20161115AVU to Staff 22.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: Renee Coelho
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: DSM
REQUEST NO.: Staff-22 TELEPHONE: [phone]

REQUEST:

What steps has the Company taken to ensure that the most cost effective measures are installed in a participant home under the Low Income Weatherization Program?

RESPONSE:

The Company conducts its annual business planning process in the fall, which helps guide what cost-effective measures will be eligible for funding.

To address cost-effectiveness in 2014, the Company had two categories of measures that were offered to the Agency: Category A) covers the full reimbursement of expenses related to the measure, and Category B) covers a partial reimbursement as it relates to energy savings value related to the Company’s avoided cost. This format gave the agency flexibility to utilize their funds for a variety of measures, but also directed them towards the measures that the Company considered to be the most cost effective. These lists can be found in the attachment to Avista’s response to Staff PR-14.

In 2015, the avoided cost for electricity had reached a low point that would allow the Company’s Low Income Weatherization program to only fund two cost-effective electric efficiency measures. By only allowing the two electric efficiency measures to go forward without any additional offerings would have resulted in a limited amount of homes being served. The same methodology utilized in 2014 continued for 2015 until the results were confirmed by a third-party evaluator that this approach was appropriate. This allowed for a consistent message as the Agency planned their 2015 program. In the Company’s recent annual report, the TRC levels for the Low Income Weatherization program in 2014 were 1.21 and 1.0 in 2015.

Page 1 of 1