Loading...
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.