20080415IPC to Staff 1-15.pdf

~11W~PO~
F~An IDACORP Company
LISA D. NORDSTROM
Attorney II
April 14, 2008
Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 West Washington Street
P. O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Re: Case No. IPC-E-08-04
Fixed Cost Adjustment Rates
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Please find enclosed for filing an original and two (2) copies of Idaho Power
Company's Response to the First Production Request of the Commission Staff regarding
the above-referenced matter.
i would appreciate it if you would return a stamped copy of this transmittal letter
to me in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope.
Very truly yours,
¿¡~ 1) ¿Z ~
Lisa D. Nordstrom
BLK:sh
Enclosures
P.O. Box 70 (83707)
1221 W. Idaho St.
Boise, 10 83702
LISA D. NORDSTROM, ISB #5733
BARTON L. KLINE, ISB #1526
Idaho Power Company
P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Inordstrom (g idahopower.com
bkline (g idahopower.com
200B APR J 4,
Pt1 4: 57ttl' '.
UTtÜrtl!l~~" Lie
lSSI0.
Attorneys for Idaho Power Company
Street Address for Express Mail:
1221 West Idaho Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MA TIER OF THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR
AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT FIXED
COST ADJUSTMENT (FCA) RATES FOR
ELECTRIC SERVICE FROM JUNE 1, 2008
THROUGH MAY 31, 2009.
)
) CASE NO. IPC-E-08-04
)
) IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S
) RESPONSE TO THE FIRST
) PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
) COMMISSION STAFF
)
COMES NOW, Idaho Power Company ("Idaho Power" or "the Company"),
and in response to the First Production Request of the Commission Staff to Idaho
Power Company dated March 28, 2008, herewith submits the following information:
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF, Page 1
REQUEST NO.1: What were the fixed costs per customer (FCC) for the
residential and small general service customers for 2007? What were the
resulting fixed costs per energy (FCE) for each customer class?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.1: As shown on Exhibit 3 of Mr.
Youngblood's testimony, the FCC for the residential and small general service
customers for 2007 were $395.82 and $293.88 per customer, respectively. Also
shown on Exhibit 3 are the FCE rates for the residential and small general
service customers for 2007 at $0.031621 and $0.041539 per kilowatt-hour,
respectively.
The response to this request was prepared by Michael J. Youngblood,
Pricing Analyst II, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Lisa D. Nordstrom,
Attorney II and/or Barton L. Kline, Senior Attorney, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF, Page 2
REQUEST NO.2: How did the Company determine the FCC and FCE for
2007 based on the settlement of Case No. IPC-E-05-8, the general rate case?
Please provide all workpapers used to determine the FCC and FCE in 2007 in
executable format, with formulas intact.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.2: To determine the FCC and FCE for
2007 based on the settlement of Case No. IPC-E-05-28, the Company first
determined the fixed cost recovery embedded in the energy charges for
residential and small general service customers. For the residential class,
$142,415,626 of fixed costs ($134,640,230 of fixed costs recovered in energy
charges + $7,775,396 of additional fixed cost recovery) would be recovered from
Schedule 1 energy charges. For the small general service class, $9,080,705 of
fixed costs ($8,577,664 of fixed costs recovered in energy charges + $503,041 of
additional fixed cost recovery) would be recovered from Schedule 7 energy
charges. The attached Excel file (PR2.xls) contains the information and
calculations used to determine these two amounts.
After the fixed costs recovered through energy charges are determined,
the FCC is simply computed by dividing the fixed costs by the number of
customers in the test year (359,802 residential customers and 30,899 small
general service customers). In a similar fashion, the FCE is calculated by
dividing the fixed costs by the test year energy (4,503,865,230 kWh for
residential and 218,605,825 kWh for small general service).
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF, Page 3
The response to this request was prepared by Michael J. Youngblood,
Pricing Analyst II, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Lisa D. Nordstrom,
Attorney II and/or Barton L. Kline, Senior Attorney, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF, Page 4
REQUEST NO.3: Insofar as not provided in response to Production
Request No.2, please provide executable versions of Youngblood Exhibits 2-6,
with formulas intact. Should there be links to other worksheets, provide the other
worksheets as welL.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.3: PR3-Exhibit 2.xls is an executable
copy of Exhibit 2; however the calculations to determine the numbers within the
exhibit are contained in PR2.xls, Response to Request NO.2. PR3-Exhibit 3.xls
through PR3-Exhibit 6.xls are executable copies of Exhibits 3 through 6, with
formulas intact.
The response to this request was prepared by Michael J. Youngblood,
Pricing Analyst II, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Lisa D. Nordstrom,
Attorney II and/or Barton L. Kline, Senior Attorney, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF, Page 5
REQUEST NO.4: Please provide all workpapers, in executable format,
used to determine monthly customer counts for the 2007 calendar year and the
2008 calendar year.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.4:PR4-2007.xls provides the
informFltion used to determine actual monthly prorated customer counts for the
2007 talendar year. PR4-2008.xls provides the information used to determine
actual monthly prorated customer counts for year-to-date 2008, January through
March:.
The response to this request was prepared by Michael J. Youngblood,
Pricing Analyst II, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Lisa D. Nordstrom,
Attorney II and/or Barton L. Kline, Senior Attorney, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF, Page 6
REQUEST NO.5: Please provide all workpapers, in executable format,
for the weather normalization methodology used to calculate actual fixed costs
recovered for 2007. Does the methodology differ from that used in determining
weather normalized energy for the test year used in Case No. IPC-E-05-8? If so,
please explain the differences, and provide the weather normalization study from
the 2005 general rate case.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.5: The Oracle EXPRESS model is
unavailable for direct distribution; however the attached Excel spreadsheet,
PR5.xls, duplicates the EXPRESS model subject to Excel limitations for multi-
dimensional modeling (resulting in non-material differences) and serves as a
proxy for communicating the methodology. The methodology does not differ from
that used in determining weather normalized energy for the test year used in
Case No. IPC-E-05-28.
The response to this request was prepared by Michael J Youngblood,
Pricing Analyst II, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Lisa D. Nordstrom,
Attorney II and/or Barton L. Kline, Senior Attorney, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF, Page 7
REQUEST NO.6: What is the assumed level of fixed costs recovered
through fixed charges for the 2008 calendar year for the two customer classes?
Please provide any workpapers, in executable format, used to determine the
assumed level of fixed costs recovered in fixed charges for CY 2008.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.6: The Company has not made any
assumptions in Case No. IPC-E-08-04 for the level of fixed costs to be recovered
through fixed charges for the 2008 calendar year for either the residential or
small general service customer classes. To calculate the amount of fixed costs
recovered through fixed charges, the Company would multiply the number of
prorated customers by the service charge, currently $4.00 per customer per
month. None of the fixed costs recovered through fixed charges are recovered in
the energy rate.
The response to this request was prepared by Michael J Youngblood,
Pricing Analyst II, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Lisa D. Nordstrom,
Attorney II and/or Barton L. Kline, Senior Attorney, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF, Page 8
REQUEST NO.7: Please provide an analysis of the financial impact of
implementing the new FCC/FCE rates on March 1, 2008, rather than the
Company's proposed January 1, 2008 retroactive date. Please provide any
workpapers, in executable format, with the response.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.7: PR7.xls provides the analysis of the
financial impact of implementing the new FCC/FCE rates on March 1, 2008,
rather than the Company's proposed date of January 1, 2008. The result would
be a negative impact to the Company of $478,247.62.
The response to this request was prepared by Michael J Youngblood,
Pricing Analyst ", Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Lisa D. Nordstrom,
Attorney II and/or Barton L. Kline, Senior Attorney, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF, Page 9
REQUEST NO.8: Please explain column B, rows 46-51, entitled
'Additional Fixed Cost Recovery' in Youngblood Exhibit 2, also referenced in Mr.
Youngblood's testimony on pages 9-10.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.8: There is a difference between the
individual class cost of service numbers and the amount of authorized base rate
revenues to be received within that class, as shown in Column D, Lines 29-34 of
Youngblood Exhibit 2. This difference is primarily a result of a shift in cost
responsibility from one class to another that is currently present in the
Company's rate structure. As stated in Mr. Youngblood's testimony in Case No.
IPC-E-04-15, when fixed costs are recovered through a volumetric rate, the
effects of any conservation program that reduces energy consumption results in
a loss in the recovery of those fixed costs. In the case of both the residential and
the small general service classes, the reduction of energy consumption through
conservation measures not only prevents the Company from recovering the fixed
costs associated with those classes but, in addition, prevents the fixed cost
recovery of the costs shifted from other classes to the residential and small
general service classes which are incorporated in their energy rates. The
opposite is also true, that when the Company collects more than its allowed fixed
cost recovery for either class, then the Company has recovered additional fixed
cost dollars associated with the costs shifted from other classes.
PR2.xls shows how the amounts for the "Additional Fixed Cost Recovery",
column B, rows 46-51, in Youngblood Exhibit 2 were calculated.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF, Page 10
The response to this request was prepared by Michael J Youngblood,
Pricing Analyst II, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Lisa D. Nordstrom,
Attorney II and/or Barton L. Kline, Senior Attorney, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF, Page 11
REQUEST NO.9: Please provide all workpapers, in executable format,
used to determine the 2008 forecasted normalized sales of 5,065,086,947 kWh
and 190,586,226 kWh for the residential and small general service classes,
respectively.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.9: PR9.xls is the Company's forecast for
2008 normalized sales. The methodology used to determine the forecast of
normalized sales is the same methodology used to determine the sales and load
forecast used in the Company's Integrated Resource Plan (IRP).
The response to this request was prepared by Michael J Youngblood,
Pricing Analyst II, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Lisa D. Nordstrom,
Attorney II and/or Barton L. Kline, Senior Attorney, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF, Page 12
REQUEST NO. 10: Of the 83 VendingMisers installed (page 49 of 2007
DSM Report), how many were installed for small commercial customers? What
is the estimated energy savings associated with the VendingMisers?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10:
In 2007 Idaho Power Company, through a third party contractor, installed
864 VendingMisers for an estimated annual energy savings of 1,116,288 kWh.
The installation and savings for this promotion are not tracked by rate schedule.
The response to this request was prepared by Pete Pengilly, Customer
Research and Analysis Leader, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with
Barton L. Kline, Senior Attorney and/or Lisa D. Nordstrom, Attorney II, Idaho
Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF, Page 13
REQUEST NO. 11: Please provide any preliminary results from the
Quantec-conducted study on appliance efficiency standards referenced on page
49 of the 2007 DSM Report.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11:
A copy of report is attached.
The response to this request was prepared by Pete Pengily, Customer
Research and Analysis Leader, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with
Barton L. Kline, Senior Attorney and/or Lisa D. Nordstrom, Attorney II, Idaho
Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF, Page 14
REQUEST NO. 12: Beyond the education and marketing programs
detailed on page 48 of the 2007 DSM Report, what energy efficiency and DSM
programs were enacted either directly as a result of the FCA or were not
operational in 2006. Please specify the energy or peak savings resulting from
the programs, and to which customer class they are attributed.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12:
In 2007 Idaho Power implemented two new energy efficiency programs
and expanded an existing program. The Heating and Cooling Efficiency program,
Easy Upgrades program, and Custom Efficiency program were all implemented
in 2007. The Custom Efficiency program is an expansion of the former Industrial
Efficiency program.
These new programs initiated in 2007 were planned prior to the
implementation of the FCA. Typically, new energy efficiency and demand
response programs are identified for implementation through the IRP planning
process. The Heating and Cooling Efficiency program, Easy Upgrades program,
and current Custom Efficiency program were identified as cost-effective
demand-side program options in Idaho Power's 2006 IRP.
Idaho Power currently has contracted with a third-part consultant to
conduct a DSM potential study to help identify new opportunities for energy and
demand savings through DSM programs. The study will be complete by August
2008. The results of this study wil be used in future DSM planning and for the
planning process associated with Idaho Power's 2009 IRP. After new programs
are identified through the IRP process, the specific program design, marketing
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF, Page 15
and implementation process will be developed, including consultation with the
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group.
Since the implementation of the FCA, two program promotions, the
VendingMiser and the Holiday Lighting promotions were implemented under the
Easy Upgrades program.
The Heating and Cooling Efficiency program is available to residential
customers and began in September 2007. Savings from this program were
minimal (1,595 kWh) since much of the activity in 2007 was centered on program
development, promotion, and training.
The Easy Upgrades program is available to all commercial and industrial
customers taking service under rate schedules 7, 9, and 19. Energy savings
from the Easy Upgrades program was 5,183,640 kWh and peak reduction of 780
kW.
The Easy Upgrades annual energy savings and peak reduction are in the
following table:
Estimated Estimated
Annual kWh
Rate Schedule Savings kW Savings
Rate 7 93,581 56
Rate 9 3,870,005 691
Rate 19 103,766 33
VendingMiser 1,116,288
Total 5,183,640 780
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF, Page 16
In 2007 the Custom Effciency Program was changed from the Industrial
Efficiency program by expanding the availability of the program to include all rate
schedules 9, 19, and special contract customers. Also in 2007 the $100,000 per
project cap was removed and the percent of project costs eligible for incentives
was changed from 50% to 70%. In 2007 the energy savings for the Custom
Efficiency program was 29,789,304 kWh and peak demand savings was 3,622
kW. Energy and demand savings for the Custom Efficiency program are not
tracked by rate schedule.
The response to this request was prepared by Pete Pengilly, Customer
Research and Analysis Leader, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with
Barton L. Kline, Senior Attorney and/or Lisa D. Nordstrom, Attorney II, Idaho
Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF, Page 17
REQUEST NO. 13: In the press release dated March 14, 2008, the
Company states that "Last year the company's combined energy efficiency
programs saved 91.2 millon kilowatt-hours..." Please specify the amount of
savings associated with each program offered by customer classes.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13:
The 2007 energy savings are provided by program and by customer class
in Appendix 3, pages 55-56, in Idaho Power's Demand-Side Management
2007 Annual Report dated March 14, 2008 and fied with the Commission in
compliance with IPUC order No. 29419. The report can also be found as Exhibit
1 to the testimony of Michael J. Youngblood in the present docket.
The response to this request was prepared by Pete Pengilly, Customer
Research and Analysis Leader, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with
Barton L. Kline, Senior Attorney and/or Lisa D. Nordstrom, Attorney ", Idaho
Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF, Page 18
REQUEST NO. 14: Regarding the small commercial class, please
provide an analysis of the reduction of the per customer energy consumption the
Company attributes to its DSM programs. To what does the Company attribute
any additional reduction in per customer consumption? Please provide all
workpapers used to prepare the response in executable format.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14: The Company has not conducted
any analysis of the reduction of the per customer energy consumption attributed
to its DSM programs other than the original cost effectiveness analyses used to
justify the program offerings.
The response to this request was prepared by Michael J. Youngblood,
Pricing Analyst II, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Lisa D. Nordstrom,
Attorney II and/or Barton L. Kline, Senior Attorney, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF, Page 19
REQUEST NO. 15: Regarding the residential class, please provide an
analysis of the increase in per customer energy consumption in 2007, including
what the Company attributes the increase in consumption to? Please provide all
workpapers used to prepare the response in executable format.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15: At this time Idaho Power has only
conducted a preliminary analysis of the Ada and Canyon County Assessors' data
bases to determine average house size and residential central air conditioner
penetration over time, which is attached.
The response to this request was prepared by Michael J. Youngblood,
Pricing Analyst II, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Lisa D. Nordstrom,
Attorney II and/or Barton L. Kline, Senior Attorney, Idaho Power Company.
DATED at Boise, Idaho this Æ~ay of April 2008.
OM
ower Company
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF, Page 20
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 14th day of April, 2008, I served a true
and correct copy of the within and foregoing document upon the following named
parties by the method indicated below, and addressed to the following:
Commission Staff
Weldon B. Stutzman
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities
Commission
472 W. Washington (83702)
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
~ Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
_ Overnight Mail
FAX
~ Email: Weldon. stutzman (g puc.idaho.gov
~Q!!..~~ordstrom
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF, Page 21
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CASE NO. IPC-E-08-4
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF COMMISSION STAFF
RESPONSE TO
REQUEST NO.1
NO DOCUMENTS REQUESTED AND/OR NO
DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO THIS REQUEST
AND/OR DOCUMENTS ALREADY IN THE
POSSESSION OF THE IPUC
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CASE NO. IPC-E-08-4
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF COMMISSION STAFF
RESPONSE TO
REQUEST NO.2
RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS ARE
CONTAINED ON THE ACCOMPANYING CD
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CASE NO. IPC-E-08-4
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF COMMISSION STAFF
RESPONSE TO
REQUEST NO.3
RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS ARE
CONTAINED ON THE ACCOMPANYING CD
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CASE NO. IPC-E-08-4
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF COMMISSION STAFF
RESPONSE TO
REQUEST NO.4
RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS ARE
CONTAINED ON THE ACCOMPANYING CD
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CASE NO. IPC-E-08-4
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF COMMISSION STAFF
RESPONSE TO
REQUEST NO.5
RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS ARE
CONTAINED ON THE ACCOMPANYING CD
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CASE NO. IPC-E-08-4
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF COMMISSION STAFF
RESPONSE TO
REQUEST NO.6
NO DOCUMENTS REQUESTED AND/OR NO
DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO THIS REQUEST
AND/OR DOCUMENTS ALREADY IN THE
POSSESSION OF THE IPUC
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CASE NO. IPC-E-08-4
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF COMMISSION STAFF
RESPONSE TO
REQUEST NO.7
RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS ARE
CONTAINED ON THE ACCOMPANYING CD
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CASE NO. IPC-E-08-4
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF COMMISSION STAFF
RESPONSE TO
REQUEST NO.8
RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS ARE
CONTAINED ON THE ACCOMPANYING CD
..
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CASE NO. IPC-E-08-4
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF COMMISSION STAFF
RESPONSE TO
REQUEST NO.9
RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS ARE
CONTAINED ON THE ACCOMPANYING CD
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CASE NO. IPC-E-08-4
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF COMMISSION STAFF
RESPONSE TO
REQUEST NO. 10
NO DOCUMENTS REQUESTED AND/OR NO
DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO THIS REQUEST
AND/OR DOCUMENTS ALREADY IN THE
POSSESSION OF THE IPUC
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CASE NO. IPC-E-08-4
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF COMMISSION STAFF
RESPONSE TO
REQUEST NO. 11
Final Report
Idaho Power Company
Appliance Standards
Assessment
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
January 9,2008
Rairitzf the bar tlnalycs '"
Prepared by:
Hossein Haeri
Allen Lee
Doug Sruchs
Ross Notebaart
Quantec, LLC
Charlie Stephens
Adjuvant Consulting
\\quantecilc.com\FsrvRoot$\Common$\2007 Projects\2007 -14 7 (IPC) Appliance Standards Evaluation\Reporting\IPC Appliance
Standards_Final Report _010807 .doc
Quantec Offices
720 SW Washington, Suite 400
Portland, OR 97205
[phone]; [phone] faxww.quantecllc.com
1722 14th St., Suite 210
Boulder, CO 80302
[phone]; [phone] fax
*
recled paper
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary .................................................................................. 3
2. Purpose and Methodology ....................................................................... 7
Purpose and Context............................................................................................................ 7
Methodology.... ................... ........... ..................................... .......... ........................... ............ 7
Work Plan ............................................................................................................................8
Review and Selection of Standards for Consideration... .............. .... .... .......... .....................8
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................12
Energy and Demand Savings Analysis ................................. ....................... .... ............ ......13
Implementation Costs and Process.......................................... .................. ......... ............ ...13
3. Appliance Assessments ......................................................................... 14
Oregon Appliance Standards.................................................. ................. ................ ..........14
Automatic Commercial Ice Makers and Commercial Refrigerator-Freezers............. 15
Metal Halide Fixtures .................................................................................................16
Incandescent Reflector Lamps....................................................................................1 7
External Power Supplies.............................................................................................18
Water Coolers .............................................................................................................19
Hot Food Holding Cabinet.........................................................................................20
Commercial Walk-in Refrigerator-Freezers ...............................................................21
Compact Audio Products............... ............ ......... .... ............. .................... ......... ..........22
DVD Players.... ... ............. ....... ........ .............. ....................... ............ ........ ........... ...... ..23
Portable Hot Tubs ....................................... ............. ............ ......... ............... .............. .24
Additional Appliance Standards ....... ............... .......... .... ............. ..................... ................ ..24
Residential Furace Fans............................................................................................25
Other Standards....... ............................. ............ ..................... ......................... ....... .....25
4. Energy and Demand Savings and Incremental Costs ......................... 26
Energy and Demand Savings Potential..............................................................................26
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment
Projected Savings and Costs ..............................................................................................27
5. Processes and Policy Context...............................................................31
Development of Appliance Standards in Western States................... ........ .......................31
Oregon ........................................................................................................................31
California ....................................................................................................................32
Administrative versus Legislative Process .................................................................33
The Idaho Situation... ............ .................. .............................. ..... ............. .............. ......34
The Special Case of Gas Furace Standards...... ........................ ........ '" ............... ......34
Realization of Estimated Savings... ........ ............. ................. .... .............................. ........ ...36
Field Performance.......................................................................................................36
Compliance and Enforcement................... ... .......................... ............ ...... ... ..... ..........36
Collaboration......................................................................................................................38
National and Regional Collaborative Efforts .............................................................38
Opportnities for IPC ............ ................... ........ .............................................. ........... .39
6. Recommendations ............. .... .................................. ................ ............... 40
Appliance Standards for Consideration......... ............. .................. .................. ............. ......40
Research Needs..................................................................................................................41
Capacity, Infrastructure, and Policy...................................................................................42
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment ii
1. Executive Summary
The Idaho Power Company (IPC) contracted with Quantec, LLC, to conduct a study of the
potential savings and costs associated with enacting appliance energy-effciency standards in
Idaho similar to those recently enacted in Oregon. IPC's Request for Proposals (RFP)
specifically stated:
"This Evaluation should provide information regarding the costs and potential
for energy savings that would occur if the appliance standards enacted by the
State of Oregon were applicable in the State of Idaho. Additionally, the
Evaluation should provide information for opportities to promote new or
additional appliance standards in Idaho."
To determine the potential savings and costs, Quantec first reviewed the two most recent Oregon
appliance standards, House Bill 3363 passed in 2005 and Senate Bill 375 passed in 2007, and
supplemented that research with a review of the most recent federal appliance standards and
other standards programs around the country. Based on this review, a subset of appliance
standards was identified as meriting further investigation for consideration in Idaho based on the
following general criteria:
. Potential energy and/or demand savings
. Lack of impending federal legislation
. Prevention of low-efficiency appliances, that state standards would prohibit in
neighboring states, from being sent to Idaho
The ten appliances selected for analysis and detailed in this report are provided in Table ES 1.
The case of residential furnace fans is unique because neighboring states do not have a standard
for this product, but it is worth examination for several reasons discussed in detail in the report.
Table ESL. Potential Appliance Standards
Appliance Sector Oregon Neighboring States
Enacted Effective WA CA
Metal halide lampslfxtures C 2005 2008 Enacted Enacted
Incandescent reflector lamps C 2005 2007 Enacted Enacted
External power supplies C/R 2005 2007 Enacted Enacted
Bottle-type water dispensers C 2007 2009 Enacted
Hot food holding cabinets C 2007 2009 Enacted
Walk-in refrigerators and freezers C 2007 2009 Enacted
Compact audio products (CD players)R 2007 2009 Enacted
DVD players and recorders R 2007 2009 Enacted
Portable electric spas/hot tubs R 2007 2009 Enacted
Residential furnace fans R
Note: C indicates commercial sector; R indicates residential sector.
Once identified, research was conducted on each appliance to estimate the stock or sales of
affected appliances in Idaho, the natural occurrng market penetration of energy-effcient models,
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 3
the incremental cost of the more efficient appliances, and the annual energy and demand savings
associated with enacting an appliance standard. This information was then synthesized and
applied to data provided by ipe to determine the impact of each appliance standard upon the
utility. Tables containing this information for each appliance are provided throughout the report
and collectively in the report's technical appendix.
Table ES2 summarizes the potential energy and demand savings for each appliance. As evident
in the table, residential furnace fans represent the greatest opportnity to generate savings. The
information provided in ES2 is aggregated by sector in Table ES3.
Table ES2. Total Savings Potential for Existing Appliance Stock
Per Unit
Eligible Units kWhNr Total kWhNr Per UnitkW Total kW
Appliance Sector in Idaho Savings Savings*Savings Savings*
Metal Halide Fixtures COM 132,588 307 45,141,258 0.0703 10,534
Reflector Lights RES 154,000 61 10,417,946 0.0110 1,907
External Power Supplies RES 3,402,000 4 15,468,554 0.0005 1,803
Water Coolers COM 2,832 266 836,836 0.0395 126
Hot Food Holding Cabinets COM 1,539 1,815 3,097,753 0.2691 468
Walk-in Refrigerators-Freezers COM 860 8,2Ll 7,839,743 1.2669 1,231
Compact Audio Products RES 662,966 53 38,967,153 0.0061 4,542
DVD Players RES 307,395 11 3,749,912 0.0013 437
Hot Tubs RES 13,120 250 3,637,520 0.0280 416
Residential Furnace Fans RES 225,280 599 149,651,476 0.0872 22,192
-Total energy and demand savings adjusted to account for losses based on IPC system distribution secondary loss factors
Table ES3. Total Savings Potential of Existing Stock by Sector
Total Estimated Energy Total Estimated
Sector Savings (kWhNr)Demand Savings (kW)
Commercial 56,915,590 12,359
Residential 221,892,560 31,297
Overall 278,808,151 43,657
However, since the estimates shown in the preceding tables do not take into account the rate at
which appliances are replaced, new appliance sales, or the effects of federal standards, additional
analysis was necessary. Figures ESl and ES2, respectively, provide energy and demand
estimates through 2020 reflecting:
. Effective useful lives to account for replacement of existing appliance stocks
· Utility system energy and demand losses
. Anticipated customer growth (based on approximately 1.7% annual growth).
Note that both figues show the results with and without a furnace fan standard.
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 4
Figure ESL. Estimated Energy Savings (MWh) from Standards Adoption (2009- 2020)
250,000 ,----
200,000
tiCli:150,000.:;
coen.i:i 100,000~
ëã::i:i:c:50,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
I · ~~ta~m'. .~ T~t~I~Fu~n~~=~~13~1
Figure ES2. Estimated Demand Savings (MW) from Standards Adoption (2009- 2020)
35
30
l/25
Cli:20'S:coen 15~
:E
10
5
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
E_~~!~I~!?t~I-Furna~
Based on these findings, Quantec recommends considering the development and adoption of
Idaho appliance standards for the first nine appliances listed in Table ES. i. In addition, specific
alternatives should be investigated for the possibility of increasing the efficiency of furnace fans.
Idaho should also examine the options and monitor progress in setting standards for general
service incandescents and metal halide fixtures.
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 5
To support the development of efficiency standards, IPC and other entities in Idaho should
identify priorities for conducting research and developing the data needed for such efforts.
Expanding current collaborations and developing additional ones would minimize the resources
required and would leverage existing resources.
At the state level, Idaho could invest in the capability required to research and adopt standards
for the appliances analyzed here. In addition, the State of Idaho could investigate the option of
developing a regulatory framework, similar to California's, that would recognize utilities' efforts
dedicated to efficiency standards in a way similar to how utility energy-efficiency acquisition
programs are treated.
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 6
2. Purpose and Methodology
Purpose and Context
The Idaho Power Company (IPC) contracted with Quantec, LLC, to conduct a study of the
potential savings and costs associated with enacting appliance energy-effciency standards in
Idaho similar to those recently enacted in Oregon. IPC's Request for Proposals (RFP)
specifically stated:
"This Evaluation should provide information regarding the costs and potential
for energy savings that would occur if the appliance standards enacted by the
State of Oregon were applicable in the State of Idaho. Additionally, the
Evaluation should provide information for opportnities to promote new or
additional appliance standards in Idaho."
IPC staff provided more context information and details about the research purose during the
project initiation meeting in August 2007. IPC implements several energy-efficiency programs
for its customers and prepares an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) every two years. Through these
processes and interactions with its advisory groups, interested parties, and the Idaho Public
Utilities Commission (IPUC), IPC decided to initiate a study of the effects ifIdaho adopted
appliance efficiency standards. Energy-efficiency standards, both for appliances and buildings,
have the potential to save significant amounts of energy by eliminating ineffcient products and
buildings in the market. In addition, the costs of programs to implement standards can be
relatively low compared to the costs of achieving the same energy savings through energy-
efficiency acquisition programs.
Oregon's appliance standards are especially relevant because they apply in a state adjoining
Idaho. In fact, since IPC serves several cities in Oregon, some of its customers already benefit
from Oregon's appliance standards. Furthermore, the three West Coast states have adopted
similar appliance standards so adoption in Idaho would expand the region covered by consistent
standards. Another potential benefit to Idaho's residents is that there is the possibility that
manufacturers or distributors would shift their no longer legal, less-efficient products to Idaho
when the Oregon standards go into effect.
This report presents the results of the analyses of the costs and potential energy and demand
savings ifIdaho adopted the Oregon appliance efficiency standards. IPC clarified during the
project initiation meeting that the study should focus on statewide cost and energy impacts and
that the cost impacts of primary interest were incremental consumer costs for more effcient
appliances. The remainder of this chapter describes the methodology Quantec applied.
Methodology
To determine the potential savings and costs, Quantec first reviewed the two most recent Oregon
appliance standards, House Bil 3363 passed in 2005 and Senate Bil 375 passed in 2007, and
supplemented that research with a review of the most recent federal appliance standards and
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 7
other standards programs around the country. Based on this review, a subset of appliance
standards was identified as meriting further investigation for implementation in Idaho based on
the following general criteria:
. Potential energy and/or demand savings
. Lack of impending federal legislation
. Prevention of low-efficiency appliances prohibited in neighboring states with standards
being sent to Idaho by appliance distributors
Once identified, additional research was conducted on the appliances to estimate the stock or
sales of affected appliances in Idaho, the natural occurring market penetration of energy-efficient
models, the incremental cost borne by the consumer for more efficient appliances, and the annual
energy and demand savings associated with enacting an appliance standard. This information
was then synthesized and applied to data provided by IPC to determine the impact of each
appliance standard upon the utility.
Formally, this process consisted ofa series of research tasks. These are described below.
Work Plan
Quantec prepared a memorandum detailing discussions from the project initiation meeting and
finalized the agreed upon work plan, which was provided to IPC on September 19, 2007.
The overall research approach documented in the work plan is represented graphically in Figure
1. Quantec also developed information requests for IPC that were needed to conduct the study.
Review and Selection of Standards for Consideration
As noted above, Quantec carefully reviewed the 2005 and 2007 Oregon appliance standards
legislation, as well as commentary regarding the legislation written by organizations such as the
Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), the American Council for an Energy Effcient
Economy (ACEEE), and OSPIRG (Oregon's member of the federation of Public Interest
Research Groups), a significant player in the development and advocacy of the 2005 standards.
Quantec also investigated whether California and Washington had enacted legislation regarding
any of the appliances covered by Oregon law. Lastly, interviews were conducted with appliance
standards experts in several states.
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 8
Figure 1. Overview of Research Approach
To maximize the usefulness of this study, several factors were considered in this analysis and the
determination of which Oregon standards to explore as part of this study; and whether standards
from other states should be addressed. These factors included:
· Type of adoption process that might be used in Idaho (administrative, legislative, or a
combination) and the time required to implement it
· The status of standards at the federal level and in states other than Oregon
· Time between enactment of standards and the effective dates of the standards
· Availability of current market data (sales by model or class, incremental costs, trends,
etc.)
. Opportnities to parter with other entities or jursdictions
. Political climate for standards enactment
. Potential allies in the process
In assessing the standards options, states are preempted from adopting standards for appliances
for which federal standards already exist. Since Oregon had adopted several standards prior to
when the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) adopted federal standards, Oregon was not
preempted by subsequent federal action. Preemption applies to standards that DOE has adopted,
even though their effective date is in the futue, so states that have not adopted standards already
are restricted from adopting their own standards if a DOE standard has been adopted but is not
scheduled to go into effect until a future date.
1
i Personal communication from Andrew deLaski to Charlie Stephens, November 13,2007.
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 9
Based on a review of documentation available, the status of candidate standards was
summarized. Table I lists all the 2005 and 2007 appliance standards enacted in Oregon and other
standards that Quantec reviewed for possible adoption in Idaho. For each standard, the table
shows the sector in which it applies, its status in Washington and California, and its status
relative to federal standards. Based on the criteria described above, the following 2005 Oregon
standards were selected for consideration:
. Metal halide lamps/fixtures
· State-regulated incandescent reflector lamps
. Single, low-voltage external power supplies
Two of these standards are already in effect in Oregon (reflector lamps and external power
supplies), while the remaining one (metal halide lamps/fixture) becomes effective in 2008.
Oregon enacted two additional appliance standards (commercial refrigerators-freezers and ice
makers) that have since been included in the 2005 federal standards. Even though they are not
effective until 2010, states that do not have existing standards for them (such as Idaho) are
preempted from enacting new standards. An external power supplies standard was included in
the 2005 Energy Policy Act, but DOE has not acted to set a standard yet so it was included for
consideration. The remaining products for which standards were adopted by Oregon in 2005
were excluded because they already are or will soon be covered by federal standards.
From Oregon's 2007 standards there are an additional six products that were selected for further
study:
. Bottle-tye water dispensers
. Commercial hot food holding cabinets
. Walk-in refrigerators and walk-in freezers
. Compact audio products
. Digital versatile disc (DVD) players and digital versatile disc recorders
· Portable electric spas/hot tubs
Quantec reviewed one additional item, residential furnace fans, that is not covered by curent
Oregon appliance standards. The status of furnace fans is unique for several reasons, as discussed
later, and they merit further examination because of their potential energy savings.
The California standards for pool pumps and general service incandescent light bulbs were not
included for further consideration in this initial analysis. The reasons are presented later in the
report.
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 10
.5'i ~0) 'i'i ::::-y U)
.5
ooooo~ ~ enenenenenenenenenoooooooooenZ ZZ zz~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~z z zzz z zzz~
In~ c(
èñ 00)i:"¡:o.c.c.~c(~ 3:
-0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0~~~~~~~~~ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro rocccccccccwwwwwwwww
-0
~roi:W
-0
~roi:W
-0 -0 -0
~ ~ ~ro ro roi: i: i:W W W
'""e-~"e=~-00
Q,Cj=~...-i:i:~
"~t)£Ë w0)'i0)i.
r-tOtOtOtOooooooo~~0000000NNNNNNN
0)i::5ro:2
ch"5n:
r- CO 0 r-OO-cC)0000N N N N
to CO0000N N
'i~~~~~~~~nsOOOOOOOi:NNNNNNNW
LOooN
LO LO LO LO00000000N N N N
LO LO0000N N
0)~ m r- r- r- r- CO r- CO r- r- m m m m m mt)00000000000000000)0000000000000000æNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN-~...-=Q,-o~
i:o0)~o tnsi:W
C'ooN
COooN
,.
Q,-.Q~
Eo
LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO r- r- r- r- r- r-00000000000000000000000000000000NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN LOooN
ü ü ü ü n: ü ü ü ü ~ ü ü ü n: n: n: n: ü ü ü ü n: ü ü ~ n:
i.S
ã)~õc:
~'"
t5::"0ea.
Q)
iß-:~.E
..ot)0)U)
0)ui:.~e.c.c(
~ $.c roen i:~ j~ ~õ ëi13 E
~ ~ ~ro i:
êi .!2 ena. en i:o u 0)
c !i 'ëi'õ ~ .xü I- W
enCl
~i:;:~a.en
Cleni:.;:
èa.
~~roE
~ ~E .-l!
~ClE~~
~Cl
~
~.£~Cl0)
~
~
~ ~Cl i5 enen ~ 0 ..~~ ~ &~~.a::~._~ ~i-gt-Ë~
~ .9 0..5 CO :i 8 èñ~~~~~~e~g.E'$ en'" O)ro a.-g uCO S- êõ "* .5 Q) .2 ro :s
a; ë 3: 3: =§ .~ -g Cl~ ~:2 ~ ~Cl.c'Q~;:Clëi lßëi~-o'" u ro Cl.c-o..c i g.£ ~Q.:O1§~ ~-":EO-êCluW~OÕëiO::o:2£ ai:I$:üoa.
~Cl
£! ECl Q
en E igJ9c..~(/Ecn-.l!0~!Jeã N J: -..J\Cl-':ê ~~ ~~~l!-o bCl
"§ 5 ¡g -0 ~==c.mQ)~~~TI~~
0)è'~'5 EcÕQ)::.2
.- l¡ ~ 3: ~~ :2 .3 .3 :2
ëC ~t'~~VJcn
~ 2 ~ ~ ~~æ~Cl-gCl .c .S: u ~~~ ~ Ë
en -æ .= .~ .2a.i:Æ $ëiE .2' ~ 'Ë5.~~~Clo!iE:g~ó:~8c3&
~"5..
:Eg
EQ)-:
.E
en
"E'"
-g
~
~c
OJc:
E-O"0'"
E
,g"0.sa.E
~a.
~'"
en.s.len
~Q)"0.æ.cOJ::o
¡:~
ã:.:~
ê0: 5o .!A üJ2 E a.
~.E E E~~.§~£
~~~1§ gII C _ (1._~~~~$c; !; "" "" E
u; 3= 15 15 ll"! E! ,. .. 9o:~caco~
o Q) en en .~~e:. :.""oo"E"Em.. . '" '" "0.~ $ -g -g ~
u; ~ '" ",.¡¡aca~d~~
..111JiUI.ä.ä...äc~~~~~~::ofI
ëi ëi
-ë .~Cl ClE EE Eo 0ü ü
....
c
Q)
ElJrJQ)rJ
~
rJ
"Eti"Ci:SC/
Q)oi:.!la.0--:;:i:ti0-
Eoü
la.o.cti
32
Io2i:ti::o
Data Collection
Once the list of appliances selected for further examination was prepared, Quantec utilized a
multitude of energy industry sources to gather critical information regarding each appliance.
Specifically, information was gathered for each appliance regarding the following:
. Market Saturation: the quantity of each appliance currently installed in Idaho buildings.
. Energy-efficient Product Penetration: the percent of the existing appliance stock that is
high-efficiency models that would already meet the Oregon standard.
. Effective Useful Life: the average operating lifetime of the appliance; this is critical for
assessing both the savings and estimating the time required to completely replace the
existing appliance stock.
. Consumer Incremental Cost: the difference between the price paid by a customer for a
model meeting the Oregon standard and the price currently paid for a comparable product
not meeting the standard.
. Energy and Demand Savings: the per-unit annual energy and demand savings from
using an appliance model meeting the adopted standard.
To obtain the data listed above, Quantec researched a wide variety of resources ranging from
residential and commercial appliance saturation studies by Pacific Northwest utilities to sales
data for specific products available through the National Electrical Manufacturers Association
(NEMA). Since very few data were available specifically for Idaho, most of the data utilized in
this study relate to other states or utilities and was scaled to account for differences between
regions.
Among the resources utilized in this study were:
. Northwest Energy Effciency Allance Assessment of the Commercial Building Stock
in the Northwest: provided a characterized summary of commercial building stock in the
Pacific Northwest with updated market penetrations of energy-efficient technologies and
practices.
. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Residential New Construction Characteristics
and Practices Study: a report that characterized single-family residential new
construction to develop a representative sample of high-efficiency technology saturation
and common energy consumption for homes in Montana, Idaho, Washington and Oregon.
. California Codes and Standards Enhancement Initiative (CASE): provided technical
and economic data on several appliance standards. The CASE studies were developed by
California utilities in support of upgrades to California's Title 20 appliance standards and
submitted to the California Energy Commission.
. Appliance Standards Awareness Program 2006 Model Bil: ASAP creates model bills
for states to utilize when considering appliance standard legislation. The appliances
included in the bil are tailored based on climate zones and local appliance saturations.
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 12
Energy and Demand Savings Analysis
Once data were collected and aggregated, realistic estimates of the likely aggregate energy and
demand savings were calculated for each appliance standard. Quantec used these data to estimate
the overall effects of the standards on energy usage in Idaho and effects on the electrical system.
Specifically, demand impacts were estimated by applying measure coincidence factors derived
from end-use load shapes from the Northwest Power and Conservation Council for the climate
zone including Idaho. The fraction of the annual total demand occurring at the peak hour was
multiplied by the annual energy (kWh) to find the annual peak hour demand impact (kW). Since
the end-use load-shapes were normalized, there should be reasonably good agreement between
these end-use load-shapes and those that apply statewide and in IPC's Idaho service area. IPC's
overall system load information was utilized to determine the system's summer peak.
Implementation Costs and Process
One ofIPC's research objectives was to estimate the incremental consumer costs of appliances/
equipment meeting the requirements of the standards investigated. As a result, Quantec culled
this information from various sources during its data collection process.
Quantec also proposed, and IPC agreed, that it would be useful to compile basic qualitative
information about the level and type of effort required to conduct an appliance standards
development program. This information is meant to provide IPC with a general sense of the costs
of undertaking such a program and the steps required, but not detailed estimates for specific
program costs. Developing this information further would require research beyond the scope of
this study.
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 13
3. Appliance Assessments
This chapter describes each of the appliance standards determined, using the criteria described
earlier, to merit fuher examination for possible adoption in Idaho. The discussion summarzes
the information gathered and details the reasons for and/or against adopting a standard. As noted
in Chapter 2, limited data were available regarding some of the specific saturations and/or
penetration of energy-efficient models in Idaho. Some data date back to 2004 and 2005 andmay
need to be updated to obtain more accurate estimates of impacts, if needed. The data detailed in
this section - collected from utilities and states throughout the Pacific Northwest and West Coast
- have been augmented to reflect specific conditions for Idaho wherever possible. However, it is
important to note that the estimates provided relied largely on secondary sources extrapolated to
Idaho so they should be considered to be only approximations that could be refined with more
accurate Idaho-specific data.
As noted earlier, ASAP, located in Boston, Massachusetts, produces an annual "model standards
bil" for states to use in setting consistent standards. Supporting product and market data
accompany the bill, and the data are available on a state-by-state basis, with adjustments made
for climate, operating hours, and energy prices. The 2008 model bill will be available in the first
quarter of 2008 and this could be a valuable source of more current information for Idaho when
it becomes available. Recommendations regarding such future research are offered in the final
chapter of this report.
To improve clarity and streamline the report, a list of all references used in this section is
provided in Table 2 and not appended to each individual table.
Table 2. Data Sources
Reference Number Source
1 Codes and Standards Enhancement Initiative (CASE) Studies
2 ASAP & ACEEE Model Bil Report - Idaho
3 Idaho Power specific coincident factor applied to per unit energy savings value
4 Conversation with appliance code expert (details provided when applicable)
5 ASAP & ACEEE Report Number ASAP-6/ACEEE-A062, March 2006
Oregon Appliance Standards
This section outlines current Oregon appliance standards and details the energy-efficiency
criteria, estimated savings, and incremental cost for each appliance measure analyzed for this
report. The 2005 standards discussed here (metal halide fixtures, incandescent reflector lamps,
and single voltage external power supplies) were enacted as House Bil 3363. It created Oregon
Revised Statutes (ORS) 469.229 through 469.261, where Oregon's legislated standards reside.
In 2007, the statutes were revised by HB 2565, which made some adjustments to the 2005
statutes, and by SB 375 to include new appliance standards (bottled water dispensers,
commercial hot food-holding cabinets, compact audio equipment, DVD players, portable electrc
spas, and walk-in refrgerators and freezers). The 2007 adjustments to appliances covered by HB
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 14
3363 are noted in the appropriate sections below (incandescent reflector lamps and single-
voltage power supplies).
Oregon's standards statutes define both a "sales" effective date and an "installation for
compensation" effective date. The latter allows users to install products that do not meet the
standards for some period-typically one year-after the date when they can no longer be sold.
All of the effective dates listed below are the "sales" dates, i.e., the date beyond which only
complying units can be sold legally. Unless noted otherwise, all "installation" effective dates can
be assumed to be one year later.
Automatic Commercial Ice Makers and Commercial Refrigerator-Freezers
As noted earlier, Oregon has adopted standards for commercial ice makers and refrigerators-
freezers, but federal standards preempt Idaho from adopting similar standards, even though the
federal standards do not go into effect until 2010. These appliances are only briefly discussed
here. As defined by HB 3363, an automatic commercial ice maker is a:
".. . factory-made assembly, not necessarily shipped in one package,
consisting of a condensing unit and ice-making section operating as an
integrated unit with means for making and harvesting ice cubes, and any
integrated components for storing or dispensing ice."
As defined by ORS 469.229, a commercial refrigerator-freezer is:
". . . smaller than 85 cubic feet of internal volume and designed for use by
commercial or institutional facilities for the purpose of storing or
merchandising food products, beverages or ice at specified temperatures,
other than products without doors, walk-in refrigerators or freezers,
consumer products that are federally regulated pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6291
et seq. or freezers specifically designed for ice cream.
(a) Must incorporate most components involved in the vapor-compression
cycle and the refrigerated compartment in a single cabinet; and
(b) May be configured with either solid or transparent doors as a reach-in
cabinet, pass-through cabinet, roll-in cabinet or roll-through cabinet."
There is the potential risk retailers wil sell low-effciency models in Idaho that are ilegal in
neighboring states, and this is a concern for at least two reasons. First, savings for both are likely
to be highest during on-peak summer periods when temperatures are hottest, thus coinciding with
IPC's cooling load peaks. Second, the favorable ratio of annual energy savings to consumer
incremental cost provides for a relatively short payback period.
Based on the analyses conducted, the higher effciency ice makers each save about 445
kWh/year, commercial refrigerators save 826 kWhyear, and commercial freezers save 669
kWh/year. Over the lives of these appliances, the savings foregone by installing tyical units
instead of ones meeting the Oregon standards would total about 7.4 GWh. The State ofIdaho and
IPC may want to consider taking steps to minimize the possibility that less efficient units are sent
to the state until the federal standard goes into effect.
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 15
Metal Halide Fixtures
The standard for metal halide fixtures, which use a type of High
Intensity Discharge (HID) lamp, was enacted by Oregon in
2005 and effective on January 1,2008. ORS 469.229 defines a
metal halide fixtue and its components as follows:
"'High-intensity discharge lamp' means a lamp in which
light is produced by the passage of an electric current
through a vapor or gas, and in which the light-producing
arc is stabilized by bulb wall temperature and the arc
tube has a bulb wall loading in excess of three watts per
square centimeter."
"'Probe-start metal halide lamp ballast' means a ballast used to operate
metal halide lamps that does not contain an igniter and that instead starts
metal halide lamps by using a third starting electrode probe in the arc
tube."
"Metal halide lamp fixtures designed to be operated with lamps rated
greater than or equal to 150 watts but less than or equal to 500 watts may
not contain a probe-start metal halide lamp ballast."
This commercial measure is typically utilized in outdoor lighting, including parking lots and
walkways, and large warehouse style buildings. Metal halide lamps are available in probe-start
or pulse-start technology. The pulse-start lamps and ballasts are more energy-efficient, providing
a higher lumen to watt ratio, better lumen maintenance, longer lamp life, shorter re-strike and
warm-up times, and better color rendering. Energy savings potential related to metal halide
lamps is a result of reduced wattage lamps that offer light output greater than or equal to that of
similar higher wattage probe-start ballast HID lamps.
There is currently no pending federal standards process for metal halide 1uminaire fixtures.
Furher, it does not appear that any federa11egis1ation or standards will be issued in the
foreseeable futue. As a result, individual states are left to enact efficiency standards for these
products. Pulse-start ballasts and lamp combinations are already making inroads into this market.
Electronically ballasted luminaires are the next step up in efficiency, but they are not nearly as
prevalent in the market yet. At some point not too far in the future, it wil probably make sense
for states to upgrade this standard to require electronic ballasts, for an additional 15% savings
over the pulse-start products.
A summary of the information collected for the analysis of metal halide fixtures is provided in
Table 3.
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 16
Table 3. Data Summary: Metal Halide Fixtures
Current Energy Population Annual Energy Peak Demand Consumer Effective
Total Appliance Efficiency Subject to Savings (kWh Per Savings Incremental Useful Life
Population1 Penetration1,2 Upgrade Unitlear) 1,2 (kW/unit)3 Cost2 (Years)1,2
168,366 21%132,588 307 0.07 $30.00 20
Incandescent Reflector Lamps
The reflector lamp standard was enacted as part of Oregon HB 3363 in the 2005 session, with an
effective date of January l, 2007. It was enacted in Washington State at the same time. At the
time of passage in Oregon and Washington, similar standards were being deliberated in other
states. Ultimately, industry lobbyists convinced these other states to exempt more categories of
lamps (Oregon and Washington had exempted only 50-watt ER lamps). So in order to make this
standard consistent with that enacted by other states (such as California), Oregon modified its
standard as part ofHB 2565 in the 2007 session. The change involved exempting the following
additional lamps:
. Lamps rated at 50 watts or less of the following tyes: BR 30, ER 30, BR 40, and ER 40
· Lamps rated at 65 watts of the following types: BR 40 and ER 40
. R 20 lamps of 45 watts or less
These changes essentially exempted the most common types of BR and ER lamps from the
standard, and dramatically lowered the energy savings expected from this measure. The new
rules associated with the standard also changed the effective date to January 1, 2008, for
products manufactured after July 1, 2007.
The definition of this product in ORS 469.229 is as follows:
'''State-regulated incandescent reflector lamp' means a lamp that is not
colored or designed for rough or vibrating service applications, that has an
inner reflective coating on the outer bulb to direct the light, that has an
E26 medium screw base, that has a rated voltage or voltage range that lies
at least partially within 115 to 130 volts and that falls into one ofthe
following categories:
(a) A bulged reflector or elliptical reflector bulb shape that has a diameter
that equals or exceeds 2.25 inches; or
(b) A reflector, parabolic aluminized reflector or similar bulb shape that
has a diameter of2.25 to 2.75 inches."
The standard specifies reflector lamp minimum average lamp efficiency (lumens per watt)
dependent upon lamp wattage. This residential and commercial measure is tyically found in
recessed downlight fixtures and applications where the direction of light is important. About half
the market for this type of application consists of federally regulated "R lamps," reflector lamps
that are designed to direct light output at angles less than 180 degrees. Each lamp has a metallic
or aluminized reflector applied either directly to the bulb or to the glass lens to reflect the light
outward. The standard delivers a small amount of energy savings at very little cost for the
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 17
incandescent lamps traditionally used in recessed downlight fixtures. Much larger energy savings
in such fixtures come from the use of new low wattage ceramic metal halide or compact
fluorescent lamps and their associated ballasts, but these savings also come at a much larger cost.
While the energy savings have been substantially reduced by the 2007 changes, enacting this
standard would align the Idaho market with that in the surrounding states and, more importantly,
set the stage for a more stringent standard in the near future. Such a measure is likely to be part
of a multi-state package of measures promoted by ASAP not long from now.
A summary of the information collected for the analysis of state-regulated incandescent reflector
lamps is provided in Table 4.
Table 4. Data Summary: Incandescent Reflector Lamps
Current Energy Population Annual Energy Peak Demand Consumer Effective
Total Appliance Efficiency Subject to Savings (kWh Per Savings Incremental Useful Life
Population1 Penetration1 Upgrade UnitIear)2 (kW/unit)3 Cost1.2 (Years)1
385.000 60%154,000 61 0.01 $1.80 5
External Power Supplies
The single-voltage external power supply standard was
enacted by Oregon in 2005 as part ofHB 3363, with an
effective date of July 1,2007. It was enacted in Washington
State at the same time. At the time of passage in Oregon and
Washington, similar standards were being deliberated in other
states, with California as the lead state. California ended up
enacting slightly different standards for different product
categories, with different effective dates. To make its
standards consistent with those enacted by California, Oregon
modified this section of the earlier bí1 as part ofHB 2565 in the 2007 session. The changes
adjusted the power output categories and minimum efficiencies slightly and, more importantly,
delayed the effective date to January 1,2008, for products manufactued after July 1,2007. In
Section 1 ofHB 2565, the definition of a single-voltage external power supply is wrtten to
exclude "power supplies that are classified as devices for human use under the Federal Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360c)." This change is shown below. Section 8 ofHB 2565
also exempts single voltage AC to DC power supplies that are made available by a manufacturer
directly to a consumer or to a service or repair facility, as a service part or spare part, after and
separate from the original sale of the product requiring the power supply unless they are made
available five or more years from the effective date of the act.
As defined in ORS 469.229, a single-voltage external power supply is defined as follows:
"(15)(a) 'Single-voltage external AC to DC power supply' means a
device, other than a product with batteries or battery packs that physically
attach directly to the power supply unit, a product with a battery chemistry
or type selector switch and indicator light or a product with a battery
chemistry or tye selector switch and a state of charge meter, that:
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 18
(A) Is designed to convert line voltage alternating curent input into lower
voltage direct current output;
(B) Is able to convert to only one direct curent output voltage at a time;
(C) Is sold with, or intended to be used with, a separate end-use product
that constitutes the primary power load;
(D) Is contained within a separate physical enclosure from the end-use
product;
(E) Is connected to the end-use product via a removable or hard-wired
male or female electrical connection, cable, cord or other wiring; and
(F) Has a nameplate output power less than or equal to 250 watts.
(b) Single-voltage external AC to DC power supply does not include
power supplies that are classified as devices for human use under the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 21 U.S.c. 360c."
The ORS 469.233 standard specifies both the allowable maximum energy consumption without a
load and minimum energy-efficiency required in active mode. It targets both the residential and
commercial sectors. External power supplies are used for various types of electronic devices to
convert line voltage alternating curent, ranging from 100 to 240 volts AC, into a low voltage
direct current, ranging from 1 to 24 volts. There are two common tyes of power supply
technologies - linear and switching. Both use a transformer, but the linear power supplies are
much like magnetic ballasts - relatively bulky and inefficient; switching power supplies are
compact and more efficient. Energy savings for individual external power supplies are small, but
the incremental cost is negligible and the numbers of units in service is very, very large and
growing so aggregate energy savings are significant.
A summary of the information for single-voltage external power supplies is provided in Table 5.
Table 5. Data Summary: External Power Supplies
Current Energy Population Annual Energy Peak Demand Consumer Effective
Total Appliance Efficiency Subject to Savings (kWh Per Savings Incremental Useful Life
Population1 Penetration1 Upgrade Unitlear)1.2 (kW/unit)3 Cost2 (Years)1
6,300,000 54%3,402,000 4 0.0005 $0.50 8
Water Coolers
The water cooler and dispenser appliance standard was enacted by Oregon
in 2007 with an effective date of September 1,2009. ORS 469.229 defines
a commercial water cooler as follows:
'''Water dispenser' means a factory-made assembly that
mechanically cools and heats potable water and dispenses the
cooled or heated water by integral or remote means."
The efficiency standard specifies that water coolers have a standby energy
consumption no greater than 1.2 kWh per day. This particular standard was
derived from the requirements of the U.S. EPA Energy Star Program, which is also the source of
the test method for determining compliance with the standard. Water dispensers can provide cold
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 19
water only, or both hot and cold water. Each unit consists of a storage tank or tanks, insulation,
heating element, and refrigeration components. The majority of the energy savings potential
related to water coolers is the result of upgraded, high-efficiency refrigeration components, and
improved insulation of the tanks. Some units have little or no insulation separating the hot and
cold water storage tanks.
These products were virtally non-existent l5 years ago, but have become ubiquitous with the
rapidly growing consumption of bottled water in the U.S. The per-unit cost of the efficiency
upgrades to meet the standard is quite small, and due to the large and growing number of units in
service, the aggregate savings are relatively large.
A summary of the information collected for the analysis of water dispensers is provided in Table
6.
Table 6. Data Summary: Water Dispensers
Current Energy Population Annual Energy Peak Demand Consumer Effective
Total Appliance Efficiency Subject to Savings (kWh Per Savings Incremental Useful Life
Population1 Penetration2 Upgrade Unitlear)1 (kW/unit)3 Cost2 (Years)2
4,800 41%2,832 266 0.04 $12 11
Hot Food Holding Cabinet
The commercial hot food hòlding cabinet appliance standard was enacted by Oregon in 2007
with an effective date of September l, 2009. A commercial hot food holding cabinet is defined
by ORS 469.229 as follows:
"'Commercial hot food holding cabinet' means an appliance that is a
heated, fully enclosed compartent with one or more solid doors and is
designed to maintain the temperature of hot food that has been cooked in a
separate appliance.
'Commercial hot food holding cabinet' does not include heated glass
merchandising cabinets, drawer warmers or cook-and-hold appliances."
The standard specifies that commercial hot food holding cabinets not exceed a maximum idle
energy demand of 40 watts per cubic foot of interior volume. These products are typically used
in the commercial food service industr (hotels, schools, restaurants, business cafeterias, grocery
store delis, etc.). Most units are vertical cabinets. The major energy saving measure required by
this standard is insulation or additional insulation. When compared to an uninsulated holding
cabinet, additional insulation reduces heat radiation into the kitchen (further reducing the cooling
load), reduces temperature stratification in the cabinet and susceptibility to ambient air, and
enables faster preheat times. This additional insulation allows each unit to operate using a lower
input wattage.
The energy savings for this standard are impressive and the equipment required to meet the
standard is already widely available at a modest increase in cost. A summary of the information
collected for the analysis of commercial hot food holding cabinets is provided in Table 7.
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 20
Table 7. Data Summary: Commercial Hot Food Holding Cabinets
Current Energy Population Annual Energy Peak Demand Consumer Effective
Total Appliance Efficiency Subject to Savings (kWh Per Savings Incremental Useful Life
Population1 Penetration2 Upgrade Unitlear)1,2 (kW/unitp Cost1,2 (Years)2
2,700 43%1,539 1,815 0.27 $450 14
Commercial Walk-in Refrigerator-Freezers
The commercial walk-in refrgerator-freezer standard was enacted by
Oregon in 2007 with a two-stage effective date. The effective date for
the door, insulation, and refrigeration component requirements is
January 1,2009. The effective date for the interior lighting
requirement is January t, 2010. By ORS 469.229 a commercial walk-
in refrigerator-freezer is defined as follows:
"'Walk-in refrigerator' and 'walk-in freezer' mean a space
refrigerated to temperatures, respectively, at or above and
below 32° F that can be walked into."
The ORS 469.233 standards consist of a half-dozen specific design requirements such as
automatic door closers; wall, floor and ceiling insulation levels; and motor types. Typical walk-
ins are either low or medium temperature refrigeration units, but can also include both. Found in
commercial food operations (hotels, restaurants, grocery stores, schools, cafeterias, etc), these
units contain basic refrigeration components, including: compressors, evaporators, condensers,
heat exchangers, and refrigeration controls. High efficiency walk-ins typically save energy using
all or a combination of the following measures: automatic door closers, strip curtains, high
efficiency motors and fans, automated controls, additional insulation, and hot gas defrost.
The per-unit savings for these systems are relatively large at modest cost, and there are many
such installations in a wide range of sizes in the commercial food service and sales sector. The
measure is equally appropriate in new building applications and in store or building remodel
situations.
A summary of the information collected for the analysis of walk-in refrgerators and freezers is
provided in Table 8.
Table 8. Data Summary: Commercial Walk-In Refrigerator-Freezers
Current Energy Population Annual Energy Peak Demand Consumer Effective
Total Appliance Efficiency Subject to Savings (kWh Per Savings Incremental Useful Life
Population1 Penetration1 Upgrade Unitlear)2 (kW/unitp Cost2 (Years)1
4,300 20%860 8,220 1.27 $950 10
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 21
Compact Audio Products
The compact audio appliance standards were enacted by
Oregon in 2007 with an effective date of September 1,
2009. By the language in ORS 469.229, compact audio
products are defined as follows:
"'Compact audio product,' also known as a mini,
mid, micro or shelf audio system, means an
integrated audio system encased in a single
housing that includes an amplifier and radio tuner
and attached or separable speakers that can
reproduce audio from one or more of the following media:
(A) Magnetic tape;
(B) Compact disc;
(C) DVD; or
(D) Flash memory.
(b) 'Compact audio product' does not include products that can be
independently powered by internal batteries, have a powered
external satellite antenna or can provide a video output signaL."
The ORS 469.233 standard for these products is a limit on standby power consumption, with
separate requirements for systems with and without permanently iluminated clocks. Units with
permanently illuminated clock displays can use a maximum of four watts in standby. Those
without permanent clock displays must meet a standby allowance of no more than two watts.
Some examples of these products would be: stereo receivers, CD players, cassette decks,
amplifiers and tuers, and packages containing all or a number of these components. These
systems are among the many electronic devices that continue to use power even though their
main functions may be turned "off' (often referred to as "phantom loads"). Compact audio
products can save energy by using more efficient electronics and power supplies, or by entering a
low power state when turned to standby mode.
The per-unit power draw savings ofthese products seem small, but because there are so many of
them, and because the standby power use occurs over so many hours per year (whenever the
product is not in active use), the aggregate savings are quite large. The incremental cost of the
measures required to meet the standard is minimal; most often the change is a transformer
upgrade that costs less than a dollar.
A summary of the information collected for the analysis of compact audio products is provided
in Table 9.
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 22
Table 9. Data Summary: Compact Audio Products
Current Energy Population Annual Energy Peak Demand Consumer Effective
Total Appliance Efficiency Subject to Savings (kWh Per Savings Incremental Useful Life
Population1 Penetration1 Upgrade Unitlear)2 (kW/unit)3 Cost2 (Years)1.2
1,069.300 38%662.966 53 0.01 $1.00 5
DVD Players
The DVD appliance standard was enacted by Oregon in 2007 with
an effective date of January 1,2009. ORS 469.229 defines DVD
players as follows:
'''Digital versatile disc player' or 'digital versatile disc
recorder' means a commercially available electronic product
encased in a single housing that includes an integral power
supply and for which the sole purpose is, respectively, the
decoding and the production or recording of digitized video
signal on a DVD.
(b) 'Digital versatile disc recorder' does not include models that have an
electronic programming guide function that provides an interactive, on-
screen menu of television listings and downloads program information
from the vertical blanking interval of a regular television signaL."
As in the case of compact audio equipment, the DVD player standard places a limit on standby
power consumption-no more than three watts when in passive standby mode. Once again, these
ubiquitous devices are among the many phantom loads common to most households. The
measures required to meet the standard are essentially the same as those listed for compact audio
products, with the cheapest, easiest, and most likely one a transformer upgrade at a cost less than
a dollar.
As in the case of compact audio products, a small amount of savings acquired very inexpensively
over a very large number of units in the market makes a standard for this product important. A
summary of the information collected for the analysis of DVD players and recorders is provided
in Table 10.
Table 10. Data Summary: DVD PlayerslRecorders
Current Energy Population Annual Energy Peak Demand Consumer Effective
Total Appliance Efficiency Subject to Savings (kWh Per Savings Incremental Useful Life
Population1 Penetration1 Upgrade Unitlear)2 (kW/unit)3 Cost2 (Years)1
1,336.500 77%307,395 11 0.0013 $1.00 5
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 23
Portable Hot Tubs
The portable hot tub and spa standard was enacted by Oregon in
2007 with an effective date of January 1,2009. ORS 469.229
defines portable hot tubs and spas as follows:
"'Portable electric spa' means a factory-built electric spa or
hot tub supplied with equipment for heating and circulating
water."
Portable hot tubs are pre-fabricated, movable units, as opposed to
"in-ground" units. The standard covers only electrically heated
models using resistant heating coils. The standard limits standby
energy consumption using a formula based on the volume of the tub.
A tyical unit ranges from 200 to 400 gallons, though some are manufactured larger. The basic
components are an insulated shell and cover and filtration pumping system. These are also the
major elements that affect the overall efficiency of the spa. Improved insulation in the shell and
cover, a high effciency pump and heating system, automated controls, and low wattage LED
lights are the main ways to reduce energy consumption for portable hot tubs and spas. There is a
wide range of energy consumption among different models, and a similarly wide range of energy
savings and costs associated with this product.
The potential savings per unit are quite large (up to 1,000 kWh per year). The costs associated
with these savings can be small or large, depending on the tye of system and the measures
chosen. These products have grown steadily in popularity over the last 20 years or so, and thus
represent a sizeable target for significant savings.
A summary of the information collected for the analysis of portable hot tubs and spas is provided
in Table 11.
Table 11. Data Summary: Portable Hot Tubs
Current Energy Population Annual Energy Peak Demand Consumer Effective
Total Appliance Effciency Subject to Savings (kWh Per Savings Incremental Useful Life
Population1 Penetration2 Upgrade Unit/ear)1 (kW/unit)3 Cost2 (Years)2
16,400 20%13,120 250 0.03 $100.00 8
Additional Appliance Standards
This section discusses other appliances for which standards either exist or have been considered,
but are not covered under the current Oregon legislated appliance standards.
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 24
Residential Furnace Fans
The electrical use of natural gas- and oil-fired furnaces is not currently regulated by a federal
standard, even though residential furnaces are "covered products" by federal law. The majority
of the electrical use of a furnace is for the air handler fan. The motor most commonly used
historically is a permanent split capacitor (PSC) motor. Its efficiency drops off significantly
when not operating at its full rated rpm. Unfortnately, residential air handlers almost never
operate at their full rated rpm in the heating mode.
There is a logical and cost-effective efficiency upgrade available for furnace fans. In basic terms,
it involves simply using a more efficient motor for the fan - an electronically controlled
permanent magnet DC motor. These can be specified outright, or one can use a metric developed
under the auspices of the Consortium for Energy Effciency (CEE) and the Gas Appliance
Manufacturers Association (GAMA). It specifies that no more than 2% of the total annual energy
use of the furnace (natural gas plus electrcity) can be that used by the furnace fan. The annual
savings from this upgrade, not counting cooling season savings, are impressive - often over 500
kWh per year.
In setting its new furnace standard, U.S. DOE examined this measure but declined to set an
electrical effciency requirement for furnaces. At the earliest, DOE would begin a rulemaking in
2012, but as of2006 DOE's position was that establishing a standard was optional so a federal
standard might not be developed even then. It is not clear at this point whether or not states are
legally able to set a furnace fan effciency standard without a federal exemption from
preemption, however Massachusetts has one in effect already. As described later in this report,
Oregon has chosen to sidestep that issue by using its residential building energy code as the
method of acquiring these savings.
A summary of the information collected for the analysis of residential furnace fans is provided in
Table 12.
Table 12. Residential Furnace Fans
Current Energy Population Annual Energy Peak Demand Consumer Effective
Total Appliance Efficiency Subject to Savings (kWh Per Savings Incremental Useful Life
Population1 Penetration 5 Upgrade Unitlear)1 (kW/unit)3 Cost2 (Years)2
256,000 12%225,280 599 0.09 $100.00 18
Other Standards
There are other appliances for which there are standards in neighboring states such as California
or Washington that have not been examined fuher for Idaho. For example, California has
enacted a state standard for pool pumps due to a significant market satuation. Based on this
initial assessment, however, Idaho's market saturation and anual operating hours are much
lower so such a standard may not be cost-effective there. Nevertheless, there are likely to be
additional standards adopted in states other than Oregon that might be worth considering in the
futue.
Quantec -Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 25
4. Energy and Demand Savings and Incremental
Costs
In this chapter, Quantec aggregates the energy and demand savings and incremental customer
costs across the assessed measures to provide a statewide perspective of the impacts of adopting
the discussed portfolio of appliance standards.
Energy and Demand Savings Potential
Table i 3 provides the total estimated utility energy and demand savings based on replacing the
current stock of appliances in Idaho with ones meeting the standards discussed in Chapter 3. The
savings shown in the table are in addition to the estimated savings from units sold in the market
that are already meeting the standard (current energy-efficiency penetration shown in tables in
Chapter 3). It is important to note that the standard that would have the single largest impact is
one for furnace fans. As noted earlier, however, the ability of states to set a standard for fuace
fans is uncertain at this time, though one state has established one and Oregon is achieving
similar savings by way of its building energy-efficiency standard.
Table 13. Total Savings Potential for Existing Appliance Stock
Eligible Units Per Unit kWh Total kWhNr Per Unit kW TotalkW
Appliance Sector in Idaho Savings Savings"Savings Savings"
Metal Halide Fixtures COM 132,588 307 45,141,258 0.0703 10,534
Reflector Lights RES 154,000 61 10,417,946 0.0110 1,907
External Power Supplies RES 3,402,000 4 15,468,554 0.0005 1,803
Water Coolers COM 2,832 266 836,836 0.0395 126
Hot Food Holding Cabinets COM 1,539 1,815 3,097,753 0.2691 468
Walk-in Refrigerators-Freezers COM 860 8,220 7,839,743 1.2669 1,231
Compact Audio Products RES 662,966 53 38,967,153 0.0061 4,542
DVD Players RES 307,395 11 3,749,912 0.0013 437
Hot Tubs RES 13,120 250 3,637,520 0.0280 416
Residential Furnace Fans RES 225,280 599 149,651,476 0.0872 22,192
'Total energy and demand savings adjusted to account for losses based on IPC system distribution secondary loss factors
Table 14 presents the same data aggregated at the sector level for the state ofIdaho.
Table 14. Total Savings Potential of Existing Stock by Sector
Total Estimated Energy Total Estimated
Sector Savings (kWhNr)Demand Savings (kW)
Commercial 56,915,590 12,359
Residential 221,892,560 31,297
Overall 278,808,151 43,657
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 26
Projected Savings and Costs
The estimates shown in the preceding tables do not take into account the rate at which appliances
are replaced, new appliance sales, or the effects of federal standards. The cumulative impacts of
adopting the standards discussed in Chapter 3 were estimated, including standards for furnace
fans, taking these additional factors into account. The estimated energy and demand savings are
shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3, respectively. The estimates reflect effective useful lives to
account for replacement of existing appliance stocks; the impending adoption of federal
standards for commercial ice makers and commercial refrigerators-freezers; utility system energy
and demand losses; and anticipated customer growth (based on approximately 1.7% annual
growth). Both figures show the results with and without a furnace fan standard.
Figure 2. Estimated Energy Savings (MWh) from Standards Adoption (2009- 2020)
250,000
200,000
ti01c 150,000.~
IIen~:i 100,000:æ
iã::ccci 50,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
I~Total -- Total-Furnace Fan I
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 27
Figure 3. Estimated Demand Savings (MW) from Standards Adoption (2009- 2020)
35
30
ti 25
Cli:20'S;
IVII 15~:¡
10
5
~ ~o ~1 ~2 ~3 ~4 ~5 ~6 ~7 ~8 ~9 ~
¡..Total-+ Total-Furnace~~--"-'---"'-'.'_.-'.""-'..'."--_.._-------_...._~
Adopting these standards could have a significant impact on total electrcity consumption in
Idaho. Both figures demonstrate the large impact that a furnace fan standard would have; by
2020, nearly half the energy and demand savings would be due to this standard if implemented.
The estimated cumulative incremental costs to consumers for purchasing appliances meeting
these standards are shown in Figure 4. If all the standards were in effect, consumers would spend
a little less than $30 million through 2020 to purchase appliances meeting the standards. Based
on the savings estimates, this investment would produce a peak demand reduction of about 32
MW and energy savings of about 212,000 MWh in 2020, and cumulative energy savings
between 2009 and 2020 of about 1,600 GWh.
It is very important to note that the cost estimates provided here should be used only for relative
comparisons and not to assess cost effectiveness. This is because the cost analysis in this study
was very targeted and was subject to several conditions:
· Costs include only the incremental consumer costs for purchasing an appliance meeting
the standard rather than the tyical efficiency level
· No program costs-such as research needed to develop a standard or establish an
enforcement process-are included
. Futue costs are not discounted
· No benefits other than the direct consumer and utility energy and demand savings are
estimated
. The analysis period ends at 2020 so no futue energy savings or costs are included
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 28
Figure 4. Cumulative Consumer Incremental Cost
$35.0 "----_._--_.,_._-
$30.0::~..$25.0II0U..
Q)$20.0E:iIIi:$15.00u
Q);:$10.0:¡t1
"3
E $5.0:iU
$.
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
I.. Total -+ Total-Furnace Fan I
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 29
5. Processes and Policy Context
The estimates in Chapter 4 indicate that adopting appliance efficiency standards in Idaho could
provide significant statewide energy and peak demand savings. It is important to provide
information to IPC, Idaho policymakers, and stakeholders about the policy context and
implementation issues that will have a bearing on how these savings could be realized through
the adoption of state appliance standards.
This chapter provides such information by examining the appliance standard development and
enactment process, factors affecting the degree to which predicted savings are achieved in
practice, and options for collaboration with other entities. In addition, it discusses the special
case of residential furnaces because of the large potential savings they offer.
Development of Appliance Standards in Western States
Since IPC specifically focused on Oregon as a likely place to look to as a source of standards for
Idaho, it is worth looking at Oregon's recent history that led to the standards analyzed here. But
since Oregon's work was heavily influenced by and developed in conjunction with standards
development processes in California, an overview of California's experience is also instrctive.
This is especially true since California's process is quite different from that of other states.
Oregon
The process initiated to enact Oregon's 2005 and 2007 standards was predominantly legislative.
That is, the standards for individual classes of products were specified in legislation. However,
the specifics of the administrative and enforcement provisions were assigned to the Oregon
Department of Energy (ODOE) to be enacted through public rulemaking.
The impetus behind the standards in the 2005 legislative session came primarily from the three-
state Global Warming Initiative (GWI), a collaborative response to climate change developed at
the executive level by California, Oregon, and Washington. A separate GWl working group
focusing on appliance and equipment standards was created to investigate the feasibility of
regulating products that were primarily those not regulated by the federal governent, but for
which standards that would cost-effectively save significant amounts of energy (and water in
some cases) made sense at the time.
Much of the market and technical research needed for the process had already been generated,
either as part of the California standards process or by other paries such as the Consortium for
Energy Efficiency (CEE), the New England Energy Efficiency Partnership (NEEP), ASAP,
ACEEE, the Natual Resources Defense Council (NC), and others. In California, utilities
(publicly owned, investor-owned, and water) were major contributors to the market and technical
research upon which the proposed standards were based.
The impetus for standards at the state level also came from a failure to regulate on the part of the
U.S. DOE. Some ofthe state-level standards were for products that DOE was supposed to
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 31
develop standards for, but had not acted. Others were seen as appropriate for a federal standard,
but for which there was no perceptible progress toward such regulations. Knowledge gained by
utilities and others (states, cities, consortia, NGOs, etc.) from ruing energy-efficiency
programs suggested significant savings potential for some products. The rise in energy prices
that began in 2003 helped to make such savings more economically attactive than they had been
in the decade prior.
The Oregon legislation was originated in the House of Representatives as HB 363.
Representatives from OSPIRG also worked closely with legislative staff, with technical work
provided by staff at ODOE. It was made clear early on that supportive members of the Oregon
legislature simply wished to follow California's lead, enacting only those standards already
enacted there, or in process there concurrent with the 2005 legislative session. Washington State
was also working on the same standards, for the same reasons, concurrently. Consequently there
was much collaboration among the staff members at the California Energy Commission (CEC),
ODOE, and the Washington Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development
(CTED). This proved important as the processes moved along; changes occurred in the standard
levels, implementation schedules and other related elements of the complete standards package
as lobbyists, new data, technical analysis, and debate converged to shape the outcome. Most of
the proposed standards made it through the process, with certain consumer electronics products
being a notable exception.
California
In contrast to those in Oregon and Washington, California's process is administrative in natue.
The California legislatue has delegated significant authority to the CEC to conduct the public
processes required to enact and enforce appliance standards. Such standards, and those
processes, have existed for more than 30 years in California, having started in response to the
1973 energy "crisis" when the CEC was formed. California's first appliance standards went into
effect in 1975, concurrent with the 1975 federal legislation (EPCA) that created the first national
appliance standards. Since that time, the CEC has successfully maintained significant autonomy
for setting standards, having been exempted in certain ways from the preemption of its standards
where certain federal standards exist. In part this was due to the fact that it was California that
insisted on the right of states to win an exemption from federal preemption through a process
specified in the original federal standards legislation.
That process has never been fully exercised, however, though California has a current petition
before DOE for a clothes washer water use standard. In cases where a state wishes to have a
standard that is different than an existing federal standard, such an exemption must be applied for
after the proposed standard has been set at the state level, and before such a state standard can
become effective. Products for which there are no federal standards are generally open for state
jurisdiction. There is one product, televisions, for which a federal standard was mandated in the
original EPCA legislation, but for which a standard has never been set. In spite of this being
contrary to current federal law, the consumer electronics industr would likely challenge any
state that sought to remedy this situation through a state-level standard.
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 32
Administrative versus Legislative Process
In a state where there are no current appliance efficiency standards, and where no standards
development and enforcement infrastructure exists, there will clearly be some decisions that
must be made about the process. Each kind of standards process has advantages and
disadvantages that bear on the process effectiveness. In Oregon's case, there was no real
deliberation on this issue, as the timelines for accomplishing the goals of the three-state GWI
drove the standards process. In California, the CEC's administrative process has been operating
very effectively for decades, and so when the GWI came along, it was a matter of adding some
new products to the rulemaking agenda and ordering up some new market and product
performance research.
In Oregon, by contrast, the very concept of product standards was new to a legislature that hadn't
considered such things in nearly two decades. There was no institutional knowledge of the nature
of standards enactment, and no institutional memory of the national or regional standards or
Oregon's earlier work. In addition, there was no state infrastructure to work with for rulemaking
or compliance and enforcement.
In California, the rulemakings for the 2005 standards proceeded like any other, though the fast-
track nature of some standards meant that market and technical information was being generated
as the rulemaking proceeded. This led to some delays and reconsiderations as new information
came to the table well into the process. In general, the CEC has at least one standards-related
rulemaking on its docket at all times. Items are added at the Commissioners' discretion, typically
on the advice of CEC staff who have been researching the particular products or equipment, or
the standards activities of utilities or other jurisdictions, especially the U.S. DOE.
The adjustments to individual regulatory classes, standards, and implementation dates caused
some difficulty for the Oregon and Washington legislatures, which were trying to match
California's work exactly. The legislative process is cumbersome enough without having to
adjust the bills repeatedly to match the concurrent work of others, especially when the others are
working within a more nimble and flexible administrative process. In the end, there were a few
minor anomalies between what came out of California's process and the Oregon and Washington
legislatures. In general, these differences were of no real consequence, and typically involved
modifications in effective dates or a delay in the regulation of a product sub-class where data
were deemed insufficient by the time the rules were to be finalized.
In general, the following characteristics are typically positive features of administrative standards
processes:
. They can be nimble, without the fixed timetables and process restrictions tyical of a
legislative process.
. They can be responsive, with appropriate or necessary adjustments possible at any time
subsequent to the setting of the initial standards and compliance infrastrcture.
. Administrative processes tend to be ru by a particular agency or departent that has
overall responsibility for everyhing related to effciency standards. The staff of this
entity can track relevant processes in other states and at the federal level, and wil
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 33
generally have the background knowledge to support standards and their ongoing
administrative needs.
· If properly empowered, they tend to be less subject to the influence of special interests.
This fact also tends to keep standards from being used as a trade-off against other
legislative issues or bils.
Legislative processes, on the other hand, have some useful characteristics, as well:
. Standards can often be set in a way that requires very little direct administrative support.
This can be an advantage if such infrastructure doesn't exist.
· Ifrun fairly and openly, the process can be more public and draw more stakeholder
interest than a typical administrative process, and so make energy-efficiency more
publicly visible, particularly if the political media choose to focus on it.
. In states where no precedent exists for standards, the legislature can create standards from
whole cloth. This can be useful where the administrative resources don't exist, or where
staff and budget restrictions prevent the work of standard-setting from taking place.
. In many cases, the legislative process can be used as a way to direct administrative
rulemakings to take place, resulting in a hybrid legislative/administrative process. This
can offer the optimal process in many cases. Such was the case in California in response
to its energy crisis in the late 1990s.
The Idaho Situation
Unlike Oregon, Idaho has no existing standards development infrastrcture. However, the
Energy Division of the Idaho Departent of Water Resources (IDWR), the logical place where
such activity might have taken place, was recently restrctued as an Executive Branch Agency
called the Idaho Office of Energy Resources. Given this recent change, this organization might
be in a good position to take on the responsibility of developing and implementing appliance
efficiency standards.
2
The Special Case of Gas Furnace Standards
The long-delayed process to set new federal efficiency standards for natural gas furnaces and
boilers has come to a close this fall, leading to only a small increase in the efficiency requirement
(from 78% AFUE to 80% AFUE). The new standard basically acknowledges the efficiency of
the equipment used for many years now by manufacturers to meet the old standard. DOE also
concluded that they do not have the authority to set electrcal efficiency standards for natural
gas- or oil-fired furnaces. In theory, this may leave this area open to state regulation, though the
manufacturers and DOE are likely to argue that furnaces are a "covered product" and therefore
cannot be regulated in any way by the states without an exemption from federal preemption.
2 Personal communication, November 2007, with Ken Eklund, a longtime Energy Division staffer and current staff
member of the new Office of Energy Resources.
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 34
But DOE did something a bit unexpected whe they published the draft Final Rule. They
acknowledged that the condensing level of ef ciency for these products (90% AFUE and higher)
is cost-effective in the northern half of the co ntry. As a result, they suggested that DOE would
be favorably disposed toward petitions for ex mption from federal preemption of higher
standards in such states. A handful of states ( assachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and
Maryland) are at some stage of adopting such a standard for natural gas furnaces. Once adopted,
the resulting standards will become the subjec of a federal exemption petition to DOE. Some
time later (probably one to three years after a option of the standards) the petitions may be
granted, or they may be denied.
As part of its 2008 Residential Energy Code u date (itself a strategy element of the West Coast
Governors' Global Warming Initiative), Oreg n chose to pursue a different means of achieving
near-full market penetration ofhigh-efficienc furnaces. Due to the success of tax credits for
these products since 1998 and the ever-rising rices of natural gas, more than 80% of
replacement gas furnaces in Oregon are such igh-effciency variable speed, condensing tyes.
So when consumers make the furnace decisio , most have been choosing high-effciency ones,
albeit with incentives in most cases. Despite t e trend in replacement furnaces, fewer than 15%
of furnaces in new constrction are high-effic ency models. The state viewed this discrepancy as
a market failure in the new constrction mark t.
In response, a new Oregon Residential Energ Code provision wil require the "earning" of
energy-effciency "credits" by the builders of ew homes, in addition to meeting minimum
energy code requirements. The relative numb r of credits available for each option on the list of
approved measures (which can be expanded 0 adjusted over time administratively) varies by the
relative level of energy savings for each meas reo One of the highest credit-earning measures is a
variable speed, condensing gas furnace. It als happens to be one of the cheapest and easiest to
implement. So there is an expectation that mo t builders wil use this measure to earn their
required credits, thus transforming this partic lar market. Note that the effect of this measure is
to include the electrical efficiency of the fu ces, not only saving 450 to 500 kWh per year
during the winter months, but also significant improving air conditioning efficiency (tyically
adding more than a point to SEER and EER r tings). Key to this code provision is the fact that
each measure is voluntary - builders can cho se whatever combination of measures they prefer
to meet their credit requirements. This bypass s the need for a federal exemption from
preemption, and is expected to result in a rela ively rapid implementation of this measure. While
this is not a standard, per se, it may have a m ketplace effect comparable to a standard.
As these analyses show, electricity savings fr m gas furnaces and their fans can be a significant
proportion of total savings possible in Idaho. s four states have already started to do, Idaho may
want to investigate the adoption of a furnace n standard. Oregon's approach, however, offers
another alternative that should be thoroughly esearched and considered in the context ofIdaho's
residential building standards.
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standard Assessment 35
Realization of Estimated Savings
The estimated energy savings presented in this report are based on the best available data.
However, predicted energy savings from appliance standards may not be realized for at least
three reasons:
. Estimated savings may not take into account factors in the field that affect equipment
performance
. Appliances may not actually comply with the requirements of a standard
. Verification of what is being sold and installed-code enforcement-may not be
adequate
Field Performance
Field performance can suffer if equipment is not installed or operated properly. Historically,
underperformance has been most notable with efficient heating and cooling equipment because
of factors such as poor installation quality, improper coolant charge, or non-optimal operations.
Quantec conducted a literature search to identify any studies on the appliances considered in this
report and was unable to locate any program evaluations or studies that compared field
performance to predicted performance for these appliances. Given the nature of the majority of
appliances analyzed, the likelihood that poor installation or operation would reduce their
performance is relatively small. The main factor that might cause estimated savings to differ
significantly from actual savings would probably be operating hours. Consequently, one area that
should be researched further is the underlying assumptions about operating hours and how
appropriate they are for Idaho and the affected end uses.
Compliance and Enforcement
The existence of a standard does not, in and of itself, guarantee energy savings. A recent study of
California's latest appliance standards showed that compliance rates varied from nearly 100% to
as low as 37% for different products, up to nine months after all products being sold were legally
required to comply.3 Many of these products are the same as the ones analyzed in this study. If
standards are adopted at the state level, then the state must have the capability to enforce them.
Once federal standards are enacted, compliance and enforcement become a federal issue, with
some enforcement (e.g., labeling) being handled by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Compliance and enforcement tyically require at least some administrative infrastrcture. More
important might be an agency's means of enforcement. Some jurisdictions, including Idaho, have
used their revenue departments, which enforce tax laws, to enforce standards. In such cases, a
higher sales tax might be imposed on non-complying products.4 This has the dual effect of
making the failure to collect the added tax ilegal (tax code violations tend to have more serious
3 Khawaja, M.S., A. Lee, and M. Levy. May 2007. StatewideCodes and Standards Market Adoption and
Noncompliance Rates. Prepared for Southern California Edison by Quantec, LLC. SCE0224.0L.4 Ken Eklund, Idaho Offce of Energy Resources, brought this option to our attention.
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 36
consequences than many other types) and making the non-complying product more expensive
and less competitive in the marketplace. In almost all cases, compliance is very much monitored
by manufacturers and their distributors and retailers. Anyone selling cheaper non-compliant
product will make the compliant ones less competitive. But if complaints are made in this regard,
the state has to have enforcement mechanisms in place to force compliance. Fines and removal
of non-compliant product from the market are tyical remedies, but these have to be levied and
administered by some state offce granted these powers through legislation or administrative
rule.
It is often possible to utilize existing compliance structures created by other states. In California,
the CEC has been given compliance and enforcement authority. By law, manufacturers must
provide proof of compliance, in writing or through an industry association database process, in
order to legally sell covered products in California. Products so certified are listed in the CEC's
appliance databases (htt://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/appliance). The system has built-in
mechanisms to handle testing and verification if complaints about non-compliance are brought to
the CEC. As noted earlier, however, this system had failed to ensure high compliance rates with
many new standards in 2006, largely because the CEC lacked resources to carr out intensive
enforcement activities.
In spite of the Oregon 2005 legislature making ODOE responsible for compliance and
enforcement, ODOE is only now providing for this critical aspect ofthe Oregon standards
program. Initial follow-up to the 2005 legislation consisted primarily of arranging for the use of
the CEC's appliance databases for the purposes of manufacturer reporting and compliance. This
was part of a multi-state effort to minimize duplication of effort, provide compliance
infrastructure for states that had little or none at the time, and to minimize the impact of multi-
state standards on the product manufacturers. This came to be known as the Multi-State
Compliance System (M-SCS). It can be accessed at www.appliancestandards.org. Most states
with appliance standards are using this system as part of their compliance and enforcement
program. For a modest annual operating cost contribution, these states gain access to the
database, set up to screen for compliance with their own standards. If Idaho does adopt appliance
standards, it should investigate the option of using this existing infrastrcture, in addition to any
other enforcement/compliance approaches implemented.
Follow-up rulemakings required by Oregon's 2005 statute are in process now. Aside from
clarifying the provisions of the legislation (effective dates, location of standards in statute,
requiring product certification, etc.), the rules wil specify the product certification process,
required documentation from manufactuers, labeling, procedures in cases of non-compliance,
appeals, etc. ODOE has been granted the authority to administer the program and its rules, and
so provides the standards infrastrctue needed to run the program. Staff from ODOE also
supports the periodic updating of standards and the implementation of new standards. The
rulemaking summar can be found at htt://ww.oregon.govIENERGY/CONS/Rulemaking2007-
Appliances Summary.shtml.
The Oregon rules were due to be completed on December 1, 2007 and filed with the Secretary of
State by December 15,2007.
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 37
Collaboration
Since 1999, ASAP, founded by ACEEE, the Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), and NRDC, has
been the coordinating entity for a growing number of states engaged in setting appliance
efficiency standards. The impetus for this work was the lack of progress by the federal
governent with the backlog of standards for which a Congressional mandate already existed.
California had been successful for 25 years in using standards to significantly improve the
efficiency of its building stock and its economy. Significant industries had been established to
support this work. California utility programs were many and for the most part, very successful
as enablers of subsequent standards.
National and Regional Collaborative Efforts
Throughout the 1990s, many utilities and organizations had proven the market transformation
model, where efficiency programs (most often run by utilities) serve to upgrade the efficiency of
targeted products in the marketplace and standards follow along behind, with a time lag, to raise
the efficiency floor. This starts a new round of the cycle. Organizations like the Consortium for
Energy Efficiency (CEE), the Northwest Energy Efficiency Allance (NEEA), the New England
Energy Efficiency Partnership (NEEP), the Midwest Energy Efficiency Allance (MEEA) and
the Southwest Energy Efficiency Partnership (SWEEP) were established to facilitate
collaboration among utilities across the countr to increase the impact of individual programs
and speed up the transformation process. This regional and national collective approach has
accomplished two important things - it has turned the energy-efficiency community into a potent
market player on a par with entire product industries, and it has allowed the states to collectively
establish standards based on the parameters set in the efficiency programs.
These efforts have been quite successfuL. The sudden surge in state standards activity convinced
many equipment manufactuers that a single federal standard would often be preferable to a
myriad of state standards (one of the original reasons for the establishment of federal standards
in the 1 970s). As a result, they became more supportive of federal standards. Many of these
manufacturers also became more interested in working with efficiency advocacy organizations in
establishing the specifications and market interventions of efficiency programs.
Collaboration among those interested in promoting energy-effciency and among the states
interested in establishing efficiency standards in the follow-up to these programs has been very
effective. These organizations continue this work today, and the list of the successes grows each
year. Being active members in collaborative organizations has allowed several utilities and states
interested in effciency programs and standards to take advantage of the work of others in the
field, thus making their own efforts more powerfuL. Utilities can play an important role by being
active members of such organizations, and states can join and paricipate in the ASAP-
coordinated group of states that are leading the standards efforts today.
On the west coast, the Western Climate Initiative (WCI, www.westernclimateinitiative.org) has
provided an effective collaboration. California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, New Mexico,
Utah, British Columbia, and Manitoba are currently members. It has an efficiency standards
strategy, including building energy-efficiency code upgrades, that supports efforts to promote
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 38
higher energy-efficiency and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Idaho is one of eleven observers
in this initiative now and expanded involvement could provide additional opportnities for
collaboration and leveraging.
Opportunities for IPC
Utilities can be major forces in moving ahead appliance (and building) standards within states.
The role played by utilities in California is an especially useful modeL. Originally, the CEC
conducted most of the research and spearheaded the entire standards development process.
Starting in the late 1990s, however, the utilities began to assume a proactive role in this process
for several reasons, including the fact that upgrading efficiency standards appeared to be a very
cost effective way to reduce utility loads. Over time, the CEC and the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) have acknowledged the major contributions that utilities can provide
through the standards development process. From the utilities' perspective, of course, it is
important that equitable cost recovery occur and that energy savings from the standards be
properly attributed to the utilities. The regulatory framework in California is evolving to provide
the incentives necessary to reward the utilities appropriately for their efforts.
Utilities can often contribute in the area of market research and in the provision of data related to
their markets. Needed data include marketplace product efficiency ranges, incremental costs,
product attributes, the technical differences among products with differing efficiency levels, the
nature of product distribution channels, etc. Because the utilities are often in a unique position to
acquire much of these data, their assistance can be invaluable. This role will be especially
important where national data are not truly representative of markets or conditions in Idaho, or
where there are wide ranges or discrepancies in the data that need to be resolved in Idaho in
order to gain the confidence of those who have to enact particular standards. IPC can make a
significant contribution in this area. California's utilities have each developed their own program
to provide this tye of information and their efforts are closely coordinated.
To be most effective, utilities could be an active participant in a wide range of efforts, whether at
the state, regional, or federal leveL. In some cases, supporting a regional or national collaborative
effort can fulfill this role. Curently, IPC is an active member of the Northwest Energy
Efficiency Allance (NEEA) and the Northwest Power Planning Council's Regional Technical
Forum (RTF).
Finally, findings from this analysis and those from past studies suggest that appliance efficiency
standards have the potential to provide significant, cost-effective energy and demand savings. It
is possible that IPC might benefit from enhancing its IRP process to assess new appliance
standards as one tool for addressing load growth. The final chapter recommends specific steps
that IPC could take to do so.
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 39
6. Recommendations
This chapter provides recommendations based on findings from this study. The first group is
targeted at specific appliance standards, either for consideration in the near term or in the future.
The second set of recommendations lays out specific research activities that would be needed to
support the adoption and implementation of new appliance standards. The final section presents
broader recommendations directed primarily at IPC, but also at other state entities, to ensure that
the policy context, analytic tools, and infrastructure are in place to make long-term standards
development a viable and effective process.
Appliance Standards for Consideration
Table 15 summarizes the appliances standards analyzed, based on those adopted in Oregon, that
could be immediately considered in Idaho. Four apply specifically to equipment used in the
commercial building sector. One, state-regulated incandescent reflector lamps, are used in both
commercial and residential buildings. The last four are predominantly in the residential sector
(single-voltage external power supplies can apply to products used in the commercial sector too).
Table 15. Recommended Appliance Standards for Idaho
Appliance Sector
Metal Halide Fixtures Commercial
Water Coolers Commercial
Hot Food Holding Cabinets Commercial
Walk-in Refrigerators-Freezers Commercial
State-regulated Incandescent Reflector Lamps Residential/Commercial
Single-voltage External Power Supplies Residential
Compact Audio Products Residentiål
DVD Players Residential
Portable Hot Tubs/Spas Residential
The appliance that exhibited the largest potential for energy savings is not included in this table,
however. High-effciency natural gas residential furnace fans can save as much energy as all the
other appliances shown in the table combined. The reason they are not included is because the
best venue for increasing the effciency of this equipment is unclear. It is possible Idaho could
join other states that are adopting such standards, but because the ultimate decision whether to
allow the standard is DOE's, there is some risk the effort wil not produce a viable standard.
Oregon's approach has been to bypass the need for a standard and modify the state residential
building energy code in a way that is likely to lead to widespread installation of high-effciency
furnaces that save natual gas as well as electricity. In Idaho's case the pros and cons of both
approaches should be considered before deciding on one. In particular, the process for
incorporating such a requirement in the state's building code needs to be examined. The
uncertainties in this process need to be weighed against the risks of going the standard adoption
route.
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 40
Two other standards merit future examination. One is for general service incandescent lamps.
California has standards now for these products that provide a very modest improvement in
average efficiency. Nevada has enacted standards for many of these products, effective in 2012,
that call for a 30% effciency improvement. Idaho should monitor the status of this standard and
the efforts of other states that are seeking much higher lighting effciencies. More than one state,
for example, is considering the option of banning standard incandescent light bulbs altogether.
A second lighting standard that should be kept on the table is the one for metal halide luminaires.
In a few years, it wil be time to consider whether the current standard should be upgraded to
require the use of electronic ballasts. These have too limited a market share at present to be
considered as the basis for a standard, but their presence in the market may grow and other states
may take actions to upgrade their requirements.
Research Needs
Efforts by IPC and the State of Idaho to analyze and adopt appliance efficiency standards need to
be based on comprehensive research. This study relied on the best information available to
estimate both energy impacts and costs. However, this report pointed out limitations in the
research that need to be addressed.
Much of the information relied upon was from studies conducted for other states or regions.
Idaho-specific data are critical for estimating the potential impacts accurately. As more recent
information and new products become available, the assumptions and inputs used in this study
can be updated. For example, Idaho-specific, current estimates of the saturation of compact audio
products, residential furnaces, metal halide fixtues, and reflector lamps are essential to estimate
the overall impacts of the proposed standards.
Another key input in this analysis was the penetration of appliances in the market already
meeting the standard. Although the best sources available were used for this study, there was
little information specific to Idaho. It is possible that some of the inputs used were substantially
different from the actual conditions in Idaho.
A cost-effectiveness analysis including the conventional costs and benefits, with futue costs
discounted appropriately, would require the incremental consumer costs to be estimated for
Idaho. These costs should be developed with respect to typical effciency levels in the Idaho
market. Other costs of undertaking an effort to develop and implement appliance standards
should be calculated.
A second-order data quality need is for IPC-specific end-use load shapes. This analysis used load
shapes derived from PacifiCorp data and, though they should be reasonably accurate for IPC's
service area, it would be worthwhile to analyze IPC's load shapes for the major appliance
categories.
Another source of information to monitor is the ASAP's annual "model standards bil" for states
to use in setting consistent standards. Supporting product and market data accompany the bil,
and the data are available on a state-by-state basis, with adjustments made for climate, operating
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 41
hours, and energy prices. The 2008 model bil will be available in the first quarter of 2008 and
this could be a valuable source of more current information for Idaho when it is published.
Capacity, Infrastructure, and Policy
There is limited capacity at the Idaho state level to support the standard-setting process, develop
and staff compliance and enforcement activities, and engage Idaho in the national state appliance
standards network or regional activities. The new Office of Energy Resources offers an
opportnity to initiate and conduct these activities if the state chooses to invest in developing
these capabilities.
The legislative, administrative, and a hybrid legislative/administrative process should be assessed
to determine which would work the best for Idaho in developing and implementing appliance
standards. The steps necessary to establish the preferred infrastructure and process should be
initiated as soon as possible to ensure that standards can be implemented in a timely way.
Utilities and state agencies should continue involvement with organizations such as CEE,
ACEEE, and NEEA in support of appliance standards. They should also be aware ofthe ASAP-
organized group of states that are enacting standards and supporting follow-up standards at the
federal leveL.
Finally, Idaho could work toward establishing the policies and planning procedures necessary to
leverage the capabilities and resources of utilities in the most effective way to achieve cost-
effective energy savings through new standards. The utility IRP process is one possible venue for
considering the role of effciency standards. California is developing an approach for promoting
the efforts of utilities to upgrade efficiency standards that could be an informative model for
other states.
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 42
Appendix A: Technical Appendix
The following appendix provides all the tables presented in this report in a single location for
reference purposes.
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 43
-=
~~ 0 000 0 Ò Ò 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 00~~ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ~
1) v,-=
fIoS ~.B uen
C)i:.¡:o...i.21 ~~ 3:
~~~~~~~~~roromrommmromCCCCCCCCCWWWWWWWWW
"0~mcW
"0
~rocW
"0 "0 "0
~ ~ ~ro m mc c cW W W
f;'ti.~'t=~..rL
OJ~=~...-
Q"Q"~
.~Ü~Ë waJ"0aJu.
6~~~~~~oooooo~NNNNNNN
0)C:.m::
cb"50:
r- 00 0 r-o 0 ~ 00000N N N N
co 000000N N
"0~:g:g:g:g:g:g:g:g~~~~~~~W
onooN
on on on on00000000N N N N
on on0000N N
-~.....=OJ..oø,
~~~bbbb~b~bb~~~~~~aJoooooooooooooooo~NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
i:oC)~o "0
~nii:W
MooN
00ooN
..~
OJ
:E~
Eo
on on on on on on on on on on r- r- r- r- r- r-00000000000000000000000000000000NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN onooN
ü ü ü ü 0: ü ü ü ü ~ ü ü ü 0: 0: 0: 0: ü ü ü ü 0: ü ü ~ 0:
l.!
~Õc:
~ttenÜ::ea.
3lQJ£;~.2
..oÜaJen
aJtoi:
.!!
8:~
~ s-Q. .!.i ro00 c
~. ï'~00 ;§Q. 2f
=5 ëõu E"0 00 .!~ ro c:m c '=
êõ .Q) ena. 00 co (. 0)i! ti ~'õ ~ .xü i- w
00Q.
~C::~a.00
Q.00C-¡¡
~a.
~
~ 00a.
~ ~ ~~ 0 ~ I-~T§!E-§m Q. 00 Q.00 ~;Ëê"~~.~ e! ~ .:..CiCi~æ
~ .~ .~ :. ~Q. Q. Q. ig ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ¡i
~ 8 8 ~ ~
~~ Q.~ ~ §~ro Q)..QQ.Ci §w
00.. ~:ìo ~ en_o cCD Slf!.3 ~.9(J~C/~"'C/Q)o ~oC:Q)~æ~æ"t~~ ~~jg~.a.~:e ~-5 8~!1 a.ü ~~
§t'5 ~ 0 2 ~ 00:. ¡ic:Z'"O~~ gi~ ~-g.g.i~~~ ~æ.Q. m .- Q. .- ro _ "0 ~,:; :; :: .2' -g ~ ~ gi ~ al Q. :mo Q..i0.i ro Q.- c m-' 0)00.0- ~~;:Q)~;:uro;:CiZ'"Oc¡i..Æ ~~'5ÈE.4ß~ ê"~:ê.~i3 Q. ~.2.!'gõCi 0;: oëõ CD ~~-gilco:iS:üoa.ü::....::
ëC ~CO f! m~ .æ ~Q. ig ~
-g .s .£
~=2 ~
~ ~ ~.~
E .2' ~ en
~ ~ ~ ~ë5tiE~o ~ 0 Q)a.i-ü(9
00.c"5.c
.Egi
ÉQJ£;
.2
en
"Ett-0c:.sen
~c:0)c:lio
ãl
E
.g
*-EQJ~C.
~tt
en2
~
í'
ë'"'
ê::o~
~
00 enC "EJl tt-g~ .sro enE ~
.2 QJCi ~E ..Q. 0)"0 6'¡ß ¡:
0: .
0:oIIC':2 E
~:ë E EO)èE:ëe
~ c:c-=-Ii~$ff.~~~~:æ$~Qpfj§ Eø;;õõii"legs'?ci ê co co ~o QJ en (/.f.eegigi..o o'E"Ero
è ø.§.§-g.", QJ c: c: ;,ø~.s.s'¡¡aca~CJ~
¡g ;: ;: ;: ~..~llli
tULg §,g ¡¡5 .. .. .. .. :rorn
....
ëaJE(f(fQ.(f~
(f
"2m"0c:SC/
Q.(.c:
.!!Ci~;:c:ma.
Eoü
~a.o..m:E
I
()2c:ro::o
Table A2. Data Sources
Reference Number Source
1 Codes and Standards Enhancement Initiative (CASE) Studies
2 ASAP & ACEEE Model Bil Report - Idaho
3 Idaho Power specific coincident factor applied to per unit energy savings value
4 Conversation with appliance code expert (details provided when applicable)
5 ASAP & ACEEE Report Number ASAP-6/ACEEE-A062, March 2006
Table A3. Data Summary: Metal Halide Fixtures
Current Energy Population Annual Energy Peak Demand Consumer Effective
Total Appliance Efficiency Subject to Savings (kWh Per Savings Incremental Useful Life
Population1 Penetration1,2 Upgrade Unitlear) 1,2 (kW/unit)3 Cost2 (Years) 1,2
168,366 21%132,588 307 0.07 $30.00 20
Table A4. Data Summary: Incandescent Reflector Lamps
Current Energy Population Annual Energy Peak Demand Consumer Effective
Total Appliance Efficiency Subject to Savings (kWh Per Savings Incremental Useful Life
Population1 Penetration1 Upgrade Unitlear)2 (kW/unit)3 Cost1,2 (Years)l
385,000 60%154,000 61 0.01 $1.80 5
Table AS. Data Summary: External Power Supplies
Current Energy Population Annual Energy Peak Demand Consumer Effective
Total Appliance Efficiency Subject to Savings (kWh Per Savings Incremental Useful Life
Population1 Penetration1 Upgrade Unitlear)1,2 (kW/unit)3 Cost2 (Years)1
6,300,000 54%3,402,000 4 0.0005 $0.50 8
Table A6. Data Summary: Water Dispensers
Current Energy Population Annual Energy Peak Demand Consumer Effective
Total Appliance Efficiency Subject to Savings (kWh Per Savings Incremental Useful Life
Population1 Penetration2 Upgrade Unitlear)l (kW/unit)3 Cost2 (Years)2
4,800 41%2,832 266 0.04 $12 11
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 45
Table A7. Data Summary: Commercial Hot Food Holding Cabinets
Current Energy Population Annual Energy Peak Demand Consumer Effective
Total Appliance Efficiency Subject to Savings (kWh Per Savings Incremental Useful Life
Population1 Penetration2 Upgrade Unitlear)1,2 (kW/unit)3 Cost1,2 (Years)2
2,700 43%1,539 1,815 0.27 $450 14
Table AS. Data Summary: Commercial Walk-In Refrigerator-Freezers
Current Energy Population Annual Energy Peak Demand Consumer Effective
Total Appliance Efficiency Subject to Savings (kWh Per Savings Incremental Useful Life
Population1 Penetration1 Upgrade Unitlear)2 (kW/unit)3 Cost2 (Years)1
4,300 20%860 8,220 1.27 $950 10
Table A9. Data Summary: Compact Audio Products
Current Energy Population Annual Energy Peak Demand Consumer Effective
Total Appliance Efficiency Subject to Savings (kWh Per Savings Incremental Useful Life
Population1 Penetration1 Upgrade Unitlear)2 (kW/unit)3 Cost2 (Years)1,2
1,069,300 38%662,966 53 0.01 $1.00 5
Table A10. Data Summary: DVD Players/Recorders
Current Energy Population Annual Energy Peak Demand Consumer Effective
Total Appliance Effciency Subject to Savings (kWh Per Savings Incremental Useful Life
Population1 Penetration1 Upgrade Unitlear)2 (kW/unit)3 CosF (Years)1
1,336,500 77%307,395 11 0.0013 $1.00 5
Table All. Data Summary: Portable Hot Tubs
Current Energy Population Annual Energy Peak Demand Consumer Effective
Total Appliance Efficiency Subject to Savings (kWh Per Savings Incremental Useful Life
Population1 Penetration2 Upgrade Unitlear)1 (kW/unit)3 Cost2 (Years)2
16,400 20%13,120 250 0.03 $100.00 8
Table A12. Residential Furnace Fans
Current Energy Population Annual Energy Peak Demand Consumer Effective
Total Appliance Efficiency Subject to Savings (kWh Per Savings Incremental Useful Life
Population1 Penetration 5 Upgrade Unitlear)1 (kW/unit)3 Cost2 (Years)2
256,000 12%225,280 599 0.09 $100.00 18
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 46
Table AB. Total Savings Potential for Existing Appliance Stock
Eligible Units Per Unit kWh Total kWhNr Per Unit kW Total kW !
,
Appliance Sector in Idaho Savings Savings.Savings Savings.
Metal Halide Fixtures COM 132,588 307 45,141,258 0.0703 10,534
Reflector Lights RES 154,000 61 10,417,946 0.0110 1,907
External Power Supplies RES 3,402,000 4 15,468,554 0.0005 1,803
Water Coolers COM 2,832 266 836,836 0.0395 126
Hot Food Holding Cabinets COM 1,539 1,815 .3,097,753 0.2691 468
Walk-in Refrigerators-Freezers COM 860 8,220 7,839,743 1.2669 1,231
Compact Audio Products RES 662,966 53 38,967,153 0.0061 4,542
DVD Players RES 307,395 11 3,749,912 0.0013 437
Hot Tubs RES 13,120 250 3,637,520 0.0280 416
Residential Furnace Fans RES 225,280 599 149,651,476 0.0872 22,192
*T otal energy and demand savings adjusted to account for losses based on IPC system distribution secondary loss factors
Table A14. Total Savings Potential of Existing Stock by Sector
Total Estimated Energy Total Estimated
Sector Savings (kWhNr)Demand Savings (kW)
Commercial 56,915,590 12,359
Residential 221,892,560 31,297
Overall 278,808,151 43,657
Table A1S. Recommended Appliance Standards for Idaho
Appliance Sector
Metal Halide Fixtures Commercial
Water Coolers Commercial
Hot Food Holding Cabinets Commercial
Walk-in Refrigerators-Freezers Commercial
State-regulated Incandescent Reflector Lamps Residential/Commercial
Single-voltage External Power Supplies Residential
Compact Audio Products Residential
DVD Players Residential
Portable Hot Tubs/Spas Residential
Quantec - Idaho Power Company Appliance Standards Assessment 47
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CASE NO. IPC-E-08-4
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF COMMISSION STAFF
RESPONSE TO
REQUEST NO. 12
NO DOCUMENTS REQUESTED AND/OR NO
DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO THIS REQUEST
AND/OR DOCUMENTS ALREADY IN THE
POSSESSION OF THE IPUC
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CASE NO. IPC-E-08-4
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF COMMISSION STAFF
RESPONSE TO
REQUEST NO. 13
NO DOCUMENTS REQUESTED AND/OR NO
DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO THIS REQUEST
AND/OR DOCUMENTS ALREADY IN THE
POSSESSION OF THE IPUC
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CASE NO. IPC-E-08-4
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF COMMISSION STAFF
RESPONSE TO
REQUEST NO. 14
NO DOCUMENTS REQUESTED AND/OR NO
DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO THIS REQUEST
AND/OR DOCUMENTS ALREADY IN THE
POSSESSION OF THE IPUC
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CASE NO. IPC-E-08-4
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF COMMISSION STAFF
RESPONSE TO
REQUEST NO. 15
Idaho Power Company
Draft White Paper - March 2008
Pete Pengilly
Why is Average Residential use increasing?
To address the issue of average increase housing size and central air conditioner
penetration, both the Canyon and Ada County assessors' databases were analyzed.
Preliminary analysis of this data showed that:
. From 2002-2007 average square footage of houses increase by 17% in Ada
County and 36% in Canyon County
. The percent of homes built between 2002 and 2007 with square footage greater
than 2,500 ft increased 67% in Ada County and 208% in Canyon County
· The percent homes built between 2002 and 2007 with central Air conditioning
increased by 2% in Ada County and greater than 1% in Canyon County. Virtually
all new homes built in Canyon County in 2007 have central AIC and 99% of the
homes built in Ada have central Ale.
· From 2002-2007 the penetration central AIC showed that the total number of
homes with AIC increased 34% in Ada and 37% in Canyon resulting in 85% and
73% of all homes in Ada and Canyon Counties, respectively, having central Ale.
In 199021% and 17% of all homes in Ada and Canyon Counties, respectively,
having central Ale.
% Homes ~ 2500ft % Change
since
1980 1990 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003
Ada 13%20%28%29%35%38%43%47%67.11%
Canyon 8%10%9%10%20%20%31%28%208.16%
% Homesw/AC
Ada 75.74%96.45%97.31%97.97%98.17%98.25%98.11%98.98%1.71%
Canyon 52.92%89.79%98.88%99.45%99.28%99.59%99.71%100.00%1.13%
% Penetration of AlC
Ada 20.96%30.54%64.12%67.76%72.04%77.73%83.32%85.59%33.49%
Canyon 17.10%20.95%53.21%57.69%61.36%66.92%72.39%72.85%36.89%