, with a relative precision of 1.9 percent at a 90 percent confidence interval. The
measure category realization rates are shown in Table 7.
Table 7. PY2024 Realization Rates of Sampled Projects
Ex-postEx-ante kWh
Lighting and controls 996,281 974,968 97.9%
Non-lighting 595,461 595,461 100.0%
O TETRA TECH 11
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

The overall 2024 program realization rate is consistent with the 96 percent realization rate from
PY2021, demonstrating that documentation and savings procedures continue to yield accurate results.
The Retrofits program documentation is clear, and the application workbook provides sufficient
direction and communication of project parameters from contractors to Idaho Power. Once a project is
finalized, Idaho Power creates an administrative copy of the savings worksheets to incorporate
adjustments to the application information and the energy savings adjustments required by the program
rules.
Idaho Power's lighting tool was used to calculate savings for retrofit lighting projects reviewed in 2024.
This lighting tool enables simplified savings calculation verification, featuring dropdowns and lookup
tables for various baseline lighting types, ease of defining custom facility hours of operation, and the
application of control factors to incorporate installed lighting controls. The evaluation did identify that the
lighting tool does not account for the interactive effects between the lower lighting wattage and the load
of the HVAC system.
Documentation for lighting projects was consistent and adequate in verifying claimed energy savings,
with instances of missing post-inspection forms and photos or invoices that were not itemized with
lighting model numbers. The post-installation inspection reports were organized and detailed to verify
the installed equipment and its operational status.
On-site visits to lighting retrofit projects confirmed the assumed equipment and claimed specifications.
The largest adjustments resulting from the site visits were due to the actual hours of operation differing
from the claimed hours for two sites. There were also several projects that had minor adjustments to
fixture quantities and types.
Documentation for the non-lighting projects was consistent, although it was not complete for a fully
independent evaluation. The documentation did not include a calculation of the savings or specify the
methodology used for the savings calculation. The evaluation team verified the savings claimed through
individual project confirmation with program staff and agreed with the calculated results. There is an
opportunity to enhance documentation to verify program rules or the TRM version, thereby eliminating
the need to verify individual project calculations with program staff.
On-site visits of retrofit non-lighting projects verified equipment model numbers and quantities. The
evaluation team confirmed that the installed equipment matched the documentation.
Idaho Power does not use third-party verification of equipment in order to eliminate a barrier to program
participation. The third-party verification typically includes testing results for capacity, efficiency, or
lighting fixture wattages as provided by the DLC or the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute (AHRI). The evaluation team uses the third-party testing results to complete the evaluated
savings estimates because it is the most accurate representation of the energy savings. Due to slight
variations between the DLC and AHRI results and the manufacturer's equipment specifications, there
are slight discrepancies between the evaluated and claimed energy savings results. The evaluation
team agrees with the program team's decision to reduce barriers to participation, as the variations
result in minor adjustments.
3.2.1 Lighting
Lighting projects account for approximately 83 percent of the 2024 Retrofits offering savings. The
sample included 21 projects with lighting only or lighting and controls components, accounting for about
63 percent of the sampled kilowatt-hours. Table 8 shows realization rates for each project, with an
overall realization rate of 97.9 percent for claimed lighting savings.
O TETRA TECH 12
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

Table 8. PY2024 Retrofits Lighting Impact Results Summary
Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization rate
240299 270,756 270,756 100.0%
240232 150,068 150,068 100.0%
240293 102,459 102,459 100.0%
240061 100,150 82,356 82.2%
230390 75,630 76,005 100.5%
230383 58,096 58,096 100.0%
230336 57,875 57,875 100.0%
240436 27,185 27,041 99.5%
240148 25,840 21,484 83.1%
240033 24,872 25,505 102.5%
240401 23,961 23,951 100.0%
230200 19,821 19,804 99.9%
240173 16,014 16,014 100.0%
240367 11,731 11,731 100.0%
240247 10,777 10,777 100.0%
240391 7,115 7,115 100.0%
240044 3,570 3,570 100.0%
240007 3,474 3,474 100.0%
240031 3,229 3,229 100.0%
240235 2,432 2,432 100.0%
240112 1,226 1,226 100.0%
Overall 996,281 974,968 97.9%
The lighting energy efficiency was determined using the lighting tool, which develops comprehensive
lighting retrofit savings for CIEE projects. The tool serves as an application that collects project
descriptions, locations, installation contractors, and electrical supplier information. The form also
collects detailed information about the lighting operating schedules, installed equipment specifications,
and quantity.
The Lighting Equipment Specification section identifies the Qualified Product List (QPL) for each
lighting fixture installed, allowing for exceptions. The lighting input wattage collected is entered on the
product type sheet; however, using the QPL-listed wattages is not specified. The evaluation team
adjusted wattages to meet the QPL listing on about one-third of the sampled projects. The evaluation
team adjusts wattages to match the DLC QPL-listed wattages, as third-party independent testing of
individual fixture energy consumption provides consistency across lighting fixtures in the marketplace.
Since the lighting input wattage increased and decreased through this adjustment, the overall impact of
these adjustments is minimal at the program level.
The lighting energy saving is straightforward once the information in the application is collected.
However, one component would increase the accuracy of the lighting energy savings calculation. The
O TETRA TECH 13
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits-2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

lighting retrofit has interactive effects on HVAC systems because the heat generated by the decreased
wattage installed changes the building's heat load, typically resulting in a three to five percent
adjustment in energy savings.
The descriptions below detail the evaluation findings for each lighting savings adjustment.
Project ID 240299: A post office replaced metal halide high bay lighting with LED lighting and
occupancy sensors. The evaluation team conducted an on-site visit and confirmed the types and
quantities of all fixtures. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 240232: An airport replaced interior fluorescent lighting with LED lighting. The evaluation
team conducted an on-site visit and confirmed the types and quantities of all fixtures. The
realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 240293: A dairy farm replaced interior fluorescent lighting and exterior metal halide lighting
with LED lighting. The evaluation team calculated identical energy savings for this project. The
realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 240061: An animal feed store warehouse replaced interior linear fluorescent lighting with
LED lighting. The evaluation team conducted an on-site visit, finding that the lighting averaged 9
hours instead of the claimed 14 hours on Sundays, resulting in decreased savings. Also, adjusted
lighting wattages to their DLC- and ENERGY STAR°-certified values. The realization rate is 82
percent.
Project ID 230390: A commercial truck dealership replaced interior incandescent and fluorescent
lighting with LED lighting and controls. During an on-site evaluation, the team confirmed the hours
of operation and verified the installed controls. They also discovered that only two fixtures of one
documented type were present instead of four, and observed the same discrepancy for another
fixture type. Additionally, one fixture model was replaced with a different model, resulting in a slight
increase in the projected savings. As a result, the realization rate came in just above 100 percent.
Project ID 230383: A city county replaced some metal halide street lights with LED lighting. The
evaluation team calculated identical energy savings for this project. The realization rate is 100
percent.
Project ID 230336: A warehouse replaced interior fluorescent lighting with LED lighting. The evaluation
team conducted an on-site visit and confirmed the types and quantities of all fixtures. The
realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 240436: A fleet services building replaced interior fluorescent lighting with LED lighting. The
evaluation team adjusted lighting wattages to their DLC- and ENERGY STAR°-certified values,
slightly decreasing energy savings. The realization rate is nearly 100 percent.
Project ID 240148: An indoor playground replaced interior fluorescent lighting with LED lighting. During
an on-site evaluation, the team found that the lights operated for 11 hours per day, Monday through
Saturday, and nine hours on Sunday, rather than the claimed 13 hours every day of the week,
which reduced the projected savings. The evaluators also adjusted the lighting wattages to their
DLC- and ENERGY STAR®-certified values. The realization rate is 83 percent.
Project ID 240033: An equipment rental agency replaced interior fluorescent lighting and exterior metal
halide and compact fluorescent lighting with LED lighting. The evaluation team adjusted lighting
wattages to their DLC- and ENERGY STAR°-certified values, slightly increasing energy savings.
The realization rate is 102 percent.
O TETRA TECH 14
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

Project ID 240401: An urgent care center replaced interior fluorescent lighting with LED lighting. The
evaluation team adjusted lighting wattages to their DLC- and ENERGY STAR°-certified values,
slightly decreasing energy savings. The realization rate is nearly 100 percent.
Project ID 230200: A restaurant replaced exterior metal halide lighting with LED lighting. The
evaluation team conducted an on-site visit and confirmed the types and quantities of all fixtures.
The evaluation team adjusted lighting wattages to their DLC- and ENERGY STAR®-certified
values, slightly decreasing energy savings. The realization rate is nearly 100 percent.
Project ID 240173: A bank replaced interior fluorescent lighting with LED lighting. The evaluation team
calculated identical energy savings for this project. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 240367: A public library replaced interior fluorescent lighting with LED lighting. The
evaluation team conducted an on-site visit and confirmed the types and quantities of all fixtures.
The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 240247: An insurance agency replaced interior fluorescent lighting with LED lighting. The
evaluation team calculated identical energy savings for this project. The realization rate is 100
percent.
Project ID 240391: A restaurant replaced the exterior wall signs' neon with LED lighting. The
evaluation team calculated identical energy savings for this project. The realization rate is 100
percent.
Project ID 240044: A warehouse replaced interior fluorescent lighting with LED lighting. The evaluation
team conducted an on-site visit and confirmed the types and quantities of all fixtures. The
realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 240007: A US land management bureau building replaced interior fluorescent lighting with
LED lighting. The evaluation team conducted an on-site visit and confirmed the types and quantities
of all fixtures. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 240031: An Insurance agency replaced interior fluorescent lighting with LED lighting. The
evaluation team conducted an on-site visit and confirmed the types and quantities of all fixtures.
The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 240235: A high school replaced interior fluorescent lighting with LED lighting. The evaluation
team conducted an on-site visit and confirmed the types and quantities of all fixtures. The
realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 240112: A financial institution replaced interior fluorescent lighting with LED lighting. The
evaluation team calculated identical energy savings for this project. The realization rate is 100
percent.
3.2.2 Non-Lighting
Non-lighting projects account for 17 percent of the 2024 Retrofits offering savings. The sample included
nine projects, which accounted for around 37 percent of the sampled kilowatt-hours and less than 5
percent of the overall program savings. Five projects were related to HVAC and HVAC control retrofits,
two projects were related to food service equipment, and two projects were related to compressed air
equipment. Table 9 shows that the realization rate for the savings claimed is 100 percent for the
sampled projects.
O TETRA TECH 15
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

Table 9: PY2024 Non-Lighting Impact Results Summary
Evaluated kWh Realization rate
240230 191,800 191,800 100.0%
240229 161,700 161,700 100.0%
240294 71,580 71,580 100.0%
240410 71,175 71,175 100.0%
240151 41,682 41,682 100.0%
240069 22,392 22,392 100.0%
240071 20,526 20,526 100.0%
240064 13,062 13,062 100.0%
230283 1,544 1,544 100.0%
Overall 595,461 595,461 100.0%
Overall, the evaluation team found that the provided documentation was adequate to justify the savings
claims; however, the provision of calculation sheets and equipment nameplate photos would support
more robust savings verifications.
Project ID 240230: This grocery store installed 274 feet of refrigerated case doors. The evaluation
team conducted an on-site visit and confirmed case door lengths and quantities. The realization
rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 240229: This grocery store installed 231 feet of refrigerated case doors. The evaluation
team conducted an on-site visit and confirmed case door lengths and quantities. The realization
rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 240294: This produce wholesaler installed six VSDs on six 10-HP ventilation fan motors for
an onion storage area. The evaluation team conducted an on-site visit and confirmed VSD sizes
and quantities. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 240410: This home builder facility installed an air compressor with VSD. The evaluation
team identified identical deemed energy savings for this project. The evaluation team conducted an
on-site visit to confirm the compressor size and quantities. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 240151: This powder coating service facility installed an air compressor with VSD, a
refrigerated compressed air dryer, and a no-loss condensate drain. The evaluation team identified
identical deemed energy savings for this project. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 240069: This retailer installed ten VSDs on seven 3-HP and three 5-HP HVAC fans. The
evaluation team identified identical deemed energy savings for this project. The realization rate is
100 percent.
Project ID 240071: This retailer installed seven VSDs on a 3-HP and six 5-HP HVAC fans. The
evaluation team identified identical deemed energy savings for this project. The realization rate is
100 percent.
Project ID 240064: This retailer installed seven variable-speed drives (VSDs) on seven 3-HP HVAC
fans. The evaluation team identified identical deemed energy savings for this project. The
realization rate is 100 percent.
O TETRA TECH 16
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

Project ID 230283: This retailer installed two new 4-ton rooftop units (RTUs). The evaluation team
identified identical deemed energy savings for this project. The realization rate is 100 percent.
O TETRA TECH 17
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

I ' PROCESS EVALUATION
The following sections provide a detailed review of the process evaluation methodology, evaluation
results, and recommendations from the evaluation activities.
4.1 METHODOLOGY
The process methodology consisted of the three primary evaluation activities shown in Figure 4. Each
activity is explained below.
Figure 4. Process Evaluation Activities
•• Materials and Contractor
rr interviews 'A outreach review interviews
Program Staff and Third-Party Reviewer Interviews
Idaho Power staff responsible for the program delivery provided Tetra Tech staff with an overview of
the program design, objectives, staffing, outreach, procedures, tracking, and achievements. Idaho
Power program staff also responded to evaluation questions and provided the requested materials.
Tetra Tech staff also interviewed two third-party reviewers in September 2025 about the C&I Retrofits
offering. kW Engineering and Evergreen Energy provided insights into their processes and feedback
about the program.
Materials and Outreach Review
Tetra Tech reviewed some program and outreach materials provided by Idaho Power. The program
material reviewed was the Retrofits 2024 Handbook, updated in December 2024. The outreach
materials reviewed included an emailed promotional flyer, a Linkedln post from September 23, 2024,
two newsletters sent on March 29, 2024, and December 19, 2024, and a retrofit program incentives
brochure.
Contractor Interviews
Customers work with installation contractors and equipment distributors for the energy-efficiency
equipment that is eligible for Retrofits incentives. The Program Specialist provided a list of contractors
associated with projects. Tetra Tech sampled 47 companies, and the Program Specialist provided
contact information. All customers with email addresses were emailed and followed up with via
telephone to complete interviews with 10 contractors who could provide feedback on the Retrofits
offering. The interview guide is included in Appendix A.
4.2 PROCESS REVIEW RESULTS
Idaho Power offers descriptive and detailed program and outreach materials, along with readily
available additional resources and contact information. Both the application process and overall
communication between Idaho Power and its third-party reviewers and contractors are working well.
Additionally, interviews with contractors indicate a high level of satisfaction with the program.
O TETRA TECH 18
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

4.2.1 Third-party Reviewer Interviews
Tetra Tech staff interviewed two third-party reviewers about the Retrofit offering. kW Engineering and
Evergreen Energy provided insights into their processes and feedback about the program.
kW Engineering verifies that the original application, invoices, spec sheets, signatures, catalog
numbers, and wattages match. Their team then follows up with contractors about any missing
information or discrepancies. After the paperwork is submitted and completed, the project is cleared to
proceed to the payment team and receive the program incentive.
Evergreen Energy reviews the lighting tool to ensure that the correct fields are completed for submitted
projects. During the payment process, their team compares submitted invoices and spec sheets to the
corresponding entries in the lighting tool and follows up on any missing or conflicting information. After
the savings are confirmed, the project is cleared to proceed to the finance team to receive the program
incentive.
M Engineering Evergreen Energy
• Lighting and non-lighting • Lighting project reviews
project reviews • Lighting tool verification
• Application verification • Invoice and savings
• Contractor follow-up verification
• Contractor follow-up
Both Evergreen Energy and kW Engineering stated that they are satisfied with the communication with
Idaho Power staff. Additionally, kW Engineering reported that the in-house delivery model works well
for prescriptive retrofit projects.
Communication with IPC staff is "prompt and
responsive. " kW Engineering
Regarding program feedback, kW Engineering stated that some communication from Idaho Power
about project eligibility occurs before the application is submitted. Another issue kW Engineering
sometimes faces is that occasionally, files have missing or incorrect forms attached, such as incorrect
invoices, spec sheets, or signatures that need to be followed up on and corrected or found. To address
this, kW Engineering suggested creating an online eligibility guide or a self-service tool for contractors
to use for verifying program requirements. Another suggestion was to create a standardized
"application checklist" that can be distributed to trade allies, including the forms, signature lines, and
other required documents. However, these resources are already offered by Idaho Power, so there
appears to be a disconnect between the firms and contractors requesting these changes and the
resources that IPC already provides. It is also the primary responsibility of both third-party reviewers to
ensure the appropriate documents are provided.
Evergreen Energy suggested that implementing a deemed incentive structure (e.g., $50 per fixture) is
more advantageous than a calculated incentive structure, as it may be easier to market and simplify
sales pitches from contractors.
O TETRA TECH 19
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

4.2.2 Materials and Outreach Review
Program delivery
Tetra Tech reviewed the Idaho Power Commercial& Industrial Energy Efficiency Program Retrofits
2024 Handbook, last updated in December 2024. The handbook contains links to the Retrofit program
applications and forms, as well as other important resources, including the TRM, Policies and
Procedures Manual, and Terms and Conditions. The handbook also includes multiple detailed figures
that illustrate how to use the CLRIS program database for various tasks. There is also an appendix
containing various email templates, ranging from project submittal acknowledgments to pre-approval
and reminder emails. The Retrofit handbook contains sections discussing:
1. Retrofit program description and overview - including contact information for program support,
files, forms, and database information, as well as a project submission checklist
2. Program incentives —standard and non-standard incentive information
3. Lighting and non-lighting projects - including project process, payment applications, and
information on contractors, installers, and energy advisors
4. Inspections— including how to schedule inspections, pre- and post- paperwork, and pre-
inspection information
Outreach
Tetra Tech reviewed five documents provided by Idaho Power, which were used as outreach materials.
The documents included an emailed promotional flyer, a Linkedln post posted on September 23, 2024,
two newsletters sent on March 29, 2024, and December 19, 2024, as well as a program brochure. The
outreach material is visually appealing and concise, presenting information clearly and aesthetically. All
of the documents, except for the Linkedln post, contained multiple forms of contact information,
including website links and email addresses. These documents also referenced other retrofit incentive
options besides lighting measures, such as high-volume low-speed fans, adaptive refrigeration
controllers, and connected thermostats.
The program brochure included detailed descriptions of the incentives for various measures
categorized by type. These categories included 10 lighting measures, 25 HVAC and controls measures,
18 food service measures, five compressed air measures, four building shell measures, five motor
measures, two dairy measures, and one measure each for fans, pool covers, and laundry. The
brochure also included step-by-step instructions for the pre-approval and payment application
processes.
Both newsletters provided information tailored towards their customers. The March newsletter included
dates for various trainings throughout 2024, as well as details about continuing education, tuition
assistance, and technical and field assistance. The December newsletter included information and
results about another Idaho Power program, the Flex Peak Program, as well as how Idaho Power
supports customers who participate in the DOE's 50001 Ready program through incentivized energy
savings.
Logic Model
Our review of the CIEE logic model, developed in 2018, reveals that the Retrofits offering closely aligns
with the program design and delivery steps outlined in the logic model. The major steps— (1) project
identification and outreach, (2) preapproval applications, (3) Idaho Power project review, (4) project
O TETRA TECH 20
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

implementation, and (5) payment application—are all in line with the current program delivery as
outlined in the program policies and procedures manual.
Additionally, the program's short- and long-term results are coming to fruition. Third-party reviewers are
improving application completeness and support for contractors. The Program Specialist and Energy
Advisors are building contractor relationships, and savings are being accurately monitored. The only
remaining challenge is ensuring contractors understand the eligibility requirements.
4.2.3 Contractor Interviews
Forty-seven contractor firms were contacted from a list provided by Idaho Power Company, and
interviews were completed with 10 contractors in October and November of 2025. Four were
contractors working with lighting, three were electrical contractors or wholesale vendors, and two
manufactured and serviced advertising signs. The remaining contractors represented building
shell/insulation service, compressed air equipment, HVAC, refrigeration and storage, and irrigation and
VFD/VSD projects (one respondent each). Almost all (9 out of 10) contractors are primarily involved
with C&I projects, with minimal residential work; only one contractor stated that 50 percent of their
projects are residential.
+10 years MM +20 years have other
�- worked with Retrofit offering 0 �- worked with Retrofit offering IPC program experience
All the contractors interviewed have worked with the Retrofit program offered by Idaho Power for over
10 years, with three of them having over 20 years of experience. At least five also have experience with
other Idaho Power programs, such as Custom Efficiency, New Construction, and Residential programs.
Communication
Contractors we spoke with unanimously felt that they were receiving the information they needed and
would not change the way they receive it. Almost all interviewed contractors stated that email
notifications have been working well (9 out of 10 respondents); one remaining contractor said they have
had no contact with IPC.
Half of the contractors (5 out of 9 respondents) said that most of their customers know about incentives.
The contractors and suppliers introduce the Retrofits offering incentives to their customers early in the
project, such as during the initial call, proposal, walkthrough, and sales or service process.
Introduction of Retrofit Offering Incentives
Project Proposal Wal . .
Development Process
Responses show that the most effective messaging to encourage customers to upgrade to high
efficiency focuses on cost or energy savings (6 out of 8 respondents), as well as the quality of the
equipment (3 out of 8 respondents).
O TETRA TECH 21
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

Applications
About half of the contractors (4 out of 8) complete the applications for the customer, with the other half
having little to no involvement. Contractors are divided on the time it takes to complete the application,
with half (2 out of 4) saying it takes less than an hour, while the other half say it requires an hour or
more. Notably, one respondent mentioned that the entire application process, including gathering
signatures and customer information, takes four to five hours, while just completing the paperwork
takes about an hour. Most contractors also said they complete the application themselves rather than
delegating it to another staff member.
Eight out of ten respondents said they would not change the application process; two respondents
offered general suggestions.
Incentive
Six contractors reported that most of their customers qualify for the Retrofit Incentive and that at least
50 percent of those qualified customers received an incentive. Additionally, one contractor reported that
about 60 percent of their customers qualified, while another said that "very little" of their customers
qualified.
Most customers receive their incentive checks directly. However, some contractors are flexible and will
deduct the incentive amount from an invoice if the customer prefers that option. Seven out of eight
contractors report that nearly 100 percent of the time, the incentives go to customers; the other said it
was about 50 percent.
All contractors indicated that they expect the program to boost customer interest in upgrades; however,
two contractors pointed out that a potential issue for future participation is that higher-efficiency
equipment, like LED bulbs, has become standard, so eventually, there may be no more retrofit work.
"Only downside is we're going to work ourselves right
out of it eventually."
Satisfaction
Contractor satisfaction with the Retrofits offering of the CIEE program is high. When asked to rate the
Retrofits on a five-point scale, where 1 is not at all satisfied and 5 is very satisfied, nine contractors
gave a score of 4 or 5. None of those we spoke with were dissatisfied.
"I've had a great experience with it. I think it's a great
program.
„
The contractors we spoke with offered a few suggestions to improve the Retrofits program. One
contractor expressed concern that the current incentives favor exterior lighting more than interior
lighting. They recommended balancing the incentive levels for both to help generate more projects.
Another contractor mentioned that the spreadsheet used in the application process could be simplified
to improve usability, as it is currently "big and unwieldy".
"They have tailored it into a very efficient program at
this point. At first, it was a little clunky, but now it's a
piece of cake. "
O TETRA TECH 22
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

4.2.4 Participant Feedback
During the on-site visits for the impact evaluation, participating customers were asked about their
satisfaction with the IPC Retrofit offering. Out of the 16 interviewed customers, 15 stated they were
satisfied with the program, while the last customer mentioned that the "lighting tool is complicated and
requires study," but otherwise, the IPC staff are "easy to work with." Additional feedback included one
customer saying that the "processes are very smooth" and another noting that "installation was very
professional." Additional comments included the following:
"It was great and easy to work with IPC. "
"The installation was very professional. "
"The project was successful and paid quickly. "
"They are great and the processes are very smooth. "
"IPC staff are great and easy to work with. "
O TETRA TECH 23
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

APPENDIX A: CONTRACTOR
IDAHO POWER EM&V
COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL RETROFITS PROGRAM
CONTRACTORS INTERVIEW GUIDE
Interviewee Name:
Company:
Territory & Program
Interviewer Name:
Interview Date:
In-depth interviews will be conducted by senior Tetra Tech staff via telephone. The interviews will be
semi-structured. Therefore, the following interview protocol serves as a guide to ensure that certain
topics are covered; however, evaluators will follow the flow of the interview and modify questions as
needed to accommodate the interviewee's circumstances and the natural flow of conversation.
We will attempt to schedule interviews with respondents in advance to accommodate each trade ally's
schedule. Interviewers will adjust the probing to limit the interview time to 30 minutes.
Introduction
Hello, may I speak to ? My name is , and I work with Tetra Tech. Idaho Power has
hired us to evaluate its Commercial Retrofits program. The information you provide will help us evaluate
the program and determine the most effective ways to serve the nonresidential market.
The interview should last less than 30 minutes. Before we begin, may I record our call? This is for note-
taking purposes to make sure we accurately represent your responses.
Business Scope
1) Could you please briefly tell me a little bit about your business?
• services offered
• split between commercial and residential work
• total number of employees (if larger company, get local # of employees)
• What proportion of your projects are within IPC service territory?
Program Awareness and Interaction
1) Do you recall how you first got involved with the Idaho Power Commercial Retrofits program?
How long have you been involved with the program?
2) How are you currently receiving information about the program? Is there any other information
you would like to receive, or could the timing of the information change?
3) In what ways does Idaho Power support your marketing with their own outreach?
What, if anything, would be helpful to you to inform and motivate customers to participate in the
programs?
4) What has your experience been with Idaho Power's technical support for contractors? What
gaps in training could Idaho Power fill?
O TETRA TECH 24
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

5) What proportion of your customers are aware of the available incentives when they come to
you?
6) What other Idaho Power programs are you aware of? Which ones do you engage with?
Customer Interactions
1) When and how do you bring up Idaho Power's incentives when talking with customers?
2) What role do the Idaho Power commercial incentives play in motivating upgrades by commercial
customers?
3) What is the most effective sales tool or message to motivate businesses to upgrade to high
efficiency?
4) What proportion of your commercial customers qualify for Idaho Power Commercial Retrofit
incentives? What proportion of your customers receive Idaho Power incentives ? (Estimates)
5) What else can be done to increase the number of participating projects in the commercial
Retrofits program?
Are incentive levels appropriately set? What changes would you recommend?
6) Has your involvement with Idaho Power commercial Retrofits incentive program affected your
business practices? How specifically has it affected sales and technical practices?
Application Assistance
1) How are you involved with the incentives application and processes required to participate?
How much of the application do you complete for commercial customers?
2) How much time is required for application paperwork? Do you have dedicated staff to complete
applications?
3) Does the incentive go directly to the customer, or do you discount the price of the project by the
amount of the incentive?
4) What changes would you recommend to the application process?
Market Response
1) Overall, to what degree do you see the commercial Retrofits program from Idaho Power
increasing the interest and demand for energy-efficient equipment?
2) What market segments do you feel Idaho Power's commercial Retrofits program is reaching
well? To which segments should they increase outreach?
3) Overall, what issue(s), if any, may affect future commercial Retrofits program participation?
Overall Program
1) How would you rate the program on a five-point scale, where 1 is not at all satisfied and 5 is
very satisfied? What is working best? What is most challenging or in need of improvement?
2) Do you see your involvement in the program increasing, decreasing, or remaining the same in
the next few years? Why do you say that?
3) Are there any additional comments you would like to share? Anything I should have asked
about but haven't?
Those are all the questions I have today. Thank you very much for your time.
O TETRA TECH 25
Idaho Power CIEE Retrofits—2024 Evaluation Results. December 19, 2025

Idaho Power Company
Idaho Power Company
Residential Heating & Cooling
Efficiency Program
2024 Program Year Impact and Process Evaluation Results
T
• t •
it
t..�(i�•+�i1��, lrn'� wl��•' �a�r.� � � 7 :"'.�.:••it { - a��1. �►. ` � l •t.
TETRA TECH
January 19, 2026

L I=-,
lbm
TETRA TECH
6410 Enterprise Lane, Suite 300 1 Madison, WI 53719
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
tetratech.com
©2025 Tetra Tech, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
TETRA TECH
O II
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................1
1.1 Program Description .........................................................................................................1
1.2 Methodology......................................................................................................................1
1.3 Findings and Recommendations.......................................................................................2
1.3.1 Impact Recommendations .......................................................................................2
1.3.2 Process Recommendations .....................................................................................3
1.3.3 Additional Measure Research Recommendations...................................................4
2.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................6
2.1 Program Overview ............................................................................................................6
2.1.1 2024 Program Achievements...................................................................................7
2.2 Evaluation Activities..........................................................................................................8
2.2.1 Evaluation Goals......................................................................................................9
2.2.2 Heating & Cooling Efficiency Additional Research...................................................9
3.0 IMPACT EVALUATION RESULTS......................................................................................10
3.1 Methodology....................................................................................................................10
3.2 Impact Review Results....................................................................................................11
3.2.1 Contractor Feedback on Specific Measures ..........................................................12
4.0 PROCESS EVALUATION RESULTS ..................................................................................14
4.1 Methodology....................................................................................................................14
4.2 Process Review Results .................................................................................................15
4.2.1 Off-site Service Contractor Interview .....................................................................15
4.2.2 Materials and Outreach Review.............................................................................16
4.2.3 Tracking and Reporting..........................................................................................18
4.2.4 Logic Model Design................................................................................................19
4.2.5 Installation Contractor Feedback ...........................................................................20
5.0 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS EVALUATION RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................30
5.1 Applications/Processing..................................................................................................30
5.2 Savings Assumptions/Calculations.................................................................................30
5.3 Training...........................................................................................................................31
5.4 Marketing/Outreach/Incentives .......................................................................................32
6.0 ADDITIONAL MEASURE RESEARCH................................................................................34
6.1 General Methodology......................................................................................................34
6.2 Smart Thermostats..........................................................................................................34
O TETRA TECH III
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

6.2.1 Overall Findings .....................................................................................................34
6.2.2 Methodology...........................................................................................................35
6.2.3 Analysis Results.....................................................................................................39
6.3 Centrally Ducted Heat Pump...........................................................................................46
6.3.1 Overall Findings .....................................................................................................47
6.3.2 Methodology...........................................................................................................47
6.3.3 Analysis Results.....................................................................................................52
6.4 Ground-source and Water-source Heat Pump................................................................61
6.4.1 Methodology...........................................................................................................62
6.4.2 Findings..................................................................................................................62
6.5 Whole House Fan ...........................................................................................................66
6.5.1 Methodology...........................................................................................................66
6.5.2 Findings..................................................................................................................67
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. PY2024 Program Realization Rates ...............................................................................2
Table 2. H&CE Program Measures and Incentives ......................................................................6
Table 3. 2024 H&CE Summary by Project Measure Type............................................................7
Table 4. H&CE Program Evaluation Activities ..............................................................................8
Table 5. PY2024 Realization Rates of Sampled Projects...........................................................11
Table 6. H&CE Contractor Interview Attempts............................................................................15
Table 7. Interviewed Contractor Characteristics.........................................................................21
Table 8. Count of Respondents Reporting Company Installs (n=15)..........................................22
Table 9. Smart Thermostat Consumption Analysis Results........................................................35
Table 10. PY2022-2025 (YTD) Smart Thermostat Projects by Program Year ...........................35
Table 11. ST Population Cleaning Summary..............................................................................36
Table 12. PY2022-PY2025 ST Program Population and Analysis Group Characteristics..........37
Table 13. Smart Thermostat Average Annual Savings (kWh)—Weather-Normalized ...............41
Table 14. CDHP Consumption Analysis Results ........................................................................47
Table 15. PY2022-2024 CDHP Projects by Program Year.........................................................48
Table 16. CDHP Population Cleaning Summary ........................................................................48
TETRA TECH iv
O
Idaho Power Heating & Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

Table 17. PY2022-PY2024 CDHP Program Population and Analysis Group Characteristics....49
Table 18. CDHP Average Annual Savings (kWh) —Weather-Normalized..................................55
Table 19. Ground-Source and Water-Source Heat Pumps Measure Requirements..................61
Table 20. Participants by GSHP and WSHP measure ...............................................................62
Table 21. Tracking System for Two Retrofit Projects..................................................................63
Table 22. Normalized Annual Consumption and Savings for Two Retrofit Projects...................66
Table 23. Whole House Fan Measure Requirements.................................................................66
Table 24. Whole House Fan Modeled Savings...........................................................................67
Table 25. Whole House Fan Deemed Savings Determination ...................................................68
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Impact Evaluation Activities...........................................................................................1
Figure 2. Process Evaluation Activities.........................................................................................1
Figure 3. Measure Research Evaluation Activities .......................................................................2
Figure 4. Process for Verifying Program Savings.......................................................................10
Figure 5. Process Evaluation Activities.......................................................................................14
Figure 6. Contractor Categorization by Activity Level.................................................................21
Figure 7. Measure Research Evaluation Activities .....................................................................34
Figure 8. Smart Thermostat Average Hourly kWh Savings ........................................................40
Figure 9. Smart Thermostat Average Annual kWh Savings (90% CI) by Installation and Heating
Type............................................................................................................................................42
Figure 10. Smart Thermostat Average Hourly kWh Savings by Installation and Heating Type..43
Figure 11. Smart Thermostat Average Annual kWh Savings (90% CI) by Heating Zone...........44
Figure 12. Smart Thermostat Average Hourly kWh Savings by Heating Zone...........................44
Figure 13. Smart Thermostat Average Annual kWh Savings (90% CI) by Installation Type ......45
Figure 14. Smart Thermostat Average Hourly kWh Savings by Installation Type ......................45
Figure 15. Smart Thermostat Average Annual kWh Savings (90% CI) by Heating Type...........46
Figure 16. Smart Thermostat Average Hourly kWh Savings by Heating Type...........................46
Figure 17. CDHP Average Hourly kWh Savings.........................................................................53
Figure 18. CDHP Average Annual kWh Savings (90% CI) by Heating Zone .............................56
TETRA TECH v
O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

Figure 19. CDHP Average Hourly kWh Savings by Heating Zone .............................................57
Figure 20. CDHP Average Annual kWh Savings (90% Cl) by Measure Type............................58
Figure 21. CDHP Average Hourly kWh Savings by Measure Type............................................58
Figure 22. CDHP Average Annual kWh Savings (90% Cl) by Equipment (Application) Type....59
Figure 23. CDHP Average Hourly kWh Savings by Equipment (Application) Type....................59
Figure 24. CDHP Average Annual kWh Savings (90% Cl) by Smart Thermostat Program
Participation ................................................................................................................................60
Figure 25. CDHP Average Hourly kWh Savings by Smart Thermostat Program Participation...61
Figure 26. Hourly Meter Data for Retrofit Project 1 .....................................................................63
Figure 27. Hourly Meter Data for Retrofit Project 2.....................................................................64
Figure 28. Average Daily kWh Savings by Regression Model for Retrofit Project 1 ...................65
Figure 29. Average Daily kWh Savings by Regression Modeling for Retrofit Project 2..............65
TETRA TECH vl
O
Idaho Power Heating & Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the many individuals who contributed to the impact evaluation of
the PY2024 Idaho Power Heating and Cooling Efficiency program; this evaluation effort would
not have been possible without their assistance and support. Todd Greenwell, Landon Barber,
and Billie McWinn of Idaho Power provided invaluable insight into the program and operations.
These individuals participated in ongoing evaluation deliverable reviews and discussions, and
graciously responded to follow-up questions, data, and documentation requests.
The Tetra Tech evaluation team included the following individuals: Kimberly Bakalars, Mark
Bergum, Graham Thorbrogger, William Lindsey, Abigail Bishop, Francie Fink, Emily Carpenter,
and Darling Vang.
TETRA TECH vii
O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Tetra Tech is pleased to provide Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power) with this report, which
covers the evaluation of the 2024 Residential Heating and Cooling Efficiency program. This
report section includes an introduction that describes the program, outlines evaluation activities,
and presents key findings and recommendations. The program's process and impact
evaluations are detailed in separate sections.
1.1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Initiated in 2007, the Heating & Cooling Efficiency (H&CE) Program provides customers with
energy-efficient options for space heating/cooling and water heating. Incentives are available to
residential customers, builders, landlords, and installation contractors in Idaho Power's service
area for the purchase and proper installation of qualified heating and cooling equipment and
services.
Incentives are available without prior approval for evaporative coolers, heat pump water
heaters, and smart thermostats. For ducted air-source heat pumps (ASHP), ducted open-loop
water-source heat pumps, ductless ASHP, and duct-sealing incentives, an authorized
participating contractor must perform the work. A participating contractor must have an
employee complete Idaho Power's orientation regarding program guidelines and technical
information on HVAC equipment. This requirement engages contractors to provide technical
assistance and market updates in coordination with the Idaho Power program specialist.
1.2 METHODOLOGY
To address the evaluation objectives, which included verifying energy impacts attributable to the
2024 program, providing estimates of realization rates, and suggesting enhancements to the
savings analysis and reporting, the evaluation team conducted the impact evaluation activities
shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Impact Evaluation Activities
Review data - • Complete desk Conduct site Verify kilowatt-hour
conduct . reviews verifications savings
Figure 2 highlights the activities undertaken to address the research objectives of the process
evaluation for the H&CE offerings.
Figure 2. Process Evaluation Activities
Program
•• outaeachl review interviews ctor
Logic Model Draft
O TETRA TECH 1
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

Tetra Tech also conducted individual measure research to provide insight into the
implementation, engineering assumptions, and energy savings for individual measures. Each
measure had a specific approach, but each followed the basic strategy highlighted in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Measure Research Evaluation Activities
Review Engineering Consumption Kilowatt-hour
data analysis analysis savings results
1.3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The evaluation of the H&CE program found a successfully run program that balances the use of
prescriptive assumptions and values with the data collection from the project site. The program
stays current with baseline requirements and market conditions for measures, documenting
their calculation methods and assumptions in template spreadsheets. During the desk reviews,
the evaluation team found that a minor adjustment to the determination of heating zones is
responsible for most of the resulting realization rate. Overall, the findings from the impact
evaluation indicate that the program's savings calculations are accurate and well-documented.
The realization rate for the sampled measures is 90.7 percent, which is carried through to the
program as a whole, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. PY2024 Program Realization Rates
Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization rate
Sampled projects 53,777 48,740 90.7%
Non-sampled projects 765,446 694,295 90.7%
Overall 819,223 743,035 90.7%
As part of the evaluation, Tetra Tech also reviewed and summarized the previous
recommendations in Section 5.0. There were over 20 recommendations, which we summarized
and provided the H&CE program's response to each. Based on how Idaho Power addressed
previous evaluation recommendations and the analysis completed through the evaluation
activities, we submit the following recommendations from the current evaluation for Idaho
Power's consideration.
1.3.1 Impact Recommendations
Overall, the impact review found that the claimed savings are accurate, and only a minor
adjustment would be needed to improve accuracy. The installation requirements for heat pumps
and other measures ensure that the savings from these measures are realized.
• Update the Zip Code Match. The evaluation found that the location of the measure
installation did not consistently match the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) defined
heating zone. The heating zones are defined by RTF using zip codes, and the matches
made within the Idaho Power analysis had some variations from the current matching
spreadsheet from RTF. Updating the match annually will ensure the latest climate
zones are matched to the measure install locations.
O TETRA TECH 2
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

• Continue to require load calculation and controls adjustments for the heat pump
incentive. The support that Idaho Power provides in the marketplace, through training,
knowledgeable program representatives, installation requirements, and stipends,
combines to support properly sized and controlled HVAC systems, which have resulted
in theoretical savings being confirmed by the additional measure research.
• Consider reincorporating the heat pump upgrade measure. The heat pump
upgrade measure was recently removed from the program due to uncertainty about the
electric savings because of the use of auxiliary heat. The additional measure research
indicated that the H&CE projects save electricity because of the support that Idaho
Power provides for proper sizing and controls. The process interviews also suggested
that the market could benefit from support to increase the efficiency of the new
equipment installed when replacing end-of-life heat pumps. This measure should
support the installation of the most energy-efficient equipment and continue to support
proper sizing and controls. The additional measure research indicates that it saves
about 50 percent of the electricity of a unit that replaces an electric furnace.
1.3.2 Process Recommendations
The evaluation team found that program processes are leading to the successful delivery of the
H&CE program. The program specialist is well-positioned to continue to grow a pool of
authorized contractors.
• Continue to focus technical assistance efforts on contractors who only
submitted a few H&CE projects in 2024. Interviewed contractors who engaged with
the program on one to three projects in 2024—categorized as Dabblers—expressed
that applications are often too time-intensive to justify submitting for certain projects.
Several also requested additional training and more frequent communication regarding
program updates. Offering hands-on guidance about the application steps, program
requirements, and any changes could increase this group's engagement with the
program.
• Investigate the best use for contractor stipends. Many contractors noted that the
application process for ducted systems, which includes a load calculation, is both time-
intensive and expensive for their companies. Additionally, few interviewees were aware
of the contractor stipends introduced to compensate for the extra time required by the
more intensive applications. Increasing contractors' awareness of stipends could lead
to engagement with and completion rates of ducted system projects. Given that the
load calculation requirement has proven critical to achieving savings, boosting stipend
awareness would likely be beneficial. Alternatively, given the low awareness,
eliminating the stipend altogether could be considered, but is not recommended.
• Review contractor tracking files for potential improvements. Both files provided to
the evaluation team contained important contact and activity information for each
contractor that assists the Program Specialist in managing contractor contributions to
the program. However, a few minor edits could further improve the usability of the files.
Instead of using variables with categories, a few types of status were indicated using
colors. For instance, agreement status was either green or red, and some contractors
were colored orange, indicating "new, expanded, reduced, or reinstated". Also, the
measure installation authorization flags were present in both files but were not a 100
percent match.
O TETRA TECH 3
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

1.3.3 Additional Measure Research Recommendations
As a result of the targeted evaluation efforts for four of the program measures, the evaluation
team has the following recommendations for Idaho Power's consideration:
• Smart Thermostats
o Deemed energy savings are acceptable. The average energy savings from the
historical mix of installation types and HVAC heating types currently match the
study's results and can be utilized until future program design decisions are
made.
o Continue to offer the smart thermostat measure with the centrally ducted
heat pump measure, but adjust savings. The smart thermostat participants
who also received a centrally ducted heat pump measure showed an energy
savings equivalent to 677 kWh per year, which is two times greater than the
deemed energy savings for a thermostat controlling a heat pump.
o Study the contractor-installed smart thermostats controlling heat pumps.
The analysis revealed that the program savings were attributed to the contractor-
installed smart thermostats controlling heat pumps. The savings are likely a
combination of the contractor's experience in adjusting the thermostat setting to
match the climate and the projects that installed heat pumps that did not qualify
for incentives, as well as other factors. A deeper understanding of these
participants will guide future measure development in the H&CE program.
o Consider a smart thermostat tune-up measure. Consider the portion of the
contractor-installed thermostat controlling a heat pump, as applicable to new
smart thermostat controls or previously self-installed smart thermostats that are
tuned up by a trained professional. The analysis found that the self-installed unit
had zero energy savings and therefore is currently not providing energy
efficiency benefits.
• Centrally Ducted Heat Pump (CDHP)
o Continue to require load calculation and controls commissioning to receive
an incentive for this measure. The results of the study found that the H&CE
program incentivized CDHP participants receive energy savings in line with
calculated estimates. A key reason for these results is because the units are
properly sized and controlled. A program that struggles to consistently meet this
requirement with the incentive measures will show mixed results in the detailed
measure analysis.
o Variable speed heat pump technology increases energy efficiency. The
measure to upgrade from an existing heat pump to a modern high efficiency heat
pump was discontinued by the program, although the analysis included these
measures and identified savings that are equal to about 50 percent of the heat
pump installation that replaces an electric furnace. This indicates that the more
advanced heat pumps and control systems increase the energy efficiency of the
typical HVAC systems.
o Continue to focus on the heating system capacity and efficiency for
savings. The heat pump performance when the temperature is below 50
degrees is responsible for approximately 75 percent of the energy efficiency
O TETRA TECH 4
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

improvement over existing systems. The remaining percent of savings is split
between cooling efficiency improvements and general air movement and system
control efficiency.
• Whole House Fans (WHF)
o Update deemed savings value for residences. Update the deemed savings
values to 486.5 kWh for residences 2,000 square feet and larger and 329.1 kWh
for smaller residences. These values can be used to develop a single average
energy savings value based on historical participants. The average deemed
savings value based on PY2024 participants is 447.2 kWh per year.
o Provide training to installers to use the HVI-916 airflow values when sizing
equipment. HVI-916 provides a third-party tested fan flow result that more
closely mimics the operating conditions of a residence. This value will provide a
more accurate estimate of the airflow provided when installed, although it may
require adjustments to the minimum flow requirements of the measure.
o Provide guidance to installers and homeowners that fans operating at
partial speed are more energy efficient than the same fan at full speed.
More WHFs are available with two-speed motors, where the lower speed offers
better efficiency when the amount of airflow is sufficient. Providing this
information to installers can help adjust design choices or offer participants
guidance on how to use the fan when 100% airflow is not necessary.
• Ground Source and Water Source Heat Pumps (GSHP and WSHP)
o Continue to deliver RTF deemed savings values for GSHP and WSHP
measures. The additional measure research was not able to determine the
impact of this measure, and the H&CE program should continue to use the RTF
deemed savings values.
o Continue to review and provide feedback on load calculations. The H&CE
program provides feedback to contractors on the load calculations for the
program. Proper sizing is critical to the energy efficiency of this measure because
it will limit the need for auxiliary electric resistance heat.
O TETRA TECH 5
Idaho Power Heating & Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

2.0 INTRODUCTION l
2.1 PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Initiated in 2007, the Heating & Cooling Efficiency (H&CE) Program provides customers with
energy-efficient options for space heating/cooling and water heating. Incentives are available to
residential customers, builders, landlords, and installation contractors in Idaho Power's service
area for the purchase and proper installation of qualified heating and cooling equipment and
services. Measures, conditions, and incentives/stipends for new homes and existing homes are
summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. H&CE Program Measures and Incentives
� Customer Contractor
Existing equipment New equipment or services Incentive Stipend
New Homes
n/a Ducted air-source heat pump $800 $50
n/a Ducted open-loop water-source heat $1,000 $50
ump
n/a Ducted ground-source heat pump $3,000
n/a Central A/C (high efficiency) $50
n/a Central A/C (higher efficiency) $150
n/a Heat pump water heater $300
Existing e
Oil or propane heating system Ducted air-source heat pump $800 $50
Electric (forced-air or zonal) Ducted air-source heat pump $800 $50
heating system
Ducted air-source heat pump Ducted open-loop water-source heat $500 $50
pump
Electric (forced-air or zonal), Ducted open-loop water-source heat $1,000 $50
oil, or propane heating system pump
Air-source heat pump Ducted ground-source heat pump $1,000
Electric zonal, electric, oil or Ducted ground-source heat pump $3,000
propane furnace
n/a Central A/C (high efficiency) $50
n/a Central A/C (higher efficiency) $150
Zonal electric heating system Ductless air-source heat pump $500
Electric forced-air heating Duct-sealing services (single-family, $200
system or heat pump duplex, triplex, fourplex, or
_ manufactured home)
Permanent split capacitor air Electronically commutated motor $50 $150
handler motor
n/a Evaporative cooler $150
Electric storage water heater Heat pump water heater $300
Electric heating system Smart thermostat $50
Zonal cooling, central A/C, or Whole-house fan $200
heat pump
See idahopower.com/heatingcooling for full requirements.
$50 contractor stipends offset labor costs;$150 contractor incentive is to encourage promotion of measure.
TETRA TECH 6
O
Idaho Power Heating & Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

Incentives are available without prior approval for evaporative coolers, heat pump water
heaters, and smart thermostats. For ducted air-source heat pumps (ASHP), ducted open-loop
water-source heat pumps, ductless ASHP, and duct-sealing incentives, an authorized
participating contractor must perform the work. A participating contractor must have an
employee complete Idaho Power's orientation regarding program guidelines and technical
information on HVAC equipment. This requirement engages contractors to provide technical
assistance and market updates in coordination with the Idaho Power program specialist.
Because contractor promotion of heat pump measures is crucial, the program specialist
frequently engages with contractors to provide technical assistance and market updates. In
addition, Idaho Power continues to add new contractors, including 12 in 2024.
The off-site service contractor, Honeywell, reviews, enters, and submits incentive applications
for payment using a program database portal developed by Idaho Power. Honeywell also
provides technical and program support to customers and their contractors and performs
installation verifications.
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) contains approximately 120 programs. Two programs,
IRA sections 13301 and 13302, offer tax credits to homeowners purchasing high-efficiency
home products and equipment. Idaho Power's H&CE incentives are stackable with the federal
tax credits, although the requirements to qualify for the federal tax credits are different from
those for the H&CE Program incentives. Eleven H&CE Program web pages contained
hyperlinks added to direct customers to the federal EnergyStar.gov website. The specific H&CE
Program web pages involved were those incentivizing electric heat pumps for space and water
heating and central air conditioners.
2.1.1 2024 Program Achievements
In 2024, the program completed 622 projects, saving 819 MWh in total. Various measures for
installing a new air source heat pump account for 72 percent of the program's savings, but only
40 percent of the projects. This indicates that the heat pump market is critical to the program's
success, and the program is working to diversify measures to provide a more comprehensive
approach.
Table 3. 2024 H&CE Summary by Project Measure Type
Program
kWh
Central air conditioning -AC 1 61 1 1% I 6,580
Air Source Heat Pump-ASHP Conversion I 67 I 34% 275,779
Air Source Heat Pump-ASHP Conversion & Upgrade 29 17% 139,557
Air Source Heat Pump-ASHP Upgrade 7 0% 989
Ductless Heat Pumps- DHP 141 22% 177,088
Ground Source Heat Pump- GSHP 4 4% 34,092
Ducted Open Loop Heat Pump- OL 4 5% 37,915
Evaporative Cooler- EC 4 0% 2,612
Whole House Fan 72 4% 32,875
Connected/smart Thermostat- ST 200 8% 67,446
Duct Sealing - DS 5 0% 2,224
Electronically Commutated Motors-CM 6 1% 5,401
Heat Pump Water Heaters- HW 22 4% 36,665
O TETRA TECH 7
Idaho Power Heating & Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

Total 622 819,224
2.2 EVALUATION ACTIVITIES
The table below summarizes the H&CE program evaluation activities. This section also
discusses researchable issues and the sampling strategy.
Table 4. H&CE Program Evaluation Activities
Activity Sample Size Objective
Interviews with program Up to 4 Understand program design and delivery. Obtain the
delivery staff program staff's perspective on program successes and
challenges. Identify researchable issues.
Review of program NA Materials such as marketing brochures, program
delivery and marketing manuals, outreach plans, and the program website will
materials be reviewed for messaging and communication
benefits.
Tracking system review NA The tracking system will be reviewed to determine if all
necessary inputs are tracked and if reporting tools
contain sufficient information for program review.
Desk reviews Up to 30 Review project documentation and calculations to
projects assess the accuracy of savings claimed for each
project. This will include reviewing the energy savings
calculations for conformance to the TRM or RTF
protocols.
Trade ally interviews Up to 20 Collect feedback from trade allies working with the
program regarding satisfaction, market conditions,
understanding of technology, and suggested
improvements.
Additional Research
Centrally Ducted Heat 1 Complete a pre-post consumption analysis using the
Pumps hourly consumption records for the participants from
2022 through the present.
Smart Thermostats 1 Complete a program consumption analysis using the
hourly consumption records for the participants from
2022 through the present.
Ground Source and Water 1 Complete an engineering analysis of the current
Source Heat Pumps assumptions and calculations process based on a
detailed evaluation of consumption records and
secondary research.
Whole House Fans 1 Complete an engineering analysis of the current
assumptions and calculations process based on a
detailed evaluation of application data and secondary
research.
O TETRA TECH 8
Idaho Power Heating & Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

2.2.1 Evaluation Goals
The goals for the 2024 impact evaluation of the Heating & Cooling Efficiency program include:
• Review the tracking database to determine and verify the energy and demand (kWh,
kW) impacts attributable to the 2024 program.
• Provide credible and reliable program energy and non-energy impact estimates and ex-
post realization rates for projects finalized in 2024.
• Document findings and observations and provide recommendations to enhance future
ex-ante savings analysis and transparent reporting of program savings.
The goals for the 2024 process evaluation of the Heating & Cooling Efficiency program include:
• Evaluate program design, including mission, logic, and use of industry best practices.
• Review program implementation, including quality control, operational practices, and
outreach for all project types.
• Evaluate program administration, including oversight, staffing, management, training,
documentation, and reporting processes.
• Identify the program's major successes, challenges, and opportunities for potential
savings.
• Document findings and observations and provide recommendations to enhance program
effectiveness.
2.2.2 Heating & Cooling Efficiency Additional Research
The evaluation included research on the specific energy savings of several measures, based on
participants and projects that had previously been completed with the HCE program.
• Smart Thermostats: Calculate energy (kWh) savings from the program's Smart
Thermostat measure, distinguishing results based on installation method (qualified
contractor vs. self-installed) and heating type. Investigate energy savings from summer
cooling and explore opportunities to provide additional distinguishing characteristics that
enhance savings.
• Centrally Ducted Air-Source Heat Pumps: Calculate energy (kWh) savings from the
program's centrally ducted air-source heat pump measure related to electric heating.
Investigate energy savings from summer cooling and explore opportunities to provide
additional distinguishing characteristics that enhance savings.
• Ground-Source and Water-Source Heat Pumps:Assess the validity of current savings
for Ground-Source and Water-Source Heat Pump measures.
• Whole House Fans: Review and revise stipulated energy (kWh) savings for the Whole
House Fan (WHF) measure, including methodology for higher-efficiency WHF
installations.
O TETRA TECH 9
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

3.0 IMPACT EVALUATION RESULTS
The following sections provide a detailed review of the impact evaluation methodology,
evaluation results, and recommendations from the evaluation activities.
3.1 METHODOLOGY
The impact methodology consisted of the three primary evaluation activities shown in Figure 4.
Each activity is explained in more detail below.
Figure 4. Process for Verifying Program Savings
Review sampling
' d o duct
Complete desk reviews Verify kilowatt-hour savings
Review Data and Conduct Sampling
The tracking system and documentation were provided to the evaluation team for review; the
tracking data included a combination of information from Idaho Power and participants. The
incentive applications for the Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program collected information from
the program applicant, including the following:
• account information, including customer name, account and service agreement
numbers, installation address, and contact information
• home type, size, age, and usage data
• equipment types and quantities
• project timeline information (dates)
• vendor or installer information.
• payee information
Idaho Power logged this information and stored it in the program tracking database, CLRIS. In
addition to the information above, the CLRIS database includes:
• a project ID
• customer rate class
Complete Desk Reviews
Tetra Tech staff conducted desk reviews of 30 sampled project files. This engineering and
documentation review was conducted to describe the project, confirm tracking data, and identify
key assumptions.
Verify Kilowatt-Hour Savings
After each entry was reviewed and the documentation was verified, energy savings and the
realized rate of claimed kilowatt-hour savings attributable to the PY2024 program were
TETRA TECH 10
O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

calculated. These energy savings were calculated using deemed measure savings calculators
from the Regional Technical Forum for the appropriate measures.
3.2 IMPACT REVIEW RESULTS
Overall, the evaluation found that the Heating and Cooling Efficiency offering had an impact
realization rate of 90.7 percent with a relative precision of 8.0 percent at the 90 percent
confidence interval. The realization rates for each measure category are shown in Table 5. Each
project that had adjustments are described below and measure-level savings adjustments are in
Appendix B.
Table 5. PY2024 Realization Rates of Sampled Projects
Claimed IkWlh_��� Realization rate
Air Conditioners 322 322 100.0%
Electrically 186 186 100.0%
Commutated Motors
Duct Sealing 436 436 100.0%
Ductless Heat Pumps 11,265 11,265 100.0%
Heat Pump Water 2,951 2,951 100.0%
Heaters
Connected 2,169 2,169 100.0%
Thermostats
Whole House Fans 913 913 100.0%
Air Source Heat 27,396 22,963 83.8%
Pump Conversions
Air Source Heat 8,139 7,535 92.6%
Pump Upgrades
Overall 53,777 48,740 90.7%
The H&CE documentation is clear and the application package provides sufficient direction and
communication from contractors and participants to Idaho Power. The savings were determined
using the RTF deemed savings, which are based on the building type, previous HVAC type,
equipment specifications, and climate zones. The savings claimed by Idaho Power matched the
deemed savings amounts for the category, although the impact evaluation found several
adjustments to the heating zone based on the installation location. Changing the heating zone
for the heat pump measures is responsible for the majority of the difference in the evaluated
savings.
In addition to the heating zone adjustments, the evaluation identified one project where the
equipment specifications did not meet the requirements for upgraded performance and two
projects where the baseline cooling types were adjusted to none.
The overall program realization rate of 90.7 percent is slightly lower than the 96.8 percent
realization rate from the previous evaluation for PY2020. Updating the zip code to heating zone
matching would eliminate the majority of the adjustments. The detailed discussion of the
savings adjustments for projects not receiving a 100 percent realization rate is below.
TETRA TECH
O 11
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

Project ID 8014: A single-family home replaced an electric forced air furnace with an air source
heat pump. The evaluation team adjusted the heating zone from 1 to 2 to match the RTF zip
code lookup for 83670. The evaluation reduced savings by 2,112 kWh and resulted in a
realization rate of 53.7 percent.
Project ID 8349: A single-family home replaced an electric forced air furnace with an air source
heat pump. The evaluation team adjusted the heating zone from 1 to 2 to match the RTF zip
code lookup for 83657. The evaluation reduced savings by 1,724 kWh and resulted in a
realization rate of 62.3 percent.
Project ID 8384: A single-family home replaced an electric forced air furnace with an air source
heat pump. Upgrade savings require new equipment to have an HSPF>=10.0. The evaluation
team found that the equipment had an AHRI rated HSPF = 9.5 and did not qualify for the
upgrade savings. The evaluation reduced savings by 603 kWh and resulted in a realization rate
of 87.4 percent.
Project ID 8226: A single-family home replaced an electric forced air furnace with an air source
heat pump. The evaluation team found that the existing cooling type was undocumented and
conservatively assumed to be none. The evaluation reduced savings by 298 kWh and resulted
in a realization rate of 93.5 percent.
Project ID 8541: A single-family home replaced an electric forced air furnace with an air source
heat pump. The evaluation team found that the existing cooling type was documented as none.
The evaluation reduced savings by 298 kWh and resulted in a realization rate of 93.5 percent.
3.2.1 Contractor Feedback on Specific Measures
As part of the process evaluation, interviews were completed with contractors who work with the
H&CE program. They were asked questions about installation practices for any measures they
completed with the program. Most (9 of 15) contractors reported that they have not had to make
any adjustments to their practices to comply with program requirements for duct sealing
services and air source heat pump installations. Those who modified their approach reported
revisions to lockout temperatures, equipment sizing, HVAC system identification, and on-site
testing and verification.
Of the 14 contractors who reported installing smart thermostats, 10 mentioned that they adjust
from the manufacturer's settings, most frequently citing that they change the heating lockout
temperature to suit the customer's preferences and the local climate. Contractors provided
mixed responses regarding the configuration of multiple zones or the addition of secondary
sensors to the thermostats. About half reported they do not install additional sensors, while the
other half reported that they do, but only when the installation conditions require them. Most
stated that how they adjust the thermostat to control backup heat depends on the heat pump
equipment, the residence's characteristics, and the program's requirements. Two of the 13
respondents, however, reported that they do not make thermostat adjustments, indicating that
the homeowner is responsible for adjusting the thermostat. Almost all contractors explained that
a smart thermostat installed and set by a professional is likely to save more energy than a
thermostat installed by the homeowner. Most contractors believed this was because
homeowners often do not know how to adjust setpoints properly, which can cause the system to
switch to auxiliary backup heat before it is necessary.
For air source heat pump measures, most contractors (12 of 14 respondents) complete a load
calculation to determine sizing and install a new thermostat. For the load calculations, most
reported using a Manual J calculation to determine the minimum capacity of the new equipment.
TETRA TECH 12
O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

Two respondents, however, reported that for retrofit projects, they size new equipment
according to the size of existing equipment.
Eleven contractors responded to questions regarding whole house fans. The contractors
reported that they installed timers for the homeowner to set the short-term hours of operation or
connected a smartphone app that allows the fan speed and schedule to be set. Not all whole
house fans have multiple speeds, but 7 of 11 contractors reported that they have previously
installed fans with multiple speed settings where the smartphone app could be most useful. One
contractor noted that some residents adjust the fan speed because of noise.
Further details on the energy savings impact of these decisions are provided in Section 6.0,
Additional Measure Research. Many of the results suggest that contractors participating in the
program are well-informed about the measure's impacts and take steps to ensure that the
equipment is saving as much energy as possible for their customers.
TETRA TECH 13
O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

I ' PROCESS EVALUATION
1 •
This section provides a detailed review of the process evaluation methodology and results.
4.1 METHODOLOGY
The process methodology consisted of the four primary evaluation activities shown in Figure 5.
Each activity is explained below.
Figure 5. Process Evaluation Activities
interviews••ram staff outreach)review ntery eand ws tor Logic Model Draft
Program Staff and Implementer Interviews
Idaho Power staff responsible for the program delivery provided Tetra Tech staff with an
overview of the program design, objectives, staffing, outreach, procedures, tracking, and
achievements. Idaho Power program staff also responded to evaluation questions and provided
the requested materials.
The evaluation team interviewed Honeywell staff involved with various phases of the Heating
and Cooling Efficiency program delivery on September 15, 2025. The interview addressed
application processing, program delivery, and coordination with Idaho Power.
Materials and Outreach Review
Tetra Tech reviewed the program and outreach materials provided by Idaho Power. The
program material reviewed included process flow diagrams, program handbook, program
instructions, and the verification process. The outreach material reviewed included two bill
inserts, multiple digital advertisements, a mailed postcard, and a social media post. Tetra Tech
also explored the Idaho Power website for energy efficiency information for residential
customers and any linked documentation, including applications and instructions.
Logic Model Development
A program logic model serves as a roadmap to inform various audiences about program design
and guide a systematic approach to EM&V activities. Following interviews with program delivery
staff and review of program delivery documentation, Tetra Tech developed a draft logic model
for the IPC Program Specialist to review.
Contractor Interviews
Customers work with installation contractors and equipment distributors to obtain energy-
efficient equipment and services eligible for the H&CE program incentives. Idaho Power's
program specialist provided a list of 126 contractors. Tetra Tech sampled 73 companies
considered high priority by the program specialist, and attempts were made to contact
knowledgeable representatives of 72 of these companies.' All customers with email addresses
were emailed and followed up with via telephone. Three to four call attempts were made to try
and reach contacts at these companies.
' Contact information was missing for one company. Emails were sent to all but one of the 72 companies.
TETRA TECH 14
O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

Eleven cases ended in contact "refusals," primarily due to a lack of time. Twelve cases resulted
in "dead ends" (busy lines, unavailable contacts during the interview period, or scheduling
obstacles). Ultimately, 21 interviews were scheduled. During five of these scheduled interviews,
however, the interviewee did not show, and despite two additional call attempts, rescheduling
was not possible. Tetra Tech thus completed a total of 16 contractor interviews. Table 6
summarizes the outcomes of these interview attempts.
Table 6. H&CE Contractor Interview Attempts
7Attempted
mple
but not completed 28
Dead ends 12
Refusals 11
Scheduled, but not completed 5
Unable to attempt(no contact information) 1
Completed 16
Response rate (completed/eligible sample) 22%
4.2 PROCESS REVIEW RESULTS
Idaho Power follows program management best practices, including a program handbook,
qualified contractor approval for specific measures, and quality control during installations.
Communication between all parties is working well, and contractors think the qualification
requirements are beneficial. However, they make suggestions for improving the program
documentation and incentive levels.
4.2.1 Off-site Service Contractor Interview
Tetra Tech held a discussion with Honeywell, the off-site service contractor overseeing H&CE
implementation, to gain a clearer understanding of requirements, the application process, and
key challenges. The specialist has almost eight years of experience with the program and
primarily reviews incentive applications, making most decisions on incentive qualification.
Honeywell staff were asked to describe their role in implementing the H&CE program. Staff
reported that they receive all incentive applications via email or direct mailing and first confirm
that all project information is present and accurate. This includes verifying account numbers and
service agreement numbers using the CLRIS system. For certain measures, Honeywell also
reviews required supporting documents and worksheets. For ducted air source heat pumps and
open-loop water source heat pumps, for example, AHRI documentation for the equipment, an
invoice, and heating and cooling load calculations are required.
The customer or contractor, depending on the circumstance, is contacted if missing information
on an incentive application cannot be verified online or through the CLRIS system. Honeywell
staff reported that they then determine whether the project qualifies for the incentive. In
ambiguous cases or when questions arise on a given application, however, the Idaho Power
TETRA TECH 15
O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

program specialist may review the application and determine qualification. Honeywell is
currently developing an internal program manual to document standard operating procedures.
When asked about the types of data issues encountered in the application review process,
Honeywell program delivery staff responded with four common reasons they might need to
request additional data from either the customer or contractor. Honeywell may need to verify the
heating type, collect the indoor and outdoor unit model number for a given unit, obtain load
calculations, or identify the heating system of the home prior to heat pump installation.
Honeywell staff explained that customers sometimes miss the application question regarding
their home's heating type. They might also misunderstand and assume that natural gas or
propane systems qualify through the program.
I /
' Time to Process an Application
- 2-5 -
minutes depending on the type of measure
Honeywell staff reported that it typically takes two to five minutes to process an application,
depending on the type of measure. Smart thermostat applications, they reported, are relatively
quick to review. Non-variable speed heat pump applications can be more time-consuming,
primarily due to the calculation required for the balance point. Honeywell staff added that they
must also look up the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) certification
for ductless heat pump applications.
Honeywell program delivery staff were also asked about which measures require approved
contractor status. Duct sealing, ducted heat pumps, and ductless heat pumps all require the
services of an approved contractor. Honeywell staff explained that "DIY" ductless heat pumps
are now common, so the approval process includes a participating contractor to ensure proper
setup and installation.
The off-site service contractor staff reported that communication with Idaho Power regarding the
program is very good. Honeywell staff frequently communicate with the Idaho Power program
specialist via email and, when necessary, by phone, and commented that in general, the H&CE
program "runs very smoothly." When asked what can be improved, Honeywell staff explained
that allowing the smart thermostat measure and partial incentive for homes with natural gas
heating would increase participation, although they understand that the savings and incentives
would be lower.
4.2.2 Materials and Outreach Review
Tetra Tech staff reviewed material provided by IPC related to program delivery and outreach to
draft the program logic model and understand the messages customers may have seen
regarding the program. The material reviewed included three process documents and eight
marketing and outreach materials.
Program Delivery Documentation
The program implementation materials reviewed included the Heating and Cooling Efficiency
Program Handbook, the process flowchart with step-by-step instructions for incentive
TETRA TECH 16 O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

submittals, and on-site visit forms with detailed instructions for conducting virtual on-site
verifications of all program measures.
The H&CE program handbook contains detailed information about the program and includes:
• A program summary, including information about the incentive levels and a link to the
program website
• Information on how to become an authorized participating contractor for the program
• Lists of customer and installer tasks needed to submit an incentive application for each
equipment type
• Contact information for program staff, including the file path for program files
• The annual IRP and budgeted goals, including program savings and participation goals
• Process flows, including where to find additional information
• Various worksheets, reports, and analysis information, including cost-effectiveness and
evaluation analysis, variance and budget detail reports, and the staff who complete
them
• On-site verification information
The handbook is an ongoing document, so some sections appear unpopulated or incomplete
because they are no longer relevant or have already been documented by other departments.
These sections include the appendices and "Additional IPC Resources".
The process flowchart and incentive process document detail the incentive submittal process
and are dated January 2024. The detailed incentive process document outlines eleven steps
that the program specialist performs during the incentive submittal process. The process
flowchart includes brief descriptions of the steps listed in the detailed process document, but
goes beyond those steps by also outlining the process of the off-site service contractor and the
final steps of the process leading to the incentive checks being dispersed.
The Virtual On-Site Verification Forms are available in versions for each of the program
measures. It includes sections to input various pieces of information, such as home type, unit
installation details, inspector's name, date and time of inspection, and account information.
There are also sections included that are dependent on the type of equipment being inspected,
such as installation information, existing system information, new unit information, or setting
information. An inspection report section indicates the outcome of the inspection, the presence
of a contractor, and whether the inspection requires follow-up.
Additionally, Tetra Tech also reviewed three program data materials, which included:
• tracking data with energy savings values,
• contractor contact information, and
• project documentation for all sampled projects and measures.
Research reports regarding connected thermostats, whole-house fans, and air-source heat
pumps were provided as background material for the evaluation team's additional measure
research tasks.
TETRA TECH 17
O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

Marketing and Outreach Materials
Idaho Power employed a comprehensive advertising campaign in the summer (June and July)
and fall (October and November) to raise and maintain awareness of the company's energy
efficiency programs for residential customers, and to communicate that saving energy does not
have to be challenging. The campaign included radio, television, newspaper ads, digital ads,
sponsorships, Facebook ads, and social posts targeted at various customer demographics
across the service area. Idaho Power used multiple marketing tactics specifically for its H&CE
Program promotion throughout 2024. Program information was also included in energy
efficiency collateral mailed in the new customer Welcome Kits.
February
•Bill inserts to 297,225 customers highlighting program and federal tax
credits
•Digital ads received 2,283,052 impressions
•Emailed H&CE program information to approximately 322,000 customers
•Posted a Facebook ad reaching 114,340 customers, resulting in 2,136
clicks to the web page
•Program highlighted on Idahopower.com homepage
•Mailed a program promotion postcard
•Smart thermostat incentives highlighted on Idahopower.com homepage
September
•Bill inserts highlighting the program and federal tax credits
•Digital ads were posted
October
•Digital program ads were included in IPC's monthly customer e-newsletter
Tetra Tech staff reviewed two bill inserts mailed in February and September, four versions of
multiple digital ads, a social media post published in March, and a mailed postcard template. All
marketing materials reviewed contained concise program or incentive information and were
visually appealing. The bill inserts and mailed postcard both contained information about the
potential incentive amounts and the link to the program website. The digital ads and the social
media post include a brief promotion of the HCE program utilizing vibrant, eye-catching colors
and the "Good Energy" logo. One digital ad specifically includes incentive information for
installing smart thermostats.
The 2025 marketing strategy includes bill inserts, direct mail, social media, digital and search
advertising, and email marketing to promote individual measures and the overall program.
4.2.3 Tracking and Reporting
The Project Applications for the H&CE program collect information from the program applicant,
including the following:
• Account information, including business name and account or meter number, installation
address, and contact information
O TETRA TECH 18
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

• Residence characteristics relevant for each measure include home type, age, HVAC
types, and area.
• Project cost
• Vendor or installer information
• Payee information
This information is stored in the program tracking database, along with the following information:
• Project ID
• Customer rate class
• Participant region and IPC energy advisor
• Equipment specifications including make, model, capacity, and efficiency.
• Application status, including interim dates of IPC actions from the date the application
was received to the payment received by the participant date and the final inspection.
• Incentive
• Project total savings
4.2.4 Logic Model Design
A program logic model is a visual representation of the program's theory that illustrates a set of
interrelated program activities that combine to produce a variety of outputs, leading to key
outcomes. The program's logic model serves as a roadmap to develop and inform various
audiences about program design, as well as to guide a systematic approach to EM&V activities.
A program logic model can lead to a cost-effective plan to determine program effectiveness in
meeting its goals and objectives. Logic models can be linked to performance indicators to
provide ongoing feedback to program managers.
The models flow from top to bottom and are typically organized into four basic categories, as
shown below. The outcomes can be categorized separately if both short-term and long-term
outcomes are identified.
• Inputs or Resources: These identify the key financial, staffing, and infrastructure
resources that support each activity. When possible, specific budgets or systems are
identified.
• Program Activities: Program logic models are structured around overarching activities
that describe the major components of the program. Examples may include developing
program infrastructure, recruiting program allies, marketing to customers, energy
assessments, measure installation, and incentive payment.
• Outputs: The program logic models include metrics resulting from the activities. These
tend to be measurable "bean counting" results (e.g., provide outreach events at five
community fairs). The outputs can be tracked or measured to ensure the activities are
being conducted as expected.
• Outcomes: The models specify expected outcomes that result from the program
activities or objectives of each phase of the program. Specific goals are attached to
those outcomes when possible. Examples include: annual energy savings, participating
customers, and trade allies. Long-term outcomes are the stretch goals or sustainable
outcomes resulting from program activities, such as "an energy-efficient industry is
established" and "the measure becomes standard practice." These may be associated
with a full program plan cycle.
O TETRA TECH 19
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

Stepping across the activities enumerated in the logic model indicates an approximate 'flow' in
the sequence of activities. For example, the logic models begin with the program infrastructure
and end with the activity that results in direct energy savings. In each column, the resources
needed or allocated are specified above each activity. Then, the direct outputs of the activity are
enumerated. The outcomes are causally linked to the various outputs in each column of the
logic model. In other words, it is expected that the specified output (e.g., installed measures) will
result in the specified outcome (e.g., energy savings). Where available, the program logic
models included quantitative data on both the expected and actual outputs from each activity.
Outcomes tend to detail program outcomes at a high level and capture market effects. These
outcomes may be based on program plans for expected performance, current actual results, or
general program goals. Therefore, some logic models may include two outcome categories:
short-term outcomes and program plan cycle outcomes. The short-term outcomes are the
stepping-stone(s) to the program plan cycle outcomes, which are tied to program cycle goals
(e.g., energy savings, cost per MWh). However, the logic model developed for the Heating &
Cooling Efficiency program shows only one Outcome category, as the program has been
operating for several years and can be considered mature.
It is essential to recognize that various external factors can also impact the program's
outcomes. External influences include City, State, and Federal Codes and Standards (existing
and evolving), other utility programs, EPA/DOE ENERGY STAR° national and regional program
activities, equipment and technology options (current and evolving), political and economic
factors, inflation, and the prices of oil, electricity, and natural gas.
The draft logic model was developed based on a review of program documentation and
interviews with program delivery staff. A draft model was provided to the program specialist for
review and comment before finalizing.
4.2.5 Installation Contractor Feedback
The H&CE Program Specialist has conducted considerable work in documenting contractors
associated with the program, including all relevant contact information, those approved to install
specific measures, and years' worth of activity for each. Both the contact list and activity tracking
information were provided to evaluators for review and evaluation outreach.
4.2.5.1 Contractor Tracking File Review
The evaluation team started by reviewing each of the files provided. One file contained contact
information for contractors with whom the Program Specialist has communicated since 2010.
This master contact file contained detailed contact information (phone, email, staff names) and
was primarily used to track agreement status for measures that required installation approval.
The second file tracked contractor performance metrics historically and is updated annually. It
contained thorough information on annual activity by measure type and specific measure
authorizations. The third file reviewed was the 2024 program tracking data, which included
activity for the year.
Using the three files to create a calling list for interviewing contractors, the evaluation team
identified a few discrepancies and areas for improvement.
• Because measure authorizations were present in two of the files, a few discrepancies
in authorizations were found.
O TETRA TECH 20
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

• Not all contractors appeared on all lists. It is expected that only contractors involved
with a 2024 project will appear in the tracking data. The program specialist also
explained that contractors may be added or removed from the other two lists,
depending on their status during updates.
• Instead of using variables with categories, a few types of status were indicated using
colors. For instance, agreement status was either green or red, and some contractors
were colored orange, indicating "new, expanded, reduced, or reinstated".
Making these improvements would enhance an already beneficial contractor tracking process.
One of Idaho Power's goals is to increase contractor engagement with the program, with a
particular focus on those who completed only occasional projects in 2024. To describe
contractor activity levels, companies were categorized into three groups—Active, Dabblers, and
Inactive contractors —as defined in the 2024 Participating Contractor Performance file.
Explanations of each category are shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Contractor Categorization by Activity Level
r".— .—I — —
Active F�lblelrs
Completed four Completed one Did not complete
or more projects to three projects any projects
through the through the through the
program in 2024 program in 2024 program in 2024
As part of the evaluation effort to contact contractors, we focused on recruiting from each of the
activity level categories.
4.2.5.2 Respondent Characteristics
The Tetra Tech evaluation team completed feedback interviews with 16 contractors who worked
on Idaho Power H&CE projects in 2024 or previous program years. Calls were completed with
contractors representing a range of activity levels, heating zones, and program experience
(Table 7). Particular effort was made to include contractors across activity levels.
Table 7. Interviewed Contractor Characteristics
Contractor Number of sampled Number of
characteristics contractors completed interviews
Activi
Active 20 5
Dabbler 40 9
Inactive 13 2
HZ 444 11
O TETRA TECH 21
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

NumberContractor -. Number of
completedcharacteristics contractors interviews
HZ2 23 2
HZ3 6 3
Experience with ro ram
Newt 15 5
Existing 58 11
Of the 16 contractors, five were considered Active; nine Dabblers; and two Inactive. Eleven of
the 16 contractors have been engaged with the program for more than two years; the remaining
five are newer, with one to two years of involvement. Most contractors (11 of 16) operate in
Heating Zone 1; two contractors serve Heating Zone 2, and three serve Heating Zone 3.
<10 years old 0. E11-30 years old +30 years old
• company age company age company age
These contractors represent a wide range of experience in their industry. Of 15 contractors who
responded to questions characterizing their business, three are employed by companies under
10 years old, six by companies 11-30 years old, and the remaining six by companies over 30
years old. Most contractors (8 of 15 respondents) reported that their companies are mid-sized,
with six to 25 employees. Five contractors, however, come from small businesses with five
employees or fewer. Just two work for larger businesses with over 100 employees.
Most contractors (14 of 15 respondents) primarily serve residential customers. One contractor
reported that only a quarter of their portfolio is residential customers. Fourteen of 15 contractors
reported that 75 percent or more of their work is within Idaho Power's service territory; however,
one contractor stated that only 15 percent of their work is performed within Idaho Power's
service territory. Contractors were also asked about the types of equipment or services their
businesses install or provide (Table 8). The most common offerings (reported by 14 of 15
respondents each)were duct sealing services, air conditioning, smart thermostats, ductless air
source heat pumps, and ducted air source heat pump installations. Heat pump water heaters
were the least commonly installed (7 of 15 respondents), followed by open-loop water source
heat pumps and ground source heat pumps (reported by 8 of 15 respondents each).
Table 8. Count of Respondents Reporting Company Installs (n=15)
Equipment/Service Respondents
Central air conditioning 14
Smart thermostat 14
Duct sealing 14
Ductless air source heat pump 14
z "New" contractors are considered those who joined the program within the past one to two years.
TETRA TECH 22
O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

Equipment/Service Respondents
Ducted air source heat pump 14
Furnace 13
Electrical commutated motor 12
Whole house fan 11
Evaporative cooler 9
Open-loop water source heat pump 8
Ground source heat pump 8
Heat pump water heater 7
Source: Contractor survey, Question BS3
4.2.5.3 Program Awareness and Interaction
Contractors' familiarity with the program varied, although most (11 of 14 who provided relevant
responses) reported being involved with the program for at least four years. Many of these 11
respondents stated that they have been involved since the inception of the H&CE program. One
contractor stated that they did not know when their company became involved, and the
remaining two contractors reported that their companies are relatively new to the program,
having been involved for one to two years. Contractors first learned about the program through
interactions with Idaho Power's program specialist, industry connections, or via word of mouth
from customers, friends, or family.
Most contractors stated that they obtain information about the program from emails, the H&CE
website, or phone calls with Idaho Power's H&CE specialist. These contractors were generally
satisfied with the communication. Notably, however, one contractor stated that they are not
currently receiving any information about the program, and another reported being unable to
recall their source of information. When asked if there was any other information they wished to
receive, or if the timing of the information could be different, five respondents provided
suggestions.
• Three respondents requested additional communications regarding program changes,
Idaho Power rate changes, and eligibility for products and rebates.
• One preferred text message communication.
• One expressed a desire to be added to the program's approved contractor list.
Thirteen of 15 contractors who provided responses said they were approved for one or more of
the following measures: duct sealing, ductless, or ducted equipment. Two contractors were
unsure if their company had an approval agreement in place through the program, though all
interviewed contractors were approved for at least one measure, according to tracking data.
Contractors who reported being an approved vendor were asked to elaborate on their
motivations for being approved through the program. These contractors expressed that being an
approved vendor allows them to offer customers program rebates, generate additional sales
leads, and enhance their credibility. Some specific comments included:
TETRA TECH 23
O
Idaho Power Heating & Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

"Idaho Power, in my opinion, was doing something
that was the most helpful thing I've ever seen done in
my career here in Idaho for our customers. When they
came out with this program, they required the
contractors to do engineering, verify our airflow was
proper... and everything was documented on
commissioning and startups. Nobody else was holding
heating and air conditioning contractors accountable
that the equipment was installed and operating
properly. "
"I think we get better tech support. We get some co-op
marketing stuff. We have a good relationship with the
supplier because of[the approved vendor status]. "
"It helps sell the jobs. And then I always offer to send
the paperwork with the installers once the job is sold.
Then they fill it out and bring it back to me, and I
submit it for them. So, it makes it easier for the
Icustomers. "
Notably, several interviewees within the Dabbler group have not received approval for every
measure they may be authorized to install. Some Dabblers who reported that their business
provides duct sealing services, for instance, have not received program authorization.
4.2.5.4 Customer Interactions
Contractors were asked a series of questions to gauge their customers' awareness of and
motivations for participating in the H&CE program.
• Most contractors reported that fewer than half of their customers are aware of H&CE
incentives when they inquire about services (13 of 15 respondents).
• One contractor stated that half of their customers are aware of incentives.
• The remaining respondent reported that the majority of their customers are already
aware of incentives.
Contractors were asked a follow-up question about when and how they bring up incentives with
customers. Fourteen of 15 respondents reported that they introduce incentives during the sales
process—either by speaking with their customers during initial visits or by listing the incentives
on their formal estimate. Just one respondent reported that they have never mentioned
incentives; rather, they wait for their customers to bring up the incentives. One contractor who
discusses the program during their initial visit detailed their process:
I "When they ask me to come out and[create] a proposal, I tell them of the Idaho Power program and
O TETRA TECH 24
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

encourage them to go to the Idaho Power website and
get names of approved contractors off that list. I tell
them there are reasons why there are companies on
that list and reasons why there are companies not on
that list and let them draw their own conclusions. "
The most effective sales tools to influence energy-efficient upgrades, according to contractors,
are discussions about rebates, financial savings, and return on investment (reported by 14 of 15
respondents), energy savings (4 of 15 respondents), and comfort (3 of 15 respondents).
Individual respondents also noted that quieter equipment and detailed, itemized comparisons
are helpful tools. One respondent commented that federal incentives have been very influential
but noted that these incentives will expire relatively soon. All 15 respondents stated that Idaho
Power incentives play at least some role in motivating residential upgrades; five of these
respondents specifically mentioned that the incentives are significant decision drivers. Of those
who qualified their response that incentives help, most mentioned that the incentive is not the
only factor in their customers' decision-making process. One contractor expressed that Idaho
Power is missing an opportunity to offer incentives for replacing an older air source heat pump
with a more efficient one.
Interviewed contractors' responses to what proportion of their residential customers qualify and
receive incentives varied. Eight of 14 respondents reported that fewer than half of their
customers qualify, while the remaining six respondents indicated that more than half of their
customers are eligible for incentives. This was primarily dependent on the predominant heating
type in homes within their service areas. Of the 12 contractors able to estimate the number of
residential customers who receive incentives:
• Eleven stated that at least half do, and three of these respondents specifically indicated
that 100 percent of those who qualify receive incentives.
• Just one respondent estimated that only 10 percent of their residential customers
receive incentives through the H&CE program.
When asked about barriers to homeowner participation in the program, most of those
contractors who provided a response pointed to customers' inability to upgrade to program-
covered equipment (5 of 6 respondents). They explained this is typically due to cost or
equipment eligibility limits that exist within the program's framework. The remaining respondent
noted that sometimes customers do not recognize the return on investment.
suggested suggested suggested
., simplifying the application increasing incentives increasing the number of
Il and associated paperwork equipment types that qualify
Twelve contractors also provided responses to what can be done to increase the number of
participating projects in the H&CE program. The most common suggestions were: simplifying
the application and associated paperwork (4 respondents), increasing incentives (3
respondents), and increasing the number of equipment types that qualify (3 respondents). Other
responses mentioned educating contractors, having the homeowner provide more information
for the rebates themselves, and providing a discount on the customer's bill instead of a rebate
TETRA TECH 25
O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

(one respondent each). One contractor who emphasized that the program should consider
covering heat pump to heat pump upgrades commented:
"It would be wonderful if they could bring back
incentives from an air source heat pump replacing an
air source heat pump. When they put in a higher-
efficiency piece of equipment, the paybacks are a
considerable amount of years out... A lot of American
people move around a lot. If they're going to put in a
high-efficiency piece of equipment, they have to
commit. Unfortunately, I don't have any hope for
appraisers giving some credit on a house appraisal for
high efficiency equipment... And so there's no
incentive if they're going to move to put in high
efficiency equipment. "
Ten of 13 respondents stated that they think incentive levels are appropriately set, though
several commented that higher incentives would be even better. Of the three more critical
respondents, one commented that the incentive "doesn't move the needle that much," another
remarked that Idaho Power has lowered incentive levels, while competitors have maintained
higher levels, and the remaining respondent suggested that heat pump incentives specifically
should be higher.
4.2.5.5 Application Assistance
Contractors also shared their perspectives on the application process for H&CE projects. Almost
all (13 of 15 respondents) reported that they complete all paperwork, or all paperwork except for
the customer's account information or signature, for projects. Two respondents said that their
involvement in the application process on behalf of the customer depends on the customer's
understanding of the project and need for assistance.
• :530 minutes :51 hour . >1 hour
time required for application time required for application time required for application
paperwork paperwork paperwork
When asked how much time is required for application paperwork, contractors provided a range
of responses. Of 15 respondents, nine reported that paperwork takes 30 minutes or less; two
stated that paperwork takes over 30 minutes but less than or equal to an hour, and four reported
that paperwork takes over an hour.
Seven of 12 respondents mentioned that their company has dedicated staff for application
paperwork; all five who reported that they do not have dedicated staff were Dabblers. Three of
the four respondents who said that paperwork takes more than an hour also reported having
dedicated staff, though all four represented small to mid-sized companies. Several contractors
commented that the ductless air source heat pump application is significantly easier than that
for the ducted heat pump; one contractor said the application process for ducted equipment can
take a day and a half.
TETRA TECH 26 O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

A significant number of contractors (10 of 14 respondents) confirmed that there are instances
when a customer's equipment qualifies for the program, but no application is submitted. Of the
10 respondents, five described the paperwork and testing (for ducted systems) as too onerous
relative to the project's worth. Applications may also go unsubmitted, according to respondents,
due to company administrative errors or because customers failed to follow through. One
respondent provided the following observation about customers who do not submit applications
for qualified equipment:
"I've had people that were not even interested to learn
about the incentives. Some of them are rentals, and
things like that. There are times, yes, absolutely that
does happen. I think people think it's either a gimmick
or `oh, they need my email address'... they just don't
want to deal with it for some reason for another. At
that point, I don't push anything on anybody."
Interviewed contractors reported passing the incentive directly to their customers (12 of 12
respondents), rather than discounting the project cost by the amount of the incentive.
Contractors were asked whether they would recommend any changes to the application
process, and 10 provided suggestions:
• Six of 10 respondents (five of which were Dabblers) mentioned streamlining the
application—requiring fewer forms and relaxing testing requirements.
• Two respondents suggested digitizing the application or making it available online.
• The remaining recommendations were to reduce the number of images and use less
color in the application to conserve printer resources; allow heat pump to heat pump
retrofits; make the application easier for homeowners to complete themselves; and
implement a confirmation email once an application has been submitted (one
respondent each).
Interviewees were also surveyed about their awareness of Idaho Power contractor stipends
available for certain projects. Eight of 14 respondents were not aware of the stipends and
voiced that they would like to learn more about how to receive them. Six respondents were
aware of at least some of the stipends. Three of these respondents described how they use
these stipends: two apply them to new construction projects, and one reinvests the money into
equipment or company overhead costs.
4.2.5.6 Overall Satisfaction
Contractors reported high satisfaction with the H&CE program. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1
corresponded to "not at all satisfied" and 5 meant "very satisfied", 13 of 15 respondents rated
the program a 4 or 5. No respondents rated the program below a 3. One respondent provided
only the following feedback: "It worked fine." When asked what is working best about the
program, answers provided by contractors were: the incentive (6 of 14 respondents),
communication and information available (3 of 14 respondents), the resulting increase in sales
for their company (2 of 14 respondents), the ductless heat pump application (2 of 14
respondents), and the program's general benefit to customers (1 of 14 respondents). Two
TETRA TECH 27
O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

respondents specifically mentioned their satisfaction with the Honeywell specialist's
coordination.
Interviewees were also asked to summarize what they found most challenging about the
program or what needed improvement. Thirteen of 16 contractors responded with suggestions
for improvements, while three contractors reported that the program runs well, and that they did
not have any recommendations. One of these three contractors stated:
"The process is easy to understand. It's easy to do. To
me, Idaho Power is requiring nothing more than what
should be done anyway. "
The most commonly cited area for improvement in the program was the time-intensive nature of
the paperwork (mentioned by 7 of 13 respondents). Four of these seven respondents
specifically mentioned the burden of the ducted system application, which requires a load
calculation. One respondent each mentioned the following other areas for improvement:
increasing the dollar value of incentives, increasing awareness of the program, expanding the
types of equipment that qualify, adding incentives for heat pump to heat pump upgrades, the
need for better communication, and delays in the process caused by retraining new staff
members. Another respondent stated that certain parts of the form are difficult to complete.
They specifically mentioned the "annual amount of supplemental fuel" and "equipment cost"
fields.
Mexpect increased expect the same expect decreased
involvement in the program involvement in the program involvement in the program
To gauge future participation, contractors were asked whether they expected their involvement
in the program to increase, decrease, or remain the same over the next few years. Eight of 15
contractors said they expect their involvement to increase, largely due to rising demand for heat
pumps, though one added that losing the 25C federal tax credit could negatively affect the
market. Six of 15 contractors expect their involvement to remain the same, citing factors such as
a rural shift toward electric versus an urban shift toward gas, burdensome paperwork for air
source heat pumps, and the need for greater customer awareness of the program. Only one
contractor reported that their involvement is likely to decrease, because they are nearing
retirement.
Nine of 13 respondents reported receiving positive feedback from customers about the program
and, more generally, the equipment received through the program. Some specific comments
from contractors who have received positive feedback from customers were:
"100%positive for the equipment. The only negative
feedback I've gotten on mini-splits themselves is that
the options are limited. You have this box on your
wall, essentially. But as far as comfort and how they
are as systems, I get great feedback on them. And then
the rebate—some people are over the moon about it
and some people are just kind of numb faced about it."
O TETRA TECH 28
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

"They love it. They're very, very grateful. They love
their equipment. "
The remaining four respondents reported that they have not received much feedback about the
program at all, except for when something "goes wrong" or does not qualify.
Finally, contractors were asked to provide any additional comments about the program. Most
did not have additional feedback, but several provided additional thoughts:
"I deeply appreciate what Idaho Power has done for
my profession and for our society because it has
opened customers'eyes to the huge difference between
companies and how they go about installing
equipment-- how it will last and behave if not set up
properly. "
"I've been installing geothermal for 25 years now, but
here's the real problem I see: water tables and valleys
are drying up because of geothermal. Everywhere Igo
people are saying I don't have any more water. "
'[Idaho Power] runs a good program. A big help to us
has been [Honeywell]. "
O TETRA TECH 29
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

5.0 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS EVALUATI • N RECOMMENDATIONS
In 2021, Idaho Power contracted with a third-party consultant to conduct impact and process
evaluations for the 2020 program year of the H&CE Program in the Idaho and Oregon service
area. The complete analysis report was published in the 2021 Supplement 2: Evaluation.
As part of the 2025 evaluation of the 2024 program, Tetra Tech reviewed and summarized the
previous recommendations. There were over 20 recommendations, which we summarized into
the four sections below: Applications, Savings, Training, and Marketing. Each of the
recommendations is in italics with a summary of the current evaluation perspective following.
5.1 APPLICATIONS/PROCESSING
Require customers to fill out application forms consistently for all projects; review each
application to ensure information requested on the application forms is provided and that it
meets the requirements; improve methods when collecting information using the web and
application forms; verify information customers provide on the whole-house fan application
forms and ensure those forms are enforced.
• The evaluation found that the documentation and applications submitted consistently
matched the tracking system. Idaho Power routinely improves the program website and
the application forms to enhance usability. The current implementation processes and
participant guidance provide the necessary information to ensure the incentives are
claimed by qualifying participants and equipment.
• The third-party reviewer ensures that all application requirements are met.
5.2 SAVINGS ASSUMPTIONS/CALCULATIONS
Round up savings values to the nearest kWh for Regional Technical Forum (RTF) approved
measures.
• Based on previous evaluation recommendations to use RTF deemed savings values
with two decimal places, Idaho Power has applied this method across all programs
using RTF-sourced deemed savings values.
Continue to use the literature review workpaper provided by the IDL when claiming savings for
the ECM incentive.
Integrate the modeling results contained in the workpaper provided by the IDL when claiming
savings for the whole-house fan incentive.
• Idaho Power continued to use the IDL workpaper with an adjustment for ECM motors
for Whole House Fan measure savings determination.
Ensure the measure-level savings applied to the heat pump water heater match the RTF
workbook interactive components, such as cooling and heating interactions.
• The savings calculation was updated before reporting the DSM 2021 Annual Report
savings to match the savings as shown in the RTF workbook version 5.3.
O TETRA TECH 30
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

Refrain from claiming smart thermostat savings for smart thermostats that get connected to heat
pumps that are installed to Performance Tested Comfort System (PTCS) standards, where
Idaho Power is claiming the PTCS savings.
• Idaho Power removed the additional savings associated with the PTCS standards and
continued to implement the smart thermostat measures for upgraded heat pumps.
Use the evaluator's billing analysis to claim savings for the ducted air-source heat pumps
upgrade measure as the alternative to the current savings, which combined the RTF's ducted
air-source heat pump upgrades with the RTF's deactivated CCS savings workbook. While the
evaluators were unable to separate the estimated savings between the ASHP upgrade and the
CCS savings, the analysis suggests that CCS savings are occurring.
• Idaho Power removed the upgrades as a standalone measure from the program.
Continue to use the RTF's savings values for the ducted air-source heat pump conversion
measure. In addition, due to the RTF deactivation of the CCS workbook and the results of the
Evaluator's billing analysis, the Evaluators recommend that Idaho Power not claim additional
savings for those projects.
• Idaho Power continued to use the RTF values for ducted air source heat pump
conversion measures.
To ensure future RTF workbooks remain applicable, continue to require additional documents to
verify the components for PTCS certification. This recommendation applies to the ducted ASHP
measure.
• Idaho Power discontinued the energy savings associated with the PTCS certification,
and it requires the contractors to provide the additional documents.
Continue analyzing the impacts of the RTF's commissioning, controls, and sizing (CCS)
workbook through measurement or billing analysis until the RTF presents a new workbook to
replace the workbook deactivated in 2020. [This recommendation applies to the ducted ASHP
measure].
• Idaho Power discontinued the energy savings associated with the CCS certification,
although it requires the contractors to implement the guidelines and supports through
the sizing worksheets on the website. This evaluation provides the measure analysis to
replace the RTF workbook.
Continue to use the RTF Connected Thermostat workbook to evaluate savings for the Smart
Thermostat measure. The evaluators suggested revisiting the billing analysis provided by the
evaluators when additional self-installed incentives are processed.
• Idaho Power continued to claim savings based on the RTF workbook for the smart
thermostats, and this evaluation revisited the billing analysis with additional self-install
smart thermostats.
5.3 TRAINING
Provide additional training to participating contractors administering the ducted air-source heat
pump measure to ensure they meet the requirements for the Performance Tested Comfort
System savings adder from the RTF.
TETRA TECH 31
O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

• Idaho Power discontinued the use of the PTCS measure and additional savings,
although they still provide contractors with training and guidance to meet the conditions
required to claim energy efficiency savings for the associated heat pump measures.
Reach out to existing contractors using training, in-person visits, and other methods to maintain
and develop relationships.
• Idaho Power continues to provide training and arrange visits with contractors to
maintain and grow relationships. Idaho Power's relationships with the contractors have
been a strong asset to the program's performance. Contractors reported feeling
supported by program staff.
Make additional efforts to provide educational training to build contractor awareness of the
program and its requirements.
• Idaho Power continued to provide training to existing and new contractors to increase
their participation in the program. In particular, the heat pump measures require
additional technical knowledge to ensure proper sizing and control commissioning.
Idaho Power works directly with contractors and provides support worksheets and
other resources on the website. Contractors are generally satisfied with
communications regarding the program and its requirements.
Provide instructional education for homeowners self-installing smart thermostats through the
program. It was also recommended that the incentive be increased to encourage homeowners
to have their smart thermostat installed properly on their equipment.
• Idaho Power provides educational guidance on the measure web landing page
describing the importance of setting up key energy-impacting features on these
thermostats.
5.4 MARKETING/OUTREACH/INCENTIVES
Invest in more marketing and outreach, with timing sensitive to customers'propensity to engage
in home upgrade projects. A focus on Smart Thermostats was also recommended.
• Idaho Power uses measure-level and program-level tactics to define the types and
content of marketing and timing.
Create a qualified products list (QPL) for the smart thermostat incentive to ensure the features
required by the RTF are present on the thermostat brands and models that receive the
incentive.
• Idaho Power lists the requirements of the measure but does not provide a qualified
product list meeting the intention of the recommendation. RTF has a QPL which is
based on the Energy Star QPL.
Increase the customer incentive amounts for existing measures and expand the number of
measures offered. An increase to the contractor stipend was also recommended for heat pump
installations.
• Idaho Power continues to review new measure opportunities and evaluates the
savings, incentive, and cost effectiveness of the current measures. The contractor
stipend was decreased since the last evaluation, although contractors still participate.
O TETRA TECH 32
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

Engage with the RCEAs to obtain their help in promoting the program.
• Idaho Power engages with its residential and commercial energy advisors on this
program.
Work with the supply chain to understand the local availability of ducted heat pumps and their
associated HSPFs. An incentive for distributors was recommended to motivate distributors to
encourage contractors to install more efficient units.
• The contractors in the market better understand the differences in types of heat pumps
and Idaho Power is training them for the proper sizing and control.
O TETRA TECH 33
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

6.0 ADDITIONAL MEASURE RESEARCH
At Idaho Power's request, Tetra Tech conducted individual measure research to provide insight
into the implementation, engineering assumptions, and energy savings for specific measures
incentivized through the Heating & Cooling Efficiency program.
6.1 GENERAL METHODOLOGY
Each measure had a specific approach, but each followed the activities highlighted in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Measure Research Evaluation Activities
Review Engineering Consumption Kilowatt-hour
data analysis analysis savings results
6.2 SMART THERMOSTATS
The H&CE program offers an incentive for smart thermostats for single-family, manufactured,
duplex, triplex, or fourplex homes that can serve as a primary residence, vacation home, or
rental property. There is only one incentive available per residence. To qualify, each thermostat
must be connected to the internet, and the residence must have an electric resistance forced-air
furnace or heat pump heating system. The thermostat can be self-installed for the incentive, but
it is also available if a contractor performs the installation. HVAC contractors participating in the
H&CE program receive guidance from the program on setting up and commissioning
thermostats.
A consumption analysis was conducted that estimates the annual savings from an installed
smart thermostat. The regression analysis includes both the heating and cooling variables so
that savings attributed to each variables can be identified. Specifically, the approach is using the
RTF Research Strategy for Residential Connected Thermostat to focus on the variations
between heating zones (HZ1, HZ2, HZ3). In addition, the analysis reviewed the variations
between equipment types (GFAF, EFAF, ASHP) and delivery channels (direct install, other) to
identify variations between the HVAC characteristics and the self-install or contractor installation
units.
6.2.1 Overall Findings
The consumption analysis found that the claimed savings from the analyzed meters is less than
the identified savings from the consumption analysis, indicating that the Idaho Power claimed
savings is within the 90 percent confidence interval.
Table 9 shows the overall results from all the participants and incorporates all types of
installations and heating zones. The overall group was separated into subsets based on
different characteristics of the participant and equipment to identify the key components of the
measure savings and identify potential improvements.
TETRA TECH 34
O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

Table 9. Smart Thermostat Consumption Analysis Results
Claimed Analysis Analysis 90'
GroupParticipant Confidence
532 Participants from 2021 to 2024 127,412 177,921 76,676-279,166
6.2.2 Methodology
Tetra Tech conducted a pre-post analysis of the centrally ducted heat pump measure using 12
months of pre-installation and 12 months of post-installation hourly consumption data for each
participant. The data sources used for the analysis, along with the data cleaning and analysis
steps, are detailed in the following subsections.
6.2.2.1 Data Sources
Data for the smart thermostat consumption analysis came from four sources:
• Program Tracking Data: We received program tracking data for program years (PY)
2022-2024, along with PY2025 year-to-date. The PY2025 (YTD) data included projects
with submission dates from January 1, 2025 through August 5, 2025. All tracking data
included device location and project ID numbers, addresses, contact information,
installation date, installation method, home characteristics, and claimed savings.
• Meter/Consumption Data: We received hourly interval data for participants from
PY2022-2025. The data spanned from January 1, 2020, through September 15, 2025.
The data contained a device location number, a timestamp, and kilowatt-hour
consumption for each interval period.
• Temperature Data: We collected one-hour temperature data from the Automated
Surface Observing System (ASOS) network.3 The temperature data spanned January 1,
2020, through September 30, 2025.
• Standardized Weather Data: We collected one-hour standardized temperature data
from Typical Meteorological Year datasets (TMYx).4
6.2.2.2 Data Cleaning
The smart thermostat program tracking data from PY2022-PY2025 (YTD) contained 1,260
project records corresponding to 1,258 unique device locations. The number of projects by
program year is shown below in Table 10.
Table 10. PY2022-2025 (YTD) Smart Thermostat Projects by Program Year
448 469 200 143 1,260
Projects were eligible for inclusion in the consumption analysis if the device location did not
utilize solar photovoltaic (PV), which was initially identified by an 106 rate code in the tracking
data. Additionally, to isolate the effect of the smart thermostat, device locations were only
3 The Idaho weather stations in the ASOS network can be found at
https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/reguest/download.phtmI?network=ID ASOS.
4 The TMYx datasets and information can be found at climate.onebuilding.org.
TETRA TECH 35
O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency- PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

eligible for inclusion in the analysis if they did not receive another incentivized measure in
PY2022-2024. After removing projects where the device location included an 106 rate code (71
projects) or received another incentivized measure during the analysis period (194 projects),
995 projects were eligible for analysis. Each remaining project had a unique device location.
Tetra Tech then reviewed meter data for the initial analysis group and identified additional
meters to exclude from the analysis. A summary of the cleaning steps for the population data is
shown in Table 11 below, and additional context on each step is provided in the following
paragraphs.
Table 11. ST Population Cleaning Summary
GroupParticipants Participants
Participant .
Participants with Incentivized Smart Thermostat 1,260
Remove participants with Rate Code 106 -71 1,189
Remove participants with another incentive in the program -194 995
Initial analysis group -265 995
Remove participants with ST InstalledDate after 8/15/24 -158 837
Remove participants with first meter reading <1 year before ST _29 I 808
InstalledDate
Remove participants with negative meter readings -15 I 793
Remove participants with >20%zero meter readings -7 786
Remove participants with ContractEndDate inside study period -37 749
Remove participants with ContractStartDate inside study period -212 537
Remove participants with inconsistent usage -5 532
Final analysis group -463 532
When reviewing the meter data for the initial analysis group, we first identified and removed
meters that lacked sufficient data in either the 12-month pre-installation or 12-month post-
installation period. This included removing 158 participants with installation dates after August
15, 2024. To ensure a full 12 months of post-installation data, the smart thermostat had to be
installed at least one year before the latest reading date, which was August 15, 2025, for all
meters. Next, 29 participants were excluded because their first meter reading was less than one
year prior to their smart thermostat installation date; therefore, they did not have enough pre-
installation data.
Next, we identified and excluded 15 participants with negative meter readings, which indicate
solar PV. An additional seven participants were removed from the analysis because more than
20 percent of their expected meter readings were zero.
Idaho Power provided us with additional tracking data for H&CE participants that included
contract start and end dates. These dates indicate contract changes involving either a rate code
change (such as adding solar PV) or a change in the account holder (for example, move-outs).
We identified the remaining participants who experienced a contract change during the study
period and visually examined their consumption patterns from the meters. Upon review, we
found that contract changes appear to influence usage patterns — consumption often varies
around the contract change date, as well as before and after that date. Therefore, we excluded
any participants who had a contract change during the study period, including 37 participants
TETRA TECH 36
O
Idaho Power Heating & Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

with a contract end date and an additional 212 participants with a contract start date during
either the 12-month pre-installation or post-installation period.
Lastly, after calculating the raw average hourly savings for each remaining meter, we identified
participants with outlier raw savings values and visually examined their meter usage. We
removed five participants who showed inconsistent consumption, indicating the presence of an
additional confounding factor that could not be addressed in the analysis.
Our final analysis group included 532 incentivized smart thermostat projects, each
corresponding to a unique device location. Below, Table 12 shows the characteristics of the
entire PY2022-2025 smart thermostat program population as well as the final analysis group.
Overall, the final analysis group characteristics are similar to those of the program population.
The installation year category indicates that all 2025 installations were excluded from analysis,
as these participants would not have a full 12 months of meter data available. In both the
program population and the final analysis group, most participants were located in heating zone
1, installed their smart thermostats themselves (i.e., not by a contractor), and had forced air
heating systems (i.e., not heat pumps).
Table 12. PY2022-PY2025 ST Program Population and Analysis Group Characteristics
ST Population Final Analysis Group
Installation Year �
2020 1 0.1% 0 1 0.0%
2021 69 5.5% 31 5.8%
2022 508 40.3% 264 49.6%
2023 386 30.6% 178 33.5%
2024 213 16.9% 59 11.1%
2025 83 6.6% 0 0.0%
Total 1,260 100.0% 532 100.0%
Heating Zone
HZ1 �=942 74.8% 419 78.8%
HZ2 216 17.1% 79 14.9%
HZ3 102 8.1% 34 6.4%
Total 1,260 100.0% 532 100.0%
Installation Type
Self Install 86410= 68.6% 419 78.8%
Contractor 396 31.4% 113 21.2%
Total 1,260 100.0% 532 100.0%
Heating Ty
Forced Air FA 696 55.2% 348 65.4%
Heat Pump HP 564 44.8% 184 34.6%
Total 1,260 100.0% 532 100.0%
Instal
Self Install - FA 636 50.5% 315 59.2%
Self Install - HP 228 18.1% 104 19.6%
O TETRA TECH 37
Idaho Power Heating & Cooling Efficiency- PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

ST Population Final Analysis Group
Contractor- FA 60 4.8% 33 6.2%
Contractor- HP 336 26.7% 80 15.0%
Total 1,260 100.0% 532 100.0%
Cooling Type
r
entral AC 637 50.6% 319 60.0%
eat Pump 561 44.5% 183 34.4%
one 55 4.4% 27 5.1%
Window AC 7 0.6% 3 0.6%
Total 1,260 100.0% 532 100.0%
I
Single Family I 1149 I 91.2% 491 92.3%
Manuf. Home 68 5.4% 22 4.1%
Duplex 24 1.9% 9 1.7%
Triplex 4 0.3% 4 0.8%
Four lex 15 1.2% 6 1.1%
Total 1,260 100.0% 532 100.0%
6.2.2.3 Analysis
Tetra Tech examined individual meter data from the 532 participants in the final analysis group
to understand how each home responded to temperature changes. Each participant had a
unique 24-month study period based on when their smart thermostat was installed. The pre-
installation period covered the 12 months before installation, while the post-installation period
included the 12 months after installation.
The meter data was provided in one-hour intervals. For each meter, we attached hourly
temperature data from the nearest weather station and then normalized the consumption data.
Weather Normalization
We identified a weather station in the ASOS network for each unique zip code represented in
the final analysis group. After cleaning the weather data to ensure the temperature data had no
gaps, we attached the temperature data from the respective weather stations to the
consumption data.
We calculated the heating degree hour (HDH) for each meter using a heating set point of 55°F,
as follows:
• Given a heating set-point of 55°F, for each hour, the temperature th is compared against
the set point. Then, HDH is defined as HDHh = 55 — th if 55 — th > 0, and zero
otherwise. This measures the degrees (Fahrenheit) by which the outside temperature is
below the heating set-point.
We calculated the cooling degree hour (CDH) for each meter using a cooling set point of 70°F,
as follows:
TETRA TECH 38
O
Idaho Power Heating & Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

• Given a cooling set-point of 70°F, for each hour, the temperature th is compared against
the set point. Then, CDH is defined as CDHh = th — 70 if th — 70 > 0, and zero
otherwise. This measures the degrees (Fahrenheit) by which the outside temperature is
above the cooling set-point.
We then set up the following regression:
23
kWhi = al + R1 * CDHi + R2 * HDHi + R3 *weekendi + Y,yj * hourij + Ei
j=1
Where, for each participant is
kWhi is the hourly consumption in the pre-installation or post-installation period.
ai is the intercept, which corresponds to consumption (kWh) at the midnight hour
on weekdays when there is no heating or cooling (HDH and CDH equal zero).
The coefficient, Ql is the model cooling slope, representing the average change
in hourly usage resulting from a one-degree increase in CDH.
CDHi is the CDH assuming a cooling set-point of 70°F.
The coefficient, F'2 is the model heating slope, representing the average change
in hourly usage resulting from a one-degree increase in HDH.
HDHi is the HDH assuming a heating set-point of 55°F.
The coefficient, (33 is the model weekend slope, representing the average change
in consumption on weekend days compared to the average consumption on
weekdays.
weekendi is an indicator variable for weekend days (weekdays equal 0, weekend
days equal 1).
The coefficients, y, are the model hour slopes, representing the average change
in consumption at each hour j (hours 1 through 23) compared to average
consumption at midnight (hour 0).
hourij are indicator variables for the hour of the day (1 through 23).
The error term, Ei encapsulates any variance that occurs.
For each participant, we ran separate regressions on their pre-installation and post-installation
consumption data. We then normalized the results by applying the pre-installation and post-
installation coefficients to a standardized weather data file (TMYx). To calculate kWh savings,
we found the difference between the pre-installation and post-installation results.
6.2.3 Analysis Results
The average annual savings (kWh) per participant after applying the analysis regression
coefficients to the normalized weather profile (TMYx data) are shown in Table 13. The "Annual"
column (shown in dark grey) provides the weather-normalized average annual savings per
participant for the Smart Thermostat measure and for the subgroups of interest (e.g., heating
zone, equipment type and install type). The five columns to the right break out the "Annual"
TETRA TECH 39
O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

average annual savings column by temperature bands — i.e., the amount of average annual
savings in the analysis that occurred in cold, cool, moderate, warm, and hot weather,
respectively. These results are discussed in each of the following sections.
The average annual savings are statistically significant for the overall Smart Thermostat
measure. The average savings within each temperature band reflect the proportion of savings
attributed to that band, but do not serve as specific qualitative findings. These values can offer
guidance on the general performance of heat pumps in different seasons.
6.2.3.1 Savings Overall
Savings for the measure overall are displayed in the top row of Table 13. Overall, the evaluation
team found that the smart thermostat measure resulted in a statistically significant average
reduction of 334 kWh in annual consumption per participant. The 90 percent confidence interval
is 144 kWh to 525 kWh. The Idaho Power claimed average annual savings for participants in
the consumption analysis was 240 kWh.
The breakdown of annual savings by temperature ranges estimates that there is nearly zero
savings for moderate temperatures, with savings increasing as the temperatures move towards
the hottest and coldest temperatures, which coincides with the load on the HVAC system.
Figure 8 shows the average hourly estimated savings on each day in the calendar year based
on the normalized weather, starting with January 1 on the left. The maximum average hourly
savings peaks near 0.1 kWh both in the hottest part of summer and the coldest parts of winter.
The shoulder seasons have a more muted impact.
Figure 8. Smart Thermostat Average Hourly kWh Savings
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
n
0.0 y^f
-0.1
0101 0129 0226 0326 0423 0521 0618 0716 0813 0910 1008 1105 1203 1231
Date
ST Overall
O TETRA TECH 40
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

Table 13. Smart Thermostat Average Annual Savings (kWh)—Weather-Normalized
Average Savings per Participant(kWh)
Device Annual Cold* Cool* Moderate* Warm* Hot*
• (Overall) (<35°F) (35 to <50°F) (50 to 70°F) (>70 to 85°F) (>85°F)
ST Overall 532 334 161 77 -19# 49 66
Heating Zone
HZ1 419 217 7411 324 -22# 53 79
HZ2 79 607 439 1824 -52# 174 20#
HZ3 34 1,153 582 384 934 82 11 #
Installation Type
Contractor 113 1,411 491 447 145 173 155
Self Install 419 4411 724 -23# -63 164 42
Heating Type
Electric FA 348 2211 474 -26# -55 154 41
Heat pump 184 926 377 272 504 113 114
Installation and Heating Type
Contractor- FA 33 -109# 374 -51 # -103# -21 # 29#
Contractor- HP 80 2,037 678 652 247 253 206
Self Install - FA 315 3511 484 -24# -50 19# 42
Self Install - HP 104 7211 145# -20# -102 6# 43#
Cooling Type
Central AC 319 -35# 5# -49# -56 19# _ 46
Heat pump 183 936 381 275 50# 114 115
None 27 813 540 264 3# 10# -3#
Window AC 3 s s s s s
Home Type
Single Family 491 227 109 394 -31 # 43 67
Manuf. Home 22 2,984 1,294 1,037 299 232
Duplex 9 s s s s s s
Triplex 4 s s s s s
Fourplex 6 s s s s s
*Savings provided in temperature ranges are for qualitative findings.
#Savings are not statistically significant.
Results for groups with a small number of participants(n<10)are suppressed.
TETRA TECH 41
O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

The savings were analyzed by separating out the heating zones, heating equipment type, and
installation type for each variable individually. Several of the conditions showed positive results;
however, the primary indication of savings was the combination of installation type and heating
equipment type.
6.2.3.2 Savings by Installation and Heating Equipment Type
Weather-normalized average annual savings (kWh) are shown in Figure 9. Overall, the
program's performance was very good compared to the average savings claimed; however, the
consumption analysis revealed that a contractor-installed smart thermostat on a HVAC heat
pump system was the primary project type that saved energy. Figure 11 shows the difference
between the average savings and 90 percent confidence interval when the installation
characteristics meet this condition, 2,037 kWh. The contractor-installed thermostat with an
electric furnace (Contractor- FA) shows savings of nearly zero. Any option with a self-installed
thermostat also shows nearly zero energy savings.
Figure 9. Smart Thermostat Average Annual kWh Savings (90% CI) by Installation and Heating
Type
7
-1,000 -500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
Overall (n=532) ■Contractor- HP (n=80) Contractor- FA (n=33)
Self Install - HP (n=104) ■Self Install - FA (n=315)
O TETRA TECH 42
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

Figure 10. Smart Thermostat Average Hourly kWh Savings by Installation and Heating Type
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
�� &A-A A I A A&AL4 AAA_i A . !A
0.0
-0.1
0101 0129 0226 0326 0423 0521 0618 0716 0813 0910 1008 1105 1203 1231
Date
Contractor- HP Contractor- FA Self Install - HP Self Install - FA
The H&CE program claims energy savings for this condition (contractor-installed controlling a
heat pump) of 356, 374, or 302 kWh for heating zones 1, 2, and 3, respectively. This graph
combines the three heating zones because of the scale of the difference. The program also
claims identical savings for the self-installed smart thermostats controlling a heat pump.
Averaging both the contractor and self-installed thermostats controlling a heat pump, the
consumption analysis identified 926 kWh, which is two and a half times greater than the claimed
savings.
There are multiple explanations for these savings variations; the simplest result is that the
contractor better understands the settings of the smart thermostat beyond just the temperature
and completes a commissioning to ensure the equipment is responding correctly. Based on the
results of the impact and process evaluation of the program, this is expected to be a portion of
the energy savings. This is indicated by the dual peaks of hourly energy savings shown in
Figure 12, both the summer and winter.
Another possibility for the increased savings is that the contractor installed smart thermostats,
which also include a new heat pump, that does not meet the requirements of the program. The
analysis included the participants who received a smart thermostat and heat pump measure in
the CDHP analysis, but Idaho Power does not track new heat pumps that do not receive
incentives. Therefore, the possibility exists that a new heat pump and smart thermostat were
installed, but only a smart thermostat was claimed. Compared to the annual savings of the new
centrally ducted heat pumps, an average of 3,018 kWh was about 50 percent higher than the
savings found for the contractor installation of a smart thermostat controlling a heat pump.
Assuming a similar baseline between the analyzed groups, this would represent a less efficient
heat pump which still improves the efficiency over the baseline equipment, but not to the level
found in qualifying heat pumps. Therefore, this measure may be capturing energy savings
associated with heat pump conversions from electric resistance, which are not considered
energy-efficient heat pumps.
TETRA TECH 43
O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

6.2.3.3 Savings by Individual Subgroups
The savings by heating zone, heating equipment type, and installation type are shown
individually in Figure 13 through Figure 16 using the same average annual savings with
confidence interval and the normalized average hourly savings starting on January 1. These
graphs are heavily influenced by the quantity of contractor-installed smart thermostat-controlled
heat pump projects in each category compared to the quantity of other projects. On their own,
each individual subgroup result does not provide a finding, but is provided to indicate that the
result of certain implementation decisions may impact the results of the program.
Figure 11. Smart Thermostat Average Annual kWh Savings (90% CI) by Heating Zone
-1,000 -500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
Overall (n=532) ■HZ1 (n=419) HZ2 (n=79) HZ3 (n=34)
Figure 12. Smart Thermostat Average Hourly kWh Savings by Heating Zone
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1 fUY V " '�IVI IU IYIII� /�
AAA A
0.0
-0.1
0101 0129 0226 0326 0423 0521 0618 0716 0813 0910 1008 1105 1203 1231
Date
HZ1 HZ2 HZ3
O TETRA TECH 44
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

Figure 13. Smart Thermostat Average Annual kWh Savings (90% CI) by Installation Type
-1,000 -500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
Overall (n=532) ■Contractor(n=113) Self Install (n=419)
Figure 14. Smart Thermostat Average Hourly kWh Savings by Installation Type
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
0101 0129 0226 0326 0423 0521 0618 0716 0813 0910 1008 1105 1203 1231
Date
Contractor Self Install
O TETRA TECH 45
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

Figure 15. Smart Thermostat Average Annual kWh Savings (90% CI) by Heating Type
-1,000 -500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
Overall (n=532) ■HP (n=184) FA(n=348)
Figure 16. Smart Thermostat Average Hourly kWh Savings by Heating Type
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
-0.1
0101 0129 0226 0326 0423 0521 0618 0716 0813 0910 1008 1105 1203 1231
Date
HP FA
6.3 CENTRALLY DUCTED HEAT PUMP
The centrally ducted heat pump (CDHP) measure provides an incentive for a heat pump when it
converts an electric forced air furnace, electric baseboard units, propane forced air furnace, or
an oil forced air furnace. These measures are considered a conversion. Prior to PY2025, the
program also offered a heat pump upgrade, which replaced an existing heat pump with a new
high-efficiency heat pump. The participants must be either a stand-alone single-family,
manufactured, duplex, triplex, or fourplex residence, and can be either the primary residence,
rental, or vacation home.
TETRA TECH 46 O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

A heat pump provides several pathways for energy savings, first by being more efficient,
providing cooling and air distribution than the existing air conditioning system, and second by
providing heat extracted from the environment, which is more efficient than electric resistance. A
consumption analysis was completed to evaluate the energy savings of the previous
participants in the H&CE program who received an incentive for a centrally ducted heat pump.
The H&CE program has delivered this measure since before 2021 and has continued to expect
the installations to have PTCS commissioning.5 The evaluation reviewed the tracking and
focused the analysis on participants in 2023 and 2024 to account for the new multiple-speed
technologies for improved cold weather operation, which have become commercialized during
this time period.
The evaluators reviewed the RTF Research Strategy for CDHP upgrades and conversions,
focusing on the heating zones, but also considered the impact of the new equipment on the
shoulder and summer seasons to support a comprehensive understanding of the measure's
impacts.
6.3.1 Overall Findings
The consumption analysis found that the claimed savings from the analyzed meters are less
than the identified savings from the consumption analysis, indicating that IPC's claimed savings
are within the 90 percent confidence interval.
Table 14 shows the overall results from all the participants and incorporates conversions and
upgrades and all the participant types and climate zones. The overall group was separated into
subsets based on different characteristics of the participant and equipment to identify the key
components of the measure savings and identify potential improvements.
Table 14. CDHP Consumption Analysis Results
Claimed Analysis Analysis •0'
GroupParticipant Confidence
114 Participants from 2023 &2024 287,280 344,012 248,793 -439,231
6.3.2 Methodology
Tetra Tech conducted a pre-post analysis of the centrally ducted heat pump measure using 12
months of pre-installation and 12 months of post-installation hourly consumption data for each
participant. The data sources used for the analysis, along with the data cleaning and analysis
steps, are detailed in the following subsections.
6.3.2.1 Data Sources
Data for the centrally ducted heat pump consumption analysis came from four sources:
• Program Tracking Data: We received program tracking data for program years (PY)
2022-2024, which included device location and project ID numbers, addresses, contact
information, installation date, home characteristics, and claimed savings.
• Meter/Consumption Data: We received hourly interval data for participants from
PY2022-2025. The data spanned from January 1, 2022, through September 15, 2025.
5 PTCS was discontinued as a requirement for the deemed RTF savings.
TETRA TECH 47
O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

The data contained a device location number, a timestamp, and kilowatt-hour
consumption for each interval period.
• Temperature Data: We collected one-hour temperature data from the Automated
Surface Observing System (ASOS) network.6 The temperature data spanned January 1,
2020, through September 30, 2025.
• Standardized Weather Data: We collected one-hour standardized temperature data
from Typical Meteorological Year datasets (TMYx).7
6.3.2.2 Data Cleaning
The centrally ducted heat pump program tracking data from PY2022-PY2024 contained 458
project records, each with a unique device location. The number of projects by program year is
shown below in Table 15.
Table 15. PY2022-2024 CDHP Projects by Program Year
181 174 103 458
Projects were eligible for inclusion in the consumption analysis if the device location did not
utilize solar photovoltaic (PV), which was initially identified by an 106 rate code in the tracking
data. New construction projects were also excluded from the analysis, as these meters would
not have pre-installation meter data. Additionally, to isolate the effect of the centrally ducted
heat pump, device locations were only eligible for inclusion in the analysis if they did not receive
another incentivized measure in PY2022-2024. However, smart thermostats were an exception
to this — participants who received an incentivized smart thermostat (but no other measures)
were eligible for the analysis. After removing projects where the device location included an 106
rate code (31 projects), was part of a new construction project (47 projects), or received another
incentivized measure other than a smart thermostat during the analysis period (6 projects), 374
projects were eligible for analysis. Each remaining project had a unique device location.
Tetra Tech then reviewed meter data for the initial analysis group and identified additional
meters to exclude. A summary of the population data cleaning steps is shown in Table 16
below, and additional context on each step is provided in the following paragraphs.
Table 16. CDHP Population Cleaning Summary
Group � Participants Participants
.
Participants with Incentivized Centrally Ducted Heat Pump 458
Remove participants with Rate Code 106 -31 427
Remove participants with New Construction -47 380
Remove participants with another(non-ST) incentive -6 374
Initial analysis group -84 374
Remove participants with no AMI data -3J 371
Remove participants with InstalledDate before 1/1/2023 -192 179
6 The Idaho weather stations in the ASOS network can be found at
https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/request/download.phtmI?network=ID ASOS.
The TMYx datasets and information can be found at climate.onebuilding.org.
TETRA TECH 48
O
Idaho Power Heating & Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

GroupParticipants Participants
Participant .
Remove participants with large number of missing meter readings -19 160
Remove participants with PF/OF heating type -20 140
Remove participants with a contract change during the study period -26 _ 114
Final analysis group -260 114
When reviewing the meter data for the initial analysis group, we first identified and removed
meters that lacked sufficient data in either the 12-month pre-installation or the 12-month post-
installation period. First, three participants were excluded from the analysis because they had
no meter data. Next, 192 participants were removed because their CDHP installation date was
before January 1, 2023; to ensure a full 12 months of pre-installation data, the CDHP had to be
installed at least one year after the earliest reading date, which was January 1, 2022, for all
meters. An additional 19 participants were identified and excluded because their meters missed
a large number of expected readings.
Next, 20 participants were excluded because they used oil (OF) or propane (PF) furnaces for
heating. These participants were removed because the heating system switched fuels, so the
analysis only reflects the post-installation electricity use for heating.
As with the smart thermostat consumption analysis, we identified participants who experienced
a contract change$ during the study period. After visually inspecting the consumption data for
these participants, we found that contract changes appear to affect usage patterns —
consumption often differs around the contract change date, as well as before and after the
change date. Therefore, we excluded 26 participants who had a contract change during either
the 12-month pre-installation or post-installation period.
Our final analysis group included 114 incentivized centrally ducted heat pump projects, each
corresponding to a unique device location. Below, Table 17 shows the characteristics of the
entire PY2022-2024 CDHP program population as well as the final analysis group. Overall, the
final analysis group characteristics are similar to the program population. In both the program
population and the final analysis group, most participants were located in heating zone 1,
completed a conversion (rather than an upgrade) project, and did not participate in Idaho
Power's smart thermostat incentive program. However, the installation year category shows that
all installations from 2022 or earlier were excluded from the analysis, as these participants
would not have a full 12 months of meter data available for the pre-installation analysis period.
Additionally, all participants with new construction projects were excluded, as were participants
with oil or propane furnace heating.
Table 17. PY2022-PY2024 CDHP Program Population and Analysis Group Characteristics
CDHP Population Final Analysis Group
Characteristics
©�
Installation Year
2020 3 0.7% 0 0.0%
2021 55 12.0% 0 0.0%
$ Idaho Power provided Tetra Tech with additional tracking data for HCE participants, which included
contract start and end dates. These dates indicate contract changes involving either a rate code change
(i.e., adding solar PV) or a change in the account holder(e.g., move-outs).
TETRA TECH 49
O
Idaho Power Heating & Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

CDHP Population
Characteristics
®'
2022 173 37.8% 0 0.0%
2023 171 37.3% 93 81.6%
2024 56 12.2% 21 18.4%
Total 458 1 100.0% 1 114 100.0%
-Heating Zon
HZ1 259 56.6% 61 53.5%
HZ2 141 30.8% 42 36.8%
HZ3 58 12.7% 11 9.7%
Total 458 100.0% 114 100.0%
Measure Type
Conversion 302 65.9% 75 65.8%
Upgrade 108 23.6% 39 34.2%
New
Construction 48 10.5% 0 0.0%
Total 458 1 100.0% 1 1141 100.0%
Application Type
Air Source 289 63.1% 57 50.0%
Variable Speed 121 26.4% 57 50.0%
New
Construction 48 10.5% 0 0.0%
Total 458 100.0% 114 100.0%
gram Participati
ST
Nonparticipant 290 63.3% 66 57.9%
ST Participant 168 36.7% 48 42.1%
Total 458 100.0% 114 100.0%
Home Type jr
Single Family 389 84.9% 92 80.7%
Manuf. Home 60 13.1% 20 17.5%
Duplex 7 1.5% 1 0.9%
Fourplex 2 0.4% 1 0.9%
Total 458 1 100.0% 1 1141 100.0%
Heating Type
Electric Forced
Air 246 53.7% 70 61.4%
Air Source 156 34.1% 39 34.2%
Propane Forced
Air 25 5.5% 0 0.0%
Oil Forced Air 21 4.6% 0 0.0%
Electric Zonal 10 2.2% 5 4.4%
O TETRA TECH 50
Idaho Power Heating & Cooling Efficiency- PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

CDHP Population Final Analysis Group
Characteristics
Total 458 1 100.0% 1 114 100.0%
Cooling Type
None 176 38.4% 35 30.7%
Air Source 156 I 34.1% 39 34.2%
Central AC 106 23.1% 34 29.8%
Window AC 8 1.8% 3 2.6%
Evaporative
Cooler 8 1.8% 1 0.9%
Other 4 0.9% 2 1.8%
Total1 458 100.0% 1141 100.0%
6.3.2.3 Analysis
Tetra Tech examined individual meter data for the 114 participants in the final analysis group to
understand how each home responded to temperature changes. Each participant had a unique
24-month study period based on their CDHP installation date. The pre-installation period
included the 12 months before the installation date, while the post-installation period covered
the 12 months after the installation date.
The meter data was provided in one-hour intervals. For each meter, we attached hourly
temperature data from the nearest weather station and then normalized the consumption data.
Weather Normalization
We identified a weather station in the ASOS network for each unique zip code represented in
the final analysis group. After cleaning the weather data to ensure the temperature data had no
gaps, we attached the temperature data from the respective weather stations to the
consumption data.
We calculated the cooling degree hour (CDH) for each meter using a cooling set point of 70°F,
as follows:
• Given a cooling set-point of 70°F, for each hour, the temperature th is compared against
the set point. Then, CDH is defined as CDHh = th — 70 if th — 70 > 0, and zero
otherwise. This measures the degrees (Fahrenheit) by which the outside temperature is
above the cooling set-point.
We calculated the heating degree hour (HDH) for each meter using a heating set point of 55°F,
as follows:
• Given a heating set-point of 55°F, for each hour, the temperature th is compared against
the set point. Then, HDH is defined as HDHh = 55 — th if 55 — th > 0, and zero
otherwise. This measures the degrees (Fahrenheit) by which the outside temperature is
below the heating set-point.
We then set up the following regression:
TETRA TECH 51
O
Idaho Power Heating & Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

23
kWhi = ai + R1 * CDHi + R2 * HDHi + (33 *weekendi + Y,yj * hourij + Ei
j=1
Where, for each participant is
kWhi is the hourly consumption in the pre-installation or post-installation period.
ai is the intercept, which corresponds to consumption (kWh) at the midnight hour
on weekdays when there is no heating or cooling (HDH and CDH equal zero).
The coefficient, (31 is the model cooling slope, representing the average change
in hourly usage resulting from a one-degree increase in CDH.
CDHi is the CDH assuming a cooling set-point of 70°F.
The coefficient, R2 is the model heating slope, representing the average change
in hourly usage resulting from a one-degree increase in HDH.
HDHi is the HDH assuming a heating set-point of 55°F.
The coefficient, Q3 is the model weekend slope, representing the average change
in consumption on weekend days compared to the average consumption on
weekdays.
weekendl is an indicator variable for weekend days (weekdays equal 0, weekend
days equal 1).
The coefficients, yj are the model hour slopes, representing the average change
in consumption at each hour j (hours 1 through 23) compared to average
consumption at midnight (hour 0).
hourij are indicator variables for the hour of the day (1 through 23).
The error term, Ei encapsulates any variance that occurs.
For each participant, we ran separate regressions on their pre-installation and post-installation
consumption data. We then normalized the results by applying the pre-installation and post-
installation coefficients to a standardized weather data file (TMYx). To calculate kWh savings,
we found the difference between the pre-installation and post-installation results.
6.3.3 Analysis Results
The average annual savings (kWh) per participant after applying the analysis regression
coefficients to the normalized weather profile (TMYx) are shown in Table 18. The "Annual"
column (shown in dark grey) provides the weather-normalized average annual savings per
participant for the CDHP measure overall and for the subgroups of interest (e.g., heating zone,
measure type). The average annual savings is statistically significant for the CDHP measure
overall and for each subgroup with a value provided.
The five columns to the right break out the "Annual" average savings column by temperature
bands— i.e., the amount of normalized average annual savings that occurred in cold, cool,
moderate, warm, and hot standardized weather, respectively. The average savings in each
TETRA TECH 52
O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

temperature band are provided as qualitative findings, which generally indicate the temperature
bands where the measure provides the most and least benefit.
6.3.3.1 Savings Overall
As shown in the top row of Table 18, the evaluation team found that the CDHP measure
resulted in a statistically significant average reduction of 3,018 kWh in annual consumption per
participant. The 90 percent confidence interval is 2,182 kWh to 3,853 kWh. The Idaho Power
claimed average annual savings per participant of 2,521 kWh is within this interval.
The breakdown of annual savings by temperature ranges shows that an estimated 1,292 kWh of
the total average 3,018 kWh savings occurred during "cold" hours, when the standardized
outdoor temperature was below 35°F (shown in the dark blue column). When the "cold" and
"cool" values are combined, they account for 76 percent of the total average annual savings. In
contrast, only 380 kWh (13 percent) of savings came from hours when the standardized outdoor
temperature was above 70OF and an approximately equal amount from the moderate
temperatures between 50OF and 70°F. As expected, most of the savings from the CDHP
measure occur when HVAC requires heating; however, there was also a savings contribution
from the remainder of the year.
These results are also reflected in Figure 17, which shows the average hourly estimated
savings on each day of the weather-normalized calendar year. The maximum average hourly
savings is less than 1 kWh. However, the average hourly savings during winter days are two to
four times greater than the hourly savings on summer days, which supports the results by
temperature ranges in Table 18.
Figure 17. CDHP Average Hourly kWh Savings
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
0101 0129 0226 0326 0423 0521 0618 0716 0813 0910 1008 1105 1203 1231
Date
CDHP Overall
Overall, it is observed that as temperatures drop, savings continue to rise. This suggests that
the installations are correctly sized and commissioned to deliver the savings claimed in the
program. CDHP installations that are not properly sized would show a reduction in savings at
the coldest temperatures.
Regionally and nationally, energy efficiency programs struggle to work with local contractors to
accurately size and commission heat pump systems. As a result, consumption analyses often
TETRA TECH 53
O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

show localized results that do not always align with the engineering principles of the equipment.
Idaho Power has established the expectation that proper load calculations are completed and
that the sizing and commissioning of systems are designed to optimize their operation. Having
this requirement in place is why the results of this consumption analysis reflect the engineering
theory at both the overall and subgroup levels. The evaluation team estimates that without
ongoing support, training, and adherence to the Idaho Power program, the practices of load
calculation, sizing, and commissioning in the Idaho Power territory will decline over time.
TETRA TECH 54
O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

Table 18. CDHP Average Annual Savings (kWh)-Weather-Normalized
Average Savings per Participant(kWh)
Device Annual Cold* Cool* Moderate* Warm* Hot*
• (Overall) (<35*F) (35 to <50°F) (50 to 70°F) (>70 to 85°F) (>85°F)
CDHP Overall 114 3,018 1,292 1,004 342 236 144
Heating Zone
HZ1 61 3,370 1,281 1,214 329 307 238
HZ2 42 2,455 851 823 499 228 54#
HZ3 11 3,213 3,034 525 -183# -129# -33
Measure Type
Conversion 75 3,608 1,565 1,228 415 253 146
Upgrade 39 1,883 765 571 203# 203 141
Equipment(Application)Type
Air Source 57 2,602 976 909 408 216 94
Variable Speed 57 3,434 1,607 1,098 277# 256 194
Smart Thermostat Program
Nonparticipants 66 2,733 1,022 880 374 278 179
Participants 48 3,410 1,663 1,174 299 178 96
Home Type
Single Family 92 3,041 1,311 982 322 255 171
Manuf. Home 20 2,666 979 1,060 455 154 19#
Duplex 1 s s s s s s
Fourplex 1 s s s s s s
Heating Type
Electric Furnace 70 3,500 1,471 1,206 416 260 147
Air Source HP 39 1,883 765 571 203 203 141
Electric Zonal 5 s s s s s s
Cooling Type
Air Source 39 1,883 765 571 204# 203 141
None 35 2,661 1,447 842 289 67# 17#
Central AC 34 4,462 1,962 1,623 339 331 207
Window AC 3 s s s s s s
Other 2 s s s s s s
Evap. Cooler 1 s s s s s s
Savings provided in temperature ranges are for qualitative findings.
Results for groups with a small number of participants(n<10)are suppressed.
TETRA TECH 55
O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency- PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

6.3.3.2 Savings by Heating Zone
Figure 18 shows the average annual kWh savings, along with 90 percent confidence intervals,
by the three heating zones defined by RTF. Savings were found in each of the three heating
zones. Heating Zone 1 experiences the highest average annual savings among the three
heating zones (3,370 kWh), but the average savings in Heating Zone 3 were only slightly lower
(3,213 kWh)with a larger confidence interval. The larger confidence interval is driven by the fact
that only 11 participants were analyzed in Heating Zone 3, and also because eight of those
participants did not have air conditioning before the installation of the heat pump.
Figure 19 shows this by demonstrating negative average savings during summer, in addition to
the increased variability in winter in Heating Zone 3. The annual savings result for Heating Zone
3 did not adjust the negative savings, indicating there is additional claimed savings available,
assuming that there is a baseline air conditioning.
Figure 18. CDHP Average Annual kWh Savings (90% CI) by Heating Zone
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Overall (n=114) ■HZ1 (n=61) HZ2 (n=42) HZ3 (n=11)
O TETRA TECH 56
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

Figure 19. CDHP Average Hourly kWh Savings by Heating Zone
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0 TV A in A
-0.2 VV V%k'-Al
-0.4
0101 0129 0226 0326 0423 0521 0618 0716 0813 0910 1008 1105 1203 1231
Date
HZ1 HZ2 HZ3
6.3.3.3 Savings by Measure Type
The Idaho Power and RTF measure type is separated by the difference between Conversion
and Upgrade. Conversion represents a project that converted the HVAC heating system from a
system that relies on electric resistance heat to a centrally ducted heat pump. The upgrade
represents an HVAC system that previously used a heat pump, which is being replaced by a
new CDHP. The estimated average annual savings for these two measure types are shown in
Figure 20, and the hourly savings throughout the weather-normalized year are displayed in
Figure 21.
The conversion measure type has the higher savings primarily because of the heat pump
technology improvement over the electric resistance technology to provide heat. The upgrade
provides a more consistent hourly savings throughout the year, indicating that the technology
remains similar, but the combination of equipment efficiency and control commissioning
increases savings throughout the year. Importantly, the upgrade still does increase the savings
in winter, supporting the claims of better cold-weather performance from the more advanced
heat pumps. The energy savings when the temperature increases over 70OF is similar between
the two measure types.
TETRA TECH 57 O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

Figure 20. CDHP Average Annual kWh Savings (90% CI) by Measure Type
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Overall (n=114) ■Conversion (n=75) Upgrade (n=39)
Figure 21. CDHP Average Hourly kWh Savings by Measure Type
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.
0.2 M, �
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
0101 0129 0226 0326 0423 0521 0618 0716 0813 0910 1008 1105 1203 1231
Date
Conversion Upgrade
6.3.3.4 Savings by Equipment (Application) Type
The Idaho Power and RTF equipment type is separated by the difference between Air Source
(AS) and Variable Speed (VS). The Air Source measure is a standard heat pump that exceeds
federal standards but typically has only one or two speed settings. The Variable Speed heat
pump requires that the AHRI directory states that the heat pump exceeds the minimum of 8.5
HSPF or 7.2 HSPF2 on the AHRI directory. A variable-speed heat pump should have increased
performance in the winter because it will operate at lower temperatures before requiring
auxiliary heating to meet the load.
TETRA TECH 58
O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

Figure 22, and Figure 23 indicates that the difference in savings between the two measure
types is in the winter performance. The savings are nearly identical between the two heat pump
types from May through September. However, the variable speed heat pumps consistently have
higher savings during the colder months at the beginning and end of the year. The result is that
there is approximately a 30 percent increase in savings for the Idaho Power territory associated
with the ability to operate at lower temperatures. This aligns with the engineering expectation of
variable speed technology.
Figure 22. CDHP Average Annual kWh Savings (90% Cl) by Equipment(Application) Type
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500
Overall (n=114) ■Air Source (n=57) Variable Speed (n=57)
Figure 23. CDHP Average Hourly kWh Savings by Equipment (Application) Type
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
0101 0129 0226 0326 0423 0521 0618 0716 0813 0910 1008 1105 1203 1231
Date
Single Speed Variable Speed
O TETRA TECH 59
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

6.3.3.5 Savings by Smart Thermostat Program Participation
The consumption analysis included participants who claimed a new smart thermostat along with
their central ducted air source heat pump. These participants were removed from the smart
thermostat consumption analysis because the centrally ducted heat pump will fundamentally
change the HVAC system. However, they were included in this participant group because of the
high number of contractors who provided feedback that they install new thermostats with a new
heat pump.
It is likely that a new thermostat was installed with most of the CDHP equipment, and the
requirements of Idaho Power to set certain components of the controls likely separate the
participants from nonparticipants. Figure 24 shows the variation in consumption savings when a
smart thermostat measure (ST) was claimed. The average annual savings are approximately 25
percent higher for CDHP participants who claimed a ST measure compared to those who did
not. Figure 25 shows that the higher annual savings among ST participants are driven by
consistent improved winter performance. This indicates that the contractors who claim the
measure are consistently adjusting the auxiliary heat setting to match the residence and climate.
The average daily savings among nonparticipants exceed those for smart thermostat
participants during the summer months of July and August. The energy savings are within the
confidence interval indicating that there is no significant difference in the savings during this
period.
Figure 24. CDHP Average Annual kWh Savings (90% Cl) by Smart Thermostat Program
Participation
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500
Overall (n=114) ■ST Participant (n=48) ST Nonparticipant (n=66)
O TETRA TECH 60
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

Figure 25. CDHP Average Hourly kWh Savings by Smart Thermostat Program Participation
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4 A
�,i�,► ^L
0.2 ti �.'r...
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
0101 0129 0226 0326 0423 0521 0618 0716 0813 0910 1008 1105 1203 1231
Date
ST Participant ST Nonparticipant
6.4 GROUND-SOURCE AND WATER-SOURCE HEAT PUMP
The retrofit ground-source heat pump (GSHP) and open-loop water-source heat pump (WSHP)
save energy by utilizing the temperature stability of the surrounding ground and water sources,
respectively, to heat or cool a home. Compared to an air source heat pump, the ground and
water provide a relatively stable heat sink for the heat pump to condition the home. Installers
survey the home size, location, and characteristics to size the heat pump to meet the home's
heating and cooling needs. Heat pumps, correctly sized, can reduce the magnitude of energy
required during peak events.
The ground-source and water-source heat pump incentives required participants to install a
ground-source or open-loop water-source heat pump with a minimum coefficient of performance
of 3.5. Incentives to participants varied for retrofit projects based on the previously existing
heating system, including ducted air source heat pumps, electric baseboards, oil forced air
furnaces, electric forced air furnaces, and propane forced air furnaces. Ground-source and
open-loop water-source heat pump incentive requirements are provided in Table 19.
Table 19. Ground-Source and Water-Source Heat Pumps Measure Requirements
ConditionsHome .
• Residence can be a primary residence, a • Ground-source or open-loop water-
vacation home, or a rental source heat pump
• Previously existing HVAC must be ducted air • Minimum 3.5 coefficient of
source heat pump, electric baseboards, ceiling performance
cable, wall units, oil forced air furnace, electric
forced air furnace, or propane forced air
furnace.
O TETRA TECH 61
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

6.4.1 Methodology
The evaluation team reviewed the hourly consumption, documentation, and tracking system for
GSHP and WSHP installed measures in the 2022-2024 program.
The summary of tracking system data provided for 2022-2024 is provided in Table 20. The 23
total projects were split between the two technologies, and whether the projects were retrofit or
new construction. The retrofit projects completed a pre-post comparison of the consumption to
determine a regression equation to identify weather-normalized savings. The remainder of the
installations were new construction, where the consumption was analyzed but could not be
compared to previous consumption to identify savings.
Table 20. Participants by GSHP and WSHP measure
Group Group PY2022 PY2023
Retrofit Ground-Source 1 _ 0 �_ 3
Water-Source 0 _ 0 1
New Ground-Source 1 4 1
Construction Water-Source 3 6 3
The participants were all single-family homes, ranging in size from 1,200 square feet to 7,069
square feet. The homes were a mix of primary residences and vacation homes and two were
identified to have solar panels, which augmented the electricity consumption.
6.4.2 Findings
The claimed savings for ground-source and water-source heat pumps are based on the home's
square footage (less than or equal to 4,000 square feet or greater than 4,000 square feet),
climate zone, preexisting HVAC technology (air source heat pump or forced air furnace with
central air conditioning), new construction or retrofit project type, and whether a desuperheater
was installed. With all these variables, the annual claimed savings ranged from 6,736 to 13,606
kWh per residence.
The evaluation reviewed the consumption for all the participants, although the limited number of
projects and the variation in deemed savings amounts made it difficult to identify savings.
Further, the evaluation of new construction projects can only determine savings when compared
to a baseline home, which is not identified in the deemed savings value. Therefore, the savings
evaluation could only be identified based on the limited number of retrofit projects.
Unfortunately, the five retrofit projects had variations, which also limited the availability of
results. One project had solar PV, two projects previously had no central air conditioning, and
the remaining projects had one which replaced an air source heat pump and one that replaced
an air conditioner and electric resistance heat. Each of these conditions creates a different
profile, and only two of them could show the consumption reduction for the measure.
6.4.2.1 Retrofit Projects
Those two retrofit projects, which could be analyzed, are relatively large residences located in
HZ1, in the cities of Nampa and Emmett, respectively, and both were built before 2000. One
retrofit project installed a GSHP, while the other installed a WSHP. Load calculations were only
included in the documentation received for Retrofit Project 2, which indicated that the heating
capacity covered only 82 percent of the heating load calculation. Retrofit Project 1 is a smaller
TETRA TECH 62
O
Idaho Power Heating & Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

house with a larger capacity unit, indicating the capacity may more closely match the winter
heating load. Characteristics of the projects are identified in Table 21.
Table 21. Tracking System for Two Retrofit Projects
RetrofitInstalled
Heat Home Previous Previous Heating Year
. Climate Square . Cooling Capacity Home
ProjectType Zone Footage Tech nologyTechnology __(BTU/hr) was Built
1 GSHP HZ1, CZ3 3434 Air Source Air Source 48,700 1989
Heat Pump Heat Pump
2 WSHP HZ1, CZ3 4000 Electric Centralized Air 35,000 1996
Forced Air Conditioner
Furnace
Figure 26 and Figure 27 show the hourly consumption (kWh/hr) data for the projects. The red
line shows the installation date, and the black lines denote the immediate 12 months prior to
installation and 12 months after installation. In both meter graphs, consumption after installation
has visibly lower winter consumption and fewer spikes of energy use. The spikes of energy use
in winter indicate the hours when auxiliary heat was used for extended periods of time. In both
plots, the maximum peak consumption kWh/hr was nearly equal post-install as it was pre-
insta119, indicating the heat at the coldest temperatures did not improve from either the electric
resistance baseline or the air source heat pump baseline using electric resistance auxiliary heat.
Although the peak demand may not decrease significantly for these participants, their annual
consumption should be reduced substantially.
Figure 26. Hourly Meter Data for Retrofit Project 1
Itie
*kl �' 'ly+ 1�1 1IrJ La _
I
! 1 � I lip iT It j ( I K1 i � . 4 ef' � ! '��.i t•
s Retrofit project 2 likely had a special condition which resulted in the extraordinary peak demand in
Spring 2023.
TETRA TECH 63
O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

Figure 27. Hourly Meter Data for Retrofit Project 2
/
.a,' vll� �f 11 � 1'I � � l I I II �� ► i
la!1-Lg_ , :uFilZ �� rN �4!J � � '!�! ���. .r; iti• _��,�1 1 ` rl�r.
.Ub.Mi.-t,�� '•�. r i
A regression analysis10 was performed on these two projects to estimate weather normalized
savings from the installation. Figure 28 and Figure 29 plot average daily kWh savings between
pre-install and post-install using the same average daily model temperature set (TMYx) as the
CDHP analysis.
Retrofit project 1 (Figure 28) showed a relatively consistent reduction of electricity consumption
throughout the year. This indicates that the installed GSHP is consistently more efficient than
the air source heat pump in the pre-install condition. As the temperature increased in summer,
the savings also increased, indicating that the ground source heat pump is more efficient
because the ground temperature is more constant than the air temperature.
10 Analysis used cooling degree days at base temperature 65F and heating degree days at base
temperature 55F
TETRA TECH 64
O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

Figure 28.Average Daily kWh Savings by Regression Model for Retrofit Project 1
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
0101 0129 0226 0325 0422 0520 0617 0715 0812 0909 1007 1104 1202 1230
Date
Retrofit project 2 (Figure 29) showed a reduction profile more similar to a traditional heat pump
replacing an electric resistance furnace, with the savings increasing in winter and decreasing in
summer. The WSHP installed actually increases energy consumption during the shoulder
season because it is likely that the residence used no HVAC prior to the WSHP being installed.
This project showed the same increased savings over the summer when the temperatures
increase.
Figure 29. Average Daily kWh Savings by Regression Modeling for Retrofit Project 2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
0101 0129 0226 0325 0422 0520 0617 0715 0812 0909 1007 1104 1202 1230
Date
The normalized annual consumption for the pre-install and post-install conditions is shown in
Table 22. The two projects reduced annual normalized consumption by 18 percent and 10
percent, respectively, when the GSHP/WSHP was installed.
TETRA TECH 65
O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

Table 22. Normalized Annual Consumption and Savings for Two Retrofit Projects
Normalized Normalized
Annual Annual
Project Pre-install am- am. No" Difference Consumption
1 34,915 28,480 6,435 18%
2 12,212 10,940 1,272 10%
6.5 WHOLE HOUSE FAN
The evaluation analyzed the whole house fan savings methodology for the deemed savings
amount used for the program. The whole house fan saves energy by utilizing free cooling from
outside air when available. Typically, it is assumed that the fan is turned on during nights when
cooling is required during the day. The actual fan consumes energy in exchange for reducing
the number of hours that the HVAC is responsible for cooling the home.
The whole house fan measure includes requirements on both the condition of the home and
equipment specifications, as shown in Table 23. The installation must be completed by a
licensed contractor, and only one incentive is available per residence. The qualifying home must
be single family with central air conditioning, zonal cooling, or a heat pump.
Table 23. Whole House Fan Measure Requirements
ConditionsHome .
• Residence must be an existing single • Minimum 2000 cfm
family home (not new construction) . Sized for installed location airflow
• Residence can be a primary requirements
residence, a vacation home, or a • Gravity-operated louver must separate
rental the exhaust space from the conditioned
• HVAC must be central air space when fan is de-energized.
conditioning, zonal heating, or a heat . Exhaust space (attic) must have
pump. sufficient venting for airflow.
• A residence with the water heater in . Conditioned space must have sufficient
the attic is not eligible. window/door venting for equipment
• Whole house fan must be installed by specifications.
a licensed contractor and install must . If combustion appliances are in the
be tested prior to completion. house, an approved and working CO
detector is required.
6.5.1 Methodology
The evaluation reviewed the engineering background of the deemed savings of 456.6 kWh per
year per unit. The following information was evaluated and reviewed for applicability to the
current program and to identify potential opportunities or adjustments for future implementation.
• Tracking system for PY2024
• Integrated Design labs (IDL) study from October 2015.
O TETRA TECH 66
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

• Idaho power adjustments to IDL study results for current equipment
• Specification of the equipment in participating projects
6.5.2 Findings
Idaho Power claimed a deemed savings of 456.6 kWh per year for each residence that installed
a whole house fan measure. The participants were all located in the Treasure Valley (Boise and
the surrounding cities), and the median home size was 2,400 square feet, the average home
size was 2,507, and the median year built was 2004.
The IDL study conducted a simulation of two types of homes and evaluated two different flow
rates using EnergyPlus software. The models used a DOE prototypical home for 2013, which
assumes 2006 construction. The study analyzed the results for a 1,200 square foot single-story
home and a 2,400 square foot two-story home in Boise. For each home, the energy
consumption was determined for the base home, the home with a whole house fan that provides
1 cubic foot per minute (cfm) per square foot, and the home with a whole house fan that
provides 2 cfm per square foot. The whole house fan was assumed to turn on when the hourly
exterior temperature reduced to 78 degrees and the indoor temperature is greater than 78
degrees. Overall, this model accurately represents the median participant for the PY2024
participants who installed this measure.
Idaho Power has adjusted the model output to account for the increased efficiency of the whole
house fans that have occurred since the IDL model. The primary energy efficiency
improvements that have occurred since the IDL model are the conversion to an electrically
commutated motor (ECM) from an induction motor and control enhancements for wireless
communication and two-speed operation. These ECM motor increases the energy savings by
about 50 kWh per year, and the use of the ECM allows for increased control options. The typical
control of the units with an ECM motor includes wireless connectivity, simplified timer use, and
the ability to use high and low speeds.
In addition to the improved equipment and controls, the Home Ventilation Institute (HVI) has
developed a certified rating program for whole house fans. The standard HVI-916 has a test
procedure developed to mimic an attic installation of the whole house fan and provides a rated
cfm and input watts. This third-party testing is important because it provides a standard testing
procedure for the static pressure and exhaust air through the attic, which is difficult to simulate.
The evaluation team recommends that Idaho Power collect the HVI-916 airflow for the
equipment to determine the cfm per square foot metric and provide guidance to installation
contractors that the value provided is likely a more accurate representation of the potential
airflow than the printed specification.
Table 24 shows the comparison between the original modeled results from the 2015 IDL study,
the adjusted Idaho Power savings used to determine annual claimed savings, and the evaluated
savings. The evaluated savings used the model output results from the 2015 IDL study and
adjusted it using current whole house fan technology and HVI-916 testing results.
Table 24. Whole House Fan Modeled Savings
IDIL 2015
ModeledAdjusted Evaluated
-Modeled
1 Story- 1,200 sq. ft. with 1,200 cfm fan* 221.5 264.1 329.1
1 Story- 1,200 sq. ft. with 2,400 cfm fan 232.8 274.2 275.1
TETRA TECH 67
O
Idaho Power Heating &Cooling Efficiency- PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

ModeledIDL 2015
Modeled
2 Story—2,400 sq. ft. with 2,400 cfm fan* 429.8 485.2 486.5
2 Story—2,400 sq. ft. with 4,800 cfm fan 439.0 494.6 486.9
*Market practice is to provide 1 cfm per square foot.
The evaluated results are very close to the IPC-adjusted values used to determine the deemed
savings. In particular, the median home size for the participants matches the 2,400 square foot
with a 2,400 cfm fan, where the evaluated savings nearly match the current program savings
estimate. The smaller homes have slightly higher evaluated savings than the IPC claimed.
To determine a deemed savings value for future programs, the evaluation used the 2024
participants. Table 25 shows the development of a deemed savings value of 447.2 kWh.
Table 25. Whole House Fan Deemed Savings Determination
Home Area i
Participants
1,999 Sq.Ft. and smaller 18 329.1
2,000 Sq.Ft. to 2,399 Sq.Ft. 14 486.5
2,400 Sq. Ft. and larger 40 486.5
Weighted Average 447.2
The greatest uncertainty with the Whole House Fan measure, and generally for many HVAC
measures, is the residents' operating behavior. The IDL model assumes that when the whole
house fan is called for, it is turned on for one hour and sufficient windows are opened. This
assumption/operation creates uncertainty in energy savings, because if the fan is not operated
when called for, savings may decrease. However, the new energy efficiency improvements to
whole house fans support use of the ideal behavior. Residents can review weather forecasting
to determine opportunities where cooling is not necessary to keep the indoor environment within
their comfort zone.
In addition to the customer behavior for the hours of operation, the new ECM driven fans have a
low speed. The low speed improves air movement per kWh compared to the high speed.
Residents who operate their fan at low speed and achieve their desired result will increase their
energy savings compared to those who only use high speed. The evaluation did not determine if
residents are using the low speed, but a review of the documentation found that the sizing is
based on the high speed. Installation contractors who install a larger fan that can operate at low
speed to meet the air flow requirements will see increased energy efficiency over the standard
market practice. The IDL model showed that doubling the airflow of the whole house fan
provided little benefit, but if that same fan was used at low speed, the savings per residence will
increase by 70-90 kWh per residence.
This adjustment will require a market transformation through communication with design and
installation contractors. The message is to both increase the equipment size to be able to meet
airflow requirements on the low setting and provide instruction to the homeowner about the
value of the low speed setting.
TETRA TECH 68
O
Idaho Power Heating & Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026

APPENDIX A: APPENDIX A: CONTRACTOR INTERVIEW
IDAHO POWER EM&V
HEATING & COOLING EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
CONTRACTORS INTERVIEW GUIDE
Interviewee Name:
Company:
Territory & Program
Interviewer Name:
Interview Date:
Senior Tetra Tech staff will conduct in-depth, semi-structured telephone interviews. Therefore,
the following interview protocol is only a guide to ensure certain topics are covered. Evaluators
will follow the flow of the interview and modify questions as needed to fit the interviewee's
circumstances and flow of conversation. We will attempt to schedule interviews with
respondents in advance to accommodate each trade ally's schedule. Interviewers will adjust the
probing to limit interview times to 30 minutes.
Introduction
Hello, may I speak to ? My name is , with Tetra Tech. Idaho Power has hired
us to evaluate its Heating and Cooling Efficiency program. You may also know it as the "Heat
Pump Incentive program." The information you provide will assist us in assessing the program
and finding ways to make it most effective in serving the residential market.
The interview should take less than 30 minutes. Before we begin, is it okay to record our call?
This is for note-taking purposes to make sure we accurately represent your responses.
I'd like to start with some general information about your business.
Business Scope
BS1) Approximately how long has the company been in business?
BS2) How many employees are part of the company?
BS3 Which of the following equipment does your business install?
Furnaces Evaporative Coolers Ductless Air Source Heat
Pumps
Central Air Conditioning Duct Sealing Ducted Air Source Heat
Pumps
Smart Thermostats Heat Pump Water Heaters Ground Source Heat Pumps
Whole House Fans Elec Commutated Motors Open Loop WS Heat Pumps
TETRA TECH A-1
O
Idaho Power Heating & Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026.

BS4) What proportion of your work serves residential versus commercial customers? (Or do
you serve primarily residential or commercial customers?)
BS5) What proportion of your work would you estimate is within Idaho Power's service
territory?
Program Awareness and Interaction
AW1) How long have you been involved with the Idaho Power Heating and Cooling Efficiency
program? How did you first get involved with the program?
AW2) How are you currently receiving information about the program? Is there any other
information you would like to receive, or could the timing of the information change?
AW3) Are you an approved vendor for duct sealing, ductless heat pumps, or ducted
equipment?
(Check contractor list flags)
AW4) (IF YES) Why were you interested in becoming an approved vendor?
What are the benefits of being an approved vendor?
AW5) (IF NO) What has kept you from becoming an approved vendor? (i.e., workload,
requirements, staffing, etc.)
Customer Interactions
CO) What proportion of your customers are aware of the available Heating and Cooling
Efficiency incentives when they come to you?
Cl) When and how do you bring up Idaho Power's incentives when talking with customers?
C2) What is the most effective sales tool or message to motivate homeowners to upgrade to
high efficiency?
C3) What role do the Idaho Power incentives play in motivating residential upgrades?
C4) What proportion of your residential customers qualify for Idaho Power Heating and
Cooling Efficiency incentives?
What proportion of your customers receive Idaho Power incentives? (Estimates)
C5) What are common barriers to homeowner program participation?
TETRA TECH A-2
O
Idaho Power Heating & Cooling Efficiency—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026.

C6) What else can be done to increase the number of participating projects in the Heating
and Cooling Efficiency program?
Are incentive levels appropriately set? What changes would you recommend?
Application Assistance
Al) How are you involved with the incentives application and processes required to
participate? How much of the application do you complete for residential customers?
A2) How much time is required for application paperwork?
Do you have dedicated staff to complete applications?
A3) Are there times when the equipment qualifies for the program, but no application is
submitted? How often does that occur? What are the typical reasons?
A4) Does the incentive go directly to the customer, or do you discount the price of the project
by the amount of the incentive? Do you ever hold off processing an incentive submittal
by offering a discount on the price of the project?
A5) What changes would you recommend to the application process?
A6) Idaho Power offers incentives to contractors for some of the equipment incentivized for
homeowners. Are you aware of the incentives and stipends available to contractors?
(IF YES) How do you make use of the contractor incentives/stipends?
Existing New project Customer Contractor
New Construction Ducted air-source heat pump $800 $50
New Construction Ducted open-loop water-source heat pump $1,000 $50
New Construction Ground-source heat pump $3,000
Oil or propane heating system Ducted air-source heat pump $800 $50
Electric(forced-air or zonal) heating system Ducted air-source heat pump $800 $50
Ducted air-source heat pump Ducted open-loop water-source heat pump $500 $50
Electric(forced-air or zonal), oil, or propane Ducted open-loop water-source heat pump $1,000 $50
heating system
Ducted air-source heat pump Ground-source heat pump $1,000
Electric(forced-air or zonal), oil, or propane Ground-source heat pump
heating system $3,000
Permanent split capacitor air handler motor Electronically commutated motor $50 $150*
*$150 is incentive for contractor to promote equipment. $50 are to offset contractor time.
TETRA TECH A-3 O
Idaho Power Heating & Cooling Efficiency—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026.

Installation Practices
IDuct) (IF Ducted, DHP, DS installed) You mentioned you installed (Ducted, DHP, Duct
Sealing)
What adjustments, if any, have you made/ [would you have to make] to be in compliance
with the program requirements?
IHP) (IF AS Heat Pumps installed)
Do you install a new thermostat or controller with each new heat pump installed?
How do you determine the equipment size for an Air Source Heat Pumps project?
IST) (IF Smart Thermostats installed)
- What settings do you typically adjust from the manufacturer's settings?
- Do you typically set up zones or secondary sensors?
- How do you typically adjust the thermostat to control the auxiliary/backup heat?
- Why do you think a contractor-installed smart thermostat with a heat pump might
save more energy than if the customer installs the smart thermostat themselves?
IWHF) (IF Whole House Fan installed)
Have you installed any whole house fans with multiple speed settings? How are they
operated?
Overall Program
Finally, thinking about the Idaho Power Heating and Cooling Efficiency program overall....
01) How would you rate the program on a five-point scale, where 1 is not at all satisfied and
5 is very satisfied?
02) What do you feel is working best about the program?
03) What is most challenging or in need of improvement?
04) Do you see your involvement in the program increasing, decreasing, or remaining the
same in the next few years? Why do you say that?
05) What type of feedback have you received from customers about the program or
equipment?
06) Are there any additional comments you would like to share? Anything I should have
asked about but haven't?
Those are all the questions I have today. Thank you very much for your time.
TETRA TECH A-4
O
Idaho Power Heating & Cooling Efficiency—PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026.

DetailAPPENDIX B: IMPACT RESULTS OF SAMPLED PROJECTS
Project Measure Claimed Evaluated
ID Category Measure
(kWh) (kWh) E
7964 Ductless Heat HZ2_CZ3_Any Pre-kWh_Any VBDD R A 2 1,143 1,143 100.0%
Pumps OR Any Supplemental Fuel
Air Source Heat Existing Single Family Home HVAC
7973 Pump Conversion - Convert FAF w/CAC to 4,566 4,566 100.0%
Conversions Heat Pump- Heating Zone 1
7997 Whole House WH -WH Fan 457 457 100.0%
Fans
Air Source Heat Existing Single Family Home HVAC
8014 Pump Conversion - Convert FAF w/CAC to 4,566 2,454 53.7%
Conversions Heat Pump- Heating Zone 1
Connected ConnectedTstat_SF and
8022 Thermostats MH—ASHP—Direct Install - Resistance 713 713 100.0%
Optimization HZ1
8041 Air Conditioners High Efficiency Air Conditioners - SEER 62 62 100.0%
15.0/ EER 12.0+- Single Family- CZ3
8049 Ductless Heat HZ1_CZ3_Any Pre-kWh—Any VBDD R A 2 1,945 1,945 100.0%
Pum s OR Any Supplemental Fuel
Ductless Heat HZ1_CZ3_Any Pre-kWh—Any VBDD R A 2 0
8087 Pumps OR An Supplemental Fuel 1,945 1,945 100.0/o
8103 Heat Pump Tier4_indor2_HZ1_resistheat_0- 1,179 1,179 100.0%
Water Heaters 55 allons Existing
8106 Connected ConnectedlTstat_SF and 174 174 100.0%
Thermostats MH eFAF_Retail HZ1
8143 Ductless Heat HZ3_CZ1_Any Pre-kWh—Any VBDD R A 2 856 856 100.0%
Pumps OR Any Supplemental Fuel
Air Source Heat Existing Single Family Home HVAC
8209 Pump Conversion - Convert FAF w/CAC to 4,566 4,566 100.0%
Conversions Heat Pump- Heating Zone 1
Air Source Heat Existing Single Family Home HVAC
8226 Pump Conversion - Convert FAF w/CAC to 4,566 4,268 93.5%
_ Conversions Heat Pump - Heating Zone 1
8231 Heat Pump Tier4_garage_HZ1_0-55gallons_Existing 1,772 1,772 100.0%
Water Heaters
8249 Ductless Heat HZ2_CZ3_Any Pre-kWh_Any VBDD R A 2 1,143 1,143 100.0%
Pum s OR Any Supplemental Fuel
8275 Connected ConnectedlTstat_SF and 195 195 100.0%
Thermostats MH eFAF Retail HZ2
8293 Ductless Heat HZ2_CZ3_Any Pre-kWh—Any VBDD R A 2 1,143 1,143 100.0%
Pumps OR Any Supplemental Fuel
8324 Whole House WH -WH Fan 457 457 100.0%
_ Fans
Connected ConnectedTstat_SF and
8332 Thermostats MH_ASHP_Direct Install - Resistance 713 713 100.0%
Optimization—HZ1
Ductless Heat HZ2_CZ3_Any Pre-kWh—Any VBDD R A 2 0
8341 Pumps OR An Supplemental Fuel 1,143 1,143 100.0/o
O TETRA TECH B-1
Idaho Power Heating & Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026.

Project Measure Claimed Evaluated kWh
ID Category Measure Detail Name Savings Savings RR
Air Source Heat Existing Single Family Home HVAC
8349 Pump Conversion - Convert FAF w/CAC to 4,566 2,842 62.3%
Conversions Heat Pump- Heatingone 1
8352 Air Conditioners High Efficiency Air Conditioners - SEER 130 130 100.0%
16.0/ EER 12.0+ - Single Family- CZ3
Electrically
8365 Commutated EC Motor 186 186 100.0%
_ Motors _
Existing Manufactured Home HVAC
Conversion - Convert FAF w/CAC to
8384 Air Source Heat Heat Pump - Heating Zone 1 - Existing 4,796 4,193 87.4%
Pump Upgrades Manufactured Home HVAC Upgrade-
Heat Pump Upgrade to 10.0 HSPF/18
SEER- Heating Zone 1
8485 Ductless Heat HZ1_CZ3_Any Pre-kWh—Any VBDD R A 2 11945 1,945 100.0%
Pum s OR Any Supplemental Fuel
8504 Connected ConnectedTstat_SF and 374 374 100.0%
Thermostats MH_ASHP_Retail_HZ2
Air Source Heat Existing Single Family Home HVAC
8541 Pump Conversion - Convert FAF w/CAC to 4,566 4,268 93.5%
Conversions Heat Pump- Heating Zone 1
8562 Duct Sealing ElectricHVAC Visual NoCAC Bill Screen: 436 436 100.0%
NA Any HZ
8563 Air Conditioners High Efficiency Air Conditioners- SEER 130 130 100.0%
16.0/ EER 12.0+-Single Family- CZ3
Existing Single Family Home HVAC
Conversion - Convert FAF w/CAC to
8567 Air Source Heat Heat Pump - Heating Zone 2 - Existing 3,342 3,342 100.0%
Pump Upgrades Single Family Home HVAC Upgrade-
Heat Pump Upgrade to 10.0 HSPF/18
SEER- Heating Zone 2
O TETRA TECH B-2
Idaho Power Heating & Cooling Efficiency— PY2024 Evaluation Results. January 19, 2026.

Idaho Power Company
Idaho Power Company
Irrigation . Rewards • •
2024 Processand Impact Evaluation
fir;+:+nl'','sab,,:�,'•3; 'c'",;.•_
rf �� �� �.'ra si•„;y. ,s S 1r,� • r + ....4'il �• r J'1 i, r. •F'. �•.d-
,. ; :!v r}�,".'^by• ,C' "`: t.�,�,:"r ro ,J' � i'd j ,Y� /'� JS bS J�4411ii..1? ..
f?"'7 JY A,09 ,ar7� r�J /drs �J�f F"t I� F�4}a �I��+�F Q-� Q •I`
�t 'r'
Pit'!
+ P�` J!,,fl•�r'.�tfir.�J�''�� Ple'"� ;li � � � � j; y '��r:� � +� � ��v r
�y rJ�"•�J��i'�rr :`'er'f��1��} ��4��f�( �' ' � �,q�S' �^, .�j ��s'{��•, 1 ��11 � r , �f�:�
Sw+t--g
I�1 e ajf j` j
rah ,<,•�s•Y �l�as�.�;�"�r'*,Fnt�,�fYd� %�.��� �,f r f � � � ��c
•l. �w ,'�.w<�ydPe1��R,}-; ti 7 r7/ (f ,r�7J r.'P � y � " $ y � .i ,�f�Q rj�•r;]; r qp♦ ,[},} `�'�,{l y r
�d S 'aY,}•l'`>j.r`9 �'r'���r rrJ Y�tS ,IYI�� '� y!' ! �t3 Y.��tf, � 3�'�:l t���1� •)��1 �+ j � "T
.�4�fi �'r2k'����a � .r ii��'�.°b".r.,r�, ie Ir,�r•i 9: �( } 7 �t��. v� ,�/ ���'��• �h �} � v
_ •�S ,��;fiY;��eo1��J,bii vr�''�rl'°r'f�T''�1��f��"`� �," � t � l.. l ,Qyld;Qb��. QJ 1 Fa:i� t+;� Ff�9�' � j� i
$ r�s .: 1 rbtyr i • +`J�f r, }r 6; �b� = b }x�i f'�IrCQ 1f .'� .
r -J���°�/?�1'.�t�? l��J''r���f r?!$✓iJd���`Tf�JnJi+T` o �� � �'! �r'',b� la�eY i�:FC9�2+�� .'!J!f1 � y ��'t. yy
r�f
L-. - :l�r'�,.�.��i � rr',}1J�1~r _k..yP�O�rt�`���CJI �/f� i � ';„,,jj,�y�'� q,Y1r*t - T�'�,JMY ♦,'�rj"i !g(° � 1
,; , r f✓i rl�nr h:: fvf► ; f41
-Y f�� ,� • 7 ait- :.
P� �f7,
i�f�-•° r ,r°;nrP-lJTrldd'�J�r � y , f� L ��� iif �6 .'�Q �i� �.' �1� 4Z
r3i r rrr '�rb�fdirJalrl�g�' ttld��;JJ��:r�J/ Y7,��r-,! /�3!r>d}.y ) •.,�"Cr •�^ � A #' A ,��`• 1� i ,� ��- - ��
..
Q
���. �r,, }!�'�� g .J sji i.,rl, •, ,F• {FF � jj �r 1' -,� f ,,:r' {
1IF1'
zz_ + pD •� � ; ,i� '�s.�" i tut �. e� (.�. ��Ji
l ,4! � i' �L�f� €O •�• 1 Y .�� r� i � � �' K � .�...SCf+y �.'L,'}i. :',ZA,
•�•; ,fd��,ip� r�,I:�'�<!'•fyc�:�ta�d f:{ r •� i � i f`-J 3y� � a. y� qc '� a -�r$�P�1 `,�
""• 'v1�717 t l�•�.r1 l .f• ';.� 1 •a�v �. .il, ` L`f 4 '�, 3-'F i
l.fryaf.r= � •,ltf:�r=�.5,��, ��{ "�. _ Y - . 7C ��`, s .� , -f ,• ?� fa
_ .s.�.��1`.�,a.•.,�, fry.:�rf'h �. �i�Fi� L � r � _�� Q;a ��i�:�

TETRA TECH
6410 Enterprise Lane, Suite 300 1 Madison, WI 53719
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
tetratech.com
©2025 Tetra Tech, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
TETRA TECH
O II
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................1
1.1 Program Description .....................................................................................................................1
1.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................................1
1.3 Impact Findings and Recommendations.......................................................................................2
1.4 Process Findings and Recommendations ....................................................................................4
2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................5
2.1 Program Overview........................................................................................................................5
2.1.1 Dispatch Groups ..................................................................................................................5
2.1.2 Interruption Options..............................................................................................................6
2.1.3 Metering Infrastructure.........................................................................................................6
2.1.4 Incentives.............................................................................................................................6
2.1.5 Opt-Outs...............................................................................................................................7
2.1.6 Tracking and Reporting........................................................................................................7
2.2 Evaluation Overview.....................................................................................................................8
2.2.1 Evaluation Activities.............................................................................................................8
3.0 IMPACT EVALUATION RESULTS..................................................................................................10
3.1 Methodology ...............................................................................................................................10
3.2 Impact Review Results ...............................................................................................................11
3.2.1 Event Day Operation..........................................................................................................12
3.2.2 Dispatch Group Event Operation .......................................................................................13
3.2.3 Event Day Analysis............................................................................................................13
4.0 PROCESS EVALUATION RESULTS..............................................................................................17
4.1 Methodology ...............................................................................................................................17
4.2 Process Review Results .............................................................................................................17
4.2.1 Process Documents...........................................................................................................18
4.2.2 Marketing and Outreach.....................................................................................................19
4.2.3 Logic Model........................................................................................................................19
4.2.4 Ag Rep and Electrician Interviews .....................................................................................20
O III
TETRA TECH
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

LIST OF TABLES
Table1. Program Results.........................................................................................................................2
Table 2. PY2021 IPR Program — Impact Recommendations....................................................................4
Table 3. Irrigation Peak Rewards Dispatch Group Activity in 2024 ..........................................................6
Table 4. Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Evaluation Activities..............................................................8
Table 5. Overall Program Load Control by Date.....................................................................................11
Table 6. Baseline Realization Metric per Event Day in 2024..................................................................14
Table 7. Baseline Realization Metric per Event Day in 2021 ..................................................................14
Table 8. Event Load Realization by dispatch group................................................................................14
Table 9. Proportion of Event Load Left On Attributable to Participant Opt-Out ......................................15
Table 10. Proportion of Event Load left On Attributable to Device Failure .............................................15
Table 11. Adjusted Event Load Realization Excluding Participant Opt-Out and Device Failure Load Left
On ...........................................................................................................................................................16
Table 12. Participant Categorization Numbering and Description ........................................................ B-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Impact Evaluation Activities.......................................................................................................1
Figure 2. Process Evaluation Activities.....................................................................................................1
Figure 3. Enrolled and Reduced Load Group Descriptions ......................................................................3
Figure 4. Process for Verifying Program Impacts ...................................................................................10
Figure 5. Hourly Aggregated Measured Load Reduction by Dispatch Group.........................................12
Figure 6. Performance of Measured Meters by Dispatch Group and Event Day....................................13
Figure 7. Process Evaluation Activities...................................................................................................17
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: MEASURED EVENT-DAY CONSUMPTION GRAPHS............................................A-1
APPENDIX B: PARTICIPANT CATEGORIZATION .........................................................................B-1
O Iv
TETRA TECH
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Landon Barber and Ray Short of Idaho Power for their invaluable insight into the
2024 Irrigation Peak Rewards program and operations. These individuals participated in ongoing
evaluation deliverable reviews and discussions, and graciously responded to follow-up questions, data,
and documentation requests.
The Tetra Tech evaluation team included the following individuals: Kimberly Bakalars, Mark Bergum,
William Lindsey, Jack Call, and Darling Vang.
O V
TETRA TECH
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

SUMMARY1.0 EXECUTIVE
i
Tetra Tech is pleased to provide Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power) with this report, which covers
the process and impact evaluation of the 2024 Irrigation Peak Rewards (IPR) program. This report
section comprises an introduction that describes the program, outlines evaluation activities, and
presents key findings and recommendations.
1.1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Irrigation Peak Rewards program is a voluntary demand response program that has been available
to Idaho Power's agricultural irrigation customers since 2004. It is open to Idaho Power irrigation
customers who receive service under Schedules 24 and 84 in Idaho and Oregon, with eligibility based
on prior participation at the pump location. IPR offers irrigation customers a financial incentive, either as
a bill credit or a mailed check, for the ability to shut off participating irrigation pumps during potentially
high system load periods (summer peak). Pumps can be turned off either through a signal from Idaho
Power that shuts down the customer's pump or by the customer manually shutting down their pumps.
1.2 METHODOLOGY
Tetra Tech conducted several evaluation activities to address the impact evaluation goals. The
evaluation goals included reviewing program data files, verifying claimed load reduction, discussing
discrepancies, and identifying ways Idaho Power can improve the program analysis process.
The evaluation began with a review of program data sources and consumption data, followed by the
identification of baseline and event consumption for load reduction calculations. Finally, we
incorporated the non-measured participants into the final evaluated results.
Figure 1. Impact Evaluation Activities
Review • validate meter Determine baseline and load .4 Incorporate non-measured
consuption •. . consumption participants and calculate
results
Tetra Tech also conducted a process evaluation for the Irrigation Peak Rewards program. Figure 2
highlights the activities undertaken to address the process research objectives.
Figure 2. Process Evaluation Activities
Interview program Review program delivery Interview Ag Develop a
delivery staff and marketing materials Reps logic model
O TETRA TECH 1
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

1.3 IMPACT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The IPR program is well-managed with comprehensive support from Idaho Power staff, including highly
knowledgeable program specialists and support staff. In 2024, the program managed 2,517 irrigation
meter locations to strategically reduce the load consumed over a four-hour period. The strategic
enrollment means that the program delivers load reduction that varies by event time of day and date for
four dispatch groups. Program load reduction can occur over eight hours on an event day when
overlapping the dispatch groups.
In 2024, the IPR program delivered load reductions on six event days, ranging from 46 to 189 MW, with
a maximum realization rate of event day baseline load reduction between 83 and 93 percent. The
evaluation measured nearly 100 percent of the load reduction claimed per event day, providing a high
level of confidence for the claimed load reduction.
Table 1. Program Results'
IEvaluated load Evaluated load Claimed . . .
Baseline event Eventload reduction (MW) reduction (MW) reduction (MW)
Date meter load (MW) realization at Meter at Generator at Generator
10-Jul 191 86.5% 126 135 133
11-Jul 161 83.0% 99 107 106
24-Jul 352 88.7% 189 202 201
2-Aug 352 90.3% 157 169 168
19-Aug 79 93.4% 46 49 49
22-Aug 273 88.0% 107 114 114
In reviewing the program performance, it is important to recognize that the total enrolled load cannot be
reduced through program implementation for two reasons. First, each event calls only some of the total
devices through the dispatch groups. Second, at the time of the event, not all the irrigation systems
may be operating and therefore cannot reduce the load that day. Figure 3 provides explanations of the
different groups of enrolled load and load reduction referred to in this report.
' The data and results in this report are at the meter level and do not include system losses of 6.5 percent. System losses
would be added to represent results the Idaho Power system as a whole experience, except in Table 1 in the Executive
Summary where system losses have been added under the `Generation load reduction (MW)' column.
TETRA TECH 2
O
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

Figure 3. Enrolled and Reduced Load Group Descriptions
This is the
enrolled
•.• of •
•
participants. -0 enrolled
•.• of •
dispatch —J This is thecalled for (D the event groups -0 portion of CU
•
LU
the event • enrolled •
•.
•.• -• •.•
-• •
••- •
• LLJ the event ' •
•.
a ■�
•
ANW >
Through the impact evaluation activities, Tetra Tech discusses two primary metrics using these values.
Event Baseline Load
Baseline Realization =
Event Enrolled Load
Load Reduced
Event Load Realization =
Event Baseline Load
These metrics provide an indication of the program's efficiency. The following recommendations are
identified for consideration by Idaho Power:
• Continue using the current load reduction calculation methodology. The IPR program
uses the baseline of the first four of the previous five hours to compare against the actual
energy consumption during the event; this approach effectively captures the load reduction
achieved for the event period for irrigation pumping systems.
• Consider providing the Idaho Power irrigation representatives with the Event Load
Realization metric for individual meters. This metric will provide participants with feedback
on their individual irrigation systems. The representatives can use the information to
demonstrate the continued high level of service and understanding of the electricity and
irrigation systems. The metric can serve as a discussion point to demonstrate where both
Idaho Power and the irrigator can improve and overcome common barriers.
O TETRA TECH 3
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

As part of the impact evaluation, Tetra Tech reviewed Idaho Power's progress against the impact
evaluation recommendations made during the last evaluation of the 2021 program. The table below
highlights Idaho Power's actions to address each of the previous impact recommendations.
Table 2. PY2021 IPR Program —Impact Recommendations
PY2021 Impact
Evaluation
recommendations PY2024 implementation Status
Calculations Continue using the Idaho Power has a code that identifies the Q
current load reduction results from the consumption data file.calculation
methodology. Reviewed,But No
Action Required
Metric Use load reduced as a In PY2024, the program reported a load
Development percentage of potential reduction of 200.8 MW compared to 258.8 MW
load reduction as an potential load reduction, or 78%.
IPR metric. Use Complete
Implementation Continue to improve Idaho Power develops estimated consumption
program infrastructure for data read errors based on historical data.
to reduce consumption This reduces the need to estimate load reduced
data and for communication failures.
communication gaps. Idaho Power provided that 98.6% of the
participants' meters are capable of transmitting In Progress
hourly meter reads.
Implementation Continue streamlining The code used on the consumption data (CO)9
the load reduction streamlines the analysis process.
analysis process.
Complete
1.4 PROCESS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall, the Irrigation Peak Rewards program is well run, and the evaluators have only one
maintenance recommendation for Idaho Power's consideration:
• Continue to work on completing program documentation. Idaho Power adheres to best
practices by maintaining a comprehensive program handbook. The IPR handbook is currently a
work in progress, and some aspects of the document are still being finalized. Some tasks that
remain include removing highlights of ongoing edits and expanding on sections that are brief.
Having a completed program handbook and all other program documentation is valuable in
managing a well-run program and providing guidance during staffing changes.
O TETRA TECH 4
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROGRAM OVERVIEW
The IPR program is a voluntary demand response program that has been available to Idaho Power
Company's (Idaho Power) agricultural irrigation customers since 2004. IPR pays irrigation customers a
financial incentive for the ability to turn off participating irrigation pumps at potentially high system load
periods (summer peak). IPR is available to Idaho Power irrigation customers receiving service under
Schedules 24 and 84 in Idaho and Oregon.
Program parameters are listed below:
o June 15 to September 15 (excluding Sundays, July 4, and Labor Day)
o Up to four hours per day
o Standard: between 3:00 and 10:00 PM
o Extended: between 3:00 and 11:00 PM
o Event start times may vary
o Up to 16 hours per week
o No more than 60 hours per season
o At least three events per season
o Idaho Power will provide notification four hours before the start of each event, as well as a
notification 30 minutes before the end of an event
IPR is available to Idaho Power irrigation customers receiving service under Schedules 24 and 84 in
Idaho and Oregon. Eligibility is based on prior participation at the pump location. The program is
delivered by Idaho Power staff, primarily by a program specialist, with support from agricultural
representatives, an agricultural engineer, the energy efficiency evaluation staff, and many others within
Idaho Power.
There are two options for customers to shut off their pumps: an automatic dispatch option, where Idaho
Power sends a signal to a unit that shuts off the customer's pump, and a manual dispatch option, where
the customer is responsible for shutting down their own pump. The load reduction may span an eight-
hour timeframe with four groups. In 2024, the earliest group started at 3:00 p.m., and each group is off
for four hours.
2.1.1 Dispatch Groups
The load reduction event period can span a seven-hour timeframe. Idaho Power has assigned enrolled
customers to one of four dispatch groups. Each group is off for four hours, starting as early as
3:00 p.m., with the last group ending as late as 11:00 p.m. The groups, shown in Table 3, represent a
mixture of regional designations and early or late shut-off option indicators.
TETRA TECH 5
O
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

In 2024, IPC called events on six different days. Each group was asked to participate in five or fewer
events during the program season. The table below shows the event dates and timeframes for each
dispatch group.
Table 3. Irrigation Peak Rewards Dispatch Group Activity in 2024
Event date Group A Group B Group C Group C1 Group C2 Group D
7/10/2024 5-9 p.m. J 6-10 p.m.
7/11/2024 5-9 p.m. 6-10 p.m. 5-9 p.m. 4-8 p.m.
7/24/2024 3-7 p.m. 4-8 p.m. 5-9 p.m. 4-8 p.m. 3-7 p.m. 4-8 p.m.
8/2/2024 j 5-9 p.m. 5-9 p.m. 6-10 p.m. 5-9 p.m. 4-8 p.m. 6-10 p.m.
8/19/2024 J 5-9 p.m. 4-8 p.m. 3-7 p.m.
8/22/2024 j 4-8 p.m. 5-9 p.m. 6-10 p.m.
2.1.2 Interruption Options
There are two options for shut-off: an automatic dispatch option and a manual dispatch option.
• Automatic Dispatch Option. Participating service points are automatically controlled by Idaho
Power switches. All pumps at the location must be controlled with a switch. Fixed credits are
paid as a bill credit and based on billed kilowatt (kW) and billed kilowatt-hour (kWh).
• Manual Dispatch Option. Participating service points with at least 1000 HP or limited
communication availability may choose which pumps are manually turned off during a load
control event. Manual participants may elect the kW reduction amount during enrollment.
Credits are paid in the form of a check and based on actual load reduction during the event
timeframe.
2.1.3 Metering Infrastructure
Interval metering has been deployed to nearly all the participants in the IPR program. The interval
meters collect and transmit consumption data for participants to Idaho Power. Depending on the type of
meter, this can take between three days and a month. This information is organized into hourly data
and used to estimate the potential load reduction prior to an event and calculate the demand reduction
for each hour of each event.
The meters that are not capable of transmitting data or collecting meter information in hourly or less
intervals develop an estimated hourly consumption from the monthly billed information.
2.1.4 Incentives
Automatic dispatch participants receive incentives in the form of a billing credit. The billing credit
consists of a demand credit (kW) and an energy credit (kWh), both applied to the billing statements,
covering the season dates from June 15 to September 15. The demand and energy credits for the
manual dispatch participants are paid with a check.
• The fixed incentive is $5.25/billed kW and an energy credit of$0.008/billed kWh for the first four
events.
O TETRA TECH 6
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program-2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

o After four events, a variable incentive rate is applied, which ranges between $0.18/kWh and
$0.25 per kWh.
• The demand (kW) credit is calculated by multiplying the monthly billing kW by the demand-
related incentive amount.
• The energy (kWh) credit is calculated by multiplying monthly billing usage by the energy-related
incentive amount.
2.1.5 Opt-Outs
Program rules allow customers to opt out of dispatch events. Each opt-out incurs a $6.25 per kW fee
based on the current month's total billing kW. For manual participants, this fee will be based on the
nominated kW that was not turned off. Opt-out fees are applied at the end of the season and will not
exceed the amount of the season credits. Customers who discontinue participation in the program will
incur a $500 fee for each pump removed and will be prohibited from re-enrolling these pumps until the
following year.
2.1.6 Tracking and Reporting
The Irrigation Peak Rewards participants enroll individual irrigation pumps in the program. These are
tracked by the device location of the meter and a Pump ID. Since a participant may enroll multiple
pumps in the program, the program also tracks a Participant ID for each individual. The tracking is
completed in an Idaho Power-developed system called CLRIS. This system is capable of synchronizing
with the System of Record and a logic model to identify participants and provide guidance for
payments.
The tracking system can also provide spreadsheet outputs to the Evaluation team. The initial
spreadsheet provided includes the following data points for each meter (DevLoc):
• Participant ID
• Pump number
• Device type
• Dispatch option (Automatic or Manual)
• Dispatch Group
• Payment type (Billing Credit or Large Credit)
• kW nominated for the season
o Auto— max kW from the prior year
o Manual — nominated by participant
o ManuaIAIIBut— amount of demand that is expected to be left on during the event.
• Read Type (AMI, MV90, MVRS, SMI, Manual Read)
• District Area
• Participation
• Aggregate ID
The company billing system contains more detailed information.
• Past Year Peak Demand
• Motor horsepower enrolled
• Participant contact names and methods, i.e. text only
• Pump contract and service numbers
O TETRA TECH 7
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

• Service point city and state.
The Idaho Power electric consumption records for each DevLoc is available with hourly AMI
consumption data for the growing season for 2024 (April — November) for most meters. The CELL
device types do not collect hourly data. These 45 enrolled meters represent 12 participants and will
require an estimated demand reduction based on their Dispatch Option and Dispatch Group.
Calculating the program's performance requires comparing the baseline load (BL) and the Actual Event
Load (AEL). The BL represents the amount of demand that would have needed to be served in the
absence of an event. The BL is calculated for the enrolled dispatch groups using the average of the first
four hours of the five hours before the dispatch group's start time. The AEL is the actual consumption of
the dispatch group during each hour of the event.
2.2 EVALUATION OVERVIEW
The following impact and process evaluation goals were outlined in the RFP. The objectives will be
addressed through the various evaluation activities:
Impact Evaluation
• Determine the demand impacts attributable to the 2024 summer program using IPC's current
methodology.
• Document findings and observations, and provide recommendations to enhance future demand
response calculations and transparent reporting of program impacts.
• Assess the existing baseline calculations and offer suggestions for improvement.
Process Evaluation
• Review program implementation, including quality control, operational practices, and outreach
efforts.
• Examine program forms, manuals, and marketing materials, and provide recommendations for
improvement.
• Evaluate program administration, including oversight, staffing, management, training,
documentation, and reporting processes.
2.2.1 Evaluation Activities
The evaluation activities for the IPR program are summarized in the table below. Evaluation goals and
the sampling strategy are also discussed in this section.
Table 4. Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Evaluation Activities
ObjectiveActivity
Interviews with program 1 Understand program design and delivery. Obtain program
delivery staff staff perspective on program successes and challenges.
Identify researchable issues. Update program logic model.
O TETRA TECH 8
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

ObjectiveActivity Sample size
Review of program NA Materials such as marketing brochures, program manuals,
delivery and marketing outreach plans, and the program website be reviewed for
materials messaging and communication benefits.
Review and validate 2,517 devices Review and identify variations of individual meter data points
meter consumption data. to prepare for calculations.
Calculate baseline and 2,517 devices Evaluate the load reduction for each service point, including
load reduction identifying the device failures, explicit opt-outs, implicit opt-
outs, and small loads.
Ag Rep & Electrician 5 Gather feedback on the successes and challenges of the
interviews increased outreach efforts to customers.
Program Staff Interviews
Idaho Power staff responsible for the program delivery provided Tetra Tech staff with an overview of
the program design, objectives, staffing, outreach, procedures, tracking, and achievements. Idaho
Power program staff also responded to evaluation questions and provided any requested materials.
Materials and Outreach Review
Tetra Tech reviewed a total of 16 documents provided by Idaho Power. There were two program
material documents, seven enrollment documents, and seven marketing and outreach documents.
Development of the Logic Model
Tetra Tech created a program logic model for the IPR program. This model serves as a visual
representation of the program's theory, illustrating a set of interrelated program activities that combine
to produce a variety of outputs, ultimately leading to key outcomes. The program's logic model serves
as a roadmap to develop and inform various audiences about program design, as well as to guide a
systematic approach to EM&V activities.
Ag Rep and Electrician Interviews
Idaho Power staff responsible for program delivery provided Tetra Tech staff with an overview of
program operations, participant interactions, and barriers faced by participants.
TETRA TECH 9 O
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

3.0 IMPACT EVALUATION RESULTS
The evaluation goals for the 2024 IPR program include:
• Determine the demand impacts attributable to the 2024 summer program using IPC's current
methodology.
• Document findings and observations, and provide recommendations to enhance future demand
response calculations and transparent reporting of program impacts.
• Assess the existing baseline calculations and offer suggestions for improvement.
3.1 METHODOLOGY
The impact methodology consisted of the four primary evaluation activities shown in Figure 4. Each
activity is explained in more detail below.
Figure 4. Process for Verifying Program Impacts
Program
Review data tracking Identify data sources Characterize participants by
device type, data source
i
Review hourly consumption Identify error codes in Identify baseline and event
events consumption
i
Demand response
Aggregate by participant Aggregate by participant Aggregate by event day
dispatch group characterization
i
Program
Aggregate demand response and realization rate for program
• Program Tracking. The first step in evaluating the IPR program was to review the tracked
participant data and energy consumption interval data provided by Idaho Power. The tracked
participant data contained relevant information for participants to evaluate the program. Idaho
Power identified the logic behind the participant data, depending on the device type and meter
type, and identified the key data points used to connect the consumption data to the
participant. Tetra Tech determined that each participant's tracking data were complete, using
either an advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) or an MV90 meter, or a separate data logger.
O TETRA TECH 10
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

• Billing Data. Tetra Tech connected the tracking data, 2024 meter data, and 2024 meter data
with estimates into prepared analysis files. The meter data with estimates file was used to
identify each event period and baseline period per participant. Error codes were identified, and
those service points were removed from the data set for event periods. The participant baseline
consumption was identified as well as the consumption of each hour of the event. Additional
analysis characterized the participant in each event.
• Demand Response. The results were aggregated to identify the load reduction by event day,
dispatch group, and participant category.
• Program Results. The peak reduction for the Program Year 2024 period was identified.
3.2 IMPACT REVIEW RESULTS
The IPR program called for load reduction on six days in 2024. Overall, there were 2,517 participating
device locations with 352.1 MW enrolled. To determine the program performance, it is important to
recognize that the total enrolled load cannot be reduced through the program implementation; this is
true for two reasons. First, each event calls only some of the total devices through the dispatch groups.
Second, at the time of the event, the irrigation systems may not be operating and therefore cannot
reduce the load that day. The definitions of the loads are described in Section 1.3: Impact Findings and
Recommendations.
Overall, the load reduced (either per dispatch group or event day) can be reviewed using two metrics
identified in Section 1.3: Impact Findings and Recommendations. Baseline realization (the event day
baseline of enrolled load percentage) and the Event load realization (Load reduced of the event
baseline load percentage). The event-day baseline is calculated as the average of the first four hours of
the five hours prior to the start of the event. The baseline realization identifies the difference between
the enrolled load and the event-day baseline (i.e., the percentage of enrolled load that was on in the
event day). The event load realization identifies the program performance compared to the event-day
baseline load for each event day. Table 5 shows the event day enrolled load, event day baseline load,
and the load reduced at the meter for each event day along with the two metrics.
Table 5. Overall Program Load Control by Date'
Event Load enrolled Potential loa4l Baseline Load reduced . . .
Date (MW) reduction (MW) realization at meter(MW) realization
10-Jul 191 145 I 76.2% 126 86.5%
r24-Jul
1-Jul 161 120 �74.1% 99 83.0%
352 212 60.3% 189 88.7%
02-Aug 352 174 49.5% 157 90.3%
19-Aug 79 49 62.3% 46 93.4%
22-Aug _ 273 121 44.4% 107 88.0%
*There was one meter in dispatch group C that had a blank nominated kW.This meter did not count towards the
enrolled load, but did have usage and savings that contributed to the potential and maximum load reduction in this
and future tables
'The data and results in this report are at the meter level and do not include system losses of 6.5 percent.
System losses would be added to represent results the Idaho Power system as a whole experience except in
Table 1 in the Executive Summary where system losses have been added.
TETRA TECH 11
O
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

The event load realization ranges between 83 and 93 percent for the 2024 event days. The 2021
evaluation found that 7 of the 8 events ranged between 86 and 95 percent, but the 7/29/21 event had
an event load realization of 76 percent. Although the overall percentages were slightly lower in 2024
than in 2021, the elimination of the event that had an event load realization below 80 percent indicates
more consistent program performance.
3.2.1 Event Day Operation
Each event day had different dispatch groups called to participate; therefore, the enrolled load varied by
event day. Further, the start time of each dispatch group varies across the event day; the maximum
hourly load reduction for the event will likely not equal the sum of the participating dispatch group load
reductions. For example, three 100 kW dispatch groups could be called for an event, and they had
perfect event load realization individually, but as they layer over each other at different times, they may
not all align their event load realization in a single hour, so the maximum event day reduction may only
be 295 kW.
Figure 5 shows overlapping load reduction periods with multiple dispatch groups on an event day.
Throughout the impact review results discussion, it is important to remember that the event day results
will not equal the sum of the dispatch group results. Full daily graphics are shown in Appendix A-1.
Figure 5. Hourly Aggregated Measured Load Reduction by Dispatch Group
July 11 , 2024
160
140
120
Dispatch Group C
100 1 Dispatch Group C1
Dispatch Group B
80 Dispatch Group C2
Enrolled Load
_ 60
j Event Day Baseline
40
20
0
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Hour Ending
In the case of July 11, the hours ending at 19:00 and 20:00 (6:00 to 8:00 p.m.) have the greatest
measured load reduced for the event day, since that is when the four participating dispatch groups are
TETRA TECH 1 2
O
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

active simultaneously. The other hours have a smaller measured load reduction because dispatch
groups cycle on later and off earlier during the event.
3.2.2 Dispatch Group Event Operation
Each dispatch group is called for a four-hour event starting at various times on the event day. Figure 8
shows the performance by dispatch group and event. The gray bar represents the total load enrolled in
the group, the green indicates the difference between the event-day baseline and the load reduced
during the event (blue).
A small green bar indicates a better event load realization. Larger gray bars (as we tend to see later in
the season) indicate a lower baseline realization, indicating a greater amount of the enrolled load was
turned off on the day of the event and not able to be reduced.
Figure 6. Performance of Measured Meters by Dispatch Group and Event Day
120
100
80
a�
U
7
60
cU
0
J 40
v
N
C)
N
20
O Q Q Q Q -4 Q Q -4 Q Q Q Q O Q Q
r N N N N N N N N N N M - N N M N CV N
N N N
A A A A B B B B C C C C C1 C1 C1 C1 C2 C2 C2 C2 D D D D
■Load Reduced Potential Load Reduction Enrolled Load
The consistent characteristics between Dispatch Groups indicate that early-season events have more
potential for reduction (higher baseline realization) than late-season events. This decrease in event
baseline is primarily driven by weather, crop type, and other agricultural practices, and cannot be
adjusted by Idaho Power.
3.2.3 Event Day Analysis
Each event day has a unique event baseline load reduction based on the daily consumption properties
of the dispatch groups called. Table 6 identifies the variance between the enrolled load and event
baseline for each day, baseline realization metric.
TETRA TECH 13
O
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

Table 6. Baseline Realization Metric per Event Day in 2024
2024 Group i .
A 88.0% 59.3% 38.2% 46.5%
B 72.4% 57.5% 49.7% 44.7%
C 71.2% 64.6% 66.9% 56.5%
C1 88.2% 86.7% 87.2% 85.1%
C2 90.5% 82.9% 69.8% 66.9%
D 66.1% 56.0% 42.7% 42.3%
Total 76.2% 74.1% 60.3% 49.5% 62.3% 44.4%
Idaho Power staff can utilize the increased availability of AMI meter data to assess the baseline
realization ratio in the days leading up to the event, informing communication about the potential impact
of the event. But there are no actions that can be taken to adjust the value for a particular event day.
Compared to the analysis performed in 2021, the realization of the enrolled load followed a similar
pattern, with amounts starting higher earlier in the season and steadily decreasing as time progressed.
However, the peak load reduction was primarily driven by the 2024 program having a 50 percent to 60
percent baseline realization for event days in the end of July with all dispatch groups.
Table 7. Baseline Realization Metric per Event Day in 2021
Weighted 78.9% 86.2% 66.3% 76.2% 46.5% 68.4% 44.2% 46.1%
maximum
realization
The 2021 program had an event in the end of June with all the dispatch groups which had an 86
percent baseline realization. The baseline realization was the primary driver in the difference in
program peak demand reduction performance between 2021 and 2024.
Table 8 shows the event load realization for each event and dispatch group. These values are relatively
consistent for each dispatch group.
Table 8. Event Load Realization by dispatch group
Dispatch
A 87.5% 90.8% 91.5% 92.0%
B 77.2% 83.1% 86.2% 85.9%
C 88.0% 91.1% 92.7% 93.7%
C1 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
C2 75.0% 75.2% 73.7% 73.8%
D 85.8% 90.0% 90.6% 87.6%
Overall 86.5% 83.0% 88.7% 90.3% 93.4% 88.0%
O TETRA TECH 14
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program-2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

The event load realization had two primary identifiable components that contributed to load being left on
(the event load realization being less than 100 percent):
• Event-day opt-outs. The program allows individual service points to opt out of any events.
• Equipment failures. The equipment used to deliver the program does not always operate as
expected. Some non-responses to the program are due to the device not hearing the
commands on the AMI system or not turning off the irrigation system as anticipated.
Participants can opt out of events as part of the agreement. When they opt out, they incur a $6.25 per
kW penalty. Table 9 shows the proportion of the event load left on that is attributed to participants
opting out.
Table 9. Proportion of Event Load Left On Attributable to Participant Opt-Out
Event hour 1 Event hour 2 � Event hour 3 Event hour 4
. . . of load
Date left on) left on) left on) left on)
10-Jul 17.5% 26.6% 30.6% 30.0%
11-Jul 12.1% 15.3% 15.5% 15.8%
24-Jul 5.9% 8.3% 9.6% 9.2%
2-Aug 7.7% 9.9% 10.7% 9.6%
19-Aug 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
22-Aug 6.4% 12.2% 15.8% 15.0%
Device failures are relatively more common than the opt-out reason for the load left on. Table 10 shows
the proportion of event load left on due to device failure. Overlap between opt-outs and device failures
has been removed, so these two sets of proportions can be summed to produce a proportion of the
load left on for an easily explainable reason.
Table 10. Proportion of Event Load left On Attributable to Device Failure
Event hour 1 Event hour 2 Event ho ur 3 Event hour 4
.. .
Date left on) left on) left on) left on)
10-Jul 47.9% 57.9% 55.0% 49.9%
11-Jul 38.0% 44.4% 44.6% 41.8%
24-Jul 38.2% 50.3% 49.2% 45.2%
2-Aug 38.6% 48.0% 47.9% 44.1%
19-Aug 6.7% 9.2% 9.5% 9.3%
22-Aug 54.8% 54.4% 51.5% 46.2%
Using these two reasons for the load left on, an adjusted event load realization that excludes the
participant opt-outs and device failures can be derived. This represents the opportunity for the program
to improve its efficiency, assuming that the device failures are minimized and opt-outs are sufficiently
disincentivized. Dispatch Group C2 is the outlier in this analysis, but that is expected because most
TETRA TECH 15
O
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program-2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

participants are on the manual shut-off and have the least amount of automation for participation.
Dispatch Groups B and C have more opportunities than Dispatch Groups A and D because of the
higher proportion of participants with CELL devices.
Table 11. Adjusted Event Load Realization Excluding Participant Opt-Out and Device Failure Load Left On
Dispatch
Groupi .
A 97.5% 97.9% 98.5% 98.2%
B 93.8% 91.8% 93.3% 92.2%
C 92.2% 93.1% 95.4% 94.6%
C1 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
C2 75.0% 75.2% 73.7% 73.8%
D 96.9% 97.1% 97.0% 96.8%
O TETRA TECH 16
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

EVALUATION4.0 PROCESS i
The following sections provide a detailed review of the process evaluation methodology, evaluation
results, and recommendations from the evaluation activities.
4.1 METHODOLOGY
The process methodology consisted of four primary evaluation activities, shown in Figure 10. Each
activity is explained below.
Figure 7. Process Evaluation Activities
Interview program Review program delivery Interview Ag Develop a
delivery staff and marketing materials Reps logic model
Program Staff Interviews
Idaho Power staff responsible for the program delivery provided Tetra Tech staff with an overview of
the program design, objectives, staffing, outreach, procedures, tracking, and achievements. Idaho
Power program staff also responded to evaluation questions and provided any requested materials.
Materials and Outreach Review
Tetra Tech reviewed a total of 16 documents provided by Idaho Power. There were two program
material documents, seven enrollment documents, and seven marketing and outreach documents.
Ag Rep and Electrician Interviews
Idaho Power Ag Reps build relationships with property owners and electricians to service demand
response equipment. Interviews with these individuals provided additional information regarding
program design, objectives, staffing, outreach, procedures, tracking, and achievements.
Development of the Logic Model
Tetra Tech created a program logic model for the IPR program. This model serves as a visual
representation of the program's theory, illustrating a set of interrelated program activities that combine
to produce a variety of outputs, ultimately leading to key outcomes. The program's logic model serves
as a roadmap to develop and inform various audiences about program design, as well as to guide a
systematic approach to EM&V activities.
4.2 PROCESS REVIEW RESULTS
Overall, the program is operating as designed, and program staff have built strong relationships with
irrigation customers. Program documentation and outreach materials are thorough, clear, and provide
good coverage.
TETRA TECH 1 7
O
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

4.2.1 Process Documents
Tetra Tech reviewed the two program documents provided by IPC. These documents included the
2025 Program Handbook for the Irrigation Peak Rewards program and the Peak Device Management
Tool Instruction Manual.
The Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Handbook, dated 2025, provides detailed
information about various aspects of the IPR program, including links, file paths, images, and figures.
The appendix includes links and file paths to various resources, such as the marketing plan and
calendar, marketing materials, the operations plan and calendar, and the annual budget. It also
includes links to find information on tariffs for Idaho and Oregon, as well as the DSM annual report and
other additional reports and evaluations. The IPR handbook contains sections discussing:
1. IPR program description and overview- including the history of the program and information on
the different load control options.
2. Contact information —for program support, contractors, and vendors, also including a figure of
program file locations.
3. Worksheet and forms — including the process flow diagram.
4. Analysis—discussing the reason for and contact information about cost effectiveness.
5. Field Staff Information — including project plans, goals, and targets.
6. Contract information — such as master agreements and project order descriptions, including file
path locations.
7. Customer Service — including a description of the processes and procedures, forms, and the
survey instrument and results of a participant survey completed in 2021.
8. Quality Assurance—describing the overall process and associated file location.
The handbook provides detailed program information; however, some sections are missing information
or are marked as needing editing. The evaluators understand this is due to the draft nature of the
handbook and that the program specialist continues to work on updating sections. Additionally,
including a title page would make the handbook look more complete and professional.
The Peak Device Management Tool Instruction Manual offers guidance on using the tracking system,
CLRIS. It covers main menu navigation, locating work orders, devices, and participant information,
along with a glossary of terms. The manual also features images of the tracking system, CLRIS, to aid
users in navigation.
Tetra Tech also reviewed the seven enrollment documents provided for the IPR program to assess the
language describing the benefits customers receive from participation. These benefit descriptions were
found in the program brochure, the contract agreement, the enrollment cover letter, and the end-of-
season letter. The program brochure includes a table showing potential load-control incentive amounts,
along with a program summary stating, "Participating is designed to avoid or delay the need for new
resources, which helps keep costs down for everyone."The contract agreement application and the
enrollment cover letter contain a section explaining that customers will receive a financial incentive for
TETRA TECH 1 8 O
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

satisfactory participation. Because many participants receive the incentive as a bill credit, IPC also
sends all participants an end-of-season letter detailing the incentive amount received during the current
program season, along with a comparison to the incentives earned in the previous year, if applicable.
Additionally, the letter also states that participating in the program "helps keep prices low for all
customers."
4.2.2 Marketing and Outreach
Tetra Tech reviewed seven marketing and outreach documents provided by IPC. These included two
Irrigation Newsletters dated January and July 2024, a pop-up advertisement, a social media post, an
enrollment flyer, a program brochure, and a radio advertisement. All the outreach materials are visually
appealing and convey information clearly. The marketing materials encompass a variety of outreach
options, thereby maximizing outreach potential and audience reach.
Both newsletters provide information for agriculture and irrigation customers at Idaho Power. The
January newsletter highlighted seven customer workshops scheduled on different dates across Idaho,
which discussed irrigation rate design and rate changes, water-supply forecasts, the IPR program, and
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards. It also included details about the IPR program, such as the dates of the
event season, the event time window, and the minimum number of events. The newsletter provided
information on both fixed and variable incentives, as well as contact details for various agricultural
representatives. Additionally, it covered IPC's reliability efforts, electrical safety information for
irrigators, wildfire safety projects, and IPC's involvement in Idaho's agricultural community. The July
newsletter focused on changes to irrigation rate design and bill structure and included information about
demand related to irrigation systems.
The program brochure provides detailed information about the Irrigation Peak Rewards program,
including an overview of the program and contact details for IPC agricultural representatives. It also
covers the program season dates, explains the automatic and manual load-control options for
participants, and provides information on incentives and customer opt-outs. Additionally, an educational
infographic is available that illustrates the three different indicator lights on the load control device.
The pop-up ad and the social media post both feature the same image and large text promoting
enrollment in the IPR program, with the pop-up ad including a link to the program. The enrollment flyer
also encourages enrollment in the IPR program and contains a link to the program website. The radio
advertisement is brief, yet it provides plenty of information about the program, including a phone
number to call for more details.
4.2.3 Logic Model
A program logic model is a visual representation of the program's theory that illustrates a set of
interrelated program activities that combine to produce a variety of outputs, leading to key outcomes.
The program's logic model serves as a roadmap to develop and inform various audiences about
program design, as well as to guide a systematic approach to EM&V activities. A program logic model
can lead to a cost-effective plan to determine program effectiveness in meeting its goals and objectives.
Logic models can be linked to performance indicators to provide ongoing feedback to program
managers.
TETRA TECH 19
O
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

The models flow from top to bottom and are typically organized into four basic categories, as shown
below.
• Inputs or Resources: These identify the key financial, staffing, and infrastructure resources
that support each activity. When possible, specific budgets or systems are identified.
• Program Activities: Program logic models are structured around overarching activities that
describe the major components of the program. Examples may include developing program
infrastructure, recruiting program allies, marketing to customers, energy assessments,
measure installation, and evaluation.
• Outputs: The program logic models include metrics resulting from the activities. These tend to
be measurable "bean counting" results (e.g., provide outreach events at five community fairs).
The outputs can be tracked or measured to ensure the activities are being conducted as
expected.
• Outcomes: The models specify expected outcomes or stretch goals that result from the
program activities beginning in the first year. Specific goals are attached to those outcomes
when possible. Examples include: annual energy savings, participating customers, and
knowledgeable trade allies. Specific examples include: "an energy efficient industry is
established", and "the measure becomes standard practice." These may be associated with a
full program plan cycle.
Stepping across the activities enumerated in the logic model indicates an approximate `flow' in the
sequence of activities. For example, the logic models begin with the program infrastructure and end
with the activity that results in direct energy savings. In each column, the resources needed or allocated
are specified above each activity. Then, the direct outputs of the activity are enumerated. The
outcomes are causally linked to the various outputs in each column of the logic model. In other words, it
is expected that the specified output (e.g., installed measures) will result in the specified outcome (e.g.,
energy savings). Where available, the program logic models included quantitative data on both the
expected and actual outputs from each activity.
Outcomes tend to detail program objectives at a high level and capture market effects. These outcomes
may be based on program plans for expected performance, current actual results, or general program
goals.
It is essential to recognize that various external factors can also impact the program's outcomes.
External influences include City, State, and Federal Codes and Standards (existing and evolving), other
utility programs, EPA/DOE ENERGY STAR° national and regional program activities, equipment and
technology options (current and evolving), political and economic factors, inflation, and the prices of oil,
electricity, and natural gas.
The draft logic model was developed based on a review of program documentation and interviews with
program staff. The draft model was provided to the program specialist for review and comment before
finalizing.
4.2.4 Ag Rep and Electrician Interviews
Tetra Tech contacted the seven Idaho Power Irrigation Field representatives and the three electricians
who complete site work for the program. We were able to talk with four irrigation representatives and
one electrician. Each had been in their role for over five years and was very satisfied with the work,
communication, and planning in the IPR program.
The electrician felt that he was provided with good direction from the program. He is required to contact
the participant to schedule the necessary work, and he felt that the participants were generally well-
informed about the work to be completed, which made the whole process run smoothly.
TETRA TECH 20
O
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

The field representatives interviewed were experienced, having worked in this job for more than five
years with Idaho Power. They felt that the program provided them with the necessary information to
communicate effectively with the participants. They appreciated the open communication between the
program administration and the field representatives and felt that the goal was to improve when
problems arose. The program provided adequate time to roll out program changes, communicate with
participants, and discuss how they would be impacted. The representatives discussed the annual
irrigation schedule and noted that the enrollment period for returning and new participants overlaps with
their other busy times of the year. However, all felt that was the nature of irrigation and that Idaho
Power could not adjust that cycle.
In general, the representatives observed that participants in the program tend to feel that they are
supporting or helping Idaho Power through their participation, rather than seeking the financial benefits
available. This indicates a strong relationship between Idaho Power and the irrigation customers, but
can also be a source of program contraction when regional or global conditions change. Overall, the
representatives and electricians are pleased with the program and believe that the participants are also
satisfied with it.
TETRA TECH 2
O
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

MEASUREDAPPENDIX A: EVENT-DAY .
As discussed in Section 3.2.3 of the report, beyond each event day's individual dispatch group
performance, the dispatch groups are called for various four-hour event periods between 2:00 p.m. and
9:00 p.m. The offset event hours mean that the results of an individual dispatch group are not directly
additive.
The graphs in this section plot the entire event day for all participants; they show the energy
consumption of all dispatch groups, whether they were called that day or not. Only the dispatch groups
called that day (shown in blue) are expected to participate in the event, resulting in a significant
reduction in load during the event period. The calculated hourly load reduction is displayed in green and
generally fills the gap. The devices enrolled in the program, but not called on the event days, are shown
in gray.
July 10, 2024
300
250
200
c
c�
E
0 150
100
50
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour Ending
Consumption of non-dispatched participants ■Consumption of dispatched participants Measured load reduction
O TETRA TECH A-1
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

July 11 , 2024
300
250
200
c
c�
E
0 150
100
50
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour Ending
Consumption of non-dispatched participants ■Consumption of dispatched participants Measured load reduction
O TETRA TECH A-2
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

July 24, 2024
250
200
150
c
c�
E
aD
0
100
50
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour Ending
Consumption of non-dispatched participants ■Consumption of dispatched participants Measured load reduction
O TETRA TECH A-3
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

August 2, 2024
200
180
160
140
120
c
(0
E
a) 100
80
60
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour Ending
Consumption of non-dispatched participants■Consumption of dispatched participants
Measured load reduction
O TETRA TECH A-4
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

August 19, 2024
180
160
140
120
(0 100
E
a)
0
80
60
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour Ending
Consumption of non-dispatched participants ■Consumption of dispatched participants Measured load reduction
O TETRA TECH A-5
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

August 22, 2024
200
180
160
140
-0 120
c
M
E
0 100
80
60
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour Ending
Consumption of non-dispatched participants■Consumption of dispatched participants
Measured load reduction
O TETRA TECH A-6
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

. CATEGORIZATION
In addition to developing the evaluated results, Tetra Tech wrote analysis code to characterize
participants to better understand their participation in events and identify risks to the evaluated program
performance. Table 12 shows the participant categorization developed by the evaluation team.
Table 12. Participant Categorization Numbering and Description
F Category Category name _Fcategory
description
1 CELL Control Devices Non-measured participants that do not have
interval meter data
2 Interval Meter Data Error Non-measured participants that have an
interval meter data error in baseline or event
period
3 Nonparticipant—Low event day Measured event day baseline load reduced
baseline Load for the event is below 9 kW
4 Nonparticipant—Low Load Measured load reduced during the event is
Reduced below 9 kW, including opt-outs and device
failures
5 Partial Participant—Ended Early Measured load reduction in hour one of the
event, but the load reduction in hour four was
below 9 kW
6 Partial Participant—Started Late Measured maximum load reduction is greater
than 9 kW, but hour one load reduction is
below 9 kW
7 Partial Participant—Partial Load Measured maximum load reduction is less
Reduction than 90 percent of the event day baseline
load reduction
8 Participants Measured reduction is consistent and
complete for the event
The categorization is completed for each event day based on the participants dispatched. Across
different events, participants may be in different categories. For each event, each participant is only
assigned to one category.
• Category 1 is developed by comparing the participant list to the data provided.
• Categories 1 and 2 are the meters that are not measured.
• Category 3 identifies the participating locations that are not operating during the event;
therefore, the adjustment reduces the savings to near zero.
• Categories 4, 5, 6, and 7 identify the participating locations that are not meeting the
expected load reduction for the event. However, Categories 5 and 6 may show the
maximum savings during one or more hours of the event and would be included when
O TETRA TECH B-1
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

reviewing the maximum demand reduction per meter. Category 7 identifies the participants
who are not reducing their full event day baseline load over the event.
• Category 8 includes the participants who responded to the whole four-hour event. This
category contains the majority of participants for all events and dispatch groups.
B.1 PARTICIPANT CATEGORIZATION ANALYSIS
The evaluation team created an automated categorization of participants based on baseline and
performance period consumption. The meter categorization varies for each participant for each event
as the consumption patterns change. For example, agricultural practices may identify that irrigation is
not needed in August but is needed in June and July. Or a meter may not have responded to a call
during one event, but others operated as expected. This recategorization is expected at each event for
the IPR program.
Dispatch Groups A, B, and C have similar proportions of CELL devices. These devices do not produce
AMI data; however, with accurate estimates of event usage, savings could still be calculated for these
devices. Only one device was missing meter data, placing it in Category 2.
The remainder of the groups indicate non-participation or partial participation; these groups are
automatically identified in the data and need to be coordinated with participant opt-out data and
information collected through communication to identify which participants are coordinated with the
program and which are opportunities for improvement.
The patterns of the operation within dispatch groups are interesting. Dispatch groups A, B, and D show
similar patterns of participation. Each group shows an increasing number of participants who are not
operating at the time of the event as the events move later in the season. This pattern suggests that the
agricultural practices of these dispatch groups will yield similar results each year.
TETRA TECH B-2
O
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

Dispatch Group A Participation
August 22 14
August 2 20
July 24 22
July 10 38 .:
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
■(1)CELL Control Devices (2)Interval Meter Data Error
■(3)Non-Participant-Low Potential Load (4)Non-Participant-Low Savings
(5)Partial Participant- Ended Early (6)Partial Participant-Started Late
■(7)Partial Participant- Partial Load Reduction■(8)Participants
Dispatch Group B Participation
August 22 . 21
August . 28
July 24 . 36
July 11 . 68
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
■(1)CELL Control Devices (2)lnterval Meter Data Error
■(3)Non-Participant-Low Potential Load (4)Non-Participant-Low Savings
(5)Partial Participant-Ended Early (6)Partial Participant-Started Late
■(7)Partial Participant-Partial Load Reduction■(8)Participants
O TETRA TECH B-3
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

Dispatch Group D Participation
August 22 24
August 2 33 �.
July 24 35 .
July 10 51
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
■(1)CELL Control Devices (2)Interval Meter Data Error
■(3)Non-Participant-Low Potential Load (4)Non-Participant-Low Savings
(5)Partial Participant- Ended Early (6)Partial Participant-Started Late
■(7)Partial Participant- Partial Load Reduction■(8)Participants
O TETRA TECH B-4
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

Dispatch Group C is unique compared to the other groups, as explained in Section 3.2.2 above. This
dispatch group had less variation in participant operations over the season, resulting in the baseline
staying more constant throughout the season.
Dispatch Group C Participation
August 19 ' 7
August 2 ' 16
July 24 ' 9
July 11 ' 18 ..
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
■(1)CELL Control Devices (2)lnterval Meter Data Error
■(3)Non-Participant-Low Potential Load (4)Non-Participant-Low Savings
(5)Partial Participant-Ended Early (6)Partial Participant-Started Late
■(7)Partial Participant-Partial Load Reduction■(8)Participants
Dispatch Groups C1 and C2 include five and seven meters, respectively. Dispatch Group C1 had the
most consistent participation, with all meters being categorized as participants in the events on August
2 and July 11, and four out of five categorized as participants in the other two events, with the baseline
of one meter in each falling under the 9 kW threshold, classifying it as Category 3.
One of the seven meters in dispatch group C2 does not have interval meter data. Of the six remaining,
four in the July 11 and July 24 events, three in the August 2 event, and two in the August 19 event were
classified as non-participants, with the main reason being low event-day baseline load. Two others in
each event were classified as partial participants. Only the last two events of the season produced any
Category 8 participants; one on August 2 and two on August 19.
TETRA TECH B-5 O
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program—2024 Evaluation Results. January 30, 2026

Impact Evaluation of
Idaho Power' s 2024 Home
EnergyReport Behavioral
Program
SUBMITTED TO: IDAHO POWER COMPANY
SUBMITTED ON: FEBRUARY 11, 2025
SUBMITTED BY: Qualus
Qualus
100 Colonial Center Parkway,
Suite 400 Lake Mary, FL 32746

Idaho Power 2024 Behavioral Program Impact Evaluation
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .........................................................................................................................................4
2. Methodology........................................................................................................................................5
2.1 Data Preparation ........................................................................................................................................5
2.2 Regression Billing Analysis(IPMVP Option C:Whole Facility)....................................................................7
3. Results..................................................................................................................................................9
3.1 Customer Attrition......................................................................................................................................9
3.2 Electric Savings.........................................................................................................................................10
3.3 Solar Rate Schedule Conversion...............................................................................................................12
4. Conclusions and Recommendations..................................................................................................14
ii

Idaho Power 2024 Behavioral Program Impact Evaluation
List of Tables
Table 1-1. Key HER Information by Wave.....................................................................................................4
Table 2-1: Number of Treatment Customers Removed per Step.................................................................6
Table 2-2: Number of Control Customers Removed per Step......................................................................7
Table 3-1. Customers per Wave in 2024 Program Savings.........................................................................11
Table 3-2. 2024 Monthly Program Savings (kWh) ......................................................................................12
Table 3-3. Overall Customer Generation Conversion by Wave as of September 2025..............................13
List of Figures
Figure 3-1. Customer Inactivity and Opt-Outs in 2024 per Available Tracking Data..................................10
Figure 3-2. Cumulative Customer Generation Conversion by Wave over Post-Periods.............................13
Figure 4-1. 2025 HER Example....................................................................................................................15
iii

Idaho Power 2024 Behavioral Program Impact Evaluation
1- Introduction
In this memorandum, Qualus, an independent third-party evaluator, provides an outline of the 2024
impact evaluation of Idaho Power's behavioral home energy report(HER) program.As detailed below
in Table 1-1, Idaho Power began several waves of the HER program in 2017 and 2018, but the vast
majority of treatment customers were added to the program in June 2020 as a part of wave 6. The
goal of Idaho Power's behavioral program is to encourage residential customers to decrease their
electricity usage by sharing HERS that include comparisons of energy usage to efficient homes and
suggestions for strategies to save energy. As highlighted in the following table, Idaho Power stopped
sharing HERS with wave 5 in February 2020; however, they have continued to assess this wave of the
program for any persisting savings.
Table 1-1. Key HER Information by Wave
Treatment Customers Control Customers
wave HER Start Date included in 2024 included in 2024 HER Delivery End
for Analyses Analysis after data Analysis after data Date
cleaning cleaning
1 12/1/2017 3,651 925 N/A
2 12/1/2018 3,285 526 N/A
3 8/1/2017 4,007 2,428 N/A
4 8/1/2017 1,873 1,760 N/A
5 8/1/2017 3,101 36,458 February 2020
6 6/1/2020 66,252 8,973 N/A
In addition to discontinuing wave 5 HER delivery in February 2020, Idaho Power has made several
changes to program implementation across the years. As of 2024, Uplight (Idaho Power's HER
program implementer) shared six HERs across each of the five active waves in February, June,
September, October, November, and December. In 2024, almost all customers received paper
versions of the report. Around half of the customers had emails on file with Idaho Power, and they
received both email and paper versions of the report. Further,a mere 165 customers opted out of the
paper delivery and only received email versions.The mode of HER delivery and the delivery schedule
in 2024 are both different from previous years of implementation.
From 2017-2019 all reports were initially delivered as paper versions only, but starting in 2020,a small
proportion (-0.05%) received email reports. The rate of email only and both email and paper
recipients increased dramatically in 2022 and since then the rate of customers receiving HERs via
email has only increased further. In addition to changes in the mode of HER delivery, report delivery
schedules have also varied over the years. In late 2017 and early 2018, wave 1 began as a winter
heating group cohort who only received four reports during winter months to motivate decreased
energy usage. Waves 3-5 meanwhile received seven reports from the summer of 2017 through the
summer of 2018. In late 2018 and across 2019, participating customers received a mix of quarterly
and bi-monthly(i.e.,once every two months) reports. From 2020 through 2023,each of the five active
waves received four HERs per year, with most customers receiving them in February, May, August,
and November.
4

Idaho Power 2024 Behavioral Program Impact Evaluation
The following sections describe the methodology by which Qualus assessed the electric savings
associated with the HER program as well as results and key conclusions.
2. Methodology
This section details the impact evaluation methodology employed by Qualus to assess the energy savings
associated with each wave of Idaho Power's behavioral program. Qualus employed an IPMVP Option C
billing analysis methodology to calculate the savings associated with HER participation.' This analysis
involves comparing energy usage in the HER pre-period (i.e., the 12 months prior to customer
participation in the HER program) to a post-period (i.e., the 12 months in 2024) to identify the impact of
HER participation on energy usage. Qualus also evaluated rates of conversion to solar by treatment and
control customers to identify how HER program participation may affect other customer behaviors. The
following subsections detail the specific data preparation and evaluation methodologies employed to
evaluate Idaho Power's HER program.
2.1 Data Preparation
Idaho Power shared a tracking dataset with Qualus that included details on treatment and control
customer HER participation as well as key customer details such as address, move-out dates,and HER opt-
out dates. In addition to this tracking dataset, Idaho Power also shared monthly billing data for
participating customers from 2016—2024. The following steps were taken to prepare the billing data for
regression analyses:
1. Removed all Premise IDs that opted out of the HER program.
2. Subset billing data to only include customers included in the tracking data based on premise ID
matching.
3. Removed all duplicates from billing data.
4. Remove any customers who changed to a solar generation rate schedule during the analysis
period to exclude the impact of novel solar from the regression impact analysis.
5. Removed bills missing usage, billing start date, or billing end date.
6. Excluded bills missing address information, as address information is required to link billing data
to NOAA weather data.
7. Removed bills missing usage, billing start date, or billing end date.
8. Removed all bills prior to customer move-in date or after customer move-out date.Merged key
customer information such as HER wave, wave start date, and treatment/control assignment
from the tracking data with the billing data by premise ID.
9. Calendarized bills,this involves recalculating bill dates, usage, and total billed days such that bills
begin and end at the start and end of each month.
10. Obtained weather data from the nearest NOAA weather station using 5-digit zip code for each
household.
1 IPMVP refers to the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol.See:Core Concepts.Efficiency Valuation
Organization. October 2016. IPMVP Core Concepts may be downloaded at www.evo-world.org (account required) — or see
www.eeperformance.org/uploads/8/6/5/0/8650231/ipmvp_volume_i_2012.pdf,which is a similar version of the IPMVP.For a
summary description of"Option C:Whole Facility,"see section 6.5(page 26)in IPMVP Core Concepts.
5

Idaho Power 2024 Behavioral Program Impact Evaluation
11. Computed Heating Degree Days (HDD) and Cooling Degree Days (CDD) using a setpoint of 65°F,
as some regression models include HDD and CDD control parameters.
12. Remove any customers participating in other voluntary Idaho Power energy efficiency programs
to avoid double counting savings. Any customers participating in another voluntary energy
efficiency program between the 12 months prior to each waves' HER start date (i.e., the pre-
period) and December 31, 2024 were removed from the analysis.
13. Removed customers with incomplete post-period bills (i.e., <12 months).
14. Removed customers with incomplete pre-period bills (i.e., <12 months out of the 36 months in
2022-2024).
15. Removed customers with usage data considered an outlier using an IQR outlier test.
16. Removed customers with no usage data or zero usage.
The number of treatment and control customers removed as a result of the data preprocessing can be
seen in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 respectively.
Table 2-1:Number of Treatment Customers Removed per Step
Preprocessing Steps Wave I Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5 Wave 6
Opt-out Premise ID 12 6 26 13 4 387
Inactive Premise ID 374 354 311 173 343 6,825
Duplicated Premise ID 0 0 0 0 1 2
Simultaneous Premise ID 35 17 15 5 23 164
On-Site Generation 67 59 53 21 19 1,089
Incomplete Billing Data 9 19 13 8 8 196
Missing Zip Code 10 4 3 0 1 23
Moved 0 5 0 0 2 18
Overlapping Program Participation 315 173 163 65 58 1,238
Insufficient Pre-or Post-Data 22 29 32 19 25 3,762
Outliers 0 0 0 0 0 0
Customers with 0 Usage 1 0 0 0 8 7
Total 845 666 616 304 492 13,711
6

Idaho Power 2024 Behavioral Program Impact Evaluation
Table 2-2:Number of Control Customers Removed per Step
Preprocessing
Opt-out Premise ID 0 0 0 3 29 3
Inactive Premise ID 102 56 170 177 3,833 989
Duplicated Premise ID 0 0 0 0 0 0
Simultaneous Premise ID 6 1 12 6 211 17
On-Site Generation 18 12 40 27 346 141
Incomplete Billing Data 0 3 8 7 70 35
Missing Zip Code 2 0 0 1 17 1
Moved 2 1 0 0 7 6
Overlapping Program Participation 74 20 75 38 688 155
Insufficient Pre-or Post-Data 7 3 27 24 359 524
Outliers 0 0 0 0 0 0
Customers with 0 Usage 1 0 1 0 78 1
Total 212 96 333 283 5,638 1,872
After conducting this data preprocessing, Qualus ran a set of pre vs. post regression billing analyses to
determine the impact of HER participation on customer electricity usage.
2.2 Regression Billing Analysis (IPMVP Option C: Whole Facility)
This section summarizes the general billing analysis methods Qualus employed for the evaluation of Idaho
Power's behavioral program pilot.
For the purpose of this summary, a household is considered a 'treatment household' if it has participated
in the behavioral program. Meanwhile, a household is considered a 'control household' if the household
has not received program materials, i.e., home energy reports. To conduct a linear regression billing
analysis for a HER program, Qualus requires billing data for a control group to compare against treatment
households. Control groups can be designed via randomized control trials (RCT) at the outset of program
design, or via quasi-experimental methods. Idaho Power developed control groups via an RCT
methodology at the outset of each wave of this program and as of this analysis, treatment and control
groups for each wave have maintained statistically similar pre-period monthly electricity usage per a set
of Student's T-tests. As such, Qualus did not rely on any quasi-experimental methods and instead
compared each wave's treatment group against the RCT-selected control group.
Using the RCT assigned control group, Qualus developed a regression model to estimate daily
consumption differences between treatment households and control households. After testing out a
variety of different regression models, Qualus ultimately selected a fixed effect Difference-in-Difference
(D-in-D) regression model including controls for monthly differences in energy consumption behavior.The
specifics of this regression model are presented in the following section.
2.2.1 Fixed Effects Difference-in-Difference Regression Model
To calculate the impacts of behavioral program participation, Qualus employed a linear fixed effects
regression using treatment and control billing data with a control for the monthly differences in energy
7

Idaho Power 2024 Behavioral Program Impact Evaluation
consumption behavior across the 12 pre-period and 12 post-period months included in the analysis. The
following equation displays the model specification to estimate the average daily savings due to the
measure.
Equation 2-1:Fixed Effects Difference-in-Difference(D-n-D) Model Specification
ADCit = ao +f31(Post)it +f32(Post x Treatment)it +f33(Month)it +f34(Post x Month)it
+ Qs(Post x Month x Treatment)it +f36(Customer Dummy)i + Eit
Where:
i=the ith household
t=the first, second,third, etc. month of the pre- and post-treatment period
ADCit = Estimated average daily consumption (dependent variable) in home i during period t
Postit =A dummy variable indicating pre-or post-period designation during period t at home i
Treatmenti =A dummy variable indicating treatment status of home i
Montht = Dummy variable indicating the month of the year(e.g.,January= 1, February= 2, etc.)
during period t
Customer Dummyi=A dummy variable indicating customer-specific identifier at home i
Eit =Customer-level random error
ao= Baseline ADC for the control group i, in the pre-period; overall model intercept
F'1_6 = Coefficients determined via regression
The Average Daily Consumption (ADC) was calculated as the total monthly billed usage divided by the
duration of the bill month. F'2 represents the average change in daily consumption in the post-period
between the treatment and control group and Qs represents the change in daily usage due to monthly
variation in consumption behaviors in the post-period between the groups. Average annual savings were
calculated by extracting the f32 and f s coefficients from the regression and multiplying F'2 by 365.25 days
per year and each of the monthly Qs coefficients by the number of days per month. The sum of these
coefficients multiplied by the days per year or days per month was then multiplied by-1 to report energy
savings instead of the difference in energy consumption(i.e.,a negative difference in energy consumption
is equal to positive savings).Separate D-in-D regression analyses were run for each wave of Idaho Power's
HER program.
8

Idaho Power 2024 Behavioral Program Impact Evaluation
3- Results
Qualus' regression analyses found that as of 2024, the six waves of Idaho Power's HER program have
savings varying between 0.00 kWh (due to a lack of statistical significance) and 320.53 kWh. Including the
0.00 kWh savings associated with wave 1, the six waves displayed a weighted average annual savings of
196.28 kWh. Full 2024 regression analysis results are presented in Table 3-1. Of note, treatment and
control groups for each of the six waves have maintained statistically similar pre-period monthly electricity
usage per a set of Student's T-tests. Monthly pre-period billing data was compared for the treatment and
control groups,and every month received a p-value greater than 0.05. Because the treatment and control
groups did not have significantly different pre-period billing data, propensity score matching was not
required to develop the control groups.
3.1 Customer Attrition
Qualus conducted an analysis of customer attrition by wave per tracking data on customer account
inactivity and participation opt-outs. Qualus found that per tracking data Idaho Power shared, as of
September 2025, cumulative rates of inactivity or opt-outs ranged between 6.16% for Wave 3 control
customers and 9.66%for Wave 5 treatment customers. Of note, after data cleaning, Qualus analyzed the
93,277 unique customers who received HERS in 2024.2 Indeed, the assumption that Qualus may have
analyzed a subset of customers seems to be supported by the fact that most customer inactivity and opt-
outs included in the tracking data Qualus received begin in 2023. The following figure suggests that
combined rates of inactivity and opt-outs are similar between treatment and control customers and are
relatively consistent across waves. Ultimately, as detailed in Table 3-1, over 1,800 treatment customers
with 12-months of valid pre-period and post-period billing data remain in each wave.
z https://docs.idahopower.com/pdfs/EnergyEfficiency/Reports/2024DSMWEB.pdf
9

Idaho Power 2024 Behavioral Program Impact Evaluation
Figure 3-1. Customer Inactivity and Opt-Outs in 2024 per Available Tracking Data
3
0
z
f-osto j'er Ass1yrnr-?n1
y ..
C)
S
y
Ia
'h4lnipin.�in lr�aeti',?iCJ ryV(314 OUt r)3Er� ,
3.2 Electric Savings
The six different waves displayed substantial variation in savings associated with the HERS as calculated
by D-in-D regression analyses.The evaluators estimated unadjusted electric savings for the 2024 calendar
year using the 12 months prior to each waves' HER start date as the analysis pre-period. The HER
treatment start dates for each wave group can be seen in Table 3-1. With a p-value of 0.581,the wave 1
regression analysis did not yield statistically significant savings, meaning Qualus was unable to reject the
null hypothesis and therefore assigned 0.00 kWh savings to the wave. All other waves displayed a p-value
<0.05 suggesting there was a statistically significant difference in energy usage by HER participants in the
post-period. These savings values were calculated for customers who did not participate in other energy
efficiency programs.
10

Idaho Power 2024 Behavioral Program Impact Evaluation
Table 3-1. Customers per Wave in 2024 Program Savings
Treatment Control Average Savings 95%C1 95%C1 Total Active Total
HER Start Customers Customers Annual Percent Lower Upper Treatment Annual
Wave Date for included in included in Electric age of Bound Bound Customers Electric
2024Annual Electric Electric
Analyses 2024 Savings Consurn Savings Savings as of the Savings
Analysis Analysis (kWh) ption (kWh) (kWh) of 2024 (kWh)
1 12/1/2017 3,651 925 0 0.00% 0 0 4,215 0
2 12/1/2018 3,285 526 268.01 1.30% 50.44 485.58 3,701 991,905
3 8/1/2017 4,007 2,428 317.4 2.08% 227.19 407.63 4,418 1,402,273
4 8/1/2017 1,873 1,760 314.56 2.98% 230.06 399.05 2,055 646,421
5 8/1/2017 3,101 36,458 44.77 0.63% 5.81 83.72 3,362 150,517
6 6/1/2020 66,252 8,973 203.18 1.41% 158.21 248.15 75,526 15,345,373
All N/A 82,169 51,070 198.87 1.57% 146.12 251.63 93,277 18,536,488
Waves
To target customers with higher savings potential, Idaho Power stopped sending reports to wave 5
treatment customers in February 2020.As of 2024, Qualus' regression analysis identified residual average
annual electric savings of 44.77 kWh, or 0.63%of annual customer usage, for wave 5.
Further, while wave 5 was found to be associated with minimal savings, all four other waves were found
to be associated with typical average savings for a behavioral program. The wave 6 regression yielded
average annual savings of 203.18 kWh per household for 1.41% while wave 2 yielded savings of 268.01
kWh (1.30%). Meanwhile, waves 4 and 3 were found to be associated with annual savings of 314.56 kWh
(2.98%) and 317.40 kWh (2.08%), respectively. The overall energy savings for the program were
determined to be 18,536,488 kWh,which corresponds with an average annual electric savings of 199 kWh
per treated household.
Below in Table 3-2, the monthly savings for 2024 can be found for each wave. Because wave 1 displayed
no statistically significant electric savings, wave 1 was excluded from this table. While July shows
consistent high electric savings across waves,the month of December shows the greatest electric savings
with a simple average across waves 2 through 6 of 27.92 kWh, followed by the month of March with an
average of 25.22 kWh across the waves. The month with the greatest electric savings was found in wave
2 in March with 50.61 kWh.This monthly breakdown seems to suggest HER customers save electricity all
year round; however, the most substantial savings occur in the winter followed closely by the peak of
summer.
11

Idaho Power 2024 Behavioral Program Impact Evaluation
Toble 3-2. 2024 Monthly Program Savings(kWh)
Month Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5 WaveVAII Waves Simple Average
January 35.35 27.72 28.89 5.43 19.89 23.46
February 32.08 21.31 34.83 8.85 20.69 23.55
March 50.61 26.19 24.93 6.96 17.43 25.22
April 22.96 20.59 20.56 3.18 13.99 16.26
May 2.79 20.81 27.12 1.19 14.47 13.28
June 5.43 21.80 29.67 -0.17 15.99 14.54
July 17.62 40.52 30.16 -0.43 18.00 21.17
August 12.46 37.07 18.41 3.81 18.49 18.05
September 9.90 22.70 14.44 0.91 16.64 12.92
October 15.32 22.40 12.92 1.98 14.12 13.35
November 24.95 27.94 24.86 5.15 16.53 19.89
December 38.53 28.32 47.83 7.93 16.96 27.92
Annual Sum 268.01 317.38 314.63 44.80 203.20 229.60
3.3 Solar Rate Schedule Conversion
In addition to assessing the electric savings associated with each of the waves of Idaho Power's HER
program, Qualus also investigated the rate of solar rate schedule conversion. Per the billing and tracking
data that Idaho Power shared with Qualus, treatment and control customers seem to have changed to
solar generation rate schedules at relatively equal rates. As highlighted in Figure 3-2, per the available
billing and tracking data, most customers only seem to have begun changing to solar generation rate
schedules in 2023. It is possible that conversion to solar rates may have dramatically increased starting in
2023, or as highlighted before, it is possible Qualus may have only received a subset of participating
customers for this analysis.The table below illustrates the proportion of customers who have transitioned
to customer generation rate schedules (i.e., Idaho Power rates 106 or 184) in each wave and treatment
group.
12

Idaho Power 2024 Behavioral Program Impact Evaluation
Table 3-3. Overall Customer Generation Conversion by Wave as of September 2025
Wave Control Treatment
1 1.75% 1.64%
2 1.77% 1.68%
3 1.51% 1.24%
4 1.45% 1.06%
5 0.91% 0.59%
6 1.41% 1.50%
Figure 3-2. Cumulative Customer Generation Conversion by Wave over Post-Periods
L
Cunt o�•,�:�,i�s_,i�+on iet��
il:.r,rr•,
t
„
13

Idaho Power 2024 Behavioral Program Impact Evaluation
4-Conclusions and Recommendations
Qualus ran a set of D-in-D regression analyses that found there were statistically significant energy savings
associated with participation in Idaho Power's HER program for five out of six waves. The wave 1 cohort
regression analysis did not yield statistically significant savings. While customers in wave 5 stopped
receiving HERs in February 2020, there seem to be moderate residual savings of 44.77 kWh (0.63%)
associated with that wave. The four other waves all had annual average savings ranging between 203.18
kWh and 317.40 kWh. Across all six waves there was a weighted average savings of 198.87 kWh. The
findings seem to suggest there are clear, statistically significant savings associated with waves 2, 3,4, and
6 of Idaho Power's HER program. It is unclear why wave 1 was not associated with statistically significant
savings, but differences in its initial implementation as a winter heating group cohort may be a
contributing factor. While most of the HER waves were found to have statistically significant differences
in energy usage, there did not appear to be major differences in the conversion to solar rate schedules
between treatment and control customers or the various waves.
Based on this analysis and prior experience evaluating HER programs, Qualus would offer the following
findings and recommendations to Idaho Power:
Findings:
■ The calculated weighted average electric savings of 199 kWh per household shows a minimal
difference between the ex-ante electric savings value of 190 kWh per household illustrating the
program's success in achieving claimed savings.
■ As highlighted in the Customer Attrition section above, after data cleaning the tracking data
Idaho Power shared with Qualus included 93,277 unique treatment customers who met all
inclusion criteria for regression analyses.
■ While not every customer was eligible to participate in the regression analysis, per Qualus'
analysis of the tracking we received, 93,277 households were actively participating in Idaho
Power's program as of the end of 2024.These households received Home Energy Reports and
should be producing electric savings. As detailed in Table 3-1, Qualus extrapolated wave-specific
savings values to these 93,277 customers for total annual savings of 18.536 GWh across all
waves combined.
■ Rates of conversion to solar rate schedules did not differ dramatically between treatment and
control customers. Other metrics such as household location could be used to predict solar
adoption. Similarly,the types of solar generation installed (e.g., solar with or without storage)
could yield useful insights.
Recommendations:
■ Idaho Power should consider reviewing datasets (i.e. Idaho Power's tracking data, 2024 DSM
Annual Report)to identify any key differences between them and reconcile any associated
effects on analysis results (e.g., different data cleaning steps).
■ With rates of email HERs increasing dramatically since 2022, if Idaho Power is not already, it may
be worthwhile to collect data on the rates at which HER emails are being opened and integrate
those data into future analyses.
14

Idaho Power 2024 Behavioral Program Impact Evaluation
■ Lastly, Idaho Power and/or their program implementer may want to consider leveraging
granular customer AMI billing data to provide customers with more specific tailored
recommendations for energy savings opportunities in HER materials. As highlighted in Figure
4-1, current materials seem to focus on monthly trends, but if AMI data could reveal customers
are using substantially more energy than other customers during certain hours of the day or
certain days of the week, sharing that information could help encourage customers to reduce
energy usage even further.
Figure 4-1. 2025 HER Example
�. IL
,r '1'.':_ i:IJ= :��� U +,v�. rt-1 �Af� r��f.: Ai IAI
-4p� r;ai' - 7ir e8
i nc.-ri,ntFi['rJll`?3HEI:2000 WT_V!I-If3:M!T' riv 1 <a@-"t 1n11Y.1c.t*i!ipI l 1n;hF Farm?nin itb f9>: ^ 1?far'Fug T1491.
f•—.ntieJr tiibjj-+.t lai-ihi.,qit;:l y'1''ifi�-.TF+lf�
A,€"40-
1=lift
{g:.i3 11ihlti A�#17+. •+xrr�7 ffitkArfrha I?';I,a`
-
15

Supplement 2: Evaluation
OTHER REPORTS
Analysis Study Study/Evaluation
Report Title Sector Performed By Manager Type
2025 A/C Cool Credit Program End-of- Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Other
Season Report
2025 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Commercial/Industrial Idaho Power Idaho Power Other
Annual Report
2025 Irrigation Peak Rewards Irrigation Idaho Power Idaho Power Other
Program Report
Deemed Savings Analysis of Residential Qualus Idaho Power Other
Idaho Power's Home Energy Report
Behavioral Program
Historical DSM Expense and Residential,Commercial/Industrial, Idaho Power Idaho Power Other
Performance,2002-2025 Irrigation
Idaho Power Corporation Home Energy Residential Harris Harris Other
Report 2025 Final Program Summary
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program— Residential Tinker LLC Tinker LLC Other
School Year 2024-2025 Annual Report
Weatherization Assistance Program Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Other
Billing Analysis,2018-2023
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 509

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 510

-W IDAHO R
2025 A/C Cool Credit Program
End-of-Season Annual Report
March 2026

Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit-2025 Analysis
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary.......................................................................................................................................1
ProgramOverview ........................................................................................................................1
Methodology.................................................................................................................................2
Baseline Usage Calculation......................................................................................................2
Non-Contributing Households.................................................................................................3
Results...........................................................................................................................................4
LIST OF T
Table 1. ACCC participants and maximum actual and potential demand reduction ..................... 1
Table 2. ACCC event information ..................................................................................................4
Table 3. ACCC non-contribution ratio ...........................................................................................4
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1. 2025 Cycling Season ...................................................................................................2
Figure 2. 2025 event days—household average........................................................................5
March 2026

Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit-2025 Analysis
SUMMARY
This report presents an analysis of the demand response events (events) called by Idaho
Power's A/C Cool Credit (ACCC) program during the summer of 2025. The program called a total
of five events that included 16,235 households. The maximum actual demand reduction at the
generator level during this period occurred on July 14, with a demand reduction of 0.89 kW per
participant and a total calculated actual demand reduction of 14.6 MW. In comparison, the
maximum potential demand reduction for the season was 22.0 MW, based on a generator level
reduction of 1.36 kW per participant at a cycling rate of 65%.
Table 1.ACCC participants demand reduction
Maximum Actual Maximum Potential
Region Participants Demand Reduction Demand Reduction
Idaho 16,069 14.5 MW 21.8 MW
Oregon 166 0.1 MW 0.2 MW
Total 16,235 14.6 MW 22.0 MW
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
ACCC is a voluntary demand response program through which residential customers in Idaho
and Oregon are eligible to earn a financial incentive for allowing their A/C load to be reduced.
The objective of the program is to reduce demand on Idaho Power's system when summer
demand for energy is high or for other system needs.
Customers that have A/C units using a central air system or an air-source heat pump in good
working condition are eligible to participate. Customers participate by allowing Idaho Power to
cycle their A/C unit off and on during events via a demand response unit (DRU) that is installed
on or near their A/C unit. The cycling rate is the percentage of an hour the A/C unit is turned off
by the DRU. For instance, with a 50% cycling rate, the DRU will cycle the A/C unit off for about
30 (non-consecutive) minutes of each hour.
Program event parameters are listed below (program parameters do not apply to system
emergencies):
• Events occur during the program season, June 15 through September 15 (excluding
weekends, Independence Day, and Labor Day).
• A minimum of three events will occur each program season.
• Events can last up to four hours per day.
• Events will not exceed 16 hours per week or 60 hours per season.
In 2025 there were five events, two of which were cycled at 50% and three were cycled at 55%.
March 1,2026 Page 1

Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit-2025 Analysis
in IV
. 1
if t t.. A�•-I P'. ,'1 - �i,. 7' iir C C K` ►It 01 •i•rf
BPS
S';1 -,, ��i IV`^�`ay ' Ps •'. -;i fi ? .g': ;T•�, J 4j.
e 1!� •,1 �
Mj
0.
�� �r 'l, . i["� L_ Efl4T.l�I;,.11':�' 1-fD:•!11.'_rc'1
' 1��♦i1.1� 1�iI�• •'.'.1•' y _Ir � T �ii„/�,:��, Sit►'.! i'�1• ryryf��
tf f �'> t 1 i� } � f�t ■1 . •' '�• �'��1'Iv 1l���11��1 1 (' I,�:��If1iu �i ',
Figure 1. 2025 Cycling Season
METHODOLOGY
Idaho Power continues to calculate ACCC program demand reductions using the evaluation
framework and evaluation tool created by ADM consultants as part of the 2021 impact
evaluation. This tool models demand reductions by using a variety of statistical methods to
determine each participant's hypothetical usage if there had not been a demand response
event that day. Additionally, the tool evaluates the number of households who did not
contribute a statistically significant demand reduction to each event. This section provides an
overview of the model steps, but a more detailed discussion can be found in ADM's 2021
program impact evaluation in Supplement 2 of Idaho Power's Demand-Side Management 2021
Annual Report.
Baseline Usage Calculation
To model participant energy usage at the household level, the evaluation tool requires four
primary data inputs: a list of participating demand response switches, hourly meter reads for all
participants for the cycling season, hourly weather reads for the service area, and the date and
time of all demand response events. By integrating these inputs, the tool accounts for the
unique energy usage patterns of each household.
Since each household is unique and may exhibit vastly different energy usage patterns, there is
no single statistical model that will perfectly fit every participant. Instead, the evaluation tool
tests five possible models to find the best fit for each household. These models fall into two
categories:
March 2026 Page 2

Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit-2025 Analysis
1. A weather-adjusted Linear Fixed Effect Regression (LFER) model. This is a regression
model that controls for variables including Cooling Degree Days, Heating Degree Days,
and hour of the day, and treats each household as an individual fixed effect.
2. A Customer Baseline (CBL) model tuned with various eligibility periods and offset
methods. The possible eligibility periods are 3-of-5 and 3-of-10, the latter of which
would mean that the model looks at the three highest usage days of the last 10 eligible
days. The offset factor determines how the model scales usage based on usage prior to
the event start. The possible methods are additive and multiplicative.
Model performance was assessed based on how well the model predicted the household's
energy consumption across four proxy days, which represent the hottest non-event days in the
season. Consumption during both proxy days and event days are excluded from the data set
used to train the household models.
The LFER model is the best fit for the largest number of participants. The final reported savings
are derived from a mixed model, which incorporates household level results based on the best
fitting of the five models for each participant. This approach ensures that baseline estimates are
robust to variance in household behavior.
Non-Contributing Households
A separate calculation within the ADM model provides an estimate of Non-Contributing
Households (NCH), or the number of households during each event that did not produce a
statistically noticeable demand reduction. This is an important metric for understanding overall
impacts of demand response efforts and for identifying characteristics of event days and
households that may prompt non-responsiveness. Importantly, NCH is calculated for
informational purposes and is ultimately independent of overall savings results, which include
all program participants, whether they are responsive or not.
In some cases, a statistically non-responsive household may indicate a communication, switch,
or A/C unit failure, however there are other factors to consider. For example, occupants may be
away during an event or have temporarily changed the household's temperature set point. On
event days with cooler weather or lower cycling rates it is harder for the model to confidently
identify a demand reduction, as a result the NCH rate tends to be higher.
The model uses a three-step calculation process to identify NCHs:
1. The first calculation is a Cumulative Sum (CSUM) analysis, which is a technique that
evaluates the slope of a smoothed curve of energy usage data for the hours before and
during the event by comparing the ratios of these slopes to determine if there is a
March 2026 Page 3

Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit-2025 Analysis
significant change in demand due to the event. Devices with a slope ratio less than one
are considered contributing devices.
2. The second calculation is the linear decrease analysis, which involves comparing the
consumption for the hour prior to the event to the consumption during the first hour of
the event. Devices that do not see a 10% reduction in this step are considered non-
contributing devices.
3. Finally, the model performs a check for signs of a snapback effect, which is the increase
above baseline usage that frequently occurs at the conclusion of a demand response
event as an A/C unit works to return to the household to normal set temperature.
Households that were labeled as non-contributing by the first two tests but show signs
of a snapback effect are reclassified as contributing households.
RESULTS
The following tables and figures display the outputs of the evaluation models. All demand
reduction numbers presented in the text and figures of this report are calculated at the
generator level.
For simplicity, only Treasure Valley temperature data is shown in the charts below. However, the
underlying baseline evaluation model utilizes weather reads from both the Treasure Valley
region and the Twin Falls/Pocatello region.
Table 2.ACCC event information
Event Date Event Time Peak Temperature Cycle Rate Average Reduction Total Reduction
Jul 14 6-9 p.m. 99.5°F 55% 0.89 kW 14.6 MW
Jul 29 6-10 p.m. 96.5°F 50% 0.67 kW 11.0 MW
Aug 12 4-8 p.m. 100.9°F 50% 0.72 kW 11.7 MW
Aug 18 5-8 p.m. 91.9°F 55% 0.62 kW 10.1 MW
Sep 2 5-8 p.m. 96.9°F 55% 0.75 kW 12.2 MW
Table 3.ACCC non-contribution ratio
Event Date Non-Contribution Ratio
Jul 14 13.6%
Jul 29 16.8%
Aug 12 22.7%
Aug 18 21.2%
Sep 02 21.6%
March 2026 Page 4

Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit-2025 Analysis
r
ry .
Ir .
B1.1
♦♦?(,rl�.'J.
Figure 2. 2025 event days—household average
March 2026

04N 0IQAFIO R®
2025 Flex Peak Program
End-of-Season Annual Report
March 2026

Idaho Power 2025 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction..................................................................................................................................1
Background ...................................................................................................................................1
ProgramParameters...............................................................................................................2
ProgramResults............................................................................................................................2
Overview.................................................................................................................................2
CommittedDemand................................................................................................................3
MeterData..............................................................................................................................3
Demand Reduction Analysis....................................................................................................3
RealizationRate ......................................................................................................................6
Flex Peak Demand Reduction Calculation Definitions.............................................................9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. 2025 event summary results ...........................................................................................2
Table 2. 2025 participant-level realization rates by event ............................................................6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. 2022-2025 program participant site counts by nomination size....................................3
Figure 2. Event day actual and baseline loads, July 17, 2025 ........................................................4
Figure 3. Event day actual and baseline loads, July 30, 2025 ........................................................4
Figure 4. Event day actual and baseline loads, August 12, 2025 ...................................................5
Figure 5. 2025 average and maximum actual demand reduction achieved per event..................5
March 1,2026 Page H

Idaho Power 2025 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report
INTRODUCTION
The Flex Peak Program (program) has been available to Idaho Power customers since 2009. The
program is a voluntary demand response (DR) program available to commercial and industrial
customers that can reduce their electrical energy loads for short periods during summer peak
days. This program, along with Idaho Power's other DR programs—Irrigation Peak Rewards and
the residential A/C Cool Credit program— help delay the need for new supply-side resources.
An overview of program costs, marketing, and operations in 2025 can be found in the
company's Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report. This end-of-season report provides
a supplemental analysis on program results and load reduction calculations.
BACKGROUND
At its inception in 2009 and until 2015, Idaho Power utilized a third-party implementer to run
the Flex Peak Program. In 2015, the company requested approval to implement the Flex Peak
Program internally. The Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) approved the company's
request in Order No. 33292 and the Public Utility Commission of Oregon (OPUC) approved the
proposal on April 28, 2015, in ADV 7/Advice No. 15-03.
As part of Advice No. 15-03, the OPUC adopted Staff's recommendation that the company file
an annual end-of-season report with information regarding the program. The company was also
directed by the IPUC in Order No. 33292 to file an annual end-of-season report detailing the
results of the program. In compliance with the reporting requirements, the annual end-of-
season report includes the following:
• Number of participating customers
• Number of participating sites
• MW of demand response under contract ("potential demand reduction")
• MW of demand response realized ("actual demand reduction") and incented per
dispatch
• Percent of nominated MW achieved in each dispatch event by participant
• Number of events called
• Total load reduced ("actual demand reduction") for each event
• Event duration
• Number of customers who failed to meet their load
• Participant attrition
• Changes in baseline methodology taken or anticipated
March 2026 Page 1

Idaho Power 2025 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report
Program Parameters
The program pays participants a financial incentive for reducing load within their facility and is
active June 15 to September 15, between the hours of 3 p.m. and 10 p.m. on non-holiday
weekdays. Customers with the ability to nominate or provide load reduction of at least 20 kW
are eligible to enroll in the program.
The parameters of the program are in Schedule 76 (Oregon) and Schedule 82 (Idaho), and
include the following:
• A minimum of three demand response events will occur each program season.
• Events can occur any weekday (excluding July 4 and Labor Day) between the hours of 3
p.m. and 10 p.m. and last between two to four hours.
• Events can occur up to four hours per day and up to 16 hours per week, but no more
than 60 hours per program season.
• Idaho Power will provide notification to participants four hours prior to the initiation of
an event; with advanced notification beyond four hours for customers that can nominate
3 MW or more of demand.
• If prior notice of an event has been sent, Idaho Power can choose to cancel the event
and notify participants of cancellation 30 minutes prior to the start of the event.
PROGRAM RESULTS
Overview
The results presented throughout this report are at the generation level and line losses of 6.5%
have been considered. Idaho Power called three demand response events in 2025. The
maximum realization rate achieved during the season was 71.1% during the event on August
121" and the average for all three events combined was 63.1%. The realization rate is the
percentage of demand reduction achieved versus the amount of demand reduction committed
for an event. The highest hourly demand reduction achieved was 23.8 MW during the August
121" event.
Table 1.2025 event summary results
Event Nominated Demand Average Actual Demand Max Hourly Demand Realization
Event Date Timeframe Reduction(MW) Reduction(MW) Reduction(MW) Rate*
July 17 6-10 p.m. 32.6 MW 17.0 MW 17.6 MW 52.3%
July 30 4-8 p.m. 31.5 MW 21.0 MW 22.7 MW 66.6%
August 12 5-9 p.m. 29.9 MW 21.3 MW 23.8 MW 71.1%
Average 31.3 MW 19.8 MW 21.4 MW 63.1%
*Based on average demand reduction
March 2026 Page 2

Idaho Power 2025 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report
Committed Demand
Program participants are incented based on their committed demand nomination and are
expected to meet this reduction whenever an event is called. Program participants are allowed
to update their nomination daily during the season based on their facility needs and availability;
nominations must be submitted by 2 p.m. in order to take effect for the following day. Total
committed demand reduction for the 2025 season was 38.3 MW in the first week of the
program season, which increased to 38.8 MW in the third week of the season before lowering
to 29.8 MW by the end of the season.
The program encourages a diverse range of facility types to enroll, so participant demand ranges
from less than 20 kW to over 1 MW. In 2025, 110 customers participated across 253 sites. These
customers are categorized by nomination range in Figure 1.
225
200
200
175 ■2022 ■2023
159
N 150 139 0 2024 ■2025
w
N 125
0
100
0 75 66 75 72 75
60
50
25 24 29 27
25 8 13 8 9
0
0-50 51-200 201-500 501+
Nominated Amount(kW)
Figure 1. 2022-2025 program participant site counts by nomination size
Meter Data
After an event, interval metering data provides Idaho Power the ability to view a history of each
participant's demand before, during, and after events. The metering data is used to calculate
the demand reduction per site for each event, allowing Idaho Power to provide participants
with a report that showed their hourly baseline, actual usage, and reduction for each event.
L)emand Reduction Analysis
Participants are incented primarily based on how their actual usage during an event compares
to a calculated baseline usage. The baseline usage is calculated according to a specific
methodology detailed at the end of this report. The program measures its overall event
performance using the same participant-level baseline calculations, aggregated across all
participating sites.
March 2026 Page 3

Idaho Power 2025 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report
The aggregated program actual and baseline demand during each event in 2025 are displayed in
figures 2 through 4.
,4.'�� '111�f[�1 }.. ,�'=�'c�-- Tii'�•i„F•l 7i ,--
�
arc, ��.?f i:i�li f f..•��^ �r}' �" '' — 4
00
IN
1 ,gyp''•.. '' r 1�! � y „— -. t�:.���
�' 1 ,`''{ I'.15��r,/ F.rsv�� �•�J r i I�ili7}y�,,,,wnl; �.w,,--w�„ ►"~
Figure 2. Event day actual and baseline loads,July 17, 2025
"•Y.t�?�-'� ._�_�ci•�IG.1:� ?�� _�..�r-•Y..�....1c�N"a7��.Y� .�C�__._✓f:•!',_,1�1
Figure 3. Event day actual and baseline loads,July 30,2025
March 2026 Page 4

Idaho Power 2025 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report
3 _s 3L
4
m _ :� .cam S�yyrr A `•
Figure 4. Event day actual and baseline loads,August 12, 2025
The total actual demand reduction achieved for the event is calculated as the difference
between the total baseline usage and total actual usage among program participants.
Reductions may vary for each hour of the event, so the program reports the average reduction
across all event hours as well as the maximum hourly demand reduction during the event
(Figure 5).
40.0
■Average Demand Reduction
35.0 ■Max Demand Reduction
30.0
3
25.0 23.8
22.7
21.0 21.3
3 20.0 17.0 17.6
on
w
2 15.0
10.0
5.0
17-Jul 30-Jul 12-Aug
Event Date
Figure 5. 2025 average and maximum actual demand reduction achieved per event
March 2026 Page 5

Idaho Power 2025 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report
Realization Rate
The realization rate is the ratio of achieved reduction versus expected or nominated reduction.
The program-level realization rate in 2025 was 63%, with a peak realization rate of 71%
occurring during the August 12th event.
Table 2 shows the participant-level program realization rates for 2025 based on average actual
demand reduction per event. Participants are anonymous and presented in no specific order.
Note that some participants have multiple participating sites. Realization rates are capped at
120% in this calculation.
Table 2.2025 participant-level realization rates by event
Participant July 17 Event July 30 Event August 12 Event
Number Realization Realization Realization
1 9.5% 0.0% 80.0%
2 19.5% 10.6% 71.5%
3 8.1% 3.2% 36.0%
4 13.3% 37.9% 8.2%
5 9.7% 21.2% 8.4%
6 18.8% 19.8% 5.2%
7 87.4% 0.7% 7.4%
8 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
9 32.9% 39.6% 46.6%
10 10.5% 0.2% 0.2%
11 3.2% 29.8% 3.9%
12 1.7% 9.4% N/A
13 12.1% 40.9% N/A
14 9.3% 11.7% N/A
15 1.9% 22.4% 41.5%
16 0.2% 54.4% 33.0%
17 1.3% 15.0% 91.8%
18 2.4% 41.5% 5.8%
19 24.9% 120% 15.6%
20 13.3% 0.0% 62.0%
21 14.2% 9.3% 18.7%
22 6.3% 22.0% 0.0%
23 4.3% 56.5% 116.3%
24 0.1% 11.7% 0.2%
25 11.8% 0.1% 4.1%
26 0.0% 51.6% 12.3%
27 0.0% 16.7% 48.3%
28 21.4% 88.0% 40.3%
29 29.9% 9.8% 26.1%
March 2026 Page 6

Idaho Power 2025 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report
Participant July 17 Event July 30 Event August 12 Event
Number Realization Realization Realization
30 31.6% 42.1% 41.6%
31 16.3% 29.0% 19.7%
32 7.8% 36.9% 13.7%
33 12.2% 15.2% 25.0%
34 3.8% 8.3% 63.5%
35 65.9% 32.5% 61.0%
36 4.8% 19.0% 28.9%
37 0.2% 0.6% 2.2%
38 12.1% 28.7% 18.0%
39 37.6% 20.4% 17.1%
40 2.3% 22.8% 2.5%
41 0.1% N/A N/A
42 95.9% 120% 0.0%
43 8.9% 15.9% 15.7%
44 5.9% 5.3% 1.4%
45 31.6% 25.3% 40.7%
46 15.2% 31.5% 67.5%
47 28.5% 15.1% 21.9%
48 0.6% 12.5% 0.6%
49 3.3% 1.9% 0.0%
50 9.0% 6.7% 35.3%
51 56.3% 29.2% 51.2%
52 30.4% 17.7% 26.9%
53 57.3% 120% 28.1%
54 4.4% 18.3% 23.0%
55 1.0% 20.3% 4.1%
56 51.0% 28.6% 10.3%
57 8.4% 5.9% 43.9%
58 27.8% 43.2% 48.6%
59 12.7% 28.7% 36.2%
60 12.3% 12.7% 9.3%
61 14.9% 22.3% 33.5%
62 0.0% 37.4% 24.3%
63 51.9% 61.8% 3.0%
64 0.1% 59.7% 58.5%
65 0.0% 9.2% 20.1%
66 18.4% 17.4% 45.3%
67 2.9% 12.0% 54.8%
68 15.6% 0.4% 27.4%
69 17.0% 17.9% 33.0%
70 8.8% 11.2% 29.2%
March 2026 Page 7

Idaho Power 2025 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report
Participant July 17 Event July 30 Event August 12 Event
Number Realization Realization Realization
71 3.1% 2.8% 3.8%
72 3.5% 0.8% 4.7%
73 21.6% 11.8% 10.0%
74 0.0% 0.0% 3.4%
75 2.9% 0.0% 3.8%
76 5.8% 36.1% 118.7%
77 14.4% 68.1% 120%
78 18.6% 16.1% 78.6%
79 42.3% 12.9% 78.5%
80 59.8% 21.7% 27.4%
81 23.4% 21.1% 16.7%
82 2.2% 21.1% 1.1%
83 25.8% 33.6% 23.0%
84 96.0% 57.7% 67.1%
85 107.1% 75.0% 36.7%
86 6.6% 53.8% 78.9%
87 19.8% 73.5% 44.5%
88 14.9% 40.3% 54.6%
89 9.8% 2.0% 24.3%
90 80.9% 4.3% 54.5%
91 14.3% 8.8% 10.8%
92 21.6% 70.7% 40.7%
93 24.1% 24.1% 18.8%
94 10.4% 46.5% 33.3%
95 21.2% 66.4% 89.2%
96 28.0% 26.8% 43.6%
97 8.1% 30.0% 29.6%
98 11.2% 14.1% 46.9%
99 18.1% 0.1% 59.4%
100 41.4% 28.3% 14.2%
101 21.3% 5.2% 41.2%
102 23.1% 18.4% 29.0%
103 20.8% 17.8% 23.5%
104 30.9% 17.8% 29.2%
105 11.1% 21.5% 29.8%
106 17.1% 18.7% 21.7%
107 25.9% 20.3% 26.3%
108 24.4% 21.0% 26.6%
109 23.7% 23.8% 20.3%
110 35.5% 18.3% 16.7%
111 20.2% 19.7% 16.3%
March 2026 Page 8

Idaho Power 2025 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report
Participant July 17 Event July 30 Event August 12 Event
Number Realization Realization Realization
112 23.7% 24.3% 20.0%
113 26.2% 14.8% 21.0%
114 35.6% 38.0% 42.6%
115 20.0% 18.6% 22.9%
116 18.3% 28.4% 0.8%
117 23.4% 14.1% 49.8%
118 2.5% 4.7% 2.1%
119 21.2% 21.0% 28.6%
Flex Peak Demand Reduction Calculation Definitions
1. Event Day:
The specific day a Flex Peak event is initiated.
2. Eligible Baseline Days:
The sequence of 10 weekdays immediately preceding the Event Day. This excludes holidays and
any days on which other Flex Peak events occur.
3. Eligible Event Hours:
The designated time window during which an event can be initiated, spanning from 3 p.m. to 10
p.m., as stipulated by the current tariff.
4. Select Baseline Days:
Among the Eligible Baseline Days, these are the three days that register the highest total usage
within the Eligible Event Hours.
5. Unadjusted Baseline:
An average of the demand, calculated hourly, derived from the three Select Baseline Days.
6. Adjustment Hour:
The specific hour earmarked for determining day-of adjustments. This is the hour immediately
preceding the hour that the participant received notice of the upcoming event.
7. Adjustment Ratio:
The ratio used to perform a day-of adjustment. Calculated individually for each participant and
Event Day. Defined as the actual use (kW) during the Adjustment Hour divided by the
Unadjusted Baseline use (kW) during the Adjustment Hour.
8. Adjusted Baseline:
This is derived by multiplying the Unadjusted Baseline on the Event Day by the Adjustment
Ratio. This value is applied uniformly across all 24 hours of the Event Day.
March 2026 Page 9

Idaho Power 2025 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report
9. Capped Baseline:
A modified version of the Adjusted Baseline where value for any hour cannot exceed the peak
observed actual demand reduction within the Select Baseline Days or within the hours on the
Event Day prior to notification.
10. Incented Reduction
The demand reduction (kW) that will be used to determine participant incentives, and for
calculating program demand reductions. Calculated for each hour of an event as the Capped
Baseline minus actual use (kW).
March 2026 Page 10

"4% -UIQAHO POWER,
2025 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program
End-of-Season Annual Report
March 2026

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

Idaho Power 2025 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Demand reduction calculation method.....................................................................8
Page ii

Idaho Power 2025 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
INTRODUCTION
The Irrigation Peak Rewards Program (IPR) is a voluntary demand response program available to
Idaho Power's agricultural irrigation customers since 2004. IPR pays irrigation customers a
financial incentive for the ability to turn off participating irrigation pumps on high energy-use
days. Idaho Power estimates future capacity needs through the Integrated Resource Plan and
then plans resources to mitigate shortfalls. IPR is a result of this planning process and the
success of the program is measured by the amount of demand reduction available to Idaho
Power when summer demand for energy is high or for other system needs.
During the 2025 season (June 15 through September 15), demand response events (events)
were called on seven different days. Table 1 summarizes the high-level results from the season.
Table 1.2025 season summary results
#Enrolled Total Enrolled Maximum Potential Maximum Actual Demand
Region Sites (MW) Demand Reduction(MW) Reduction(MW)
Idaho 2,662 382.4 265.8 122.1
Oregon 40 2.6 1.8 0.8
Total 2,702 384.9 267.6 122.9
Totals may not match due to rounding.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Interruption Options
IPR is available to all Idaho Power irrigation customers. There are two options for shut off: an
automatic dispatch option and a manual dispatch option. The program is limited to four hours
per service location from 3-10 p.m. (standard option), 3-11 p.m. (extended interruption option),
or between 3-9 p.m. (early interruption option). The program is limited to 16 hours per week
and 60 hours per season.
Automatic Dispatch Option
The majority of pumps enrolled in the program participate via the automatic dispatch option,
where the shutoff signal is sent by Idaho Power at the start of an event and minimal
engagement is required by the participant. Sites that participate under this option are expected
to reduce demand to zero for the duration of an event. There are three ways a pump may
participate automatically:
• Demand Response Unit (DRU). In this option, a DRU is physically installed on the pump
and then activated by sending a signal through the power line at the start of each
demand response event.
March 2025 Page 1

Idaho Power 2025 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
• Cellular Device (cell). In cases where a participant is unable to have a DRU installed, or
has a specific circumstance that would prevent a DRU from receiving a signal, a cell
device is instead installed close to the pump.
• No Device. In cases where a pump is downstream of another pump that has a DRU or
cell device, it would be redundant to attach another device, so these pumps may
participate without the installation of any additional program hardware.
Manual Dispatch Option
Under the manual dispatch option, participants manually control how their pumps are turned
off during an event and back on after the conclusion of an event. Manual participants are
required to nominate a demand reduction (kW) at the beginning of the season and are
expected to meet that nomination when an event is called. Table 2 provides a summary of
participation type for the 2025 season.
Table 2.2025 enrolled MW and participants by participation type
Dispatch Option Participation Type Total Enrolled(MW) #Enrolled Sites
Automatic Cell Device 8.0 43
..................................................................................................................................................................._..................................................................................................................................................................................
Automatic DRU 310.3 2,503
Automatic No Device 1.0 47
..................................................................................................................................................................._..............................................................................................._.................................................................................
Manual Manual Shutoff 65.7 109
Tota 1 384.9 2,702
Totals may not match due to rounding.
Dispatch Groups
Upon enrollment, a participant is placed into one of five dispatch groups: A, B, C, D, or E. When
an event is called, a dispatch signal is sent to all participants of one or more dispatch groups.
Event start times may differ between groups.
Group D consists entirely of extended option shut-off participants. Most Manual Dispatch
Option participants are placed in dispatch group C. Otherwise, participants are placed into
groups in a way that aims to balance available demand reduction. A small number of
participants within group C are expected to manually shut off one hour before the rest of the
group (Group Cl) or two hours before the rest of the group (Group C2). Group E is new as of the
2025 season; participants in this group receive a lower incentive but will not be called for events
going later than 9 p.m. Table 3 displays the size and participant count of each dispatch group.
Enrolled MW is displayed at the meter level.
March 2025 Page 2

Idaho Power 2025 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Table 3.2025 enrolled MW and participants by dispatch group
Dispatch Group Total Enrolled(MW) #Enrolled Sites
A 93.8 783
B 58.1 416
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
c 67.4 297
D 153.0 1,114
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
E 12.8 92
Total 384.9 2,702
Note:Totals may not match due to rounding.
DEMAND REDUCTION ANALYSIS
Meter Data
In 2025, 98.2% of the 2,702 service points enrolled in the IPR program had meters capable of
transmitting hourly meter reads. The remaining participants, lacking AMI data, are instead
estimated based on the usage patterns of similar pumps. This estimation factors in the expected
rate of DRU failure during an event.
Among service points that do have hourly read capabilities, it is rare but possible for errors to
occur in the hourly data. This may occur for a variety of reasons including high system noise or
issues at a substation. From June 15 to September 15 of the 2025 season, 99.1% of meter data
among IPR participants was successfully relayed and stored in the company database.
Missing observations were filled in using an interpolation approach if there was only one
missing observation. Otherwise, if a meter had multiple consecutive data points missing, data
was filled in via extrapolation approach, utilizing usage patterns of similar pumps.
LOaa LeTE un Analysis
Load can be left on during an event for several reasons:
• Device failure. This can occur when a load-controlling device is not functioning properly
or otherwise fails to receive the curtailment signal at the start of the event.
• Opt Outs. Participants may choose to opt out of events, however they will receive a
reduction to their incentive for doing so. Idaho Power monitors the frequency of these
opt outs.
• Small Load Left On. Some participants also have small non-pump loads connected to
their meter such as pivots, control panel load from cooling fans or other electronic
controls, lights, or electric fences that are left on during an event.

Idaho Power 2025 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Table 4 presents a breakdown of the load left on for each event this season. Load is presented
as a percentage of enrolled MW that was left on by each failure type. For example, during the
July 14t" event, approximately 12.7 MW of load was left on due to DRU failure, out of an
expected dispatched load of 171.6 MW, resulting in a device failure rate of 4.5%. Manual
dispatch participants do not have DRUB and are not obligated to reduce load to zero, so they are
excluded from this portion of the analysis.
Table 4.2025 load left on by event
Event Date Device Failure Opt Out Small Load Left On Total Left On Average MW On During the Event
7/8/2025 5.9% 0.1% 1.4% 7.3% 7.1
7/14/2025 4.5% 0.7% 2.2% 7.4% 12.7
7/18/2025 2.6% 1.9% 1.2% 5.7% 3.5
7/28/2025 2.2% 0.5% 1.9% 4.6% 4.2
7/29/2025 2.7% 0.5% 1.8% 5.0% 11.5
7/30/2025 2.7% 1.2% 1.4% 5.3% 4.9
8/12/2025 2.6% 0.4% 1.9% 5.0% 11.5
Note:Percentages are based on load left on during event compared to total nominated MW.
Table 5 presents the Load Left On rates used in calculating the season peak potential. These
percentages represent the expected load that would be left on during a peak-hour event with all
dispatch groups called. The results are based on averages of events called in the 2025 season,
weighted by dispatch group.
Table 5.2025 peak potential load left on
Load Left On Type Percentage Peak MW Left On
Device Failures 4.2% 16.3 MW
Opt Out 0.8% 3.1 MW
Small Load Left On 2.3% 9.0 MW
Manual Load Left On 1.2% 4.8 MW
Total 8.6% 33.2 MW
Maximum Potential Demand Reduction Results
The maximum potential demand reduction is the theoretical demand reduction that would have
occurred if an all-group event were called during the peak window of the season. This number
takes into account the average number of device failures, opt-outs, and small load left on (see
analysis above) determined from actual events. This analysis is used to report capacity of the
program and cost-effectiveness.
The total enrolled load will always be higher than the actual season peak due to pumps
operating on different schedules. The Peak Day of the season is the day where the average
usage among all program participants between the hours of 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM is the
March 2025 Page 4

Idaho Power 2025 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
highest. The realization rate (average usage for all participants divided by total enrolled load)
typically peaks in late June or early July and fluctuates throughout the season, as demonstrated
in Figure 1. In 2025, the peak occurred on July 1St with a coincident load of 300.8 MW, equating
to a realization rate of 78.1% of total enrolled load.
=f:]'O t jrI'go 3 iS�� �JG�1� 11e1
{i
,io
r
`P
Figure 1.1.2025 total program peak daily demand(as%of enrolled load)
The maximum potential demand reduction is calculated based on the season coincident peak. It
is adjusted to account for the load that will not be curtailed due to device failures, opt-outs, and
small load left on. In 2025, these adjustments equaled 33.2 MW of load left on, or 8.6% of the
total enrolled load. This resulted in a maximum potential demand reduction of 267.6 MW for
the 2025 season. Table 6 provides an overview of key season metrics.
Table 6.2025 season peak potential reduction
Load Realization
Load Type Amount Rate Description
Enrolled 384.9 MW 100.0% Combined load of all enrolled pumps
Season Peak 300.8 MW 78.1% Maximum program coincident peak on July 4th,2024
Maximum Potential 267.6 MW 69.5% Season peak minus predicted load left on
Demand Reduction
March 2025 Page 5

Idaho Power 2025 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Actual Demand Reduction Results
Calculating the performance of the program requires a comparison between usage before the
event (baseline usage) and usage during the event. See Appendix 1 for the definition of terms
and calculation method. Baseline usage represents the amount of demand that would have
needed to be served in the absence of an event. The baseline is calculated using the average of
the first four hours of the five hours before the dispatch group start time. The difference
between the baseline usage and actual load left on during an event represents the realized,
actual demand reduction. Table 7 displays the load reduction results for each event day. The
demand reduction at generation level includes a 6.5% system loss.
Table 7. 2025 demand reduction by event and hour
Hourly Demand Reduction(MW)
Event Date Groups 3-4 p.m. 4-5 p.m. 5-6 p.m. 6-7 p.m. 7-8 p.m. 8-9 p.m. 9-10 p.m.
7/8/2025 A - - 60.8 61.0 60.5 59.7 -
7/14/2025 C,D,E 14.0 91.3 94.3 122.9 109.0 30.5 29.5
7/18/2025 B - - 33.6 33.9 33.9 32.4 -
7/28/2025 B,C 1.8 36.7 73.8 74.3 68.7 36.0
7/29/2025 A,D,E - 6.8 49.0 104.5 105.8 98.6 55.9
7/30/2025 B,C 1.9 5.3 38.4 72.5 68.1 67.7 34.1
8/12/2025 A,D,E - 33.0 53.1 114.2 113.6 80.6 60.7
Demand Reduction Results
The bar charts in Figure 2 show actual event day loads by dispatch group for the hours leading
up to, during, and after the event. A reduction in demand during the active event period is
clearly shown on the charts. On days when multiple dispatch groups were called, a gradual drop
and subsequent rise in system load is reflected, due to the staggered start/end times for the
groups participating. Maximum demand reduction occurred toward the middle of the event,
when all groups were shut down; small system load shown during the maximum reduction
period is attributed to device failures, opt-outs, and small load left on on during the event. Note
that the Y axes are individually scaled for each event to improve visual clarity.
March 2025 Page 6

Idaho Power 2025 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
`6p;n00
10:000
�OItO.I 1 l i',
ii i)A"O .
OD
"±A00'
r
r
s ti rvr.N
f' 13 LiCj1' YNW ���•.
� 4
SO:OC10' -
" 'llOo
4.1j'U.00
�D�QDU
Il�t'1=nni"�r•
Figure 2.2025 event day demand by dispatch group
March 2025

Idaho Power 2025 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
APPENDIX 1 . DEMAND REDUCTION CALCULATION METHOD
Abbreviations
ADO—Automatic Dispatch Option
AEL—Actual Event Load
AMI—Automated Metering Infrastructure
BL—Baseline Load (Baseline Usage)
DR—Demand Reduction
MDO—Manual Dispatch Option
MV-90—Specific Meter Package with Interval Data
Automatic Dispatch Option
The demand reduction for each pump is the difference between the calculated baseline load
and the actual demand during each hour of the event:
DRpump = BLpump—AELpump
The demand reduction for all pumps within a dispatch group is the total hourly reduction for
each group as calculated below:
*
DRgroup = + DR(groups) Nominated DR pumps DRpump (groups 1-4) pumps with errors
DRnominated(groups)
Demand reduction for the automatic dispatch option was calculated as follows:
DRADO = I DRgroup
Manual Dispatch Option
Data utilized for manual dispatch option participants is AMI hourly usage, MV-90 interval data
or data logger interval metering data.
Demand reduction for the manual dispatch option is calculated as follows:
p
DRgroup = I DRpump AMI+ 2 DRpump MV-90+ DR(groups) * Nominated DR
pumps with errors
DRnominated(groups)
The total demand reduction for the Manual Dispatch Option is calculated as follows:
DRMDO = I DRgroup
March 2025 Page 8

Idaho Power 2025 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
The total program actual demand reduction is calculated by summing the calculated reduction
for the Automatic Dispatch Option sites and the Manual Dispatch Option sites:
Total Program DR = DRMoo + DRGroup
March 202�

Deemed Savings Analysis
of Idaho Power' s Home
EnergyReport Behavioral
Program
SUBMITTED TO: IDAHO POWER COMPANY
SUBMITTED ON: FEBRUARY 11, 2026
SUBMITTED BY: QUALUS
Qualus
100 Colonial Center Parkway,
Suite 400 Lake Mary, FL 32746

Idaho Power Behavioral Program Deemed Savings Analysis
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .........................................................................................................................................4
2. Methodology........................................................................................................................................6
2.1 Data Preparation ........................................................................................................................................6
2.2 Regression Billing Analysis(IPMVP Option C:Whole Facility)....................................................................8
2.3 Other Methodologies...............................................................................................................................10
3. Results................................................................................................................................................ 12
3.1 Deemed Savings Estimation .....................................................................................................................12
3.2 Control Cohort Size per Power Analysis...................................................................................................13
3.3 Eligible and Ineligible Customers..............................................................................................................15
3.4 Deemed Savings and Control Group Protocols ........................................................................................16
3.5 Benchmarking Analysis.............................................................................................................................17
4. Conclusions and Findings...................................................................................................................20
ii

Idaho Power Behavioral Deemed Savings Analysis
List of Tables
Table 1-1. Key HER Information by Wave.....................................................................................................4
Table 2-1: Number of Treatment Customers Removed per Step.................................................................7
Table 2-2: Number of Control Customers Removed per Step......................................................................8
Table 3-1. Regression Coefficient Estimates for Deemed Savings..............................................................12
Table 3-2. Regression Summary Statistics..................................................................................................13
Table 3-3. Valid Control Customers by Wave.............................................................................................14
Table 3-4. Power Analysis Results...............................................................................................................14
Table 3-5. Eligible Customers by Wave and Treatment..............................................................................15
Table 3-6. Ineligible Customers by Wave and Treatment...........................................................................15
iii

Idaho Power Behavioral Program Deemed Savings Analysis
Lintroduction
In this memorandum, Qualus, an independent third-party evaluator, provides a deemed savings
analysis of Idaho Power's behavioral home energy report (HER) program. As detailed below in Table
1-1, Idaho Power began several waves of the HER program in 2017 and 2018, but the vast majority of
treatment customers were added to the program in June 2020 as a part of wave 6.The goal of Idaho
Power's behavioral program is to encourage residential customers to decrease their electricity usage
by sharing HERS that include comparisons of energy usage to efficient homes and suggestions for
strategies to save energy. As highlighted in the following table, Idaho Power stopped sharing HERs
with wave 5 in February 2020; however, they have continued to assess this wave of the program for
any persisting savings.
Table 1-1. Key HER Information by Wave
Treatment Customers Control Customers
wave HER Start Date included in analysis included in analysis HER Delivery End
for Analyses after data cleaning after
data cleaning Date
1 12/1/2017 3,651 924 N/A
2 12/1/2018 3,285 526 N/A
3 8/1/2017 4,007 2,427 N/A
4 8/1/2017 1,873 1,760 N/A
5 8/1/2017 NA1 NA February 2020
6 6/1/2020 66,253 8,971 N/A
In addition to discontinuing wave 5 HER delivery in February 2020, Idaho Power has made several
changes to program implementation across the years. As of 2024, Uplight (Idaho Power's HER
program implementer) shared six HERS across each of the five active waves in February, June,
September, October, November, and December. In 2024, almost all customers received paper
versions of the report and almost all customers that had emails on file received both email and paper
versions of the report; 165 customers opted out of the paper delivery and only received email
versions.The mode of HER delivery and the delivery schedule in 2024 are both different from previous
years of implementation.
From 2017-2019 all reports were initially delivered as paper versions only, but starting in 2020,a small
proportion (-0.05%) received email reports. The rate of email only and both email and paper
recipients increased dramatically in 2022 and since then the rate of customers receiving HERS via
email has only increased further. In addition to changes in the mode of HER delivery, report delivery
schedules have also varied over the years. In late 2017 and early 2018, wave 1 began as a winter
heating group cohort who only received four reports during winter months to motivate decreased
energy usage. Waves 3-5 meanwhile received seven reports from the summer of 2017 through the
summer of 2018. In late 2018 and across 2019, participating customers received a mix of quarterly
and bi-monthly(i.e.,once every two months) reports. From 2020 through 2023,each of the five active
1 Since wave 5 HER delivery ended in February 2020,it was not included in the deemed savings analysis
4

Idaho Power Behavioral Program Deemed Savings Analysis
waves received four HERS per year, with most customers receiving them in February, May, August,
and November.
The goal of Qualus' deemed savings analysis was to investigate the savings associated with Idaho
Power's HER program and develop a deemed savings estimate and a framework by which Idaho Power
HER savings could be estimated in a straightforward manner. In addition to developing a deemed
savings estimate and methodology, Qualus also conducted the following analyses:
■ An assessment of the required control cohort size for future HERS per a power analysis
■ An investigation of the number of customers eligible and ineligible for future iterations of the
HER program
■ The development of a protocol for applying deemed savings and managing the HER control
cohort for future iterations of the HER program
■ A benchmarking analysis investigating the implications and risks of deemed savings for HER
programs
The following sections describe the methodology by which Qualus assessed the electric savings
associated with the HER program as well as results and key conclusions.
5

Idaho Power Behavioral Program Deemed Savings Analysis
2. Methodology
This section details the impact evaluation methodology employed by Qualus to assess the energy savings
associated with each wave of Idaho Power's behavioral program and then develop a deemed savings
estimate. Qualus employed an IPMVP Option C billing analysis methodology to calculate the savings
associated with HER participation.2 This analysis involves comparing energy usage in the HER pre-period
(i.e., the 12 months prior to customer participation in the HER program) to a post-period (i.e.,January 1,
2022 through December 31, 2024) to identify the impact of HER participation on energy usage. Qualus
utilized a three-year post-period to develop a deemed savings estimate to ensure the resulting estimate
was broadly applicable and not skewed by single-year variability in report delivery method and cadence
or weather conditions. The following subsections detail the specific data preparation and evaluation
methodologies employed to evaluate Idaho Power's HER program and calculate deemed savings.
2.1 Data Preparation
Idaho Power shared a tracking dataset with Qualus that included details on treatment and control
customer HER participation as well as key customer details such as address, move-out dates,and HER opt-
out dates. In addition to this tracking dataset, Idaho Power also shared monthly billing data for
participating customers from 2016—2024. The following steps were taken to prepare the billing data for
regression analyses:
1. Removed all Premise IDs that opted out of the HER program.
2. Subset billing data to only include customers included in the tracking data based on premise ID
matching.
3. Removed all duplicates from billing data.
4. Remove any customers who changed to a solar generation rate schedule during the analysis
period to exclude the impact of novel solar from the regression impact analysis.
5. Removed bills missing usage, billing start date, or billing end date.
6. Excluded bills missing address information, as address information is required to link billing data
to NOAA weather data.
7. Removed bills missing usage, billing start date, or billing end date.
8. Removed all bills prior to customer move-in date or after customer move-out date.Merged key
customer information such as HER wave,wave start date,and treatment/control assignment from
the tracking data with the billing data by premise ID.
9. Calendarized bills, this involves recalculating bill dates, usage, and total billed days such that bills
begin and end at the start and end of each month.
10. Obtained weather data from the nearest NOAA weather station using 5-digit zip code for each
household.
z IPMVP refers to the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol.See:Core Concepts.Efficiency Valuation
Organization. October 2016. IPMVP Core Concepts may be downloaded at www.evo-world.org (account required) — or see
www.eeperformance.org/uploads/8/6/5/0/8650231/ipmvp_volume_i_2012.pdf,which is a similar version of the IPMVP.For a
summary description of"Option C:Whole Facility,"see section 6.5(page 26)in IPMVP Core Concepts.
6

Idaho Power Behavioral Program Deemed Savings Analysis
11. Computed Heating Degree Days (HDD) and Cooling Degree Days (CDD) using a setpoint of 65°F,
as some regression models include HDD and CDD control parameters.
12. Remove any customers participating in other voluntary Idaho Power energy efficiency programs
to avoid double counting savings. Any customers participating in another voluntary energy
efficiency program between the 12 months prior to each waves' HER start date (i.e., the pre-
period) and December 31, 2024 were removed from the analysis.
13. Removed customers with incomplete post-period bills (i.e., <12 months).
14. Removed customers with incomplete pre-period bills (i.e., <12 months out of the 36 months in
2022-2024).
15. Removed customers with usage data considered an outlier using an IQR outlier test.
16. Removed customers with no usage data or zero usage.
The number of treatment and control customers removed as a result of the data preprocessing can be
seen in the following two tables.
Table 2-1: Number of Treatment Customers Removed per Step
Preprocessing Steps Wave I Wave Z_ 3--T- Wave 4 Wave 5 Wave 6
Opt-out Premise ID 12 6 26 13 4 387
Inactive Premise ID 374 354 311 173 343 6,825
Duplicated Premise ID 0 0 0 0 1 2
Simultaneous Premise ID 35 17 15 5 23 164
On-Site Generation 67 59 53 21 19 1,089
Incomplete Billing Data 9 19 13 8 8 196
Missing Zip Code 10 4 3 0 1 23
Moved 0 5 0 0 2 18
Overlapping Program Participation 315 173 163 65 58 1,238
Insufficient Pre-or Post-Data 22 29 32 19 25 3,762
Outliers 0 0 0 0 0 0
Customers with 0 Usage 1 0 0 0 8 7
Total 845 666 616 304 492 13,711
7

Idaho Power Behavioral Program Deemed Savings Analysis
Table 2-2:Number of Control Customers Removed per Step
Preprocessing
Opt-out Premise ID 0 0 0 3 29 3
Inactive Premise ID 102 56 170 177 3,833 989
Duplicated Premise ID 0 0 0 0 0 0
Simultaneous Premise ID 6 1 12 6 211 17
On-Site Generation 18 12 40 27 346 141
Incomplete Billing Data 0 3 8 7 70 35
Missing Zip Code 2 0 0 1 17 1
Moved 2 1 0 0 7 6
Overlapping Program Participation 74 20 75 38 688 155
Insufficient Pre-or Post-Data 7 3 27 24 359 524
Outliers 0 0 0 0 0 0
Customers with 0 Usage 1 0 1 0 78 1
Total 212 96 333 283 5,638 1,872
After conducting this data preprocessing, Qualus ran a set of pre vs. post regression billing analyses to
determine the impact of HER participation on customer electricity usage.
2.2 Regression Billing Analysis (IPMVP Option C: Whole Facility)
This section summarizes the general billing analysis methods Qualus employed for the evaluation of Idaho
Power's behavioral program.
For the purpose of this summary, a household is considered a 'treatment household' if it has been sent
home energy reports. Meanwhile, a household is considered a 'control household' if the household has
not received home energy reports. To conduct a linear regression billing analysis for a HER program,
Qualus requires billing data for a control group to compare against treatment households. Control groups
can be designed via randomized control trials (RCT) at the outset of program design, or via quasi-
experimental methods. Idaho Power developed control groups via an RCT methodology at the outset of
each wave of this program and as of this analysis, treatment and control groups for each wave have
maintained statistically similar pre-period monthly electricity usage per a set of Student's T-tests.As such,
Qualus did not rely on any quasi-experimental methods and instead compared each wave's treatment
group against the RCT-selected control group.
Using the RCT assigned control group, Qualus developed a regression model to estimate daily
consumption differences between treatment households and control households. After testing out a
variety of different regression models, Qualus ultimately selected a fixed effect Difference-in-Difference
(D-in-D) regression model including controls for the impact of HDD and CDD on customer energy
consumption behavior.The specifics of this regression model are presented in the following section.
2.2.1 Fixed Effects Difference-in-Difference Regression Model
To calculate the impacts of behavioral program participation, Qualus employed a linear fixed effects
regression using treatment and control billing data with a control for the monthly differences in energy
8

Idaho Power Behavioral Program Deemed Savings Analysis
consumption behavior across the 12 pre-period and 36 post-period months included in the analysis. The
following equation displays the model specification to estimate the average daily savings due to the
measure. A fixed effects dummy variable based on the customer's RCT wave assignment was included in
this regression as a single regression analysis was run across all waves except for wave 5(which concluded
treatment in February 2020).
Equation 2-1: Fixed Effects Difference-in-Difference(D-n-D) Model Specification
ADCit = ao + f31(Post)it + Q2(Post x Treatment)it +f33(HDD)it +f34(Post x HDD)it
+f35(Post x HDD x Treatment)it +&(CDD)it +f37(Post x CDD)it
+f38(Post x CDD x Treatment)it +/l9(Wave)i + Eit
Where:
i=the ith household
t=the first, second,third, etc. month of the pre- and post-treatment period
ADCit = Estimated average daily consumption (dependent variable) in home i during period t
Postit =A dummy variable indicating pre-or post-period designation during period t at home i
Treatmenti =A dummy variable indicating treatment status of home i
HDDit =Average heating degree days (with a 65°F base temperature) during period t at
household i
CDDit =Average cooling degree days (with a 657 base temperature) during period t at
household i
Wave =A fixed effects dummy variable identifying each customer's assigned wave
£it =Customer-level random error
ao= Baseline ADC for the control group i, in the pre-period; overall model intercept
F'1_9 = Coefficients determined via regression
The Average Daily Consumption (ADC) was calculated as the total monthly billed usage divided by the
duration of the bill month. F'2 represents the average change in daily consumption in the post-period
between the treatment and control group while F's and f38 represent the change in daily usage due to
variation in HDD and CDD in the post-period between the groups. Average annual savings would be
calculated by extracting the F'2,f35,and f38 coefficients from the regression and multiplying the sum of F'2,
f35 multiplied by average daily HDD, and F'8 multiplied by average daily CDD by 365.25 days per year.This
value would then be multiplied by -1 to report energy savings instead of the difference in energy
consumption (i.e., a negative difference in energy consumption is equal to positive savings). For the
purposes of this deemed savings analysis, Qualus presents the three aforementioned coefficients in the
Results section such that Idaho Power can calculate HER energy savings in the future while accounting for
the impact of weather on electric savings via HDD and CDD.
Qualus investigated a variety of different regression models before finally selecting the fixed effects
difference-in-difference model outlined above. Another option Qualus investigated was the same model
9

Idaho Power Behavioral Program Deemed Savings Analysis
that Customer Dummy x Wave as a fixed effects variable instead of just Wave. While it is normally
appropriate to include Customer Dummy as a fixed effects variable, given that a substantial portion of
customers (i.e., > 4,900) participated in multiple waves, Qualus had concerns regarding including it as a
fixed effects variable for this regression. Including Customer Dummy would assess within household
variation in energy usage across multiple different waves. As such, Qualus elected to only employ Wave
as a fixed effects variable so that within-wave variation in energy usage was the primary focus of the
regression analysis.
Qualus also investigated bucketed analyses by household type (e.g., single family, multi-family, and
manufactured/mobile homes); however, over 98% of all households included in the program population
were identified as single family homes. As such, regression analyses focusing on other household types
(e.g., multi-family homes) were uninformative. For the sake of transparency, Qualus presents the results
of the regression analysis focusing exclusively on single family homes below; however, those results are
within error to the broader analysis of all households combined.
2.3 Other Methodologies
In addition to developing a deemed savings estimate of the energy savings associated with Idaho Power's
HER program, Qualus also completed several other analyses as detailed at the bullet points at the end of
the Introduction section.The methodologies employed to complete these deliverables are detailed below.
2.3.1 Required Cohort Size Investigation
To assess the current number of valid control customers and the required control cohort to identify a
minimum treatment effect of a 1%reduction in consumption,Qualus ran a power analysis.To identify the
number of current valid control customers, Qualus followed the cleaning steps detailed in the Data
Preparation section above and kept track of the remaining number of control customers who were
included in this analysis. Meanwhile, to determine the size of the control cohort necessary to identify a
1%treatment effect, Qualus leveraged the pwr.t2n.test function, which is a part of the pwr package in R.
This function allowed Qualus to define the treatment cohort size, a 1% treatment impact, significance
levels (i.e., Type I error probability), and the power of the analysis (i.e., 1 minus Type II error probability)
to determine the required cohort size to meet the defined parameters. Results of this analysis are
presented in the following section.
2.3.2 Eligible/Ineligible Investigation
As part of this evaluation, Qualus was also tasked with developing criteria to guide the selection of HER
treatment customers for future program waves. The following criteria outline the recommended
approach for selecting customers in future program iterations, ensuring that the targeted population is
well-suited for achieving meaningful savings, supporting reliable impact measurement, and maintaining
program integrity over time.
Ineligible customers are defined as:
■ Any treatment customers who previously opted out of a HER treatment wave, as they will likely
not want to participate in future HER programs.
■ Any customers who are denoted as inactive per Idaho Power tracking data during the designated
pre-period used to design a future RCT.
10

Idaho Power Behavioral Program Deemed Savings Analysis
■ Any customer already designated as either a treatment or control customer in an RCT wave being
actively treated.
■ Any customers who have switched to on-site generation during the relevant analysis period.
Meanwhile, eligible customers are defined as:
■ All other customers (treatment, control, and those who have yet to participate in HER programs)
who are not ineligible per the definitions above.
2.3.3 Protocol Development and Benchmarking Analysis
Qualus developed protocols for applying deemed savings and maintaining a valid control cohort moving
forward based on conversations with industry experts and original research on HER program deemed
savings efforts by other utilities as a part of a benchmarking and risk analysis, with a focus on the Pacific
Northwest.
11

Idaho Power Behavioral Program Deemed Savings Analysis
lResults
3.1 Deemed Savings Estimation
Qualus ran a regression analysis on waves 1-4 and 6 combined (excluding wave 5 as treatment stopped in
February 2020)to develop a deemed savings estimate that could be used for Idaho Power's HER program
as currently implemented. Qualus also ran a regression analysis focusing on only single family homes;
however,given that the vast majority of households included in the program are single family,the results
of that analysis are similar to the results of the broader analysis of all household types combined. The
following table outlines the relevant coefficient estimates that can be used to calculate HER deemed
savings based on the analysis of all households and single family only households. As highlighted in the
Deemed Savings Protocols section below, these deemed savings values are only applicable to the HER
program being delivered exactly as it was delivered during the evaluation period. HER implementation
(e.g., delivery type, cadence, HER format and design) as well as key customer metrics associated with
energy usage must remain consistent for the deemed savings estimation presented below to be valid.
Table 3-1. Regression Coefficient Estimates for Deemed Savings
Customers
Included in Coefficient Estimate Standard Error
Regression
posttreatment -0.039 0.064 0.543
All Households post:hdd_day:treatment 0.015 0.003 <0.001
post:cdd_day:treatment -0.168 0.009 <0.001
posttreatment -0.023 0.064 0.718
Single Family Households Only post:hdd_day:treatment 0.018 0.003 <0.001
post:cdd_day:treatment -0.171 0.009 <0.001
To estimate deemed savings using these coefficients, Idaho Power can follow the steps detailed in the
Fixed Effects Difference-in-Difference Regression Model section above. An example of that deemed
savings calculation using the average HDD and average CDD from the analysis period is presented below.
The average daily HDD across the billing data included in this analysis was 16.435 while the average CDD
was 3.484. Using these values, we can calculate the deemed savings for all households or single family
households as follows.
Equation 3-1. All Households Annual Deemed Savings Extrapolation
135.64 kWh saved annually = —1 * 365.25(-0.039 + 0.015 * 16.435 + —0.168 * 3.484)
Equation 3-2. Single Family Households Only Annual Deemed Savings Extrapolation
115.82 kWh saved annually = —1 * 365.25(-0.023 + 0.018 * 16.435 + —0.171 * 3.484)
With an average annual electricity consumption of 15,269 kWh across all customers included in the
analysis, the all households and single family household estimates would equate to a 0.89% and 0.76%
annual reduction in consumption, respectively. Qualus would suggest Idaho Power employ the same
coefficients and extrapolation methodology to calculate deemed savings, while following the guidelines
detailed in the Deemed Savings and Control Group Protocols section below.
12

Idaho Power Behavioral Program Deemed Savings Analysis
Of note,when extrapolating the"All Households" and the "Single Family Households Only" regressions to
calculate deemed savings, the two regressions yielded the following summary statistics. Of note, the
estimated savings values differ slightly from those presented in the equations above due to rounding.
Table 3-2. Regression Summary Statistics
HouseholdsSummary Statistic All
Values
Annual kWh Savings Lower 95%Cl Bound 96.251 76.017
Annual kWh Savings Estimate 135.613 115.791
Annual kWh Savings Upper 95%CI Bound 174.974 155.565
Standard Error 20.083 20.293
p-value <0.001 <0.001
Adjusted R-squared 0.083 0.079
While the adjusted R-squared of these analyses is low, that is explained by the fact that Wave is used as
the fixed effect variable for this analysis.Adjusted R-squared is a measure of how closely data points fit a
regression model,with a higher R-squared value indicating a better fit. In the case of this grouped analysis,
Qualus determined that it was essential to include Wave as a fixed effects variable so the regression
analysis would be conducted within waves and not between them. For example, it would not be
particularly informative to run a regression comparing all treatment customers to all control customers
regardless of their wave, as pre-period usage varies between waves. Employing Wave as the fixed effect
variable for these regressions allows model intercepts to vary by wave. This means that while the
regression model overall may not closely align with the datapoints across all waves combined, it should
effectively model and combine individual waves into coefficient estimates that can be more broadly
applicable as deemed savings estimation tools. Especially given that each wave is implemented as an RCT
and that regression analyses of the individual waves yielded high adjusted R-squared values in a prior
impact analysis, Qualus is confident in the calculation methodology presented here.
3.2 Control Cohort Size per Power Analysis
In addition to developing a deemed savings estimate, Qualus also conducted a power analysis to
determine the necessary size of a control cohort for future iterations of Idaho Power's HER program.As a
first step, Qualus assessed the number of valid control customers currently remaining in each wave. Once
the customer billing data was cleaned per the steps outline in the Data Preparation section above,Qualus
identified the number of valid control customers remaining in each wave of the HER program (Table 3-3).
Out of 51,422 valid control customers, over 71.6%are currently a part of the wave 5 control cohort.
13

Idaho Power Behavioral Program Deemed Savings Analysis
Table 3-3. Valid Control Customers by Wave
Control Customers included in
analysis after data
cleaning
1 925
2 526
3 2,427
4 1,760
5 36,398
6 8,971
Total 51,006
Per their website, Idaho Power services more than 650,000 customers,84%of which are residential,which
means Idaho Power has around 546,000 residential customers in their service territory.3 After we subtract
51,006 valid control customers from that total, it leaves 494,994 remaining residential customers. Based
on this, Qualus conducted a set of power analyses to determine the control cohort size necessary to
identify a 1% treatment impact with assumed HER treatment groups up to 500,000 customers. As with
the broader regression analysis, wave 5 billing data was excluded from the power analysis. As a part of
the power analysis, Qualus tested assumed treatment cohort sizes of 40,000, 100,000, 200,000, 400,000,
and 500,000. In addition, Qualus tested power values of 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8 for each cohort size. Results of
these power analyses are presented below.
Table 3-4. Power Analysis Results
Percentage Assumed Treatmen "ower Significance Level Necessary Control
Impact Customer Count Customer Count
1% 40,000 0.6 0.05 35,418
1% 40,000 0.7 0.05 57,967
1% 40,000 0.8 0.05 121,583
1% 100,000 0.6 0.05 23,129
1% 100,000 0.7 0.05 31,006
1% 100,000 0.8 0.05 43,057
1% 200,000 0.6 0.05 20,732
1% 200,000 0.7 0.05 26,844
1% 200,000 0.8 0.05 35,430
1% 400,000 0.6 0.05 19,710
1% 400,000 0.7 0.05 25,156
1% 400,000 0.8 0.05 32,547
1% 500,000 0.6 0.05 19,518
1% 500,000 0.7 0.05 24,844
1% 500,000 0.8 0.05 32,025
The 1% reduction in annual consumption threshold was determined based on the mean and standard
deviation of treatment and control customers from waves 1-4 and 6 of the current HER program from
January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2024.The results of this analysis may not be fully indicative of the
3 https://www.idahopower.com/about-us/
14

Idaho Power Behavioral Program Deemed Savings Analysis
broader Idaho Power residential customer population; however, they should provide a general insight
into the required control cohort size to identify statistically significant HER savings results.
The power analysis results in Table 3-4 should be interpreted as an estimate of the necessary number of
control customers to identify a statistically significant impact per the parameters in the first four columns
of the table. For example, the final row of the table suggests that should Idaho Power wish to identify a
1%treatment impact with a treatment cohort of 500,000 customers, 32,025 control customers would be
necessary to have an 80% probability (i.e., a power of 0.8) to identify the impact at a 0.05 significance
level.
This power analysis does not take into account customer attrition.As such, when using the results of this
analysis to plan for potential future programs, Idaho Power should keep in mind treatment and control
customer attrition due to opt-outs, move-outs, or other account inactivity and develop long-term plans
accordingly. For example, cumulative attrition rates ranged between 6.16%for wave 3 control customers
and 9.66%for wave 5 treatment customers as of Qualus' most recent Behavioral program evaluation.
3.3 Eligible and Ineligible Customers
All of Idaho Power's residential customers who are not using on-site power generation are eligible for
selection into future Behavioral program RCTs, provided they meet the criteria defined in Section 2.3.2.
However, Qualus also evaluated whether current treatment group participants in waves 1 through 6
would be eligible for selection in future treatment cohorts. Per the eligibility and ineligibility criteria
outlined in Section 2.3.2, Qualus identified the following counts of eligible and ineligible customers in
waves 1 through 6 based on the HER tracking data shared by Idaho Power.
Table 3-5. Eligible Customers by Wave and Treatment
Wave Eligible Treatment Eligible Control Total Eligible
Customers Customers Customers
1 4,008 1,010 5,018
2 3,515 553 4,068
3 4,218 2,538 6,756
4 1,965 1,830 3,795
5 3,200 37,617 40,817
6 71,497 9,693 81,190
Total 88,403 53,241 141,644
Table 3-6. Ineligible Customers by Wave and Treatment
Wave Ineligible Treatment Ineligible Control Total Ineligible
Customers Customers Customers
1 488 108 596
2 436 57 493
3 405 182 587
4 212 186 398
5 390 4,073 4,463
6 8,467 1,009 9,476
Total 10,398 5,615 16,013
15

Idaho Power Behavioral Program Deemed Savings Analysis
The largest proportion of customers were deemed to be ineligible due to inactive accounts per Idaho
Power tracking data. Only a relatively small proportion of customers ended up opting out of the HER
program and even fewer customers were deemed to be ineligible either due to simultaneous participation
in multiple waves or on-site generation.
3.4 Deemed Savings and Control Group Protocols
Qualus has developed a set of protocols that we suggest Idaho Power follow when employing a deemed
savings approach to estimate the electric savings associated with the HER program. In addition, Qualus
has developed a set of recommended protocols for maintaining a valid control group that allows D-in-D
regression models to be run to verify energy savings in the future. These two sets of protocols are
presented in the following subsections.
3.4.1 Deemed Savings Protocols
To ensure the deemed savings estimates Qualus developed are applied in a valid manner, Qualus
recommends Idaho Power adheres to the following:
■ Regardless of employing a deemed savings analysis methodology, maintain a valid control group
so that savings can be verified via a billing analysis as necessary.
■ The current deemed savings estimate represents a snapshot of what HER savings looked like
across five waves from 2022-2024, savings should be regularly re-evaluated via a billing analysis.
■ To the extent possible, average annual household electricity consumption and other key metrics
that affect energy consumption such as household type (e.g., single family vs. multi-family),
electric vs.gas heating proportion,average household square footage,and participant geographic
location should remain consistent between the cohort used to develop the deemed savings
estimate and any cohorts to which the estimate is applied.
■ To the extent that metrics like percentage of HER emails opened can be assessed, Idaho Power
should not allow email open rates to dramatically decrease as compared to 2022-2024.
■ Home energy reports must be designed and shared with customers in a manner that is consistent
with the implementation of the HER program as of 2022-2024. If the design or implementation
changes, the deemed savings estimates presented herein will no longer be applicable.
o For example, if peer comparisons are included in current HERS,that aspect of the reports
should not be removed as that may affect program savings.
o Similarly, HERS should continue to be shared four times a year to ensure consistency with
the delivery cadence during 2022-2024.
■ The HERS should be run by a consistent implementer while deemed savings are being applied.
■ Deemed savings should be calculated using the coefficient estimates presented in the Deemed
Savings Estimation section and average daily HDD and CDD using a 657 setpoint based on dry-
bulb temperature data from NOAA or another reputable weather service.
o Temperature data should be extracted based on the nearest valid NOAA (or other
reputable)weather station based on customer zip code or address geolocation.
■ Utilities should collect and present data on key metrics associated with customer electricity
consumption to clearly demonstrate future cohorts are comparable to the ones used to develop
deemed savings estimates.
16

Idaho Power Behavioral Program Deemed Savings Analysis
3.4.2 Control Group Protocols
To ensure a valid control group is maintained for future deemed savings regression analyses, Qualus
would recommend Idaho Power adheres to the following recommendations:
■ Based on a power analysis, such as the one conducted by Qualus in this memorandum, maintain
a control group that is large enough to identify a 1% treatment effect while also accounting for
customer attrition/churn.
■ Control cohorts should contain customers who have not participated in a HER program within the
last five years.This five-year time horizon is a conservative estimate based on research regarding
HER persistence by Demand Side Analytics' and the fact that per Qualus' HER impact analysis,
wave 5 (which ended in February 2020) still maintained some persistence savings as of 2024.
■ Treatment and control cohorts should be developed using an RCT methodology which involves
randomly assigning customers to each group. Should a full RCT methodology not be possible due
to constraints on customer counts, at a minimum control customers should be selected in such a
manner that their average monthly pre-period energy consumption is statistically similar to the
treatment cohort (e.g., per a Student's t-test).
■ In addition to ensuring statistically similar pre-period energy consumption, Idaho Power should
collect and track data on other key metrics such as household type (e.g., single family vs
multifamily), household geographic location, and participation in other energy efficiency
programs, particularly HVAC programs, to ensure the treatment and control cohorts remain
similar throughout the implementation of the HER program
3.5 Benchmarking Analysis
In this section, Qualus presents the findings from a benchmarking analysis of deemed savings
approaches and methodologies. This analysis highlights long and short-term results seen in nearby
territories and related programs, as well as risks and lessons learned. Further, Qualus assesses the
impact of these risks on the success of Idaho Power's programs as well as the validity of savings and
cost-effectiveness.
Deemed savings is an approach for calculating energy efficiency savings'. Deemed savings refer to an
estimate of energy savings for an adopted efficiency measure or practice developed from a set of
assumptions that reflects an average installation scenario.As Idaho Power's service territory is within
the Pacific northwest of the United States, Qualus' benchmarking analysis primarily focused on
utilities nearby this service area. The following subsections present key findings regarding deemed
savings methodologies per the benchmarking analysis.
4 https://demandsideanalytics.com/determining-the-persistence-of-home-energy-report-impacts/
'https://archive.epa.gov/epa/statelocalclimate/calculating-energy-savings.html
17

Idaho Power Behavioral Program Deemed Savings Analysis
3.5.1 Pacific Corp - Rocky Mountain Power— Utah, Idaho 6'
The Home Energy Report Program with Rocky Mountain Power in Utah and Idaho was analyzed by Qualus
in 2022. Qualus calculated savings for the 2020 program year using a deemed savings method proposed
by Cadmus and compared it to savings calculated using Propensity Score Matching, pre-post treatment
only, and VIA (Variance in Adoption) method to arrive at an ex-post realization rate. Standard HER
programs utilize a RCT design; however, the deemed savings approach allowed the program to target
additional customers, not originally considered for a HER program. For example, low energy usage
customers are typically not ideal for an analysis due to small benefits. High energy customers are targeted
due to larger results being seen. So,to verify program savings multiple research approaches were tested.
VIA is a viable method to calculate ex post savings because pre-treatment participation usage was
available. Untreated customers were used as a baseline of usage. New participants could be added later
in the program year. The VIA method relies on enough untreated customers to be used as a comparison
group.
Qualus then calculated savings for the 2021 program year using the same deemed savings approach
developed by Cadmus and applied the 2020 ex-post realization rate to it to arrive at 2021 evaluated
savings.The deemed values for the RMP HER Program are based on past program performance. They do
not account for factors that influence program savings such as changes in program implementation (HER
contents, format, delivery frequency and consistency), savings degradation caused by energy efficiency
improvement trends, differences between legacy and recently-added participants' response to HER
treatment, and external events such as the COVID pandemic, economic shock events, climate change,
introduction of energy efficiencytax incentives,etc.The Cadmus deemed savings values are based on past
program performance, but verifiable program results have many external influences that are not captured
in past performance.
3.5.2 State Leve18
Michigan in 2020 wrote a benchmarking report highlighting states and utilities that have a Home Energy
Report. Michigan uses a quasi-deemed approach for their HER.They found OH, MI, and AZ are states that
use a deemed savings approach. Per the methodology that Michigan adheres to, results from the most
recent report may be used for the evaluation of energy savings.
3.5.3 Energy Trust of Oregon9, 10
Energy Trust of Oregon is a nonprofit organization that works with Portland General Electric, Pacific
Power, Cascade Natural Gas, Avista, and NW Natural to help Oregon and Washington residents achieve
6https://www.pacificorp.com/content/dam/pcorp/documents/en/pacificorp/environ ment/dsm/utah/UT_Home_Energy_Repor
t_Eval.pdf
7https://www.pacificorp.com/content/dam/pcorp/documents/en/pacificorp/environ ment/dsm/idaho/2020-
2021_I D_H E R_Eva I u a t i on.pdf
'https://www.michiga n.gov/m psc/-
/media/Project/Websites/mpsc/workgroups/EW R_Collaborative/2020/Approaches_to_Claiming_H ER_Savings.pdf?rev=4fcd05
a54a9940d3b37d2fa76449d83d&hash=9F52C0447C7222DEF9B08EF40130E5D1
9 https://www.energytrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Bidgely-HER-Impact-Eval-2021-2022-RFP-v2.pdf
io https://www.energytrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/ET-HER-Evaluation.pdf
18

Idaho Power Behavioral Program Deemed Savings Analysis
energy savings. Using deemed savings, Energy Trust claimed around 17 million kWh savings; later Bidgely
conducted a billing analysis showing energy savings to be much lower than the prior estimate. Based on
this update, Energy Trust of Oregon altered their deemed savings equation for future HER savings.
Moreover, as of 2024, DNV did not employ a deemed savings methodology to evaluate the savings
associated with Energy Trust of Oregon's Home Energy Report program, instead they returned to a billing
analysis.
3.5.4 Overarching Findings
Broadly, this benchmarking analysis shows that deemed savings values are used to assess savings
associated with HER programs with some frequency throughout the United States. However, there are
clear instances where HER deemed savings methodologies did not include sufficient data on factors that
could influence program savings or altogether overestimated program savings. In light of this
benchmarking analysis and conversations with industry experts, Qualus would highlight the following key
short-term and long-term risks associated with a deemed savings approach for HER programs in Idaho
Power's service territory.
In the short term, if deemed savings values are not properly developed and applied, they can easily
contribute to savings being incorrectly attributed to a HER program. Especially given the recent
overestimation of Energy Trust of Oregon's HER program savings, it is likely regional utility commissions
are acutely aware of the potential risks of HER deemed savings. As such, it is imperative that deemed
savings estimates are developed based on representative data and utilities stick to predefined protocols
to ensure the savings estimates remain applicable. Additionally, utilities should collect and present data
on key metrics associated with customer electricity consumption to clearly demonstrate future cohorts
are comparable to the ones used to develop deemed savings estimates.
In the long term,if a utility were to share HERs with a census or overwhelming majority of customers,they
could easily reach a point at which they no longer have a valid control cohort that can be used for D-in-D
regression billing analyses. As highlighted in the Deemed Savings and Control Group Protocols section
above, maintaining a control cohort that is large enough per statistical tests like a power analysis is
essential. Another long-term risk associated with HER program deemed savings is related to the
associated regulatory risk. Stakeholders may express concerns about claiming savings without a
sufficiently robust statistical foundation, particularly in situations where a viable control group is no longer
available to validate program impacts. To assuage any potential concerns from the commission, Qualus
would recommend Idaho Power reassess energy savings and update deemed savings estimates based on
a full billing analysis on a regular basis.
Outside of the risks detailed above, there are potential benefits associated with a HER deemed savings
approach. First,there are potential opportunities for cost savings if a deemed approach was used to justify
less frequent regression billing analyses. Even if utilities conduct billing analyses once every two years
instead of annually, a HER deemed savings approach has cost saving potential as long as the HER
implementation has not changed during the biennium. In addition to cost savings, a deemed savings
approach could improve alignment between implementers, utilities, and evaluators. If implementers,
utilities, and evaluators can agree on a specific deemed savings methodology upfront, it could
substantially improve the concordance of ex-ante and ex-post savings estimates thereby saving time and
resources.
19

Idaho Power Behavioral Program Deemed Savings Analysis
4.Conclusions and Findings
Qualus ran a D-in-D regression analysis on waves 1-4 and wave 6 of Idaho Power's HER program using
2022 through 2024 as the post-period and used the results of that regression analysis to develop a
deemed savings equation that can be used to estimate savings associated with Idaho Power's HER
program based on HDD and CDD weather data. In addition to developing a deemed savings equation,
Qualus also identified likely required cohort sizes for future HER analyses based on a power analysis,
calculated counts of eligible and ineligible customers, developed protocols Idaho Power to employ these
findings, and conducted a benchmarking analysis. Ultimately, for deemed savings equation estimates to
remain valid, Qualus suggests that Idaho Power should maintain consistency in HER implementation and
in key metrics associated with the energy usage of treatment and control cohorts. HER implementation
(e.g., delivery type, cadence, HER format and design) as well as key customer metrics associated with
energy usage must remain consistent for deemed savings estimates to remain valid. Furthermore,
regularly rerunning billing analyses to verify savings and update deemed savings methodologies as
necessary seems worthwhile.
Qualus' extrapolation of the deemed savings equation yielded average annual savings of 135.61 kWh
across all household types or around 0.89% of average annual electric usage. This value is slightly lower
than the 1%treatment effect that Idaho Power proposed Qualus employ in the power analysis.The main
driver in the slightly lower savings estimate is the inclusion of wave 1 in the regression analysis. As of a
2024 impact analysis, wave 1 by itself was not associated with statistically significant savings, as such
including that was in the analysis is likely to have contributed to a reduced overall deemed savings
estimate. However, it is important to include wave 1 in the deemed savings estimate to ensure that the
deemed savings estimate is both conservative as well as representative of Idaho Power's current HER
implementation.As with wave 1 in 2024,it is possible that future iterations of Idaho Power's HER program
may not yield statistically significant savings and as such it is important to account for that in a deemed
savings estimate.
Qualus conducted a variety of power analyses; however, assuming 500,000 treatment customers, a
significance level of 0.05,and a power of 0.8(i.e.,an 80%probability of identifying a statistically significant
treatment effect) the power analysis indicated that 32,025 control customers would be necessary to
identify a 1%treatment effect.With close to 51,000 valid control customers currently available across the
six HER waves,this leaves little room to reduce current control group sizes,especially after accounting for
attrition.
Qualus would refer the reader to the Deemed Savings Protocols, Control Group Protocols, and
Overarching Findings sections for specific recommendations regarding employing deemed savings
methodology for Idaho Power's HER program.
20

-NI R®
✓�r
Milo-,
- ♦ -__ f - - __-mil - '��,h
L=- r
T
Historical DSM Expense and Performance
2002-2025

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2025
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page ii

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2025
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost, Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
Demand Response
A/C Cool Credit
2003...................... 204 $ 275,645 $ 275,645 0.0
2004...................... 420 287,253 287,253 0.5
2005...................... 2,369 754,062 754,062 3
2006...................... 5,369 1,235,476 1,235,476 6
2007...................... 13,692 2,426,154 2,426,154 12
2008...................... 20,195 2,969,377 2,969,377 26
2009...................... 30,391 3,451,988 3,451,988 39
2010...................... 30,803 2,002,546 2,002,546 39
2011...................... 37,728 2,896,542 2,896,542 24
2012...................... 36,454 5,727,994 5,727,994 45
2013...................... n/a 663,858 663,858 n/a
2014...................... 29,642 1,465,646 1,465,646 44
2015...................... 29,000 1,148,935 1,148,935 36
2016...................... 28,315 1,103,295 1,103,295 34
2017...................... 28,214 936,272 936,272 29
2018...................... 26,182 844,369 844,369 29
2019...................... 23,802 877,665 877,665 24
2020...................... 22,536 765,020 765,020 19
2021...................... 20,846 751,989 751,989 27
2022...................... 19,127 829,771 829,771 20
2023...................... 18,714 1,987,623 1,987,623 20
2024...................... 17,641 169,241 169,241 22
2025...................... 16,069 1,175,421 1,175,421 15
Total........................... $ 34,746,141 $ 34,746,141
Flex Peak Program
2009...................... 33 528,681 528,681 19
2010...................... 60 1,902,680 1,902,680 48
2011...................... 111 2,057,730 2,057,730 59
2012...................... 102 3,009,822 3,009,822 53
2013...................... 100 2,743,615 2,743,615 48
2014...................... 93 1,563,211 1,563,211 40
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 1

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2025
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand° Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2015...................... 72 592,872 592,872 26
2016...................... 137 767,997 767,997 42
2017...................... 141 658,156 658,156 36
2018...................... 140 433,313 433,313 33
2019...................... 145 626,823 626,823 31
2020...................... 141 542,480 542,480 24
2021...................... 139 501,973 501,973 31
2022...................... 159 519,618 519,618 25
2023...................... 271 1,076,149 1,076,149 33
2024...................... 309 790,712 790,712 35
2025...................... 250 745,694 745,694 24
Total........................... $ 19,061,524 $ 19,061,524
Irrigation Peak Rewards
2004...................... 58 344,714 344,714 6
2005...................... 894 11468,282 1,468,282 40
2006...................... 906 1,324,418 1,324,418 32
2007...................... 947 1,615,881 1,615,881 37
2008...................... 897 11431,840 1,431,840 35
2009...................... 1,512 9,655,283 9,655,283 160
2010...................... 2,038 13,330,826 13,330,826 250
2011...................... 2,342 12,086,222 12,086,222 320
2012...................... 2,433 12,423,364 12,423,364 340
2013...................... n/a 2,072,107 2,072,107 n/a
2014...................... 2,225 7,597,213 7,597,213 295
2015...................... 2,259 7,258,831 7,258,831 305
2016...................... 2,286 7,600,076 7,600,076 303
2017...................... 2,307 7,223,101 7,223,101 318
2018...................... 2,335 6,891,737 6,891,737 297
2019...................... 2,332 6,771,708 6,771,708 278
2020...................... 2,292 6,407,412 6,407,412 292
2021...................... 2,235 7,013,315 7,013,315 255
2022...................... 2,142 8,503,140 8,503,140 155
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 2

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2025
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2023...................... 2,439 8,299,830 8,299,830 188
2024...................... 2,517 8,778,184 8,778,184 201
2025...................... 2,702 8,895,312 8,895,312 123
Total........................... $ 146,992,795 $ 146,992,795
Residential Efficiency
Ductless Heat Pump Pilot
2009...................... 96 202,005 451,605 409,180 18 0.031 0.086
2010...................... 104 189,231 439,559 364,000 20 0.044 0.103
2011...................... 131 191,183 550,033 458,500 20 0.028 0.081
2012...................... 127 159,867 617,833 444,500 20 0.024 0.094
2013...................... 215 237,575 992,440 589,142 15 0.032 0.132
2014...................... 179 251,446 884,211 462,747 15 0.042 0.148
Total........................... 852 $ 1,231,307 $ 3,935,681 2,728,069 15 $ 0.044 $ 0.138
Educational Distributions
2015...................... 28,197 432,185 432,185 1,669,495 10 0.026 0.026
2016...................... 67,065 2,392,884 2,392,884 15,149,605 10 0.016 0.016
2017...................... 84,399 3,466,027 3,466,027 21,187,261 11 0.016 0.016
2018...................... 94,717 3,180,380 3,180,380 16,051,888 11 0.019 0.019
2019...................... 95,528 2,880,467 2,880,467 10,805,474 11 0.025 0.025
2020...................... 97,228 3,106,820 3,106,820 9,481,801 11 0.038 0.038
2021...................... 47,027 449,790 449,790 2,931,280 10 0.019 0.019
2022...................... 49,136 1,086,813 1,086,813 3,741,954 10 0.037 0.037
2023...................... 53,028 902,288 902,288 3,960,690 8 0.034 0.034
2024...................... 53,983 751,055 751,055 3,900,277 9 0.027 0.027
2025...................... 51,663 832,256 832,256 4,164,401 9 0.028 0.028
Total........................... 721,971 $ 19,480,964 $ 19,480,964 93,044,127 10 $ 0.027 $ 0.027
Energy Efficiency Packets
2002...................... 2,925 755 755 155,757 7 0.001 0.001
Total........................... 2,925 $ 755 $ 755 155,757 7 $ 0.001 $ 0.001
Energy Efficient Lighting
2002...................... 11,618 243,033 310,643 3,299,654 7 0.012 0.015
2003...................... 12,662 314,641 464,059 3,596,150 7 0.014 0.021
2004...................... n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 3

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2025
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs,
Annual Energy Peak Demand Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Costb Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2005...................... 43,760 73,152 107,810 1,734,646 7 0.007 0.010
2006...................... 178,514 298,754 539,877 6,302,794 7 0.008 0.014
2007...................... 219,739 557,646 433,626 7,207,439 7 0.012 0.017
2008...................... 436,234 1,018,292 793,265 14,309,444 7 0.011 0.013
2009...................... 549,846 1,207,366 1,456,796 13,410,748 5 0.020 0.024
2010...................... 1,190,139 2,501,278 3,976,476 28,082,738 5 0.020 0.031
2011...................... 1,039,755 1,719,133 2,764,623 19,694,381 5 0.015 0.024
2012...................... 925,460 1,126,836 2,407,355 16,708,659 5 0.012 0.025
2013...................... 1,085,225 1,356,926 4,889,501 9,995,753 8 0.016 0.058
2014...................... 1,161,553 1,909,823 7,148,427 12,882,151 8 0.018 0.066
2015...................... 1,343,255 2,063,383 4,428,676 15,876,117 10 0.013 0.028
2016...................... 1,442,561 3,080,708 10,770,703 21,093,813 11 0.014 0.049
2017...................... 1,766,758 4,872,888 11,078,990 37,765,190 12 0.012 0.026
2018...................... 1,340,842 2,435,130 3,277,039 18,856,933 14 0.011 0.014
2019...................... 1,336,440 2,126,262 2,782,039 16,245,551 14 0.011 0.014
2020...................... 1,148,061 1,667,159 3,065,781 13,942,202 14 0.012 0.022
2021...................... 0 43,631 43,631 0 14 n/a n/a
2022...................... 370,739 534,982 714,445 1,728,352 15 0.030 0.040
2023...................... 184,950 294,197 402,523 883,491 15 0.032 0.044
Total........................... 15,788,111 $ 29,445,219 $ 61,856,285 263,616,205 9 $ 0.015 $ 0.032
Energy House Calls
2002...................... 17 26,053 26,053 25,989 20 0.082 0.082
2003...................... 420 167,076 167,076 602,723 20 0.023 0.023
2004...................... 1,708 725,981 725,981 2,349,783 20 0.025 0.025
2005...................... 891 375,610 375,610 1,775,770 20 0.017 0.017
2006...................... 819 336,701 336,701 777,244 20 0.035 0.035
2007...................... 700 336,372 336,372 699,899 20 0.039 0.039
2008...................... 1,099 484,379 484,379 883,038 20 0.045 0.045
2009...................... 1,266 569,594 569,594 928,875 20 0.052 0.052
2010...................... 1,602 762,330 762,330 1,198,655 20 0.054 0.054
2011...................... 881 483,375 483,375 1,214,004 20 0.027 0.027
2012...................... 668 275,884 275,884 1,192,039 18 0.016 0.016
2013...................... 411 199,995 199,995 837,261 18 0.016 0.016
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 4

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2025
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand° Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2014...................... 297 197,987 197,987 579,126 18 0.029 0.029
2015...................... 362 214,103 214,103 754,646 18 0.020 0.020
2016...................... 375 206,437 206,437 509,859 18 0.029 0.029
2017...................... 335 183,035 183,035 428,819 16 0.032 0.032
2018...................... 280 160,777 160,777 374,484 16 0.032 0.032
2019...................... 248 161,894 161,894 309,154 16 0.039 0.039
2020...................... 51 46,352 46,352 56,944 16 0.075 0.075
2021...................... 11 18,257 18,257 14,985 18 0.105 0.105
2022...................... 52 38,163 38,163 54,516 18 0.062 0.062
Total........................... 12,493 $ 5,970,354 $ 5,970,354 15,567,813 19 $ 0.033 $ 0.033
ENERGY STAR®Homes Northwest(gas heated)
2014...................... 282 195,372 22
2015...................... 69 46,872 22
Total........................... 351 $ 0 $ 0 242,244 22
Fridge and Freezer Recycling Program
2009...................... 1,661 305,401 305,401 1,132,802 8 0.041 0.041
2010...................... 3,152 565,079 565,079 1,567,736 8 0.054 0.054
2011...................... 3,449 654,393 654,393 1,712,423 8 0.046 0.046
2012...................... 3,176 613,146 613,146 1,576,426 8 0.046 0.046
2013...................... 3,307 589,054 589,054 1,442,344 8 0.061 0.061
2014...................... 3,194 576,051 576,051 1,390,760 6 0.062 0.062
2015...................... 1,630 227,179 227,179 720,208 6 0.048 0.048
2016...................... 1,539 257,916 257,916 632,186 6 0.062 0.062
2017...................... 2,031 265,942 265,942 498,513 6 0.080 0.080
2018...................... 304 33,907 33,907 73,602 7 0.061 0.061
Total........................... 23,443 $ 4,088,069 $ 4,088,069 10,747,000 7 $ 0.062 $ 0.062
Heating&Cooling Efficiency Program
2006...................... 17,444 17,444
2007...................... 4 488,211 494,989 1,595 18 27.344 27.710
2008...................... 359 473,551 599,771 561,440 18 0.073 0.092
2009...................... 349 478,373 764,671 1,274,829 18 0.034 0.054
2010...................... 217 327,669 1,073,604 1,104,497 20 0.025 0.083
2011...................... 130 195,770 614,523 733,405 20 0.018 0.056
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 5

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2025
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2012...................... 141 182,281 676,530 688,855 20 0.018 0.066
2013...................... 210 329,674 741,586 1,003,730 20 0.022 0.050
2014...................... 230 362,014 1,247,560 1,099,464 20 0.022 0.075
2015...................... 427 626,369 2,064,055 1,502,172 20 0.028 0.092
2016...................... 483 594,913 1,404,625 1,113,574 20 0.040 0.040
2017...................... 654 597,198 1,433,357 1,138,744 15 0.041 0.099
2018...................... 712 585,211 1,686,618 1,556,065 15 0.029 0.085
2019...................... 681 499,179 1,512,183 1,412,183 15 0.028 0.084
2020...................... 1,019 606,559 1,911,792 1,839,068 14 0.033 0.103
2021...................... 1,048 635,182 2,223,826 1,365,825 15 0.044 0.157
2022...................... 1,080 666,016 2,414,026 1,310,260 15 0.050 0.180
2023...................... 1,035 624,047 1,987,191 1,040,069 16 0.056 0.180
2024...................... 622 519,004 2,241,416 819,224 16 0.062 0.266
2025...................... 676 547,895 3,223,993 809,431 16 0.066 0.387
Total........................... 10,077 $ 9,356,560 $ 27,854,548 20,285,693 17 $ 0.043 $ 0.129
Home Energy Audits
2013...................... 88,740 88,740
2014...................... 354 170,648 170,648 141,077 10 0.150 0.150
2015...................... 251 201,957 226,806 136,002 10 0.184 0.184
2016...................... 539 289,812 289,812 207,249 11 0.163 0.163
2017...................... 524 282,809 353,385 175,010 12 0.146 0.182
2018...................... 466 264,394 321,978 211,003 12 0.113 0.137
2019...................... 421 230,786 282,215 179,754 11 0.122 0.150
2020...................... 97 130,546 142,649 31,938 12 0.448 0.490
2021...................... 37 70,448 75,461 3,768 11 2.173 2.328
2022...................... 425 184,858 239,783 28,350 11 0.771 1.000
2023...................... 337 230,011 274,124 11,329 13 2.156 2.570
2024...................... 235 158,287 216,146 19,407 12 0.942 1.286
2025...................... 310 201,572 233,307 10,339 12 2.252 2.606
Total........................... 3,996 $ 2,504,987 $ 2,915,174 1,155,226 11 $ 0.265 $ 0.309
Home Energy Reports Program
2018...................... 23,914 194,812 194,812 3,281,780 1 0.046 0.046
2019...................... 24,976 200,406 200,406 8,444,746 1 0.018 0.018
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 6

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2025
Total Costs Savings and Demand Re uc ons eve ize osts
Annual Energy Peak Demand" Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2020...................... 127,138 899,203 899,203 10,427,940 1 0.081 0.081
2021...................... 115,153 970,197 970,197 15,929,074 1 0.057 0.057
2022...................... 104,826 964,791 964,791 20,643,379 1 0.044 0.044
2023...................... 96,901 883,505 883,505 17,659,087 1 0.047 0.047
2024...................... 98,119 832,115 832,115 18,596,812 1 0.044 0.044
2025...................... 1000875 844,730 844,730 2005070594 1 0.040 0.040
Total........................... 692,987 $ 5,789,758 $ 5,789,758 115,490,412 1 $ 0.049 $ 0.049
Home Improvement Program
2008...................... 282 123,454 157,866 317,814 25 0.029 0.037
2009...................... 1,188 321,140 550,148 1,338,876 25 0.019 0.032
2010...................... 3,537 944,716 2,112,737 3,986,199 45 0.016 0.035
2011...................... 2,275 666,041 2,704,816 917,519 45 0.038 0.155
2012...................... 840 385,091 812,827 457,353 45 0.044 0.093
2013...................... 365 299,497 1,061,314 616,044 45 0.025 0.090
2014...................... 555 324,717 896,246 838,929 45 0.020 0.055
2015...................... 408 272,509 893,731 303,580 45 0.046 0.152
2016...................... 482 324,024 1,685,301 500,280 45 0.034 0.177
2017...................... 355 166,830 1,345,002 415,824 45 0.021 0.167
2018...................... 2,926 2,926
Total........................... 10,287 $ 3,830,946 $ 12,222,915 9,692,418 42 $ 0.026 $ 0.084
Low-Income Energy Efficiency Education
2015...................... 2,068 127,477 127,477 624,536 10 0.021 0.021
2016...................... 2,001 127,587 127,587 402,961 9 0.035 0.035
2017...................... 2,470 149,813 149,813 280,049 8 0.064 0.064
2018...................... 282 147,936 147,936 29,610 3 1.370 1.370
2019...................... 430 145,494 145,494 45,150 3 0.885 0.885
2020...................... 155 9,503 9,503 10,628 3 0.299 0.299
2021...................... 0 145,827 145,827 0 3 n/a n/a
2022...................... 267 152,718 152,718 22,755 5 1.448 1.448
2023...................... 99 146,232 146,232 46,109 3 1.068 1.068
2024...................... 130 154,646 154,646 70,589 3 0.763 0.763
2025...................... 139 151,540 151,540 69,418 3 0.760 0.760
Total........................... 8,041 $ 1,458,772 $ 1,458,772 1,601,805 8 $ 0.140 $ 0.140
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 7

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2025
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand° Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost, Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
Multifamily Energy Savings Program
2016...................... 196 59,046 59,046 149,760 10 0.040 0.040
2017...................... 683 168,216 168,216 617,542 11 0.026 0.026
2018...................... 764 205,131 205,131 655,953 11 0.030 0.030
2019...................... 457 131,306 131,306 346,107 11 0.036 0.036
2020...................... 33 89,829 89,829 28,041 11 0.372 0.372
2021...................... 0 68,973 68,973 0 11 n/a n/a
2022...................... 97 34,181 34,181 41,959 11 0.096 0.096
Total........................... 2,230 $ 756,682 $ 756,682 1,839,363 11 $ 0.049 $ 0.049
Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program
2023...................... 0 23,974 23,974 0 11 n/a n/a
2024...................... 2 43,208 78,571 84,977 15 0.051 0.093
2025...................... 7 466,854 2,016,816 1,937,572 15 0.024 0.105
Total........................... 9 $ 534,036 $ 2,119,361 2,022,549 15 $ 0.027 $ 0.106
Oregon Residential Weatherization
2002...................... 24 -662 23,971 4,580 25 0.010 0.389
2003...................... -943
2004...................... 4 1,057 1,057
2005...................... 4 612 3,608 7,927 25 0.006 0.034
2006...................... 4,126 4,126
2007...................... 1 3,781 5,589 9,971 25 0.028 0.042
2008...................... 3 7,417 28,752 22,196 25 0.025 0.096
2009...................... 1 7,645 8,410 2,907 25 0.203 0.223
2010...................... 1 6,050 6,275 320 30 0.011 0.062
2011...................... 8 7,926 10,208 21,908 30 0.021 0.027
2012...................... 5 4,516 11,657 11,985 30 0.022 0.056
2013...................... 14 9,017 14,369 14,907 30 0.035 0.055
2014...................... 13 5,462 9,723 11,032 30 0.028 0.050
2015...................... 4 5,808 10,388 11,910 30 0.028 0.050
2016...................... 7 3,930 5,900 2,847 30 0.079 0.118
2017...................... 7 2,384 3,755 2,154 30 0.063 0.099
2018...................... 5 5,507 5,507
2019...................... 8 5,982 14,432 2,069 45 0.149 0.360
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 8

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2025
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs,
Annual Energy Peak Demand' Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost" Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2020...................... 0 5,313 5,313 0 45 n/a n/a
2021...................... 0 4,595 4,595 0 45 n/a n/a
2022...................... 7 8,825 8,825 0 45 n/a n/a
2023...................... 3 7,860 7,860 0 45 n/a n/a
2024...................... 13 14,007 12,380 0 45 n/a n/a
2025...................... 7 10,957 9,287 0 45 n/a n/a
Total........................... 139 $ 131,172 $ 215,987 126,713 28 $ 0.079 $ 0.129
Rebate Advantage
2003...................... 73 27,372 79,399 227,434 45 0.008 0.022
2004...................... 105 52,187 178,712 332,587 45 0.010 0.034
2005...................... 98 46,173 158,462 312,311 45 0.009 0.032
2006...................... 102 52,673 140,289 333,494 45 0.010 0.027
2007...................... 123 89,269 182,152 554,018 45 0.010 0.021
2008...................... 107 90,888 179,868 463,401 45 0.012 0.025
2009...................... 57 49,525 93,073 247,348 25 0.015 0.029
2010...................... 35 39,402 66,142 164,894 25 0.018 0.031
2011...................... 25 63,469 85,044 159,325 25 0.024 0.033
2012...................... 35 37,241 71,911 187,108 25 0.012 0.024
2013...................... 42 60,770 92,690 269,891 25 0.014 0.021
2014...................... 44 63,231 89,699 269,643 25 0.014 0.020
2015...................... 58 85,438 117,322 358,683 25 0.014 0.020
2016...................... 66 111,050 148,142 411,272 25 0.016 0.022
2017...................... 66 104,996 229,104 214,479 45 0.025 0.055
2018...................... 107 147,483 355,115 284,559 45 0.027 0.064
2019...................... 109 156,748 355,897 353,615 44 0.023 0.052
2020...................... 116 180,422 437,263 366,678 44 0.031 0.075
2021...................... 88 173,193 309,790 235,004 45 0.046 0.083
2022...................... 97 167,622 402,649 255,541 44 0.043 0.104
2023...................... 79 137,100 159,600 214,236 44 0.042 0.49
2024...................... 109 176,734 477,292 283,227 45 0.042 0.115
2025...................... 120 193,786 531,125 335,068 45 0.039 0.108
Total........................... 1,861 $ 2,306,773 $ 4,958,140 6,833,816 39 $ 0.024 $ 0.051
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 9

k*46
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2025
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
Residential New Construction Program(ENERGY STAR®Homes Northwest)
2003...................... 13,597 13,597 0
2004...................... 44 140,165 335,437 101,200 25 0.103 0.246
2005...................... 200 253,105 315,311 415,600 25 0.045 0.056
2006...................... 439 469,609 602,651 912,242 25 0.038 0.049
2007...................... 303 475,044 400,637 629,634 25 0.056 0.047
2008...................... 254 302,061 375,007 468,958 25 0.048 0.059
2009...................... 474 355,623 498,622 705,784 25 0.039 0.055
2010...................... 630 375,605 579,495 883,260 25 0.033 0.051
2011...................... 308 259,762 651,249 728,030 32 0.020 0.051
2012...................... 410 453,186 871,310 537,447 35 0.046 0.089
2013...................... 267 352,882 697,682 365,370 36 0.053 0.104
2014...................... 243 343,277 689,021 332,682 36 0.057 0.114
2015...................... 598 653,674 1,412,126 773,812 36 0.046 0.099
2016...................... 110 142,158 297,518 150,282 36 0.051 0.107
2017...................... 277 323,520 603,420 608,292 45 0.029 0.054
2018...................... 307 400,912 926,958 777,369 36 0.028 0.064
2019...................... 322 534,118 1,411,391 774,597 54 0.035 0.092
2020...................... 248 473,504 865,989 649,522 58 0.044 0.081
2021...................... 90 247,600 524,876 389,748 61 0.039 0.082
2022...................... 109 235,732 578,922 337,562 58 0.045 0.110
2023...................... 64 195,296 401,468 234,945 58 0.053 0.066
2024...................... 92 252,461 614,962 304,424 60 0.055 0.133
2025...................... 101 233,585 495,346 274,680 60 0.056 0.119
Total........................... 5,890 $ 7,486,475 $ 14,162,997 11,355,440 38 $ 0.046 $ 0.087
Shade Tree Project
2014...................... 2,041 147,290 147,290
2015...................... 1,925 105,392 105,392
2016...................... 2,070 76,642 76,642
2017...................... 2,711 195,817 195,817
2018...................... 2,093 162,995 162,995 35,571 20 0.307 0.307
2019...................... 2,063 147,750 147,750 35,727 30 0.235 0.235
2020...................... 0 28,490 28,490 52,662 30 0.038 0.038
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 10

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2025
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand° Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2021...................... 2,970 184,680 184,680 44,173 40 0.269 0.269
2022...................... 1,874 128,856 128,856 39,595 40 0.218 0.218
2023...................... 2,462 262,344 262,344 11,199 40 1.571 1.571
2024...................... 736 78,302 78,302 0 40 n/a n/a
Total........................... 20,945 $ 1,518,558 $ 1,518,558 218,927 33 $ 0.502 $ 0.502
Simple Steps,Smart Savings
2007...................... 9,275 9,275 0
2008...................... 3,034 250,860 468,056 541,615 15 0.044 0.082
2009...................... 9,499 511,313 844,811 1,638,038 15 0.031 0.051
2010...................... 16,322 832,161 1,025,151 1,443,580 15 0.057 0.070
2011...................... 15,896 638,323 1,520,977 1,485,326 15 0.034 0.080
2012...................... 16,675 659,032 817,924 887,222 14 0.061 0.075
2013...................... 13,792 405,515 702,536 885,980 12 0.041 0.071
2014...................... 10,061 227,176 302,289 652,129 12 0.031 0.041
2015...................... 9,343 139,096 397,898 770,822 10 0.018 0.053
2016...................... 7,880 153,784 379,752 577,320 11 0.025 0.063
2017...................... 12,556 191,621 484,380 900,171 11 0.020 0.051
2018...................... 7,377 90,484 133,101 241,215 12 0.034 0.050
2019...................... 5,729 90,499 123,541 271,452 11 0.032 0.043
2020...................... 6,894 99,141 98,629 148,404 12 0.073 0.073
Total........................... 135,058 $ 4,298,280 $ 7,308,320 10,443,274 13 $ 0.044 $ 0.074
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers
2008...................... 16 52,807 52,807 71,680 25 0.057 0.057
2009...................... 41 162,995 162,995 211,719 25 0.059 0.059
2010...................... 47 228,425 228,425 313,309 25 0.056 0.056
2011...................... 117 788,148 788,148 1,141,194 25 0.042 0.042
2012...................... 141 1,070,556 1,070,556 257,466 25 0.254 0.254
2013...................... 166 11267,791 1,267,791 303,116 25 0.240 0.240
2014...................... 118 791,344 791,344 290,926 25 0.163 0.163
2015...................... 171 1,243,269 1,243,269 432,958 25 0.175 0.175
2016...................... 147 11323,793 1,323,793 621,653 25 0.130 0.130
2017...................... 164 1,108,862 1,121,071 604,733 23 0.115 0.117
2018...................... 141 1,022,471 1,022,471 571,741 23 0.112 0.112
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 11

k*46
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2025
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand° Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2019...................... 129 957,626 957,626 504,988 23 0.119 0.119
2020...................... 27 208,715 208,715 47,360 23 0.338 0.338
2021...................... 7 57,656 57,656 12,591 30 0.317 0.317
2022...................... 27 205,788 205,788 48,233 30 0.307 0.307
2023...................... 12 87,719 87,719 18,184 30 0.347 0.347
2024...................... 18 112,944 112,944 25,784 30 0.326 0.326
2025...................... 25 155,475 155,475 31,046 30 0.372 0.372
Total........................... 1,514 $ 10,846,384 $ 10,858,593 5,508,681 24 $ 0.158 $ 0.158
Window AC Trade Up Pilot
2003...................... 99 6,687 10,492 14,454 12 0.051 0.079
Total........................... 99 $ 6,687 $ 10,492 14,454 12 $ 0.052 $ 0.081
Residential—Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers(WAQC)
WAQC—Idaho
2002...................... 197 235,048 492,139
2003...................... 208 228,134 483,369
2004...................... 269 498,474 859,482 1,271,677 25 0.029 0.050
2005...................... 570 1,402,487 1,927,424 3,179,311 25 0.033 0.045
2006...................... 540 1,455,373 2,231,086 2,958,024 25 0.037 0.056
2007...................... 397 1,292,930 1,757,105 3,296,019 25 0.029 0.040
2008...................... 439 1,375,632 1,755,749 4,064,301 25 0.025 0.032
2009...................... 427 1,260p922 1,937,578 4,563,832 25 0.021 0.033
2010...................... 373 1,205,446 2,782,597 3,452,025 25 0.026 0.060
2011...................... 273 1,278,112 1,861,836 2,648,676 25 0.036 0.052
2012...................... 228 1,321,927 1,743,863 621,464 25 0.157 0.208
2013...................... 245 1,336,742 1,984,173 657,580 25 0.150 0.223
2014...................... 244 1,267,212 1,902,615 509,620 25 0.184 0.276
2015...................... 233 1,278,159 2,072,901 529,426 25 0.179 0.290
2016...................... 234 11254,338 1,870,481 722,430 25 0.129 0.192
2017...................... 196 1,269,507 1,721,632 654,464 30 0.134 0.182
2018...................... 190 1,254,630 1,795,301 641,619 30 0.136 0.194
2019...................... 193 1,264,767 1,890,584 639,880 30 0.137 0.205
2020...................... 115 11361,163 1,703,879 218,611 30 0.432 0.540
2021...................... 161 1,177,366 1,668,566 289,353 30 0.253 0.371
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 12

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2025
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand° Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost' Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2022...................... 147 1,277,717 2,0240735 272,647 30 0.338 0.535
2023...................... 162 11216,848 1,924,928 305,675 30 0.289 0.455
2024...................... 157 691,825 1,553,095 366,428 30 0.299 0.474
2025...................... 129 835,893 1,797,176 228,592 30 0.526 0.839
Total........................... 6,327 $ 27,040,652 $ 41,742,293 32,091,655 26 $ 0.066 $ 0.101
WAQC—Oregon
2002...................... 31 24,773 47,221 68,323 25 0.027 0.051
2003...................... 29 22,255 42,335 102,643 25 0.016 0.031
2004...................... 17 13,469 25,452 28,436 25 0.035 0.067
2005...................... 28 44,348 59,443 940279 25 0.035 0.047
2006...................... 25
2007...................... 11 30,694 41,700 42,108 25 0.054 0.074
2008...................... 14 43,843 74,048 73,841 25 0.040 0.068
2009...................... 10 33,940 46,513 114,982 25 0.023 0.031
2010...................... 27 115,686 147,712 289,627 25 0.030 0.038
2011...................... 14 46,303 630981 1340972 25 0.025 0.035
2012...................... 10 48,214 76,083 26,840 25 0.133 0.210
2013...................... 9 54,935 67,847 24,156 25 0.168 0.208
2014...................... 11 52,900 940493 24,180 25 0.162 0.289
2015...................... 10 36,873 46,900 20,595 25 0.133 0.169
2016...................... 12 35,471 63,934 23,732 25 0.111 0.199
2017...................... 7 37,978 61,052 150074 30 0.175 0.281
2018...................... 3 18,344 24,191 7,886 30 0.161 0.213
2019...................... 4 38,960 62,905 9,419 30 0.287 0.463
2020...................... 0 24,414 24,414 0 30 n/a n/a
2021...................... 1 9,473 21,586 1,752 30 0.375 0.854
2022...................... 0 3,778 3,778 0 30 n/a n/a
2023...................... 5 100,194 1900341 8,585 30 0.839 1.594
2024...................... 1 -12,082 -9,761 1,023 30 0.757 0.926
2025...................... 3 25,377 40,844 3,069 30 1.160 1.534
Total........................... 257 $ 850,138 $ 1,317,011 1,115,522 25 $ 0.060 $ 0.093
WAQC—BPA Supplemental
2002...................... 75 55,966 118,255 311,347 25 0.013 0.028
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 13

k*46
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2025
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand° Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2003...................... 57 49,895 106,915 223,591 25 0.017 0.036
2004...................... 40 69,409 105,021 125,919 25 0.041 0.062
Total........................... 172 $ 175,270 $ 330,191 660,857 25 $ 0.020 $ 0.037
WAQC Total............... 6,756 $ 28,066,060 $ 43,389,495 33,868,034 26 $ 0.065 $ 0.100
erci
Air Care Plus Pilot
2003...................... 4 5,764 9,061 33,976 10 0.021 0.033
2004...................... 344 344
Total........................... 4 $ 6,108 $ 9,405 33,976 10 $ 0.023 $ 0.035
Commercial Energy-Saving Kits(Commercial Education Initiative)
2005...................... 3,497 3,497
2006...................... 4,663 4,663
2007...................... 26,823 26,823
2008...................... 72,738 72,738
2009...................... 120,584 120,584
2010...................... 68,765 68,765
2011...................... 89,856 89,856
2012...................... 73,788 73,788
2013...................... 66,790 66,790
2014...................... 76,606 76,606
2015...................... 65,250 65,250
2016......................
2017......................
2018...................... 1,652 146,174 146,174 442,170 10 0.034 0.034
2019...................... 2,629 161,945 161,945 569,594 10 0.029 0.029
2020...................... 1,379 103,678 103,678 258,368 11 0.047 0.047
2021...................... 906 74,617 74,617 296,751 11 0.029 0.029
2022...................... 334 22,770 22,770 48,758 10 0.059 0.059
2023...................... 1,117 55,563 55,563 190,827 6 0.054 0.054
Total........................... 8,017 $ 1,234,107 $ 1,234,107 1,806,468 10 $ 0.086 $ 0.086
New Construction
2004...................... 28,821 28,821
2005...................... 12 194,066 233,149 494,239 12 0.043 0.052
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 14

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2025
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costsa
Annual Energy Peak Demand' Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost, Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2006...................... 40 374,008 463,770 704,541 12 0.058 0.072
2007...................... 22 669,032 802,839 2,817,248 12 0.015 0.040
2008...................... 60 1,055,009 1,671,375 6,598,123 12 0.017 0.028
2009...................... 72 11327,127 2,356,434 6,146,139 12 0.024 0.043
2010...................... 70 1,509,682 3,312,963 10,819,598 12 0.016 0.035
2011...................... 63 1,291,425 3,320,015 11,514,641 12 0.010 0.026
2012...................... 84 11592,572 8,204,883 20,450,037 12 0.007 0.036
2013...................... 59 1,507,035 3,942,880 10,988,934 12 0.012 0.032
2014...................... 69 11258,273 3,972,822 9,458,059 12 0.012 0.037
2015...................... 81 2,162,001 6,293,071 23,232,017 12 0.008 0.024
2016...................... 116 11931,222 4,560,826 12,393,249 12 0.014 0.033
2017...................... 121 2,433,596 4,265,056 17,353,820 12 0.013 0.022
2018...................... 104 21069,645 5,054,215 13,378,315 12 0.014 0.034
2019...................... 168 31548,476 5,292,835 20,640,334 12 0.015 0.023
2020...................... 119 21383,983 4,175,611 14,565,936 12 0.018 0.031
2021...................... 95 21691,171 4,160,999 17,536,004 12 0.017 0.026
2022...................... 88 21780,507 3,641,930 27,615,777 12 0.011 0.015
2023...................... 102 2,168,636 2,990,934 10,642,465 14 0.021 0.029
2024...................... 140 31915,111 5,897,403 18,161,615 14 0.023 0.034
2025...................... 151 2,797,674 3,985,598 11,339,940 14 0.026 0.037
Total........................... 1,836 $ 39,689,072 $ 78,628,429 266,851,031 12 $ 0.017 $ 0.034
Retrofits
2006...................... 31,819 31,819
2007...................... 104 711,494 1,882,035 5,183,640 0.8 12 0.015 0.040
2008...................... 666 21992,261 10,096,627 25,928,391 4.5 12 0.013 0.043
2009...................... 1,224 3,325,505 10,076,237 35,171,627 6.1 12 0.011 0.032
2010...................... 1,535 3,974,410 7,655,397 35,824,463 7.8 12 0.013 0.024
2011...................... 1,732 4,719,466 9,519,364 38,723,073 12 0.011 0.022
2012...................... 1,838 5,349,753 9,245,297 41,568,672 12 0.012 0.020
2013...................... 1,392 3,359,790 6,738,645 21,061,946 12 0.014 0.029
2014...................... 1,095 3,150,942 5,453,380 19,118,494 12 0.015 0.025
2015...................... 1,222 4,350,865 7,604,200 23,594,701 12 0.017 0.029
2016...................... 1,577 5,040,190 8,038,791 28,124,779 12 0.016 0.026
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 15

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2025
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand' Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost, Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2017...................... 1,137 4,343,835 12,500,303 23,161,877 12 0.017 0.049
2018...................... 1,358 5,990,179 16,253,716 34,910,707 12 0.015 0.042
2019...................... 1,033 6,281,056 17,700,769 42,674,418 12 0.013 0.037
2020...................... 630 31587,277 11,964,431 20,965,215 12 0.019 0.063
2021...................... 787 31826,750 11,486,766 21,181,022 12 0.020 0.059
2022...................... 525 41870,916 13,402,016 22,890,679 12 0.024 0.065
2023...................... 526 31184,964 9,012,722 14,457,180 12 0.025 0.070
2024...................... 467 31289,506 9,590,236 12,066,417 12 0.031 0.092
2025...................... 520 51079,522 13,293,475 19,579,664 12 0.030 0.078
Total........................... 19,368 $ 77,460,500 $ 191,593,872 486,186,964 12 $ 0.018 $ 0.046
Holiday Lighting
2008...................... 14 28,782 73,108 259,092 10 0.014 0.035
2009...................... 32 33,930 72,874 142,109 10 0.031 0.066
2010...................... 25 46,132 65,308 248,865 10 0.024 0.034
2011...................... 6 2,568 2,990 66,189 10 0.004 0.005
Total........................... 77 $ 111,412 $ 214,280 716,255 10 $ 0.020 $ 0.038
Oregon Commercial Audit
2002...................... 24 5,200 5,200
2003...................... 21 4,000 4,000
2004...................... 7 0 0
2005...................... 7 5,450 5,450
2006...................... 6
2007...................... 1,981 1,981
2008...................... 58 58
2009...................... 41 20,732 20,732
2010...................... 22 5,049 5,049
2011...................... 12 13,597 13,597
2012...................... 14 12,470 12,470
2013...................... 18 5,090 5,090
2014...................... 16 9,464 9,464
2015...................... 17 4,251 4,251
2016...................... 7 7,717 7,717
2017...................... 13 8,102 8,102
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 16

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2025
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs,
Annual Energy Peak Demand Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost Resource Cost (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2018...................... 0 1,473 1,473
2019...................... 11 7,262 7,262
2020...................... 2 1,374 1,374
2021...................... 3 4,401 4,401
2022...................... 12 7,493 7,493
2023...................... 7 6,402 6,402
2024...................... 4 6,419 6,419
2025...................... 5 9,249 9,249
Total........................... 257 $ 147,235 $ 147,235
Oregon School Efficiency
2005...................... 86 86
2006...................... 6 24,379 89,771 223,368 12 0.012 0.044
Total........................... 6 $ 24,465 $ 89,857 223,368 12 $ 0.012 $ 0.044
Small Business Direct Install
2020...................... 139 339,830 339,830 780,260 9 0.058 0.058
2021...................... 452 1,032,056 1,032,056 2,421,842 11 0.062 0.062
2022...................... 680 11345,429 1,345,429 3,228,366 11 0.049 0.049
2023...................... 166 366,674 366,674 791,512 11 0.055 0.055
Total........................... 1,437 $ 3,083,989 $ 3,083,989 7,221,979 11 $ 0.051 $ 0.051
Small Business Lighting
2024...................... 9 45,700 49,843 22,967 12 0.230 0.251
2025...................... 101 320,511 391,717 663,044 12 0.056 0.068
Total........................... 110 $ 366,211 $ 441,560 686,011 12 $ 0.062 $ 0.074
Industrial
Custom Projects
2003...................... 1,303 1,303
2004...................... 1 112,311 133,441 211,295 12 0.058 0.069
2005...................... 24 1,128,076 3,653,152 12,016,678 12 0.010 0.033
2006...................... 40 11625,216 4,273,885 19,211,605 12 0.009 0.024
2007...................... 49 31161,866 7,012,686 29,789,304 3.6 12 0.012 0.026
2008...................... 101 4,045,671 16,312,379 41,058,639 4.8 12 0.011 0.044
2009...................... 132 61061,467 10,848,123 51,835,612 6.7 12 0.013 0.024
2010...................... 223 81778,125 17,172,176 71,580,075 9.5 12 0.014 0.027
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 17

k*46
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2025
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand° Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2011...................... 166 8,783,811 19,830,834 67,979,157 7.8 12 0.012 0.026
2012...................... 126 71092,581 12,975,629 54,253,106 7.6 12 0.012 0.021
2013...................... 73 2,466,225 5,771,640 21,370,350 2.4 12 0.010 0.024
2014...................... 131 7,173,054 13,409,922 50,363,052 5.6 12 0.013 0.024
2015...................... 160 91012,628 20,533,742 55,247,192 6.3 11 0.016 0.035
2016...................... 196 7,982,624 16,123,619 47,518,871 16 0.013 0.026
2017...................... 170 81679,919 17,279,117 44,765,354 16 0.015 0.029
2018...................... 248 81808,512 16,112,540 46,963,690 16 0.014 0.026
2019...................... 257 11,879,873 24,590,176 70,433,920 15 0.013 0.027
2020...................... 169 18,059,396 41,604,451 94,006,717 15 0.018 0.042
2021...................... 135 81608,903 22,552,383 53,728,267 13 0.017 0.044
2022...................... 106 8,919,927 25,715,468 56,157,060 13 0.017 0.049
2023...................... 95 11,359,176 26,228,419 60,667,088 14 0.019 0.044
2024...................... 126 9,579,826 26,542,318 60,076,877 14 0.017 0.046
2025...................... 135 10,095,942 30,505,960 60,037,800 10 0.022 0.066
Total........................... 2,863 $ 163,416,430 $ 379,181,042 1,069,271,709 13 $ 0.017 $ 0.039
Green Motors Rewind—Industrial
2016...................... 14 123,700 7
2017...................... 13 143,976 7
2018...................... 25 64,167 7
2019...................... 12 117,223 8
2020...................... 10 56,012 8
2021...................... 4 12,172 20,430 8
2022...................... 9 3,424 19,851 8
2023...................... 17 11,915 63,538 8
2024...................... 3 2,118 7,990 8 n/a n/a
Total........................... 107 $ 0 $ 29,629 616,886 7
Irrigati
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
2003...................... 2 41,089 54,609 36,792 0.0 15 0.106 0.141
2004...................... 33 120,808 402,978 802,812 0.4 15 0.014 0.048
2005...................... 38 150,577 657,460 1,012,883 0.4 15 0.014 0.062
2006...................... 559 2,779,620 8,514,231 16,986,008 5.1 8 0.024 0.073
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 18

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2025
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costsa
Annual Energy Peak Demand" Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2007...................... 816 2,001,961 8,694,772 12,304,073 3.4 8 0.024 0.103
2008...................... 961 2,103,702 5,850,778 11,746,395 3.5 8 0.026 0.073
2009...................... 887 21293,896 6,732,268 13,157,619 3.4 8 0.026 0.077
2010...................... 753 2,200,814 6,968,598 10,968,430 3.3 8 0.030 0.096
2011...................... 880 21360,304 13,281,492 13,979,833 3.8 8 0.020 0.113
2012...................... 908 21373,201 11,598,185 12,617,164 3.1 8 0.022 0.110
2013...................... 995 2,441,386 15,223,928 18,511,221 3.0 8 0.016 0.098
2014...................... 1,128 2,446,507 18,459,781 18,463,611 4.6 8 0.016 0.119
2015...................... 902 11835,711 9,939,842 14,027,411 1.6 8 0.016 0.085
2016...................... 851 2,372,352 8,162,206 15,673,513 8 0.018 0.063
2017...................... 801 2,475,677 8,382,962 16,824,266 8 0.018 0.060
2018...................... 1,022 2,953,706 11,948,469 18,933,831 8 0.019 0.076
2019...................... 1,080 2,661,263 10,042,514 10,073,455 8 0.032 0.120
2020...................... 1,018 3,401,673 16,857,055 12,847,823 15 0.025 0.125
2021...................... 1,019 2,607,200 19,138,043 9,680,497 19 0.023 0.166
2022...................... 519 21080,027 14,083,686 6,937,855 18 0.027 0.179
2023...................... 643 1,708,967 14,744,378 4,558,425 12 0.042 0.361
2024...................... 628 11653,465 14,165,961 4,289,877 16 0.037 0.321
2025...................... 696 21183,783 20,939,267 5,400,154 13 0.044 0.426
Total........................... 17,139 $ 47,247,689 $ 244,839,046 249,833,948 9 $ 0.027 $ 0.138
Green Motors Rewind—Irrigation
2016...................... 23 73,617 19
2017...................... 27 63,783 19
2018...................... 26 67,676 19
2019...................... 34 44,705 20
2020...................... 23 36,147 20
2021...................... 12 87,254 19,352 21
2022...................... 6 5,634 16,951 23
2023...................... 4 1,911 4,463 21
2024...................... 0 0 0 0 21 0.000 0.000
Total........................... 155 $ 0 $ $94,799 326,693 20
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 19

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2025
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand" Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
Other Programs
Building Operator Training
2003...................... 71 48,853 48,853 1,825,000 5 0.006 0.006
2004...................... 26 43,969 43,969 650,000 5 0.014 0.014
2005...................... 7 1,750 4,480 434,167 5 0.001 0.002
Total........................... 104 94,572 97,302 2,909,167 5 0.007 0.007
Comprehensive Lighting
2011...................... 2,404 2,404
2012...................... 64,094 64,094
Total........................... $ 66,498 $ 66,498
Distribution Efficiency Initiative
2005...................... 21,552 43,969
2006...................... 24,306 24,306
2007...................... 8,987 8,987
2008...................... -1,913 -1,913
Total........................... $ 52,932 $ 75,349
DSM Direct Program Overhead
2007...................... 56,909 56,909
2008...................... 169,911 169,911
2009...................... 164,957 164,957
2010...................... 117,874 117,874
2011...................... 210,477 210,477
2012...................... 285,951 285,951
2013...................... 380,957 380,957
2014...................... 478,658 478,658
2015...................... 272,858 272,858
2016...................... 293,039 293,039
2017...................... 11759,352 1,759,352
2018...................... 1,801,955 1,801,955
2019...................... 21119,820 2,119,820
2020...................... 1,811,869 1,811,869
2021...................... 2,226,910 2,226,910
2022...................... 21795,885 2,795,885
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 20

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2025
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs,
Annual Energy Peak Demand° Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2023...................... 21511,829 2,511,829
2024...................... 2,410,193 2,410,193
2025...................... 2,386,073 2,386,073
Total........................... $ 22,255,359 $ 22,255,359
Local Energy Efficiency Fund
2003...................... 56 5,100 5,100
2004...................... 23,449 23,449
2005...................... 2 14,896 26,756 78,000 10 0.024 0.042
2006...................... 480 3,459 3,459 19,027 7 0.009 0.009
2007...................... 1 7,520 7,520 9,000 7 0.135 0.135
2008...................... 2 22,714 60,100 115,931 0.0 15 0.019 0.049
2009...................... 1 5,870 4,274 10,340 0.0 12 0.064 0.047
2010...................... 1 251 251 0.0
2011...................... 1 1,026 2,052 2,028 30 0.035 0.070
2012......................
2013......................
2014...................... 1 9,100 9,100 95,834 18
Total........................... 545 $ 93,385 $ 142,061 330,160 14 $ 0.029 $ 0.044
Other C&RD and CRC BPA
2002...................... 55,722 55,722
2003...................... 67,012 67,012
2004...................... 108,191 108,191
2005...................... 101,177 101,177
2006...................... 124,956 124,956
2007...................... 31,645 31,645
2008...................... 6,950 6,950
Total........................... $ 495,654 $ 495,654
Residential Economizer Pilot
2011...................... 101,713 101,713
2012...................... 93,491 93,491
2013...................... 74,901 74,901
Total........................... $ 270,105 $ 270,105
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 21

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2025
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
Residential Education Initiative
2005...................... 7,498 7,498
2006...................... 56,727 56,727
2007......................
2008...................... 150,917 150,917
2009...................... 193,653 193,653
2010...................... 222,092 222,092
2011...................... 159,645 159,645
2012...................... 174,738 174,738
2013...................... 416,166 416,166
2014...................... 6,312 423,091 423,091 1,491,225 11
2015...................... 149,903 149,903
2016...................... 290,179 290,179
2017...................... 223,880 223,880
2018...................... 172,215 172,215
2019...................... 160,851 160,851
2020...................... 223,731 223,731
2021...................... 483,067 483,067
2022...................... 300,175 300,175
2023...................... 371,316 371,316
2024...................... 313,680 313,680
2025...................... 245,239 245,239
Total........................... $ 4,738,763 $ 4,738,763 1,491,225
Solar 411 Schools
2009...................... 45,522 45,522
Total........................... $ 45,522 $ 45,522
Market Transformation
Consumer Electronic Initiative
2009...................... 160,762 160,762
Total........................... $ 160,762 $ 160,762
NEEA
2002...................... 11286,632 1,286,632 12,925,450
2003...................... 1,292,748 1,292,748 11,991,580
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 22

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2025
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs,
Annual Energy Peak Demand Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2004...................... 1,256,611 1,256,611 13,329,071
2005...................... 476,891 476,891 16,422,224
2006...................... 930,455 930,455 18,597,955
2007...................... 893,340 893,340 28,601,410
2008...................... 942,014 942,014 21,024,279
2009...................... 968,263 968,263 10,702,998
2010...................... 21391,217 2,391,217 21,300,366
2011...................... 31108,393 3,108,393 20,161,728
2012...................... 31379,756 3,379,756 19,567,984
2013...................... 3,313,058 3,313,058 20,567,965
2014...................... 31305,917 3,305,917 26,805,600
2015...................... 21582,919 2,582,919 23,038,800
2016...................... 21676,387 2,676,387 24,352,800
2017...................... 21698,756 2,698,756 24,440,400
2018...................... 21500,165 2,500,165 25,666,800
2019...................... 21721,070 2,721,070 18,368,135
2020 ..................... 21789,210 2,789,210 17,614,323
2021...................... 21977,678 2,977,678 16,818,788
2022 ..................... 21789,937 2,789,937 24,125,402
20231..................... 2,726,302 2,726,302 23,914,101
2024...................... 31372,515 3,372,515 24,501,179
2025...................... 3,395,482 3,395,482 27,707,390
Total........................... $ 54,775,716 $ 54,775,716 492,546,728
2002...................... 1,932,520 2,366,591 16,791,100 0.0
2003...................... 21566,228 3,125,572 18,654,343 0.0
2004...................... 31827,213 4,860,912 19,202,780 6.5
2005...................... 6,523,348 10,383,577 37,978,035 43.9
2006...................... 11,174,181 20,950,110 67,026,303 43.6
2007...................... 14,896,816 27,123,018 91,145,357 57.9
2008...................... 20,213,216 44,775,829 128,508,579 74.3
2009...................... 33,821,062 53,090,852 143,146,365 235.5
2010...................... 44,643,541 68,981,324 193,592,637 357.7
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 23

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2025
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs'
Annual Energy Peak Demand Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2011...................... 44,877,117 79,436,532 183,476,312 415.2
2012...................... 47,991,350 77,336,341 172,054,327 448.8
2013...................... 26,100,091 54,803,353 109,505,690 54.5
2014...................... 35,648,260 71,372,414 145,475,713 389.7
2015...................... 37,149,893 70,467,082 162,533,155 374.5
2016...................... 40,499,570 70,984,604 170,792,152 379.0
2017...................... 44,828,089 78,799,054 191,471,395 383.0
2018...................... 42,926,872 75,797,483 184,078,634 358.7
2019...................... 47,390,056 83,661,890 203,301,810 332.5
2020...................... 49,354,064 100,230,772 198,432,599 336.0
2021...................... 37,056,897 79,194,093 142,920,507 312.8
2022...................... 41,456,433 82,964,848 169,565,800 199.7
2023...................... 40,935,045 77,886,062 139,683,196 240.2
2024...................... 38,097,058 79,201,984 143,599,094 257.4
2025...................... 41,829,821 96,300,381 153,099,202 161.5
Total Direct Program.............................. $ 755,742,742 $ 1,414,382,699 3,187,610,587
Indirect Program Expenses
DSM Overhead and Other Indirect
2002...................... 128,855
2003...................... -41,543
2004...................... 142,337
2005...................... 177,624
2006...................... 309,832
2007...................... 765,561
2008...................... 980p3O5
2009...................... 1,025,704
2010...................... 1,189,310
2011...................... 1,389,135
2012...................... 1,335,509
2013...................... $741,287
2014...................... 1,065,072
2015...................... 11891,042
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 24

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2025
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs,
Annual Energy Peak Demand' Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2016...................... 2,263,893
2017...................... 2,929,407
2018...................... 1,335,208
2019...................... 1,194,640
2020...................... 1,202,238
2021...................... 1,296,605
2022...................... 11507,146
2023...................... 1,044,428
2024...................... 21069,530
2025...................... 1,197,320
Total........................... $ 27,140,446
2002...................... 21061,375
2003...................... 21528,685
2004...................... 31969,550
2005...................... 61700,972
2006...................... 111484,013
2007...................... 15,662,377
2008...................... 211193,521
2009...................... 34,846,766
2010...................... 45,832,851
2011...................... 46,266,252
2012...................... 49,326,859
2013...................... 26,841,378
2014...................... 36,713,333
2015...................... 39,040,935
2016...................... 42,763,463
2017...................... 47,757,496
2018...................... 44,262,080
2019...................... 48,584,696
2020...................... 50,556,303
2021...................... 38,353,503
2022...................... 42,963,579
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 25

Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2025
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Levelized Costs,
Annual Energy Peak Demand Measure Life Total Utility Total Resource
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost' Resource Cost` (kWh) (MW) (Years) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
2023...................... 41,979,473
2024...................... 40,166,589
2025...................... 43,027,141
Total 2002-2025........ $ 782,883,188
a Levelized Costs are based on financial inputs from IPC's 20251ntegrated Resource Plan and calculations include line loss adjusted energy savings.
b The Total Utility Cost is all cost incurred by IPC to implement and manage a DSM program.
`The Total Resource Cost is the total expenditures for a DSM program from the point of view of IPC and its customers as a whole.
Peak Demand is reported for programs that directly reduce load or measure demand reductions during summer peak season.
Peak demand reduction for demand response programs is reported at the generation level assuming line losses of 9.7%before 2023,and 7.6%starting in 2023,and 6.0%in 2024.
Savings are preliminary funder share estimates.Final results will be provided by NEEA in April 2026.
Demand-Side Management 2025 Annual Report Page 26

Utility
Analytics C
Adaptive Consumer Engagement
Idaho Power Corporation
Home Energy Report 2025
Final Program Summary
Version 1.6
Updated: 3/6/2026
H A R R I S
U CA I CO NSUMER
ANALYTICS
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Pagel of40

Table of Contents
Executive Summary 4
1. Project Overview 4
2. 2025: Summary of Results and Findings 6
3. Program Attrition 11
1. Program Overview 15
1.1 Team Structure 15
1.2 Objectives 15
1.2.1 Program Objectives 15
1.2.2 Additional Objectives 15
1.3 Eligibility Screening 15
1.3.1 Eligibility Screening 16
1.4 Evaluation,Measurement,&Verification Process 18
1.5 Customer Data Integration 20
1.6 Benchmarking Flags 21
1.7 Overview of Segmentation Used for 2025 Improving Tip Selection 22
1.8 Key Decisions 22
1.9 Vendor History 23
2. 2025 Program Results Detail 24
2.1 Objectives:Findings 24
2.1.1 Energy Savings 24
2.1.2 Year-to-Date Average Savings Per Customer By Treatment Group 26
2.1.3 2025 Combined Savings for Expansion Participants (T6)Vs.Pilot Participants (171234)
&T7 26
2.2 Email Reports 26
2.2.1 Delivery,Open,and Bounce Rates 27
2.3 Additional Metrics 27
o 2.3.1 Attrition Rate Detail 27
3. Process Improvements,Lessons Learned,and Future Considerations 29
3.1 Process Improvements 29
3.2 Lessons Learned 29
3.3 Future Considerations 30
4. Appendices 31
4.1 Appendix A: Sample Home Energy Reports 31
4.1.1 A 1. Sample eHER and HERS 2025 — 31
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 2 of40

Revision History
�® Description Author/Editor
1/5/2026 1.0 Initial Review of Data Needed Kristen Karls, Isabel
Aschbacher and Audra
Be 11
2/1/2026 1.1 Draft write up Kristen Karls
2/23/2026 1.2 Final review &delivery Isabel Aschbacher
3/1/2026 1.3 IPC Review Landon Barber
Feedback incorporated and document
3/3/2026 1.4 Kristen Karls
updated
3/4/2026 1.5 Feedback from Mindi Shodeen Mindi Shodeen
Feedback incorporated and document
3/5/2026 1.6 Kristen Karls
updated
Document Approval
This section acknowledges approvalof the information presented within. Please use the track
changes feature to indicate anychanges necessarybefore the plan can be approved. When ready
to approve,please indicate the version number being approved and complete the fields below.
This Idaho Power Company Home Energy Report 2025 Final Program Summary,version 1,
approved by:
Client Name:
Name,Title:
Signature
Date:
Client Name:
Name,Title:
Signature:
Date:
Ut ilit y
Consumer
Analytics,Inc.
Name,Title
Signature:
Date:
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 3 of40

Executive Summary
1. PROJECT OVERVIEW
Energy savings due to behavioral changes in the home have traditionally been difficult to measure.
Home Energy Report (HER)programs rely on a randomized controlled trial(RCT)structure to
calculate energy savings and ensure program results are both unbiased and precise. The RCT
approach is the most commonly used approach for implementing HERprograms in North America.
With this approach,we identify an eligible pool of customers based on the desired program
outcome and then randomly allocate a subset of customers into the treatment group who will
receive the behavioral intervention (Home Energy Reports)and the remainder into the control
group who will not receive the intervention.
We estimate average customer-level savings from the behavioral program by measuring the
difference in the average energy usage among the treatment group relative to the control group.
Program energy savings are the average customer-level savings multiplied by the number of active
treatment group participants.
Filters applied to identify customers who may participate in the program are based on
recommendations from the vendor,as well as Idaho Power's experience and pilot learnings.Due to
Oregon's small customer base,Idaho Power's (IPC)HERprogram is currently available only in Idaho.
Program Group refers to customers in the treatment group who are actively being treated with
reports. These customers,by default,are also part of the evaluation group.
Evaluation Group refers to customers in the treatment or control group and is factored into the
savings evaluations. Treatment customers in this group may or may not be actively receiving
reports. Customers in the treatment group but not in the program group remain in the treatment
group to maintain the RCTbut are not actively treated for a variety of reasons discussed later in
section 3 of the report.
Customers in the evaluation group are broken into treatment and corresponding control groups.
• Tl: customers with high winter use (electric heating)added in 2017
• T2: customers with high winter use (electric heating)added in 2018
• T3: customers with high year-round energy use added in 2017
• T4: customers with medium year-round energy use added in 2017
• T5: customers with low year-round energy use added in 2017.
o Note:these customers were removed from the program in 2020 and received their last
report in February202O
• T6: expansion of customers based on eligibility criteria after the pilot added in 2020
• T7: expansion of customers based on eligibility criteria after the pilot added in 2025
The table below shows the number of customers in the treatment,control,and program groups at
the beginning and end of2025. Customers are removed from both groups when theymove out.
Table 1:2025RCTand Program Group Participant Counts
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 4 of40

Treatment Control Program
MMM
�� M
on
MM
MM � Rate
6,632 6,361 271 4.09% 1,509 1,446 63 4.17% 8,141 7,807 334 4.10%
1
5,226 4,998 228 4.36% 827 791 36 4.35% 6,053 5,789 264 4.36%
7,104 6,829 275 3.87% 3,368 3,280 88 2.61% 10,472 rIO, 9 363 3.47%
3,411 3,284 127 3.72% 2,394 2,298 96 4.01% 5,805 5,582 223 3.84%
5,832 5,540 292 5.01% 68,125 64,996 3129 4.59% 73,957 70,536 3,421 4.63%
98,802 95,075 3,727 3.77% 14,602 14,045 557 3.81% 113,404 109,120 4,284 3.78%
32,048 30,717 1,331 4.15% 25,000 24,027 973 3.89% 57,048 54,744 2,304 4.04%
159,055 152,804 6,251 3.93% 115,825 110,883 4,942 4.27% 274,880 263,687 11,193 4.07%
*TS stopped receiving reports in 2020,so theyare no longer in the Program Group.Residual sa vings from
TSare still calculated for the PSR so Treatment and Control counts are still tracked.
The Home Energy Reports included the following elements:
• Customer information: Customer
name,address,and account .
number
• Household energy-usage
disaggregation:Home usage is , " � 1
separated into four loads (heating,
air conditioning,lights & ;.` ,e
appliances and always-on)
• Targeted message(s):Customized
messaging to drive customers to
relevant programs and the My
Accountportal
• Social benchmarks:Customer's " '--
home energy use compared to
similar homes and efficient homes,designed to motivate ---_-
savings
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 5 of40

• Personalized savings recommendations: Tips for saving energy based on home
profile attributes,customer segmentation,and season
Table 2—202S Report Delivery Schedule by Cohort
2025
• @ @ (us
@ @ a
• @ @ @
• @ @ @
• (a • (t
• • (ai
2. 2025:SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Main takeaways from 2025 are as follows.
Savings
The total savings calculated for 2025 are 20,598,227 kWh. Collectively,the savings for all waves
combined are statistically significant except for T1.Although T5 did not receive reports after
February 2020,when compared with their control group,they showed persistent savings. Excluding
the savings from T1,the program's overall annual 2025 savings are 20,598,227 kWh.
Table 3:202SProgram Savings byT-Croups
EnergyCumulative
Average
Number TG Savings in i months, Percent
Customers per Customer 1 households,kWh�l Savings Significance
4,247 88 373,294 0.43% N
3,715 248 919,784 1.27% Y
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 6 of40

4,430 222 981,866 1.52% Y
2,060 470 968,767 4.41% Y
3,382 36 122,213 0.50% Y
75,631 218 16,491,084 1.52% Y
32,066 23 741,218 0.39% Y
125,531 164 20,598,227 1.33% Y
Notes on Table 3:Data attrition accounts for the difference between treated participants and bills
evaluated. Savings metrics are con tingen t upon bill a vaila bility,•h o we ver, treatment group membership
persists until an in activityflagis triggered.Athree month billing gap triggers an automatic "timeout"by
Uplight, creatmga standard delta between the treatment census and the evalu able data set.
Table 4:202SHome FnergyReports Delivered in 2025
:� Total
Paper aper Reports
b � � • i • i Ell
Jan 2025 All 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
i
Feb 2025 All 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mar 2025 All 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1
Apr 2025 All 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
May 2025 All 24,296 75,247 138 51,089 50,951 126,336 75,385
Jun 2025 All 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Jul 2025 All 6,138 6,138 10,458 10,458 16,596 16,596
I
Aug 2025 All 23,265 74,393 10,171 61,2991 51128 135,692 84,564
i
Sep 2025 All 51,047 51,047�� 51,047 51,047
Oct 2025 All 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F Nov 2025 All �� 0 0 0 0 0
Dece 025 All 0 01 0 0 01 0
2025 Report Totals 55,699 157,778 71,814 173,893 102,079 331,671 229,592
Notes on Table 4:
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 7 of40

• Total Reports Delivered is calculated byaddingemailsent*paper mailed.
• Uniquely treated accounts are those who were uniquelytreated in a month.Ifa customer
received both an email and paper they will only be counted one time.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 8 of40

Table S.•Year-Over-Year Home Fnergy Reports Delivered
Both
Em ail Only Paper Only and Email # of Program
Programits Reports Sent Reports Sent Reports Sent Participants
0 ' 0
(2017-2018) Tl,T3,T4,T5 N/A 149,546 N/A 23,914
RIM ' TTl,T2,T3,T4,
(2018-2019) T5 N/A 116,087 N/A 24,976
Tl,T2,T3,T4,
1 1 T5,T6 257 488,545 N/A 127,313
T1,T2,T3,T4,
1 T6 507 445,334 N/A 115,153
Tl,T2,T3,T4,
1 T6 578 406,587 98,570 104,826
Tl,T2,T3,T4,
1 T6 540 196,650 180,921 96,955
T1,T2,T3,T4,
1 T6 121,213 126,631 90,956
T1,T2,T3,T4,
1 T6,T7 71814 55,699 102,079 125,531
Total . •
Delivered 73,696 1,979,661 508,201
Notes on Table 5:
• 72 was launched in Yea r2 of Pilot
• Fin a ilrep orts launched at the beginning of2019
• 75 was discontinued in 2020. The lastreport theyreceived was in February2O2O
• 761aunched in May2020, and customers received the firstreport in.Tune 2020
• In August of2022, we expanded emaillE?Ls(elms)to all customers with an email a ddress.
• IPCpulled Total Reports Delivered data for Year ofPilot(20172018)and Year2(20182019)
• Uplightpulled Total Reports Delivered Data for 2020,2021,2022,2023,2024 and 2025
• T7 was launched in the middle of2025
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 9 of40

Email HER-Specific Statistics
2025 Email Campaign Performance Summary
The 2025 email campaign demonstrated exceptional technical health and list integrity.
Performance against industry benchmarks is outlined below:
Metric 2025 Performance Benchmark/ Status
Delivery Rate 95.1% Strong (Target:>90%)
Unique Open Rate 14.1% Below Benchmark(Target:25-40%)
Note:while open rate is relative to email
benchmarks,email is a secondary
channel for HER delivery.
Bounce Rate 0.27% Excellent (Target:<2.0%)
Unsubscribe Rate 0.17% Very Healthy(Target:0.1-0.5%)
Click-to-Open (CTOR) 4.9% Can be optimized through content
updates.
Table 6.• Unsubscribes over 2025
Unsubscribes* (percent of total
�. (count) delivered)
May 1, 125 -May 31,2025 2 I 0%
Jun 1, 1 1 2025 61 0.10%
125 -Jul 31,2025 11 0%
Aug 1, 125 -Aug 31,2025 6 0.06%
Sep 1, 1 1 2025 81 0.10%
Oct1 Oct1 111 0.20%
Nov 1, 1 1 20250%
Dec1 Dec1 2 0%
* Unsubscribe (Action):The user clicks "unsubscribe"in an email to stop receiving content.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 10 of40

Key Insights &Strategic Analysis
1. High-Integrity Deliverability&List Health
The campaign maintained superior list hygiene throughout 2025.Abounce rate of 0.27%and an
unsubscribe rate of0.17%confirm that the audience is well-vetted and the suppression protocols
are functioning at a high level.
To protect our sender reputation,the following automated suppressions were successfully
processed:
• Bounce/Invalid Drops:4,037
• Spam Report Drops: 544
• Unsubscribe Drops*:2,042
*Unsubscribe Drop (Metric/Event):Asystem event where the email service provider(ESP)
identifies a previously unsubscribed user,records a "drop"event,and prevents the email
from being sent to maintain compliance and reduce spam complaints.
2. The Engagement Gap:Open Rate Analysis
While technical delivery is optimized,recipient engagement remains the primary challenge. The
14.1%open rate falls below the 25%threshold typically seen in utility communications. This
suggests a disconnect between the "hibox Presence"and "Recipient Interest,"likely driven by:
• Subject line fatigue or lack of urgency.
• Inbox Throttling &Categorization.
• AI summaries allowing for customers to not need to open.
• Aperception of the content as "not needed"rather than "essential utility."
3. Content Conversion &CTOR Optim ization
The 4.9%Click-to-Open Rate (CTOR)indicates that even when users engage with the email,the
internal content is not driving enough action. Analysis points to three critical areas for 2026
refinement:
• CTAClarity:Identifying and simplifying the 'Primary Ask"within the creative.
• Value Proposition: Ensuring a stronger "hook" above the fold.
• Mobile Experience:Auditing the rendering of links and buttons on mobile devices to ensure
a seamless user journey.
The 2025 data confirms a legitimate,stable,and high-quality audience base. The focus for the
upcoming year should pivot from "Delivery"to "Retention and Resonance"transforming a passive
audience into an active one through A/B testing of creative elements and subject line strategies.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 11 of40

3. PROGRAM ATTRITION
Attrition Rates
The attrition rate measures the number of people removed from the HERprogram due to not
meeting program requirements (as specified below). The attrition rate in 2025 was roughly 4%,with
a total of 11,193 customers who moved. These customers were removed due to move-outs (affects
both the Program and Evaluation Groups)and/or one of the following reasons: incompatible
location type*,incompatible property type**,or unsupported rate code***.
Move-out removals affect the Evaluation Group (both treatment and control). Other types of
permanent removals,including customers who opt out of the program,remain in the evaluation
group to maintain the balance of the RCT even though they no longer receive reports.
*Customers with zip codes outside of the geographicparameters for similar home comparisons or those
categorized as rnsuflicient location benchmarking are verified as incompatible locations.
**Pilot customers whose home types are single-familyhomes ormanufactured homes are eligible to
receive reports.For T6, only customers whose home type is single familyhomes are eligible to receive
reports.All other home types are considered incompatiblepropertytypes.
***Customers whose rate code is 106(Residential Service On-Site Generation/solar).
Table 7.•Move out attrition Rate for2025
Treatment Control Program
Net Attrition Net Attrition
Diff Rate MM Diff Rate
[6,632 6,361 271 4.09% 1,509 1,446 63 4.17% 8,141 7,807 334 4.10%
5,226 4,998 228 4.36% 827 791 36 4.35% 6,053 5,789 264 4.36%
7,104 6,829 275 3.87% 3,368 3,280 88 2.61% 10,472 10,109 363 3.47%
3,411 3,284 127 3.72% 2,394 2,298 96 4.01% 5,805 5,582 223 3.84%
I I
5,832 5,540 292 5.01% 68,125 64,996 3,129 4.59% 73,957 70,536 3,421 4.63%
98,802 95,075 3,727 3.77% 14,602 14,045 557 3.81% 113,404 109,120 4,284 3.78%
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 12 of40

32,048 30,717 1,331 4.15% 25,000 24,027 973 3.89% 57,048 54,744 2,304 4.04%
i 159,055 152,804 6,251 3.93% 115,825 110,883 4,942 4.27% 274,880 263,687 11,193 4.07%
1 1
Notes on Table 7.•Data attrition accounts for the difference between treated participants and bills
evaluated. Savings metrics are con tingen t upon bill a vaila bility,•h o we ver, treatment group membership
persists until an in activityflagis triggered.Athreemonth billing gap triggers an automatic "timeout"by
Uplight, creating standard delta between the treatment census and the evaluable data set.
Table 8:Year Over Year Opt Out Attrition
Opt-Out OverallMove
Count • • Out i '
20181 172 0.64% 12%
2019 66 0.22% 15.15%
1 1 154 0.10% 9.40%
1 138 0.12% 7.82%
1 106 0.08% 6.92%
1 69 0.05% 4.83%
1 158 0.17% 1.17%
1 9' 0.10% 4.07%
Year Over Year Savings Comparisons
Table 9:Year Over Year Sa vings Comparisons
1 N/A LINA 1 3,281,780 23,914
1 N/A NA 8,444,746 24,976
1 1 1,445,666 1,734,800 1,237,313 881,080 67,831 5,017,703 NA 10,427,940 127,138
1 183,325 981,868 1,378,427 740,448 100,575 13,382,802 NA 16,767,446 115,153
1 781,761 238,339 1,113,894 612,969 259,616 17,728,033 NA 20,734,611 104,826
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 13 of40

1 49,817 729,671 1,152,330 464,21 269,686 15,071,413 NA 17,737,130 99,132
1 624,787 491,160 1,543,839 546,573 176,246 15,296,185 NA 18,678,790 98,119
1 373,294 919,784 981,866 968,767 122,213 16,491,084 741,218 20,598,227 125,531
i
Notes on Table 9:
• 2018 2019 savings and participant counts were sourced from IPO DSMReports and/or Pilot
Program Summ a ryReports(PSR). Only the aggregate sa virlgs for 77 -TS were pulled.
• TS transitioned to residual savings starting in March 2020.
• 76)aunabed in 2020,
• 77launched in 2025.
• Note: We noticed swings in aggregate savings for TI and 72.L&elycaused by moving onto the
new Uplightplatform and then being able to leverage that savings model.
Figure 1:Yearly Aggrega te Savings
it
1
V7
TT1Y, 'I'I I 11 v,1441�}�n�h�•�.�,+�:V ,,,..��; Fer ,•'�,�"���1��3'`�l( �'i -
• YY Y .Y.:'- / �A11.'ii�t"'iL-'6'"'ram �.r`.r.,a t"�1 i ,-. • _ -
Figure 2.Yearly Average kRh Sa vings Per Customer
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 14 of40

S�CI. � aE�Lti
r
i
r�^w
TV TY- - . . T' T1 T5 T- � T-.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 15 of40

1 . Program
, Overview
1 . 1 Team Structure
Since 2017,the IPC Home Energy Report program has been a joint effort between Idaho Power
Company,Utility Consumer Analytics I N.Harris Computer Corporation (formerly Aclara),and
Uplight (formerly Ecotagious).Uplight acquired Ecotagious in July 2019,and in June 2021,N. Harris
Computer Corporation acquired Adaptive Consumer Engagement (ACE)from Aclara Technologies.
1 .2 Objectives
1.2.1 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
The following business requirements were captured during an onsite meeting on August 22,2019,
and documented in the contract as part of the design of this expansion from the pilot project:
• Maximize the totalkWh saved,ensuring a UCTof>1 (with a buffer),and maintain high
customer satisfaction levels.
• Meet cost-effectiveness guidelines from a Total Resource Cost (TRC)and UCTperspective.
o >1 UCT+buffer
• Maintain or enhance the current customer satisfaction levels.
o Maintain low opt-out rate
o Drive positive customer interactions
o Maintain low volume of program-related calls to the Customer Interaction Center
• Average annual savings of 1-3%
o So long as savings are detectable and statistically significant
• Encourage customer engagement with energy usage,including utilization of online tools
and lift for other EEprograms.
1.2.2 ADDITIONAL OBJECrI U
Monitor persistent savings of the T5 group
In the expansion program,T5 customers were removed from treatment because their overall usage
was low,and they had not achieved statistically significant savings in the pilot program. IPC would
like to continue to monitor their persistent savings going forward to determine if combining them
with the rest of the treatment population could yield additional combined savings. Because the T5
customers received reports through February 2020,the savings calculated using a difference-in-
difference methodology can be attributed to treatment in previous years.
IPC is working with its third-party consultant to identify an appropriate trigger to stop including T5
savings in the aggregate yearly savings estimate.
1 .3 Eligibility Screening
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 16 of40

1.3.1 ELIGIBILITY SCREENING
Eligibility screening for Tl,T3,T4,and T5 was initially conducted in year one, and these groups
persisted into year two.
Eligibility screening for T2 was conducted in year one with the Tl group;however,heating source
data for these customers was
Table 10: 2020 Expansion
unavailable until year two,at
which time they were re-
Idaho only Required Idaho service addresses
AMIDeta Required AMldata
evaluated for eligibility. Active only Removed all accounts without>32 months
active history
The eligibility criteria applied Individual only Filtered out all non-individual accounts
Exclude Do Not Contact Filtered out do not contact list
in years one and two were Net Metering and Master metered accounts(103) Removed all Net Metering and Master
also used in year three to metered accounts(103)
determine the eligible Exclude non-English Removed all known language types other than
English
participants in the T6 group. Comparable homes only Removed homes built prior to 1860,or more
New criteria were added than 6 bathrooms,or more than 8 bedrooms,
b and homeswith<350*or>7000ft,
based on learrilrigS from the
Homes only Effectively excludes junk accounts(bam,shop,
p ilo t. garage,well,pump,etc.,etc.)
Exclude manufactured homes Excluded all manufactured homes
For the expansion in 2020,all Excludemuld-family Exclude Multi-family
Remove duplicates Remove duplicates
TS and CS customers were
removed from both
participation and eligibility based on savings results from the two-year pilot.Additionally,a third
party(DNV)randomly removed 29,369 customers from the control groups for Pilot waves 1,2,3,
and 4 to free them up for possible treatment in the expansion. The analysis by DNV-GL determined
how many customers could be removed from these control groups while still allowing for statistical
significance in calculating savings cumulatively across all treatment groups.
In Apri12020,eligibility screening was conducted to establish a new T6 group from the remaining
Idaho Power customers and those freed up from Cl,C2,C3,and C4.
Idaho Power scrubbed the initial count of customers and applied the following filters:
IPC Applied Filters are Shown in Table 11
The criteria for culling customers during eligibility screening are shown in Table 11.
In late 2020,an issue arose where the benchmarking group for several treatment customers fell
below the required threshold of 100 homes. Although adequate benchmarking was part of the
initial criteria,the size of the benchmarking group during eligibility screening had been set too low.
This issue created a situation where customers remaining in the program could potentially receive
sporadic reports and have a negative customer experience.As a result,the vendor and IPC made a
joint decision to remove participants with inadequate benchmarks from active treatment. At this
time,the vendor also confirmed those customers remaining in the treatment had enough homes in
their respective benchmarking groups to provide quality data for subsequent reporting periods
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 17 of40

Table]]: Criteria and Rationale for Pulling astomersDuringFEgibilityScreening
Priority
Order Criteria Filter Applied City Description
Provided by IPC;all customers with active status and AMI data for the
1 Initial Count 444,935 past 12 months.
Excluding Pilot T Groups and Excluding treatment and control customers carried over from pilot
2 C5 334,589 and all T5/C5 customers
Initial Count of Eligible
Customers Based on IPC Provided by IPC;all eligible customers after IPC scrubbed the
3 filters/scrub 171,923 population for using eligibility criteria'IPC Applied"
4 Active/MoveOut 167,812 No Longer Active and MoveOuts after 03012019
5 Sufficient Data(AMI,DST,XY) 166,412 AMI data complete for 13 months
Removed those with benchmarking data(home size and location)that
6 Benchmarking 165,204 caused them to have insufficient number of comparable home_
7 Floor Size 165,161 Non-zero and<7,000 SF
8 Bill Payer Occupied 148,029 Removed service zip codes that do not match billing zip c-
9 Negative Hourly AM1 147,935 Customers%vith negative AMI are likely to never see reports
10 >0 Usage Each Month 147,456 Every month should have some usage
11 Some kWh in past 9 months 146,161 163 kWh/month
12 Correct Rate Code 146,161
13 Remove Old VIPs 146,155
14 Savings Potential 108,500 Remove customers with less than 7,000 kWh of usage
15 Duplicates 108,498 2 duplicates removed
Customers that fall into a benchmarking cluster that does not have at
16 Additional Benchmarking 108,424 least 100 participants when AC flag is applied
Figure 3:Eligibility Funn el for 2020 Fxpansion
Year 3 Eligibility Funnel
Initial Count
Excluding Pilot T Groups an...
Initial Count of Eligible...
Active/MoveOut
Sufficient Data(AM[,DST,XY)
Benchmarking
Floor Size
Bill Payer Occupied
Negative Hourly AM[
>0 Usage Each Month
Some kWh in past 9 of past...
Remove Old VIPs and new...
Savings Potential
Duplicates
Additional Benchmaridng OF 77711111111
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 18 of40

17 expansion wave:
Purpose
Selects 100,000 customers (treatment+control)for IPC's 7th electric wave (T7)launching June 2025.
The process filters accounts to ensure they meet program requirements like sufficient billing
history,single-fuel households,and no participation in previous waves.
Key Workflow
1. Customer Selection Table
• Pull in the latest eligible new customers from the customer table
2. Eligibility Filtering
• Applies required filters: electric accounts only,active status, 11+months of data,single
location/meter,no existing wave participation
• Applies optional filters: single-family homes only,no HERflag
• Excludes customers from removal list (customers that should not be in the program
designated by previous interactions or preferences)
• Outputs eligible accounts and attrition file
Table 12: 77Selection
Total Number of Eligible
1 Total Number of Accounts 820,388 Accounts
account type ==ELECTRIC 509,835 Must be Electric Only
inactive flg==0 509,835 Customers that are active
Customers must have at least
sufficientl 1 flg= 1 1 424,415 11 bills
Can only have one meter at
non mastermeter== 1 421,332 the account location
Does not have multiple
location count= 1 296,727 locations
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 19 of40

electric meter count == 1 296,727 Must have one electric meter
Is not already in Tl-T6 or Cl-
not—in—current—wave 134,037 C6
electric adc>0 133,644 ADC is greater than zero
• exp_singlefam flag== 1 71,298 Home is single family
Excludes customers from
1 Removing accounts in Exclusion list 58,348 removal list
Removing accounts already Is not already in Tl-T6 or Cl-
11 selected in previous selection 58,348 C6
Final Output total wave size 100000 58,348 Final Wave Size
Average
Elect r ic ADC
Average Electric ADC 32.90 Average ADC
1 .4 Evaluation , Measurement , & Verification
Process
The treatment groups' energy savings were evaluated following standard industry-accepted
evaluation practices. The program was set up as a Randomized Control Trial(RCT),with a third
party(DNV-GL)randomly assigning the treatment and control groups. The evaluation employed a
difference-in-differences method,which allows for accurate evaluation of program-driven energy
savings.
Pilot Year One
In year one,appropriately sized treatment and control groups were created for each cohort,
assuming an attrition rate of 10 percent and allowing for statistically significant detection of energy
savings in excess of 1.2 percent in the treatment groups. To achieve this objective,all eligible
customers were placed in either the treatment or control group.
In year one,27,000 customers were identified as initial program participants.After considering
exclusionary factors such as move-ins/move-outs and removing some potential Tl participants due
to a lack of adequate county benchmarks,the sample size at the time of the first report was 25,677.
Pilot Year Two
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 20 of40

In year two,at the time the bimonthly and monthly groups were created,the total number of
customers in treatment groups was down to around 23,000,a net decrease from the previous year.
The changes made to the treatment groups were as follows:
1. The T2 group was added to the study.
2. Move-outs were removed from all EMVtreatment groups as a result of ongoing attrition
due to customers moving out over the course of year 1.
3. All groups were optimized to remove households with low savings potential.
The total number of customers in control groups in year two was 110,969 (down from 166,840 in
year one). The same changes made to the treatment groups were applied to the control groups:
1. Anew control group was created to accompany the new T2 group.
2. Move-outs were removed from all control groups,the result of ongoing attrition due to
customers moving out over the course of year 1.
3. The control groups were similarly optimized to remove households with low savings
potential.
Households where residents moved out during the evaluation period were taken out of both the
treatment and control groups for the purpose of measuring energy savings. Customers who opted
out or did not receive reports due to being marked non-deliverable by the National Change of
Address database were left in both the treatment and control groups for the purpose of measuring
energy savings.
2020 Expansion
The treatment customers from the pilot continued treatment (except T5),and a new treatment
group and new control group were created to expand the number of customers in treatment.After
the optimization of the existing treatment groups was complete,a total of 18,492 customers were
identified as pilot participants eligible for treatment in year three. The following changes were
made to the pilot treatment customers:
1. The T5 treatment group was removed from participation because this group showed the
lowest propensity to save energy during the pilot.
2. All remaining treatment customers from the pilot (years one and two)were moved to a
consolidated quarterly treatment schedule.
3. The C5 control group was removed from eligibility for treatment.
The following changes were made to the pilot control groups:
The Cl,C2,C3,and C4 control groups were reduced in size significantly. 75,973 customers were
randomly removed from these four control groups to free them up for inclusion in the T6
experimental design—that is freed up to be randomly allocated to T6 and C6 during the 2020
expansion. The number of customers removed from each control group was determined by DNV-
GLwith consideration given to the impact their removal would have on the statistical significance of
calculated savings across all treatment groups. See Table 9 for a record of the changes made to the
Cl,C2,C3,and C4 control groups.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 21 of40

Table 13: Reduction in Pilot Control Groups
Original
ControlGroup Size
Size
12,090 1,450
5,024 800
35,194 3,520
31,995 2,560
In the spring of 2020,a new wave was created,with 108,498 in the treatment group (T6)and 14,744
in the control group (C6)based on eligibility criteria applied to the remaining population.
2022 eHERExpansion
In August of2022,eHERs were expanded to all customers with email addresses. Customers in this
group received eHERs in addition to their standard paper reports. Before this,only customers who
had opted into eHERs received an eHER only. This substantially increased the number of eHERs
sent to each cycle. In 2021,before the expansion,a total of 507 eHERs were sent in the program
year. In 2022,that number increased to 99,148 (a combination of August and November cycles).
This increased to 181,461 in 2023 (a combination of all four cycles).
2025 T7 Expansion
In behavioral programs,some natural attrition is expected as customers move out of the service
territory or relocate.Abest practice is to replenish the program population when timing and
sample size allow,ensuring there are sufficient customers in both the treatment and control
groups.
In July 2025,a new wave was launched with approximately 33,353 customers in the treatment
group (T7)and 25,000 customers in the control group (C7),based on eligibility criteria applied to the
newly eligible population.
1 .5 Customer Data Integration
Home Profile Update (HPU) data continued to present challenges,even after the data became
more readily available from the external provider.Although the HPU files were successfully
ingested into Uplight systems,ongoing customer inquiries and internal quality checks indicated
persistent issues with downstream data usage. Subsequent investigation determined that HPU
data was not consistently being mapped to the appropriate systems on the Uplight side,resulting
in reports that could have contained incorrect or incomplete information.
In response,IPC and Uplight made the decision to pause report delivery while the root cause was
identified and remediated.Reports scheduled for October,November,and December 2025 were
held to prevent the dissemination of inaccurate information.After confirming that the data
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 22 of40

mapping and integration issues had been fully resolved,report delivery resumed,and the January
2026 eHERs were sent out.
Although the HPU file impacted only a small subset of the overall treatment population,those
customers were highly engaged,and maintaining program credibility and customer trust was a
priority.While the reporting pause created potential risk to savings targets and report delivery
milestones,the coordinated response ultimately improved data accuracy and reduced the
likelihood of future disruptions.Persistent savings of the program was strong and we still achieved
the savings goals for 2025.
This experience underscored the importance of reliable data pipelines,robust integration testing,
and formal validation procedures. Going forward,Uplight plans to strengthen data quality controls
and establish contingency protocols to ensure reporting continuity in the event of future data
delays or integration issues.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 23 of40

1 .6 Benchm arking Flags
Benchmarking flags are used to cluster customers based on similar home properties for the
purpose of calculating peer comparisons and identifying how each treatment customer's usage
compares to the average and efficient homes of similar properties.In the pilot program,the flags
used to identify benchmarking clusters were 1)Home Size (square feet),2)Home Type,and 3)Zip
Code. In the 2020 expansion,two additional flags were added,one for ESH and one for AC.
The program's benchmarking has been improved. The report highlights the main factors customers
should be aware of. square footage,year built,and heating type. The model also incorporates these
factors along with cooling fuel,electric vehicle ownership,dwelling type,latitude,and longitude.
Total consumption is layered into account for items like pools that can significantly impact
comparisons and weather adjustments. Peer comparisons are calculated at the household level for
each billing cycle and rely on resource-specific models trained using 12 months of historical billing
and temperature data.
Figure 4-Peer Comparison Section
O. y,j
F.
.��y•,�) r'� �tj f, r4:Irk Y �,�!v •.r
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 24 of40

-r,: ;I. F� .rSr. =F -�•lat6 ;1'tl '„t, r,f IJ
' 1. It1ci('•�ra°,;ll�r�lk;�tlil7°(ftt,i �a'"�1#"R�.1''4?11Q��11�C�j11}i}�rlr=1��4�P[rJ"4MrifY)�)���1[•�r�y".;1�}'�`'4iF��'ti�yY}�!� �l���i'��h�R�r'27Jrt.a'li�i ..
le�> t` ► «?�r �ldfltiw` ytfit � uis? vv�a?;f�tl + ,t� / ,crYtr ; ,�s;t' �� !M'
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 25 of40

1 .7 Overview of Segmentation Used for 2025
Improving Tip Selection
Idaho Power and Uplight are always on the lookout for new ways to keep report messaging
personalized and fresh. This is a good way to drive additional customer engagement with the intent
of increasing program savings and participation. hi 2025,the segmentation in Table 14 was used.
Table IS:Segmentation Used for 2025 Quarterly Hom e&ergy Reports
Report Cycle Fre e Formi i
May Service your AC Replace your HVAC Filters
June Service your AC Replace your HVAC Filters
July Update Home Profile Data NA-Double wide FFT
August Update Home Profile Data NA-Double wide FFT
September Update Home Profile Data NA-Double wide FFT
1 .8 Key Decisions
Included NCOA group (LISPS undeliverables)in Program Group
The inclusion of USPS undeliverables in our Program Group went well in 2022 and is now part of
our permanent process.
Before May 2021,customers flagged as NCOA/USPSundeliverable were moved out of the Program
Group. Since they were retained in the Evaluation Group but no longer received reports,this
created the potential for diluting savings. In April,IPC compared the NCOA list with the mailing
addresses in IPC's system and found no explicable reason they should have been removed.At IPC's
request,Uptight developed a solution that allowed us to deliver reports to these participants and
keep them in the Program Group.
From the May report throughout 2021,Uptight paid first-class postage and worked with IPC and the
printer to break these customers into their own send list so they could continue receiving reports.
Immediately after implementing this process,improvement allowed us to treat an additional 128
customers in May 2021.IPC has not received HERS marked `return to sender"in any notable
quantity to date.
Pause treatment of the Program for HPU data ingestion
Details provided in section 1.5.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 26 of40

1 .9 Vendor History
SupportTime Period Idaho Power Subcontractor nsulting
Contractor��L 10 April2017 Aclara: Ecotagious: DNV: Craig Williamson
• Receives IPC data • Receives data from • Advice on C/Tsizing,
and conveys to Aclara,produces and experimental design,
Ecotagious disseminates HERS etc.
Manages timeline using proprietary • Assigned C/T
and invoices IPC algorithms groups
November Uplight acquires
2019 Ecotagious
Cory Knoll PM
June 2021 UCAHarris acquires Up light:
August 2021 Aclara HERprograms Thea Winch replaces DNV:Ken Agnew
Cory as PM • Advice on anything
May 2023 HERS move to related to
SilverBlaze,a division of experimental design
UCA Harris Moves program onto and savings
the Uplight platform calculations
January 2024 Up light: Changing the savings
Receives IPCdata, model
produces and
disseminates HERS
using proprietary Auda Bell replaces
algorithms Thea Winch as PM
(December 2024)
2025 Up light: • Kristen Karls replaces
•HPU data sent and Audra Bell as PM(July
issues with ingest 2025)
were discovered.
Tiger team created to
make sure this is Isabel Aschbacher
joins the program
corrected.
(November 2025)
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 27 of40

12 . 2025 Program Results Detail
2. 1 Objectives : Findings
2.1.1 ENERGY SAVINGS
Cumulative Savings During Treatment Period
In total,we saw an average of 164 kWh savings per treatment customer. This added up to a total
combined savings of20,598,227 kWh across all treatment groups as of December 31,2025. Savings
calculations from all waves apart from Tl were statistically significant. See Table 3 for 2025 savings
per cohort. The aggregate savings with all treatment groups combined were statistically significant.
Ta ble 16.• 2025 Cum ula tive Sa vings Active by Cob ort
7123467 Trea tment Period:Jan 1,2025-Dec 31,2025
Cumulative
EnergySavings (all
Average ioi
Number TG Savings in i households,
Customers per Customer kWh)
TI 4,247 88 373,294 0.43% N
3,715 248 — 919,784 1.27% Y
4,430 222 981,866 1.52% Y
2,060 470 968,767 4.41% Y
3,382 36 122,213 0.50% Y
75,631 218 16,491,084 1.52% Y
32,066 23 741,218 0.39% Y
125,531 164 20,598,227 1.33% Y
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 28 of40

Table 17: 202S Cumulative Savings by TS(inactive Cobort)
TSPersistent Period:Tan 1,2025-Dec 31,2025
Avg i Cumulative
AverageSavings per AggrCusto
egate
Savings Savings
Year-Round -
36 0.50% 122,213
Table 18: 2025Com bin ed cumulative Savings for all Treatment Groups including TS
Avg kWh Average Cumulative
Savings Aggregate
Customer Percent
164 1.33% 20,598,227
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 29 of40

2.1.2 YEAR-TO-DATE AVERAGE SAVINGS PER CUSTOMER BYTREATMENT GROUP
Table 19: Average kWh Sa vings per Cohort(kWh)
373,294 919,784 981,866 968,767 16,491,084 741,218
Notes on Table 18:
• Starting in 2023, we began pulling Year-to-Da te Monthly&vmgs Reports
2.1.3 2025 COMBINED SAVINGS FOR EXPANSION PARTICIPANTS(T6)VS.PILOT PARTICIPANTS(T1234)&T7
The T6 group is much larger than other treatment groups and more closely represents the entire
Idaho Power customer base than any other group. T6 alone accounts for over 80%of the total
treatment group. Savings for T6 have ramped up and are performing well.
Compared to the pilot customer group,an analysis of savings within the expansion participant
group (T6)found that in 2025,T6 saved an average of 218 kWh per customer. T7 was newly
launched and is still ramping but will start contributing significant savings soon.
Table 20: 2025 Cumulative Sa vings Active by Cohort
7123467 Rea tm en t Period:Jan 1,2025-Dec 31,2025
Cumulative
Savings (all
Average Energy months,
Number TG Savings in i households, i
iCustomers per Customeri
4,247 88 373,294 0.43%
3,715 248 919,784 1.27%
I
4,430 222 981,866 1.52%
2,060 470 968,767 4.41%
75,631 218 16,491,084 1.52%
32,066 23 741,218 0.39%
122,149 1,269 20,102,719 1.38%
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 30 of40

2.2 Email Reports
2.2.1 DELIVERY,OPEN,AND BOUNCE RATES
Historical Context:2024 Platform Transition
To accurately evaluate 2025 performance,it is necessary to review the 2024 baseline,which was characterized
by the strategic migration from the Ecotagious platform to HOMERin February 2024.
2024 Performance by Platform
Period / Platform Total Sent Delivered Delivery Rate Click-Through Rate (CTR)
Full Year 2024(Ecotagious) 232,809 206,365 88.6% 0.58%
Full Year 2024(HOMER) 119,970 98,772 82.3% 7.40%
Transition Month (Feb 2024) 46,309 45,721 98.7% 2.10%
Comparative Analysis:2024 vs.2025
The transition to the HOMERplatform in early 2024 marked a significant shift in engagement strategy.While
the legacy Ecotagious system maintained a larger send volume,the CTRwas marginal at 0.58%.
Following the full implementation of HOMER:
• Engagement Volatility:The 7.4%CTR achieved in late 2024 represents a high-water mark for the
program.The 2025 performance (currently at a 4.9%CTOR)suggests a normalization of engagement
following the initial"novelty effect"of the new platform layout.
• Deliverability Optimization:2025 delivery rates (95.1%)show a marked improvement over the 2024
HOMERbaseline (82.3%),signaling that our list hygiene and technical suppression efforts (detailed in
the Attrition section)are yielding significant results.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 31 of40

2.3 Additional Metrics
0 2.3.1 ATTRITION RATE DETAIL
HER ATTRITION RATES
Table 22.76Attrition Rates in 2025
Oct Total Sent
Unique
Touchpoints
Delivered 126,336 2,000 16,596 135,692 51,047 0 331,671
Total HERs
Delivered 75,247 2,000 6,138 74,393 0 0 157,778
Total eHERs
Delivered 51,089 0 10,458 61,299 51,047 0 173,893
Treatable
Segment Size 97824 97,824 131,187 131,187 131,187 0 589,209
Accounts
Scheduled 76,370 56,466 99,819 99,649 102,907 0 435,211
Treatable with
Bills 76370 54,073 72,919 88,190 66,673 0 358,225
Treatable Paper
Scheduled 76247 NA* 50,925 90,776 NA* 0 217,948
Treatable email
Scheduled 51,783 56,466 69,470 72,456 71,251 0 321,426
Treatable Paper
with a bill 76247 NA* 24,045 80,258 NA* 0 180,550
Treatable email
Lith a bill 51,783 54,079 65,139 64,016 64,768 0 299,785
� I i
I I
Welcome Letters 645 NA* 4751 14,659 A7,
0 20,055
Scheduled but
Inactive 24 5,897 6,834 6,564 0 26,393
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 32 of40

*SEGMENT IS OFF
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 33 of40

Learned ,3 . Process h-nprovements , Lessons
. • Future Considerations
3 . 1 Process Improvements
Addition of Customer Touchpoints Report
As part of ongoing efforts to enhance customer engagement and streamline internal processes,IPC
has implemented a new monthly Customer Touchpoints Report. This report tracks all interactions
with customers through the company's BEE program,allowing IPC to consolidate and centralize
data on communication with clients. The report includes details such as account number,customer
names,email addresses (for eHERs),the date of contact,and the type of report sent (HERor eHER).
By having Uplight provide a recurring report of all HERS and eHERs,IPC is now able to ingest this
data directly into their internal CRM system. This integration ensures that all customer touchpoint
information is stored in a single,easily accessible location,improving the visibility of customer
interactions and ensuring comprehensive tracking of engagement efforts.
This process improvement significantly benefits the program by facilitating better customer
relationship management,offering insights into communication patterns,and helping to identify
opportunities for further engagement. It also reduces the risk of missed follow-ups and ensures
that all customer interactions are consistently recorded and actionable.
3 .2 Lessons Learned
In 2025 there were several lessons learned. These learnings serve as a way to identify future
program improvement opportunities.
Data Integration Challenges
The delays in getting the HPU data ingested into the Uplight platform reinforced the need for
strong data integration processes and the importance of having backup plans in place when faced
with data delays. Moving forward,IPC and Uplight will prioritize more thorough data validation
steps and establish clearer timelines for data delivery,helping to prevent similar issues from
impacting future reports. More detail in section 1.5.
T7 Launch
In 2024,the launch of the T7 wave was delayed due to new commission requirements.Although
customer selection was complete,the necessary approvals were not finalized on time. Previously
discussed data ingestion issues also affected the timeline,as accurate data integration was
required for a successful launch.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 34 of40

Asa result,T7 did not launch until July 2025. This meant the program did not realize the expected
savings and reporting benefits from that wave in 2025.Despite this delay,overall program
performance in 2025 was strong and met its goals.
3 .3 Future Considerations
Based on the findings from 2025,Utility Consumer Analytics/Up light has the following
recommendations for enhancing the program in 2026 and beyond:
AB Subject Line Testing
Implement A/B testing across some creative elements and subject line strategies to move the
audience from a passive to an active state.
Sweepstakes (through challenges)
Sweepstakes and challenge emails can increase engagement and energy savings in HERprogram.
• Incentives like sweepstakes prizes grab attention and motivate customers to open emails
and take action.Many customers ignore standard energy reports,but a chance to win a
prize creates a clear reason to engage.
• Challenges encourage customers to actively change behavior.Ashort,time-bound
challenge gives customers a clear goal,such as reducing energy use for a month. This
makes the program feel actionable rather than just informational.
• These campaigns also make the program more engaging and positive. Turning energy
savings into a game or competition can improve customer interest and satisfaction with the
program.
• Finally,sweepstakes and challenges generate useful data on who engages and what actions
customers take. This helps improve targeting and messaging in future BEE campaigns.
Integrate Home Portal with Home Energy Reports
To improve the accuracy and timeliness of the data in home energy reports,it would be helpful to
connect the home portal to home energy reports in 2026.As Uptight has offered their portal as a
solution,integrating this functionality will allow for real-time updates to customer home profiles,
reducing delays and improving the quality of data provided to customers.
Integration with Idaho Power Journeys:
Explore tighter integration ofHERmessaging with other critical Idaho Power customer journeys
(e.g.,outage notifications,new enrollment,new product sign-ups)to elevate the HER's perceived
importance.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 35 of40

4 . Appendices
4. 1 Appendix A: Sample Home Energy Reports
4.1.1 A-1.SAmPLE EHER AND HERS 2025—
IM �rll1', .,'. ..a•�
I I. ;"al• ii.;�.{.,�j,nY�l fl':7y+ngpr•�}!t• T✓�Ignf{�?lMt7i9h' i -
- - � ' ,.--`'Sew{- �" y� ""�•L
+•nVAatn(410T �'nalN.ita�shr+Y hnm�11s 3e �:
Ak Ix
�+�'�,��� 5.: : �S yS - •f -.ti.-s"jyAtl,,,,�%Iv�'e�- - !.ti'�-. �+C ��,-yyto-:� y'7
s�1 rl y?�x�� � A. -,,,i•. ♦�" �f�y, r--r L+4 ,
i
eH: ll� ':1ST '.re
,7r.. ..i.. _7ii i, �71 lti =h:Jir.wv:rac. �-t�..)i+n•r1- -• .��7 "'� �
ftldh�elyii�V
• ,'�k,,' 'ram f fdh7 I � h /�1 � �' �.}
••-�+ - •IJI r'.��:t��R -irf , } -I.�,y .a r;„.��+ ,�`� .* J,�I. Y x;» ry�W r�
Y 41
'bit T
I •�'�i�+ I. G 'I ' I if t' y.�41 i+JI''llV(ry Cl+•-fI'ialq AC'�ry Ttf:�n.c •
i nJr•S1 I a. r n• r ,iRr r i, p!1 � ''w'l �d'yr "�'�+f �11 h �-W 414'
1, >: L �-•.Jx i� Tn' e uu 1'YiWFi1d1i1tttGr'� ,7 ,,�, k�
j c��}�! '��",•�� I ��; �i�.r��G' ti � 1 r :'Itti�l4rof• �I �'.
li �r.;�4 ".��o.{y�,/j.��''�v,`Xt�.>tti.Sfp39tiir',*� .G ,�• ',� �`'..
•" l �IIF,ZF�2� tti�I"f yJ�', ti> �"i" 'r tir, r ,I�-r :lu .u. ..a,.����5 ^'µ't'�
'd<v� o•Fv r ,�n�4.��t�h,,y--'�3?Il��'�Y�11�{_�dys�i�� - ��.
i 3j i f
J�ril
���e.•�wvltef+.mj�.71w+nf
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 36 of40

� '�"�-ii.+.s%.�y ':'� �-►....ter,. •-'sti� - �j!w'�H ♦ -_ . 1 r •, .
r�r�'��~_r• _ _ r _�t - - i.� -arm �t ''T,r�
Nwk
1• �. �alF1}�ae.��i+� � .•- � Y�� f�s•�-a.a�`�f•�,J+?}��c^�` A+,�IJ
'.�' r-.iycsrGe► SCs-i�lsy!e,,�� LttL`• jM*v�+R I w •�i is �4.«fL
�„—�„M.nn •y� si�3w+ir ,«eX.ti+:�.�`�`r � r i. i, �+: t+Mw�' '�.r.'•:"�. rT
/ �./ra�w1 ,Th•�D �} r=&K''��rSlva •:a ��w� ^�k --K�=t "T
5.�� �inldw�Ii,i����ll. µl;; .IM�YW'�i�i/i��'•�,;.�:�+1.'�'f�;... , �" f.��.�� �1<'
i-1+a'�91t'3ylr 11,1., ( h�t ' rr�rti ' nao, Mi
YJ1 ,+'+ ��1;'
,1a�11,'174 �►11' 4'�tIAII�AI�I1�"s 1 �3. � a�'7�".er�l(�4►�,!'?'.�s1r•.fy w't�`r.�►
"Yy y1 r.i )If 1{at�A. }p9,[{#� 'L
it
,
�•t;, ., 1, c�jns- t{}�ak ,_� pr�q m. `�in""r^'Iy+µ+Fr'14��1��
NAZpd.Kryvll +fit
f)HAI Ili�dr,� iRi4��1 r
r
Aff
+may 'r�. .-HC•i i4:i f,.i_
� M A' a •, }
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 37 of40

1eJ.e:nit[;:niO(I jjeIIt:'Ix0li S13 n ot•r,iha'i Ir,e.;y.w'e;¢r L,,,�:( .in ve Wcov
a:�°dBrtsat;!`u_�'jCii^%P>7nr�r��r-:'41u5G21Q',v•
.-bl 1't-102:ii.,.\u ht,i`.,'K
I.<crDc 1�aa�trw;,
r!aNi attr 1 dntrc�4
A
t Fk-
-Isla
i•.
19 '+�•�TSs� T+:'. � IF_Ilicien�Jiurc�E.
v r In^tiff
s
yam.,,,_•_�r>id 4;�,
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 38 of40

•. i -
�CICI{K!}+�4:IflG�ld3��lfi�fitlf/k_` • -
ok
xi
jp
r 1c F51
t rt t ti< , r � 1 •�, Ye � ,
} 1��]1il,.+�7`rj>� 1�t ,I `it{1•f ��t�r . M,� �,Jy,,r i� 1 F
:0 t n r
ti'I,.+,' � ,�."�,�1,�+ �.K t�tnrP���� ;�'•�� ��4�r�f' y��,y��ytiry�f�i .,;,�InY���•�
o
,, jjW)qtjj ,, ,it
.,, - u ♦ram.: •� � �
e
ck the temae+anfurer,,,vnur raru!Fgtgtufie•rvr
I to
go ,M.
•r' . ..,
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 39 of40

' . _ •
rIt
,1.
i �
Y
I i
e
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 40 of40

SCHOOL YEAR 2024-2025
ANNUAL RE PO R1
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program
Designed and implemented by Tinker LLC
41
Ap
• � r
J6 #A , f<
69%
i
1 0POMRo

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
MESSAGE FROM
TINKER LLC
Joseph Thrasher
1
Dear Mindi,
Since first partnering with Idaho Power in the 2021-2022 school year,
it has been our privilege to implement the Student Energy Efficiency Kit
Program across Idaho and eastern Oregon. Thank you for trusting
Tinker LLC to engage your educators, students, and families in practical
energy-saving actions year after year.
r, Enclosed is the annual report for the 2024-2025 school year. It
summarizes participation, kit distribution, and verified energy-savings
results, along with key insights we gathered from teachers and parents.
We hope the data affirms the program's impact and provides a clear
foundation for future goals.
s ,
We remain committed to the high standards that Idaho Power expects
and look forward to building on this success together. If you'd like to
discuss any aspect of the report or explore new ideas for the coming
year, please let me know.
Cheerfully,
Joseph Thrasher
r•.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Message from Tinker LLC 2
OVERVIEW
Executive Summary 4
DESCRIPTION
Program Description 6
OPERATIONS
Program Timeline 8
Program Materials 9
Program Content 12
Energy Efficiency Kits 13
Student Competitions 14
Teacher Recruitment 16
i! '►A!�.i�1 1ti;, ," �9 OUTCOMES
School Participation 17
Projected Savings 18
Student Assessments 20
Student Pledges 22
s
Student Survey 23
Teacher Evaluations 29
Continuous Improvement 31
11MI11 •�� i _
''' ' ..., .� APPENDICES
Appendix A Student Kit Savings Calculations 32
Appendix B Teacher Kit Savings Calculations 39
Appendix C Participation Tables 40
Appendix D Participant Letters 52
- f

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
School Year 2024-2025
Tinker LLC is pleased to submit this annual report describing the implementation and outcomes
of the Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program ("SEEK"). From August 2024 through June 2025,
Tinker LLC supported the energy efficiency education efforts in Idaho and Oregon through a
partnership with Idaho Power Company ("IPC").
The program was developed to educate students in
IPC's service area about energy efficiency through the
implementation of a locally-based education program within By the Numbers
schools. Tinker LLC and IPC staff developed curriculum that
included lessons, STEM activities, digital program resources,
student contests, teacher grants, and an Energy Efficiency 182
Kit containing energy-saving devices for each student. The schools participated
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program is known and marketed
to the schools as the EnergyWise Program. Program objectives
included the following: 358
• Leverage classroom teachers from schools within IPC's teachers participated
service area to provide their 4th - 6th grade students with
quality, age-appropriate instruction regarding the wise use 11 •
17
of electricity. students
• Encourage the wise use of electricity at home by engaging
students and their families in activities that support and 7,270F41
reinforce energy efficiency and conservation concepts.
• Provide age-appropriate tools to facilitate student kWh saved annually
participation and incentives to encourage follow through
for all Program participants, i.e., teachers, students, and 614942
parents.
• Cross-market IPC's other residential energy efficiency per student
programs as directed by IPC.
• Provide IPC with annual energy savings information in the 370*71
form of an annual program summary report based on kWh per teacher kit distributed
student responses.
• Enhance IPC's brand as a trusted energy advisor.
• Maintain or enhance IPC's customer satisfaction.
4

Tinker LLC managed all aspects of the program design and implementation, including school
recruitment, lesson development, day-to-day program management, and reporting. Below are the
program outcomes:
1. Curriculum. To support educational goals, Tinker worked with IPC staff to develop six lessons
specifically for Idaho Power students. Each lesson included locally-based information, teacher
resources, hands-on activities, and supported Idaho state education standards. Below is the
list of lessons developed:
• Natural Resources
• Electric Energy
• Energy-Water Nexus
• Peak and Off-Peak Time
• Electric Bill
• Efficiency and Conservation
2. School Participation. During the school year 2024-2025, 182 schools, representing 358
teachers and 11,617 students participated in the program. Each of these students received an
Energy Efficiency Kit and access to digital learning resources.
3. Knowledge Retention. To determine the baseline knowledge, students were asked to
complete a 10-question assessment before the program was introduced. After completing
the lessons, they completed a post-program assessment to determine the knowledge gained
through the program. The average pre-assessment test score was 65.9%. After completing the
lessons, the average test score was 84.4%--an increase of 18.5%.
4. Energy Efficiency Kits. A take-home Energy Efficiency Kit was provided to 11,617 students
and 358 teachers. Each contained products that can be used at home to conserve water and
energy. Students work with their parents to use the products and report on their actions.
5. Student Survey. At the close of the program, students are asked to complete a survey
detailing the actions they took and which products from the Energy Efficiency Kit they
installed. Surveys were received from 8,097 students. Based on the reported data, projected
savings from kits can be found below.
Green House Gas
Electricity Natural Gas Water Reduction
Annual savings per student kit: 614.42 kWh 5.93 Therms 2,678 Gals 0.44 Metric Tons
Annual savings per teacher kit: 370.71 kWh 3.58 Therms 1,616 Gals 0.27 Metric Tons
Annual program savings: 7,270,411 kWh 70,224Therms 31,691,096 Gals 5,256 Metric Tons
Lifetime program savings: 37,670,554 kWh 1 702,236 Therms 316,910,961 Gals 28,872 Metric Tons
*The algorithms and data used for these calculations can be found in Appendix A & B
5

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
School Year 2024-2025
The Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program is a locally-based curriculum designed to teach fourth-,
fifth-, and sixth-grade school students about energy and how to use it wisely. Offered as a
completely turnkey program, Tinker managed all aspects of the program implementation.
Tinker designed and customized three lessons appropriate for fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade
students attending schools in IPC's service territory. Next, Tinker contacted fourth-, fifth-, and
sixth-grade teachers using a variety of communication tools to introduce the program and collect
enrollment commitments. Participating teachers, students, and parents were then provided
access to Tinker's online platform or web application.
Program Delivery
Delivered by classroom teachers, the curriculum fit seamlessly within the current classroom
setting. The curriculum included lessons that were designed to support Idaho and Oregon
state education standards, featured engaging digital content, and included hands-on activities.
Moreover, each lesson included resources such as video streaming content, online assessments,
and more.
Using resources from our web application,
teachers delivered the curriculum to their I got my studentson and making
students. Students and parents were also an account -
provided access to the web application, which loved completing the activities
included portals designed specifically for each •
participating segment.
J. Weible, Teacher
IPC was provided with its own customized Slater Elementary School
version of the web application that displayed
its logo at the top of each page and
referenced it throughout the pages.
6

The digital delivery of the program through the web application allowed for:
• Program Tracking. All program actions were tracked and recorded in real-time. The data was
analyzed and used to inform unique actions by program staff and published within an on-line
dashboard. IPC staff was supplied credentials to access the dashboard and encouraged to
follow program progress.
• Additional Engagement Opportunities. Other IPC related programs were promoted within
each relevant portal.
Upon completion of the lessons, students acquired new knowledge of energy efficiency, and
each student was provided an Energy Efficiency Kit containing energy-saving devices. During
the final lesson, students completed exercises using the devices included in the kit, giving their
families an opportunity to immediately and consistently conserve water and energy.
Throughout the program, students
completed simple surveys and assessments. 111 love the connectionof - lessons
This data was collected, analyzed, and to our district and state standards.
summarized to gauge the curriculum's impact Also, the kits were motivating ' •
on students. At the close of the unit, students brought awareness to energyusage
and parents completed a pledge to continue conservation with the students.
to conserve energy and water. online videos : ' •
helped guide students through the
At the end of the school year, all data Energylessons and the
generated from the lessons and any M. Montoya, Teacher
predefined success metrics were collected to
present in this Final Report. Hillsdale

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
PROGRAM TIMELINE
School Year 2024-2025
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
Program Updates
Completed
Print&digital materials
published
Quality control checks
performed
Eligible school
information identified
Teachers introduced to
the program
Participation
commitments collected
Access to digital materials
+ granted
Materials and Kits
shipped
Communication with
teachers
Collection &evaluation of
program data
Program closed to
participation
Program data compiled
Ln
and analyzed
Final report developed
and delivered
8

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
PROGRAM MATERIALS
Phase 7:Launch
During the program, teachers, students, and parents were provided with a variety of resources
expertly designed to educate about energy efficiency and encourage energy efficient behaviors.
These resources, including the web application, a printed teacher guide, parent letter, and online
lesson materials, were customized to feature the IPC logo and brand. Each are described on the
following pages and below.
PROGRAMPARENT RESOURCES
DIGITAL MATERIALS
Parents of participating students were provided
access to the parent portal through the web
application. The available resources included the
A parent letter describing the program,
goals,
available
Additional energy efficiency resources offered
by IPC
wr�
Program evaluation
11 1 love getting to send home the
i -
energy
kids.
always comment on • . •
useful they are.11
Mosley,
Park Intermediate

TEACHER PROGRAM RESOURCES
DIGITAL MATERIALS
Teachers were provided access to the teacher portal
►- �c'<�g -. �'. •. �� through the web application. The available resources
�• + ° _` " '' ' included the following.
• Instructions to guide teachers through the
administration of the program
• Supported Idaho state education standards
r Letter to parents in English and Spanish
• Lesson materials including:
_ o Lesson plans
o Digital slides for classroom presentations
o Online resources
o Video content
o Online homework exercises
o Assessments
• Post-program Evaluation
• Student progress reporting
SUPPORTING PHYSICAL MATERIALS
Participating teachers were provided a printed
. 1
Teacher Guide to support the digital resources.
The Teacher Guide included the following:
Program goals
ti F Instructions to administer the program
Unit plan
Lesson plans
• Contest and mini-grant information
• Answer keys

STUDENT PROGRAM RESOURCES
DIGITAL MATERIALS
Students were provided access to the student
portal within the web application. Resources
available included the following:
• Instructions for installing the products
inside the kits
• Access to digital lessons and assessments
• Video contest information
• The student leader board
• Additional energy efficiency information
SUPPORTING PHYSICAL MATERIALS
Participating students were provided a student
workbook to support the digital resources. The
student workbook included the following:
Classroom activity worksheets
J +�" Classroom assessments
.�-4. . The Energy Efficiency Kit product installation
guide and data collection forms

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

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT
Phase 2:Implementation
A take-home Energy Efficiency Kit was provided to 358 teachers and 11,617 students. Each
contained products that can be used at home to conserve water and energy. Students work with
their parents to use the products and report on their actions.
Each kit contained the following items:
• Showerhead
• Two LED Lightbulbs
• Two LED Night Lights
• Shower Timer - =
• Digital Thermometer '' --� = �w
s•s
• Filter Whistle r
• Water Flow Rate Bag
• Reminder Stickers and Magnets
• Quick Start Guide Energy Efficiency Kit
• Water Bottle Decals
� I
13

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
STUDENT COMPETITIONS
Phase 2:Implementation
A fun component of the Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program was the student competitions: the
Student Challenge, Video Contest, and Photo Contest.
Student Challenge
Each student that registered for the online 11 _ _ boxes _
activities were automatically entered into the � � � _ _ �
Student Challenge. As students progressed oints '
through the online portion of the program, they
earned points for each activity completed. In the J. DeMarini,
web application, students followed their point Seven Oaks Elementary
progress and competed with classmates. Below is
a sample of these activities:
Action Points Earned
Complete the online homework exercises 4,000
Install the products from the Energy Efficiency Kit 4,000
Complete the student survey 4,000
Submit a video contest entry 1,000
Complete the online pledge 500
The five students that accumulated the most points were awarded prizes.
Photo Contest
Students were given the opportunity to participate in a product
photo contest. Students snapped a photo of a product installed
from their kit for a chance to earn points and win prizes. Photos
were uploaded through the Tinker web application.
Photo Contest Submission
14

Video Contest
As part of the program, students were given the opportunity
to participate in a video contest. Students could create a
short two- to three-minute video about energy efficiency for a
chance to win. Videos could be uploaded through the Tinker
web application. Three entries were selected as winners and
received prizes.
Video Contest Submission
rid-
Video Contest Submission Video Contest Submission
15

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
RECRUITMENT
Phase 2:Implementation
Starting in August 2024, Tinker initiated the planning phase for recruiting qualified teachers.
These eligible teachers were specifically those teaching within schools served by IPC. Tinker's
staff collaborated with IPC staff to develop outreach materials. Upon finalizing the outreach
materials, Tinker conducted thorough research on schools and teachers and actively began
recruiting eligible teachers to the program.
The program was introduced to teachers using various communication tools to secure
enrollment commitments. These tools included:
1 . Email templates
2. Phone scripts
3. Promotional flyer
4. Recruitment video
Teachers were encouraged to enroll using the online form. Tinker successfully secured
commitments from 358 teachers and 11,617 students. Recruitment activities concluded in
April 2025.
-oa[Iw Fajdratiw s "
r
Teacher Recruitment Video
On-line Teacher Enrollment Form
16

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
PARTICIPATION
Phase 2:Implementation
During the 2024-2025 school year, fourth-, fifth, and sixth-grade teachers were introduced to the
program and asked to participate. Commitments were received from 182 schools, representing
358 teachers and 11,617 students. The table represents participation in each region of IPC's
service territory.
Region State Teachers Students Total Kits
Canyon ID 50 1,544 1,594
Capital ID 149 4,692 4,841
Eastern ID 47 1,403 1,450
Southern ID 70 2,540 2,610
Western ID 37 1,287 1,324
Total Idaho: 353 11,466 11,819
Western OR 5 151 156
Total Oregon: 5 151 156
*Detailed participation data can be found in Appendix C
17

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
PROJECTED SAVINGS
Phase 3:Reporting
Through the program, 11,617 Energy Efficiency Kits were distributed to students. The kits were
packed with high efficiency products that when installed help to curb household water and
energy usage while reducing green house gas emissions. Students work with their parents
to install the products and report their actions. Using the data collected, we calculated the
projected resource savings. Projections are found below:
ReductionGreen House Gas
Electricity Natural Gas Water
Annual savings per 614.42 kWh 5.93 Therms 2,678 Gals 0.44 Metric Tons
student kit
Annual program savings 219,962 kWh 2,124.5 Therms 958,794 Gals 159.18 Metric Tons
student kits
Lifetime program 1,832,529 kWh 21,246 Therms 9,587,943 Gals 1,091.70 Metric Tons
savings student kits
*The algorithms and data used for these calculations can be found in Appendix A
Through the program, 358 Energy Efficiency Kits were distributed to teachers. Like students,
teachers are asked to install the products. However, unlike students, some teachers received
a kit in a prior school year or prior school years. To best estimate the projected savings from
the teacher kits, Tinker has applied a 25% discount to the kit savings for each year a teacher
previously received a kit. The table below depicts the percentage of savings applied to teacher
kits based on previous program participation.
ParticipatingNumber of Savings
Years Teachers Applied
1 105 100%
2 74 75%
3 43 50%
4 136 25%
18

The factors that Tinker considered to determine the discount percentage were:
1 . Energy efficiency products within the kits have changed occasionally year-over-year.
Thus the entirety of the product savings for those products in which teachers have never
received can be counted.
2. Products such as the LED lightbulbs and showerhead can be used in others areas of the
home. Thus savings can be counted for those products.
Savings projections for the Teacher Kits are found below:
W Green House Gas
Electricity Natural Gas
Average annual savings 370.71 kWh 3.58 Therms 1,616 Gals 0.2
per teacher kit 7 Metric Tons
Average annual program 132,714 kWh 1,282 Therms 578,490 Gals 96.04 Metric Tons
savings teacher kits
Average lifetime program 1,105,660 kWh 12,819 Therms 5,784,904 Gals 658.68 Metric Tons
savings teacher kits
*The algorithms and data used for these calculations can be found in Appendix B
Total projected program savings was derived by adding the projected savings from students and
teachers. The total projected savings is found below:
91r, Green House Gas
Electricity Natural Gas Water Reduction
Annual program savings: 7,270,411 kWh 70,224Therms 31,691,096 Gals 5,256 Metric Tons
Lifetime program savings: 37,670,554 kWh 702,236 Therms 316,910,961 Gals 28,872 Metric Tons
19

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS
Phase 3:Reporting
To determine the effectiveness of the program, Tinker LLC collected and analyzed pre- and
post-program data to assess changes in students' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to
energy efficiency. These data sources included student assessments, digital activity tracking, and
survey responses from teachers, students, and parents.
At the conclusion of each lesson, students completed an online assessment aligned with the
instructional content. These assessments were designed both to reinforce learning and to
measure knowledge growth on a topic-by-topic basis. The results provided insight into how
effectively each lesson conveyed core concepts and supported learning objectives.
The table below shows the average student score for each lesson assessment, offering a
snapshot of student understanding across all participating classrooms.
Lesson Assessment
Natural Resources 92%
Electric Energy 92%
Energy-Water Nexus 90%
Peak and Off-peak Time 90%
Electric Bill 89%
Efficiency and Conservation 92%
20

In addition to lesson-level assessments, students also completed a pre-program and post-
program evaluation designed to measure overall changes in energy literacy, awareness, and
conservation intent. This broader comparison reflects the cumulative impact of classroom
instruction, at-home engagement, and online learning activities.
The table that follows summarizes the average pre- and post-program scores, demonstrating
overall growth in knowledge and confidence in making energy-efficient choices at home.
. . POST-
ASSESSMENT
%
ON ON . .
SCOREDSTUDENTS • - PROGRAM,
•% ON ON
NationalPRE-PROGRAM POST-PROGRAM SCORES BY 18.5%
ASSESSMENT. ASSESSMENT.
Average: 63.5% NationalAverage: 1 ' ' National Average: ••
21

ReportingSTUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
STUDENT PLEDGES
Phase 3:
As part of program, students were invited • •n what they learned and commit to
taking action through . personal ener• • • • • '••'. Submitted through the online
platform, pledges gave studentsopportunity to identify specificbehaviors they could
change• . home.
The
pledges serve as a valuable • • of •'nt engagement and personal accountability,
and they offer a glimpse into how the program influences behavior beyond the classroom.
Below are selected examples of student pledges submitted during the 2024-2025 program year.
pledge to save energy by...
22
... spending more time with my family instead of being on my Switch so much.
... encouraging others to use less energy in their everyday life.
... turning off lights when I leave a room.
... using all the stuff from my kit to save a lot of energy.
... taking short showers and not long showers.
... washing clothes in the morning.
... turning the temperature down and putting on a sweater.
... reminding my siblings the best I can to turn off the lights.
... installing all the products from myenergy-efficiency kit.
... sealing up windows and doors in the house.

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
STUDENT SURVEY
Phase 3:Reporting
At the conclusion of the program, students are asked to complete a survey detailing the actions they
took and which products from the Energy Efficiency Kit they install. Surveys were received from 8,097
students. The reported data can be found below.
1 Did you enjoy the program?
It was excellent 38%
Pretty good 42%
Neutral 14%
Not so great 4%
It was terrible 3%
2 Was the online content easy to use?
Yes 80%
No 20%
3 How many people (adults and children) live in your home?
5.06 People
4 Which type of fuel (energy) is used to heat water in your home?
Electricity 63%
Natural gas 31%
Propane 6%
5 Which type of fuel (energy) does your heater use in the winter?
Electricity 57%
Natural gas 31%
Propane 11%
6 Which type of air conditioner do you use in the summer?
Central A/C 71%
Window A/C 22%
We don't have one 7%
23

7 How many showers are in your home?
2.11 Showers
8 Did you install the high efficiency showerhead from your kit?
Yes 46%
No, but I will install 27%
No 27%
9 What was the water flow rate from your previous showerhead?
2.81 G.P.M.
10 What was the water flow rate when you installed the new showerhead from the kit?
1.61 G.P.M.
11 Did you use the shower timer from your kit?
Yes 65%
No, but I will 21%
No 15%
12 How many LED nightlights did you install?
2 60%
1 22%
0 18
13 Where did you install the first LED nightlight?
Bedroom 58%
Hallway 19%
Bathroom 12%
Kitchen 5%
Other(Specify) 5%
24

14 Which of the following best describes how you are using the first nightlight?
Using it, but did not replace any existing lighting 28%
Using it instead of overhead lights 30%
Using it instead of a floor/table lamp 11%
Replaced an existing nightlight 28%
Other(Specify) 3%
15 How many overhead lightbulbs are now NOT being used?
1 35.8%
2 16.7%
3 13.7%
4 9.8%
5 7.7%
6 5.1%
7 2.9%
8 2.6%
9 2.4%
10+ 3.3%
16 What is the wattage of the light bulb(s)you will NOT be using now that you are using the nightlight?
4 Watt 7.5%
5 Watt 11.2%
7 Watt 16.9%
8 Watt 8.1%
9 Watt 10.2%
10 Watt 2.8%
11 Watt 3.7%
12 Watt 4.0%
13 Watt 2.1%
14 Watt 2.3%
15 Watt 2.2%
16 Watt 1.5%
18 Watt 2.9%
19 Watt 0.6%
20 Watt 3.0%
30 Watt 1.0%
40 Watt 2.4%
50 Watt 0.7%
60 Watt 7.0%
75 Watt 3.0%
100 Watt 1.6%
120 Watt 1.5%
Other 3.6%
25

17 What type of bulb was in the nightlight you replaced?
Standard incandescent 49.0%
LED 50.9%
18 Where did you install the second LED nightlight?
Bedroom 51.1%
Hallway 23.2%
Bathroom 13.8%
Kitchen 6.5%
Other (Specify) 5.5%
19 Which of the following best describes how you are using the second nightlight?
Using it, but did not replace any existing lighting 28.9%
Using it instead of overhead lights 31.0%
Using it instead of a floor/table lamp 10.3%
Replaced an existing nightlight 28.2%
20 How many overhead lightbulbs are now NOT being used?
1 31.3%
2 18.6%
3 12.3%
4 10.5%
5 6.7%
6 5.9%
7 3.3%
8 3.2%
9 2.5%
10+ 2.4%
26

21 What is the wattage of the light bulb(s)you will NOT be using now that you are using the nightlight?
4 Watt 7.4%
5 Watt 11.0%
7 Watt 17.5%
8 Watt 8.3%
9 Watt 10.1%
10 Watt 2.3%
11 Watt 3.4%
12 Watt 3.9%
13 Watt 1.9%
14 Watt 2.1%
15 Watt 2.6%
16 Watt 1.6%
18 Watt 3.1%
19 Watt 0.7%
20 Watt 3.1%
30 Watt 1.1%
40 Watt 2.6%
50 Watt 0.9%
60 Watt 6.7%
75 Watt 2.1%
100 Watt 1.8%
120 Watt 1.7%
Other 4.0%
22 What type of bulb was in the nightlight you replaced?
Standard incandescent 48.4%
LED 51.5%
23 How many LED lightbulbs did you install?
2 56.9%
1 17.1%
0 26.0%
24 What was the wattage of the first lightbulb you replaced with the LED lightbulb?
35.81 Watts
27

25 What was the wattage of the second lightbulb you replaced with the LED lightbulb?
39.83 Watts
26 Did you use the digital thermometer?
Yes 50.1%
No, but I will 25.0%
No 24.8%
27 Did you raise or lower your water temperature?
Our water was the perfect temperature.We did not adjust the water heater temperature
77.0%
Our water was too hot! We lowered the water heater temperature
15.8%
Our water was not hot enough.We raised our water heater temperature.
7.1%
28 Did you install the furnace filter whistle?
Yes 33.7%
No, but I will 26.9%
No 39.4%
29 Did you use the sticker and magnet pack from your kit?
Yes 63.7%
No, but I will 19.8%
No 16.4%
30 Would you like to see this program continue?
Yes 85.2%
No 14.9%
28

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
TEACHER EVALUATION
Phase 3:Reporting
At the conclusion of the unit teachers were asked to complete a post-program evaluation. Outcomes
are below:
1. Did you enjoy the program?
It was excellent 48.28%
It was pretty good 48.28%
Neutral 3.45%
Not so great 0.00%
It was terrible 0.00%
2. How satisfied were your students with this program?
They thought it was AWESOME! 27.59%
They liked it 65.52%
It was ok 6.90%
They really didn't like it 0.00%
They thought it was terrible 0.00%
3. Did this program support the education standards in your grade level?
Yes 91.38
No 1.72%
Unsure 6.90%
4. Was the online content easy to use?
Yes 86.21
No 13.79%
4a. How could the online content be improved?
5. Which lessons did you use? (Check all that apply)
Natural Resources 98.28%
Electric Energy 91.38%
Energy-Water Nexus 81.03%
Peak and Off-Peak Time 89.66%
Electric Bill 79.31%
Efficiency and Conservation 89.66%
Course Review 82.76%
Energy At Home 94.83%
29

6. Which lesson was your favorite?
Natural Resources 31.03%
Electric Energy 6.90%
Energy-Water Nexus 5.17%
Peak and Off-Peak Time 20.69%
Electric Bill 10.34%
Efficiency and Conservation 18.97%
Course Review 0.00%
Energy At Home 6.90%
7. Was the program staff courteous?
Yes 84.48%
No 0.00%
Did not interact with program staff 15.52%
7a. Did the program staff effectively answer all of your questions?
Yes 100.00%
No 0.00%
8. What was your favorite thing about the program?
9. Would you change anything about the program? If so,what?
10. Would you like to see this program continue?
Yes 100.00%
No 0.00%
11. If offered, would you participate again next school year?
Yes 100.00%
No 0.00%
30

STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
CONTINUUuS IMPROVEMENT
Phase 3:Reporting
As part of our commitment to ongoing program enhancement, we are implementing several
key improvements to the Energy Education Program based on teacher feedback and program
insights from this school year.
Revamped Student Portal
The student experience is being redesigned with a more intuitive, checklist-style portal. Students
will see a clear list of tasks, along with the points they earn for each completed item. This update
makes the gamification elements more visible and engaging, helping drive higher participation
and completion rates.
Enhanced Tracking Tools for Teachers
We are introducing robust tracking features to help teachers more easily monitor student
progress. These tools will provide real-time insights into which students have completed which
activities, helping educators stay informed and engaged throughout the program.
Improved Teacher Mini Grant System
Our mini grant system is also being restructured to better recognize individual teacher actions.
Instead of only receiving a mini grant for completing a set of multiple tasks, teachers will now
build their"grant bank"with every completed action. The more activities they complete—such as
teaching a lesson, submitting evaluations, or engaging families—the larger their total mini grant
reward. Grants will continue to be issued within three weeks of program completion.
New Student Password Reset Feature
A new teacher-facing password reset option will allow educators to easily update student login
credentials without requiring additional support—saving time and ensuring smoother access.
These updates are designed to make the program more user-friendly, standards-aligned,
and rewarding for both students and educators. We look forward to continued growth and
improvement in the year ahead.
31

APPENDIXA
SHOWERHEAD RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
Reported Inputs(Exact Numbers Reported)
Average household size: 5.06 people
Showers per home: 2.11 showers
Previous showerhead flow rate: 2.81 gallons
Retrofit showerhead flow rate: 1.61 gallons
Percent of homes with electric water heat: 57.15%
Percent of homes with natural gas water heat: 31.40%
Retrofit showerhead installation rate: 46.41%
Participants using kits: 11,617 Kits
Assumed Inputs
Showers per day per person: 0.67 showers'
Average length of use: 8.2 minutes'
Percent of showerhead water that is heated: 73% hot water'
Temperature of incoming cold water: 55° '
Temperature of outgoing hot water: 120° '
Product life: 10 yearsZ
Outcomes
Projected annual water savings for all households: 31,112,605.69 Gallons'
Projected annual electric savings for all households: 2,336,404.24 kWh
Projected annual natural gas savings for all households: 64,184.68 Thermss
Projected annual GHG reduction for all households: 1,910.00 Metric Tons3
Projected lifetime water savings for all households: 311,126,056.89 Gallons'
Projected lifetime electric savings for all households: 23,364,042.35 kWh'
Projected lifetime natural gas savings for all households: 641,846.83 Therms'
Projected lifetime GHG reduction for all households: 19,093.00 Metric Tons3
32

APPENDIXA
SHOWERHEAD RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
1 WaterSense®Specification for Showerheads Supporting Statement. EPA, 2010,Appendix A:Calculations and Key
Assumptions. Note:
Step 1 [(Previous showerhead flow rate-Retrofit showerhead flow rate)x Average length of use:8.2min x Showers
per day per person:0.67 x Average household size]-Full bathrooms per home=gallons saved per day
*Equation is divided by full bathrooms per home because we only provide one showerhead
Step 2 gallons saved per day x 365 days=gallons saved per year
Step 3 gallons saved per year x retrofit showerhead installation rate x participants=gallons saved per year program-
wide
2 Manufacturer
3"Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator."EPA, Environmental Protection Agency,June. 2025,
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator.
4 WaterSense°Specification for Showerheads Supporting Statement. EPA,2010,Appendix A:Calculations and Key
Assumptions. Note:
o KWh Required to Raise 1 Gallon of Water 659 F
[(1.0 Btu/Ibs x 2 F) (1kWh/3,412 Btus)/(1 gal/8.34 Ibs)x 659 F]/0.90=0.18 kWh/gal
5 WaterSense°Specification for Showerheads Supporting Statement. EPA,2010,Appendix A:Calculations and Key
Assumptions. Note:
o Therms Required to Raise 1 Gallon of Water 659 F
[(1.0 Btu/Ibs x 2 F) (1 Therm/99,976 Btus)/(1 gal/8.34 Ibs)x 659 F]/0.60=0.009 Therms/gal
33

APPENDIXA
LED LIGHTBULB #1 RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
Reported Inputs
Retrofit LED light bulb installation rate: 73.94%
Participants using kits: 11,617 Kits
Average watts used by the replaced bulb: 43.07 watts
Assumed Inputs
Remaining useful life of replaced bulb: 1,000 hours'
Watts used by the LED light bulb: 8 wattS2
Hours of operation per day: 2.1 hours per day3
Outcomes
Projected annual electric savings for all households: 230,898.63 kWh
Projected annual GHG reduction for all households: 155 Metric Tonss
Projected lifetime electric savings for all households: 301,237.62 kWh
Projected lifetime GHG reduction for all households: 202 Metric Tonss
1 Remaining Useful Life (RUL)is 113 of useful life.Average Halogen useful life is 3,000 hours. Thus RUL is 1000
hours. (https://www.bulbs.com/learning/arl.aspx)
2 Manufacturer
3 "Regional Technical Forum."ResidentialLighting-v10-0. Lamps_StorageRemoval. General Purpose and Three
Way. 250 to 1049 lumens.Any-Res. Only
4{[(Average wattage of light bulb replaced- Wattage of LED light bulb)x Hours of operation per day x 365 Days]
1,000]x Participants using kits x Retrofit LED light bulb installation rate
s"Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator."EPA, Environmental Protection Agency,June. 2025,
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator.
6{[(Average wattage of light bulb replaced- Wattage of LED light bulb)x Remaining useful life of replaced bulb]
1,000]x Participants using kits x Retrofit LED light bulb installation rate
34

APPENDIXA
LED LIGHTBULB #2 RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
Reported Inputs
Retrofit LED light bulb installation rate: 56.88%
Participants using kits: 11,617 Kits
Average watts used by the replaced bulb: 43.27 watts
Assumed Inputs
Remaining useful life of replaced bulb: 1,000 hours'
Watts used by the LED light bulb: 8 wattS2
Hours of operation per day: 2.1 hours per day3
Outcomes
Projected annual electric savings for all households: 178,636.91 kWh
Projected annual GHG reduction for all households: 120 Metric Tonss
Projected lifetime electric savings for all households: 233,055.33 kWh
Projected lifetime GHG reduction for all households: 157 Metric Tonss
1 Remaining Useful Life (RUL)is 113 of useful life.Average Halogen useful life is 3,000 hours. Thus RUL is 1000
hours. (https.11www.bulbs.com/learning/arl.aspx)
2 Manufacturer
3 "Regional Technical Forum."ResidentialLighting-v10-0, Lamps_StorageRemoval. General Purpose and Three
Way. 250 to 1049 lumens.Any-Res. Only
4{[(Average wattage of light bulb replaced- Wattage of LED light bulb)x Hours of operation per day x 365 Days]
1,000]x Participants using kits x Retrofit LED light bulb installation rate
s"Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator."EPA, Environmental Protection Agency,June. 2025,
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator.
6{[(Average wattage of light bulb replaced- Wattage of LED light bulb)x Remaining useful life of replaced bulb]
1,000]x Participants using kits x Retrofit LED light bulb installation rate
35

APPENDIXA
LED NIGHT LIGHT #1 RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
Reported Inputs
Retrofit LED night light installation rate: 82.28%
Average number of overhead lightbulbs that are NOT being used
now that they are using the nightlight: 3.13 lightbulbs
Average wattage of the light bulb(s) NOT used now that they are
18.73 watts
using the nightlight:
Participants using kits: 11,617 kits
Assumed Inputs
Product life: 8 years'
Watts used by the LED night light: 0.5 watts'
Average length of use: 4380 hours per year
Outcomes
Projected annual electric savings for all households: 2,433,462.18 kWh
Projected annual GHG reduction for all households: 1635 Metric Tons4
Projected lifetime electric savings for all households: 6,105,750.29 kWh
Projected lifetime GHG reduction for all households: 4102 Metric Tons4
1 Manufacturer
3{(((Average wattage of light bulb replaced x Number of lightbulbs replaced)- Wattage of LED night light))x
Hours of operation per day x 365 Days]=1,0001 x Participants using kits x Retrofit LED night light installation
4 "Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator."EPA, Environmental Protection Agency,June. 2025,
https://www.epa.qov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator.
36

APPENDIXA
LED NIGHT LIGHT #2 RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
Reported Inputs
Retrofit LED night light installation rate: 60.42%
Average number of overhead lightbulbs that are NOT being used
now that they are using the nightlight: 3.11 lightbulbs
Average wattage of the light bulb(s) NOT used now that they are
18.38 watts
using the nightlight:
Participants using kits: 11,617 kits
Assumed Inputs
Product life: 8 years'
Watts used by the LED night light: 0.5 watts'
Average length of use: 4380 hours per year
Outcomes
Projected annual electric savings for all households: 1,741,964.05 kWh
Projected annual GHG reduction for all households: 1170 Metric Tons4
Projected lifetime electric savings for all households: 4,397,504.80 kWh
Projected lifetime GHG reduction for all households: 2954 Metric Tons4
1 Manufacturer
3{(((Average wattage of light bulb replaced x Number of lightbulbs replaced)- Wattage of LED night light))x
Hours of operation per day x 365 Days]=1,0001 x Participants using kits x Retrofit LED night light installation
4 "Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator."EPA, Environmental Protection Agency,June. 2025,
https://www.epa.qov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator.
37

APPENDIXA
FILTER WHISTLE RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
Reported Inputs
Filter Whistle installation rate: 33.67%
Participants using kits: 11,617 Kits
Percent of customers with central air conditioning: 70.75%
Percent of customers using natural gas heat: 31.40%
Assumed Inputs
Annual energy(electricity) use by a central air conditioner: 4467 kWh'
Annual energy(natural gas) use by a central space heating or furnace 421 therms'
Projected increase in efficiency(electricity): 1.75% 3
Projected increase in efficiency(natural gas): 0.92% 3
Product life: 10 years4
Outcomes
Projected annual electric savings for all households: 216,330.40 kWh
Projected annual natural gas savings for all households: 4,757.04 Therms
Projected annual GHG reduction for all households: 170.2 Metric Tonss
Projected lifetime electric savings for all households: 2,163,303.99 kWh
Projected lifetime natural gas savings for all households: 47,570.39 Therms
Projected lifetime GHG reduction for all households: 1,705 Metric Tonss
1 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Web site:
http://www.eia.govl
2 Idaho Power's 2022 Residential End-Use Study
3 Reichmuth P.E., Howard. (1999). Engineering Review and Savings Estimates for the Filter Restriction Alarm.
4 Provided by manufacturer.
5 "Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator."EPA, Environmental Protection Agency,June. 2025,
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator.
38

APPENDIX B
TEACHER KIT SAVINGS
Teacher Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
No. of Years Student Kit Savings Percentage Number of Total Annual
Participating Savings Applied Teachers Savi Ings
1 614.42 kWh 100% 105 64,513.91 kWh
2 614.42 kWh 75% 74 34,100.21 kWh
3 614.42 kWh 50% 43 13,209.99 kWh
4 614.42 kWh 25% 136 20,890.22 kWh
Student Kit Savings x Savings Percentage Applied x Number of Total: 132,714.33 kWh
Teachers=Total Annual Savings
No. of Years Student Kit Savings Percentage Number of Total Annual
Participating Savings Applied Teachers Savings
1 5.93 Therms 100% 105 623.13 Therms
2 5.93 Therms 75% 74 329.37 Therms
3 5.93 Therms 50% 43 127.59 Therms
4 5.93 Therms 25% 136 201.77 Therms
Student Kit Savings x Savings Percentage Applied x Number of Total: 1,281.86 Therms
Teachers=Total Annual Savings
No. of Years Student Kit Savings Percentage Number of Total Annual
Participating Applied Teachers Savings
1 2,678.20 Gals 100% 105 281,210.60 Gals
2 2,678.20 Gals 75% 74 148,639.89 Gals
3 2,678.20 Gals 50% 43 57,581.22 Gals
4 2,678.20 Gals 25% 136 91,058.67 Gals
Student Kit Savings x Savings Percentage Applied x Number of Total: 578,490.38 Gals
Teachers=Total Annual Savings
Total Annual No. of Teacher Average Annual
Savings Kits Distributed Savings per Kit kWh 358 kits 370.71 kWh
1,281.86 Therms 358 kits 3.58 therms
578,490.38 Gals 358 kits 1615.89 Gals
Total Annual Savings=No.of Teacher Kits Distributed=Average Annual
Savings per Kit
39

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Capital Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Capital ID Adams Elementary 1 32 33
Capital ID Amity Elementary 1 53 54
Capital ID Anser Charter School 1 53 54
Capital ID Chaparral Elementary 4 109 113
Capital ID Chief Joseph School Of The Arts 1 28 29
Capital ID Christine Donnell School Of The Arts 1 25 26
Capital ID Cole Valley Christian School 1 96 97
Capital ID Collister Elementary 2 47 49
Capital ID Cynthia Mann Elementary 2 45 47
Capital ID Desert Sage Elementary 4 90 94
Capital ID Discovery Elementary 3 75 78
Capital ID Eagle Elementary Of The Arts 3 90 93
Capital ID East Elementary School 2 60 62
Capital ID Elevate Academy (Boise, ID) 1 50 51
Capital ID Future Public School 2 62 64
Capital ID Galileo STEM Academy 1 33 34
Capital ID Garfield Elementary 3 47 50
Capital ID Glenns Ferry Elementary 1 5 6
Capital ID Glenns Ferry Middle 2 75 77
Capital ID Hacker Middle 5 125 130
Capital ID Highlands Elementary 2 34 36
Capital ID Hillcrest Elementary 1 17 18
Capital ID Hillsdale Elementary 3 82 85
40

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Capital Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Capital ID Horizon Elementary 1 80 81
Capital ID Hunter Elementary 3 79 82
Capital ID Joplin Elementary 1 21 22
Capital ID Koelsch Elementary 1 45 46
Capital ID Lake Hazel Elementary 2 58 60
Capital ID Lewis and Clark Middle School 2 238 240
Capital ID Liberty Elementary 2 104 106
Capital ID Longfellow Elementary 1 25 26
Capital ID Lowell Elementary 1 25 26
Capital ID Maple Grove Elementary 1 44 45
Capital ID McMillan Elementary School 1 45 46
Capital ID McPherson Elementary 1 28 29
Capital ID Meridian Elementary 1 30 31
Capital ID Morgan STEM Academy 4 130 134
Capital ID Nelson Elementary 4 124 128
Capital ID North Elementary 3 60 63
Capital ID North Star Charter School 1 85 86
Capital ID Owyhee Elementary School 1 23 24
Capital ID Paramount Elementary 3 86 89
Capital ID Peace Valley Charter School 1 50 51
Capital ID Peregrine Elementary 1 30 31
Capital ID Ponderosa Elementary 4 89 93
Capital ID Prairie Elementary 1 36 37
41

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Capital Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Capital ID Reed Elementary 2 56 58
Capital ID River Valley Elementary 2 159 161
Capital ID Riverside Elementary 1 23 24
Capital ID Ross Elementary School 6 190 196
Capital ID Sacred Heart Catholic School 3 90 93
Capital ID Seven Oaks Elementary 3 86 89
Capital ID Siena Elementary 6 157 163
Capital ID Silver Sage Elementary 2 40 42
Capital ID Silver Trail Elementary 4 114 118
Capital ID Spalding STEM Academy 2 43 45
Capital ID St. Mark's Elementary 1 40 41
Capital ID St. Mary's Catholic School 1 20 21
Capital ID Star Elementary 4 130 134
Capital ID Stephensen Elementary 2 50 52
Capital ID Summerwind Stem Academy 1 67 68
Capital ID Taft Elementary 1 10 11
Capital ID Trail Wind Elementary 3 71 74
Capital ID Ustick Elementary 3 100 103
Capital ID Valley View Elementary 3 70 73
Capital ID Washington Elementary School 1 37 38
Capital ID West Elementary School 4 109 113
42

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Capital Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Capital ID Whitney Elementary 1 30 31
Capital ID Whittier Elementary School 3 76 79
Capital ID Willow Creek Elementary 2 56 58
Total 149 4,692 4,841
43

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Canyon Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Canyon ID Birch Elementary 5 110 115
Canyon ID Centennial Baptist School 1 18 19
Canyon ID Central Elementary 3 70 73
Canyon ID Desert Springs Elementary 5 149 153
Canyon ID East Canyon Elementary 1 53 54
Canyon ID Elevate Academy Nampa 2 47 49
Canyon ID Heights Elementary 1 25 26
Canyon ID Heritage Community Charter School 2 60 62
Canyon ID Idaho Arts Charter School 1 30 31
Canyon ID Iowa Elementary 1 90 91
Canyon ID Lake Ridge Elementary 2 52 54
Canyon ID Lewis & Clark Elementary 3 66 69
Canyon ID Melba Elementary 2 51 53
Canyon ID Mill Creek Elementary 6 151 157
Canyon ID Owyhee Elementary 2 51 53
Canyon ID Park Ridge Elementary 1 44 45
Canyon ID Purple Sage Elementary 2 40 42
Canyon ID Ronald Reagan Elementary 1 100 101
Canyon ID Roosevelt Elementary 1 110 111
Canyon ID Skyway Elementary 3 88 91
Canyon ID St. Paul's Catholic School 1 21 22
44

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Canyon Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Canyon ID Thomas Jefferson Charter 1 35 36
Canyon ID Vision Charter School 1 36 37
Canyon ID Washington Elementary 1 23 24
Canyon ID Wilson Elementary 1 24 25
Tota I 50 1,544 1,594
45

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Eastern Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Eastern ID Aberdeen Middle 4 100 104
Eastern ID Blackfoot Charter Elementary 1 23 24
Eastern ID Chubbuck Elementary 1 72 73
Eastern ID Connor Academy 1 29 30
Eastern ID Ellis Elementary 1 29 30
Eastern ID Fort Hall Elementary 1 19 20
Eastern ID Gate City Elementary 1 62 63
Eastern ID Grace Lutheran School 1 30 31
Eastern ID Greenacres Elementary 1 30 31
Eastern ID Groveland Elementary 1 32 33
Eastern ID Homeschool 1 4 5
Eastern ID Idaho Science And Technology 1 38 39
Charter School
Eastern ID Indian Hills Elementary 1 23 24
Eastern ID Inkom Elementary 1 25 26
Eastern ID Leadore School 1 8 9
Eastern ID Pocatello Community Charter 2 90 92
Eastern ID Ridge Crest Elementary 2 45 47
Eastern ID Riverbend Elementary School 6 192 198
Eastern ID Rulon M Ellis Elementary School 1 30 31
Eastern ID Salmon Pioneer Primary School 3 95 98
Eastern ID Simplot Elementary 4 118 122
Eastern ID Syringa Elementary 1 24 25
46

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Eastern Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Eastern ID Tendoy Elementary (Pocatello, ID) 3 103 106
Eastern ID Tendoy School 1 40 41
Eastern ID Tyhee Elementary 2 51 53
Eastern ID Wapello Elementary 1 23 24
Eastern ID Washington Elementary 1 18 19
Eastern ID Wilcox Elementary 2 50 52
Tota 1 47 1,403 1,450
47

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Southern Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Southern ID Acorn Learning Center 1 7 8
Southern ID Acton Academy Twin Falls 1 10 11
Southern ID Alturas Elementary 2 95 97
Southern ID Bliss School 1 12 13
Southern ID Buhl Middle 1 100 101
Southern ID Camas County School 1 10 11
Southern ID Carey School 1 25 26
Southern ID Castleford School 1 97 98
Southern ID Dietrich School 1 10 11
Southern ID East Minico Middle 1 158 159
Southern ID Ernest Hemingway STEAM School 1 58 59
Southern ID Filer Intermediate 4 120 124
Southern ID Frontier Elementary 1 77 78
Southern ID Gooding Elementary 7 169 176
Southern ID Hagerman Elementary 1 25 26
Southern ID Hailey Elementary 1 17 18
Southern ID Harrison Elementary 3 80 83
Southern ID Heritage Academy 1 16 17
Southern ID Heyburn Elementary 3 90 93
Southern ID Hollister Elementary 1 19 20
Southern ID Horizon Elementary 4 88 92
Southern ID Jefferson Elementary School 1 24 25
Southern ID Jerome Middle School 2 170 172
48

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Southern Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Southern ID North Valley Academy 1 16 17
Southern ID Oakley Elementary School 1 29 30
Southern ID Paul Elementary 2 57 59
Southern ID Perrine Elementary 3 69 72
Southern ID Richfield School 1 17 18
Southern ID Robert Stuart Middle School 2 263 265
Southern ID Rock Creek Elementary 1 30 31
Southern ID Sawtooth Elementary 3 76 79
Southern ID Shoshone Elementary School 1 18 19
Southern ID St Edwards Catholic School 3 60 63
Southern ID Stricker Elementary 2 52 54
Southern ID Summit Elementary 5 202 207
Southern ID Wendell Middle 2 108 110
Southern ID Xavier Charter School 2 66 68
Total 70 2,540 2,610
49

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Western Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Western ID Barbara R. Morgan Elementary 1 11 12
Western ID Cambridge Elementary 3 82 85
Western ID Carberry Elementary 3 93 96
Western ID Fruitland Elementary 1 115 116
Western ID Fruitland Middle 1 20 21
Western ID Garden Valley School 1 12 13
Western ID Horseshoe Bend Elementary 4 120 124
Western ID McCain Middle School 1 90 91
Western ID Mountain Community School 5 136 141
Western ID New Plymouth Elementary 1 259 260
Western ID Park Intermediate School 1 8 9
Western ID Parma Middle 3 71 74
Western ID Riggins Elementary 2 52 54
Western ID Shadow Butte Elementary 7 162 169
Western ID Treasure Valley Classical Academy 3 56 59
Tota 1 37 1,287 1,324
50

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Western Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Western OR Alameda Elementary 1 67 68
Western OR Keating Elementary 1 22 23
Western OR Slater Elementary 1 30 31
Western OR Willowcreek Elementary 1 14 15
Western OR Vale Elementary 1 18 19
Total 5 151 156
51

APPENDIX D
PARTICIPANT LETTERS
Teacher Letters
} , MAY,ACUML.
r R1 �r f~ •x �`I1 � . Z. kilil .I k
-,�,; � - . ;; �: mitt' ,� �•
'-�y� r�-. �r�, r .• /-i - _t`��- S►-'",-•`•s."'�'`:" '2�.r'�`1'v Y�`-i'��'tj�E �•*''� � i..�4 •! 1 ��:
!!� �� ,�,,•► �1• t •,N.h��;�, r,1�A � � . f..•� 1 :1�.�`.a4�":n.. tt�rrs �m+�'.�f��v,�l r►l •� , :,a
�,W L, ,. .1 f � �' �N�,- r- f `!j.- ,1 t/. � "' 11 t�F •-'�. .-:L _ _
IK� ?6''.t� ��{, ,�>^+�..M��1- 77��� �{`'.��+`��•1�� fi'r�r .•i. !,►1 •'t'lar'_' It;
,'J�.,a ��.i •ft• ���-•���•jtw� � i t:�L��i' ti . 4,:,', '•1'�1',al�t :�j�ir�.I `+t�"+1.i� ! i'?`11t4'. x�i l+� �ti+�;► �Z�'_ •``;jy s i �i
�• �,r�r,����'[M.�•'`�•�t/ r f,., .�rt•� �� 1 �ti iat,+1 '�� • 1�.C��'• '. a„ ��''i '1t-.�fT •�� �2
t r1���=�"1'FI '•'ter �.. r• �• � � I �• �, r r 1�,r� � � lj' S. (6�'�.�••`�• t f• ! .� -
r ,ty►w��' } � •c f t Ya`�y�r f �� �(�jr e•. 1�� r 1 �w S�
t+t,� r Ti C14��• r:�.!_ f ti :� I1 ,�, �, '��.al i - , _ f _1�G
_sI1T(r!•�1► �'F�5"tG ��, -�h . 'f-� > !��! �^-4;1 1tir��"� i i•�1t-{.i:Stifi�) I ~•
. r
J1 � ;� 1'� -•.f,� �, '![(:)';�a: 41 � ;t:',!• �`IIIt:f-5•'{'�I:::1. I: -'..��1 �.CY ) '
1 •i } It N%`S .. 0'.
'.�-t !� �' l.y�rNi, W e1"`��a '�5,.� I� �,i .,f �' /S �) -!�r '�, •l R ,,v.�';� iJ '' -
"-',7` - ti�„4�'�',5y,� '1!"' 't4 'tj.L.�iY +•,1• .A ''�'i '(� � .+•.y, "'.�" I, ,.I.'. 'r t
t � r}Irr'Cf,� .1:S.11 r�, � 'jt;� ,ti.•�tY: rl -.t. �. -• „LEI '
•ram-� s ', - r � � --�• r i�� �'�? �'d�'� '.� ..�i rV��S ti:A.l I r. - - . - . .-
'1' `� ' IIUf'?r33 ~�' �,s✓I',.t li(t11� r �• �'' IL
Af
• —`r •,yA• '.3� ',p f.l`�41k•NY I�+ — �►i : .♦7 � f • • 1
r •�r'i•� ,.j�'�l T,Tf,X
UVrl ' • • �► T� �~ . 1 ,a • �_,
', 1�,•.�-1• •�.•.• •''• .•��'»''r�-�` �-.fit of
1� ♦ • -�• f�� �� T �• � :t �
•
,.fit♦ ft!�,! UI f � �• ••. .-••-1.�.
52

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPANT LETTERS
Teacher Letters
4,1
• _1-_. :. ,.�, ; �. '�. +��_� wry.
- n��';ice-� � '.� ;,.i�._-Y {i'S� r:`_C•:Gz'.��_.`='"K t
� I� � � 4t � �t��' �{�, 4ti , trA _ t �',I,l•� r, �J1, of .�rl'
all
Z V,
/l.`'^,d/ Klr ..'i i }� ,r� ¢ 7 �� r• �j',t7f � �S'A�:�•��(i�ft4ft r,
• t.l .t "� ��� � �; a�'. �" ,�i y cy _ i;;[.- ;i�►t s� �i<S;`�j _sii -'t �1' 1� `t -
• , ' ; r s r .�}11 fJ�, I�bG `!�'� ° ��1'� i � ► : •�;��• 31'441 •,• .
- � � •ydfl{� {�kr71`sl'F� �•J.� NF3a71( Qy�'4^
t
MA
� J���rF � ter,;h�•'�,��t'�'✓�i wo
�
1 44"-OWN;�t�A 6 WO)�j
0 49-0-
' �'a44�917 nWrht�y�+Vlml tO';
en I*
'N�I: i�det�klc�•�Ul! FIb�4��sy�i1��=11-�i'�ear.11lieh E�F�frta ► .� � N r �
+fe aP�fz?�ti�1`St�� Vt�n A rth
i
�SWIn �oil � �A��'r '�h8p l:i r�ttytjl� ttlt.`,� ,U` •'[t r cy„Wt h i1�3111a1VhI t I I�,�
fcT i}I 1 ILf Rl�nr+f It rl°I ,tarp r ,3r Irl�. n VI<I ;.i�,, `u!
''�. l" i( U{ fS,�zi�llltii, rrrn���yr15 � f' y 1' '.Vr
�,i
t r f
L
t #' i.1 '�. ,tr,rY{'•?r.r ' _r .r1rh.I .;i • l s i —
�-z3 -�ar"i^•h"t' �'. � ''II ,flµy'i,I�V� � _ � .� • ��� � tom '
.�, _ __•Sw- ���-�'•t-.,1' ri�j �1�yt:7(. ►�'f� �9`Rr.:7v1 �.�11� • _ 1 �. -) •. �.►• •
53

APPENDIX D
PARTICIPANT LETTERS
Teacher Letters
• ��
+..'„�••'}4�,A� ��qs'�t�,���1►i I�;11 fl,,,��� to�{j�l�\ '��,'1
'{Y�1 JK.t 'G >�itl x�• ,j '�'1 ti•/`_ lw • L
� 1� x�.
♦ �I
f ' MARN.
1 ,U� lM 1 , • y
- , ` .tom � ,Oi�l:•�+rGC.1 u'y{ �' \t�t 9, 'k\fr i!i �Y..L��.T'-I��':l�lr•+•%i\,•• 1�t1
1° .t � r•�.F j};'�• '' y1 .v'� l• 1tJl•H�,\wYl("• r
:'.d{ 11�'�1!r1� •1► 1� �i'�i'��'L1�Ij�.('11 � .
' 1'1 � �' ' 1'f 'K ''!t'� �.:f 1�Io 1 t�1{tit d\�./`'+�ti t1yW•�N�
' J 1• ,r 1 ':I d t 1• � � ill/,��`�i:J:�'Y•(NJ''`aw��:• ,J 1'� _
f It i'!II / (1�i I��Y�'I .IUN•'��'\ !f3`� !,• �� •'t���t` - ._
' tT.i;ti;. •'4.�.` .,1�.^`�T r 1 4 , 1r
"y 1;1;11 i.FT^`I• ' ,d Y.a ►.yr/ p rly 'r"ll,.t E . •�� ✓S,� J, ��` 1�
i•''II
•I {I II p.� yM {
sof r.1 mn{1 ���11<r }•� tl !AM1 "J a� M nl I f r
I t v ♦ J ti dtlf -f, ev tV r r 4,* n .1 ��S .n.�,wtr '+, N ♦ rke III{ ton �+1�'Y1
. {►y"'��� ,
I 'A`* 4`l{i yv s t•7';'y 'e'' R �I II II'Irl I
1P?•;''{3 ,V �� �` S q:� '"kalP i1K,'^��Y'1!• ,I.iI I�III4 rlllln�Irll11 •t��,i ► �: r f{ II I n
1 '•1/1.1• � 4�«>.,. .r� .?�L ' +k r ,f'if tj el . F Kry_,�'•J;•->L��.'' "11 I.I�ar � II -
'
iif111.�1�`'. �.,"-"' .:ie. r:"{+.,�';•, i.µ'�.1�t « !L tif�IK 'K9 s Y��.p� / � 11 'W' .
• IK7`I,N'! 1 !"p� }}ie �� '�11 y�i�f�� � �t �•lµl Ilh�l!{ ,�- ,
j�y��,}rtu'11I. ...I'7', .�.iq„MI• 1:�,', 1.'I-
r 1
jo
f�_ -� ��...J. ���l��M1�.. •1. . �•
54

APPENDIX C
PARTICIPANT LETTERS
Teacher Letters
= r
. � �--fir ## - • __.:.,_--
' �1l�fytli
4i� i"1 ,r _ Syr i. i - { i i, )`Xa. t '� V -!{ 114� rF�
f �.yq� my
ro�„�� `!R ' �J'1 d[, -t ye{Tl, '� � i�i ��'�- !�at .fr�a�iniHwVtnrrrrr > as
FA- Pat M*
CditSthude ,i wu4a fse't"wit� 3:sraParepu/�au7femaialmu,,:� k.iwur��
55

Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance Programs Billing Analysis
Table of Contents
ExecutiveSummary................................................................................................................. 1
AboutWAQC........................................................................................................................... 1
Methodology...........................................................................................................................2
Matching...........................................................................................................................3
Electric Home Identification..............................................................................................3
Statisticallysimilar...................................................................................................................4
Analysis ...................................................................................................................................4
Results.....................................................................................................................................6
Conclusion...............................................................................................................................6
List of Tables
Table 1: Count of WAQC and WSOL Home Types....................................................................1
Table 2: WAQC and WSOL Homes by Agency..........................................................................2
Table 3: Building the Control Group........................................................................................3
Table 4: Savings by Program Type and Home Type, 2018— 2023 ...........................................6
Table 5: Total Count and Total Estimated Savings by Program, 2018 - 2023...........................6
List of Figures
Figure 1: Project Counts by City and County...........................................................................2
Figure 2: Monthly kWh Usage by group, pre-treatment ........................................................4
Figure 3: Mean Monthly kWh Usage Relative to Project Completion Date.............................5

Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance Programs Billing Analysis
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to identify the kWh savings produced by the Weatherization
Assistance for Qualified Customers (WAQC) program and Weatherization Solutions for Eligible
Customers (WSOL) from program years 2018 to 2023.
The analysis used a difference-in-difference approach, which is the methodology used in the
previous analysis. This utilizes a control group which serves as the counterfactual, or what is
assumed would have been the kWh usage for homes in the program, had there not been
weatherization measures implemented. The control group is a collection of residential homes in
Idaho Power's service territory that are matched to meters that were in the program. The
control group consists of electrically heated homes that are the same home type, zip code, city,
and exist in the same year as homes in the program, or the "treatment group". The kWh usage
for homes in the treatment is compared to kWh usage in the control group. The difference
between the two values after the weatherization is complete is what is used to estimate kWh
savings.
About WAQC
The WAQC and WSOL programs provide financial assistance to regional Community Action
Partnership (CAP) agencies in Idaho Power's service area to fund weatherization costs of
electrically heated homes occupied by qualified customers who have limited incomes. WAQC
serves customers whose income is less than 200% of the federal poverty level. Measures
installed include insulation, doors, new HVAC systems, and windows. Education and repairs are
also provided to customers.
Apartments, or units in multifamily buildings, manufactured homes, and single-family homes
are serviced under WAQC. Most of the homes are either manufactured or single-family, as
shown in Table 1.
Table 1:Count of WAQC and WSOL Home Types
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Apartments 61 33 6 5 6 7
Manufactured Homes 130 161 91 105 102 107
Single-Family Homes 156 143 47 60 67 68
Total 347 337 144 170 175 182
There are seven CAP agencies through which Idaho Power operates: Community Connection of
Northeast Oregon, Inc (CCNO), Community in Action (CINA), Eastern Idaho Community Action
Partnership (EICAP), El Ada Community Action Partnership (El ADA), Metro Community Services,
South Central Community Action Partnership (SCCAP), and Southeastern Idaho Community
Action Agency (SEICAA). CCNO and CINA are in Oregon while the other five agencies are in
Idaho. The project count under each agency is included in Table 2.
Page 1

Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance Programs Billing Analysis
Table 2:WAQC and WSOL Homes by Agency
Agency Home
Count
CCNO 4
CINA 9
EICAP 13
EL ADA 530
Metro Community Services 321
SCCAP 163
SEICAA 99
Projects are dispersed across the service territory, with a higher concentration of projects in
more populous areas. Ada, Canyon, and Twin Falls Counties each had more than 100 homes
weatherized from 2018 to 2023.
-� {stir 6' . ,a.i r„�a r•5 ,n
A
tXZr+!T its r'V t,�• � I 1
Ob
(•.4'�; ` � ' ! •.1 1 i. it �� f'�t+" _ s '.�,r� ��il�;
Figure 1: Project Counts by City and County
Methodology
The analysis used difference-in-differences methodology to identify the savings achieved by the
weatherization measures installed. Each home in the treatment group was matched to, at
most, five homes in the control group, using usage characteristics pre-treatment. The analysis
compared the usage in these homes after the treatment period to estimate the kWh savings
from the measures. Homes in the Re-Weatherization program and non-residential spaces were
removed; savings were evaluated just for WAQC and WSOL.
Page 2

Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance Programs Billing Analysis
Matching
Homes were matched on home type, zip code, city, and average usage pre-treatment. Home
types included manufactured home, apartment, and single-family house. These will have
varying kWh usage levels throughout the year and thus should be matched within their own
group.
Zip code and city were both included since there can be more than one city in a zip code and
vice versa. This primarily controls for differing weather patterns across Idaho Power's service
territory, which may impact usage.
Average usage pre-treatment was used to ensure homes were compared to other homes with
similar usage patterns pre-treatment. For some homes in the treatment group, there were as
many as 2,698 control homes matched. Narrowing down to the 5 homes closest in usage for
each treatment home pre-WAQC allowed for a more like-for-like comparison.
Electric Home Identification
As the treatment homes have electric heating, the control group needed to contain exclusively
electric homes. Weather and load data were used to identify likely electric homes. Each home
was mapped to a local weather station. The weather stations used are in Boise, Challis, Hailey,
Twin Falls, McCall, Ontario, and Pocatello. The hourly load was averaged by meter at mild and
cold temperatures. Mild temperatures are within 5 degrees of the temperature when the load
curve is at its minimum. Cold temperatures are 30 degrees less than that. This allows for
differences in regional comfortability in varying temperatures. Someone who lives in Salmon
might have a different level of comfort in 50 degrees than someone in Boise. The ratio of kW
used in cold temperatures to kW used in mild temperatures was calculated for each meter.
The probability of electric heating for each home was predicted using a logistic regression. The
model was trained on homes with known heating fuel types. For each home, heat type was
identified. The kW ratio for these homes was used to estimate the probability that a home is
electrically heated. kW ratio is the amount of electricity used in "cold" weather divided by the
level of usage in "mild" temperatures, as defined in the prior paragraph. Homes with a kW ratio
greater than 2.00 were predicted to be electric. This brought the homes in the control group
from 465,739 to 137,652. After filtering for homes in the same cities and zip codes as those in
the treatment group, and homes with square foot data, 57,530 homes remained eligible to be
used in the control group. The filtering process is shown in Table 3. The final count of meters
used in the control group was 4,697 to act as a counterfactual to 1,113 treatment homes.
Table 3: Building the Control Group
Filter Homes Removed Total Homes
Single-Family Homes,Apartments,Manufactured Homes 465,739
Electrically Heated Homes 328,087 137,652
Meters with matching zip code in treatment group 6,896 130,756
Page 3

Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance Programs Billing Analysis
Meters with matching city in treatment group 1,377 129,379
Homes with square footage data 71,849 57,530
Statistically similar
A key part of difference-in-differences analysis is establishing statistical similarity between the
control and treatment groups pre-treatment. If the groups are comparable before the
treatment is put into place, then it can be assumed that the control group will behave post-
treatment like the treatment group would have had there not been a treatment imposed. In
Figure 2, the similarity between the two groups pre-treatment is exhibited. The median
monthly usage for homes in the control group is 1,136 kWh and 1,163 kWh for homes in the
treatment group. The quartiles are also similar; 709 kWh and 730 kWh in the first quartile and
1,771 kWh and 1,808 kWh in the third quartile for the control and treatment groups,
respectively. This implies that the control group can serve as the counterfactual for the
treatment group.
I
r
Figure 2: Monthly kWh Usage by group,pre-treatment
Analysis
The effect of the weatherization measures is estimated using a difference-in-differences
analysis. This determines the kWh usage of a given home in the treatment group and compares
that to the kWh usage in a similar home that did not have the treatment imposed. Figure 3
shows the difference in average kWh usage between the two groups, relative to the project
completion date. Homes in the control group were each assigned a project completion date of
their matched treatment home. Similar usage trends are observed in the year prior to the
weatherization project completion. Average monthly usage begins to decline in the treatment
group about two months prior to the project completion date. The month prior to treatment,
treatment month, and month immediately after treatment were removed from the analysis
address this peculiarity. Reasons for the drop prior to project completion may be:
Page 4

Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance Programs Billing Analysis
• Weatherization projects began to be implemented in phases leading up to the project
completion date. A job may be started while the agency waits for ordered materials to
arrive.
• In the initial consultation visit, auditors provide energy efficiency education to the
customer. Treatment customers may have already shifted some of their energy
consumption between this meeting and the completion of the project.
• The project completion date is when the project was closed out by the WAQC program
manager. There are administrative steps that occur between project completion and
closure, which could drive this discrepancy.
s.� r-i c �.-�f Wei' ,��1�' .n 'a '�.' 1` • , ��5� i •�"�
2il• T � i' � . l:t•�T' t.
s •� r
'• ,< �,J� s fal 7v� it + ri � ,ram �'�-
!�4t��=II'1S,�i"r7rf, �1"�''atCl'►6'1l�'
Figure 3: Mean Monthly kWh Usage Relative to Project Completion Date
A multiple linear regression model was used to run the regression analysis. The model structure
used is:
kWhr,t = 6treatr + ypostt + /3(treat * post)r,t + aHDDI,t + (CDDi,t + £i,t
Where kWh;,t is monthly electricity usage, i is a home, and t is the time period. As for the
explanatory variables, Streat; is equal to 1 if home i is in the treatment group and 0 if not, ypostt
is equal to 0 if time period t is before the project completion date and 1 if it is on or after, and
6(treat*post)ij is the primary object of interest in this analysis. 6 is the difference-in-differences
co-efficient and estimates the treatment effect on the homes. a and �control for outside
temperatures that are likely to require the house to be heated or cooled, respectively. Heating
degree days (HDD) captures how much the temperature is below 65 degrees Fahrenheit.
Cooling degree days (CDD) captures how much the temperature is above 65 degrees
Fahrenheit. In December of 2021, the average temperature in Caldwell was 38.73 degrees
Fahrenheit. This yielded an HDD value of 26.27 and a CDD value of 0. In June of 2021, however,
Caldwell had an average temperature of 74.83 degrees Fahrenheit which yielded an HDD of 0
and a value for CDD of 9.83. The final variable in the regression, F;,t, is for errors.
Page 5

Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance Programs Billing Analysis
Results
The findings from this analysis are similar to what was found in the prior analysis performed by
Nexant in 2020. Across WAQC and WSOL, homes that participated in the program experienced
savings of 1,472.28 kWh per year after the home was weatherized. The 95% confidence interval
is 1,179.69 kWh to 1,764.78 kWh. This is compared to 1,969 kWh of annual savings estimated in
the Nexant report, which is greater than the updated savings estimate. The results by program
and home type are broken out in Table 4.
Table 4:Savings by Program Type and Home Type,2018—2023
WAQC WSOL All
Home Type Customers Annual kWh per Customers Annual kWh per Customers Annual kWh per
Project Project Project
Single Family 716 1,365.60* 385 1,724.52* 3,087 1,496.52*
Manufactured Homes 751 1,256.76* 143 1,852.68* 2,270 1,367.88*
Apartments 80 2,184.12* 28 1,694.04* 286 2,011.20*
All 1,547 1,351.44* 556 1,743.48* 5,643 1,472.28*
Note: * indicates the savings are statistically significant at the 99%percent level.
The totals will not sum as the homes in the re-weatherization program are not included in the breakout but are
included in the population-wide analysis.
Table 4 depicts the savings and population count for each home type and program
combination. The R2 for the regressions was 0.21, on average. This means that about 21% of all
homes' usage can be explained by the variables included in the regression. Each of the savings
estimates was found to be statistically significant at the 99th percent level.
Also of interest is the effect of heat pump installation in a home. Homes that had a heat pump
installed saw an average annual decrease in energy usage of 1,212.84 kWh. This analysis was
run on 696 homes, 116 of which were treatment and 573 were in the control group.
Conclusion
The WSOL program pulls more kWh savings than WAQC does for an average project. However,
with 800 homes weatherized from 2018 through 2023, the WAQC program brought the most
savings en masse, as shown in Table 5.
Table 5:Total Count and Total Estimated Savings by Program,2018-2023
WAQC WSOL
Homes Weatherized 800 293
Total Estimated Savings 1,081,152 kWh 431,378 kWh
Page 6

Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance Programs Billing Analysis
As the results were statistically significant, it is advised to use the updated savings numbers in
future savings estimations for the program.
Page 7