20161115AVU to Staff 12.doc

AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 11/10/2016
CASE NO.: AVU-E-16-06 WITNESS: Dan Johnson
REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Mike Dillon
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: DSM
REQUEST NO.: Staff-12 TELEPHONE: [phone]

REQUEST:

Page 5 of the Nexant Impact Evaluation of Idaho Programs for 2014-2015 states that, in reference to Nonresidential Programs, “cases of ineligible VFD projects receiving incentives were the cause of the low realization rate for these programs.” Please describe how the ineligible VFD projects received incentive payments. Please provide a list of all ineligible VFD projects that received an incentive payment.

RESPONSE:

During the 2014–2015 Evaluation, Nexant found 2 Prescriptive VFD projects that were ineligible/not fully eligible. The first project was for a large Washington food processor where a single VFD (150 HP) was installed on a constant speed motor and the VFD was used as a soft start on the motor, therefore no savings were realized. The second project, in Idaho, was for the a Homeowners Association (2x40HP) where VFDs were installed on both the primary and redundant pumps which served the same fluid system, but would only have a 50% savings realization, since only one pump was operating at any time. The total incentive for this project was $10,400.

In response to this finding, the Company added the following two items that a customer must check, and if either item isn’t checked, the Prescriptive VFD application will forgo greater scrutiny or be rejected:

VFD is for control and not for a soft start
There are not 2 VFD’s on the same fluid flow system

Page 1 of 1