20161013AVU to Staff 2 Attachment A.pdf

The following sections outline the major recommendations from the impact and process
evaluation reports completed for the 2012-2013 portfolio of programs and notes what
changes were made to the 2014-2015 Avista programs as a result of these evaluations.
1.1 Process Evaluation Summary
Recommendations from Avista’s 2012-2013 process evaluation1 report and subsequent
implementation actions taken by Avista are summarized below.
1.1.1 Residential Sector
1.1.1.1 Program Participation
Conclusion: Avista’s implementation of new and continued support for existing third-
party implemented programs such as Simple Steps, Smart Savings and Residential
Behavior effectively captures energy savings in the residential market segments.

Recommendation: Continue exploring new measures, program designs, and delivery
mechanisms that leverage the national expertise of experienced third-party
implementation firms. Possible programs may include additional partnership with
ENERGY STAR in the form of the Home Performance with ENERGY STAR program.

Status: In 2014 the Company offered Energy Star rebates through NEEA as the
implementer, and distinguished between an Energy Star stick build home and a
manufactured home.

Conclusion: Avista’s continued investment in pilot programs provides a low-risk way
test the effectiveness of new measure offerings, delivery channels, and implementation
partners.

Recommendation: Continue testing new program designs and measure offerings
through the use of pilots—even if secondary sources of funding or local partners are not
available.

Status: Avista initiated 3 pilot programs in 2014, a pilot program for reducing
losses in compressed air systems called Air Guardian, a pilot program to test the
efficacy of controlling block heaters on vehicles to reduce losses, and a pilot
program to perform strategic energy management (SEM) in our industrial
customers. The Company has yet to get an industrial customer to sign up for the
second phase of the SEM initiative, but should have some preliminary results
from the other two pilots by August of 2015.

1 Avista 2012-2013 Process Evaluation Report, The Cadmus Group, Inc., May 15, 2014.
Staff_PR_02 Attachment A Page 1 of 12
.
Conclusion: While still early, evaluation findings indicate the Residential Behavior
program is an effective way to capture savings in the residential market and Opower is a
strong partner for program implementation.

Recommendation: If determined to be cost-effective, consider expanding the
Residential Behavior program (for example, lowering the energy consumption threshold
for participation and implementing measures to track the methods these customers use
to save energy). Given that Avista has already included all cost-effective customers in
their target population for this program, future opportunities for expansion may be
limited.

Status: The Company will consider expansion of the OPower Residential
Behavior program pending 2014-2015 cost effectiveness results. Avista will take
into consideration the cost effectiveness of the program over the full program life.
1.1.1.2 Program Design
Conclusion: Inconsistencies continue to exist in measure and program naming and
organization across program planning, tracking and reporting activities which result in
less transparency in program operations and limit effective program evaluation.
Recommendation: As part of the transition to the new data tracking system, consider
aligning program and measure names with offerings articulated in annual business plans
and other planning materials.
Status: Avista’s transition to a new tracking system has taken considerably
longer to accomplish than was considered at the writing of this recommendation
due to a prolonged initiation of the new customer information system. The
present thought process, at the time of this report, is that Avista will enhance the
historical savings database, SalesLogix, with tracking capabilities in the same
database. As that change is made in the 2nd and 3rd quarter of 2015, the
alignment of program, measure, planning materials and business planning will be
a priority.
Conclusion: The elimination of appliance rebates gives customers fewer ways to
participate in Avista energy-efficiency rebate programs.
Recommendation: Consider ways to encourage repeat participation (such as marketing
targeted at previous participants and online profiles that reduce application paperwork).
Status: The Company has noted the response of its General Population Survey
which indicated that approximately 10% of surveyed customers planned to
Staff_PR_02 Attachment A Page 2 of 12
replace HVAC equipment in the next couple years. Avista will continue to
promote these measures to serve this demand.
Conclusion: Considering self-report customer freeridership scores and market baseline
data from the RTF is an effective way to assess the appropriateness of measure
offerings.
Recommendation: Continue use of customer freeridership and market assessments as
a way to assess the appropriateness of measure offerings.
Status: Avista is employing accepted Northwest Power and Conservation
Council methodologies to the extent possible, to include the use of unit energy
savings and freeridership values as identified by the RTF. When such values are
not available, Avista will utilize the best estimate of what future third-party impact
evaluation will reveal. Avista will continue to track freeridership values for
measures and programs and will consider program changes and measure
offerings in cases where market transformation has fully occurred.
1.1.1.3 Program Implementation
Conclusion: Avista prioritization of customer satisfaction has been very successful and
overall participant experience is very positive across all rebate programs.
Recommendation: Continue Avista’s commitment to customer satisfaction, but monitor
increased staffing costs and impacts of the 90-day participation window on freeridership.
Status: Avista agrees and continues to be committed to customer satisfaction.
Staffing costs are continually tracked and efforts have been made to save where
possible. Avista believes there is a long standing approach that balances customer’s
ability to participate along with implementation/operational considerations. Avista
typically provides 90 days for program changes to allow for market communications
and smooth transitions in and out of programs. Avista believes the 90 day
participation window is an optimal, balanced approach considering customer equity
and increasing documentation requirements.
1.1.1.4 Marketing and Outreach
Conclusion: Avista implements a strong general awareness campaign around energy-
efficiency, but some room exists in market segmentation and targeting specific customer
groups.
Recommendation: Utilize survey results from this evaluation and other data collection
activities to understand which audiences are more likely to participate in Avista
programs.
Staff_PR_02 Attachment A Page 3 of 12
Status: Avista appreciates the intent of this recommendation, however, due to
limitations in our customer care and billing system, the Company doesn’t have a
comprehensive customer relationship management tool that allows for segmentation
and targeting and campaign management. The Company does believe that a
continued broad reach approach engages new customers and further engages
customers who have previously participated in energy efficiency programs
demonstrated by repeat customers. The Company has found success in highlighting
some programs but usually in the context of broader messaging that drives
customers to our website to find offerings that are available to them. The Company
has also had success in stretching our outreach efforts by building relationships with
media partners such as local television stations and personalities and weekly
newspapers that leverage and add endorsement.
1.1.2 Nonresidential Sector
1.1.2.1 Program Management and Implementation
Conclusion: Several parties over several years, internal and external to Avista, have
observed the need for greater data quality assurance, in both documentation and input
tracking. Quantitative inputs to the savings and rebate calculations have repercussions
for tariff compliance, incentive payments, and savings realization rates.
Recommendation: Avista should continue efforts to improve program processes. The
evaluation team believes unifying the organizational structure under central leadership is
a step in the right direction and may help alleviate some previously documented issues
with internal communications. In addition to the reorganization, it was recommended that
Avista develop standardized processes within the DSM group, including clear delineation
of roles and precise description and assignment of all processes and responsibilities for
both residential and nonresidential programs. All affected parties should be included in
formalizing and standardizing the DSM group’s processes, roles, and responsibilities.
Further, all parties must formally agree to clearly delineated responsibilities under the
new organizational structure. While these activities need to be prescriptive and precise,
we caution that the resulting structure should still allow some flexibility: increased clarity,
transparency, and accountability should serve to enhance program delivery and
customer satisfaction.
Status: In 2014, the Company carefully reviewed the recommendations from
external evaluators, Advisory Group and Commission Staff regarding the DSM
Team Organization. By April 2014, the Customer Solutions Team, including the
Energy Efficiency Group was reorganized and is now reporting to one Leadership
individual, a Sr. Director. In July, the Energy Efficiency Team was re-organized to
report to one Sr. Manager to include Program Managers across all three states
(WA/ID/OR), Energy Efficiency Engineering, and the Analyst Team. This
Staff_PR_02 Attachment A Page 4 of 12
reorganization has facilitated coordination and communication by the team
members in delivering successful programs to customers. In addition, this new
organizational structure included a thorough review of the Standard Operating
Practices, EM&V Framework, Duel Fuel Incentive Calculators, and the Top Sheet
Reviews. These process documents are expected to be complete in early 2015
and made available to the Advisory Group at the Spring 2015 meeting The team
continues to be committed to developing, designing, and implementing prudent
cost effective programs for the Company’s customers.
1.1.2.2 Customer Feedback
Conclusion: Customers were highly satisfied with the program overall and with
individual components. Customer satisfaction has increased since 2011, which had in
turn increased from 2010.
Recommendation: Continue to prioritize and monitor program satisfaction.
Status: Customer satisfaction and feedback will continue to be collected on
programs through third party evaluation efforts conducted for 2014-2015 program
years.
1.1.2.3 Market Feedback
Conclusion: According to commercial lighting contractor feedback, the nonresidential
programs are successful in driving incremental energy-efficient equipment sales, and the
market has not yet transformed to make energy efficiency standard practice.
Recommendation: Continue to monitor market transformation indicators to measure
programs’ market impact over time.
Status: Avista will continue monitoring signs of market transformation in the
Nonresidential sector through efforts taken by the third party evaluator.
1.1.2.4 Marketing and Outreach
Conclusion: The characteristics of the evaluation survey respondents indicate that the
office / professional services and local government sectors may be underserved by the
programs relative to their incidence in the nonparticipant population. Further research is
necessary to determine whether this is true.
Recommendation: Identify underserved industries, and seek opportunities to target
outreach to specific underserved industries such as; investigate overall customer
industry distribution, compare to participant industry distribution, and develop targeted
outreach strategies for any underserved sectors.
Staff_PR_02 Attachment A Page 5 of 12
Status: This will be investigated as part of the 2014-2015 process evaluation.

1.1.2.5 Quality Assurance and Verification
Conclusion: Avista monitored its site-specific project review process and instituted
refinements during the evaluation period in response to feedback from users. While this
has led to improvements, including notably improved reliability of reported savings in
2012, quality assurance problems may persist.
Recommendation: Continue to monitor the effectiveness of the site-specific project
review process and refine as needed. The third party evaluator recommends
implementing the following to ensure continued improvement:
Status: Avista implemented the following review model on April 24, 2015 that
focuses on review guidelines based on a risk assessment:
 Measures that have an incentive of $0 and an energy based simple
payback of over 20 years require no report and no review, just a form
letter to the customer.
 Measures that have incentives between $1 and $2,000 will be processed
by the reporting engineer without any other review.
 Measures that have incentives between $2001 and $25,000 will be
reviewed before going to the customer by another qualified engineer.
 Measures over $25,000 will be reviewed by another qualified engineer
with an additional technical management review prior to releasing to the
customer.
 Measures over $40,000 will be reviewed by another qualified engineer, a
technical manager, and an additional director review prior to releasing to
the customer.
 Each review above will use the technical Top Sheet as a reviewing
instrument with appropriate name and review level noted.
 A completed project must be re-submitted through the technical review
process only if the incentive changes more than 10% when the savings or
costs from the original report change. The report and DFIC will always be
changed and recorded when savings or incremental costs change upon
completion.
Recommendation: Conduct an external third-party review of Top Sheets, including
reviewing a random sample of completed Top Sheets for completeness and accuracy.
These were not reviewed as part of the 2012-2013 process evaluation, but should be
included in the next process evaluation. Review should not only verify the presence of
the Top Sheets, but also the quality and accuracy of the information provided.
Staff_PR_02 Attachment A Page 6 of 12
Status: Several implementation improvements, either in-progress or recently
completed, were reviewed and their impact upon 2014 program performance was
discussed by the Avista implementation team. These improvements include:
 Revisions to the site-specific program implementation processes to
improve clarity and promote the timely movement of projects through the
pipeline.
 The establishment of three checklists (or “Top Sheets”), one prior to
contracting and one prior to the payment of the incentive, in order to
ensure consistent documentation and treatment of each project as it
progresses through these processes towards completion.

1.2 Impact Evaluation Summary
Recommendations from Avista’s 2013 Idaho Electric Impact evaluation2 report and
subsequent implementation actions taken by Avista are summarized below.
1.2.1 Recommendations
1.2.1.1 Residential Electric Programs
The 2013 Idaho Electric Impact evaluation recommended the following changes to
Avista’s residential electric programs. Applicable updates have been included under the
“status” sub bullet.
Recommendation: Consider updating its per-unit assumptions of recycled equipment to
reflect the 2012-2013 evaluation findings in order to ensure that planning estimates of
program savings are in line with evaluated savings.
Status: Per unit energy savings for refrigerators were updated from 482 to 424
kWh, and per unit energy savings for freezers were updated from 555 to 478.
Recommendation: If clothes washer rebates are reinstated, Avista should track them all
within the electric program unless there is a large penetration of gas dryers.
Status: Clothes washer rebates were not reinstated.
Recommendation: Increase the measure level detail captured on applications and
include this detail in the tracking database. Specific additional information should include

2 Avista 2013 Idaho Electric Impact Evaluation Report, The Cadmus Group, Inc., June 17, 2014.
Staff_PR_02 Attachment A Page 7 of 12
energy factors or model numbers, baseline information for insulation, and home square
footage, particularly for the ENERGY STAR Homes program.
Status: Energy factors and home square footage are being captured in Avista’s
tracking database. Model numbers are captured on rebate applications as well as
baseline information for insulation which will likely be considered in 2016 after the
new tracking database has been stabilized. Energy Star Homes is a regional
(NEEA) program that has its own builder training, inspections, certifications and
database. Avista requires customers meet and provide proof of their Energy Star
Homes certification. Avista also collects square footage, primary space heating
fuel and primary water heating fuel.
Recommendation: Consider tiered incentives by SEER rating as higher SEER systems
generally require ECM fan motors to achieve certain SEER ratings.
Status: The Air Source Heat Pump rebate is no longer offered due to not meeting
cost effectiveness requirements.
Recommendation: Avista should consider completing a lighting logger study within its
territory if Avista believes the results of the forthcoming RBSA study do not accurately
represent usage in their territory.
Status: A lighting logger study is being conducted by the Nexant Team as a part
of the 2014-2015 independent third-party evaluation activities.
Recommendation: Avista should consider researching the percentage of Simple Steps,
Smart Savings bulb purchase that are installed in commercial settings. This could
increase the average installed hours of use and increase program savings.
Status: This research is being conducted by the Nexant Team during the 2014-
2015 evaluation period
Recommendation: Perform a billing analysis on ENERGY STAR homes using a non-
participant comparison group once enough homes have participated under the new
requirements to justify performing the work. This research could be used to demonstrate
the achieved savings through energy efficiency construction practices.
Status: If enough homes participate during the 2014-2015 program period that
allow for a study population large enough to produce statistically significant
results, this research will be conducted by the Nexant Team during the 2014-
2015 evaluation period.
Staff_PR_02 Attachment A Page 8 of 12
Recommendation: Consider researching the current variable speed motor market
activity to determine if this measure should continue as a stand-alone rebate or be
packaged with other equipment purchases.
Status: This research is being conducted by the Nexant Team as part of the
2014-2015 evaluation.
Recommendation: Continue to promote efficiency programs in the Behavior Program
energy reports, as the reports increased both the rate of efficiency program participation
and savings.
Status: Avista will continue to promote efficiency programs bi-annually on the
Behavior Program energy reports.
Recommendation: Avista should consider performing additional research about the
peak‐coincident demand savings from the behavior program.
Status: This will be considered for the 2014-2015 evaluation and largely
depends on the data available and whether or not a study of peak-coincident
demand savings is applicable for planning purposes.
1.2.1.2 Low Income Programs
The 2013 Idaho Electric Impact evaluation recommended the following changes to
Avista’s low income programs. Applicable updates have been included under the
“status” sub bullet.
Recommendation: Consider including a control/comparison group in future billing
analyses.
Status: In the 2014-2015 evaluation, a billing analysis will be used to analyze
energy impacts; a comparison group approach will be used as the preferred
method if sufficient data is available.
Recommendation: Consider options for increasing the analysis sample size due to
small program populations (such as combining Washington and Idaho program
participants).
Status: In the 2014-2015 evaluation, combination tactics are being utilized to
increase the analysis sample size.

Recommendation: Obtain a full list of weatherization measures from agencies.
Staff_PR_02 Attachment A Page 9 of 12
Status: The list of weatherization measures from agencies is provided in Section
Error! Reference source not found. of this report.
Recommendation: Consider targeting high-use customers.
Status: The Community Action Agencies have a priority screen that they utilize
which includes high energy use customers. Additional data mining from Avista is
not possible as the Utility does not have access to income data and as such does
not presume that a high use customer would also be eligible for low income
weatherization services. The high use customer data has been used in the past
to target potential participants for the residential behavior program along with
electric to natural gas conversion opportunities.
Recommendation: Track and compile additional data from agency audits.
Status: Avista includes on the Agency billing invoice a space for type of home
(e.g. stick built or mobile) age of home, square footage of home, heating fuel and
whether or not air conditioning exists. Additional data points will be gathered as
needed.
Recommendation: Consider performing quantitative, non-energy benefit analyses.
Status: Avista currently quantifies two primary non-energy benefits for Low
Income Programs. One is a dollar for dollar benefit related to health and human
safety (H&HS) improvements. Savings are not currently claimed applicable to
H&HS but these are improvements that protect the investment of and/or enable
the energy efficiency improvements to occur. The other is the benefit equivalent
to the cost of the standard efficient equipment benefit compared to the high
efficiency equipment measure (e.g. furnaces, water heaters, refrigerators and
broken windows). For some measures, like insulation, the incremental cost is the
full cost as if the customer did not have to replace anything and could have just
left the under-insulated space untreated. For the high efficiency improvements,
Avista is making the assumption that the baseline equipment is at or close to end
of life and, is therefore a replace upon burnout situation.
1.2.1.3 Nonresidential Electric Programs
The 2013 Idaho Electric Impact evaluation recommended the following changes to
Avista’s nonresidential electric programs. Applicable updates have been included under
the “status” sub bullet.
Recommendation: Create a quality control system to double-check all projects with
savings over 300,000 kWh.
Staff_PR_02 Attachment A Page 10 of 12
Status: Avista implemented the review model on April 24, 2015 as discussed in
Section 1.1.2 above. Avista uses measure level evaluation because the number
of measures in a project may change, but the incentives and risks on a per
measure basis will stay consistent. Avista found the incentive levels that most
closely matched the 300,000 kWh threshold to create the risk-based strategy
below as outlined.
Recommendation: Consider working with participants to accelerate the process of
claiming energy savings and paying the project incentive. Preferably this should happen
within one year of measure installation, depending on Avista’s requirements for post-
installation data on the particular project.
Status: Avista continually works with participants to accelerate the process of
claiming energy savings and paying the project incentive. Balancing the level of
rigor required to make sure savings claims are as accurate as possible,
appropriate documentation is received and requirements for post installation data
are achieved is part of our on-going active management of projects. Site specific
projects that are not performance based are typically paid within weeks of invoice
receipt and verification of installation. For performance based projects, the
payment timeframe is determined by the ability to collect adequate performance
data unique to the project parameters. Performance periods are typically within
one year of installation.
Recommendation: Avista may want to consider tracking and reporting demand
reduction to better understand measure load profiles and peak demand reduction
opportunities.
Status: Avista is working with their Power Supply department to find the value of
demand reduction at different times for different measures. Presently the
program operates only on commodity savings. Avista already calculates and
reports demand reduction when it occurs both in custom and prescriptive
measures and will continue this process.
Recommendation: Update prescriptive measure assumptions and sources on a regular
basis.
Status: Technical Reference Manual (TRM) updates, including prescriptive
measure assumptions, are being conducted as part of the 2014-2015
independent evaluation activities.
Recommendation: Streamline its file structure to enable reviewers to more easily
identify the latest documentation.
Staff_PR_02 Attachment A Page 11 of 12
Status: All documentation pertaining to a project is now stored in one file for
each project/opportunity. This includes; Energy Efficiency Report, DFIC, Top
Sheets, Contract, Invoices, Installation/Verification report and copy of incentive
check. A PDF file can easily be developed to upload to external FTP sites or it
can be viewed by anyone with access to SalesLogix. Avista has changed the
naming convention for projects to account for version control.
Recommendation: Continue to perform follow-up measure confirmation and/or site
visits on a random sample of projects (at least 10%).
Status: Avista continues to perform installation verifications on all Site Specific
projects and 10% of all Prescriptive projects.
Recommendation: Consider flagging sites for additional scrutiny when the paid invoice
does not include installation labor.
Status: Avista will implement data collection concerning installation labor on the
technical Top Sheet on May 11, 2015. While labor for some customers is a sunk
cost and will not show up in the incremental costs, for those that must have it be
a part of the incremental costs, it will be recorded and reviewed as part of the
technical Top Sheet process.
Recommendation: Avista may consider adding a flag to the tracking database to
automatically calculate the unit of energy savings per dollar (kWh/$ or therm/$) to
provide a quick check to identify extreme outliers.
Status: Avista added this metric to the lighting calculators in 2014 and this will be
added to the other calculators as they are updated in 2015.
Recommendation: In the case of redundancy, Avista may want to consider incenting
pump projects through the Site-Specific Program to more accurately characterize the
equipment operating hours.
Status: This issue has not been significant enough to change the prescriptive
process for VFD’s to site specific at this time.
Recommendation: Avista may want to adopt modeling design guidelines to set
minimum standards, such as The Energy Trust of Oregon guidelines.
Status: Avista uses both eQUEST and Energy Plus for modeling and will design
minimum standards for modeling design for contractors and Avista DSM
engineers to use, drawing on the experience of Energy Trust and others in 2015.

Staff_PR_02 Attachment A Page 12 of 12