20090805IPC to Staff 1-16.pdf

esIDA~POR~
An IDACORP Company
LISA D. NORDSTROM
Senior Counsel
August 4,2009
Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Re: Case No. IPC-E-09-09
IN THE MA ITER OF THE APPLICA TlON OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY
FOR A PRUDENCY DETERMINA TlON OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY RIDER
FUNDS SPENT IN 2002-2007
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Please find enclosed for filing an original and three (3) copies of Idaho Power
Company's Response to the First Production Request of the Commission Staff in the
above-referenced matter.
Very truly yours,
~~Jf7¿~
Lisa D. Nordstrom
LDN:csb
Enclosures
P.O. Box 70 (83707)
1221 W. Idaho St.
Boise. 10 83702
LISA D. NORDSTROM (ISB No. 5733)
BARTON L. KLINE (ISB No. 1526)
Idaho Power Company
P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
LNordstromßùidahopower.com
BKlineßùidahopower.com
RECEIVFn
" ',p
2009 AUG -4 PM 4: 49
UT IDAHO PU81 Ii'tUTlES COMP,".f,~JS¡ON
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 MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR A )
PRUDENCY DETERMINATION OF )
ENERGY EFFICIENCY RIDER FUNDS )
SPENT IN 2002-2007. )
)
)
)
CASE NO. IPC-E-09-09
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S
RESPONSE TO THE FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO
POWER COMPANY
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 July 14, 2009, herewith submits the following information:
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY-1
REQUEST NO.1: Has Idaho Power calculated the benefit/cost ratio of its
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program from the perspective of program participants? If
so, please provide such calculations and data sources. If not, why not?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.1: Because the inherent complexity can lead to
misleading results, Idaho Power ("Company") does not calculate the benefit/cost ratio of
its Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program ("Program") from the perspective of Program
participants. Idaho Power primarily utilizes the Total Resource Cost ("TRC") and the
Utilty Cost ("UC") tests in assessing the cost-effectiveness of its DSM programs. Idaho
Power has developed most of its DSM programs through the Integrated Resource
Planning ("IRP") process with input from Efficiency Advisory Group ("EEAG"). In the
IRP process, Idaho Power assesses energy efficiency and demand response programs
on an equal basis with supply-side resources. The "Electric Power Research Institute
End Use Technical Assessment Guide" and the "California Standard Practice Manual"
both identify the TRC test and the UC test as being similar to supply-side tests. See the
"Electric Power Research Institute End Use Technical Assessment Guide," Volume 4
("TAG"), page 1-16 and page 122 and the "California Standard Practice Manual," July
2002, page 21 and 24.
Idaho Power acknowledges many of the inputs for the other cost-effectiveness
test as important and uses the same or similar information in the design of its programs.
The difficulty with the other tests is calculating or quantifying the inputs and interpreting
their results. The TAG and the "California Standard Practice Manual" also indicate that
all of these test (Le., societal, total resource, utility, participant, and nonparticipant)
results are only as good as the inputs that are used to calculate them. The "Electric
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 2
Power Research Institute End Use Technical Assessment Guide" points out that ". . .
these tests are based on quantifiable information. With the exception of the attempt to
measure externalities for the societal test, all components are quantifiable." (Pages 1-
10).
In reference to the Participant Test, the "California Standard Practice Manual"
indicates:
None of the Participant Test results (discounted payback,
net present value, or benefit-cost ratio) accurately capture
the complexities and diversity of customer decision-making
processes for demand-side management investments. Until
or unless more is known about customer attitudes and
behavior, interpretations of Participant Test results continue
to require considerable judgment.
Idaho Power assesses the impact on participants in a multi-dimensional way.
The Company presents programs through the EEAG, conducts customer
research, considers bill impact of programs, and modifies programs through time, based
on customer feedback.
However, it is particularly difficult for Idaho Power to determine the cost-
effectiveness of the Irrigation Efficiency program from the participant's perspective due
to the following variables: determination of participants' non-energy benefits (reduced
labor/improved yield/fuel costs), forecasting of electricity rates to determine bill impacts,
frequency of crop rotations/service point "rotation," and forecast commodity prices.
According to the TAG manual (page 1-13) the Participant Cost test is ". . . a
measure for the average customer expected to participate." For the Irrigation Efficiency
Rewards program and especially the Custom option of the Program, it is very difficult to
define an average customer since each project is unique. The TAG manual also points
out that "High program penetration rates are unlikely with low participant benefit-cost
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 3
ratios." The Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program has had a very high participation
rate. For example, between 2003 and 2007, approximately 15 percent of Idaho Power's
irrigation customers participated in Program.
Idaho Power considers its irrigation customers to be very astute agri-business
people and as such would not participate in the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program if
it was not cost-effective from their perspective.
The response to this Request was prepared by Pete Pengily, Customer
Research and Analysis Leader, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Lisa D.
Nordstrom, Senior Counsel, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 4
REQUEST NO.2: Of the 2,127 irrigation efficiency program projects completed
from 2003 through 2007, how many does Idaho Power estimate would have been
completed in the absence of IPC's program?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.2: Because the inherent complexity can lead to
misleading results, Idaho Power ("Company") does not estimate how many of its
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program ("Program") projects would have been completed
in the absence of the Program. Accounting for what is referred to as "free ridership" in
the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program is particularly difficult due to the fact that there
are three major offerings of the Program which include: (1) the menu option, (2) custom
option, and (3) new system option. There is a wide range of systems and equipment
customers would install in absence of the Program. Another difficulty for estimating free
ridership in the Energy Efficiency Rewards program is the uncertainty of a common
baseline. Idaho Power uses historical energy use, if it exists, to estimate energy
savings for projects. Although this is the case for the existing system and menu
options, for the new system option, there is no existing baseline because there are no
energy codes for irrigation equipment. Each new system project analysis accounts for
what would have been installed as a standard irrigation system for a specific location
that takes into account specific geographical and environmental conditions.
It is likely that many of the Program participants installng new irrigation systems
would have installed some kind of sprinkler system regardless of the Program. The
application process in the Program is intended to ensure that projects are designed in
the most efficient manner possible resulting in the highest achievable energy savings. If
a net-to-gross ("NTG") factor of 0.8, which is typical for many programs, was applied to
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 5
the energy savings estimated in the Program to account for free ridership, the Program
would continue to be cost-effective.
Also, information is not available to determine how many projects were
completed outside the Program using energy efficient techniques advocated by the
Company through its agricultural representatives and education programs. The
Company does not claim any energy savings from this practice known as "free-
drivership."
Determining why customers participate or do not participate in a program when
changing, installng, or improving irrigation systems is very difficult to determine. The
questionable accuracy of any NTG factor applied to the energy savings of an energy
efficiency program, particularly in the irrigation sector, leads to uncertainties in the
application of these factors.
The response to this Request was prepared by Pete Pengilly, Customer
Research and Analysis Leader, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Lisa D.
Nordstrom, Senior Counsel, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 6
REQUEST NO.3: At the top of page 6 of the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
program description included in Attachment 1, Energy Efficiency Rider Expense
Documentation, is the statement that ". . . it is expected that Program participation wil
likely be more constant going forward as many systems that were previously improved
become eligible to participate in the Program again."
a) Is repetitive participation in this program considered an aspect of
program success? Please explain.
b) Has Idaho Power investigated market transformation for irrigation
efficiency?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.3: Idaho Power ("Company") considers
repetitive participation by customers in the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program
("Program") an aspect of program success. The menu option of the Program is based
on the premise that irrigation system equipment wil wear out and need to be replaced in
order to continue to operate efficiently. The Company believes that some irrigation
customers would replace worn out equipment absent the Program, but the timing of
when equipment would be replaced absent the Program is generally assumed to
exceed the effcient life of the equipment offered in the Program. As stated in the
Application, the Program is designed to incent customers to design and install systems
and equipment that go above and beyond a standard irrigation system. The Program is
also designed to provide a monetary incentive to motivate customers to install energy
efficient irrigation systems and equipment on an ongoing basis in order to provide
energy savings for the Company and its customers.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY-7
Because the inherent complexity can lead to misleading results, Idaho Power has
not investigated market transformation, nor is the Company aware of any studies that
have quantified market transformation in the irrigation sector. One of the goals of the
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program is to educate its irrigation customers on the
benefits of energy efficient equipment and provide incentives to assist them in the timely
installation of systems and equipment that provide energy savings. The Company
believes that some customers have made it a more common practice to install energy
efficient equipment on a regular basis. However, Idaho Power has not attempted to
quantify this practice due to several variables that would be very difficult to access and
expensive to determine. Aside from the complexities of evaluating the variables
associated with business decisions made by irrigation customers, some of the variables
required to determine market transformation include: the establishment of a uniform
baseline in the irrigation sector when codes do not exist and environmental and
geographical conditions vary widely, market transformation studies need to be
completed at the market level rather than the program level, causality between the
program and market changes, and long-term sustainability of energy efficient practices.
The response to this Request was prepared by Pete Pengily, Customer
Research and Analysis Leader, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Lisa D.
Nordstrom, Senior Counsel, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 8
REQUEST NO.4: Has any post-implementation evaluation (impact, process, or
market effects) of Idaho Power's 2003-2007 Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program been
completed beyond reviewing payments, summarizing data, and calculating cost-
effectiveness based on assumed savings? If so, please provide such evaluation(s) and
explain why the information was not previously provided.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.4: While no formal report is prepared, Idaho
Power ("Company") assesses the impact and processes in the Irrigation Efficiency
Rewards program ("Program") regularly. Through its constant review of impact and
processes, Idaho Power regularly adjusts Program administrative techniques to improve
its services to customers. Idaho Power employs eight staff members, of which a portion
of their salaries is funded by the Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider, dedicated to servicing
the irrigation class in energy efficiency programs, demand response programs, energy
efficiency education, irrigation system design, and other agricultural irrigation system
problems or questions. As stated in the Company's Response to Staff's Request NO.3,
neither Idaho Power nor any regional organizations have done extensive market
transformation studies regarding the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program.
As described in the Application, proposed projects under the Custom Options of
the Program are evaluated using engineering analysis to determine the energy savings.
In many cases, post installation energy usage is available and is used to verify the
estimated savings calculations. For Projects initiated under the Menu Option, energy
savings estimates are based on "deemed savings" from the Northwest Power and
Conservation Council's Regional Technical Forum or the Bonnevile Power
Administration, which are often derived from evaluated projects and programs.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 9
The response to this Request was prepared by Pete Pengilly, Customer
Research and Analysis Leader, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Lisa D.
Nordstrom, Senior Counsel, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY -10
REQUEST NO.5: Idaho Power states that it "plans to conduct biling analyses of
participants in the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program" and pursue "exploration of
opportunities to partner with other regional organizations to conduct an updated impact
evaluation of the Program." Is it Idaho Power's position that these assertions are
sufficient for the Commission to assess prudency of this program's $5.1 milion cost
from 2003 through 2007? Please explain.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.5: The Idaho Public Utilties Commission
("Commission") should determine the expenses associated with the Irrigation Efficiency
Rewards program ("Program") as reasonable and prudent based on the fact that, as
stated in the Application, each measure in the menu option of the Program is cost-
effective. The Program cost-effectiveness benefit/cost ratios stated in the Application
are 3.78 from the Utilty Cost ("UC") perspective and 2.17 from the Total Resource Cost
("TRC") perspective. The Program life cost-effectiveness benefit/cost ratios calculated
from actual expenses and savings shown in Appendix 4 of the Demand-Side
Management 2008 Annual Report are 5.49 from the UC perspective and 1.64 from the
TRC perspective.
Additionally, the Company has conformed both in the spirit and the letter of
Commission orders pertaining to demand-side management ("DSM") programs. Idaho
Power formed an Energy Efficiency Advisory Group ("EEAG"). This advisory group is
made up of a diverse membership that attempts to represent the interest of the various
customer classes. The EEAG includes representative from the Idaho Public Utiities
Commission Staff, the Oregon Public Utilities Commission Staff, representatives from
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPÀNY -11
the Industrial, Commercial, and Residential class as well as regional energy efficiency
experts and representatives from the environmental community.
The original design of this Program was vetted through the EEAG. Prior to
launching the Program, the Company determined this Program to be cost-effective
based on the best information available at the time of design and development. As
described in the Application, assumptions used to calculate energy savings for each
measure offered in the Program have been derived from various industry standards and
reports and are verified by qualified irrgation experts within the Company. The
Company has modified this Program through the years based on new information when
made available. For example, the Company added the menu option to the Program
which resulted in increased participation. Another change was an adjustment to
incentives after the first year of the Program which also resulted in increased Program
participation while maintaining cost-effectiveness. Program experience has provided
Idaho Power with information to estimate energy savings from individual projects more
accurately. Idaho Power reports on this Program to both the EEAG and the
Commission through regular EEAG meetings and its annual DSM report.
The Program has been developed and analyzed in a manner that justifies
prudent expenses incurred by the Program. The Company has determined the
Program to be cost-effective, has experienced very good participation, targets lost
opportunity savings, and has provided significant energy savings over its life.
The response to this Request was prepared by Pete Pengily, Customer
Research and Analysis Leader, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Lisa D.
Nordstrom, Senior Counsel, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 12
REQUEST NO.6: At the bottom of page 5 of the ENERGY STAR Lighting
Program description included in Attachment 1, Energy Efficiency Rider Expense
Documentation, is the statement that "A copy of this study was made available in
Response No. 91 in IPUC Case No. IPC-E-08-10." The study referenced was
contracted with KEMA in 2006 for a consumer lighting survey and it was not included on
the list of studies provided by Idaho Power in its Response to Production Request 91.
Please identify where in IPC's Response to Production Request 91 the results of this
survey exist.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.6: In the Company's Response to Staffs
Request No. 91, Idaho Power stated, "Due to limited copies, voluminous nature, or
unavailabilty in electronic format, all other evaluations, surveys, etc., will be made
available upon request in the discovery room at Idaho Power." A copy of the Consumer
Lighting Study was made available during Staff's visit to the discovery room at Idaho
Power on October 15, 2008. During that visit, Idaho Power's records indicate that Staff
made a copy of portions of the Consumer Lighting Study. Recently, Idaho Power
contacted KEMA for an electronic copy of the Consumer Lighting Study and it is
included with this Response.
The response to this Request was prepared by Pete Pengilly, Customer
Research and Analysis Leader, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Lisa D.
Nordstrom, Senior Counsel, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY -13
REQUEST NO.7: At the bottom of page 6 of the Building Efficiency program
description included in Attachment 1, Energy Efficiency Rider Expense Documentation,
it is stated that evaluation results for four of 14 measures in this program will be
available in 2009. Please describe how the evaluator or Idaho Power will adjust the
program's benefit/cost calculations to reflect estimates of projects that would have been
completed in the absence of the program?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.7: As stated in the Application, Idaho Power
("Company") contracted with the Integrated Design Laboratory ("IDL") to analyze and
evaluate the measures in the Building Efficiency program ("Program") where energy
savings are less certain or where Idaho Power would like site specific information. The
work by IDL is not intended to provide information to adjust the Program's benefit/cost
calculations using estimates of projects that would have been completed in the absence
of the Program.
Why customers participate or do not participate in a program when building a
new facility or conducting a major remodel is very difficult to determine. In 1996, Idaho
Power participated in a regional evaluation titled "Performance Measurement:
Establishing Energy Impacts of Commercial New Construction Programs." In that study
it was stated, "The key to reducing free ridership is knowing what the building industry
will install on its own (the baseline) and providing incentives for going beyond the
baseline. This concept sounds good but is nearly impossible to design and implement.
There is a wide range of what customers would do in absence of the Program."
Attachment No. 1 to the Application shows a utility benefit cost ratio ("UC ratio")
of 4.31 and a total resource benefit cost ratio ("TRC ratio") of 3.43. Idaho Power's
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY -14
Demand-Side Management 2008 Annual Report in Appendix 4 shows a UC ratio of 2.14
and a TRC ratio of 1.55 for all the actual expenses and savings incurred from 2004
through 2008. Considering these cost-effective measurements, the Program would stil
be cost-effective even if a reasonable adjustment to the energy savings, such as 0.8,
was quantified and applied to account for projects assumed would have been
completed in absence of the Program.
The response to this Request was prepared by Pete Pengilly, Customer
Research and Analysis Leader, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Lisa D.
Nordstrom, Senior Counsel, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY -15
REQUEST NO.8: Given that there is not yet an evaluation of any measure for
any year of the Building Efficiency program available for Commission review and that
the evaluation results expected later this year will include only four of 14 measures in
this program, on what basis does Idaho Power believe the Commission should find that
Idaho Power's expenses of $1.3 millon from 2004 through 2007 were reasonable and
prudent?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.8: The Idaho Public Utilties Commission
("Commission") should determine that the expenses associated with the Building
Efficiency program ("Program") were reasonable and prudent based on the fact that the
Program cost-effectiveness benefit/cost ratios stated in the Application are 1.99 from
the Utility Cost ("UC") perspective and 1.65 from the Total Resource Cost ("TRC")
perspective. The Program life cost-effectiveness benefit/cost ratios calculated from
actual expenses and savings shown in Appendix 4 of the Demand-Side Management
2008 Annual Report are 2.14 from the UC perspective and 1.55 from the TRC
perspective.
Additionally, the Company has conformed both in the spirit and the letter of
Commission orders pertaining to demand-side management ("DSM") programs. Idaho
Power formed an Energy Efficiency Advisory Group ("EEAG"). This advisory group is
made up of a diverse membership that attempts to represent the interest of the various
customer classes. The EEAG includes representatives from the Idaho Public Utilties
Commission Staff, the Public Utilty Commission of Oregon Staff, representatives from
the Industrial, Commercial, and Residential class as well as regional energy effciency
experts and representatives from the environmental community. Idaho Power reports
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY -16
on this Program to both the EEAG and the Commission through regular EEAG meetings
and its annual DSM report.
The original design of this Program was vetted through the EEAG. The
Company has determined this Program to be cost-effective based on the best
information available at the time of design and development. As described in the
Application, assumptions used to calculate energy savings for each measure offered in
the Program have been derived from various industry standards and reports. The
Company has modified this Program through the years based on new information when
made available. In May 2007, Idaho Power contracted with K Energy to verify and
adjust the energy savings assumptions for the Program. In 2008, Idaho Power adjusted
the requirements for the Program's high performance and premium performance
window measures to reflect Idaho's adoption of the International Energy Conservation
Code ("IECC") 2006. Also in 2008, the size requirement for Air Side Economizers was
adjusted to reflect the adopted IECC 2006. In 2009, Idaho Power replaced the premium
effciency window measure with exterior window shading due to minimal participation for
the premium windows. Also in 2009, The Company adjusted the calculation of
incentives for demand control ventilation based on outside airflow controlled by a C02
sensor rather than unit rated airflow.
Idaho Power has reasonably concluded that offering the Program is cost-
effective and a prudent use of customer funded energy efficiency. The energy savings
associated with the measures offered in the Program are based on estimated savings
from other utility's programs and national or regional organizations such as the Regional
Technical Forum ("RTF"). As explained in the Application, Idaho Power has proactively
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY -17
identified measures where energy savings estimates are less certain and has taken
steps to evaluate the savings from those measures. Given the likelihood of this
Program's energy savings, Idaho Power takes great care and effort to manage energy
efficiency funds wisely. Idaho Power evaluated only those four measures where energy
savings claims are less certain. An alternative evaluation approach would be to
consider very expensive building simulation modeling, which does not seem necessary
at this time. The Company has determined the Program to be cost-effective, has
experienced increasing participation, targets lost opportunity savings, and has provided
significant energy savings over its life.
The response to this Request was prepared by Pete Pengily, Customer
Research and Analysis Leader, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Lisa D.
Nordstrom, Senior Counsel, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY -18
REQUEST NO.9: What is the process by which IPC's manager of the Easy
Upgrades program communicates concerns about measure lives or savings with IPC's
manager of energy efficiency evaluation?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.9: If the Easy Upgrades program ("Program")
manager has concerns about measure lives or savings, the Program manager would
communicate those concerns directly to the energy efficiency evaluation team.
The response to this Request was prepared by Pete Pengily, Customer
Research and Analysis Leader, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Lisa D.
Nordstrom, Senior Counsel, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY -19
REQUEST NO. 10: Has Idaho Power calculated the benefit/cost ratio of its Easy
Upgrades program from the participant perspective? If so, please provide such
calculations and data sources. If not, why not?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10: Because the inherent complexity can lead
to misleading results, Idaho Power ("Company") does not calculate the benefit/cost ratio
of its Easy Upgrades program ("Program") from the perspective of Program participants.
Idaho Power primarily utilzes the Total Resource Cost ("TRC") and the Utility Cost
("UC") tests in assessing the cost-effectiveness of its DSM programs. Idaho Power has
developed most of its DSM programs through the Integrated Resource Planning ("IRP")
process with input from Efficiency Advisory Group ("EEAG"). In the IRP process, Idaho
Power assesses energy efficiency and demand response programs on an equal basis
with supply-side resources. The "Electric Power Research Institute End Use Technical
Assessment Guide" and the "California Standard Practice Manual" both identify the TRC
test and the UC test as being similar to supply-side tests. See the "Electric Power
Research Institute End Use Technical Assessment Guide," Volume 4, page 1-16 and
page 122 and the "California Standard Practice Manual," July 2002, page 21 and 24.
Idaho Power acknowledges many of the inputs for the other cost-effectiveness
test as important and uses the same or similar information in the design of its programs.
The difficulty with the other tests is calculating or quantifying the inputs and interpreting
their results. The "Electric Power Research Institute End Use Technical Assessment
Guide" and the "California Standard Practice Manual" also indicate that all of these test
(Le., societal, total resource, utiliy, participant, and nonparticipant) results are only as
good as the inputs that are used to calculate them. The "Electric Power Research
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 20
Institute End Use Technical Assessment Guide" points out that ". . . these tests are
based on quantifiable information. With the exception of the attempt to measure
externalities for the societal test, all components are quantifiable." (Pages 1-10).
In reference to the Participant Test, the "California Standard Practice Manual"
indicates:
None of the Participant Test results (discounted payback,
net present value, or benefit-cost ratio) accurately capture
the complexities and diversity of customer decision-making
processes for demand-side management investments. Until
or unless more is known about customer attitudes and
behavior, interpretations of Participant Test results continue
to require considerable judgment.
Idaho Power assesses the impact on participants in a multi-dimensional way. The
Company presents programs through the EEAG, conducts customer research,
considers bil impact of programs, and modifies programs through time, based on
customer feedback.
However, it is difficult for Idaho Power to determine the cost-effectiveness of the
Easy Upgrades program from the participant perspective due to the following variables:
determination of non-energy benefits, forecasting of electricity rates to determine bil
impacts, and assumptions of business practices. The Company does provide a tool for
commercial customers to estimate simple payback for projects applied for in the
Program. This tool is provided to commercial customers to assist them in making a
decision to participate in the Program. Along with simple payback in years, the
calculator provides an estimated net return on investment for the customer. Idaho
Power expects that its customers wil evaluate the benefits and costs associated with
their projects and make a decision based on their own business modeL. Idaho Power
considers its commercial customers astute business people and as such would not
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 21
participate it the Easy Upgrades program if it was not cost-effective from their
perspective.
According to the "Electric Power Research Institute End Use Technical
Assessment Guide" ("TAG") manual (page 1-13) the Participant Cost test is ". . .a
measure for the average customer expected to participate." For the Easy Upgrades
program, it is very difficult to define an average customer since each project is unique
and a wide variety of businesses participate in the Program with different levels of
involvement. The TAG manual also points out that, "High program penetration rates are
unlikely with low participant benefi-cost ratios." Since its beginning, the Easy Upgrades
program has continued to increase participation at a rapid rate that is indicative of a
high market acceptance rate.
The response to this Request was prepared by Pete Pengilly, Customer
Research and Analysis Leader, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Lisa D.
Nordstrom, Senior Counsel, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 22
REQUEST NO. 11: Given that Idaho Power's first formal post-implementation
evaluation of the Easy Upgrade Program is not planned until 2010, on what basis does
Idaho Power believe the Commission should find that Idaho Power's expenses of $0.7
million from 2006 through 2007 were reasonable and prudent?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11: The Idaho Public Utilties Commission
("Commission") should determine that the expenses associated with the Easy Upgrades
program ("Program") were reasonable and prudent based on the fact that the Program
cost-effectiveness benefit/cost ratios stated in the Application are 3.54 from the Utilty
Cost ("UC") perspective and 1.38 from the Total Resource Cost ("TRC") perspective.
The Program life cost-effectiveness benefit/cost ratios calculated from actual expenses
and savings shown in Appendix 4 of the Demand-Side Management 2008 Annual
Report are 3.88 from the UC perspective and 1.21 from the TRC perspective.
Additionally, the Company has conformed both in the spirit and the letter of
Commission orders pertaining to demand-side management ("DSM") programs. Idaho
Power formed an Energy Efficiency Advisory Group ("EEAG"). This advisory group is
made up of a diverse membership that attempts to represent the interest of the various
customer classes. The EEAG includes representation from the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission Staff, the Public Utility Commission of Oregon Staff, representatives from
the Industrial, Commercial, and Residential class as well as regional energy efficiency
experts and representatives from the environmental community.
The original design of this Program was vetted through the EEAG. It was the
goal of the Company to develop a Program that provided a way for commercial
customers to achieve energy efficiency through a simple process. Prior to
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 23
implementation, the Company determined this Program to be cost-effective based on
the best information available at the time of design and development. The Company
has modified this Program based on new information when made available. Some of
these modifications included a review of the measures initially offered in the Program
and adjusting the Program as necessary. As described in the Application, in 2008,
Idaho Power reviewed the lighting measures offered in the Program and adjusted the
categories for metal halide measures with minimum energy savings requirements to
make certain the cost-effectiveness of those measures. Idaho Power reports on this
Program to both the EEAG and the Commission through regular EEAG meetings and its
annual DSM report.
It is common that many DSM programs incur relatively high costs during their
early years. It is expected that startup costs of DSM programs wil decline and will be a
small component of the life-cycle costs of a program. Idaho Power launched the Easy
Upgrades program in 2007. All the expenses for 2006 and many of the expenses for
2007 were dedicated to Program development costs. Idaho Power's 2008 Demand-
Side Management Annual Report shows that Program participation has continued to
grow, indicating a successful Program design and deployment.
The response to this Request was prepared by Pete Pengilly, Customer
Research and Analysis Leader, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Lisa D.
Nordstrom, Senior Counsel, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 24
REQUEST NO. 12: At the top of page 5 of the AlC Cool Credit program
description included in Attachment 1, Energy Efficiency Rider Expense Documentation,
is the statement that "The AlC Cool Credit continues to perform as expected by the
Company." Please explain how this statement aligns with participation growth rates that
have been significantly and consistently below the Company's targeted/expected growth
rates?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12: The purpose of the AlC Cool Credit
program ("Program") offered by Idaho Power ("Company") is to reduce summer peak
demand on the Company's electrical system. The load reduction capabilties of the
Program have been evaluated on several occasions, as described in the Application,
and the results indicate the Program has been successful in reducing summer peak
demand. The Program is performing as expected as a cost-effective demand-side
management ("DSM") resource.
Idaho Power disagrees with the assumption in the Request that the growth rate
for the AlC Cool Credit Program has been significantly and consistently below the
Company's expected growth rate; in fact, since filing the Application in March, the
Company has added 6,840 participants. With its current participation of approximately
30,000, Idaho Power believes the Program is ramping up to its targeted goal of 40,000
customers at a reasonable pace.
When the Program was first developed, a forecast of participation was estimated
based on the best information Idaho Power had at the time. As with any forecast
assumption for a Program that wil run over several years, it is rational to expect that
Program experience, economics, and market research over time provide improved
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 25
information for estimating future Program performance. The Program is performing as
expected based on forecasted participation as presented in its Application in this case.
The response to this Request was prepared by Pete Pengilly, Customer
Research and Analysis Leader, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Lisa D.
Nordstrom, Senior Counsel, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 26
REQUEST NO. 13: The "Program Analysis and Validation" and "Program
Evaluation" sections of the AlC Cool Credit program description included in Attachment
1 and the three Summit Blue evaluations (provided in IPC's Response to Production
Request 91 in IPC-E-08-10) describe how the program's peak load savings were
calculated and verified and offer some insights into quality assurance and customer
satisfaction. However, Idaho Power has not provided for Commission review any
overall program evaluation (marketing and process, in addition to impact) that might
explain: 1) why participation in the program consistently lags the Company's targets; 2)
why invitations to participate are not more efficiently and more effectively targeted; 3)
how the several program gliches were allowed to occur. Given the above, combined
with the program's current lack of cost-effectiveness, on what basis does Idaho Power
believe the Commission should find that Idaho Power's expenses of $2.4 millon from
2003 through 2007 were reasonable and prudent?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13: The Idaho Public Utilties Commission
("Commission") should determine that the expenses associated with the AlC Cool Credit
program ("Program") were reasonable and prudent based on the fact that the Company
has conformed both in the spirit and the letter of Commission orders pertaining to
demand-side management ("DSM") programs. Idaho Power formed an Energy
Efficiency Advisory Group ("EEAG"). This advisory group is made up of a diverse
membership that attempts to represent the interest of the various customer classes.
The EEAG includes representative from the Idaho Public Utilties Commission Staff, the
Public Utility Commission of Oregon Staff, representatives from the Industrial,
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 27
Commercial, and Residential class as well as regional energy effciency experts and
representatives from the environmental community.
The original design of this Program was supported by the EEAG. The Company
has modified this Program through the years based on new information when made
available. Some of these modifications include using load control switches rather than
programmable thermostats and using switches that are compatible with automated
metering infrastructure. Idaho Power reports on this program to both the EEAG and the
Commission through regular EEAG meetings and its annual DSM report.
In the case of the AlC Cool Credit program, the historical Program performance
with respect to participation rates is reasonable and demonstrates the Program's
success. Program participation estimates are more difficult to estimate when planning
and developing programs than they are looking back in time when the participation rate
is known. The participation forecast assumptions during AlC Cool Credit program
development were reasonable based on the eligible market, estimates of penetration,
and dropout rates. Participation continues to increase on an annual basis toward the
targeted enrollment of 40,000 participants.
Idaho Power disagrees with the assumption in the request that the AlC Cool
Credit program lacks cost-effectiveness. This Program, like many demand response
programs, incurs many costs at the beginning of its life cycle necessitating a longer view
of cost-effectiveness. In Case No. IPC-E-04-27, the Company's original application to
implement the Program, Idaho Power stated that the benefit-cost ratio from the Utility
Cost perspective would be 1.07 by year ten and 1.42 over a 30-year operation period.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 28
The Commission approved this filing in Order NO.29702 and stated in its order:
We note that the Company has calculated a positive cost
benefit ratio for the Program and expects it to be cost
effective over its 30-year life. The Energy Efficiency
Advisory Group also generally supported the Program.
Consequently, we find that it is in the public interest for Idaho
Power to implement its AC Program.
Current analysis shows that by year twenty the program will have a benefit-cost
ratio of 1.38 from the Utiliy Cost perspective and 2.73 from the Total Resource Cost
perspective. The Company now anticipates the Program wil be cost-effective on an
annual basis as early as year eight of the Program's life cycle. This is based on
continual increased Program participation and the Company's efforts to manage costs
efficiently.
The Company also disagrees with the assumption contained in the Request that
invitations to participate have not been efficiently and effectively targeted. Upon initial
Program roll-out, the Program sought enrollment from all eligible customers as defined
in Idaho Power Service Schedule 81. As participation in the Company's energy
efficiency and demand response Programs has expanded, Idaho Power has acquired
experience and tools to more accurately identify characteristics and demographics of
participants. The Company reviewed AlC Cool Credit participants looking for trend that
indicate attributes of Program participation. By identifying customer trends, Idaho
Power wil more accurately target those customers who have not enrolled in the
Program but have similar demographic information as Program participants.
While marketing the Program, Idaho Power has utilzed various methods for
attracting participants and has carefully tracked these efforts. For example, the
Company initiated joint bill stuffers as recommended by the EEAG and has utilzed
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 29
cause-related marketing techniques. It has been Idaho Power's experience that, where
possible, directly mailed plain letters along with cards explaining frequently asked
questions has been one of the more successful tools for attracting new participants to
the Program. These are relatively inexpensive to produce. This marketing experience
has enabled the Company to be more efficient in expanding Program participation.
A Program of the magnitude of AlC Cool Credit is likely to experience some
"glitches" along the way. However, the assumption in the Request that these are
"allowed" to occur is incorrect. As described in the Application, the AlC Cool Credit
program has experienced some issues. Idaho Power took appropriate steps to mitigate
these issues, including having all costs reimbursed by the Program contractors. Idaho
Power has used the experience to improve Program delivery and the Company is
actively using its experience in operating this Program to prevent similar problems from
occurring in the future.
The response to this Request was prepared by Pete Pengily, Customer
Research and Analysis Leader, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Lisa D.
Nordstrom, Senior Counsel, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 30
REQUEST NO. 14: The "Program Cost Effectiveness" section of the Heating
and Cooling Efficiency program description included in Attachment 1, Energy Efficiency
Rider Expense Documentation, explains that the program's lack of cost-effectiveness in
2006 and 2007 was due to startup costs that remained unexpectedly high and
participation that was lower than expected. With program changes Idaho Power said it
expected cost-effectiveness wil be achieved in 2009. Please explain the basis for the
Commission to find that Idaho Power's expenses of $0.5 million from 2006 through
2007 were reasonable and prudent?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14: The Idaho Public Utilities Commission
("Commission") should determine that the expenses associated with the Heating and
Cooling Efficiency program ("Program") were reasonable and prudent based on the fact
that the Company has conformed both in the spirit and the letter of Commission orders
pertaining to demand-side management ("DSM") programs. Idaho Power formed an
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group ("EEAG"). This advisory group is made up of a
diverse membership that attempts to represent the interest of the various customer
classes. The EEAG includes representative from the Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Staff, the Public Utilty Commission of Oregon Staff, representatives from the Industrial,
Commercial, and Residential class as well as regional energy effciency experts and
representatives from the environmental community.
The original design of this Program was vetted through the EEAG. It was the
goal of the Company to develop a Program that specifically targeted energy savings
associated with heating and cooling equipment. The Program was designed to focus on
moving the market toward higher quality equipment installations and training/educating
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 31
contractors to enhance energy efficiency, as opposed to a rebate only Program. The
Company determined this Program to be cost-effective based on the best information
available at the time of design and development. The Company has modified this
Program based on new information when made available. Some of these modifications
included a review of the measures initially offered in the Program and adjusting the
Program as necessary. Idaho Power reports on this Program to both the EEAG and the
Commission through regular EEAG meetings and its annual DSM report.
DSM programs incur costs during their development and startup years.
Typically, it is expected that startup costs would be a small component of the life-cycle
costs of a program. However, in the case of the Heating and Cooling Efficiency
program, it became evident that some of the startup costs associated with the Program
were ongoing costs that would likely continue. Some of the high Program costs were
associated with contractor training. After the Program began operating, it became
apparent that because of installer turnover and the addition of new participating
contractors, the training expenses would continue and become an ongoing expense.
Additionally, the proportion of projects that included measures later to be found not cost-
effective, coupled with lower than expected participation with measures that were highly
cost-effective, resulted in a Program that did not pass cost-effectiveness tests as
originally designed.
Therefore, the Company analyzed the measures that would result in a cost-
effective Program and initiated changes to ensure the program's cost-effectiveness.
The Company communicated the cost-effectiveness issues to the EEAG and proposed
the revised Program offering. With the EEAG's concurrence, Idaho Power adjusted the
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 32
Program and removed non cost-effective measures with the expectation the Program
would provide cost-effective energy savings through the measures that were cost-
effective. It is reasonable and prudent to adjust a program's offerings and expenses
during the early implementation to maintain cost-effectiveness.
When the Company initiates new programs, it makes estimates of costs,
customer behavior, vendor behavior and energy efficiency levels with the best
information at the time. Most of the current Company programs began in this fashion
and show the Company's ability to successfully forecast and plan program
deployments. However, even using the best available estimates, there can be
unforeseen costs and market behaviors. Without the benefit (and the attendant delay)
of using pilots for each new program, the Company should not be penalized when it
initiates a new program that has all initial indicators of a cost-effective program -
including the concurrence of EEAG - and yet those initial indicators do not materialize
in the market. When it was discovered that the initial estimates were not being realized,
the Company reacted to the situation and changed the Program to its current cost-
effective state.
The response to this Request was prepared by Pete Pengily, Customer
Research and Analysis Leader, Idaho Power Company, in consultation with Lisa D.
Nordstrom, Senior Counsel, Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 33
REQUEST NO. 15: The table on page 2 of the Building Operator Training
program description included in Attachment 1, Energy Effciency Rider Expense
Documentation, includes benefit/cost (B/C) ratios of 8.31 from the utility perspective and
8.08 from the total resource cost perspective for this program's operation in 2003 and
2004. Under the "Program Development" heading, Idaho Power stated that this training
program was terminated due to its resources being needed to develop the Custom
Efficiency and Building Effciency programs. IPC's 2008 DSM Report shows these latter
two programs having much lower purported B/C ratios than shown for the defunct
Building Operator Training program. Please explain how it was prudent to end a more
cost-effective program in order to use that program's resources for less cost-effective
programs.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15: Ending the Building Operator Training
program and shifting resources to developing the Custom Efficiency and Building
Efficiency programs provided a better program portolio, acquired greater energy
savings, and was a reasonable and prudent management decision.
The Building Operator Training program ("Program") was essentially a niche
program, offered to school and university customers in response to a time of tight
school budgets. It was available only to a very narrow segment of the overall
commercial customer segment. The Program was offered for two years and Company
records show 104 customers participated, indicating a large portion of the eligible
participants had either attended or had the opportunity to attend the training.
Custom Efficiency and Building Efficiency programs are designed to be available
to a broad customer base as well as to capture lost-opportunity energy efficiency in the
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 34
commercial and industrial new construction market segments. These programs provide
a larger amount of energy savings over time than the Building Operator Training
program. It was more efficient, logical, and prudent to utilze limited Rider resources for
broader-based program offerings, including the Custom Efficiency and Building
Efficiency programs.
The response to this Request was prepared by Pete Pengilly, Customer
Research and Analysis Leader, and Darlene Nemnich, Senior Pricing Analyst, Idaho
Power Company, in consultation with Lisa D. Nordstrom, Senior Counsel, Idaho Power
Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 35
REQUEST NO. 16: In the last paragraph of the first page (Page 11) of the Cost-
Effectiveness description included in Attachment 1, Energy Efficiency Rider Expense
Documentation, Idaho Power states that it relies on the Electric Power Research
Institute End Use Technical Assessment Guide (TAG) and the California Standard
Practice Manual to assess the cost-effectiveness of its DSM programs. Both of these
cost-effectiveness guides state that the benefits of energy efficiency programs should
be expressed as "net benefits," Le. excluding energy efficiency benefits that would have
occurred in the absence of programs. Please list each of Idaho Power's programs with
an indication of whether the benefit/cost ratio is calculated using net benefits or gross
benefits. For those programs in which net benefits were used, provide a brief
description of how net benefits were estimated. For those programs in which net
benefits were not used, explain why not.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16: On February 18, 2009, Idaho Power
("Company") and the Idaho Public Utilties Commission Staff ("Staff') filed a Stipulation
in Case No. IPC-E-08-10 regarding the prudency of a portion of expenses Idaho Power
incurred from 2002-2007 funded by the Company's Energy Efficiency Rider ("Rider").
As a result of that filing, the Company filed Case No. IPC-E-09-09, seeking prudency
determination of the balance of the Rider funded expenses incurred between 2002-2007
on the following programs or cost categories:
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
ENERGY STAR(6 Lighting
Building Efficiency
Easy Upgrades
AlC Cool Credit
Heating and Cooling Efficiency
Home Products (Appliance) Program
Building Operator Training
Indirect Program Expenditures
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 36
The Company interprets Staffs Request No. 16 to pertain to these nine programs
or expense categories; however, the request is not applicable to the Indirect Program
Expenditures category, since this category does not claim energy savings.
Additionally, as a point of clarification, the "California Standard Practice Manual:
Economic Analysis of Demand-Side Programs and Projects," July 2002, on page 27
states:
The development and treatment of load impact estimates
should distinguish between gross (Le., impacts expected
from the installation of a particular device, measure,
appliance) and net (impacts adjusted to account for what
would have happened anyway, and therefore not attributable
to the program). Load impacts for the Participants test
should be based on gross, whereas for all other tests the
use of net is appropriate. Gross and net program impact
considerations should be applied to all types of demand-side
management programs, although in some instances there
may be no difference between gross and net.
Idaho Power applies a net-to-gross ("NTG") ratio directly in the calculation of the
benefit/cost ("B/C") ratios for the ENERGY STARlB Lighting, the Heating and Cooling
Efficiency, and the Home Products programs. Demand reduction from the AlC Cool
Credit program, like many demand response programs, is estimated from actual sample
end use data logging and as such, has a realization rate captured in the analysis.
Similarly, the Building Operator Training program estimated savings value already
accounts for free ridership in its calculation method.
The Company does not apply a NTG ratio in the calculation of the B/C ratios for
the more complex Irrigation Efficiency Rewards, Building Efficiency, and Easy Upgrades
programs. For these more complex programs with multiple measures, it is difficult to
determine a simple NTG ratio. It is also difficult to quantify how many projects were
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 37
completed outside the Company's programs which were influenced by the energy
efficient techniques advocated by the Company's energy efficiency and education
programs. The Company does not claim any energy savings from this practice known
as "free-drivership."
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards:
See the Company's Response to Staffs Request NO.2.
ENERGY STAR~ Lighting:
As stated in the Application, Idaho Power uses 32.8 kWh per compact
fluorescent light ("CFL") bulb in its analysis for cost-effectiveness. This energy savings
estimate is derived from regional analysis and accounts for a variety of factors. These
factors include installation of CFL bulbs in a variety of lighting fixtures and bulbs that are
purchased in Idaho Power's service territory but assumed to be installed by out-of-
service participants. The actual calculation of the energy savings is derived from the
Northwest Power and Conservation Council's Regional Technical Forum ("RTF")
"deemed" annual site savings of 41 kWh at the customer level multiplied by a net-to-
gross ("NTG") factor of 0.8. (Source: the Database for Energy Efficiency Resources
("DEER")).
Building Effciency:
See the Company's Response to Staff's Request NO.7.
Easy Upgrades:
Energy savings provided by the Easy Upgrades program are estimated using the
best information on a case-by-case basis, similar to the Building Efficiency Program.
The Company has based its energy savings estimates and cost-effectiveness analysis
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 38
for each measure offered through Easy Upgrades using conservative energy savings
estimates from reliable resources, such as the Northwest Power and Conservation
Council, the Regional Technical Forum ("RTF"), NEEA, E Source, the Database for
Energy Efficiency Resources ("DEER"), the Energy Trust of Oregon ("ETO"), Bonneville
Power Administration ("BPA"), third-party consultants, and other regional utilties. Most
of these energy savings do not have NTG ratios applied. For each measure or groups
of measures in the program free-ridership or NTG ratios can be viewed differently and
as such, are difficult to determine with any certainty.
AlC Cool Credit:
Demand Response programs are unique from energy efficiency programs when
adjusting for load reductions achieved when considering whether or not a participant
would have contributed to load reduction in the absence of the Program. In the case of
AlC Cool Credit, as described in the Application, the analysis described that was
conducted by Summit Blue Consulting consisted of using a sample of participants
whose air conditioning run-time was logged to estimate the load reduction per unit. The
data used in the analysis represented the air conditioners that would have been on or
off when load control events were initiated and consequently accounted for the net load
reduction in the analysis.
Heating and Cooling Effciency:
The cost-effectiveness of the Heating and Cooling Efficiency program included
the application of a NTG factor of 0.8 to the energy savings associated with the
Program. (Source: the Database for Energy Efficiency Resources ("DEER")).
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 39
Appliance Program:
The cost-effectiveness of the Appliance program included the application of a
NTG factor of 0.8 to the energy savings associated with the Program. (Source: the
Database for Energy Effciency Resources ("DEER")).
Building Operator Training:
Idaho Power did not explicitly use a NTG factor when calculating the program
savings as described in the Energy Efficiency Rider Expense Documentation. However,
the derivation of the 0.5 kWh/if savings assumption was cross validated by several
studies. One of these studies used a control group of non-student operators when
determining savings. Therefore, it is assumed that the 0.5 kWh/if value already
accounts for free ridership in its calculation method.
The response to this Request was prepared by Pete Pengilly, Customer
Research and Analysis Leader, and Darlene Nemnich, Senior Pricing Analyst, Idaho
Power Company, in consultation with Lisa D. Nordstrom, Senior Counsel, Idaho Power
Company.
DATED at Boise, Idaho, this 4th day of August 2009.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 40
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 4th day of August 2009 I served a true and
correct copy of the IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER
COMPANY 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 Utilties Commission
472 West Washington
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
-2 Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
_ Overnight Mail
FAX
-2 Email Weldon.Stutzmancæpuc.idaho.gov
~JZlr~
iSÑÕ rd strom
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 41
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTiliTIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-09-09
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
RESPONSE TO STAFF'S REQUEST NO.6
RECEIVF=tì..-';,,..,
ZOD9 AUG -4 PM 4: 49
IDAHO PUPl ¡("
UTILITIES COM';¡¡ŠSiON
Consumer Lighting Study
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for
Idaho Power Company
Boise, Idaho
Prepared by
KEMA Inc.
Oakland, California
March 1, 2007
KEMA~
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................. ......................... ........... ........................................1
1.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................... . 1
1.2 Organization of Report..... ............ ......... .... ........... .............. ..................... .... ......... ........ .............. 1
2. Approach. . .. .. . . . .. . . .,. . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. . . . . ... .. . .. .. . .. . ... . .. . . . . .. . . .. .. . .. . ... 1
3. CFL Awareness and Purchases .................... .........................................3
3.1 CFL Purchaser and Awareness Categories ............. ........ ........... ............... ........ ............. ............. 3
3.2 How Consumers Became Aware ofCFLs..................................................................................3
3.3 When CFL Purchases Have Occurred ........................................................................................4
3.4 Where CFLs Have Been Purchased............................................................................................5
4. CFL Disposition...................................................................................... 5
4.1 General Purchaser Statistics .......................................................................................................6
4.2 CFL Storage................................................................................................................................7
5. Satisfaction with CFLs............................................................................ 7
5.1 General Satisfaction.................................................................................................................... 7
5.2 Satisfaction with CFL Attrbutes ................................................................................................8
5.3 CFL to CFL Rep1acement...........................................................................................................8
5.3.1 Replacement Intentions .................................................................................................8
5.4 Incandescent to CFL Replacement .............................................................................................9
5.4.1 Replacement Intentions .................................................................................................9
5.4.2 Factors Affecting Incandescent to CFL Replacement Intentions ................................ 10
5.5 Factors Preventing Increased Satuation ofCFLs ....................................................................10
5.6 Best Features ofCFLs ..............................................................................................................11
6. Future CFL Purchases ......... ........ ......................... ... ............................12
6.1 Likelihood of CFL Purchases within a Year ............................................................................ 12
6.2 Reasons for Being Unlikely to Purchase CFLs ....... ...... ................. ........ ......... ................ ......... 13
6.3 Likelihood ofCFL Purchases within a Year ............................................................................14
6.4 Potential CFL Purchases Next year..... ........... ....... ........ ................ ... .... ..... ......... .... ....... .......... 14
7. Compact Fluorescent Fixtures..............................................................15
7.1 CF Fixture Awareness and Purchase..... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .... ..... ......... .................... 15
7.2 How Consumers Became Aware ofCF Fixtues...................................................................... 16
7.3 Reasons for CF Fixtue Puchase ............................................................................................. 17
7.4 CF Fixture Installation Locations .............. ......... .............. .... .................. ......... .......... ............... 17
7.5 Satisfaction with CF Fixtures ........ ...... ....... ......... ................. .......... ...... ......... ............. .......... .... 17
8. Summary of Findings...... ......................................... ...................... ....... 18
Appendix A. Survey Instrument................................................................ A-1
Appendix B. Sampling Details.................................................................. B-1
Appendix C. Banner Tables ..................................................................... C-1
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
February 23, 2007
KEMA~
Table of Contents
List of Tables
Table 1 IPC 2006 Consumer Survey Completes by Source ......................................................................... 2
Table 2 IPC 2006 Consumer Surey Completes by State....... ........ ...... ...... ....... ... .......... ............ .... ......... .....2
Table 3 Bulb Disposition for Purchaser Homes IPC and NEEA, 2006 ........................................................ 6
Table 4 CFL Purchase Statistics IPC and NEEA, 2006................................................................................6
Table 5 Storage Rates Among Promotional and Non-Promotional Purchasers IPC and NEEA 2006 .........7
Table 6 Satisfaction with Specific Bulb Attributes IPC and NEEA, 2006 ..... .......... .............. ...... .......... ..... 8
Table 7 Reasons for Being Unlikely to Purchase CFLs within the Next Year IPC and NEEA, 2006........ 13
Table 8 Source of First Awareness of CF Fixtures (Among Respondents Aware of CF Fixtures) IPC and
NEEA, 2006 ........................................................................................................................................ 16
Table B-1 Population Distrbution and Sample Allocation by Strata Base NEEA Surveys................ ...B-3
Table B-2 Consumer Lighting Survey Purchaser Completes, Base NEEA Sureys Plus IPC Overs ample
(total n=667) ...... ................................... .............. ................... ... ... .............. ... ............... ....B-3
List of Figures
Figure 1 Consumer Awareness and Purchaser Categories IPC and NEEA 2006........................................ 3
Figure 2 How Consumers Became Aware of CFLs IPC and NEEA, 2006 ..... ......... ......... .... ...... ....... ..........4
Figure 3 Date of First CFL Purchase and Date of Most Recent CFL Purchase IPC 2006... .................. .......4
Figure 4 CFL Purchase Locations IPC 2006 ..... ............ ...... ......... ............. ......... .............. ......... ...... ........ ..... 5
Figure 5 General Satisfaction with CFLs IPC and NEEA 2006 ..... ............ ...... ...... ......... ......... ..... .............. 8
Figure 6 Likelihood of Replacing a CFL with a CFL Upon Burnout IPC and NEEA, 2006 ......................9
Figure 7 Likelihood of Replacing an Incandescent Bulb with a CFL upon Burnout IPC and NEEA, 2006
..............................................................................................................................................................9
Figure 8 Factors Influencing Incandescent to CFL Replacement Likelihood Among Aware Respondents
Who "Possibly Wil" Replace a Burned-out Incandescent with a CFL IPC and NEEA, 2006 .......... 10
Figure 9 Main Factor Preventing Increased Satuation of CFLs in Home Among Respondents with One or
More Incandescent Bulbs Installed IPC, 2006.. .... ....... ..... ......... ..... ......... ......... .......... ......... ........ ....... 11
Figure 10 Best Featues ofCFLs IPC, 2006 ...............................................................................................11
Figure 11 Likelihood ofCFL Purchase within the Next Year IPC, 2006...................................................12
Figure 12 Combined Likelihood ofCFL Purchase within the Next Year by Segment IPC, 2006 .............15
Figue 13 Compact Fluorescent (CF) Fixture Awareness and Purchase IPC and NEEA, 2006.................15
Figue 14 Satisfaction with CF Fixtures (Among CF Fixtue Purchasers) IPC and NEEA 2006.............17
Figure B-1 MSAs East and West ofthe Cascades in the Four-State NEEA Region............................B-2
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
ii February 23, 2007
KEMAIl
1. Introduction
1.1 Overview
This report presents results from the consumer lighting surveys conducted in October, 2006 in the Idaho
Power Company (IPe) servce terrtory. The survey was conducted to obtain consumer information
regarding awareness and purchasing behaviors for compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) and compact
fluorescent (CF) fixtures.
Under subcontract with KEMA, an experienced survey research firm conducted these sureys as part of a
broader study of the region served by the Nortwest Energy Effciency Allance (NEEA; including Idaho,
Montana, Oregon, and Washington). A total of 500 surveys were initially completed in NEEA's service
area, which included 79 surveys in IPC service terrtory. An additional 167 surveys were completed in
IPC's service tertory, bringing the total for IPC surveys to 246. Trained interewers conducted the
sureys via telephone. The survey script is included as Appendix A.
1.2 Organization of Report
In the next section of the report, we provide an overvew of our analysis approach. The remainder of the
report is organized by the following topics:
· CFL awareness and purchases;
· Disposition ofCFLs in purchasers' homes;
· Satisfaction with CFLs;
· Future CFL purchase intentions; and
· Summary of findings.
2. Approach
The survey data analyzed for this study came from two distinct samples including the base NEEA surveys
and the IPC oversample surveys.
1. Base NEEA Surveys. KEMA conducted the base NEEA surveys with a random strtified sample
of households in Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Idaho in November 2006. We oversamp1ed
non-metropolitan areas based on classification of counties as inside or outside of Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (MSAs) 1, location east and west of the Cascades mountain range, and state. Five
hundred surveys were completed in NEEA's serce area, of which 79 were in Idaho Power
Company's servce terrtory. The NEEA data reported in this document is weighted so that results
are representative of the Northwest residential population.2
i Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) are geographic entities defined by the U.S. Offce of Management and
Budget, each of which contains a core urban area of at least 50,000 residents. MSAs consist of one or more counties
and include the counties containing the core urban area as well as any adjacent counties that have a high degree of
social and economic integration (as measured by commuting to work) with the urban core. For the most up-to-date
lists ofMSAs and their component counties, see the US Census website at
htt://ww .census.gov /population/ww /estimates/metrodef.html.2 Appendix B provides additional information on weighting for the NEEA survey and the sampling approach for
both the base NEEA survey and IPC oversample surveys.
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
February 23, 2007
KEMA~
2. IPC Oversample Surveys. An additional 167 IPC surveys were conducted based on a simple
random sample of households within the service tertory, bringing the total ofIPC surveys up to
246.
Table 1 and Table 2 show the distrbution of the 246 completed sureys in IPC's service area by source
(NEEA base surveys or IPC oversample) and by state.3
Table 1
IPC 2006 Consumer Survey Completes by Source
Completed Surveys
Source n %
NEEA Base Surveys 79 28%
IPC Oversample Surveys 167 72%
Total 246 100%
Table 2
IPC 2006 Consumer Survey Completes by State
Completed Surveys
State n %
Idaho 244 99%
Oreoon 2 1%
Total 246 100%
We analyzed the 2006 survey data to understand consumer awareness and purchasing behaviors in IPC's
service terrtory. We also compared results of the IPC surveys with results from surveys conducted in the
broader NEEA servce area where differences were meaningful and significant.4
One of the most important segmentations we used was a set of three mutually exclusive groups based
upon respondent experience with CFLs. These groups were developed and used for prior surveys in
NEEA's service area, and include:
.Purchasers, which includes respondents who reported one more or more CFL purchases at any
time;
Aware Non-Purchasers, which includes respondents who indicated awareness ofCFLs but
reported never having purchased any CFLs; and
Unaware (Non-Purchasers), including respondents who reported no CFL purchases and had no
awareness of CFLs prior to the surey. 5
.
.
Appendix C includes cross-tabulations for each surey question in banner format.
3 The two surveys completed in Oregon were from the base NEEA surveys.
4 All statistically significant results are at the 90 percent level of confidence unless otherwise stated in the text.
5 The survey script (see Appendix A) includes a brief description of CFLs that was read to respondents who were
unaware of CFLs in an unprompted recall; this segment includes only those respondents who were stil unaware
after hearing the CFL description.
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
2 February 23, 2007
3. CFL Awareness and Purchases
This section begins with results on CFL purchaser and awareness categories, which were described above.
Next we discuss how aware respondents first learned ofCFLs, when purchases occured, and where
purchases occurred. Finally, an overview of purchaser statistics is provided.
3.1 CFL Purchaser and Awareness Categories
Figure 1 compares the percentages of consumers who report awareness and purchase of CFLs in the 2006
consumer lighting study within both the IPC and NEEA serce areas. Although the difference is not
statistically significant, the proportion of purchasers in NEEA's service area (67%) is greater than in
IPC's serice area (58%). There is a statistically significant difference, however, in the proportion of
aware non-purchasers in each service area: the proportion is higher in IPC's serice area than in NEEA's.
One possible explanation for this difference is that NEEA's serice area includes a number of geographic
areas (e.g., the Puget Sound area) in which CFL promotions have been active for many years.
Figure 1
Consumer Awareness and Purchaser Categories
IPC and NEEA 2006
IPC (n=246)NEEA(n=667)
. Difference betwen IPC and NEEA Aware Non-Purchasers is statistically significant at the 90 percent level of confidence.
3.2 How Consumers Became Aware of CFLs
When respondents aware of CFLs were asked how they first heard about CFLs, they mentioned noticing
CFLs in stores more than any other source (39%; see Figure 2). The proportion of consumers who cited
this source in IPC's service tertory is statistically significantly higher than the proporton in NEEA's
service area (27%). The next most comIlon source of awareness among IPC customers was adverising;
the proportion of respondents citing television, news, magazine, radio, or Interet advertisements as the
source of first awareness was 34 percent. After advertising, IPC consumers cited word of mouth (19%)
followed by information from their utility (8%).
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
3 February 23, 2007
K£JVAI!
Figure 2
How Consumers Became Aware ofCFLs
IPC and NEEA, 2006
Utility
Noticed them in store
Mi.rtising
Word of mouth
Sales person
Oter
0%10%20%30%40%50%
* Difference between IPC and NEEA is statistically significant at the 90 percent level of confidence.
3.3 When CFL Purchases Have Occurred
Figure 3 below shows two distrbutions for CFL purchaser. The first colum of the series indicates the
year in which CFLs were purchased for the firt time, and the second column the year in which CFLs
were most recently purchased. As shown, nealy th-fours of purchasers bought CFLs in 2006 - and
28 percent bought them for the first time ever in 2006. Distrbutions are similar in NEEA's service area.
Figure 3
Date of First CFL Purchase and Date of Most Recent CFL Purchase
IPC 2006
1I~ First Purchase (n=137) II Most Recent Purchase (n=136) I80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Before 2001 2001-2004 2005 2006
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
4 Febrnary 23, 2007
KEMA~
3.4 Where CFLs Have Been Purchased
As shown in Figure 4, just under half of ¡PC customers who have purchased CFLs reported that at least
one of their past CFL purchases was made in a Do- It-Yourself (DIY) store such as Home Depot or
Lowe's (45%). The next most common place where CFLs were purchased is mass merchandise stores
such as K-Mart and Wal-Mar (23%), followed by warehouse stores such as Costco and Sam's Club
(11 %) and hardware stores such as Ace and True Value (8%). Five percent more customers purchased
CFLs in hardware stores in NEEA's serice area as a whole than in ¡PC's terrtory alone (13% and 8%,
respectively); this difference is statistically significant.
Figure 4
CFL Purchase Locations
IPC 2006
DIY stores 45°
Mass merchandise stores 23%
Warehouse stores
Hardware stores
Supermarkets
Lighting supply stores
Pharmacy/Drug Stores
Other
0%10%20%30%40%50%
n=145.
4. CFL Disposition
This section presents results on CFL installation, storage and removal for all CFLs that purchaser
households have acquired over time. Table 3 compares ¡PC and NEEA disposition results. As of October
2006, purchaser households in ¡PC serice teritory had 7.4 CFLs curently installed on average, with an
additional 4.6 CFLs in storage. The differences between ¡PC and NEEA service areas in the mean number
of bulbs installed and in storage per purchaser household are statistically significant, with a greater
number of installed and stored in ¡PC's service area than in the NEEA's service area as a whole.
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
5 Febrnary 23, 2007
KEMA~
All Purchasers
IPC NEEA
(n=142)(n=411\
Disposition of All Bulbs Ever Acquired Mean %Mean %
Bulbs currently installed per purchaser home 7.4*53%6.3*68%
Bulbs ever removed per purchaser home 2.1 15%0.4 4%
Bulbs currently stored per purchaser home 4.6*33%2.6*28%
Total number of bulbs ever acquired oer home 14.1 100%9.3 100%
Purchaser base (% of total; IPC n=246; NEEA n=667)58%67%
Table 3
Bulb Disposition for Purchaser Homes
IPC and NEEA, 2006
. Differences between IPC and NEEA means are statistically significant at the 90 percent level of confidence.
4.1 General Purchaser Statistics
Table 4 presents a summary of CFL purchase statistics among CFL purchasers surveyed in 2006 (in IPC
and NEEA service areas). As shown, CFL purchaser in IPC's service terrtory have, on average, bought
CFLs on approximately 5 occasions as of October, 2006. On average, IPC purchaser households bought
10 CFLs in 2006, a greater number than in NEEA's service area.6 IPC consumers recall paying about
$4.30 per CFL during their most recent purchase (refer to Figue 3 for the distribution of the "most recent
purchase")? Twenty-seven percent ofIPC CFL purchasers report having made their most recent CFL
purchase during a promotion.
All Purchasers
IPC NEEAPurchase Statistics (n=142)(n=411)
Mean number CFL ourchase occasions ever 4.8 4.4
Mean number CFLs ourchased in cast vear 10.0 6.4
Mean CFL price for individually-packed bulbs during
most recent ourchase $4.30 $5.40
Promotion durina most recent ourchase 27%35%
Table 4
CFL Purchase Statistics
IPC and NEEA, 2006
6 This difference is not statistically significant at the 90 percent level of confidence.
7 In the 2005 and 2004 surveys in NEEA's service area, we specifically asked consumers to report the price they
paid per bulb - but some may stil have provided the price per multi-pack of bulbs. In the 2006 survey we asked
consumers to report separately on the per-package price for bulbs purchased singly and in multi-packs, but again we
cannot be sure that respondents reported the distinction accurately. Self-reported consumer CFL price data is
generally unreliable because of the multi-pack issue and the diffculty in accurately recallng prices for small
purchases such as these.
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
6 Febrnary 23, 2007
4.2 CFL Storage
Fifty-six percent of purchasers surveyed in IPC tertory in 2006 (32 percent of all respondents) report
that they are storing one or more CFLs for use as spares. This proportion is similar to the proportion
across all ofNEEA's service area.
Purchasing CFLs during a promotion leads to a higher incidence of storage (Table 5). CFL storage rates
are higher among purchasers whose most recent purchase occurred durng a promotion and those whose
most recent purchase did not in both IPC's serice territory and NEEA's service area as a whole. The
average number of bulbs in storage from the most recent CFL purchase is higher among promotional
purchasers in IPC's service area (4.1 vs. 3.8) and in NEEA's servce area (2.2 vs. 1.4; a statistically
significant difference).
Table 5
Storage Rates Among Promotional and Non-Promotional Purchasers
¡PC and NEEA 2006
Most Recent Purchase
During a Not During a
Service Area Promotion Promotion
IPC 64%56%
NEEA 66%*52%*
ipe Promo n=33; Non-Promo n=89. NEEA Promo n=114; Non-Promo n=253.
. Differences betwen promotional and non-promotional purchasers are statistically significant.
5. Satisfaction with CFLs
This section describes several indicators of satisfaction with CFLs:
· General satisfaction with CFLs;
· Satisfaction with CFL attrbutes;
· Likelihood of CFL to CFL replacement; and
· Best features of CFLs.
5.1 General Satisfaction
Survey respondents were asked to indicate their level of general satisfaction with CFLs on a ten-point
scale, with 1 being "not at all satisfied" and 10 being "ver satisfied." Approximately 86 percent ofCFL
purchasers are at least somewhat satisfied with CFLs in IPC's serice terrtory (Figure 5). The mea CFL
satisfaction rating among purchasers within IPC's service tertory is 8.0, the same as in NEEA's service
area as a whole for 2006.
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
7 February 23, 2007
Figure 5
General Satisfaction with CFLs
¡PC and NEEA 2006
il Very Satisfied
(9-10)
II Satisfied
(6-8)
o Somewhat Dissatisfied
(3-5)
o Dissatisfied
(1-2)
IPC (n=139)
NEEA(n=401)
0%20%40%60%80%100%
5.2 Satisfaction with CFL Attributes
The 2006 survey asked purchasers to rate their satisfaction with specific CFL attbutes on a 1 to 5 scale,
with 1 being "not at all satisfied" and 5 being ''ver satisfied". These ratings are moderate to high, with
length oflife and light fixtue fit receivig the highest mean ratings in IPC's serce terrtory (4.5 each;
see Table 6). Results in NEEA's terrtory alone have not changed significantly since 2004. There are no
statistically significant differences in satisfaction with CFL attrbutes betwee IPC and NEEA.
Mean Rating
All Purchasers
¡PC NEEABulb Attribute (n=142)(n=217)
How lona they last 4.5 4.5
Liaht fixture fit 4.5 4.5
Color of liaht 4.2 4.0
Briahtness of Iiaht 4.1 4.0
Liaht up time 3.9 4.2
Appearance in Fixtures 3.7 3.9
Table 6
Satisfaction with Specific Bulb Attributes
¡PC and NEEA, 2006
1 =Not at all Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied
5.3 CFL to CFL Replacement
5.3.1 Replacement Intentions
Figue 6 shows the changes over time in CFL to CFL replacement intentions. We asked CFL purchasers
how likely they would be to replace a CFL that has burned out with another CFL on a 5 point scale, with
1 meaning "not at all likely" and 5 meaning "very likely". Currently, 83 percent ofCFL purchasers in
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
8 February 23, 2007
IPC's serice tertory say they are very likely (a "5" rating) to replace CFLs with CFLs compared with
75 percent in NEEA's entire service area; this difference is statistically significant.
Figure 6
Likelihood of Replacing a CFL with a CFL Upon Burnout
IPC and NEEA, 2006
1~I 5 - Very Likely 114 0 3 0 2 111 - Not at all Likely I
NEEA (n=343)
IPC (n=115)
0%20%40%60%80%100%
5.4 Incandescent to CFL Replacement
5.4.1 Replacement Intentions
We asked all survey respondents who are aware of CFLs how wiling they would be to replace an
incandescent bulb that has burned out with a CFL. Not surprisingly as shown in Figure 7, CFL purchasers
are more likely than aware non-purchasers to replace incandescent bulbs with CFLs - with about one-
third saying they "definitely wil" and another 41 percent saying they "possibly wilL." There are no
significant differences in the distribution of responses between IPC's service area and NEEA's.
Figure 7
Likelihood of Replacing an Incandescent Bulb with a CFL upon Burnout
IPC and NEEA, 2006*
NEEA
Purchasers
(n=410)
IPC
Purchasers
(n=214)
0%20%40%60%80%100%
. Results do not total 100% because some respondents have no CFLs installed in their homes
(12% of IPC respondents and 10% of NEEA respondents).
As we would expect, CFL-to-CFL replacement intentions and incandescent-to-CFL replacement
intentions are correlated. Ninety-seven of respondents who indicated that they "definitely wil" replace an
incandescent with a CFL upon burnout indicated also that they are "ver likely" to replace a burned-out
CFL with a new CFL (likelihood rating of 5).
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
9 February 23, 2007
KEMA~
5.4.2 Factors Affectig Incandescent to CFL Replacement Intentions
Respondents who indicated that they "Possibly Wil" replace an incandescent bulb with a CFL upon
burnout (see Figue 7) were prompted as to whether their decision would depend on a number of different
factors. When prompted, more than two-thirds in ¡PC serice tertory said that their decision would
depend on whether they had incandescent bulbs in storage (69%), a statistically significantly higher
proportion than in NEEA's service area as a whole (54%), indicating that perhaps a greater proportion of
¡PC customers are storing incandescents than the general population in the Northwest. The second most
frequently cited reason in both ¡PC and NEEA tertories was the room in which the bulb would be
located (63%; see Figure 8).
Figure 8
Factors Influencing Incandescent to CFL Replacement Likelihood Among Aware Respondents
Who "Possibly Wil" Replace a Burned-out Incandescent with a CFL
IPC and NEEA, 2006*
CFL price
Incandescents in
storage
69%t
Location (room)
CFLs in storage
.IPC (n=84)
II NEEA(n=246)
Hours of use
0%20%40%60%80%100%
* The influence of "CFLs in storage" was asked only of respondents with CFLs in storage; IPC n = 29 and NEEA n = 83.
5.5 Factors Preventing Increased Saturation of CFLs
We asked respondents who had one or more incandescent bulbs installed in their homes to indicate the
main factor preventing them from increasing the number of CFLs installed in their homes (Figure 9). The
most common response was waiting for incandescent bulbs to burn out (24%). Nineteen percent indicated
that CFL price was the main factor. There are no significant differences in the distribution of responses
between ¡PC's serice area and NEEA's.
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
10 February 23, 2007
Figure 9
Main Factor Preventing Increased Saturation of CFLs in Home
Among Respondents with One or More Incandescent Bulbs Installed
IPC,2006
Don't know 27%
Waiting for incandescent bulbs to burn out
CFL price (too expensive)
CFLs aren't bright enough
Need 3-way bulbs
Don't like the way CFLs fit in fixtures
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%
n = 207.
5.6 Best Features of CFLs
Figure 10 shows purchaser opinions regarding the best features of CFLs. The most commonly cited
feature was CFLs lasting longer (57%), followed by saving or conserving energy (35%). There are no
significant differences in the distrbution of responses between ¡PC's servce area and NEEA's.
Figure 10
Best Features of CFLs
IPC,2006*t
Lasts longer before burning out
Saves/conservs energy
Reduces electricity bill/saves money
Works better/is higher quality
Resource conservtion benefits
Other
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
* Question allowed multiple responses; results may not total 100%.
t Question Wording: "In general, what are the best features of CFLs?"
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
i i February 23, 2007
KEMA*
6. Future CFL Purchases
This section presents results on stated future CFL purchase intentions - for both purchasers and non-
purchasers. These results are forward-looking and wil help forecast the purchaser base for 2007. The
three population segments that were introduced at the beginning of the report (Purchaser, Aware Non-
Purchaser, and Unaware) are used throughout this section.
6.1 Likelihood of CFL Purchases within a Year
Figure 1 i shows the distrbution of responses to the question, "How likely are you to purchase any CFLs
in the next year?" Respondents used a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 meaning "not at all likely" and 5 meaning
"very likely." Respondents who were unaware ofCFLs prior to the survey were first read a description of
CFLs prior to being asked this question (and are refered to in subsequent figues as "informed
unaware"). 8 As shown, responses differ across the thee segments, with purchasers (not surrisingly)
being the most likely to intend to buy CFLs in 2007. The mean likelihood rating among Purchasers (3.9)
is statistically significantly higher than the mean rating among Aware Non-Purchasers (2.2). Aware non-
purchasers are the least likely to purchase CFLs within the next year. There are no meaningful differences
in likelihood between IPC and NEEA.
Figure 11
Likelihood of CFL Purchase within the Next Year
¡PC, 2006
III 5 - Very Likely 114 i: 3 i: 2 II 1 - Not at all Likely I Mean
Purchasers
(n=139)3.9*
Aware Non
Purchasers
(n=69)
Informed
Unaware
(n=30)
2.2*
3.3
0%20%40%60%80%100%
. Differences between groups are statistically significant at the 90 percent level of confidence.
t Difference between Purchasers and other groups is statistically significant at the 90 percent level of confidence.
8 The description is as follows: "CFLs use two-thirds less energy than a stadard bulb, and last up to 1 0 times as
long. Some styles of CFLs are available for $2 or less - and they are about the same size and color as a standard
bulb and can be installed in almost any fixture where you would put a stadard bulb. They can be purchased at the
same places you purchase standard bulbs, including some drg and grocery stores. CFLs save about $30 in
electricity costs over the life of the bulb. By using less energy, CFLs also help the environment."
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
12 Febrnary 23, 2007
6.2 Reasons for Being Unlikely to Purchase CFLs
Respondents who reported that they were unlikely to purchase CFLs within the next year (ratings of 1 or
2 on the same 5-point scale; see Figure 11 above) were asked to explain their reasons for being unlikely.
The most common reason cited by IPC Purchasers is that they are storing bulbs and thus do not need any
more (51 %t The most commonly-cited reason among IPC Aware Non-Purchasers is that CFLs are too
expensive (29%).
As shown in Table 7 below, there are statistically significant differences between respondent groups
within IPC's service terrtory and between IPC and NEEA service terrtories. Within IPC's service
terrtory:
. A greater proportion of Purchasers cite bulb storage as a reason for being unlikely to purchase
CFLs within the next year than Aware Non-Purchasers.
. A lower proportion of Purchasers cite CFL price than Aware Non-Purchasers.
. A lower proportion of Purchasers are not interested in CFLs than Aware Non-Purchasers.
Note that bulb storage among CFL Purchasers may include both CFLs and incandescents, while Non-
Purchasers could only have incandescents in storage. These results are statistically significant at the 90
percent level of confidence.
Table 7
Reasons for Being Unlikely to Purchase CFLs within the Next Year
fPC and NEEA, 2006**
more
Reason
39
Purchasers
53%
4%
8%15%
6%
29%t
2%
2%
2%
0%
6%0%
48 129
ht 9%
6%
33%
1%
1%
Don't know enou h about them to decide
Not interested
Hard to find 0%2%
n 102
* Question allowed multiple responses; results may not total 100%. Results for "Informed Unaware" not shown because n is too
small (n=8).
:jShaded cells indicate statistically significant differences betwen ipe and NEEA data at the 90 percent level of confidence.
t Differences between Purchasers and Aware Non-Purchasers are statistically significant at the 90 percent level of confidence.
9 This percentage may include both incandescent bulbs and CFLs.
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
13 February 23, 2007
KEMA.
6.3 Likelihood of CFL Purchases within a Year Given Additional
Information
To gauge whether lack of current information was impacting stated future CFL purchase intentions
among those already aware ofCFLs, we read a CFL market descriptionlO to aware respondents who
reported that they were unlikely to purchase CFLs within the next year (ratings of 1 and 2 on a 5 point
scale where 1 means "not at all likely" and 5 means "ver likely") - the "Initially Unlikely" respondents.
Then we asked these respondents whether they were more likely to purchase CFLs after hearing the
description. Fift percent of IPC respondents reported that they were more likely to purchase CFLs after
hearing the description and 44 percent were not more likely (the remainder said "don't know"). These
results indicate that a lack of knowledge about the CFL market and the benefits of CFLs may affect the
potential for future CFL purchases. These results are statistically similar to results in NEEA's serice
terrtory as a whole.
6.4 Potential CFL Purchases Next Year
We categorized each surey respondent based on his or her stated likelihood of buying CFLs in the next
year - after hearing the CFL market description. Thus, these results represent the upper limit on CFL
purchases in 2007 - since not every one who intends to buy CFLs wil, and current CFL market
information wil not reach all potential purchasers. The categories are as follows:
· Holdouts: consumers who have never purchased CFLs and report no intention of doing so within
the next year;
· Potential new purchaser: consumers who have not purchased CFLs in the past but who indicated
that they are likely to do so within the next year;
· Purchasers with no intent to purchase in the next year: past CFL purchasers who have no intent to
purchase CFLs again within the next year; and
· Purchasers with intent to purchase in the next yea: past CFL purchasers who intend to purchase
CFLs again within the next year.
Figure 12 shows the distrbution of survey respondents by the above categories based on 2006 results in
IPC and NEEA service terrtories. Seventy-five percent of the IPC population (including past CFL
purchasers and new CFL purchasers) is likely to purchase CFLs within the next year. These results are
statistically similar to those in NEEA's entire serice area.
10 CFLs use two-thirds less energy than a standard bulb, and last up to 10 times as long. Some styles of CFLs are
available for $2 or less - and they are about the same size and color as a standard bulb and can be installed in almost
any fixture where you would put a standard bulb. They can be purchased at the same places you purchase standard
bulbs, including some drg and grocery stores. CFLs save about $30 in electricity costs over the life of the bulb. By
using less energy, CFLs also help the environment.
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
14 February 23,2007
Figure 12
Combined Likelihood of CFL Purchase within the Next Year by Segment
¡PC, 2006
IPC
(n=246)
NEE
(n=667)
II No prior purchase; likely to
purchase wlin next year
II Purchasers wIno intent to
purchase in next year
o Purchasers with intent to
purchase in next year
o No prior purchase; no intent
to purchase in next year
7. Compact Fluorescent Fixtures
New survey questions were added in 2006 to address awareness and purchase of compact fluorescent
(CF) fixtures, also known as ENERGY STAR light fixtures. Unlike standard incandescent light fixtures
that use screw-based bulbs, compact fluorescent fixtures use special pin-based CFLs that plug into the
fixtures.
7.1 CF Fixture Awareness and Purchase
Figure 13 shows the distrbution of surey respondents by awareness and purchases of CF fixtues.
Twenty-nine percent of IPC customers are aware of CF fixtures Ii, and 9 percent have purchased one or
more of them. 12 Five percent of CF fixture purchasers report purchasing one or more fixtures during a sale
or promotion. As one would expect, CF fixture awareness and purchase is positively correlated with CFL
awareness and purchase. There are no statistically meaningful differences in CF fixture awareness and
purchase rates between IPC and NEEA serice areas.
i 1 Respondents were asked the following to determine awareness of CF fixtures: "Most regular light fixtures use
bulbs that screw in, but compact fluorescent fixtures use special pin-based CFLs that plug in. Pin-based bulbs don't
have a screw base like other light bulbs. Compact fluorescent fixtures are also called Energy Star light fixtures.
Have you heard of them?"
12 It is possible that CF fixture awareness and purchase rates may be over-reported in both IPC's servce territory
and NEEA's servce area as a whole, as the potential for confusion exists between dedicated CF fixtures and fixtures
that accept screw-based CFLs. Caution should be taken when interpreting survey results for CF fixtures.
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
is February 23, 2007
KEMAi!
Figure 13
Compact Fluorescent (CF) Fixture Awareness and Purchase
¡PC and NEEA, 2006
IPC
(n=246)
NEEA
(n=667)
0%20%40%60%80%100%
7.2 How Consumers Became Aware of CF Fixtures
As shown in Table 8, 37 percent ofIPC respondents who are aware ofCF fixtues reported that they first
noticed them in a store or saw an in-store display. The second most frequently cited source of awareness
was word of mouth (25%), followed by television adverisements (10% each). There are no statistically
significant differences in awareness sources between IPC's and NEEA's service areas.
Table 8
Source of First Awareness of CF Fixtures (Among Respondents Aware of CF Fixtures)
¡PC and NEEA, 2006
% of Aware of CF Fixtures
Source IPC NEEA
Noticed them in store 37%38%
Word of mouth 25%24%
Television advertisements 10%7%
MaQazine advertisements 9%11%
Utility (bill insert or mailinQ)5%11%
Newspaper stories or ads 5%4%
Salesoerson in store 3%3%
Other 3%1%
Consumer Reoorts 2%2%
Enerav Star website 2%2%
Radio 2%.:1%
n 70 176
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
16 February 23, 2007
7.3 Reasons for CF Fixture Purchase
Fort-one percent ofIPC CF fixture purchasers cite energy savings/energy conseration as a reason for
choosing CF fixtures over "regular" fixtures that use screw-based light bulbs. Only 15 percent of NEE A
CF fixture purchasers cited the same reason; this difference is statistically significant (but at the 85
percent level of confidence). IPC CF purchasers also indicated choosing CF fixtures because of product
quality (18%) and to reduce their electric bils (18%). There are no other significant differences between
IPC and NEEA data.
7.4 CF Fixture Installation Locations
The living room was the most popular fixture installation location among IPC CF fixture purchasers,
followed by home offces and kitchens. Other rooms cited by IPC customer include bathrooms,
bedrooms, dining rooms, hallways, and closets.
7.5 Satisfaction with CF Fixtures
CF fixtue purchasers were asked to rate their satisfaction with the fixtures on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1
being "not at all satisfied" and 10 being "ver satisfied." The average rating among CF fixtue purchasers
in both IPC and NEEA servce areas was 8.1, indicating a high level of satisfaction among fixture
purchasers region-wide. Approximately 81 percent ofIPC CF fixture purchasers gave a satisfaction rating
of 6 or higher (Figure 14).
Figure 14
Satisfaction with CF Fixtures (Among CF Fixture Purchasers)
IPC and NEEA 2006
II Very Satisfied II Satisfied 0 Somewhat Dissatisfied 0 Dissatisfied(9-10) (6-8) (3-5) (1-2)
% oflPC
Purchasers
(n=17)
% of NEE A
Purchasers
(n=55)
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
17 February 23, 2007
KEMA.
8. Summary of Findings
CFL awareness is similar in IPC's and NEEA's servce areas, but IPC consumers' CFL purchase
rate lags behind the purchase rate of NEEA consumers as a whole.
. Eighty-seven percent of IPC customers are aware of CFLs, as are 88 percent of NEE A
consumers. A statistically significantly higher proportion of aware consumers in IPC' s service
area are non-purchasers as compared with NEEA's service area.
. Although the purchaser base is smaller in IPC's serce terrtory than in the NEEA region as a
whole (58 and 67 percent, respectively), IPC customers have statistically significantly higher
installation and storage rates than NEEA consumer as a group.
In-store displays and advertsements are relatively successful in informing IPC consumers about
CFLs and CF fixtures.
. Thirt-nine percent of IPC consumers cited noticing CFLs in stores or noticing in-store displays
or advertising as their source of first awareness of CFLs, compared with only 27 percent of
consumers in NEEA's servce area, a statistically significant difference.
. Approximately 37 percent ofIPC consumers indicated that they first became aware ofCF fixtures
when they noticed them in stores or noticed an in-store display or advertisement.
The average number of CFLs in storage among IPC customers may pose a challenge to increasing
CFL saturation within IPC households.
. IPC households have approximately 7.4 bulbs installed, on average. Assuming that Nortwest
households have approximately 40 sockets per home 13 , only 19 percent of sockets currently have
CFLs installed - even though CFL purchasers in IPC's service area are storing an average of 4.6
CFLs per household. IPC CFL purchasers are storing 2 additional bulbs per household (on
average) in comparison with CFL purchasers in the broader NEEA serice area (4.6 and 2.6
bulbs, respectively; a statistically significant difference).
. More than half (5 1%) of IPC CFL Puchasers who are unlikely to purchase CFLs within the next
year indicated that they are unlikely because they are storing CFLs. This proportion is similarly
high region-wide.
Increasing CFL purchases from 2006 levels may depend on CFL promotions and prices in 2007.
. Thee-fourts ofIPC customers say they wil buy CFLs next year (75%). The actual purchase rate
in 2007 wil depend on what happens to CFL prices after promotions end and whether CFL
awareness continues to increase. There is evidence from the 2005 and 2006 NEEA surveys that
when CFLs are sold at low promotional prices, consumers wil buy them even when they have
concerns about them and are not all that motivated by their energy savings potentiaL. This effect
likely contributed to favorable purchase intentions for 2007 within IPC's service terrtory.
13 A 2005 study found that California households have, on average, 41 sockets in which CFLs could be installed
(RL W Analytics, 2005. "2005 California Statewide Residential Lighting And Appliance Effciency Saturation
Study." Prepared for California's Investor Owned Utilities (San Diego Gas and Electric, Southern California Gas
Company, Southern California Edison, and Pacific Gas and Electric). Published August 23,2005.).
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
18 February 23, 2007
· More than one-quarter of consumers who are aware non-purchasers who are unlikely to purchase
CFLs within the next year cite high CFL prices as a reason.
Approximately thirteen percent of the population in IPC's service territory may not buy CFLs next
year (or ever), regardless of price.
. Most of this segment is comprised of non-purchasers, who - even once made aware of and
informed about the current market for CFLs - are not interested in buying them. Purchasing
barrers for this group include:
· Happy with/accustomed to what I have now (36%);
· Have a lot of bulbs on hand/don't need any (9%);
· They are too costly (at $2 or less each - 9%); and
· Need more information (9%).
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
19 February 23, 2007
A. Appendix A
Consumer Lighting Survey Instrument
KEMAt
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
A-I February 15, 2007
Hello, my name is callng on behalf of the Northwest Energy Efficiency Allance. We're
conducting a study among households on home lighting preferences.
so. May I please speak to the person who does most of the shopping for your household?
¡CONTINUE OR ARRANGE FOR CALLBACK)
IF NECESSARY: I want to assure you that this is NOT a sales call and that the information that you
provide will be kept strictly confidentiaL. This wil only take about 15 minutes of your time.
IF NECESSARY: The NORTHWEST ENERGY EFFICIENCY ALLIANCE is a non-profit organization,
which funds projects that encourage energy effciency in the Northwest. Its Board of Directors has
representatives from utilties, environmental groups, regulatory agencies, and energy-related private
businesses. For more information you can visit the website at ww.nwalliance.org.
¡NEEA MPER2 SURVEY QUESTION NUMBERS IN RED BRACKETS)
AWARENESS
A 1 Have you ever heard of compact fluorescent light bulbs or CFLs?
¡S11 1 Yes -+ GO TO PURCHASES, A3
2 No
8 (Don't Know)
9 (Refused)
A2 Compact fluorescent light bulbs, or CFLs, are small fluorescent bulbs that fit in regular
¡S21 light bulb sockets. CFLs look different than standard bulbs. They are otten made out of thin tubes
of glass bent into loops.
Have you ever heard of them?
1 Yes
2 No
8 (Don't Know)
9 (Refused)
-+GO TO CFL DESCRIPTION, FO
-+THANK & TERMINATE INTERVIEW
-+THANK & TERMINATE INTERVIEW
PURCHASES
A3 Have you ever purchased any CFLs?
1 Yes
2 No -+ GO TO EXPANDING CFL INSTALLATIONS, E1
8 (Don't Know) -+ GO TO EXPANDING CFL INSTALLATIONS, E1
9 (Refused) -+ GO TO COMPACT FLUORESCENT FIXTURES, XO
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
A-2 February 15, 2007
KEMA.
P1 On how many separate occasions have you purchased them?
(Q1) Enter # (PROBE FOR BEST ESTIMATE)
99 (Don't know)
P2 Now, thinking back over the past year, how many CFLs have you purchased? If a
(Q3) package contained more than one bulb, count each bulb separately.Enter # (PROBE FOR BEST ESTIMATE)
o (None)
99 (Don't know)
DISPOSITION
P3a Do you currently have any CFLs installed in your home?
(Q7a) 1 Yes2 No -+ GO TO P4a
8 (Don't know) -+ GO TO P4a
9 (Refused) -+ GO TO P4a
P3b How many CFLs are installed?
(Q7b) Enter # (PROBE FOR BEST ESTIMATE)
88 (Don't know)
99 (Refused)
P4a Are you storing any for use as spares or to be installed at a later date?
1 Yes2 No -+ GO TO P5a
8 (Don't know) -+ GO TO P5a
9 (Refused) -+ GO TO P5a
P4b How many CFLs are you storing?
(Qab) Enter # (PROBE FOR BEST ESTIMATE)
88 (Don't know)
99 (Refused)
P5a Have you had any CFLs that you installed but later removed and did not use elsewhere
in your home?
1 Yes2 No -+ GO TO P7
8 (Don't know) -+ GO TO P7
9 (Refused) -+ GO TO P7
P5b How many CFLs did you remove?
(Qeb) Enter # (PROBE FOR BEST ESTIMATE)
88 (Don't know)
99 (Refused)
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
A-3 February 15, 2007
P6b How did you dispose of the bulbs you removed? (DO NOT READ) (Accept multiples)
1 Threw them away/threw them in trash
2 Returned them to the utility
3 Returned them to the store
4 Took them to recycling center
77 Other (specify)
88 (Don't know)
99 (Refused)
P7 Can you recall how you first became aware of CFLs? _
iaG) (DO NOT READ) (Accept multiples)
1 Noticed them in store or saw in-store display/sale/point of purchase materials
2 Television
3 Internet
4 Newspaper
5 Magazines
6 Radio
7 Word of mouth (friends, family, neighbor, colleague)
8 Sales person
9 Consumer Reports
10 ENERGY STARiB Program website
11 Utility (bill insert or mailing) e.g., Northwestern Energy, Puget Sound, Snohomish County
Public Utility District, Portland General Electric (PGE), Pacificorp
12 Announcement by governor or other government official
13 Received CFL for free in the mail
14 Received CFL coupon in the mail
77 Other (specify)
88 (Don't know)
99 (Refused)
P8 When did you first become aware of CFLs? Would you say it was...
1 This fall (if needed: this past September, October, or November)
2 Within the last year
3 Less than two years ago
4 Less than five years ago
5 Less than 10 years ago, or
6 More than 10 years ago?
8 (Don't Know)
9 (Refused)
FIRST PURCHASE
P9 When was the first time you purchased them? Would you say it was...
ia2) 1 This fall (if needed: this past September, October, or November)
2 Within the last year
3 Less than two years ago
4 Less than five years ago
5 Less than 10 years ago, or
6 More than 10 years ago?
8 (Don't Know)
9 (Refused)
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
A-4 Febroary 15, 2007
KEMAi
MOST RECENT PURCHASE
M1 When was your most recent CFL purchase? Would you say it was...
1 This fall (if needed: this past September, October, or November)
2 Within the last year
3 Less than two years ago
4 Less than five years ago
5 Less than 10 years ago, or
6 More than 10 years ago?
8 (Don't Know)
9 (Refused)
M2 Thinking about your most recent CFL purchase, how many did you buy? If a
package contained more than one bulb, count each one separately.
Enter # (PROBE FOR BEST ESTIMATE)
o (None)
99 (Don't know)
M3
(Q8c_1J
a. How many of those CFLs did you install in your home?
Enter # installed in home (PROBE FOR BEST ESTIMATE)
o (None) -+ GO TO M3b
88 (Don't know)
99 (Refused)
a1. Did you install any of them in a home offce? (NOTE: If respondent says home office
is in a living room or bedroom and not a distinct room, do not code as home office.)1 Yes2 No
88 (Don't Know)
99 (Refused)
-+ GO TO M3b
-+ GO TO M3b
-+ GO TO M3b
a2. (If yes) How many? (IF NEEDED: How many of the CFLs from your most recent
purchase.)
Enter # installed in home offce (PROBE FOR BEST ESTIMATE)
(NOTE: M3a2 is a subset of M3a)
a3. Approximately how many hours per week would you say the CFL(s) in your home
offce is (are) switched on?
Enter # hours each switched on (PROBE FOR BEST ESTIMATE)
b. Stil thinking about your most recent purchase, did you install any of these CFLsin . a
business location (other than a home office)?
1 Yes2 No -+ GO TO M4
88 (Don't know) -+ GO TO M4
99 (Refused) -+ GO TO M4
c. How many? (IF NEEDED: How many did you install in a business location?)
Enter # installed in business (PROBE FOR BEST ESTIMATE)
88 (Don't know)
99 (Refused)
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
A-5 February 15, 2007
KENlAiJ
d. What type of business? Would you say...
1 Office, (Interviewer: confirm not a home office)
2 Grocery or convenience store,
3 Other type of retail store,
4 Restaurant or bar,
4 Health care,
5 Hotel or motel, or
6 Warehouse?
77 Other (specify)
88 (Don't know)
99 (Refused)
M4 Thinking about your most recent CFL purchase, how many of the CFLs you bought
(08c_2Jdid you store to install later?
Enter # stored (PROBE FOR BEST ESTIMATE)
88 (Don't know)
99 (Refused)
M5 (IF M3a + M3c + M4 ~ M2, ASK M5 - ELSE SKIP TO MO)
What did you do with the other CFLs you purchased most recently? (If necessary: "Of the (M2)
CFLs you purchased, you said you installed (M3a + M3c) and stored (M4). What did you do with
the other (M2 - M3a - M3c - M4)?") (DO NOT READ) (Accept multiples)
1 They burned out
2 Used them in a vacation home
3 Gave them away
4 Misplaced them
7 Other (specify)
8 (Don't know)
9 (Refused)
MO (IF M3a + M3c + M4 ;: M2, ASK MO - ELSE SKIP TO M6)
Of the (M2) CFLs you purchased, you said you installed (M3a + M3c) and stored (M4). Would you
like to revise one of these numbers? IF YES, recode responses to M2, M3a, M3b, and/or M4
appropriately.
M6 Where did you purchase CFLs most recently?
(041 (DO NOT READ) (Accept multiples)
1 Home center (Home Depot, Lowe's, D & B Supply, Lumbermen's)
2 Discount or mass merchandise store (Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Target, Fred Meyer, M.H. King,
Shopko, Swains)
3 Buying clubs (Costco or Sam's Club)
4 Hardware stores (ACE, TrueValue, Do it Best, Do it Center) (PROBE FOR STORE
NAME: IF HOME CENTER OR LISTED IN RESPONSE 1, RECODE AS RESPONSE 1)
5 Supermarket, food store (Albertson's, Winco Foods)
6 Drug store (Bartell, Bi-Mart, Hi-School Pharmacy, Longs, Osco Drug, Rite Aid,
Walgreens)
7 Lighting supply store, lighting showroom
8 Mail Order Catalog
9 Over the Internet
10 Home Energy Show
77 Other (specify)
88 (Don't know)
99 (Refused)
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
A-6 February 15, 2007
KfMA*
M7 Was there a special promotion or sale on CFLs at the store when you bought them most
(Q5b) recently?
1 Yes
2 No
8 (Don't know)
9 (Refused)
M8 Thinking about your most recent purchase, did you buy CFLs packaged individually, in multi-
packs, or both?
1 Bought individually packaged CFLs only2 Bought CFL multi-packs only + GO TO M9b
3 Bought both8 (Don't know) + GO TO M9a9 (Refused) + GO TO M9a
M9a IF M8 = 3 READ:
¡Q20j For the CFLs packaged individuatly, much did you pay PER BULB during your most recent
purchase?
ELSE IF M8 = 1, 8, or 9 READ:
How much did you pay PER BULB for your CFLs during your most recent purchase?
IF M7 = 1, 8, or 9, READ: Please tell me the promotion or sale price that you paid PER BULB.
And if you used a rebate or coupon, tell me the price of the bulb after the rebate or coupon.
ENTER $ XX (dollars)
88 (Don't know)
99 (Refused)
M9b IF M8 '# 2 or 3, SKIP TO S1. How many CFLs were in each of the multi-packs you purchased
most recently?
1 1 CFL (CLARIFY: I'm referring to the CFLs you purchased recently
that had more than one bulb per package)
2 2 CFLs
3 3 CFLs
4 4 CFLs
6 6 CFLs
7 Other (specify)
8 (Don't know)
9 (Refused)
M9c How much did you pay for each multi-pack?
IF M7 = 1, 8, or 9, READ: Please tell me the promotion or sale price that you paid per multi-pack.
And if you used a rebate or coupon, tell me the price of the multi-pack after the rebate or coupon.
IF NECESSARY: I'm referring to the price per package, not the price per CFL.
ENTER $ XX (dollars)
88 (Don't know)
99 (Refused)
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
A-7 February 15, 2007
SATISFACTION (MOST RECENT PURCHASE)
S1 Thinking about all of the CFLs you recently purchased, how satisfied are you with them?
fO î 11 Use a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means you are "not at all satisfied" and 10 means you are "very
satisfied".
Not at all
Satisfied
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Very
Satisfied
10
(Don't
know)
88
(Refused)
99
S2 (ROTATE. Ask 3 items from a - g per respondent.) Now, using a scale of 1 to 5,
f0121 where 1 means you are "not at all satisfied" and 5 means you are "very satisfied", how would you
rate the compact fluorescent bulbs you have recently purchased in terms of... .
a. The color of the light they provide?
b. The brightness of the light they provide?
c. The amount of time they take to light up?
d. The way they fit into light fixtures?
e. The way they look in light fixtures?
f. How long they last before burning out?
(FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD ITEM in rotation, add, "On that same scale, how satisfied are
you with..." before reading item.)
Not at all
satisfied
1 2 3 4
Very
Satisfied
5
(Don't
know)
8
(Refused)
9
S2b1 IF S2b oe 3 ASK: Are they too bright, or not bright enough?
1 Too bright
2 Not bright enough
8 (Don't Know)
1 (Refused)
S3 In general, what are the best features of CFLs?_
(M101 (DO NOT READ) (Accept multiples)
1 Lasts longer before burning out
2 Saves money / reduces electricity bil
3 Saves/conserves energy/electricity
4 Resource conservation benefits / better for environment / "green"
5 It works better/ is higher quality
77 Other (specify)
88 (Don't know)
99 (Refused)
IF P3a = 1 THEN CONTINUE
ELSE, SKIP TO E1
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
A-8 February J 5, 2007
CFL / CFL REPLACEMENT
S4 IF P3b = 1 THEN READ:
When the CFL now installed burns out, how likely are you to replace it with another CFL? Use a
scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means you are "not at all likely" and 5 means you are "very likely."
ELSE IF P3b ;: 1 THEN READ:
When the CFLs now installed burn out, how likely are you to replace them with other CFLs? Use
a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means you are "not at all likely" and 5 means you are "very likely."
5
(Don't
know)
8
(Refused)Not at all
likely1 2
Very Likely
3 4 9
S5 IF S4 -c 3 THEN ASK:
(F5b) Why do you say that?
(RECORD VERBATIM.)
88 (Don't know)
99 (Refused)
E1 When one of the incandescent bulbs you have installed now burns out, would you say you...
(READ LIST)1 Will definitely replace it with a CFL, ~ SKIP TO E3a
2 Will possibly replace it with a CFL, or
3 Will definitely not replace it with a CFL?
o DO NOT READ: No incandescent bulbs installed in home ~ SKIP TO F1
8 (Don't know)
9 (Refused)
E2 Does whether or not you would replace a burned-out incandescent with a CFL depend on...
(ROTATE A THROUGH E)
a. the room in which the bulb would be located?
b. how often you would use the bulb?
c. the price of CFLs?
d. whether you have incandescent bulbs in storage?
e. (SKIP IF M4 = 0, 88, or 99) whether you have CFLs in storage?
1 Yes
2 No
8 (Don't know)
9 (Refused)
f. Is there anything else that might affect your decision to replace a particular burned-out
incandescent bulb with a CFL?
(RECORD VERBATIM)
E3a What is the main factor preventing you from increasing the number of CFLs you currently have
installed in your home?_
(DO NOT READ) (Accept only one response.)
(Use E3b response list)
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
A-9 February J 5, 2007
E3b Anything else?
(DO NOT READ) (Accept multiples)
1 Waiting for incandescent bulbs to burn out
2 Storing incandescent bulbs
3 Operating hours -- don't use the other bulbs/lamps enough
4 CFLs are too expensive/cost too much
5 Need dimmable bulbs / can't get dimmable CFLs / can't use CFLs with dimmer switches
6 Need 3-way bulbs / can't get 3-way CFLs / can't use CFLs in my 3-way fixtures / when I
use regular CFLs in my 3-way fixtures they don't work
7 Don't like the way CFLs look in fixtures
8 Don't like the way CFLs fit in fixtures
9 CFLs aren't bright enough
10 CFL light color isn't what I wanUisn't right
11 CFLs take too long to light up
88 (Don't know)
99 (Refused)
AWARE RESPONDENTS ONLY
F1 IF A2 = 2, SKIP TO FO. How likely are you to purchase any CFLs in the next year? Use
j a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means you are 'Not at all likely' and 5 means you are 'very likely'.
Not at all
likely1 2 5
(Don't
know)
8
(Refused)Very Likely
3 4 9
F2a IF F1 ;: 3, SKIP TO FO. Why are you unlikely to purchase CFLs in the next year?_
(F2ajlf answer = "i am storing a bunch/bought a multi-pack so I don't need any more" SKIP TO FO.
F2b Are there any other reasons?
(VERBATIM. Record first mention.) (Accept multiples)
CFL DESCRIPTION - ALL RESPONDENTS
FO IF A2 = 2 (UNAWARE) READ:
I'm going to describe compact fluorescent bulbs or CFLs to you so I can ask you a few more
questions about whether or not you would consider buying them in the near future.
ELSE (AWARE) READ:
Before i ask the next question, I want to tell you a few things about CFLs that you may not be
aware of. (IF RESPONDENT INTERRUPTS DESCRIPTION TO SAY THEY ALREADY KNOW
THIS INFORMATION, SAY "We have to make sure everyone hears the same description -
please bear with me for just a moment.")
CFLs use two-thirds less energy than a standard bulb, and last up to 10 times as long. Some styles of
CFLs are available for $2 or less - and they are about the same size and color as a standard bulb and
can be installed in almost any fixture where you would put a standard bulb. They can be purchased at the
same places you purchase standard bulbs, including some drug and grocery stores. CFLs save about
$30 in electricity costs over the life of the bulb. By using less energy, CFLs also help the environment.
F3 IF A2 = 2 (UNAWARE), SKIP TO F4. Now that you've heard my description, would you say that...
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
A-10 February J 5, 2007
1 You are now more likely to purchase CFLs than before you heard thedescription, or ~ SKIP TO F5
2 You are not more likely to purchase CFLs than before you heard the
description? ~ SKIP TO XO8 (Don't know) ~ SKIP TO XO9 (Refused) ~ SKIP TO XO
F4 Now that you've heard my description, please tell me how likely you'd be to purchase
(UF1J CFLs in the next year. Please use the same 1 to 5 scale as before, where 1 means you are 'Not
at all likely' and 5 means you are 'very likely'.
1 Not at all likely
2 2
3 3 ~ SKIP TO XO
4 4 ~ SKIP TO XO5 Very Likely ~ SKIP TO XO8 (Don't Know) ~ SKIP TO XO9 (Refused) ~ SKIP TO XO
F4a Why do you say that? _ (RECORD VERBATIM)
88 (Don't know)
99 (Refused)
~ SKIP TO XO
F5 What changed your mind to make you say you're now likely to buy a CFL in the next
bj year? Prompt, if needed: What new information did I tell you about CFLs that changed your
mind? (RECORD VERBATIM. ACCEPT ONLY ONE RESPONSE.)
Anything else? (RECORD VERBATIM. ACCEPT MULTIPLES.)
AWARE RESPONDENTS ONLY
XO I'd now like to ask you a few questions about compact fluorescent fixtures.
X1 Most regular light fixtures use bulbs that screw in, but compact fluorescent fixtures use special
pin-based CFLs that plug in. Pin-based bulbs don't have a screw base like other light bulbs.
Compact fluorescent fixtures are also called Energy Star light fixtures. Have you heard of them?
1 Yes2 No ~ SKIP TO DO
8 (Don't know) ~ SKIP TO DO
9 (Refused) ~ SKIP TO DO
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
A- i i February J 5, 2007
X2 Can you recall how you first became aware of these fixtures? _
IF NECESSARY: compact fluorescent fixture or Energy Star fixture.
(DO NOT READ) (Accept multiples)
3 Noticed them in store or saw in-store display/sale/point of purchase materials
4 Television
5 Internet
6 Newspaper
7 Magazines
8 Radio
9 Word of mouth (friends, family, neighbor, colleague)
10 Sales person
11 Consumer Reports
12 ENERGY STAR(ß Program website
13 Utility (bil insert or mailing) e.g., Northwestern Energy, Puget Sound, Pacificorp,
Snohomish County Public Utility District, Portland General Electric (PGE)
14 Announcement by governor or other government official
15 Received CFL for free in the mail
16 Received CFL coupon in the mail
77 Other (specify)
88 (Don't know)
99 (Refused)
X3 Have you ever purchased one of these fixtures? IF NECESSARY: compact fluorescent fixture or
Energy Star fixture.
1 Yes2 No -+ SKIP TO DO
8 (Don't know) -+ SKIP TO DO
9 (Refused) -+ SKIP TO DO
X4 Thinking about your most recent compact fluorescent fixture purchase, why did you choose it
over a "regulat' fixture that uses screw-based bulbs?
(DO NOT READ) (Accept multiples)1 Reduce electricity bill
2 Save/conserve energy
3 Remodeling room(s) / remodeling the home
4 Extra cost for compact fluorescent fixture was minimal
5 Energy savings worth the extra up-front cost, acceptable payback
6 Cost savings worth the extra up-front cost, acceptable payback
7 It is the "right thing to do" (environmental/resource conservation benefits)
8 Product works better/is higher quality
9 Like to have new, high-tech products
10 Salesperson convinced me it was the best choice
11 To redeem a coupon
12 Friends/family suggested I purchase compact fluorescent fixtures
13 To try them out
14 It was on sale
77 Other (specify)
88 (Don't know)
99 (Refused)
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
A-12 February 15, 2007
KEJVA¡J
X5 In which room in your home did you install the fixture(s)?
(DO NOT READ) (Accept multiples)
1 Kitchen
2 Bathroom
3 Bedroom
4 Living Room
5 Dining Room
6 Basement
7 Hallway
8 Closet
9 Home office
10 Did not install fixtures at all
11 Did not install in home
(probe: where did you install the fixture(s)?)77 Other (specify)
88 (Don't know)
99 (Refused)
X6a Was there a special promotion or sale at the store when you bought it (them)?
1 Yes
2 No + SKIP TO X7
8 (Don't know) + SKIP TO X7
9 (Refused) + SKIP TO X7
X6b Was the promotion related to the fixture's energy saving benefits or was it a regular store sale?
1 Energy-related promotion
2 Store sale
8 (Don't know)
9 (Refused)
X7 How satisfied are you with the fixture(s)? Use a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means you are "not at
all satisfied" and 10 means you are "very satisfied".
Not at all
Satisfied
1 2 3 4 5 6 9
Very
Satisfied
10
(Don't
know)
88
(Refused)
7 8 99
DO Before we finish, I have just a few more questions about your household to make sure we're
getting a representative sample of residents.
D1 What type of home do you live in? (READ LIST)
1 Mobile home
2 Single-family (attached or detached)
3 Apartment
4 Condo
7 (Other)
8 (Don't know)
9 (Refused)
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
A-13 February 15, 2007
D2 Do you own your home or do you rent?
1 Own
2 Rent
8 (Don't know)
9 (Refused)
D3 Including yourself, how many people live in your home?
1 one
2 two
3 three
4 four
5 five6 six
7 seven or more
8 (Don't know)
9 (Refused)
D4 Which of the following best describes your educational background? (READ LIST)
1 Some high school
2 High school graduate
3 Trade or technical school
4 Some college
5 College graduate
6 Some graduate school
7 Graduate degree
8 (Don't know)
9 (Refused)
D5 IF D3 =1, READ:
"Which of the following best describes your age group?" (OMIT "5 and undet')
ELSE READ:
For each of the following age groups, how many people, including yourself, usually live in this
home?
(ONCE TOTAL PEOPLE IN D5 = D3, SKIP REMAINING AGE GROUPS AND GO TO D6.)
Number of People Usually Living In This Homeo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Over 7
6-18
35-54
and over
D6 Lastly, which of the following categories contains your annual household income from all sources
in 2005 before taxes? (READ LIST)
1 Less than $20,000 per year
2 $20,000 to $49,000
3 $50,000 to $74,000
4 $75,000 to $99,000
5 $100,000 or more
8 (Don't know)
9 (Refused)
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
A-14 Febrnary 15, 2007
KEMA~
WO Those are all the questions I have for you. Thank you very much for your time and opinions.
RECORD GENDER
1 Male
2 Female
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
A-I5 February 15, 2007
B. Appendix B
Sampling Details
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
B-1 February 232007
KEMAi
B.I Sampling
The base NEEA surveys were conducted by telephone with a random sample of households in Oregon,
Washington, Montana, and Idao in November 2006. The sample size was 500 and we oversampled non-
metropolitan areas based on their location West or East of the Cascades and metropolitan statistical area
(MSA)14 designation (inside or outside of an MSA). Because we were also concered with yielding
results we could analyze by state, we took into account state as well and developed sub-stratification to
ensure suffcient sample for Idaho and Montana. As a result, we have 3 primary strata plus sub-
stratification for 2 of the primary strata, yielding 5 total strata:
1) MSAs West of the Cascades
2) MSAs East of the Cascades
a) Washington (there are no Oregon MSAs East of the Cascades)
b) Idaho and Montana
3) Non-MSAs (both East and West of the Cascades)
a) Washington and Oregon
b) Idaho and Montana
Figure B-1 below is a map ilustrating the distribution of MSAs across the Northwest region. Counties
shown in yellow are MSAs east of the Cascades ("MSAE") and in blue, west of the Cascades ("MSA W").
Figure B-1
MSAs East and West of the Cascades in the Four-State NEEA Region
MSAEI/MSAW
14 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) are geographic entities defined by the U.S. Offce of Management and
Budget, each of which contains a core urban area of at least 50,000 residents. MSAs consist of one or more counties
and include the counties containing the core urban area as well as any adjacent counties that have a high degree of
social and economic integration (as measured by commuting to work) with the urban core. For the most up-to-date
lists ofMSAs and their component counties, see the US Census website at
http://www .census.gov/population/www /estImates/metrodef.html.
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
B-2 Febrnary 232007
Table B-1 shows the population distrbution within NEEA's servce area as well as the allocation of the
500 base NEEA surveys (number and percentage) by the 5 strata and sub-strata identified above.
Table B-1
Population Distribution and Sample Allocation by Strata
Base NEEA Surveys
Population Sample Allocation
fNEEA Service Areal fBase NEEA Survevsl
Strata and Sub-Strata N %n %
(1) MSA West 6,834,643 57%150 30%
(2) MSA East
(a) Washington 867,990 7%50 10%
(b) Idaho! Montana 779,648 6%100 20%
(3) Non-MSA
(a) Washington! Oregon 2,063,869 17%100 20%
(b) Idaho! Montana 1,532,850 13%100 20%
Total 12,079,000 100%500 100%
After the 500 base NEEA surveys were completed (according to the sample allocation shown in Table B-
1 above), we conducted 167 additional surveys in the Idaho Power Company's (IPC's) service terrtory.
Table B-2 shows the final distribution of the 667 surveys.
Table B-2
Consumer Lighting Survey Purchaser Completes,
Base NEEA Surveys Plus IPC Oversample (total n=667)
Completed Surveys
Strata and Sub-Strata n %
(1) MSA West 150 22%
2) MSA East
(a) Washington 50 7%
(b) Idaho! Montana 196 29%
(3) Non-MSA
(a) Washington! Oregon 100 15%
(b) Idaho! Montana 171 26%
Total 667 100%
B.2 Weighting
IPC Surveys. The total 246 IPC surveys included 79 from the base NEEA surveys and the 167
oversample surveys. Results for IPC are not weighted because the surveys were conducted with a simple
random sample of customers in IPC's serice terrtory with no oversampling for any subgroup within the
population.
NEEA Surveys. After the 500 base surveys were completed, we added the 167 IPC overample surveys
for a total of 667 surveys within NEEA's service area. Table B-2 shows the distrbution of completed
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
B-3 February 232007
surveys by the 5 sample strata and substrata. We then post-weighted the data so that Non-Metro
respondents, Idaho/Montaa respondents, and IPC respondents were not over-represented in the results
based on the distrbution of the population with NEEA's serce area as shown in Table B-1. The data
presented from the total 667 sureys thus accurately reflects the distrbution of the population.
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
B-4 February 232007
KEMAf§
C. Appendix C
Idaho Power Company Consumer Lighting Survey
Banner Tables
Idaho Power Company
Consumer Lighting Study
C-l Febniary 23, 2007