20190603Avista to Staff 23-40.pdf

Avista Corp.
1411 East Mission P.O.Box3727
Spokane. Washington 99220-0500
Telephone [phone]
TollFree 800-727-9170
lYrtnsrfr
RECE IVED
i0l9JUll -3 ill 9: llr
IDAiiO PUBLICIILIIiES COMMISSION
Corp.
May 31,2019
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472W. Washington St.
Boise, lD 83720-0074
Attn: Diane Hanian
Re: Third Production Request of Commission Staff in Case No. AVU-E-18-12
Dear Ms. Hanian,
Enclosed is Avista's response to IPUC Staffs production request in the above referenced docket.
Included in this mailing are the original and huo paper copies of Avista's response to production
request: Staff 23-40. In addition to the written copies provided, all Excel and electronic files
have also been provided on CD with formulas activated. The electronic version of the responses
were also emailed on 05/3ll20l9.
Also included is Avista's CONFIDENTIAL response to Staff_PR_32C and Staff_PR_34C.
These responses, and associated attachments, contain TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY or
CONFIDENTIAL information and are separately filed under IDAPA 31.01.01, Rule 067 and
233, and Section 9-340D,Idaho Code.
If there are any questions regarding the enclosed information, please contact Paul Kimball at
[phone] or via e-mail at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
z%
Paul Kimball
Mgr., Compliance & Discovery
Enclosures
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION: IDAHO
CASE NO: AVU-E-I8-12
REQUESTER: IPUC StaffTYPE: Production Request
REQUEST NO.: Staff - 23
DATE PREPARED: 05117 12019WITNESS: N/A
RESPONDER: Amber Gifford
DEPARTMENT: Energy Efficiency
TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:
Please provide workpapers showing how the Target Confidence/Precision (C/P) totals were
calculated in Table 3-1: Planned Sampling and Evaluation Rigor for WA/ID Electric Residential
Programs (p.29) and Table 3-2: Planned Sampling and Evaluation Rigor for WA/ID Electric
Nonresidential Programs (p.29) of the 2016-2017 Electric Impact Evaluation.
RESPONSE:
The response below has been provided by Avista's 3'dpa.ty EM&V evaluator, Nexant, Inc.:
Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 were originally created as part of the Evaluation Plan, dated October 14,
2016 and the 90/10 confidence/precision (C/P) was a target minimum planned for the impact
evaluation activities at the portfolio level. These tables have been recreated and provided as
StaflPR_24_Attachment Ar. Please refer to worksheet 1617 lD_E_Impact_Tables, rows 105
thru 130.
The totals noted in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 are the sum of the sample sizes for each program in the
portfolio, and the sample sizes for each program were set to ensure that the total sample size for the
portfolio met the 90110 C/P target for participation in years 2016 and2017 combined. When
setting target sample sizes for each program, the evaluation team chose aClP target based on prior
evaluation results, anticipated size of the program, and level of uncertainty in the program savings.
Because the actual program participation for the f,all2016-2017 program cycle was unknown
when determining the sample sizes to meet each program target C/P, either historical program
population information was used, or an infinite population was assumed. A 'census' target C/P is
set for those programs wherein a billing analysis will be conducted because the billing analysis
targets all program participants.
I Nexant file name 'Final Evaluation Tables All Sectors ID 06081S-FINAL-forlD-updated 0524l9.xlsx'
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
AVU-E-18- l2
IPUC Staff
Production Request
Staff - 24
DATE PREPARED: 05117 12019WITNESS: N/A
RESPONDER: Amber Gifford
DEPARTMENT: Energy Efficiency
TELEPHONE: (s09) 49s-2896
REQUEST:
The values in Table 3-3: Achieved Sampling and Evaluation Rigor for WA/ID Electric Residential
Programs (p.30) of the 2016-2017 Electric Impact Evaluation are not consistent with the values in
the corresponding workpapers provided by the Company (Final Evaluation Tables All
Sectors_ID_060818-FINAL-forID.xlsx, Worksheet- 16 17 ID_E_Impact_Tables). Please explain
the discrepancy and provide updated workpapers.
RESPONSE:
The response below has been provided by Avista's 3'd party EM&V evaluator, Nexant, Inc.:
The precision value for the Home Enerry Reports in the workpaper is incorrect and should be
the value found in Table 3-3. This correction in the workpaper results in a final C/P that
matches the report. Please see Staff PR 24 Attachment A 1 for a copy of the updated
workpaper.
I Nexant file name "Final Evaluation Tables All Sectors ID 060818-FINAL-for ID-updated 052419"
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION: IDAHO
CASE NO: AVU-E-I8-12
REQUESTER: IPUC StaffTYPE: Production Request
REQUEST NO.: Staff - 25
DATE PREPARED: 05117 12019WITNESS: N/A
RESPONDER: Amber Gifford
DEPARTMENT: Energy Efficiency
TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:
Please provide workpapers showing how the Achieved Precision values were calculated in Table
3-4: Achieved Sampling and Evaluation Rigor for WA/ID Electric Nonresidential Programs (p.30)
of the 2016-2017 Electric Impact Evaluation.
RESPONSE:
The response below has been provided by Avista's 3'd party EM&V evaluator, Nexant, Inc.
Please see the workpaper already provided to IPUC staff, sent in CD format via overnight mail
on February 21,2019, titled'Avista Commercial Tracking Sheet 050318-ID Electric-for ID',
refer to tab titled'Realization Rates' cells X5, X6,X7, X9, and X11 for the calculation of
achieved precision for the programs listed in Table 3-4.
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
AVU-E-18-12
IPUC Staff
Production Request
Staff - 26
DATE PREPARED: 0511712019WITNESS: N/A
RESPONDER: Amber Gifford
DEPARTMENT: Energy Efficiency
TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:
Please provide workpapers showing how the Achieved Confidence/Precision (C/P) values,
including the total, were calculated in Table 3-3: Achieved Sampling and Evaluation Rigor for
WA/ID Electric Residential Programs (p.30), Table 3-4: Achieved Sampling and Evaluation Rigor
for WA/ID Electric Nonresidential Programs (p.30), and Table 5-2: Residential Program Achieved
Evaluation Sample @.67) of the 2016-2017 Electric Impact Evaluation.
RESPONSE:
The response below has been provided by Avista's 3'd party EM&V evaluator, Nexant, Inc.
In the workpaper already provided to ID PUC staff titled 'Avista Commercial Tracking Sheet
050318-ID Electric-for ID', refer to tab titled 'Realization Rates' cells X5, X6,X7, X9, and Xl 1
for the calculation of achieved precision for the programs listed in Table 3-4. Achieved precision
in Table 3-3 for programs analyzed using billing analysis is not calculated via "workpapers" but is
output based on statistical software coding using Stata statistical software.
The precision for the regressions is based on the standard errors, the required z-score, and the point
estimate. Regression outputs are included in Appendix C of the Idaho Impact Evaluation Report
which provided the necessary data to assess the validity of the models.
The ENERGY STAR Homes program precision is based on the analysis conducted in the
2014-2015 impact evaluation. Please note that Table 5-2 has erroneous precision entries for the
HVAC, Fuel Efficiency, Home Energy Reports programs. This table was not updated to reflect
final precision values for these programs; the precision values in Table 3-3 are correct.
Portfolio-level precision in Table 3-3 is in the workpaper previously provided titled 'Final
Evaluation Tables All Sectors_ID_060818-FINAL-forID.xlsx', and is also included as
Attachment Al to the Company's response to Staff PR_24. Please refer to tab titled '16 17
ID_E_lmpact_Tables' cell B 1 46.
I Nexant file name "Final Evaluation Tables All Sectors ID 06081 8-FINAL-for ID-updated 052419.x1sx"
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
AVU-E-18-r2
IPUC Staff
Production Request
Staff - 27
DATE PREPARED
WITNESS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMENT:
TELEPHONE:
0511712019
N/A
Amber Gifford
Energy Efficiency
(soe) 49s-28e6
REQUEST:
Page 78 of the 2016-2017 Electric Impact Evaluation, reads "while the program reported savings
per participant were estimated at9,865 kWh on average, the evaluation team ultimately estimated
average impacts per customer at 6,527 kwh." This suggests that the realization rate should be
6,527kWh/9,865 kWh : 66.16%. According to Table 5-14: Fuel Efficiency Program Gross
Verified Savings (p.78), the realization rate used in the evaluation was 62%o. In the workpapers
provided by the Company, a realization rate of 45%o is used (Final Evaluation Tables All
Sectors_ID_060818-FINAL-forID.xlsx, E Realization Rates, Table at A28:E215). Please explain
the discrepancies and provide workpapers showing how the realization rate reported in Table 5-14
was determined.
RESPONSE:
The response below has been provided by Avista's 3'd party EM&V evaluator, Nexant, Inc.
The realization rate of 62Yo is correct and is based on the weighted average reported customer
savings (10,462 kwh) and verified customer savings (6,527 kwh) for Washington and Idaho
combined (the analysis is based on both states in order to increase the robustness of the regression
model). The customer savings of 9,865 kWh in the report is an incorrect reference to Washington's
reported customer savings (Idaho reported I 1,950 kWh savings per customer). The 45%o
realization rate in the workbook on table 'E Realization Rates' is an old value and is not applied to
the final results. The 62%o realization rate is shown in the workpapers included in the attached
Sta[PR_27_Attachment Ar on the tab titled '1617 ID E_lmpact_Tables' which is the tab used
for reporting the tables in the evaluation report.
I Nexant workpaper titled 'Final Evaluation Tables All Sectors ID 060818-FINAL-forlD.xlsx'
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
AVU-E-18-12
IPUC Staff
Production Request
Staff - 28
DATE PREPARED: 05117 12019WITNESS: N/A
RESPONDER: Amber Gifford
DEPARTMENT: DSM
TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:
Table 5-2: Residential Program Achieved Evaluation Sample (p.67) of the 2016-2017 Electric
Impact Evaluation indicates that Nexant performed a document audit of 83 Shell program
participants. According to Section 5.7.3, the evaluation team conducted 68 document audits.
Please explain the discrepancy.
RESPONSE:
The below response has been provided by Avista's 3'd party EM&V evaluator, Nexant, Inc.
The evaluation team selected a sample of 68 Shell customers to complete the document audit.
However, a total of 83 audits were ultimately completed as other customers sampled for other
program document audits also participated in the Shell program and were included in the
Shell document audit exercise.
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
AVU-E-18-12
IPUC Staff
Production Request
Staff - 29
DATE PREPARED
WITNESS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMENT:
TELEPHONE:
05117120t9
N/A
Amber Gifford
Energy Efficiency
(509) 49s-2896
REQUEST
Please provide workpapers showing how the values were calculated in Table ES-3: 2017 lD
Electric Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Gross) (p.3) and Table ES-4: 2017 lD Natural Gas Utility Cost
Test (UCT) (Gross) (p.3) of the ID 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report and Cost
Effectiveness Analysis.
RESPONSE:
The below listed files that support this request were supplied via mail by Avista (as they were
too large to email) on March 9th, 2019, and were addressed to Donn English and Mike
Morrison at the IPUC:
Final Evaluation Tables All Sectors_ID_06081 8-FINAL-for ID
ID Electric CE2017 -Low Income_O3072019
ID Electric CE 2017 - Res Gross 03072019
ID Electric CE 2017 - Non Res-Gross _03072019
ID Gas C8 2017 -Low Income_03072019
ID Gas C8 2017 - Non Res - Gross_03072019
ID Gas CE 2017 - Res - Gross 03072019
Please note that this request is duplicative of the information requested in Staff_PR_3O.
Table ES-3 is the same as Table 2-2 ond Table ES-4 is the same as Table 2-6, os both of the
2017 ID Electric and Gas Utility Cost Test @CD (Gross) tables were copied into the
Executive Summary portion of the Annual Conservation Report.
I
2
aJ
4
5
6
7
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
AVU-E-18-12
IPUC Staff
Production Request
Staff - 30
DATE PREPARED
WITNESS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMENT:
TELEPHONE:
0s117t2019
N/A
Amber Gifford
Energy Efficiency
(s09) 49s-2896
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
ob'
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
REQUEST:
Please provide workpapers showing how the values were calculated in the 2017 DSM Annual
Conservation Report and Cost Effectiveness Analysis for the following:
Table 2-2:2017 ID Electric Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Gross) (p.11)
Table 2-3:2017 ID Electric Total Resource Cost (TRC) (Gross) (p.l l)
Table 2-4:2017 ID Electric Participant Cost (PCT) (Gross) (p.12)
Table 2-5:2017 ID Electric Rate Impact Measure (RIM) (Gross) (p.12)
Table 2-6:2017ID Natural Gas Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Gross) (p.13)
Table 2-7:2017ID Natural Gas Total Resource Cost (TRC) (Gross) (p.13)
Table 2-8:2017ID Natural Gas Participant Cost (PCT) (Gross) (p.14)
Table 2-9:2017 ID Natural Gas Rate Impact Measure (RIM) (Gross) (p.14)
Table 2-10:2017ID Combined Fuel Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Gross) (p.15)
Table 2-11:2017ID Combined Fuel Total Resource Cost (TRC) (Gross) (p.15)
Table 2-12:2017ID Combined Fuel Participant Cost (PCT) (Gross) (p.16)
Table 2-13:2017 ID Combined Fuel Rate Impact Measure (Rim) (Gross) (p.16).
RESPONSE:
The below listed files that support this request were supplied via mail by Avista (as they were
too large to email) on March 8th,2019, and were addressed to Donn English and Mike
Morrison at IPUC:
Final Evaluation Tables All Sectors_ID_060 8 1 8-FINAL-for ID
ID Electric CE 2017 - Low Income_03072019
ID Electric CE 2017 - Res_Gross_03072019
ID Electric CE 2017 - Non Res-Gross _03072019
ID Gas CE 2017 - Low Income_03072019
ID Gas CE 2017 - Non Res - Gross_03072019
ID Gas CE 2011 - Res - Gross 03072019
The response below has been provided by Avista's 3'dparty EM&V evaluator, Nexant, Inc.:
The cost effectiveness spreadsheets contain all the inputs and calculations used to calculate cost
effectiveness at the measure level. Due to the large size of these files, data from the cost
effectiveness spreadsheets was exported into a new spreadsheet (titled 'Avista Report Table
Templates_ID_03072019-to ID') where the portfolio-level cost effectiveness was calculated.
Specifically, the following outlines the steps taken to copy data from each cost-effectiveness file
into the 'Avista Report Table Templates_ID_03072019-to ID':
1.
2.
J.
4.
5.
6.
7.
l. Copied data from tab titled 'measure inputs' in the cost-effectiveness spreadsheets
(included all rows that contain data and only columns A thru CO)
2. Pasted (as values) the data into 'electric export' or 'gas export' tab of the file
'Avista Report Table Templates_ID_03072019-to ID'. Started 'paste values' in
column D. Electric cost effectiveness data is pasted into the 'electric export' tab
and gas cost effectiveness data is copied into the 'gas export' tab.
3. Manually coded columns A, B, and C based on the sector, net or gross, and
portfolio type of data that was pasted into the tab.
4. Repeated this step for all cost-effectiveness files - all three sectors (res, nonres, low
income) and for gross and net.
In the 'Avista Report Table Templates_ID_03072019-to ID' file, all data for Tables noted in
StafLPR_29, Staff PR_30, and Sta[PR_3lcan be found in the tabs titled 'ID Gross Portfolio
Tables' and 'ID Net Portfolio Tables'.
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
AVU-E- I 8- 12
IPUC Staff
Production Request
Staff - 31
DATE PREPARED
WITNESS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMENT:
TELEPHONE:
05/1712019
N/A
Amber Gifford
Energy Efficiency
(509) 49s-2896
REQUEST:
Please provide workpapers showing how the values were calculated in the 2017 DSM Annual
Report and Cost Effectiveness Analysis for the following:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
ob'
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
l0-1:2017 ID Electric Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Net) (p.63)
l0-2:2017 ID Electric Total Resource Cost (TRC) (Net) (p.63)
l0-1 (sic): 2017 ID Electric Participant Cost (PCT) Q.{et) (p.64)
10-2 (sic): 2017ID Electric Rate Impact Measure (RIM) (Net) (p.6a)
l0-5: 2017 ID Natural Gas Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Net) (p.65)
10-6:2017 ID Natural Gas Total Resource Cost (TRC) (Net) (p.65)
10-3 (sic): 2017 ID Natural Gas Participant Cost (PCT) (Net) (p.66)
10-4 (sic): 2017 lD Natural Gas Rate Impact Measure (RIM) (Net) (p.66)
10-9: 2017 ID Combined Fuel Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Net) (p.67)
10-10: 2017ID Combined Fuel Total Resource Cost (TRC) (Net) (p.67)
l0-5 (sic): 2017 lD Combined Fuel Panicipant Cost (PCT) (Net) (p.68)
10-6 (sic): 2017 lD Combined Fuel Rate Impact Measure (RIM) (Net) (p.68).
RESPONSE:
The below listed files that support this request were supplied via mail by Avista (as they were
too large to email) on March 8ft, 2019, and were addressed to Donn English and Mike
Morrison at IPUC:
Final Evaluation Tables All Sectors ID_060818-FINAL-for ID
ID Electric C82017 - Low Income_03072019
ID Electric CE2017 - Res_Net_03072019
ID Electric CE2017 - Non Res-Net 03072019
ID Gas CE20l7 -Low Income_03072019
ID Gas CE 2017 - Non Res_Net_03072019
ID Gas CE 2017 - Res Net 03072019
1.
2.
J.
4.
5.
6.
7.
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
AVU-E-18-12
IPUC Staff
Production Request
Staff - 33
DATE PREPARED: 05117 12019WITNESS: N/A
RESPONDER: Ryan Finesilver
DEPARTMENT: Energy Efficiency
TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:
For each project in the table shown in Request No. 32, please provide workpapers showing how
the Simple Payback (Col H), KWH (Col I), Incentive Electric (Col K), and Measure Cost (Col N)
were calculated.
RESPONSE:
Please refer to the Company's response to Staff DR_32c_Attachments A-G (Confidential). The
Simple Payback, kwh, incentive, and measure costs are included in each project's Dual Fuel
Incentive Calculator (DFIC).
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
AVU-E-18-12
IPUC Staff
Production Request
Staff - 35
DATE, PREPARED: 05117 12019WITNESS: N/A
RESPONDER: Ryan Finesilver
DEPARTMENT: Energy Efficiency
TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:
When reviewing potential site-specific projects, does the Company typically conduct site visits
andtakemeasurementsinthecourseofitsreviewtodetermineifaprojectiseligible? Ifso,please
describe how the information is gathered and documented during the site-specific visit.
RESPONSE:
Please see the Company's response to StaflPR_32C (Confidential)
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
AVU-E- 1 8- 12
IPUC Staff
Production Request
Staff - 36
DATE PREPARED: 05117 12019WITNESS: N/A
RESPONDER: Ryan Finesilver
DEPARTMENT: Energy Efficiency
TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:
The Company's method for reviewing potential site-specific projects is summarized on pages I I
and 12 of the Electric Impact Evaluation Report. Please explain how the results of third party
evaluations, such as those conducted by Nexant, are used by the Company to improve this process.
RESPONSE:
The Company pursues continued improvement of their processes and programs; recommendations
from its EM&V vendor are valuable in identifying areas where improvements can take place. For
engagements where the EM&V vendor has identified issues caused by deficiency in our policies,
procedures, or practices, the Company will work internally to develop ways to avoid the
deficiency going forward. Recommendations made by the 3'd party evaluator are suggestions for
improvement and the Company makes adjustments based on those recommendations when
appropriate. In instances where the Company does not agree with the evaluator's
recommendations, those responses are documented and shared with the Company's Energy
Efficiency Advisory Group. During the 2016-2017 period, there were no recommendations that
the Company took issue with.
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
AVU-E-18-12
IPUC Staff
Production Request
Staff - 37
DATE PREPARED: 0511712019WITNESS: N/A
RESPONDER: Ryan Finesilver
DEPARTMENT: Energy Effrciency
TELEPHONE: (s09) 49s-2896
REQUEST:
Regarding the Company's Prescriptive Lighting Program, the Electric Impact Evaluation Report
explains that a major reason for the 80oh realization rate calculated for this program was an
inaccurate reported savings for many of the incented TLED measures.
a. How did the Company discover these inaccuracies?
b. What steps is the Company taking to assure that accurate information is used in the
future?
RESPONSE:
As stated in the 2016-2017 Electric Impact Evaluation, the major contributor to the 80%
realization rate was due to Prescriptive lighting achieving a 640/o realization rate. The driver of that
low realization rate was a discrepancy between the labeled wattage of the installed lamps and the
wattage of those lamps per the Design Lighting Consortium (DLC). The evaluation team noted
that it was their belief that the discrepancy was because the TLED lamp power consumption was
subject to different ballast and driver configurations.
Avista discovered this inaccuracy as part of its evaluation process and working with Nexant. The
Company has taken steps to ensure that the wattage included in its estimates are based on DLC
information and not from the manufacturer's stated watt amounts.
In addition, a write-up was included by Nexant in the 2016 Annual Conservation Report (Section
1.3, page 4-5) that details this further.
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
AVU-E-18-12
IPUC Staff
Production Request
Staff - 38
DATE PREPARED: 0511712019WITNESS: N/A
RESPONDER: Ryan Finesilver
DEPARTMENT: Energy Efficiency
TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:
Table 2-l: Prescriptive Lighting Program Measures (p.14) of the Electric Impact Evaluation
Report lists the incentives offered as part of its Prescriptive Lighting Program for 2016 and 2017 .
Please explain how these incentive values were determined. Provide sample workpapers showing
how at least one of these incentive values was determined.
RESPONSE:
Incentive levels for measures are based on the unit energy savings for each particular measure. The
Company incentivizes lighting measures up to $.20 per kWh saved. While incentive levels are
limited to this amount, the determination of incentive levels considers factors that are specific to
each program and are not reflected in a workpaper. As part of the Company's internal management
of their programs, it may be determined that an incentive should be adjusted based upon market
analysis, trends, conversations with advisers and stakeholders, and other relevant factors.
A sample calculation of incentive levels have been included in StaflPR_38_Attachment A. While
the calculation is based off of a kWh level, the Company's ultimate determination of the incentive
levels are not memorialized in these workpapers.
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
AVU-E-18-12
IPUC Staff
Production Request
Staff - 39
DATE PREPARED: 05/1712019WITNESS: N/A
RESPONDER: Ryan Finesilver
DEPARTMENT: Energy Efficiency
TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:
Please provide workpapers showing how incentives for the following programs were determined,
and determined to be cost-effective based on tables from the 2016-2017 Electric Impact
Evaluation Report. Please include assumptions made for each program.
a. Table 2-2: Food Service Equipment Program (p.15)
b. Table 2-3: Green Motors Rewinds Program (p.17)
c. Table 2-4: Motor Controls HVAC Program (p.17)
d. Table 2-5: Commercial Insulation Measures (p.18)
RESPONSE:
Please see Staff PR_39_Attachment A for workpapers used in the determination of incentive
levels along with determining initial cost effectiveness. Please note that incentive levels in
Attachment A may not be the same as the incentive levels that ultimately are used in the
Company's business planning.
Several factors go into the determination of the incentive level for specific measures including
bundling multiple measure with varying energy efficiency levels into a single prescriptive
offering, rounding of incentive dollar amounts, and equalizing incentive levels for measures that
serve more than one fuel type (e.g. lowering electric t-stat incentives so they match natural gas
incentive levels). Please note that for Green Motor Rewinds Program, A $1 per HP incentive goes
to the customer and a $l per HP incentive is paid to the service center.
The Company makes the determination on whether an individual measure is cost-effective by
calculating the Utility Cost Test (UCT) benefit to cost ratio before factoring in non-incentive
utility costs. At the overall program level, the full UCT is calculated.
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
AVU-E-18-12
IPUC Staff
Production Request
Staff - 40
DATE PREPARED
WITNESS:
RESPONDER:
DEPARTMENT:
TELEPHONE:
0511712019
N/A
Ryan Finesilver
Energy Efficiency
(s09) 49s-2896
On page 59 of the 2016-2017 Electric Impact Evaluation Report, Nexant indicates that the
Company's realization rate for site-specific interior lighting projects was 880%. What steps is the
Company taking to improve its estimate of the energy savings of its site-specific interior lighting
programs?
RESPONSE:
As stated in the 2016-2017 Electric Impact Evaluation Report, the 88% realizationrate for interior
lighting was predominantly driven by inconsistencies in reported hours of use values. The
recommendation of Nexant was that Avista provide a greater level of review of reported hours of
use for large lighting project. In response to Nexant's recommendation, the Company indicated
that it will place a higher scrutiny on the hours of use turned in by physical space (area) rather than
allowing one hour of use value to be used for the entire facility on interior lighting projects with
suspected greater than $25,000 incentives. The Company will also make modifications to the
pre-verification document to include a review of hours of use with the owner.
REQUEST: