HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttch51_IPCE0113_DSMFiling.pdfTelephone (208) 388-2674, FAX (208) 388-6936
LARRY D. RIPLEY
Senior Attorney
July 31, 2001
Ms. Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington Street
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Re: Idaho Power Company’s Compliance Filing
Case No. IPC-E-01-13
Dear Ms. Jewell:
In response to Commission Order No. 28722, please find enclosed for
filing an original and seven (7) copies of Idaho Power Company’s Compliance Filing.
The Company is unsure if the parties to Case Nos. IPC-E-01-07 and IPC-
E-01-11 are automatically parties to this proceeding. The Company has mailed copies
of this filing to all parties that are listed on the Commission’s formal service list in those
cases. Enclosed is a Certificate of Mailing indicating to whom copies of this filing have
been mailed.
It may be that the Commission will want to issue a notice requiring parties
to intervene or reaffirm that parties to the prior proceeding are automatically parties in
this proceeding. If the Company can be of any assistance as the Commission
determines the procedure it desires to utilize in this proceeding, please advise.
I would appreciate it if you would return a stamped copy of this transmittal
letter for our files.
Very truly yours,
Larry D. Ripley
LDR:jb
Enclosures
COMPLIANCE FILING, Page 1
LARRY D. RIPLEY ISB #965
BARTON L. KLINE ISB #1526
Idaho Power Company
P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
Phone: (208) 388-2674
FAX: (208) 388-6936
Attorneys for Idaho Power Company
Express Mail Address
1221 West Idaho Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION )
OF INCREASED DEMAND-SIDE MANAGE- ) CASE NO. IPC-E-01-13
MENT PROGRAMS AND THE FUNDING OF )
THOSE PROGRAMS FOR IDAHO POWER ) COMPLIANCE FILING
COMPANY )
)
The Commission, in Order No. 28722, Case Nos. IPC-E-01-07 and IPC-E-
01-11, found:
The Commission believes that reinstating a comprehensive
conservation program is now appropriate given the current
volatility of market prices and the opportunity to incorporate long-
term conservation. Consequently, the Commission now opens a
DSM docket in Case No. IPC-E-01-13. Idaho Power is directed to
file a comprehensive DSM program by August 1, 2001 that details
program structure, potential conservation measures to pursue and
funding options that include a tariff rider. In particular, the
Company should consider addressing conservation proposals for
residential customers in the highest block rate that typically use
electric space heating.
COMPLIANCE FILING, Page 2
In that same Order the Commission then ordered:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Reinstate
Demand-Side Management Programs filed by the Land and Water
Fund of the Rockies, Mary McGown, Idaho Rivers United and the
Idaho Rural Council is partially granted in that the Commission
initiates an Idaho Power Demand-Side Management docket in
Case No. IPC-E-01-13. Idaho Power is directed to file a
comprehensive demand-side management program by August 1,
2001 that details its program’s structure and funding options.
In response to that directive Idaho Power herewith submits its compliance
filing. The filing consists of (1) a report of the Company’s present energy efficiency
activities, (2) a list of potential conservation measures, (3) an examination of funding
options, and (4) a detailed program structure that could be implemented should the
Commission determine that additional conservation programs, including the funding of
these programs, is in the public interest.
REPORT OF PRESENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACTIVITIES
In its Idaho retail jurisdiction Idaho Power expended almost $1.4 million
dollars for Energy Efficiency Programs during 2000. The attached chart shows the
Company’s ongoing expenditures since 1999 and includes an estimate for 2001.
Idaho Power’s Expenditures For Ongoing Energy Efficiency Programs In Idaho, 1999-2001
Low-Income Weatherization Assistance 1999 2000 2001 est
Idaho
Canyon County Organization on Aging, Inc. $54,328 $68,171
Eastern Idaho Special Services Agency, Inc. $9,829 $12,899
El-Ada Community Action Agency, Inc. $78,325 $74,894
South Central Community Action Agency, Inc. $37,232 $35,158
Southeastern Idaho Community Action Agency $19,181 $20,151
Idaho Total $198,894 $211,273 $312,534
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance 1999 2000 2001 est
Idaho
Payments $1,485,046 $1,185,081 $1,185,081
GRAND TOTAL $1,683,940 $1,396,354 $1,497,615
COMPLIANCE FILING, Page 3
In 2000, funding for the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (“NEEA” or
“Alliance”) was financed by monies reserved by the Company as a result of Order No.
28333 issued in Case No. IPC-E-99-13. Basic funding for the Low Income
Weatherization Assistance (“LIWA”) Programs came directly from customers as part of
Commission approved rates. Recognizing the impacts of the current high cost of
energy on low income customers, the Company for the year 2001 increased
contributions to LIWA by over 30%. This action was taken in an effort to provide
greater weatherization assistance to those with limited incomes in time for the cooling
and heating seasons. The additional $100,000 outlay was expensed directly without a
corresponding rate adjustment. The 2000 NEEA Annual Activities Report and the
Company’s 2000 Conservation Plan are attached as Appendix 1 and Appendix 2.
In addition to the above listed expenses, Idaho Power has also committed
over $500,000 to a conservation advertising campaign aimed at customer awareness
and education, $140,000 to Project Share, and an additional $120,000 to fund the
expenses associated with implementation and administration of the Company’s Green
Energy Purchase Program. In 2001, Idaho Power anticipates funding over $2.25 million
in existing energy efficiency related activities, which represents .43% of the Company’s
2000 Idaho retail revenue.
LIST OF POTENTIAL CONSERVATION MEASURES
Following is a list of potential conservation measures that have been
initially reviewed by the Company. The list is not exhaustive, but is meant to be
representative of the options available. The potential measures include initiatives for
residential, commercial, industrial, and irrigation customers of Idaho Power.
COMPLIANCE FILING, Page 4
POTENTIAL CONSERVATION MEASURES
Sector
Considerations
Measures
Possible
Strategy
Residential Customers in highest block
rate
Ease of implementation
Summer load reduction
Regional support
Compact fluorescent bulb
Energy Star appliances
High efficiency air
conditioner/heat pump
Weatherization
Coupon
Incentive
Rebate
Loan buy-down
Commercial
and Industrial
Customer input
Customer characteristics
NEEA experience with
demonstration programs
Available Plug and Play
programs
Vending miser
Commercial CFL bulbs
Reduced Air Movement
LED traffic lighting
BacGen
Building tune-up
Lighting acceleration
Small retrofit
Other measures
(custom projects)
Direct install
Coupon
Incentive
Incentive
Incentive
Plug & Play
Plug & Play
Plug & Play
Tailored
agreement
Irrigation Customer characteristics
Company experience with ag
programs
Existing system modifications
New system improvements
Incentive
Incentive
The potential residential measures were selected based upon existing
regional programs, seasonal system load reduction, ease of implementation, and
partially in response to the Commission Order requesting the Company to consider
providing assistance to customers in the highest block rate. The Company has also
investigated the feasibility of a loan buy-down program for weatherization and insulation
assistance. In addition, three other measures are being explored; duct sealing,
residential new construction market pull efforts and enhanced low-income assistance.
Idaho Power reviewed several measures in the commercial and industrial
sector. The commercial measures include both menu driven and customer driven
COMPLIANCE FILING, Page 5
opportunities (similar to the industrial sector) and could target specific markets, for
example, schools. Idaho Power anticipates that industrial efficiency measures will be
structured for maximum customer flexibility and participation where customers may
propose and manage all efficiency efforts while the utility will review and approve
proposals to ensure eligibility. For example, funds received from the largest customers
could be held in separate accounts for use by the funding customer on qualified energy
efficiency projects.
Irrigation sector measure options have been based upon customer
characteristics and experience in the Company’s previous Agriculture Choices program.
Measure options for both existing as well as new irrigation will be reviewed.
Some of the measures listed above are being explored by NEEA as part
of their “Plug and Play” initiative. Plug and Play programs provide enhancements to
existing utility, government and NEEA initiatives. They are designed to reduce regional
energy and peak loads within a three year period. These initiatives provide a clear
opportunity to do more with current energy efficiency efforts and to produce significant
savings within one year and substantial savings within three years. Plug and Play
programs are designed to work in concert with a region-wide public mobilization
campaign to save electricity.
If an opportunity arises that is within the parameters of the Company cost-
effectiveness screening criteria but not within a specific measure design, the Company
would consider entering into a tailored agreement with a customer for such energy
efficiency measures. Final selection of measures to be funded would be made after
recommendations are received from the Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (for
COMPLIANCE FILING, Page 6
definition see Page 11) and upon further refinement of measure costs, savings and
design. A more detailed description of the Company’s measure options is attached as
Appendix 3.
EXAMINATION OF FUNDING OPTIONS
Essentially two funding options exist for the prospective measures
outlined above: expenses can be deferred or expenses can be recovered on an
ongoing basis. Deferral of expenses for later recovery has proven to be unsatisfactory
in practice and the Company is not supportive of practices that transfer liabilities from
one generation to the next. The carrying costs of deferrals is also a negative factor,
since it compounds the ultimate cost to customers. The Company currently carries
Demand-Side Management (“DSM”) balances of over $29 million as outlined in the
chart below:
Idaho Power’s DSM Balances
State Beginning Balance Balance as of 5/2001
Idaho $38.2 million $29.5 million
Consequently, Idaho Power considers recovery of future DSM expenses
as they are incurred as the only viable funding option.
Funding that is stable and predictable preserves continuity in the
promotion and support of energy efficiency while eliminating concerns about budgeting,
accumulation of regulatory assets and uncertain regulatory treatment of conservation
costs. Accordingly, should the Commission desire further funding of conservation
programs, Idaho Power believes a tariff rider that provides for the recovery of expenses
on an ongoing basis is the appropriate mechanism for program funding.
COMPLIANCE FILING, Page 7
In the Company’s development of a template for conservation funding,
consideration was given to existing utility DSM programs and funding methodologies as
well as program acceptability by our customers. Edison Electric Institute’s (“EEI”) 1999
Load Management Benchmarking study showed that on average Northwest investor-
owned utilities spent approximately 0.7% of their total electric operating revenue on
DSM. Expenditures by the top utilities in the US (ranked by DSM investment) averaged
approximately 1.8% of operating revenue. Intermountain Gas Company funded no
DSM activities in 2000 while the above-mentioned EEI report indicated that PacifiCorp
spent 0.36% of its operating revenue on DSM. Avista Corp is one of the leaders in
energy efficiency spending. Effective June 14, 2001 the Idaho Commission approved
for Avista an energy efficiency rider adjustment that increased a distribution surcharge
from 1.00% to 1.95%.
In June 2001, the Company conducted a customer survey aimed at
ascertaining customer’s perspective on energy conservation and funding. While the
majority of customers in all classes thought electric utilities should offer incentive
programs to encourage efficiency over half the customers interviewed indicated they
would not be willing to pay a slightly higher rate to fund energy efficiency programs.
The summary survey results are attached as Appendix 4.
Idaho Power faces a dilemma -- how to provide a meaningful level of
conservation programming while avoiding rate impact concerns raised by its
customers?
COMPLIANCE FILING, Page 8
DETAILED PROGRAM STRUCTURE
Idaho Power is submitting templates for a possible two-year Energy
Efficiency Rider (“Rider”) and an Electric Energy Efficiency Program (“Program”). The
templates are attached as Appendix 5 and Appendix 6. The templates are similar to
Avista’s Schedule 90 and Schedule 91 that have been approved by both the Idaho
Commission and Staff as well as supported by Avista’s customers in terms of demand
and participation. The Rider would provide for funding of energy conservation
measures within the Program. The Program is designed to provide retail customers
with the incentive and opportunity to reduce electric consumption.
The purpose of the Program is to promote the efficient use of electrical
energy by providing customers with access to information, products and financing which
will assist them in making energy efficient decisions and investments. It is anticipated
that significant cost-effective electricity savings will be achieved through the Program.
The Program focuses on DSM activities by customer segment and specific technologies
and allows for efficiency measures to be modified or added. The Program would allow
for maximum management flexibility in the funding of energy efficiency measures.
The Program’s funding option is a two-year Rider that would generate
approximately $2.6 million per year in revenue that equates to a surcharge of 0.5% of
operating revenues. The Rider, expressed in cents/kWh would be applied to all retail
energy sales delivered via the Company’s distribution system to Idaho customers.
Funding would match all anticipated Program costs including education, incentives,
administration, research and evaluation. The Company is committed to a conservation
philosophy that produces the best results with minimal overhead.
COMPLIANCE FILING, Page 9
As previously noted, Idaho Power Company is already spending close to
0.45% of revenues on existing efficiency programs. An additional 0.50% would bring
total efficiency spending as a percentage of revenue close to 1.0%. The Company
anticipates that this level of expenditure would provide a meaningful level of
conservation activity while avoiding rate impact concerns by customers. The average
residential monthly electric bill would increase by approximately $0.28 under the Rider.
A customer education and awareness campaign would be part of any Rider
implementation process.
The Program template is comprised of four components: Availability,
Program Measures, Incentives and Assistance, and Budget.
The Program would target all Idaho retail electric customer segments of
the Company. Customer segments are groups of customers defined by common
characteristics such as facilities and energy usage. They are Residential, Commercial,
Irrigation and Industrial. The emphasis of the proposed Electric Energy Efficiency
Program will be on the special needs of each customer segment.
A combination of energy efficiency measures will be applied to the
previously discussed customer segments. These measures share common goals such
as improved resource efficiency, decreased energy consumption and improved
resource utilization. Examples of measures are lighting, monitoring and controls. Final
determination of applicable measures will be made by the Company using defined
program screening criteria and in turn will build the framework for determining the
funding incentive and cost-effectiveness of efficiency programs. A detailed discussion
COMPLIANCE FILING, Page 10
of the Company’s proposed Measure Selection Criteria and Program Evaluation is
attached as Appendix 7.
Under the Program, the Company would provide incentives and
assistance to customers for electric efficiency measures described above. The
proposed incentive amount for funding each energy efficiency measure is based on the
value of the measure (in kWh savings) to the Company. Incentives will vary based
upon the life (in years) of the measure savings, the season of the year and the time of
day when the savings are realized. The goal of the incentive design is to purchase the
measure at the lowest cost while achieving desired market penetration. In addition, the
Company may pursue site-specific electric efficiency opportunities that may not have
been identified within the measure and incentives described in the tariff as long as
significant kilowatt-hour savings will be achieved. Assistance other than financial
incentives may be provided in various ways, such as education, technical assistance,
and training.
The final component of the Company’s Program template is Budget and
Reporting. The budget is designed to have some flexibility based upon available
technologies and a program’s success within a customer segment. The budget is
biased towards a correlation between the contribution of a customer class and the
availability of program funds for that class of customer. The customer segments and
their expected shares of funding are as follows: Commercial & Industrial would be
allocated 45%, Residential 40%, and Irrigation would be allocated 15%. However, the
budget shall be used only as a guideline to provide services to all classes of customers.
Budgets may deviate from one customer segment to another based on the opportunity
COMPLIANCE FILING, Page 11
to capitalize on cost-effective efficiency improvements that provide the most economic
value for the system.
In conjunction with the implementation of a Rider and Energy Efficiency
Program, the Company recommends the creation of an Energy Efficiency Advisory
Group. The primary purpose of this group would be to provide recommendations to the
Company on a variety of issues concerning the use of Rider funds. Issues for review by
the advisory group include new measure recommendation, existing measure revisions
and enhancements, measure prioritization, and evaluation. This advisory group would
be made up of members of the community who are eligible for services provided by this
Rider, as well as Commission staff, Company staff and technology specialists.
Recommendations from this group are advisory in nature. The Company will make the
final decision on energy efficiency programs.
The Company perceives that the Program concept would provide a
dynamic environment for the development and delivery of energy efficiency measures
that are successful in their goal of conservation, flexible in terms of measure selection
and implementation and in sync with the Company’s Integrated Resource Plan. At the
same time the concept would reduce the number of tariff filings and revisions usually
associated with DSM programs while presenting an easy to understand and cohesive
conservation philosophy to the public.
With the submission of this compliance filing, the Company believes that it
has fulfilled the requirements of Order No. 28722 as that order relates to the filing of a
comprehensive demand side management program with funding options.
COMPLIANCE FILING, Page 12
Service of pleadings, exhibits, orders and other documents relating to this
proceeding should be served on the following:
Larry D. Ripley Betsy Galtney
Senior Attorney Regulatory Affairs Representative
Idaho Power Company Idaho Power Company
P.O. Box 70 P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707 Boise, Idaho 83707
MODIFIED PROCEDURE
The Company submits that it believes that the issues raised in the
Commission’s order and this filing can best be addressed/processed by modified
procedure under RP 201, i.e., by written submissions/comments rather than by an
evidentiary proceeding.
DATED at Boise, Idaho, this 31st day of July, 2001.
________________________________
LARRY D. RIPLEY
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING, Page 1
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 31st day of July, 2001, I mailed a true and
correct copy of the COMPLIANCE FILING in Case No. IPC-E-01-13 to the following
named individuals addressed as follows:
Lisa D. Nordstrom x Hand Delivered
Deputy Attorney General U.S. Mail
Idaho Public Utilities Commission Overnight Mail
472 W. Washington Street FAX
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Randall C. Budge Hand Delivered
Racine, Olson, Nye, Budge & Bailey x U.S. Mail
Center Plaza-Corner First & Center Overnight Mail
Pocatello, Idaho 83204-1391 FAX
Anthony Yankel Hand Delivered
29814 Lake Road x U.S. Mail
Bay Village, Ohio 44140 Overnight Mail
FAX
William M. Eddie Hand Delivered
Land and Water Fund of the Rockies x U.S. Mail
1320 W. Franklin Street Overnight Mail
Boise, Idaho 83701 FAX
Mary McGown Hand Delivered
c/o Land and Water Fund of the Rockies x U.S. Mail
1320 W. Franklin Street Overnight Mail
Boise, Idaho 83701 FAX
Idaho Rivers United Hand Delivered
c/o Land and Water Fund of the Rockies x U.S. Mail
1320 W. Franklin Street Overnight Mail
Boise, Idaho 83701 FAX
Idaho Rural Council Hand Delivered
c/o Land and Water Fund of the Rockies x U.S. Mail
1320 W. Franklin Street Overnight Mail
Boise, Idaho 83701 FAX
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING, Page 2
Peter J. Richardson Hand Delivered
Molly O’Leary x U.S. Mail
Richardson & O’Leary Overnight Mail
99 E. State Street, Suite 200 FAX
P.O. Box 1849
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Stuart Trippel Hand Delivered
Trippel Mast Consulting LLC x U.S. Mail
506 Second Avenue, Suite 1001 Overnight Mail
Seattle, Washington 98104-2328 FAX
Lawrence A. Gollomp Hand Delivered
U.S. Department of Energy, Room 6D-003 x U.S. Mail
1000 Independence Avenue S.W. Overnight Mail
Washington, D.C. 20585 FAX
Dr. Dale Swan Hand Delivered
Exeter Associates x U.S. Mail
12510 Prosperity Drive, Suite 350 Overnight Mail
Silver Springs, Maryland 20904 FAX
Conley E. Ward Hand Delivered
Givens, Pursley LLP x U.S. Mail
277 North 6th Street, Suite 200 Overnight Mail
P. O. Box 2720 FAX
Boise, Idaho 83701-2720
Ken Tandy Hand Delivered
Astaris LLC x U.S. Mail
P. O. Box 4111 Overnight Mail
Highway 30, West of City FAX
Pocatello, Idaho 83202
______________________________________
LARRY D. RIPLEY
APPENDIX 1
NEEA ANNUAL REPORT
APPENDIX 2
2000 CONSERVATION PLAN
Idaho Power
Conservation Plan
April 13, 2001
1
Introduction
In 2000, Idaho Power spent $1.6 million promoting energy efficiency, including
payments of $1.2 million to the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. The Alliance has
become the company's primary channel for investing in energy efficiency and
conservation. The company also continues to support public-purpose programs such as
the Low-Income Weatherization Assistance program, the Oregon Commercial Audit
program, and the Oregon Residential Weatherization program. The two Oregon programs
are statutory programs created by the legislature in the early 1980s. All of the company's
traditional demand-side management (DSM) programs have ended.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
Idaho Power is a member of the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, a regional
group striving to improve energy efficiency through market transformation. The Idaho
Public Utilities Commission authorized the company's continued involvement in the
Alliance and set aside $5,462,388 to fund Idaho Power’s participation through the year
2004 in Case No. IPC-E-99-13, Order No. 28333. The Oregon Public Utility Commission
has also approved the company’s expenditures for the Alliance, and those expenditures
Expenditures for Energy Efficiency in 2000
Program Utility Cost
Payments to the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance $1,240,923
Other Alliance-related expenditures 103,098
Total expenditures to participate in the Alliance $1,344,020
Low Income Weatherization Assistance 234,352
Agricultural Choices Program (final payments) 14,731
Oregon Commercial Audit, Schedule 82 9,375
Oregon Residential Weatherization, Schedule 78 6,739
Total $1,609,217
2
are being recovered in the amortization of the company’s Oregon DSM balance.
In 2000, the company paid $1,240,923 to the Alliance on a system basis. Idaho’s
share of the payments was $1,185,081 (95.5%) and Oregon’s was $55,842 (4.5%). In
addition, Idaho Power incurred costs of $103,098 on a system basis related to
participating in the Alliance, and that amount was expensed by the company.
The company does not estimate the energy savings associated with its
expenditures to participate in the Alliance. Idaho Power relies on the Alliance to report
the energy savings and other benefits of the Alliance's regional portfolio of initiatives.
Information about the Alliance's activities can be obtained by visiting
www.nwalliance.org on the web, or by phoning 1-800-411-0834.
Low Income Weatherization Assistance (LIWA)
Since 1989, LIWA has been a public-purpose program to make energy services
more affordable to low-income customers. Idaho Power provides grants to local non-
profit agencies participating in state-run weatherization programs in Idaho and Oregon to
supplement federal funding of weatherization projects. The agencies recruit candidates
and qualify households for the program using the state’s eligibility requirements. The
state programs are administered in Idaho by the Department of Health and Welfare,
Division of Welfare Bureau Policy, and in Oregon by the Department of Human
Resources, State Housing & Community Services Department.
Idaho Power typically pays 50% of the cost of qualifying conservation measures
plus a $75 administration fee per dwelling. The program also funds weatherization of
buildings occupied by tax-exempt organizations.
3
Some of the restrictions on Idaho Power funding were cumbersome for the
weatherization agencies, so at the request of the agencies and the NW Energy Coalition,
the company sought to streamline the LIWA program and filed with the Commissions in
Idaho and Oregon to request modifications. The company requested these changes:
• Removing the requirement that eligible dwellings, additional eligible dwellings,
and eligible buildings be primarily heated by electricity.
• Adopting the allowance of expenditures for health and safety measures of up to
10% of the average cost per dwelling.
• Eliminating the disallowance of plastic window coverings and of
repair/replacement of fossil fuel heating.
• Adopting the State’s average cost limitation for program funds of not more than
75% support labor/overhead and not less than 25% material investment average
per eligible dwelling installed by the agency.
• Increasing the required savings-to-investment ratio (SIR) for qualifying energy
conservation measures from 1.0 to 1.1 or greater.
In Order No. 28438 issued July 10, 2000, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission
approved all five changes. Accordingly, LIWA in Idaho is now fuel-blind, and a limited
amount non-energy (health and safety) measures can be funded. Since LIWA now funds
some jobs that do not save electricity and some measures that do not save energy, the
cost-effectiveness of this public-purpose program can no longer be meaningfully assessed
based on the electricity savings and the levelized cost per kWh. However, in 2001 Idaho
Power granted the agencies in Idaho an additional $100,000, which increased the budget
4
for the state to $312,534, in recognition of the company's request for a large increase in
the Power Cost Adjustment rate.
The first three changes were not acceptable in Oregon, where traditionally there
has been no cross-subsidizing among fuels and no funding of measures that were not
cost-effective from an energy perspective. Consequently, the first revised sheet No. 79-1
filed in Advice No. 00-03, which became effective in Oregon October 25, 2000, still
requires that dwellings be electrically heated and does not allow repair or replacement of
fossil fuel furnaces, installation of plastic window coverings, or funding of health and
safety measures.
LIWA activity by agency and state is shown in the table. The 24 weatherization
jobs completed in Oregon in 2000 saved an estimated 100,779 kWh.
Agricultural Choices Program (ACP)
The Agricultural Choices Program ended in 1999. In 2000, final payments
totaling $7,231 were made to four participants with large ACP projects in Idaho who had
elected the five-year incentive payment option. In addition, as reported in last year's
Conservation Plan, a payment of $7,500 was made in 2000 for a medium ACP project in
Low-Income Weatherization Assistance in 2000
Agency
Weatherization
Jobs
Utility Cost
El-Ada Community Action Agency, Inc. 77 $ 74,894
Canyon County Organization on Aging, Inc. 73 68,171
South Central Community Action Agency, Inc. 33 35,158
Southeastern Idaho Community Action Agency 17 20,151
Eastern Idaho Special Services Agency, Inc. 13 12,899
Idaho Subtotal 213 $211,273
Malheur Council on Aging (Oregon) 24 23,079
Total 237 $234,352
5
Idaho that had been denied but which was reconsidered after the program concluded. The
total cost of this medium ACP project was $153,944 and the estimated annual savings are
71,230 kWh.
Oregon Commercial Audit (Schedule 82)
This statutory program requires that all commercial building customers in Oregon
be notified every year that information about energy saving operations and maintenance
measures for commercial buildings is available and that commercial energy audit services
can be provided, normally at no charge. Customers using more than 4,000 kWh per
month may receive a more detailed audit but may be required to pay a portion of the
costs.
In 2000, there were 27 inquiries about commercial audits, and 15 audits were
performed. Employees conducted four audits, and EnerTech Services carried out 11
audits on behalf of the company at a cost of $4,125. An additional $5,250 was paid to
EnerTech Services in 2000 for 15 audits that had been performed in 1999. The company
does not monitor which audit recommendations are implemented and does not estimate
energy savings for this program.
This year, the company will again notify all commercial customers of this
program and provide audit services to qualified customers who request them.
Oregon Residential Weatherization (Schedule 78)
This statutory program requires the annual notification of all residential customers
in Oregon to inform them how to obtain energy audits and financing for energy
conservation measures. To qualify for an Idaho Power audit or financing, customers must
have electric space heat. The program offers loans at 6.5% interest or cash payments of
6
25% of the cost-effective portion of recommended measures. Loans for measures that are
not cost-effective are also available at a higher interest rate, but the maximum total loan
amount is $5,000 per dwelling, and loans are subject to credit approval. The maximum
cash payment is the installed cost of the measures excluding labor by owner, up to $1,000
per dwelling.
In 2000, the company received 31 inquiries, performed 15 audits, and provided
one rebate for $891 on a job costing $3,547 and one loan for $2,900. The cost-effective
portion of the loan was $738. For the rebate and loan projects, the total costs were $6,447
and reported annual savings amounted to 10,055 kWh. Besides the $891 rebate, program
costs included $2,797 for printing and $3,051 for uncollectible accounts.
All audits were for single-family homes, and none of the participants were
identified as being low income. The company does not estimate the energy savings
resulting from the audits. This year, the company will again notify all residential
customers of this program and honor all requests for audits and financing from qualified
customers.
Other Conservation Efforts
Idaho Power has traditionally encouraged the wise, efficient use of electricity. In
response to the regional energy crisis, however, Idaho Power has significantly increased
its efforts to encourage conservation. Last winter, the company began aggressively
promoting conservation as a way to mitigate the need for expensive power purchases and
higher electricity rates. Since then, the company has used news releases, TV and radio
commercials, newspaper advertisements, newsletters, bill inserts, information brochures,
speaker presentations, and the Idaho Power web site, to inform customers about the
7
benefits of and the best methods for saving energy. The company also worked hard to set
a good example by improving energy efficiency at its own offices and facilities.
The response by customers has been gratifying, and the company has exhausted
its supply of 10,000 "Energy Planner" booklets. Numerous businesses have reported the
steps they are taking to reduce their loads, and each week in a newspaper "advertorial"
the company features a commercial business that has made changes to conserve energy.
Looking Ahead
As this report is being written, Idaho Power is pursuing multiple supply-side and
demand-side options to deal with the volatile wholesale energy market and the prospect
of poor river flows for hydro generation. On the demand side, the company filed one-year
Irrigation Load Reduction Buy Back Programs and Large Customer Load Reduction
Energy Buy Back Programs in both Idaho and Oregon, as well as a two-year Astaris load
reduction contract in Idaho. These curtailment programs are not traditional conservation
programs, which stressed long-term efforts to "do more with less" through greater
efficiency. These "buy back" programs involve some level of sacrifice as customers "do
less with less" for a limited period to help the region through a difficult situation.
While the curtailment programs are not conservation, early estimates of the
annual energy savings possible in 2001 from the Irrigation Buy Back Program in Idaho
and the Astaris load reduction contract are more than three times the size of the estimated
current annual savings from all of the company's past and present programs combined.
The company has also filed in Idaho to conduct an Irrigator Time-of-Use Pilot
Program.
8
The Future of Conservation
There seems to be a general consensus among customers that conservation is good
and that rate increases are bad. Accordingly, some customers and intervenors are
ambivalent about rate increases to fund conservation programs.
If an appropriate funding mechanism can be implemented, Idaho Power may once
again offer traditional conservation programs. Idaho Power is currently researching and
designing new conservation programs for all customer classes. While these programs are
unlikely to have much impact in the near term, they could offer long-term benefits to
customers. Internal recommendations are expected to be finalized in April, and
appropriate filings with the IPUC and OPUC will follow.
Page 1
APPENDIX 3
POTENTIAL CONSERVATION MEASURES
Total
Annual 1st year Resource
Program Annual Cost
Costs Average levelized
Programs ($)MWh (cents/kWh)
RESIDENTIAL, approximate annual budget $1,038,000 (45%)
CFL Bulb Coupon $1,004,000 8,775 2.80
Loan Buy-down Program $577,500 5,000 4.00
Central Air/HP Upgrades $265,000 2,200 2.70
Energy Star Appliance Promo $200,000
Additional Options $125,000
COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL, approximate annual budget $1,202,000 (45%)
Commercial CFL Bulb Coupon $111,200 2,376 2.70
Vending Miser $386,400 2,760 1.60
LED Traffic Light $73,600 1,869 2.90
BacGen $268,500 7,000 0.60
Reduced Air Movement (RAM)$337,200 3,000 3.00
P&P Lighting Acceleration $233,415 3,000 2.50
P&P Building Tune-up $140,333 5,625 2.10
P&P Small Retrofit $296,415 2,000 4.90
IRRIGATION, approximate annual budget $361,000 (15%)
Irrigation Existing $302,400 3,000 2.00
Irrigation New $41,300 393 2.50
Other potential expenditures
Public Mobilization fee $150,000
Note: not all programs listed above can be implemented with the assumed size and
program design. Final selection of programs to be implemented will be made after
recommendations from Energy Efficiency Advisory group and after further program
design work.
DSMWorksheetsTotalFinal
8/3/2001
dfs
Energy Efficiency Program Options
Idaho Power Company
Concept Idaho Power direct mails one or two coupons to each residential
customer worth $4 to $6 toward purchase of a CFL bulb.
Coupons will be redeemed at local retail stores.
Purpose This program provides an opportunity to every residential customer to participate
from high use to limited income, urban to rural. There is a very quick implementation
time (a couple of months) because of the structure in place set up by NEEA.
Measure
Description:Qualifying bulbs meet Energy Star specifications and are 13 watts
or higher.
Savings:Average estimated savings: 45 watts per bulb, 1500 hours used
per year, annual kWh savings per bulb 67.5 67.5
Seasonality:Residential lighting end-use curve
Cost:CFL bulbs cost the consumer anywhere from $6 to $20,
for an average of:$10.00 $10.00
Incentive:per bulb $4.00 $6.00
Life of measure:10,000 hours, or 6.7 years when used 1500 per year
Per Participant Values
Savings 135 kWh annually for 6.7 years
Direct Cost $20.00 assumed average cost $10/bulb for 2 bulbs
Rebate $12.00 two $6 coupons, or $8.00 two $4.00 coupons
Admin $2.90 $.75*2 for fulfillment house plus $1.4 fixed costs
Program
Target market:All existing residential customers
Penetration:325,000 total customers, estimated penetration 20%, (may be 65,000 65,000
less with $4 coupon). Total bulbs redeemed of:130,000 130,000
Annual savings:130,000 times 67.5 kWh equal 8,775,000 8,775,000
Costs:
Incentive:$4 or $6 times 130,000 bulbs equal $520,000 $780,000
Administration:$0.75 per bulb fulfillment, plus misc.$91,000 $188,500 $188,500
Evaluation:Estimated %5 of total $35,425 $35,425
Total:per year for 1 year $743,925 $1,003,925
08/03/01
dfn
Residential CFL Bulb Coupon
Concept Idaho Power buys down the interest on unsecured Fanny Mae or other loan for
specified cost-effective weatherization measures. Loans will be sold to a financial institution
and not carried inhouse. This program may work in conjunction with IDWR's existing loan
program. A home energy audit service (mail-in, on-line, etc) may be included so customers
can evaluate cost-effective options.
Purpose Program goal is to assist the high electricity users purchase weatherization measures
particularly in those areas where gas is not available.
Measure Average loan estimated at $4,000, $500 buy down fee to 6.9% interest,
$50 administration, 5000 kWh savings
Savings:Estimated average kWh savings per loan 5000.5000
Seasonality:Residential weatherization load curve
Cost:Estimated average total loan value $4,000
Incentive:Buy down fee to bring market rate to 6.9%$500
Life of measure:25
Options Options include: one interest rate for all electric, a different for base load cust.
including purchase of efficient CAC and HP, look at Energy Star Home
Performance structure, high efficient appliances
Program
Target market:Primary target: all electric homes, secondary markets; new construction
and base load customers with non weatherization measures
Annual savings:1,000 loans 5000 kWh equal 5,000,000
Costs:
Incentive:1,000 loans 500 loans equal 500,000
Administration:$50/home 50,000
Evaluation:Estimated %5 27,500
Total:per year for 2 years 577,500
08/03/01
dfn
Residential Loan Program
Concept Upgrade new and replacement central air conditioning (CAC) and heat pump (HP) units
to meet SEER rating of 13 and EER rating of 11 for CAC and HSPF of 8.0 or better
for heat pump. Currently code for AC is 10 SEER. It is expected that New Energy
Star Specs will meet higher rating. Use manual J for sizing. Can be joined with
Performance Tested Comfort Systems (PTCS) standards and incentives.
Purpose The primary purpose of this program is to mitigate the effect that new central
air conditioning units have on Idaho Power summer peak. There is a very high
saturation of central air conditioning units going into new houses. Installing
high efficient AC and HP units, making sure they are properly sized, and requiring
PTCS minimum standards will help reduce summer as well as winter peaks.
Measure
Savings:400 kWh annually-CAC, 1400 kWh annually HP
2000 units/year CAC, 1000 units/year HP
Seasonality:Use of NWPPC data
Cost:Incremental cost of CAC: $168
Incremental cost of HP: $376
Incentive:CAC=$50, HP=$100
Life of measure:18 years for both
Other assumptions or sources of information:
Used NWPPC for savings, cost, measure life, and heating and cooling zone data
Program
Program structure could provide rebates either directly to customers or to equipment
vendors. Training, marketing, promotions and education could be employed.
Target market:New and existing CAC, HP market
Penetration:Estimated 2000 units/year CAC, 1000 units/year HP
Annual savings:2,000 400 kWh equal 800,000
1,000 1400 kWh equal 1,400,000
Costs:
Incentive:$50.00 times 2,000 units equal $100,000
$100.00 1,000 units equal $100,000
Administration:$50,000
Evaluation:Estimated %5 of total $15,000
Total:per year for 2 years $265,000
08/03/01
dfn
Residential Central Air Conditioning/Heat Pump Upgrade Rebate Program
Description
Idaho Power will promote the use of high efficient appliances rated by Energy Star.
Partnerships with NEEA's Home Products program, retailers or manufactures may be
pursued. Another option is to offer a bounty on old second refrigerators
in order to reduce stock of old inefficient units being used. The regional Plug and Play
programs effort lists both Early Retirement of Refrigerators and Energy Star Clothes Washers
and other Consumer Products as programs being explored.
Purpose Increase awareness and encourage use of high efficient appliances. Encourage life
cycle evaluation during appliance purchase. Get old inefficient appliances out of circulation.
Measures Depending upon what program/programs mentioned above provide the best value for Idaho
Power customers, measures could include washing machines, refrigerators, dish washers,
window air conditioners, freezers, water heaters, and thermostats.
Program Program design options include rebates, coop advertising, bulk purchase for large buyers,
bounty program with local recyclers. Target market could be homeowners, limited income
households and multifamily property managers.
Costs
program up to $200,000/year for a large scale rebate or bounty program.
The regional Plug and Play programs mentioned above have estimated costs and savings.
Residential Appliance Programs
Duct Sealing
Idaho Power will operate a pilot program to determine the best way to encourage
the practice of duct testing and sealing in Idaho Power service territory. The
guidelines set up by the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance's program Performance
Comfort Tested System will be used. The pilot will determine if there is a market
for this service and how best to assist the promotion of this service.
Estimated cost for pilot; $25,000
New Construction Market-pull measures
Idaho Power will explore ways to encourage homeowners, builders, realtors or financiers
to increase the energy efficiency of newly built residential homes. There are currently
several ongoing programs such as GemStar and Energy Star Home programs. NEEA
is piloting a program to work with realtors to educate new home buyers of energy efficiency
options and benefits. Both partnerships and new ventures will be explored.
Estimated cost for first year; $50,000
Limited Income options
In addition the ongoing Low Income Weatherization Assistance program that Idaho Power
helps to fund through the community action agencies, Idaho Power is examining other
beneficial programs to help limited income customers reduce their electric energy use.
Estimated cost for first year; $50,000
04/10/01
Residential additional options
Concept Idaho Power will direct mail two coupons to each Rate 07 customer worth either
$4 or $6 toward purchase of a CFL bulb, (depending upon final program design).
Rate 07 customers typically use the same purchasing channels as residential
customers. Direct mailing can include energy efficiency tips.
Measure
Description:Qualifying bulbs meet Energy Star specifications and are 13 watts
or higher.
Savings:Average estimated savings; 45 watts per bulb, 2000 hours used
per year, annual kWh savings 90 90
Seasonality:Commercial lighting end use curve
Cost:CFL bulbs cost the consumer anywhere from $6 to $20,
for an average of:$10.00 $10.00
Incentive:per bulb $4.00 $6.00
Life of measure:10,000 hours, or 5 years when used 2,000 per year
(8 hours*5 days a week*50 weeks)
Per Participant Values
Savings:180 kWh annually for 5 years
Direct Cost:$20.00 assumed average cost $10/bulb for 2 bulbs
Rebate:$12.00 two $6 coupons, $8 for two $4 coupons
Admin:$2.90 $.75*2 for fulfillment house plus $1.40 fixed costs
Program
Target market:All existing Rate 07 customers
Penetration:33,000 total customers, estimated penetration 20% (may 6,600 6,600
be less with $4 coupon) total bulbs redeemed of:13,200 13,200
Annual savings:13,200 times 90 kWh equals 1,188,000 1,188,000
Costs:
Incentive:$4 or $6 times 13,200 bulbs equals $52,800.00 $79,200.00
Administration:$0.75 per bulb fulfillment, plus admin $9,240 $19,140.00 $19,140.00
Evaluation:Estimated %5 of total $3,597.00 $4,917.00
Total:per year $75,537.00 $103,257.00
08/03/01
dfn
Commercial CFL Bulb Coupon
Concept Using the new Vending Miser unit, retrofit refrigerated pop and juice vending
machines in the Idaho Power service territory. KWh reduction due to both
lighting motion sensor and regulation of refrigeration condenser.
Only indoor machines are eligible (unit not built for outdoor use)
BPA is planning a program that could be implemented regionwide.
Measure
Description:Install vending miser on existing refrigerated vending machines
Savings:One unit per vending machine
Esimated savings annually kWh 1200
Seasonality:Relatively flat year around
Cost:Quotes from Vending Miser company is $135
per unit for orders over 2,000 $$135.00
Incentive:Assume direct install but could be partial rebate $$135.00
Life of measure:10 years
Per Participant Values (assume one vending miser unit per participant)
Savings:1200 kWh annually for 10 years
Direct Cost:$135.00 total cost for one vending miser
Rebate:$135.00
Admin:$25.00 per vending miser unit paid to bottlers
Program
Target market:Assumes between 10,400 and 13,000 units in service territory
Penetration:Estimated 20% first year of program 2,300
Annual savings:2,300 times 1,200 kWh equal 2,760,000
Costs:
Incentive:$135.00 times 2,300 equal $310,500.00
Administration:$25.00 times 2,300 equal $57,500.00
Evaluation:Estimated %5 of total $18,400.00
Total:per year $386,400.00
Program life:Multiple years needed for high penetration
IPCo FTE:.25 FTE if contracted out.
Delivery mechanism:Options; work through bottlers: Bayview Corporation, others
08/03/01
dfn
Notes:
Vending Machine Program
Concept Idaho Power offers an incentive to municipalities and others
taking service on Schedule 42. This program proposal is
offered for the red and green light replacements.
Measure
Description:Qualifying product must meet Energy Star and Institute of Transportation
Engineers specifications.
Savings:Average estimated savings: 85% wattage reduction of
bulbs changed out kWh 800
Seasonality:Fairly flat
Cost:Red LED lamps cost approximately $75, green about
$175 for an average of:$125.00
Incentive:per bulb $25.00
Life of measure:5 to 7 years
Per Participant Values
Savings:800 kWh
Direct Cost:$125.00
Rebate:$25.00
Admin:$5.00
Program
Target market:Rate Schedule 42 customers, about 45 customers, 9344 bulbs
Penetration:Estimated penetration: 50% of all bulbs
25% per year for a two year program 2,336
Annual savings:2,336 times 800 kWh equal 1,868,800
Costs:
Incentive:$25.00 times 2,336 bulbs equal $58,400.00
Administration:$5.00 per bulb estimated $11,680.00
Evaluation;Estimated %5 of total $3,504.00
Total:per year $73,584.00
Program life:Two years
IPCo FTE:.1 FTE for 2 years
Delivery mechanism:Material mailed to Rate 42 customers plus visits
Contractors/partners:Association of Idaho Cities can help advertise
08/03/01
dfn
LED Traffic Signals (Red and Green)
Concept Energy usage (kWh) is reduced by lowering the operating hours on aerators
at waste water treatment facilities (WWTF) through the use of tighter monitoring
and controls and micro-nutrient assisted digestion technology.
Savings is estimated at 0.003 kWh saved per gallon. Sml 0.1 mgal, Lrg 8.0 mgal
Average is 1.0 million x .003 = 1.0 million kWh/plant
Since experience has shown savings to be from 230,000 to 1.6 million kWh
a more prudent 1.0 million kWh average will be used
Measure
Description:WWTF will employ this technology to substantially reduce the
amount of energy used in the aeration process
Savings:Savings is estimated between 100,000 to 8,000,000 kWh/y
Anticipated average is 1,000,000 kWh/y kWhs 1,000,000
Seasonality:No, although reductions to occur as effluent comes in during day.
Cost:$50,000 per plant
10 cents per kWh would be $100,000 $ $100,000
Incentive:Estimated incentive amount $ $33,333
Life of measure:10 year equipment life
Customer cost:$50k-$33k = $17k
Other assumptions or sources of information:
PG&E pays BacGen folks $1100 per kW taken off peak
BPA pays BacGen $830 per kW taken off peak
Program
Target market:40 Waste water treatment facilities in IPCo svc territory
Penetration:40 total WWTF in IPCo svc territory, 35% participation 14
Total number of plants taking advantage of the program 14
Annual savings:
2 years 14 times 1,000,000 kWh equal 14,000,000
1 year 7 times 1,000,000 kWh equal 7,000,000
Program calculations are based on municipal WWTF. Does not include industrials
Industrials can save as much as 4 times that of municipalities due to short term
capacity need during campaigns.
Costs:$50,000 per plant
Incentive:$33,000 times 14 plants equal $462,000
Administration:2 years .25 FTE @ $60K/Y + 41% benefits $50,000
Evaluation:Estimated %5 of total $25,600
Total:Program total for 2 years $537,600
per year cost $268,500
Program life:Two years
IPCo FTE:0.5
Delivery mechanism:Direct sales
Contractors/partners:BacGen, Seattle WA, Hatten & Assoc. (M&V Contractor)
BacGen corporation could do audit of all facilities in one week.
4/11/2001 jfa
BacGen
Concept
Lower energy use through a reduction in the unnecessary movement or
unnecessary pressure buildup of air through the use of fans
Measure
Description:Discontinue use of restrictive duct damper blades
Control and reduce fan speed to better match industrial / commercial need
Install CO controls for optimal outdoor air control in commercial buildings
Use VFD in evaporator fans in refrigeration warehouses compounding savings
Reduce fan speed in wood milling operation
Savings:40% reductions in power use are available for every 15% reduction in fan speed
Assuming targeting 50 to 200 hp fans at 30 installations kWh 200,000
Seasonality:The target is industrial customers, with some large commercial buildings
Cost:Variable-speed drives and MagnaDrive equipment $50/kW for a 100kW = $50k
$50,000$
Incentive:10 per kWh saved or 1/2 project cost.$20,000$
Life;10 years
Cust. cost:$30,000
Other assumptions or sources of information:
With electric rates expected to be ($0.028*1.6 = $0.045), customers
stand to save $9000 per year = 3+ year payback period.
Program
Target market:140 industrial plants and 100 larger commercial office buildings
Penetration:30 fans at 240 targeted sites 30
Total number of plants taking advantage of the program/year 15
Annual savings:2 years 30 times 200,000 kWh equal 6,000,000
1 year half the installations completed in first year 3,000,000
Costs:$100k per plant
Incentive:40,000$ times 15 plants equal $600,000
Administration:24 months 0.25 FTE @ $60K/Y + 41% benefits $42,300
Evaluation:Estimated %5 of total $32,115
Total:Program total for 2 years $674,415
per year cost $337,200
Two years
Program life:0.25
IPCo FTE:Direct sales
Delivery mechanism:MagnaDrive, VFD manufacturers
Contractors/partners:
Savings:Better control, improved product, better environment (less a/c noise)
04/11/01 jfa
Reduced Air Movement Program
Concept Speed the pace at which off-the-shelf efficient-lighting equipment is installed in
commercial, industrial, public and nonprofit institutions
Measure
Description:Many building owners build or retrofit with standard practise lighting designs which
are better than in the past, but there are still a substantial amount of buildings, particu-
larly public and non-profit that have not converted to better lighting systems. Addi-
tional assistance is needed to help these 25% to 50% of the customers that have
not switched to a more efficient system.
Savings:Customers with buildings over 100 kW use a minimum of 250,000kWh, 40% of which
is lighting on which they could save 30%. = 30,000kWh min, average=200,000
Seasonality:These savings will be not be different due to seasonality.
Cost:NEEA estimates the cost of such a project to be about 4 cents per kWh
thus for each customer the cost would be 200,000 x 2 cents life cycle 40,000$
Incentive:Idaho Power could pay 30% of the implementation cost of 12,000$
Life of measure:10 years
Customer cost:$28,000
Other assumptions or sources of information:
With electric rates expected to be ($0.04*1.4 = $0.056), customers
stand to save $11,200 per year = 2.5 year payback period.
Program
Target market:Building over 100 kW
Penetration:50 Buildings 50
Total number of plants taking advantage of the program 30
Annual savings:2 years 30 times 200,000 kWh equal 6,000,000
1 year assums half the savings in year 1 3,000,000
Costs:40,000$ per building
Incentive:12,000$ times 30 buildings equal $360,000
Administration:24 months 0.25 FTE @ $60K/Y + 41% benefits $84,600
Evaluation;Estimated %5 of total $22,230
Total:Program total for 2 years $466,830
per year cost $233,400
Program life:Two years
IPCo FTE:0.25
Delivery mechanism:Lighting Contractor
Contractors/partners:Various Lighting Contractors
08/03/01 jfa
Plug and Play Commercial and Industrial Lighting Retrofit Acceleration
Concept Reduce energy use through tuning up the HVAC system in commercial
buildings.
Measure
Description:10 to 15 percent energy savings can quickly and cost effectively be
achieved through a thorough monitoring of building temperatures,
building pressures and CO2 levels and then fine-tuning the HVAC
system by specialized controls contractors.
Savings:A 10 to 15 percent reduction of the HVAC load in a building with 2 to 3 million kWh/y
equates: 100,000 to 200,000 kWh per year. Being conservative = kWh 150,000
Seasonality:These savings will be more acute during extreme ambient temperature swings
Cost:NEEA estimates the cost of such a project to be about 2 cents per kWh
thus for each customer the cost would be (study $2500, Impl,$6500)9,000$
Incentive:Idaho Power could pay 30% the study and implementation cost 3,000$
Life of measure:3 years
Customer cost:$6,000
Other assumptions or sources of information:
With electric rates expected to be ($0.04*1.4 = $0.056), customers
stand to save $8,000 per year = 9 month payback period.
Program
Target market:Building with 50,000 to 100,000 square feet.
Penetration:100 buildings over two years 100
Total number of plants taking advantage of the program 75
Annual savings:2 years 75 times 150,000 kWh 11,250,000
1 year assumes half of the savings in first year 5,625,000
Costs:9,000$ per building
Incentive:3,000$ times 75 buildings $225,000
Administration:24 months 0.25 FTE @ $60K/Y + 41% benefits $42,300
Evaluation;Estimated %5 of total $13,365
Total:Program total for 2 years $280,665
per year cost $140,300
Program life:Two years
IPCo FTE:0.25
Delivery mechanism:Contractor Sales
Contractors/partners:Various Controls Contractors
07/30/01 jfa
Plug and Play Commercial Building Tune-Up and Maintenance
Concept Reduce energy use through energy audits and assistance with the retrofit
of inefficient equipment with efficient equipment in small businesses
Measure
Description:Smaller businesses have smaller budgets, do not remodel very
often and have modest energy bills. But cumulatively this represents
very large amounts of energy. Assisting these customers with
technical and financial assistance will go a long way in reducing
energy use in a largely untouched sector.
These customers are under 100,000 square feet or under 200 kW
Savings:100 kW customers use about 250,000 kWh. Lighting and space conditioning
can be accomplished at 15% savings 40,000
Seasonality:These savings will be more acute during extreme ambient temperature swings
Cost:NEEA estimates the cost of such a project to be about 4 cents per kWh
thus for each customer the cost would be (audit $0, Impl,$1500-$2000)16,000$
Incentive:Idaho Power could pay 30% the implementation cost of 4,800$
Life of measure:10 years
Customer cost:$11,200
Other assumptions or sources of information:
With electric rates expected to be ($0.05*1.4 = $0.07), customers
stand to save $2,800 per year = 4 year payback period.
Program
Target market:Building with under 100,000 f2 or 200 kW
Penetration:300 buildings 300
Total number of plants taking advantage of the program 100
Annual savings:2 years 100 times 40,000 kWh equal 4,000,000
1 year assumes half of the savings achieved the first year 2,000,000
Costs:16,000$ per building
Incentive:4,800$ times 100 buildings equal $480,000
Administration:24 months 0.5 FTE @ $60K/Y + 41% benefits $84,600
Evaluation;Estimated %5 of total $28,230
Total:Program total for 2 years $592,830
per year cost $296,400
Program life:Two years
IPCo FTE:0.5
Delivery mechanism:DSR
Contractors/partners:Various Lighting and HVAC Contractors
07/30/01 jfa
Plug and Play Small Commercial and Industrial Retrofit Program
Description
Idaho Power will offer a Horsepower Reduction Program to all existing systems or in
extenuating circumstances 10 cents/kWh for kWh savings.
Measure
Description:Idaho Power will use audits of systems to determine savings potential
any redesign or energy saving equipment would qualify.
Savings:Average estimated savings; 20 kW, 2000 hrs per year,
kWhs 40000
Seasonality:Summer Irrigation Load, May-October
Cost:The average Incremental cost to the customer is varied depending on the
measure $6,000
Incentive:Average per system $4,000
Life of measure:10 years, or approximately 10,000 hrs
Other assumptions or sources of information:
IPCo's old Ag Choices program had a similar look this would be
more streamlined.
Program
Target market:All existing irrigation systems in Service Territory
Penetration:15,000 customers per year, @ .5%15,000
75
Annual savings:75 times 40,000 kWh equal 3,000,000
Costs:
Incentive:$4,000 times 75 Systems equal $300,000
Administration:In house brochure&forms, 500 to go to Irrigation Dealers $1,000
Evaluation;Estimated(could partially be avoided with pay after savings)$2,000
Total:$302,400
Program life:Probably good for a long period of time, however would evaluate on yrly basis.
IPCo FTE:Ag Reps would work it in with work already doing. Many times we currently
work with customers on what they should do already this would just give
Delivery mechanism:Ag Reps communicating with customers and Irrigation Dealers
Contractors/partners:Partner with Irrigation Equipment Dealers
Per Participant Values:
Savings 40,000 kWh
Direct Cost $6,000
Rebate $4,000
Admin 0
Existing Irrigation System Retrofit Program
Description
Idaho Power will offer New Irrigation Systems incentives on a per acre basis for doing one or all
of five savings measures.
Measure
Description:Five measures for new sytems; 15 psi nozzle packages, 40 x 40 Riser
Spacing,Flow Control Nozzles,Pump Efficiency,& Variable Speed Drives
Savings:Average estimated savings; 131 kwh/ac, 2000 hrs per year, average
system size 60 acres kWhs 7860
Seasonality:Summer, normal irrigation season.
Cost:The average Incremental cost to the customer is varied depending on the
measure $1,500
Incentive:Average per system $786
Life of measure:10 years, or approxiamately 10,000 hrs
Other assumptions or sources of information:
IPCo's old Ag Choices "New" program had a similar look but was more
complicated
Program
Target market:All new irrigation systems in Service Territory
Penetration:250 new customers per year, @ 20% participation 50
Annual savings:50 times 7860 kWh equal 393,000
Costs:
Incentive:$786 times 50 Systems equal $39,300
Administration:In house brochure, 500 to go to Irrigation Dealers $1,000
Evaluation;Estimated %5 of total $1,965
Total:$41,315
Program life:Probably good for three or four years, however would evaluate on 1yr basis.
IPCo FTE:Ag Reps would work it in with work already doing, estimate it would take 1/2
day once a week for 6 months a year.
Delivery mechanism:Ag Reps communicating with customers and Irrigation Dealers
Contractors/partners:Partner with Irrigation Equipment Dealers
Per Participant Values:
Savings 7,860 kWh
Direct Cost $1,500
Rebate $786
Admin 0
New Irrigation System Efficiency Program
Idaho Power has the opportunity to participate in the PNW Mobilization Campaign, a new
regional energy efficiency awareness campaign. The target for this campaign is all residential,
commercial and industrial users in the four state region. The purpose of the mobilization
campaign is to educate and motivate customers to accelerate electricity savings through the
adoption of energy efficiency measures. The three year campaign goal is for the PNW to save
about 270 MW of energy efficiency, enough for a "Conservation Power Plant". This campaign
is designed in conjuntion with the regional Plug and Play programs.
Three year funding amount for Idaho Power Company is about $480,000.
Pacific Northwest Public Mobilization Campaign
APPENDIX 4
SUMMARY SURVEY RESULTS
DSM Rider Research – Summary of Findings
! Customers in all segments think Energy Conservation is an
important issue.
o Residential and C&I more so than Irrigation.
! The majority of customers in all segments think electric
utilities should offer incentive programs to encourage
customers to purchase energy efficient equipment.
o C&I customers had the strongest opinion toward this
with Irrigation customers the least strong.
! Over half of customers interviewed indicated they would not
be willing to pay a slightly higher rate to fund energy
efficiency programs.
o Irrigation customers were less inclined than Residential
and C&I to support energy efficiency programs
! Most Residential and C&I customers who indicated they
would support energy efficiency programs indicated they
would be willing to pay 1% - 1.5% more per month.
! Most Irrigation customers who indicated they would support
energy efficiency programs indicated they would not be
willing to pay anything to support the programs.
! Over half of the customers who indicated they would
support energy efficiency programs indicated they thought
all customers should share in the cost of funding the
programs.
APPENDIX 5
RIDER TEMPLATE
SCHEDULE 90
ELECTRIC ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
AVAILABILITY
The measures described in this schedule are available to residential, commercial,
industrial and irrigation Customers served under the Company’s schedules and special contracts
for the purpose of promoting the efficient use of electricity. Customers receiving electric
services under a schedule not specified under Schedule 91 (Energy Efficiency Rider Charge) are
not eligible for services contained in this schedule unless specifically stated in such contract or
other service agreement.
Assistance provided under this schedule is limited to end uses where electricity is the
energy source. Assistance may take the form of monetary incentives or other types of services
designated to generate electricity savings. As a portfolio, the acquisition of energy efficiency
under this schedule is cost-effective as defined by the Total Resource Cost test (TRC). Availability
of all services is subject to the funding available through the Energy Efficiency Rider.
PROGRAM MEASURES
Energy efficiency measures pertain to changes in equipment, products, services and
strategies that reduce the kWh usage of a particular end use. Energy reduction technologies
available under this schedule may not apply to all customer classes. Peak reduction or load
shifting measures may also be included as available measures. The final determination of the
measures which are applicable under this schedule will be made by the Company. The energy
reduction technologies may include, but are not limited to, the following offerings.
Lighting measures improve the efficiency of indoor or outdoor lighting.
HVAC measures improve the efficiency of heating, ventilation, or air conditioning equipment.
Shell measures improve the effectiveness of heating, ventilation, or air conditioning equipment
by improving the envelope of the building. Such measures may include windows and insulation
of walls, roof, and/or floors.
Appliance measures upgrade the efficiency of appliances.
Electric motor measures include high efficiency motors, adjustable speed drives, and induction
generators.
Industrial measures improve the efficiency of manufacturing equipment and related processes.
Monitoring measures improve the utilization of specific end uses, facility usage, or aggregated
customer usage. Measurement will be used to provide more accurate savings estimates,
identify inefficient facilities, and as a tool for behavioral and operational modifications.
Control measures are products used to decrease consumption by modifying or decreasing the
usage of equipment. Examples include occupancy sensors and programmable thermostats.
Maintenance measures increase the efficiency of equipment through maintenance protocols.
New technologies are products or process improvements that are not fully accepted in the
marketplace. These technologies may include the research or demonstration of equipment or
processes that have not yet been commercialized.
Sustainable building measures increase the efficiency of the design, construction or use of a
facility. These measures may apply to new or existing buildings.
Irrigation system measures reduce the kwh consumption of an irrigation system.
INCENTIVES AND ASSISTANCE
The incentive level provided by the Company to Customers for electric efficiency
measures is based upon the value of the measure (in KWH savings) to the Company, as
calculated by the Company. Incentives will vary based upon the life (in years) of the measure
savings, the season of the year and the time of day when the savings are realized. The goal of
incentive design is to purchase the measure at the lowest cost and still achieve desired market
penetration. The incentive level provided to Customers for participation in programs sponsored
by this schedule varies by when measure savings occur and by program design features. The
example of incentive ranges below assumes level monthly and daily savings.
Measure Life Range of Customer incentives
(years) (cents per first year kWh savings)
5 up to 10 cents
10 up to 15 cents
15 up to 20 cents
Generally, incentives will be capped at 50% of total project cost as determined by the
Company based upon industry standards. However market conditions or program design may
necessitate incentives to be lower or higher than the 50% value.
The Company will consider electric efficiency opportunities that may not fit within the
prescribed services and simple payback periods described in this schedule. In these
circumstances the Customer and the Company will enter into a tailored agreement.
To promote energy efficiency, forms of assistance other than rebates or incentive
payments may be provided to Customers under this schedule. For example, programs may offer
energy-saving products, services, information, training, education, technical assistance, or
financing alternatives.
BUDGET
The following table outlines an estimated budget by Customer class:
Customer Class Expected Budget % Expected Budget $
Commercial & Industrial 45% $1,216,558
Residential 40% $1,045,701
Irrigation 15% $361,437
Total 100% $2,623,437
*Estimated Energy Efficiency Rider revenue per year is $2.6 million
This budget is used as a guideline to provide services to all Customer classes. Budgets
may deviate from one class to another based on the opportunity to incorporate cost-effective
efficiency improvements. If the Company enters into any tailored agreements, those amounts
will be deducted from that customer class’s budget.
In addition to incentives and assistance, program costs may include administration,
promotions, evaluation, pilot programs, and research costs.
GENERAL RULES AND PROVISIONS
Service under this schedule is subject to the General Rules and Regulations contained in
this tariff and is limited to facilities receiving electric service from the Company. All installations
and equipment must comply with all local code and permit requirements applicable and be
properly inspected, if required, by appropriate agencies.
The Company may establish specifications regarding any electric efficiency measures
and modifications to be effected under this schedule and may conduct inspections to insure
that such specifications are met.
The Company may provide partial funding for the installation of electric efficiency
measures and may provide other services to Customers for the purpose of identification and
implementation of cost-effective electric efficiency measures as described in this schedule.
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
The costs associated with efficiency programs shall not exceed the revenue collected
under Schedule 91. Should funding terminate under Schedule 91, so shall all efficiency programs
associated with Schedule 90.
APPENDIX 6
PROGRAM TEMPLATE
SCHEDULE 91
ENERGY EFFICIENCY RIDER
APPLICABILITY
This schedule is applicable to all retail Customers served under the Company’s schedules
and special contracts. This Energy Efficiency Rider is designed to recover costs incurred by the
Company associated with providing energy efficiency measures and services to Customers.
MONTHLY CHARGE
The Monthly Charge when metered electric service is provided under a schedule or
special contract is equal to the Energy Efficiency Rider amount for the applicable schedule
times the monthly energy consumption.
Schedule Energy Efficiency Rider
Schedule 1 $0.000255 per kWh
Schedule 7 $0.000312 per kWh
Schedule 9 $0.000176 per kWh
Schedule 19 $0.000137 per kWh
Schedule 24 $0.000187 per kWh
Schedule 40 $0.000235 per kWh
Schedule 26 $0.000121 per kWh
Schedule 28 $0.000151 per kWh
Schedule 29 $0.000122 per kWh
Schedule 30 $0.000110 per kWh
The Monthly Charge when unmetered electric service is provided under Schedules 15, 32,
41, or 42 is equal to one percent of the total monthly bill.
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
This schedule shall expire two years from its effective date.
APPENDIX 7
MEASURE SELECTION CRITERIA
AND PROGRAM EVALUATION
Page 1
MEASURE SELECTION CRITERIA
The Company shall use the following criteria to determine which efficiency
measures should be considered for inclusion in the Program.
1. Cost-effectiveness.
Idaho Power will prioritize energy-efficiency measures based upon
cost-effectiveness over the life of the measures. Overall cost-
effectiveness is typically measured by comparing the present value
of total costs and total benefits of the measure. Program costs and
benefits from three perspectives will be calculated and used as a
screening tool:
a. Total resource cost, viewing all costs and benefits, including
quantifiable non-energy impacts.
b. The utility cost test, viewing the costs and benefits to the
electric utility.
c. The consumer’s perspective, viewing electricity costs and
benefits from the perspective of participating consumers.
2. Other Considerations.
Measures instituted through the Program will provide services to all
sectors funding this Program including residential, commercial,
industrial and irrigation. In order to make the Program more cost-
effective, the Company will leverage retail customers’ current
investment in NEEA. Measures funded through the Program will
utilize resources provided by NEEA. These resources include
Page 2
market research, evaluations, program structure, technology
development and demonstration. Idaho Power will seek
opportunities to join with other private firms or governmental
agencies to ensure broader acceptance for participants and share
the overall cost of the Program.
PROGRAM EVALUATION
At the time of Program design, the Company will consider the best way to
accurately measure the savings realized by each measure. The Program will employ
measures that have been evaluated extensively in the Pacific Northwest region and
have “deemed” savings values. The Company will also rely upon work done by the
Regional Technical Forum, the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance and other
appropriate entities to identify measure savings and to apply them properly to local
initiatives. Ongoing operations will be monitored to ensure goals are being met.