20141016Attach 1-1FinAnswer Supporting 1.pdf

The Power of Experience

Submitted To:

2006 FinAnswer® Express
Market Characterization and
Program Enhancements

Idaho Service Territory

Submitted By:

December 29, 2006
(Updated April 11, 2007)

Contents
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................................I
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 APPROACH TO WORK.............................................................................................................................. 1-2
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION.......................................................................................................................... 1-5
SECTION 2 MEASURE INFORMATION.................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 LIGHTING ................................................................................................................................................ 2-2
2.2 LIGHTING CONTROLS ............................................................................................................................ 2-12
2.3 LED CHANNEL LETTER SIGNS .............................................................................................................. 2-16
2.4 LED MESSAGE CENTER SIGNS.............................................................................................................. 2-19
2.5 UNITARY AC AND HP EQUIPMENT........................................................................................................ 2-22
2.6 EVAPORATIVE COOLERS........................................................................................................................ 2-26
2.7 WATER CHILLING EQUIPMENT (CHILLERS)........................................................................................... 2-29
2.8 PROGRAMMABLE THERMOSTATS .......................................................................................................... 2-37
2.9 OCCUPANCY BASED PTHP/PTAC CONTROLS ...................................................................................... 2-40
2.10 VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVES............................................................................................................ 2-43
2.11 ELECTRONICALLY COMMUTATED MOTORS........................................................................................... 2-47
2.12 PREMIUM EFFICIENCY MOTORS ............................................................................................................ 2-52
2.13 SOLID DOOR REFRIGERATORS AND FREEZERS ...................................................................................... 2-59
2.14 COOL ROOFS......................................................................................................................................... 2-66
2.15 PLUG LOAD OCCUPANCY SENSORS....................................................................................................... 2-70
2.16 TRANSFORMERS .................................................................................................................................... 2-74
SECTION 3 SAVINGS POTENTIAL ............................................................................................................ 3-1
SECTION 4 SUMMARY................................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................................................................4-1
4.2 QA/QC PROCEDURES.............................................................................................................................. 4-3
SECTION 5 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 5-1
APPENDIX A SUPPLEMENTAL LIGHTING COST SURVEY AND RESULTS
APPENDIX B LIGHTING MEASURE INFORMATION
APPENDIX C STANDARD FIXTURE WATTAGE TABLE
APPENDIX D MOTOR VENDOR SURVEY AND RESULTS
APPENDIX E PRESCRIPTIVE LIGHTING INCENTIVE TARIFF INFORMATION

2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements

Executive Summary
In June of 2006, PacifiCorp retained Nexant, Inc. (Nexant) to provide assistance with evaluating
the next phase of program improvements for the FinAnswer® Express and Energy FinAnswer®
energy efficiency programs. The objective of these improvements is to increase cost-effective
electric savings and continue to improve new construction participation levels. Consistency of
program delivery across the service territories, except where justified, is also a consideration to
simplify implementation and reduce administrative costs. PacifiCorp currently offers FinAnswer
Express in their Idaho, Utah and Washington service territories, while Energy FinAnswer is
currently available in Utah and Washington. PacifiCorp expects to file both programs in
California in 2007.
This report presents the results of the FinAnswer Express analysis conducted for the Idaho
service territory. Specifically, this effort reviewed seven (7) measures currently included in the
program to confirm their appropriateness and update as necessary current incentive levels, costs,
savings, and measure delivery mechanisms. In addition, Nexant reviewed nine (9) new measures
for possible inclusion in the program based on the criteria that they are market ready
technologies expected to result in cost effective, justifiable savings levels. Table ES-1
summarizes the evaluated energy efficiency measures.
Table ES-1. Evaluated Electric Energy Efficiency Measures
Current
Measure
Potential New
Measure Technology
Lighting 1
Lighting controls
LED channel letter signs
LED message center signs
Unitary air conditioners and heat pumps
Evaporative coolers
Water chilling packages
Programmable thermostats
Occupancy-based PTHP/PTAC controls
Variable frequency drives
Electronically commutated motors
Premium efficiency motors
Solid door refrigerators and freezers
Cool roofs
Plug load occupancy sensors
Transformers
1 Review of existing prescriptive lighting measures also included the review of several new
prescriptive categories including T5HO fixtures, ceramic metal halide fixtures, T8 lamp upgrades,
T8 high bay fixtures, and new pulse start metal halide fixture sizes
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements i
Executive Summary
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements ii
Table ES-2 summarizes the recommendations from this analysis. Minor changes in program
delivery methods and housekeeping issues are recommended for current technologies. For all
new technologies, opportunities to avoid complex and expensive custom analysis efforts were
identified and recommended.
Only high-efficiency transformers were not recommended for a prescriptive offering under the
FinAnswer Express program at this time, due primarily to upcoming code changes and limited
equipment information and costs for units exceeding the new minimum efficiency levels. For all
remaining new technologies, Nexant recommends that PacifiCorp evaluate the cost-effectiveness
of affected measures before incorporating the changes in the program.
Table ES-2. Delivery Method Recommendations 1
Reported Costs Reported Savings
Measure
Pre-
Purchase
Agreement
Required
Trade
Ally
Network Actual
Deemed
based on
project
Deemed
based on
measure
Simplified
Analysis
Deemed
based on
project
Deemed
based on
measure
Lighting 2 Lighting
Lighting controls 2 Lighting
LED channel letter signs 2 Lighting
LED message center signs Lighting
Unitary air conditioners and
heat pumps HVAC
Evaporative coolers HVAC
Water chilling packages HVAC
Programmable thermostats HVAC
Occupancy-based
PTHP/PTAC controls HVAC
Variable frequency drives HVAC &
Motor
Electronically commutated
motors HVAC &
Motor
Premium efficiency motors Motor
Solid door refrigerators and
freezers
Cool roofs
Plug load occupancy
sensors
Transformers
1 Deemed costs and savings based on project incorporate project specific variables (e.g. deemed energy and demand savings as a function of horsepower for premium efficiency motors), while deemed costs and savings based on measure are only a function of
the measure type (e.g. programmable thermostats)
2 Pre-purchase agreement only recommended on retrofit projects – not for new construction or major renovation
In addition to the delivery recommendations summarized in Table ES-2, the following
suggestions are included to help improve the overall program:
Executive Summary
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements iii
Incorporate prescriptive incentives for a variety of new lighting fixture upgrades
Clarify the distinction between retrofit, major renovation, and new construction measures
― Define retrofit as an elective project within existing square footage
― Define major renovation as either a change in facility use type or where existing
system will not meet owner/tenant projected requirements within existing square
footage
― Define new construction as a project within new square footage
Treat major renovation lighting projects the same as new construction
Create a separate incentive table for prescriptive new construction lighting upgrades
Update the estimated incremental lighting fixture costs for new construction measures
Allow trade allies and customers the opportunity to submit post-purchase applications for
new construction lighting upgrades
Increase the incentive cap for custom projects from 35% of eligible project cost to 50%
of project cost
Incorporate the design team honorarium from the Energy FinAnswer tariff in Utah
Modify the current motor incentive delivery mechanism to allow for customer post-
purchase applications
Update the deemed incremental measure cost for premium efficiency motors
Adjust the VFD incentive from $80/HP to $65/HP
Revise programmable thermostat eligibility requirements to reflect changes in the Energy
Star program
Update minimum efficiency requirements for HVAC equipment < 65,000 Btu/hr
Table ES-3 shows the savings and cost estimates from the original market characterization report
for Idaho for the current Lighting, HVAC, and motor measures. Table ES-4 includes an
adjustment to the original estimates made by removing customers on rate schedule 10 from the
eligible customer base.
Executive Summary
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements iv
Table ES-3. Original FinAnswer Express Measure Estimates 1
Year Incentives Net Customer
Incremental Cost
Net Annual
Energy Savings
(kWh)
Net Peak
Demand Savings
(kW)
Motors
Year 1 $1,632 $1,794 9,369 2
Year 2 $2,601 $2,829 14,762 3
HVAC
Year 1 $1,974 $2,785 1,134 3
Year 2 $4,066 $5,737 2,336 6
Lighting
Year 1 $ 28,314 $ 103,739 232,079 42
Year 2 $ 56,441 $ 206,796 462,631 84
Total
Year 1 $ 31,920 $ 108,318 242,582 47
Year 2 $ 63,108 $ 215,362 479,729 93
1 Savings are net savings at the meter while customer costs represent the net values inclusive of free-ridership
estimates.
Table ES-4. Schedule 10 Adjusted Original FinAnswer Express Measure Estimates 1
Year Incentives Net Customer
Incremental Cost
Net Annual
Energy Savings
(kWh)
Net Peak
Demand Savings
(kW)
Motors
Year 1 $1,086 $1,194 6,236 1
Year 2 $1,731 $1,883 9,826 2
HVAC
Year 1 $1,314 $1,854 755 2
Year 2 $2,706 $3,819 1,555 4
Lighting
Year 1 $18,847 $69,052 154,480 28
Year 2 $37,569 $137,651 307,943 56
Total
Year 1 $21,247 $72,100 161,471 31
Year 2 $42,007 $143,353 319,324 62
1 Savings are net savings at the meter while customer costs represent the net values inclusive of free-ridership
estimates.
Table ES-5 on the following page summarizes the estimated incremental costs and savings
associated with the current recommended changes and modifications to the FinAnswer Express
program. Incremental utility administrative costs presented in Table ES-5 have been estimated
assuming a rate of $0.06 per new kWh/yr of customer energy savings. Cost estimates do not
include initial design costs to incorporate these changes of approximately $2,500 and
incremental program evaluation (estimated at $5,000 /yr) or marketing expenses (estimated at
$1,500/yr). Estimated measure lifetimes for all measures identified in Table ES-5 are
Executive Summary
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements v
approximately 15 years, with the exception of the plug load occupancy sensors, which have an
estimated measure lifetime of 8 years (PG&E 2003).
Table ES-5. Estimated Incremental Costs and Savings from Recommended Program Modifications1
Measure/
Year
Administrative
Costs
($/yr)
Incentives
($/yr)
Total Utility
Costs 2
($/yr)
Net
Customer
Incremental
Costs 3
($/yr)
Net Annual
Energy
Savings
(kWh/yr) 4
Net Peak
Demand
Savings
(kW) 4
LED Channel Letter Signs
Year 1 $51 $68 $119 $441 851 0.2
Year 2 $82 $108 $190 $705 1,362 0.3
Year 3 $102 $135 $237 $881 1,703 0.4
Occupancy-Based PTAC/PTHP Controls
Year 1 $450 $875 $1,325 $4,800 7,499 1.6
Year 2 $720 $1,400 $2,120 $7,680 11,999 2.6
Year 3 $900 $1,750 $2,650 $9,600 14,999 3.3
ECMs
Year 1 $606 $563 $1,169 $1,087 10,106 1.2
Year 2 $970 $901 $1,871 $1,740 16,170 1.8
Year 3 $1,213 $1,126 $2,339 $2,174 20,212 2.3
Motors (Incremental from Enhanced Delivery Mechanism)
Year 1 $237 $1,301 $1,538 $7,269 3,952 1.0
Year 2 $237 $1,301 $1,538 $7,269 3,952 1.0
Year 3 $237 $1,301 $1,538 $7,269 3,952 1.0
Solid Door Refrigerators and Freezers
Year 1 $525 $608 $1,133 $1,192 8,754 1.0
Year 2 $840 $972 $1,812 $1,908 14,007 1.6
Year 3 $1,051 $1,215 $2,266 $2,385 17,509 2.0
Cool Roofs
Year 1 $157 $726 $883 $2,439 2,616 1.6
Year 2 $251 $1,161 $1,412 $3,902 4,186 2.6
Year 3 $314 $1,452 $1,766 $4,878 5,232 3.2
Plug Load Occupancy Sensors
Year 1 $119 $240 $359 $1,037 1,976 0.0
Year 2 $190 $384 $574 $1,659 3,161 0.0
Year 3 $237 $480 $717 $2,074 3,952 0.0
Total
Year 1 $2,145 $4,379 $6,525 $18,264 35755 6.6
Year 2 $3,290 $6,227 $9,517 $24,862 54837 10.0
Year 3 $4,053 $7,458 $11,512 $29,260 67558 12.2
1 Estimates are for a full year program period. 2 Utility costs include administration and incentives, but not design, marketing or evaluation costs. 3 Customer costs represent the net values inclusive of net-to-gross estimates, but do not include the impacts of available incentives. 4 Energy and demand savings reflect net impacts at the customer meter with an assumed net-to-gross ratio of 0.96 (DEER 2006).
Executive Summary
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements vi
Table ES-6 summarizes the total estimated costs and savings associated with the FinAnswer
Express program for a three-year period following the incorporation of the recommended
changes and modifications provided in this report.
Table ES-6. Estimated Total Costs and Savings for Modified FinAnswer Express Program1
Measure/
Year
Administrative
Costs
($/yr)
Incentives
($/yr)
Total Utility
Costs 2
($/yr)
Net
Customer
Incremental
Costs 3
($/yr)
Net Annual
Energy
Savings
(kWh/yr) 4
Net Peak
Demand
Savings
(kW) 4
Lighting Measures
Year 1 $17,691 $37,637 $55,328 $138,091 308,795 56.11
Year 2 $17,722 $37,677 $55,399 $138,356 309,306 56.22
Year 3 $17,742 $37,704 $55,446 $138,532 309,646 56.30
Non-Lighting Measures
Year 1 $23,055 $8,750 $31,805 $23,525 46,285 12.39
Year 2 $24,169 $10,557 $34,726 $29,859 64,856 15.63
Year 3 $24,912 $11,761 $36,673 $34,081 77,236 17.79
Total
Year 1 $40,746 $46,386 $87,133 $161,617 355,080 68.50
Year 2 $41,891 $48,234 $90,125 $168,214 374,161 71.86
Year 3 $42,654 $49,465 $92,120 $172,613 386,883 74.10
1 Estimates are for a full year program period.
2 Utility costs include administration and incentives, but not design, marketing or evaluation costs.
3 Customer costs represent the net values inclusive of net-to-gross estimates, but do not include the impacts of available incentives.
4 Energy and demand savings reflect net impacts at the customer meter with an assumed net-to-gross ratio of 0.96 (DEER 2006).

Section 1 Introduction
1.1 OVERVIEW
In June of 2006, PacifiCorp retained Nexant, Inc. (Nexant) to provide assistance with evaluating
the next phase of program improvements for the FinAnswer® Express and Energy FinAnswer®
energy efficiency programs. The objective of these improvements is to increase cost-effective
electric savings and continue to improve new construction participation levels. Consistency of
program delivery across the service territories, except where justified, is also a consideration to
simplify implementation and reduce administrative costs. PacifiCorp currently offers FinAnswer
Express in their Idaho, Utah and Washington service territories, while Energy FinAnswer is
currently available in Utah and Washington. PacifiCorp expects to file both programs in
California in 2007.
FinAnswer Express is a streamlined version of PacifiCorp’s Energy FinAnswer program,
providing prescriptive cash incentives for common energy efficiency measures currently
including lighting, premium efficiency motors, and high-efficiency HVAC equipment.
FinAnswer Express targets straightforward equipment upgrade projects or projects when
customers do not need the additional technical services provided under the Energy FinAnswer
program. Customers receive incentives directly using a post-purchase delivery model, although
in certain cases where additional information regarding baseline equipment is necessary, a pre-
purchase agreement is required. Reported costs and savings vary between actual, deemed based
on project specific variables (e.g. deemed energy and demand savings as a function of
horsepower for premium efficiency motors), or deemed simply on the measure type. Table 1-1
summarizes the current FinAnswer Express program.
Table 1-1. Existing FinAnswer Express Measure Summary
Reported Costs Reported Savings Pre-
Purchase
Agreement
Required
Trade
Ally
Network
Measure Deemed
based on
project
Deemed
based on
measure
Deemed
based on
project
Deemed
based on
measure
Simplified
Analysis Actual
Lighting Lighting
Lighting controls Lighting
Unitary air conditioners and
heat pumps HVAC
Evaporative coolers HVAC
Programmable thermostats HVAC
VFDs HVAC/
Motor
Motors Motor
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 1-1
Introduction Section 1
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 1-2
This report presents the results of the FinAnswer Express analysis conducted for the Idaho
service territory. Specifically, this effort reviewed the seven (7) existing measures included in
the program shown in Table 1-1 to confirm the appropriateness and update as necessary current
incentive levels, costs, savings, and measure delivery mechanisms. In addition, Nexant reviewed
nine (9) new measures for possible inclusion into the prescriptive delivery component of the
program based on the criteria that they are market ready technologies expected to result in cost
effective, justifiable savings levels.
1.2 APPROACH TO WORK
Analysis activities utilized a systematic approach to evaluate each identified energy efficiency
measure. The approach focused on using existing data resources with limited primary data
collection efforts. Figure 1-1 on page 1-3 outlines the general methodology. A brief description
of each key activity follows:
Measure/Technology Review. Initial analysis efforts for each measure consisted of a
review of existing data sources to compile cost and savings data. Each measure
investigated made use of a core set of resources, listed below in Table 1-2. For certain
technologies, additional resources provided supplemental measure information. These
resources are noted in the individual measure write-ups provided in Section 2 of this
report. Section 5 provides a complete list of all resources.
Table 1-2. Key Informational Resources
Core Resources Resource
Abbreviation
2003 Energy Efficiency and Conservation Measure Resource Assessment Ecotope 2003
2004 – 2005 Express Efficiency program filing PG&E 2003
2006 Energy Efficiency and Conservation Measure Resource Assessment Stellar Processes 2006
2007-2009 Triennial Plan MN Natural Gas and Electric CIP Xcel Energy 2006
Assessment of Technical and Achievable Demand Side Resource Potentials Quantec 2005
California Database of Energy Efficiency Resources DEER
Colorado DSM Market Potential Assessment KEMA 2006
Consortium for Energy Efficiency CEE
Energy Star Energy Star
Regional Technical Forum RTF
The Fifth Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Plan NPCC 2005
Utility DSM Program Review. Nexant conducted a review of existing energy efficiency
programs to identify prescriptive incentive programs that covered measures investigated
as part of this work. These efforts focused on program offerings from major utilities and
energy efficiency organizations with service territories close to PacifiCorp (summarized
in Table 1-3). Included in the analysis are additional prescriptive programs familiar to
Nexant or identified through other review activities. These resources are noted in the
individual measure write-ups provided in Section 2 of this report.
Section 1 Introduction
Prescriptive
candidate Establish baseline
Utility DSM
program review
Measure/technology
review
Code review
Vendor identification
and input
Set minimum efficiency
requirements
Determine deemed costs
and savings
Simplified
analysis
Define delivery
mechanism
Estimate three year program
savings and cost impacts
Done
Outline simplified
analysis approach
Done
Done
Identify measure/
technology
N
Y
N
Y
Identify suggested
incentive level
Figure 1-1. Overview of Analysis Approach
1-3 2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements
Introduction Section 1
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 1-4
Table 1-3. Energy Efficiency Programs Reviewed for Prescriptive Incentives
Entity Energy Efficiency Web Site
Avista www.avistautilities.com/saving/com_incentives.asp
ETO www.energytrust.org/business/index.html
Idaho Power www.idahopower.com/energycenter/energyefficiency/YourBusiness/default.htm
PG&E www.pge.com/biz/rebates/
PSE www.pse.com/solutions/ForBusiness_EfficiencyPrograms.aspx
Xcel Energy www.xcelenergy.com/XLWEB/CDA/0,3080,1-1-3_4530_8437-7323-2_366_583-0,00.html
Code Review. To assess the appropriateness of current baseline assumptions for existing
measures and to help establish baselines for potential new prescriptive measures, analysis
efforts included a review of applicable code requirements. Review efforts focused on
both state and federal codes. Review activities also included current code requirements
and planned future code updates where available. In Idaho, the 2003 International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC) is the current code for non-residential facilities. For
comparative purposes only, information on IECC 2006 is also presented in this report.
Vendor Identification and Input. Equipment manufacturers, distributors and dealers of
investigated measures were contacted informally to confirm measure cost and savings
data collected as part of the above activities. In some cases, vendors also provided input
on local activity and the expected market response to prescriptive incentives for high-
efficiency measures. Section 2 of this report lists three vendors for each technology in the
individual measure write-ups.
Identification of Candidate Prescriptive Measures. Nexant evaluated each of the nine
(9) new candidate technologies to identify those that met the established prescriptive
measure criteria. These measures were then more fully analyzed as described in the
remaining steps outlined below. For measures not recommended for prescriptive
incentives at this time, Nexant assessed whether a simplified analysis procedure was
available or could be readily prepared to help expedite the review activities associated
with processing the measure under the custom path in FinAnswer Express or Energy
FinAnswer.
Establish Baseline. Baseline efficiencies were established for new potential prescriptive
measures. Existing federal or state code requirements, or those planned and expected to
be in effect by early 2007, were typically used as the baseline value. For measures where
no code requirement existed, current industry practices identified during the evaluation
activities were used. For current FinAnswer Express measures, this step consisted of
reviewing the appropriateness of current baseline assumptions.
Set Minimum Efficiency Requirements. Recommended minimum efficiency levels for
potential new prescriptive measures were established based on findings from the
evaluation activities. In general, minimum efficiency requirements were set to match
current market levels established by others such as the Consortium for Energy Efficiency
(CEE) or Energy Star to leverage existing market awareness. For current FinAnswer
Section 1 Introduction
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 1-5
Express measures, this step consisted of reviewing the appropriateness of current
minimum efficiency requirements.
Determine Deemed Unit Cost and Savings. Estimated incremental cost and savings
values were then determined for new prescriptive measures based on the proposed
minimum efficiency requirements and associated baselines. For current FinAnswer
Express measures, this step consisted of reviewing the appropriateness of current deemed
costs and savings values.
Define Incentive Delivery Mechanism. For potential new prescriptive measures, a
recommended incentive delivery mechanism was identified. To maintain consistency and
help minimize program administrative costs, a post-purchase application and incentive
delivery process was the default approach. Specifically, the approach includes a flexible
post-purchase application process that allows customers to receive incentives directly,
but also allows for reassignment of incentives, providing vendors the opportunity to
credit eligible incentive amounts to their customers at the time of purchase and then
receive reimbursement from PacifiCorp. For current FinAnswer Express measures, this
step consisted of reviewing the appropriateness of the current incentive delivery
mechanism.
Identify Incentive Level. Proposed incentive levels for new prescriptive measures were
identified through an iterative process that considered the following factors:
― Estimated incremental customer costs
― Incentive levels offered by other utilities for similar measures
― Feedback from vendors
― The value of savings achieved by the measure
For current FinAnswer Express measures, this step consisted of reviewing the
appropriateness of current incentive values.
Estimate Program Level Impacts. For potential new prescriptive measures or when a
significant change in an existing prescriptive measure was recommended, estimates of
the incremental program savings and customer costs were prepared. Nexant estimated the
measure-level participation rates from a variety of sources, including referenced DSM
market potential studies, program participation estimates filed by other utilities for
similar measures, and realized values from existing programs.
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION
The balance of this report presents results from the analysis approach outlined above.
Specifically:
Section 2 contains a detailed summary of the measure level analysis results
Section 3 presents the estimated incremental savings and costs values associated with
changes recommended for current and new prescriptive measures in the program
Introduction Section 1
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 1-6
Section 4 summarizes the key recommendations from the analysis
Section 5 includes a listing of references used to complete this evaluation
Several appendices contain additional information and findings described in the main
body of the report

Section 2 Measure Information
As described in the Approach to Work overview in Section 1, analysis efforts focused on current
FinAnswer Express measures and ten potential new prescriptive energy efficiency technologies.
Table 2-1 summarizes the measures evaluated as part of this effort.
Table 2-1. Evaluated Electric Energy Efficiency Measures
Current
Measure
Potential New
Measure
Report
Section Technology
Lighting 1 2.1
Lighting controls 2.2
LED channel letter signs 2.3
LED message center signs 2.4
Unitary air conditioners and heat pumps 2.5
Evaporative coolers 2.6
Water chilling packages 2.7
Programmable thermostats 2.8
Occupancy-based PTHP/PTAC controls 2.9
Variable frequency drives 2.10
Electronically commutated motors 2.11
Premium efficiency motors 2.12
Solid door refrigerators and freezers 2.13
Cool roofs 2.14
Plug load occupancy sensors 2.15
Transformers 2.16
1 Review of existing prescriptive lighting measures also included the review of several new prescriptive categories including T5HO fixtures, ceramic metal halide fixtures, T8 lamp upgrades, T8 high bay fixtures, and new pulse start
metal halide fixture sizes
The balance of this section presents detailed information on each of these measures.
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-1
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-2
2.1 LIGHTING
Measure Description
Prescriptive lighting incentives are a mature component of PacifiCorp’s FinAnswer Express
program. Schedule 115 includes prescriptive incentive levels for a wide variety of standard
lighting fixture upgrades. Retrofit incentives are not available to reduce a project’s simple
payback below one year. Incentives equal to $0.08/kWh times the estimated annual energy
savings or 35% of the incremental customer cost, whichever is less, are also available for custom
retrofit lighting fixture upgrades.
Prescriptive incentives are also available for a subset of eligible retrofit measures when installed
in new construction opportunities, subject to the requirement that the total lighting power density
(LPD) beats current code requirements by at least 10%. New construction incentives are not
subject to percentage of cost or simple payback caps.
Measure/Technology Review
High-efficiency lighting measures are the backbone of most utility energy efficiency efforts. A
wide array of information is available in the market. As expected, each of the core resources
used as part of this evaluation contained at least some information on lighting measures, as is
summarized in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2. Available Lighting Measure Information Resources
Measure
Information
Available
Resource Notes
Yes Ecotope 2003 Lighting savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study
Yes PG&E 2003 Savings and costs for common lighting retrofits
Yes Stellar Processes 2006 Lighting savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study
Yes Xcel Energy 2006 Program level savings and cost estimates for high-efficiency lighting
Yes Quantec, 2005 Lighting savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study
Yes DEER Savings and costs for common lighting retrofits
Yes KEMA 2006 Lighting savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study
Yes CEE High-Performance Commercial Lighting Systems Initiative, also includes a
high-level summary of 42 utility high-efficiency commercial lighting programs
Yes Energy Star Provides labeling for qualifying CFL, traffic and exit signs
Yes RTF Savings and costs for common lighting retrofits
Yes NPCC 2005 Savings and costs for common lighting retrofits
Utility DSM Program Review
Energy and demand savings from high-efficiency lighting measures continue to play a dominant
role in the delivery of non-residential DSM savings for utilities across the nation. Prescriptive
lighting incentives are currently available from each of the six primary utilities reviewed,
although in the case of Idaho Power, they are only available for new construction. Table 2-3
summarizes these programs.
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-3
Table 2-3. Prescriptive Lighting Utility DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive
Incentive
Available
Utility Notes Reference
Yes Avista See Table B - 3 for prescriptive incentive levels Avista, 2006
Yes ETO See Table B - 3 for prescriptive incentive levels ETO, 2006
Yes PSE See Table B - 3 for prescriptive incentive levels PSE, 2006
Yes Idaho Power
Incentives only available for new construction projects where
LPD is reduced below 2003 IECC by 10% or more at $0.05 to
$0.12/sqft
Idaho Power, 2006
Yes Xcel Energy See Table B - 3 for prescriptive incentive levels Xcel Energy, 2006
Yes PG&E See Table B - 3 for prescriptive incentive levels PG&E, 2006
Yes BPA See Table B - 3 for prescriptive incentive levels BPA, 2006
Code Review
IECC 2003 specifies maximum lighting power densities by building or area type. These
requirements apply to all new construction projects and alterations of existing spaces when 50%
or more of the lighting fixtures are replaced. For illustrative purposes, Table 505.5.2 of IECC
2006 provides updated maximum lighting power densities by building area type. Table 2-4
compares these two LPD standards, although no changes in current values are recommended at
this time.
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-4
Table 2-4. IECC 2003 and IECC 2006 Maximum Allowable Lighting
Power Densities (W/sqft)
Business Type IECC 2003 1 IECC 2006 2 % Change
Automotive Facility 1.5 0.9 40%
Convention Center 1.4 1.2 14%
Courthouse 1.4 1.2 14%
Dining: Bar Lounge / Leisure 1.5 1.3 13%
Dining: Cafeteria / Fast Food 1.8 1.4 22%
Dining: Family 1.9 1.6 16%
Dormitory 1.5 1.0 33%
Exercise Center 1.4 1.0 29%
Gymnasium 1.7 1.1 35%
Hospital / Healthcare 1.6 1.2 25%
Hotel 1.7 1.0 41%
Library 1.5 1.3 13%
Manufacturing Facility 2.2 1.3 41%
Motel 2.0 1.0 50%
Motion Picture Theater 1.6 1.2 25%
Multi-Family 1.0 0.7 30%
Museum 1.6 1.1 31%
Office 1.3 1.0 23%
Parking Garage 0.3 0.3 0%
Penitentiary 1.2 1.0 17%
Performing Arts Theater 1.5 1.6 -7%
Police/Fire Station 1.3 1.0 23%
Post Office 1.6 1.1 31%
Religious Building 2.2 1.3 41%
Retail 1.9 1.5 21%
School / University 1.5 1.2 20%
Sports Arena 1.5 1.1 27%
Town Hall 1.4 1.1 21%
Transportation 1.2 1.0 17%
Warehouse 1.2 0.8 33%
Workshop 1.7 1.4 18%
1 IECC 2003 LPDs listed in Table 805.5.2 are higher than those listed here, but section 801.2
allows for compliance with LPDs in ASHRAE 90.1-2001, which are the values listed.
2 IECC 2006 LPDs are expected to become effective in January of 2007.
As can be seen from Table 2-4, maximum allowable LPD values decrease for a majority of
business types. The average percentage decrease across all business types is 24%. The average
percentage decrease for office, warehouse, and retail (three common building types in the current
program) is 26%.
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-5
Measure Vendors
PacifiCorp’s FinAnswer Express program is currently supported by approximately 6 lighting
equipment contractors and distributors through the Lighting Energy Efficiency Alliance. A
current listing, including complete contact information, of these allies is available through the
program’s web site.
A small subset of the most active allies in PacifiCorp’s service territory was contacted as part of
this effort to help update measure cost information. Specifically, four allies were contacted, and
three responded with costing information. Details on cost data received through this process are
presented below under the Unit Measure Cost and Savings heading for lighting measures.
Additional information including the survey instrument and specific vendor responses is
provided in Appendix A.
Prescriptive Recommendation
Lighting is currently a prescriptive measure under the FinAnswer Express program. Table 2-5
lists new prescriptive lighting measures recommended for retrofit projects. Table E-1 in
Appendix E contains a comprehensive incentive table incorporating other minor adjustments in
incentive categories. Nexant also recommends that the 35% of EEM cost cap on all custom
projects submitted under FinAnswer Express be increased to 50% to encourage more
comprehensive projects.
Table 2-5. Recommended Additional Retrofit Prescriptive Lighting Measures
Category Replace With Retrofit
Incentive
T8 Fluorescent
Lamp Upgrade1 32W 4’ T8 lamp < 30W 4’ T8 lamp $0.50
Fluorescent Fixture
Upgrade to
Standard T8
Fixtures [Standard
T8 lamps and
electronic ballasts
with ballast factor
(BF) <0.88]

8' - 1 or 2 T12 lamp(s) + MB(s) 4' – 2, 3 or 4 T8 lamps + EB $10
≥250 W MH, MV or HPS 3 T5HO lamps (nominal 4’) + EB (high bay) $70
4’ 4 T12 lamps + MB(s) 2 T5 lamps (nominal 4’) + EB (interior) $30
T5 Fluorescent
Fixture Upgrade
4’ 4 T12 lamps + MB(s) 2 T5 HO lamps (nominal 4’) + EB (interior) $20
incand. or tungsten ≤100 W Ceramic Metal Halide $25
≥400W MH, MV or HPS ≤320 W Ceramic Metal Halide $100
≥750W MH, MV, or HPS <400 W Ceramic Metal Halide $120
≥1000W MH, MV or HPS <750W Pulse Start Metal Halide $100
High Intensity
Discharges (HID)
Upgrades
>750 W MH, MV or HPS 4’- 8 lamp T8 + EB(s) (High Bay) $100
1 Incentives for this measure may not be combined with other fluorescent fixture incentives. Incentives for this measure will only be
paid once per facility.
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-6
Measure Baseline
Based upon work completed for other utilities since the mid 1990’s, Nexant prepared a
comprehensive listing of standard fixture wattages for over 1,050 different fixtures (the Standard
Fixture Wattage Table) for PacifiCorp as part of this effort. This resource includes several key
parameters for most fixtures, including:
Unique fixture code
Lamp designation
Fixture description
Ballast information
Lamps/fixture
Watts/lamp
Watts/fixture (subject to federal EPAct standards)
Watts/fixture (actual)
Source
Date added/updated
Notes
Nexant updated the table to include all lighting fixtures currently covered under the prescriptive
incentive path of the FinAnswer Express. Appendix C contains a copy of the fixture code legend.
Due to its size, the actual table is provided in electronic format rather than hardcopy.
For new construction lighting projects, Nexant recommends that the baseline for new
construction and major renovation projects be adjusted to the updated LPD values shown in
Table 2-4. Existing tariff language will accommodate this update without a formal tariff revision
when it occurs. An analysis of recent new construction projects submitted by members of the
Lighting Energy Efficiency Alliance suggests that projects should continue to be able to meet the
10% better than code requirement even with the lower LPD allowances.
Minimum Efficiency Requirements
Other than the new fixtures identified in Table 2-5, no changes in the minimum efficiency
requirements are suggested at this time. Input wattages for all qualifying fixtures are included in
the Standard Fixture Wattage Table.
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
Savings estimates for prescriptive measures may be updated slightly based on fixture wattages
provided in the Standard Fixture Wattage Table. In general, where differences between current
deemed fixture wattages were identified, they were minor.
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-7
To improve the process for the calculation of demand reduction potential for lighting projects for
estimating project paybacks and incentives versus realized customer peak demand savings,
coincident peak demand factors relating the name plate demand reduction of installed lighting
measures to their estimated contribution toward customer billed demand costs have been
established. These results were based on an Xcel Energy study of lighting system operating
hours for several facility types (Barakat & Chamberlin 1994). Table 2-6 summarizes these
values.
Table 2-6. Lighting Customer Coincident Peak Demand Factors
by Major Business Type
Building
Type Description
Peak
Hour
Start
Peak
Hour
Stop
Lighting Coincident
Demand
Factor
Notes
Office Office buildings 11 13 78%
Retail Retail facilities 16 18 94%
Warehouse Warehouse facilities 12 14 96%
Major Healthcare Hospitals and in-patient health clinics 12 14 84%
24 Hour Facilities
Any facility that operates
24 hours/day or has
high occupancy during
peak hours
10 16 94%
K-12 Schools Primary education
facilities 10 12 73% Weighted summer and
non-summer periods.
Colleges & Universities Secondary education
facilities. 13 15 71% Weighted summer and
non-summer periods.
Assembly
Conference facilities
and public gathering
spaces
12 14 89%
Hotel Lodging facilities 12 14 51%
To facilitate integration into PacifiCorp’s lighting tool, Table 2-7 provides a suggested mapping
of these coincident demand lighting factors to business type listings contained in IECC 2003.
Where a facility type encompasses more than one of the categories listed in Table 2-7, Nexant
recommends that the diversity factor be weighted by square footage.
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-8
Table 2-7. Lighting Customer Coincident Peak Demand Factors
by IECC 2003 Business Type
Business Type Lighting Coincident
Demand Factor
Automotive Facility 94%
Convention Center 89%
Courthouse 78%
Dining: Bar Lounge / Leisure 94%
Dining: Cafeteria / Fast Food 94%
Dining: Family 94%
Dormitory 51%
Exercise Center 94%
Gymnasium 89%
Hospital / Healthcare 84%
Hotel 51%
Library 89%
Manufacturing Facility 96%
Motel 51%
Motion Picture Theater 78%
Multi-Family 78%
Museum 89%
Office 78%
Parking Garage 96%
Penitentiary 94%
Performing Arts Theater 78%
Police/Fire Station 94%
Post Office 94%
Religious Building 89%
Retail 94%
School / University 71%
Sports Arena 89%
Town Hall 78%
Transportation 78%
Warehouse 96%
Workshop 94%
Other 78%
Lighting measure review efforts also sought to identify a consistent, single source of information
on lighting measure costs. While most of the sources listed in Table 2-2 and elsewhere did
contain cost data on lighting measures, none proved to be the desired central resource. Reasons
for this included:
Most sources only covered a small subset of eligible prescriptive fixtures
Some data were more than three years old
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-9
Cost data were often provided in a $/sqft rather than a $/fixture metric
Costs for similar fixtures varied greatly from one source to another
Sources of cost information were not consistently documented, which raised concerns
about the robustness of the datasets used to develop the costs and the difficulty of
updating costs in the future
Detailed lighting cost data submitted to PacifiCorp by past program participants addressed these
limitations. Specifically, all completed lighting projects submitted by PacifiCorp’s Lighting
Trade Allies from October of 2005 through June of 2006 were compiled and analyzed. Table B -
1 in Appendix B contains a listing of every lighting fixture installed during this time, the number
of fixtures, and the corresponding average material, labor and total costs.
As current incentive caps and cost reporting metrics for retrofit lighting measures are based on
actual customer costs, cost information presented in Table B - 1 will be useful in helping to
identify, and adjust if necessary, unexpected retrofit measure costs submitted on future projects.
Another key aspect of the cost review efforts for lighting measures focused on the current
deemed incremental material costs for new construction prescriptive measures. Average material
costs for key retrofit measures presented in Table B - 1 were used as part of this process. Key
incremental material costs solicited from the most active members of the Lighting Energy
Efficiency Alliance augmented this information. Table 2-8 summarizes the results of this
feedback. Appendix A contains the individual responses from vendors who replied to the survey.
Table 2-8. Incremental Lighting Measure Material Costs from Vendor Surveys
Baseline Unit Proposed Unit
Average
Incremental
Cost
($/unit)
MH400 MHPS320 $29.00
1LF32T8Elec Prem 1T8 3100 lum<0.8 BF $5.00
2LF32T8Elec Prem 2 T8 3100 lum<0.8 BF $6.00
3LF32T8Elec Prem 3 T8 3100 lum<0.8 BF $7.00
4LF32T8Elec Prem 4 T8 3100 lum<0.8 BF $8.00
Standard T8 Ballast (.88) Premium T8 Ballast (.8) $4.00
T8F32 Lamp T5HO Lamp $5.00
T8F32 Ballast T5H0 Ballast $20.00
T8F32 Fixture T5HO Fixture $44.00
Informal discussions were also held with key vendors to help establish the most common
baseline fixture for qualifying prescriptive measures in new construction projects. Based on
these responses and the cost data presented in Table B - 1 and Table 2-8, updated estimates of
incremental material cost for prescriptive new construction lighting measures were prepared.
Table B - 2 in Appendix B contains the details of this analysis.
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-10
Incentive Levels
Based on the updated estimates of incremental material costs for prescriptive new construction
measures as described above, revised measure incentive levels were also prepared. These
recommended values are presented in Table E - 2 in Appendix E.
A comprehensive review of current incentive levels for prescriptive retrofit lighting measures
was also completed. Current incentive levels were compared to incentives provided by other
prescriptive lighting incentive programs noted in Table 2-3. In addition, a variety of economic
metrics were reviewed. Table 2-9 lists the incentive parameters that were reviewed and the
criteria by which an incentive level was flagged for possible modification.
Table 2-9. Retrofit Lighting Incentive Review Parameters
Parameter Criteria for Potential
Reduction in Incentive
Criteria for Potential
Increase in Incentive
Utility incentive comparison Highest of reviewed values Lowest of reviewed values
Incentive/kWh-yr >$0.25 <$0.015
Incentive/kW >$900 <$200
Incentive % of customer cost >67% <20%
Simple payback with incentives >10 yrs <1 yr
Current incentive levels that met criteria for a potential increase in incentives were assigned a
value of 1 for each parameter. Correspondingly, current incentive levels that met criteria for a
potential decrease in incentives were assigned a value of -1. Any individual measure where the
absolute sum of the values was equal to or greater than three was individually reviewed. Table
2-10 lists the individual measures that were identified for further review.
Table 2-10. Retrofit Lighting Incentives Flagged for Review
Baseline Retrofit Fixture Screening
Total
Incandescent300W CFL30W/screw-in 3
2LF40T12Mag 2LF32T8Elec 3
As can be seen in Table 2-10, one screw-in CFL measure was flagged for potential incentive
increase. This was due to its very attractive cost per unit savings. However, given the trends in
the market to remove incentives for CFL upgrades, and discussions regarding the potential
sunset of incentives for CFLs in Idaho, increasing this incentive is not recommended.
Aa standard 2-lamp T8 upgrade was also flagged for potential incentive increase due to the low
percentage of customer cost covered by the incentive and long payback period. However, a
review of the current $5/fixture incentive level in comparison to other standard and premium T8
incentives does not lend much room for changes without affecting the optics of other incentive
categories.
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-11
Table B - 3 in Appendix B contains a complete summary of the retrofit incentives review data.
Based on conversations with PacifiCorp’s project managers and Lighting Trade Ally
Coordinator, a few minor adjustments to retrofit incentive levels are suggested. These changes
are reflected in Table E-1 in Appendix E.
Delivery Mechanism
The current prescriptive lighting incentive components of the FinAnswer Express program are
working well. The following minor modifications are suggested to help clarify outstanding
issues and simplify the process further:
Clarify the distinction between retrofit, major renovation, and new construction measures
― Define retrofit as an elective project within existing square footage
― Define major renovation as either a change in facility use type or where existing
system will not meet owner/tenant projected requirements within existing square
footage
― Define new construction as a project within new square footage
Treat major renovation projects the same as new construction
Create a new incentive table for new construction/major renovation projects
Allow new construction project documentation to be submitted after installation of
measures as a pre-installation inspection is not necessary for new construction projects
Allow customers to submit custom measures for new construction and major renovation
projects if they can adequately demonstrate the energy savings associated with the
affected measures versus a code compliant alternative design
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-12
2.2 LIGHTING CONTROLS
Measure Description
There are several varieties of automatic lighting controls, including wall or ceiling mounted
occupancy sensors (including bi-level controls), integral occupancy sensors (including bi-level
controls), photocells, and time clocks. Prescriptive incentives for these types of automatic
lighting control devices, where not required by code, are currently available under the
FinAnswer Express program. Cost, savings, and incentive levels were reviewed for lighting
control measures to confirm the appropriateness of current values.
Measure/Technology Review
Each of the primary resources provided data for lighting controls; however, only three of the
reports provided energy, demand, and cost savings. Additional costs and savings data was
obtained from NYSERDA’s deemed savings and cost database (Nexant, 2005). Wall and ceiling
occupancy sensors are the most common lighting controls, followed by photocells and time
clocks. Typical energy savings for these controls are 20% over lights not equipped with
occupancy sensors. The values from these studies for incremental costs and savings are given in
Table 2-11 below.
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-13
Table 2-11. Review of Measure Information
Measure
Information
Available
Resource Lighting Control Type
Energy
Savings1
(kWh/unit)
Demand
Savings1
(kW/unit)
Incremental
Cost 2
($/unit)
Yes Ecotope 2003
Yes PG&E 2003
Wall occupancy sensor
Ceiling occupancy sensor
Photocell
Time clock
266
789
106
474
0.111
0.381
0
0
$56.00
$141.00
$10.00
$100.00
Yes Stellar Processes 2006
Yes Xcel Energy 2006
Yes Quantec, 2005
Yes DEER Wall occupancy sensor, 3 Lamps 214 0.176 $77.28
Yes KEMA 2006 Occupancy sensor, 4 Lamps
Photocell (exterior)
195
1,812
0.091
0.579
$27.65
$108.00
Yes CEE
Yes Energy Star
Yes RTF
Yes NPCC 2005
Yes Nexant, 2005
HID occupancy sensor
Time clock
Integrated occupancy sensor
Occupancy sensor
Occupancy sensor (bi-level control)
333
126
353
152
51
0.192
0.073
0.055
0.087
0.029
$150.00
$10.50
$137.00
$35.00
$60.00
Yes CEC, 2005 Occupancy sensor (bi-level control
with dimmable ballast) 441 0.047 $127
1 Savings values reflect gross savings at the customer meter
2 Customer costs reflect gross incremental measure cost unless otherwise noted
Utility DSM Program Review
Prescriptive lighting control incentives are currently available from each of the six primary
utilities reviewed. Table 2-12 summarizes these programs.
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-14
Table 2-12. Prescriptive Lighting Control Measure Utility DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive
Incentive
Available
Utility Notes Reference
Yes Avista $20 for sensors controlling <200 watts, $40 for sensors
controlling > 200 watts Avista, 2006
Yes ETO $20 per wall mount sensor, $50 per ceiling mount sensor ETO, 2006
Yes Idaho Power $25/ wall or ceiling mounted sensors
Building must be <=5,000 sq ft; new construction only Idaho Power, 2006
Yes PG&E
$16.50 per wall box $20 per wall sensor controlling < 500 watts
$44 per wall sensor controlling < 500 watts
$20 per integrated high bay sensor
$25 per bi-level fixture
PG&E, 2006
Yes PSE
$30 for each Occupancy Sensor controlling 100-200 watts of
lighting
$60 for each Occupancy Sensor controlling over 200 watts of
lighting
$30 for each Timer Switch controlling 100-200 watts of lighting.
$60 for each Timer Switch controlling over 200 watts of lighting
PSE, 2006
Yes Xcel Energy $12 per wall mounted sensor or photocell
$36 per ceiling mounted sensor Xcel, 2006
Code Review
Section 805.2 of IECC 2003 specifies when light reduction and automatic controls are required
for new construction and affected retrofit projects. Lighting control information in IECC 2006 is
contained in section 505.2. There are no significant changes from IECC 2003 to IECC 2006 for
lighting control code requirements.
Measure Vendors
PacifiCorp’s FinAnswer Express program is currently supported by approximately 6 lighting
equipment contractors and distributors through the Lighting Energy Efficiency Alliance. A
current listing, including complete contact information, of these allies is available through the
program’s web site.
Prescriptive Recommendation
It is recommended that prescriptive incentives for lighting control measures not required by code
continued to be offered under the FinAnswer Express program.
Measure Baseline
See the Measure Baseline section under general lighting measures in Section 2.1 for a discussion
of updated lighting fixture wattages.
Minimum Efficiency Requirements
See the Minimum Efficiency Requirements section under general lighting measures in Section
2.2.
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-15
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
Based on a review of lighting project costs submitted under the FinAnswer Express program
through the Lighting Energy Efficiency Alliance from October 2005 through June 2006 and the
cost information summarized above in Table 2-11, the estimated gross incremental customer cost
for qualifying lighting control measures has increased from $50/unit to $58/unit.
Incentive Levels
No changes in current retrofit lighting control measure incentive levels are recommended at this
time.
Delivery Mechanism
If PacifiCorp’s current lighting project inspection process does not currently include a step to
confirm that controls are not required by code, Nexant recommends incorporating this change.
For projects not identified for inspection, PacifiCorp’s project managers and Trade Ally
Coordinator should complete due-diligence review activities to identify ineligible projects. No
other specific changes in the current prescriptive incentive delivery mechanism, aside from the
overall lighting recommendations provided in Section 2.1, are recommended for lighting control
measures.
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-16
2.3 LED CHANNEL LETTER SIGNS
Measure Description
Channel letter signs most commonly illuminate signs used to display store names. Their
construction typically consists of sheet metal sides with a colored plastic lens backlit by a single
or double strip of neon lamps. LED channel letter signs use LEDs in lieu of the neon lamps or
other light sources to illuminate the sign. A variety of LED colors are available, but red is the
cheapest and currently dominates the market.
Measure/Technology Review
Of the primary set of data resources reviewed as part of this effort, only PG&E’s 2004-2005
Express Efficiency work papers contained information on LED channel letter signs. Table 2-13
summarizes this information
Table 2-13. LED Channel Letter Savings and Cost Information (PG&E, 2003)
Location Size
Annual Energy
Savings1
(kWh-yr/ln ft)
Demand
Savings1
(kW/ln ft)
Retrofit
Cost
($/ln ft)
Replacement/
New Construction
Cost
($/ln ft)
Indoor < 2 Feet high 43.8 0.010 $18 $12
Indoor > 2 Feet high 87.6 0.020 $33 $24
Outdoor < 2 Feet high 21.9 0.005 $18 $12
Outdoor > 2 Feet high 43.8 0.010 $33 $24
1 Savings are gross savings at the meter.
Utility DSM Program Review
Table 2-14 contains current prescriptive incentive offers from various utility companies.
Table 2-14. LED Channel Letter Signs Prescriptive Utility DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive
Incentive
Available
Utility Notes Reference
No Avista Avista, 2006
No ETO ETO, 2006
No Idaho Power Idaho Power, 2006
Yes PG&E
Indoor < 2 feet high; $4/linear foot
Indoor > 2 feet high; $6/linear foot
Outdoor < 2 feet high; $2/linear foot
Outdoor > 2 feet high; $3/linear foot
PG&E, 2006
No PSE PSE, 2006
No Xcel Energy Xcel Energy, 2006
Yes BC Hydro Neon baseline; $6/linear foot
Fluorescent baseline; $10/linear foot BC Hydro, 2006
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-17
Code Review
There are currently no federal or Idaho state code requirements for LED channel letter signs.
Maximum interior and exterior lighting power allowances indirectly address sign wattage
requirements in IECC 2003 and IECC 2006. In California, Title 24 identifies maximum wattages
for interior and exterior signs, but signs illuminated by either neon and LED light sources are
exempt from the requirements.
Measure Vendors
Table 2-15 contains contact information for three equipment manufacturers or vendors that sell
LED channel letter signs in Idaho.
Table 2-15. LED Channel Letter Signs Vendors
Vendor/Manufacturer Phone Number
Visigraph Corp. [phone]
Multi Media Inc. [phone]
Trans Lux [phone]
Prescriptive Recommendation
Based on the availability of prescriptive incentives from other utilities and appropriate deemed
cost and savings values, it is recommended that LED channel letter signs be considered for
inclusion within the prescriptive delivery component of the FinAnswer Express program.
Recommended changes to Table 1 of the Schedule 115 are shown below in Table 2-16.
Additional information on appropriate baseline, minimum efficiency, costs, savings, and
incentives for each size and application are provided below.
Table 2-16. Recommended LED Channel Letter Sign Measures 1
Category Replace With Retrofit
Incentive
New
Construction
Incentive
LED Lighting Indoor incandescent, neon, or
fluorescent signage
LED channel letter signage < 2ft
high $4/linear foot $4/linear foot
LED channel letter signage > 2ft
high $6/linear foot $6/linear foot
Outdoor incandescent, neon, or
fluorescent signage
LED channel letter signage < 2ft
high $2/linear foot $2/linear foot
LED channel letter signage > 2ft
high $3/linear foot $3/linear foot
1 To determine the length of LED channel letter signs, measure the length of individual letter at the centerline and add the
individual values; do not measure the distance between letters.
Measure Baseline
Nexant has developed a comprehensive listing of standard fixture wattages for over 1,050
different fixtures (the Standard Fixture Wattage Table) as part of this effort. Appendix C
contains a copy of the fixture code legend. Due to its size, the actual table is provided in
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-18
electronic format rather than hardcopy. The table includes both neon and LED channel letter sign
fixture codes and wattages for incorporation into PacifiCorp’s lighting tool to be used as baseline
values.
Minimum Efficiency Requirements
LED channel letter fixtures must be installed in compliance with the requirements outlined in
Table 2-16. Current code requirements in Idaho and indications of possible future changes as
illustrated in California’s Title 24 requirements provide no reason to exclude this measure from
new construction projects at this time.
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
Estimated customer incremental costs are equal to those shown above in Table 2-13. Savings
estimates for retrofit or replacement LED channel letter fixture installations can be estimated
based on fixture wattages provided in the Standard Fixture Wattage Table in Appendix C.
Savings estimates for new construction LED channel letter fixture installations can be estimated
from the demand savings values shown in Table 2-13 times the estimated annual operational
hours for the affected project space entered in the existing lighting project tool.
Incentive Levels
Recommended incentive levels are the same as the current PG&E offering, and are shown in
Table 2-16.
Delivery Mechanism
LED channel letter sign incentives should be incorporated into the current prescriptive lighting
delivery mechanism outlined in Schedule 115 as outlined above. Table 2-17 includes a summary
of the key program delivery mechanism characteristics.
Table 2-17. LED Channel Letter Signs Delivery Mechanism
Parameter Recommendation
Formal Trade Ally Network Yes – existing lighting network
Pre-Purchase Agreement Retrofit – Yes
NC/MR – No
Application Process Use existing lighting project process
Incentive See Table 2-16
Reported Costs Actual
Reported Savings Deemed based on project
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-19
2.4 LED MESSAGE CENTER SIGNS
Measure Description
LED message center signs are one, two, and three color LED text signs that typically replace
incandescent signs in commercial and retail applications. There are two types of LED message
center signs: fixed and scrolling. Both types use LED lamps, which result in significant reduction
in demand and energy consumption over incandescent lamps. While not a high-volume measure,
PacifiCorp currently receives several projects incorporating LED message center signs per year.
As the current custom analysis approach to estimating savings is expensive and time consuming,
PacifiCorp requested these measure be reviewed and a prescriptive or streamlined process be
identified if possible.
Measure/Technology Review
Limited information is available regarding LED message center signs. None of the primary data
resources contained information about this measure. PacifiCorp provided information on
approximately a dozen projects that included this technology that were processed through the
custom measure approach. While there was wide variation on the level of savings, costs, and
customer paybacks, some general trends were identified. Specifically, one key characteristic was
the average percentage of installed lighting wattage illuminated when signs were operating. This
value was found to be approximately 20% on average.
Utility DSM Program Review
Only two utilities were found that offered prescriptive incentives for LED message center signs –
BC Hydro and Avista (BC Hydro 2006, Avista 2006). BC Hydro’s program pays $0.06/kWh
based on first year savings. Avista’s program pays $15 for an incandescent to LED retrofit for
Marquee or sign lighting fixtures. Application materials for Avista are unclear as to whether the
$15 incentive is per fixture, per lamp, or some other basis.
Code Review
Neither IECC 2003 nor IECC 2006 includes requirements for LED message center signs. There
are no current federal standards either.
Measure Vendors
Table 2-18 contains contact information for three equipment manufacturers or vendors that sell
LED message center signs in Idaho.
Table 2-18. LED Message Center Sign Vendors
Vendor/Manufacturer Phone Number
Visigraph Corp. [phone]
Multi Media Inc. [phone]
Trans Lux Sports [phone]
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-20
Prescriptive Recommendation
Based on the wide variety of savings and incentives from projects previously evaluated by
PacifiCorp, Nexant recommends PacifiCorp establish a prescriptive incentive path for LED
message center signs in retrofit situations. New instances of signs would not be eligible for
incentives. Customer participation would require a pre-approval process to allow PacifiCorp the
opportunity to verify baseline conditions.
Measure Baseline
For eligible retrofit applications, customers/vendors would identify the baseline equipment in the
measure application.
Minimum Efficiency Requirements
Any message center sign utilizing LED light sources installed in a replacement situation would
be eligible.
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
The customer would report project costs as part of the application process. To account for the
impact of marketing outreach and product placement as drivers in the decision process to install
LED message center signs, total project costs should be discounted by 25% to reflect an estimate
of the costs associated with energy savings.
Recommended approaches for calculating the demand and energy savings estimates for eligible
projects are as follows:
The average demand reduction should be equal to 20% times the calculated total fixture
demand reduction that is equal to the installed lighting demand of the existing sign minus
the installed lighting demand of the new sign
The annual energy savings would be equal to the average demand reduction times the
annual operating hours reported on the application
Incentive Levels
Incentives would be paid at the current custom rate of $0.08/kWh, with incentives capped at
50% of the eligible measure costs or one year simple payback.
Delivery Mechanism
A pre-purchase customer incentive delivery mechanism, with the flexibility to allow customer
assignment of incentives to vendors if desired, is recommended for this measure. Equipment
vendors and installers would be invited to join the current Lighting Trade Ally network, but
purchase of a qualifying unit from a current Trade Ally member would not be required. Table
2-19 includes a summary of the key program delivery mechanism characteristics.
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-21
Table 2-19. LED Message Center Sign Incentive Delivery Mechanism
Parameter Recommendation
Formal Trade Ally Network Optional – current lighting network
Pre-Purchase Agreement Yes – for retrofit applications only
Application Process New one-page application
Incentive $0.08/kWh
Reported Costs 75% of total costs from application and invoice
Reported Savings Deemed based on project
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-22
2.5 UNITARY AC AND HP EQUIPMENT
Measure Description
Prescriptive incentives for high-efficiency air conditioning and heat pump units are a key
component of PacifiCorp’s FinAnswer Express program. Schedule 115 includes prescriptive
incentives equal to $50/ton for qualifying equipment. Nexant reviewed current cost, savings, and
incentive levels for appropriateness.
Measure/Technology Review
Each of the primary resources provided data for high-efficiency AC and HP equipment with the
exception of RTF. High-efficiency unitary equipment is a mature technology and a wealth of
information exists on the measure. A summary of the key resources is included in Table 2-20
below.
Table 2-20. Review of Unitary AC and HP Measure Information
Measure
Information
Available
Resource Notes
Yes Ecotope 2003 Unitary savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study
Yes PG&E 2003 Savings and costs for common AC and HP retrofits
Yes Stellar Processes 2006 Unitary savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study
Yes Xcel Energy 2006 Program level savings and cost estimates for high-efficiency AC and HP units
Yes Quantec 2005 Unitary savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study
Yes DEER Savings and costs for common AC and HP retrofits
Yes KEMA 2006 Unitary savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study
Yes CEE High-Efficiency Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pump Initiative
(HECAC) includes efficiency level and installation recommendations
Yes Energy Star Energy Star labeling for qualifying high-efficiency AC and HP units
No RTF Some info on HP retrofits from electric heat
Yes NPCC 2005 Cost and savings estimates for a variety of end-use markets for premium
efficiency unitary equipment
Utility DSM Program Review
Customer post-purchase prescriptive unitary AC and HP incentives are currently available from
four of the six primary utilities reviewed. All programs use the same minimum efficiency
requirements as the FinAnswer Express program. Table 2-21 and Table 2-22 provide an
overview these programs.
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-23
Table 2-21. Prescriptive Unitary DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive
Incentive
Available
Utility Notes Reference
No Avista Incentives available for equipment tune-ups Avista, 2006
Yes ETO Representative incentives shown in Table 2-22 ETO, 2006
Yes Idaho Power New construction only, representative incentives shown in Table 2-22 Idaho Power, 2006
Yes PG&E Customer incentives for PTAC/PTHP equipment, upstream
incentives for HVAC contractors PG&E, 2006
Yes PSE Representative incentives shown in Table 2-22 PSE, 2006
Yes Xcel Energy Representative incentives shown in Table 2-22 Xcel Energy, 2006
Table 2-22. Prescriptive Unitary Incentive Levels
Size FinAnswer
Express ETO Idaho Power PSE Xcel Energy1
<65 kBtu/hr $50/ton N/A $100/ton $30/ton $50/ton
65 - 135 kBtu/hr $50/ton $20/ton $100/ton $30/ton $50/ton
135 - 240 kBtu/hr $50/ton $30/ton $100/ton $30/ton $50/ton
240 - 760 kBtu/hr $50/ton 11.50/ton $100/ton $30/ton $50/ton
>760 kBtu/hr $50/ton NA $100/ton $30/ton $50/ton
1 An additional $4/ton is provided for every 0.1 EER that efficiency exceeds minimum requirements
Code Review
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 set current federal minimum unitary efficiency levels, however
minimum efficiency requirements specified in IECC 2003 exceed these values. Minimum
efficiency levels in IECC 2006 are the same as IECC 2003. The Energy Policy Act of 2005
established new minimum efficiency levels for unitary equipment that will become effective
January 1, 2010. Minimum EER requirements under the new federal standard will be consistent
with current CEE Tier 2 efficiency levels, which are also the current minimum efficiency
requirements for the program.
Measure Vendors
PacifiCorp’s FinAnswer Express program is currently supported by approximately 10 HVAC
contractors and distributors through the HVAC Energy Efficiency Alliance. A current listing,
including complete contact information of these allies, is available through the program’s web
site.
Prescriptive Recommendation
It is recommended that prescriptive incentives for high-efficiency unitary AC and HP equipment
continue to be offered under the FinAnswer Express program using the current delivery
mechanism.
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-24
Measure Baseline
Applicable minimum efficiency levels for high-efficiency unitary AC equipment in Idaho have
not changed since the last program update. As noted above, baseline efficiencies will need
modification when new federal minimum efficiency levels become effective in 2010.
Minimum Efficiency Requirements
CEE Tier 2 efficiency levels continue to be industry standard for incentive eligibility. To clarify
these efficiency levels for equipment <65,000 Btu/hr, it is recommended that the current tariff be
updated to include a distinction between single phase and three phase equipment as is shown in
Table 2-23.
Table 2-23. Revised Minimum Efficiency Requirements for Unitary Equipment < 65,000Btu/hr
Equipment Type Size Category Sub-Category
Minimum
Efficiency
Requirement
Standard
< 65,000 Btu/hr Split System and Single Package
(three phase)
13.0 SEER
11.6 EER
Unitary Commercial Air Conditioners,
Air Cooled
(Cooling Mode) < 65,000 Btu/hr Split System and Single Package
(single phase)
15.0 SEER 12.5 EER
ARI
210/240
< 65,000 Btu/hr Split System and Single Package
(three phase)
13.0 SEER
11.6 EER
Heat Pumps,
Air Cooled
(Cooling Mode) < 65,000 Btu/hr Split System and Single Package
(single phase)
15.0 SEER
12.5 EER
ARI
210/240
< 65,000 Btu/hr Split System (single phase)
Single Package (single phase)
8.5 HSPF
8.0 HSPF
Heat Pumps,
Air Cooled
(Heating Mode) < 65,000 Btu/hr Split System (three phase)
Single Package (three phase)
8.0 HSPF
7.5 HSPF
ARI
210/240
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
Table 2-24 summarizes current incremental cost estimates for unitary AC equipment that meets
CEE’s Tier 2 efficiency levels. No change in the current estimated incremental cost values used
by the FinAnswer Express program are recommended.
Table 2-24. Incremental Gross Unitary AC Costs ($/ton)
Size FinAnswer
Express DEER Xcel Energy1 PG&E2
<65 kBtu/hr $100/ton $175/ton $150/ton $158/ton
65 - 135 kBtu/hr $100/ton $149/ton $88/ton $79/ton
135 - 240 kBtu/hr $100/ton $111/ton $104/ton $79/ton
240 - 760 kBtu/hr $100/ton $115/ton $81/ton $79/ton
>760 kBtu/hr $100/ton $98/ton $157/ton $205/ton
1 Xcel Energy, 2006
2 PG&E, 2003
Table 2-25 and Table 2-26 summarize current energy and demand savings estimates,
respectively, for the FinAnswer Express program and others for equipment that meets CEE’s
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-25
Tier 2 efficiency levels. Both current energy and demand savings estimates (when energy
savings are normalized by cooling degree days) are within the range of estimates used by other
utilities. No changes to current savings estimates are recommended at this time.
Table 2-25. Estimated Annual Energy Savings (kWh-yr/ton) 1
Size FinAnswer
Express DEER Xcel Energy2 PG&E3
Cooling Degree Days 387 985 682 unknown
<65 kBtu/hr 133 201 92 321
65 - 135 kBtu/hr 115 210 134 109
135 - 240 kBtu/hr 110 121 194 118
240 - 760 kBtu/hr 73 72 129 130
>760 kBtu/hr 73 76 64 N/A
1 Savings are gross savings at the customer meter
2 Xcel Energy, 2006
3 PG&E, 2003
Table 2-26. Estimated Peak Demand Savings (kW/ton) 1
Size FinAnswer
Express DEER Xcel Energy2 PG&E3
<65 kBtu/hr 0.20 0.12 0.08 0.24
65 - 135 kBtu/hr 0.09 0.16 0.11 0.08
135 - 240 kBtu/hr 0.15 0.09 0.16 0.09
240 - 760 kBtu/hr 0.09 0.06 0.11 0.10
>760 kBtu/hr 0.09 0.06 0.05 N/A
1 Savings are gross savings at the meter
2 Xcel Energy, 2006
3 PG&E, 2003
Incentive Levels
As current incentive levels for high-efficiency unitary equipment are within the range offered by
similar utility programs (see Table 2-22), no changes in current incentive levels are
recommended at this time.
Delivery Mechanism
No changes to the current delivery mechanism for high-efficiency unitary equipment are
suggested at this time.
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-26
2.6 EVAPORATIVE COOLERS
Measure Description
Evaporative coolers provide cooling by blowing warm dry air through a moist medium. As the
air passes through the medium, some of the moisture from the pad evaporates into the air and
lowers the air’s dry bulb temperature. The efficiency and effectiveness of the evaporative cooler
depends on the humidity and temperature of the outside air, where very humid locations
generally cannot take advantage of this type of cooling. There are two types of evaporative
cooling, direct and indirect. Direct evaporative cooling takes outside air, blows it through the
medium, and directly passes it on to the space, which raises the humidity of the air. Indirect
evaporative cooling involves the same process, but after the outside air passes through the
medium, an air-to-air heat exchanger takes the cool air into space without raising the humidity.
Several manufacturers have equipment that combines these two processes into a direct/indirect
system, which can operate very efficiently and lower the air temperature below the outside wet-
bulb temperature.
Prescriptive incentives for evaporative coolers are a current component of PacifiCorp’s
FinAnswer Express program. Schedule 115 includes prescriptive incentives equal to $0.02/CFM
for qualifying equipment. Cost, savings, and incentive levels were reviewed for appropriateness
for this measure.
Measure/Technology Review
Several data sources contained information about evaporative cooling, but primarily in the form
of evaporative pre-cooling for outside air intake requirements. A summary of the key resources
is included in Table 2-27 below.
Table 2-27. Review of Evaporative Cooler Information
Measure
Information
Available
Resource Notes
Yes Ecotope 2003 Evaporative savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study
Yes PG&E 2003 Savings and costs for advanced evaporative coolers
Yes Stellar Processes 2006 Evaporative savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study
No Xcel Energy 2006
Yes Quantec 2005 Evaporative savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study
Yes DEER Savings and costs direct evaporative coolers
Yes KEMA 2006 Program level savings and cost estimates evaporative pre-coolers
No CEE
No Energy Star
No RTF
Yes NPCC 2005 Market information for evaporative pre-coolers, but no cost or savings info
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-27
Utility DSM Program Review
Prescriptive evaporative incentives are not widely available. Only PG&E offers incentives for
the traditional use of evaporative coolers. Table 2-28 provides an overview of the utilities
reviewed.
Table 2-28. Prescriptive Evaporative Cooler DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive
Incentive
Available
Utility Notes Reference
No Avista Avista, 2006
No ETO ETO, 2006
Yes Idaho Power $75/ton for evaporative pre-coolers, new construction only Idaho Power, 2006
Yes PG&E $123/ton for advanced evaporative coolers PG&E, 2006
No PSE PSE, 2006
No Xcel Energy Xcel Energy, 2006
Code Review
No current Federal or Idaho state codes exist that affect evaporative coolers.
Measure Vendors
PacifiCorp’s FinAnswer Express program is currently supported by approximately 10 HVAC
contractors and distributors through the HVAC Energy Efficiency Alliance, the majority of
which support evaporative cooling technologies. A current listing, including complete contact
information, of these allies is available through the program’s web site.
Prescriptive Recommendation
It is recommended that prescriptive incentives for evaporative cooling equipment continue to be
offered under the FinAnswer Express program.
Measure Baseline
Evaporative coolers most commonly displace code compliant unitary equipment. No changes in
the current baseline assumptions are suggested at this time.
Minimum Efficiency Requirements
There are no minimum efficiency requirements for evaporative coolers – any compressor-less
technology that utilizes evaporative cooling currently qualifies under the program.
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
Current cost estimates for evaporative coolers are $0.26/cfm. Additional information was
obtained from Adobe Air (Adobe, 2006) and Phoenix Manufacturing, Inc. (PMI, 2006) to verify
cost data for current program. Results are given in Table 2-29 below. As current cost estimates
appear to fall within the range of values identified, no changes are suggested at this time. At an
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-28
average cost of $600/ton for code compliant unitary equipment, the incremental cost for
evaporative cooling equipment remains about -$0.25/CFM.
Table 2-29. Evaporative Cooler Costs1
Resource Customer Cost ($/CFM)
Adobe Air- Single Stage System $ 0.21
Adobe Air- Two Stage System $ 0.41
PMI Inc. $ 0.22
PG&E 2003 $0.10
DEER (Indirect cooler) $0.43
1 Costs are gross customer costs for unit purchase and
installation
Table 2-30 lists the current energy and demand savings estimates in comparison to values taken
from PG&E (PG&E 2003). While current savings estimates are slightly lower than PG&E’s
values even when adjusted for cooling degree day differences, they are based on impact
evaluations from PacifiCorp’s Cool Cash Incentive program and expected to be fairly accurate
based on measured data. Therefore, no changes to the current savings estimates are suggested.
Table 2-30. Estimated Evaporative Cooler Savings 1
Reference
Cooling
Degree
Days
kWh-yr/CFM W/CFM
FinAnswer Express 387 0.39 0.55
PG&E 2003 493 0.42 0.85
PG&E 2003 720 0.56 0.78
PG&E 2003 861 0.62 0.72
PG&E 2003 1,003 0.80 0.80
PG&E 2003 1,331 0.97 0.73
PG&E 2003 1,729 1.29 0.75
PG&E 2003 2,252 1.13 0.50
1 Values are gross savings at the customer meter
Incentive Levels
Differences in the current incentive level of $0.02/cfm compared to those offered by Idaho
Power and PG&E (approximately $0.05/CFM and $0.09/CFM, respectively) are related to
variations in equipment eligibility. As outlined above, the current estimated incremental
customer cost for evaporative cooling equipment is still negative (-$0.25/CFM) and no changes
to the current incentive level are recommended.
Delivery Mechanism
No changes to the current delivery mechanism for evaporative cooling equipment are suggested
at this time.
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-29
2.7 WATER CHILLING EQUIPMENT (CHILLERS)
Measure Description
Water chilling equipment (e.g. chillers) is commonly used to provide cooling for a variety of
building types and process loads. The most common applications are for larger cooling loads
(e.g. 50 to 100 tons and greater). Chillers come in many different types (centrifugal, rotary,
screw, scroll, reciprocating, and gas absorption) and typically reject waste heat either through
air-cooled or water-cooled condensers. PacifiCorp currently receives several projects
incorporating chiller measures each year. As the current custom analysis approach to estimating
savings is expensive and time consuming, PacifiCorp requested these measure be reviewed and a
prescriptive or streamlined process be identified if possible. This approach will also allow
PacifiCorp to be more responsive to customer schedule constraints.
Measure/Technology Review
Approximately half of the primary data sources reviewed for this effort contained information
about high efficiency chillers. A summary of the key resources is included in Table 2-31 below.
Table 2-31. Review of High-Efficiency Chiller Information
Measure
Information
Available
Resource Notes
Yes Ecotope 2003
Evaluation of market level savings for installation of high efficiency chillers in
both retrofit and new construction applications – see cost information in Table
2-32
No PG&E 2003
Yes Stellar Processes 2006 Replication of work from Ecotope 2003
Yes Xcel Energy 2006
Per participant cost and savings data for three size categories, but no
information on assumed baseline or installed efficiency levels – see cost
information in Table 2-32
Yes Quantec 2005
Market level savings potential for installation of both constant speed
(.51kW/ton) and variable speed (0.47 kW/ton) high-efficiency chillers;
assumed cost values unclear
Yes DEER Savings estimates for multiple chiller retrofits at a variety to facility types;
incremental cost data for common measure types
Yes KEMA 2006 Market level savings and cost estimates for high efficiency centrifugal chiller
(0.51 kW/ton vs. 0.58 kW/ton)
No CEE
No Energy Star
No RTF
Yes NPCC 2005 Market level savings and cost data for variable speed chiller
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-30
Table 2-32. Chiller Incremental Cost Data
Source Heat
Rejection
Chiller
Type
Size
Range
(tons)
Baseline
Efficiency
(kW/ton)
New
Efficiency
(kW/ton)
Incremental
Cost
($/ton)
Incremental Cost
($/ton/0.1 Δ η)
Ecotope
2003 water centrifugal >300 0.65 0.51 60 40
KEMA
2006 water centrifugal >300 0.58 0.51 35 50
Xcel
Energy
2006
water centrifugal >300 87
Xcel
Energy
2006
water centrifugal 150-300 68
Xcel
Energy
2006
air 150-300 34
NPCC
2005 water centrifugal +
VSD >300 0.576 0.47 39 37
DEER water centrifugal <150 0.634 0.56 146 197
DEER air reciprocating 1.260 1.008 40 16
DEER water centrifugal +
VSD <150 0.700 0.560 66 47
DEER air screw All 1.260 1.008 42 17
DEER water reciprocating All 0.837 0.672 16 10
DEER water centrifugal 150-300 0.634 0.507 94 74
DEER water centrifugal >300 0.576 0.461 66 57
DEER water screw <150 0.790 0.632 49 31
DEER water screw 150-300 0.718 0.574 25 18
DEER water screw >300 0.639 0.511 11 9
DEER water centrifugal +
VSD 150-300 0.634 0.507 77 61
DEER water centrifugal +
VSD >300 0.576 0.461 83 72
Utility DSM Program Review
Table 2-33 contains current prescriptive incentive offers from various utility companies.
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-31
Table 2-33. Chiller Prescriptive Utility DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive
Incentive
Available
Utility Heat
Rejection
Chiller
Type
Size Range
(tons)
Minimum
Efficiency
η
(kW/ton)
Incentive
($/ton) Reference
No Avista Avista, 2006
Yes – New
construction
only
ETO1
Air
Air
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
All
All
Recip
Scrw/scrl
Scrw/scrl
Scrw/scrl
Cntrfgl
Cntrfgl
Cntrfgl
< 150
> 150
All
< 150
> 150 & <300
> 300
< 150
> 150 & <300
> 300
1.066
1.106
0.549
0.651
0.606
0.536
0.592
0.523
0.475
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
ETO, 2006
No Idaho Power Idaho Power, 2006
No PG&E PG&E, 2006
No PSE PSE, 2006
Yes Xcel Energy
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Rot/scrw
Rot/scrw
Cntrfgl
Cntrfgl
Cntrfgl
< 150
> 150
< 150
> 150 & <300
> 300
0.65
0.64
0.65
0.61
0.56
10+30/.1 Δ η
10+30/.1 Δ η
12+30/.1 Δ η
12+30/.1 Δ η
12+30/.1 Δ η
Xcel Energy, 2006
Yes APS1
Air
Air
Water
Water
Water
All
All
All
All
All
< 150
> 150
< 200
> 200 & <400
> 400
1.25
1.25
0.74
0.67
0.54
5+15/.1 Δ η
10+15/.1 Δ η
7+20/.1 Δ η
7+20/.1 Δ η
6+20/.1 Δ η
APS, 2006
Yes Austin
Energy2, 3
Air
Air
Air
Water
Water
Water
All
All
All
All
All
All
< 150
> 150 & <300
> 300
< 150
> 150 & <300
> 300
1.30
1.41
1.41
0.92
0.84
0.75
250
250
250/175
250
250
250/175
Austin Energy,
2006
Yes FP&L
Air
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
All
Recip
Scrw/scrl
Scrw/scrl
Cntrfgl
Scrw/scrl
Cntrfgl
All
< 150
> 150 & <300
> 300
< 150
> 150 & <300
> 300
1.17
0.78
0.73
0.67
0.58
0.59
0.53
5 and up
3 to 23
3 to 23
3 to 18
3 to 18
3 to 12
-67.5*η+38.93
FP&L, 2006
Yes Manitoba
Hydro1, 4
Water
Water
Water
All
All
All
< 150
> 150 & <300
> 300
0.62
0.55
0.46
600
600
600
Manitoba Hydro,
2006
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-32
Prescriptive
Incentive
Available
Utility Heat
Rejection
Chiller
Type
Size Range
(tons)
Minimum
Efficiency
η
(kW/ton)
Incentive
($/ton) Reference
Yes NJ Clean
Energy 5
Air
Air
Water
Water
Water
Water
All
All
All
All
All
All
< 150
> 150
< 70
> 70 & <150
> 150 & <300
> 300
1.20
1.20
0.75
0.75
0.62
0.53
-200*η+254
-200*η+248
-200*η+166
Varies
-500*η+326
Varies
NJ Clean Energy,
2006
1 Minimum efficiency requirements are for IPLV ratings, not COP
2 Incentives are paid on $/kW saved where kW savings equal tons* Δ kW/ton / Oversize factor
3 Incentives for chillers < 500 tons is $250/kW, for chillers > 500 tons it’s $175/kW
4 Incentives are in Canadian dollars
5 Incentives also available for water cooled chillers based on IPLV efficiencies
Code Review
IECC 2003 specifies minimum efficiency requirements for water chilling packages based on
type and size. IECC 2006 includes more stringent minimum efficiency requirements for some
equipment. Table 2-34 lists the current code requirements in Idaho (IECC 2003) and the IECC
2006 requirements.
Table 2-34. Code Minimum Efficiencies for Chilled Water Packages
IECC 2003 IECC 2006 Heat
Rejection Type Size
Category Minimum
COP
Minimum
IPLV
Minimum
COP
Minimum
IPLV
Air cooled screw < 150 2.80 2.80 2.80 3.05
> 150 2.50 2.50 2.80 3.05
Air cooled reciprocating < 150 2.80 2.80 2.80 3.05
> 150 2.50 2.50 2.80 3.05
Water cooled reciprocating All capacities 4.20 4.65 4.20 5.05
Water cooled rotary/screw/scroll < 150 4.45 4.50 4.45 5.20
rotary/screw/scroll > 150 & < 300 4.90 4.95 4.90 5.60
rotary/screw/scroll > 300 5.50 5.60 5.50 6.15
Water cooled centrifugal < 150 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.25
centrifugal > 150 & < 300 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.90
centrifugal > 300 6.10 6.10 6.10 6.40
Measure Vendors
PacifiCorp’s FinAnswer Express program is currently supported by approximately 10 HVAC
contractors and distributors through the HVAC Energy Efficiency Alliance. Several of these
vendors also sell and support high efficiency chiller equipment. A current listing, including
complete contact information, of these allies is available through the program’s web site.
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-33
Prescriptive Recommendation
Chiller savings and incentive calculations in the FinAnswer program have to-date been
calculated using a detailed analysis approach. While detailed analysis, if done properly, provides
the best savings estimates for these types of retrofits, detailed project-by-project engineering is
expensive, complex and time consuming. To date, PacifiCorp’s implementation rate on
comprehensive chiller retrofit projects where detailed engineering and analysis was provided is
fairly low (less than 25%). Possible explanations for this may include customer schedule and
budget constraints when customers began participating in the program relative to their project
schedule. As demonstrated by the reduced administrative costs and increased program
participation and overall savings for other measures where a streamlined process is available
(e.g. unitary HVAC and motors), a prescriptive approach for calculating and offering incentives
for high-efficiency chillers can help address these issues.
The main concern with prescriptive incentives for chillers is the potential order of magnitude of
incentives and savings, which are a strong function of several independent variables. To balance
the value of a prescriptive-option against the additional savings uncertainty associated with
simplified savings calculations, a simplified method that corrects for the primary independent
variables to improve chiller measure savings estimation accuracy while still allowing for a
prescriptive approach under the FinAnswer Express program is recommended.
Specifically, a simplified savings calculation tool developed by Nexant for use in PacifiCorp’s
FinAnswer Express program requires only nine project specific input parameters in addition to
general customer and facility information:
Baseline chiller heat rejection (e.g. water or air-cooled)
Baseline chiller type (e.g. screw, centrifugal, etc.)
Proposed chiller heat rejection
Proposed chiller type
Proposed chiller nameplate capacity
Indication as to whether a VFD is included in the new chiller
Proposed chiller COP
Proposed chiller IPLV
Proposed chiller cost
The chiller tool, which calculates the estimated annual energy and peak demand savings, was
developed based on regressions of equivalent full load hours for various facility types from
DEER savings data (DEER 2006).
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-34
Measure Baseline
The chiller tool uses IECC 2003 minimum efficiency levels corresponding to the baseline chiller
parameters. See Table 2-34 for a listing of these minimum efficiency requirements.
Minimum Efficiency Requirements
To help screen out projects where a comprehensive, detailed engineering approach is still the
best option, chillers, whether installed in a retrofit, replacement, or new construction project,
must meet the following requirements to be eligible for the prescriptive incentive offering:
Chiller must not be a backup unit
COP and IPLV ratings determined in accordance with the appropriate test procedure
must exceed minimum efficiencies required by code - a copy of the equipment
manufacturer’s specifications must accompany the application materials showing the
unit’s COP and IPLV ratings
IPLV ratings must account for VFDs installed on the chiller compressor when present
Chiller loads must not be more than 20% process related
Projects must not incorporate significant deviations from typical chiller operational
practices (e.g. non-standard chilled water or condenser water set points, ice production
during off peak hours, changes in chiller sequencing, etc.)
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
In the absence of actual incremental cost estimates, the chiller tool includes default incremental
cost estimates taken from DEER (DEER 2006). Table 2-35 lists these values.
Table 2-35. Default Incremental Chiller Costs
Heat
Rejection Type Size
Category
Cost Baseline
Efficiency
(kW/ton)
Incremental Cost
($/ton/0.1 Δ η)1
Air cooled screw All capacities 1.26 $17
Air cooled reciprocating All capacities 1.26 $16
Water cooled reciprocating All capacities 0.84 $10
Water cooled rotary/screw/scroll < 150 0.79 $31
rotary/screw/scroll > 150 & < 300 0.72 $18
rotary/screw/scroll > 300 0.64 $9
Water cooled centrifugal < 150 0.70 $197
centrifugal > 150 & < 300 0.63 $74
centrifugal > 300 0.58 $57
1 Incremental cost is based on nameplate chiller capacity at standard rating conditions and COP rating.
Example: A water-cooled screw chiller has a nameplate capacity of 175 tons and a COP of 0.55 kW/ton at ARI
Standard 550/590 rating conditions. The estimated incremental cost equals:
175 tons * $18 * (0.72 - 0.55.) / 0.1 = $5,355
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-35
The approach outlined under the Prescriptive Recommendation section above will be used to
estimate savings for individual projects.
Incentive Levels
Incentive levels matching the current Energy FinAnswer values of $0.12/kWh and $50/average
kW are recommended for the following reasons:
Basing incentives on the estimated savings levels for a project ensures that overall
program cost-effectiveness is maintained, which can be particularly important for
projects with large savings values such as chiller retrofits
A pay for savings approach allows incentives to be paid for any equipment that exceeds
codes requirements without the need to establish new minimum efficiency eligibility
levels based on chiller size and type
The consistency in incentive levels will allow for easy transition of projects between
Energy FinAnswer and FinAnswer Express when necessary
Delivery Mechanism
A pre-approval process will help to ensure that projects are rerouted to the Energy FinAnswer
program when comprehensive and detailed engineering analysis will likely result in additional
realized savings. The recommended delivery process for prescriptive chillers is shown below in
Figure 2-1.
Measure Information Section 2
Proceed w ith project
installation
Submit application for pre-
approval
Reroute project to Energy
FinAnsw er
Due-diligence review
Customer/
Ally
PacifiCorp/
Program Administrator
Appropriate
prescriptive
project
Submit final application, cut
sheet and invoice
Pay incentive
Y
N
Figure 2-1. Prescriptive Chiller Delivery Process
Table 2-36 includes a summary of the key program delivery mechanism characteristics.
Table 2-36. Prescriptive Chiller Incentive Delivery Mechanism
Parameter Recommendation
Formal Trade Ally Network Yes – existing HVAC network
Pre-Purchase Agreement Project pre-approval encouraged
Application Process New chiller application
Incentive $0.12/kWh and $50/average kW
Deemed from chiller calculation tool unless
provided Reported Costs
Reported Savings Deemed based on project

2-36 2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-37
2.8 PROGRAMMABLE THERMOSTATS
Measure Description
Programmable thermostats provide improved control for HVAC zones were occupancy levels
vary according to a predictable schedule. Prescriptive incentives for programmable thermostats
are a current component of PacifiCorp’s FinAnswer Express program. Schedule 115 includes
prescriptive incentives of $50 for thermostats applied to air conditioning equipment, and $75 for
thermostats applied to heat pump equipment. Cost, savings, and incentive levels were reviewed
for appropriateness for this measure.
Measure/Technology Review
Approximately half of the sources contained information about programmable thermostats for
existing commercial applications. A summary of the key resources is included in Table 2-37
below.
Table 2-37. Review of Programmable Thermostat Information
Measure
Information
Available
Resource Notes
Yes Ecotope 2003 Thermostats reviewed in context of HVAC tune ups in comprehensive
potential study
Yes PG&E 2003 Savings and costs for programmable thermostats
No Stellar Processes 2006
No Xcel Energy 2006
Yes Quantec 2005 Setback savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study
Yes DEER Savings and costs direct evaporative coolers
Yes KEMA 2006 Program level savings and cost estimates for setback thermostat retrofits
No CEE
Yes Energy Star Labeling and savings information for residential applications
No RTF
No NPCC 2005
Utility DSM Program Review
Prescriptive programmable thermostat incentives are not widely available. Only Puget Sound
Energy and APS offer incentives for programmable thermostats. Table 2-38 provides an
overview the utilities reviewed.
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-38
Table 2-38. Programmable Thermostat DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive
Incentive
Available
Utility Notes Reference
No Avista Avista, 2006
No ETO ETO, 2006
No Idaho Power Idaho Power, 2006
No PG&E PG&E, 2006
Yes PSE $50 per programmable thermostat PSE, 2006
No Xcel Energy Xcel Energy, 2006
Yes APS $50 per programmable thermostat APS, 2006
Code Review
Under IECC 2003, programmable thermostats are required on any new HVAC unit (except
PTAC equipment) unless it serves a hotel guestroom (Section 803.2.3). Requirements are the
same in IECC 2006.
Measure Vendors
PacifiCorp’s FinAnswer Express program is currently supported by approximately 10 HVAC
contractors and distributors through the HVAC Energy Efficiency Alliance. A current listing,
including complete contact information, of these allies is available through the program’s web
site.
Prescriptive Recommendation
It is recommended that prescriptive incentives for programmable thermostats not required by
code continued to be offered under the FinAnswer Express program.
Measure Baseline
Baseline is existing HVAC equipment without a programmable thermostat installed.
Minimum Efficiency Requirements
Programmable thermostats are currently required to meet Energy Star requirements. As Energy
Star is expected to discontinue their labeling program for programmable thermostats in 2007, a
tariff modification to identify minimum efficiency requirements consistent with current Energy
Star requirements is recommended.
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
Table 2-39 includes a summary of the estimated costs and savings associated with programmable
thermostats. Current savings estimates for FinAnswer Express are based on installation of a
programmable thermostat for a 10-ton HVAC unit on average. When information was provided
on customer applications, the average HVAC unit size for programmable thermostats installed to
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-39
date under the FinAnswer Express program is 9.75 tons. No adjustments to current savings or
cost estimates are recommended at this time.
Table 2-39. Programmable Thermostat Savings and Costs1, 2
Resource
Customer
Cost
($/unit)
Annual
Energy
Savings
(kWh/yr)
Peak
Demand
Savings (kW)
FinAnswer Express $432 2,755 0
Ecotope 2003 $400 1,100 0
PG&E 2003 $58 4,093 0
1 Costs are gross customer costs for unit purchase and installation
2 Savings are gross savings at the meter
Incentive Levels
Utilities that offer incentives for programmable thermostats are consistently paying around
$50/unit. No adjustments to current incentive levels are recommended at this time.
Delivery Mechanism
Current due-diligence review activities to identify ineligible projects (e.g. those where code
applies) should continue and no changes to the current delivery mechanism for programmable
thermostats are suggested at this time.
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-40
2.9 OCCUPANCY BASED PTHP/PTAC CONTROLS
Measure Description
Packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHP) and packaged terminal air conditioners (PTAC) are
commonly installed in the hospitality industry to provide heating and cooling of individual guest
rooms. Occupancy based PTHP/PTAC controllers are a combination of a control unit and
occupancy sensor that operate in conjunction to provide occupancy controlled heating and/or
cooling. The control unit plugs into a wall socket and the PTHP/PTAC plugs into the control
unit. The control unit is operated by an occupancy sensor that is mounted in the room and turns
the PTHP/PTAC on and off. The most common application for occupancy based PTHP/PTAC
controls is hotel rooms.
Measure/Technology Review
Only one reference was found that provided a comprehensive overview of estimated costs and
savings for this measure; 509 kWh/yr energy savings, 0.098 kW peak demand savings, and
incremental customer cost of $171 per unit (Xcel Energy 2006) Additional cost information
($230/unit) was provided by Alex Setian of Smart Systems (Setian 2006).
Utility DSM Program Review
Table 2-40 contains current prescriptive incentive offers from various utility companies.
Table 2-40 Occupancy Based PTHP/PTAC Control Prescriptive Utility DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive
Incentive
Available
Utility Incentive
($/unit) Notes Reference
No Avista Avista, 2006
No ETO ETO, 2006
No PSE PSE, 2006
No Idaho Power Idaho Power, 2006
Yes Xcel Energy $100
Door sensor and controller
required in every guest
room
Xcel Energy, 2006
No PG&E PG&E, 2006
Yes BC Hydro $45 BC Hydro, 2006
Yes National Grid $75 National Grid, 2006
Yes NStar Electric $40 NStar Electric 2006
Code Review
Neither IECC 2003 nor IECC 2006 includes requirements for occupancy based PTHP/PTAC
controls for equipment serving guest rooms in hotel facilities.
Measure Vendors
Table 2-41 contains contact information for three equipment manufacturers or vendors that sell
occupancy based PTHP/PTAC control equipment in Idaho.
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-41
Table 2-41. Occupancy Based PTHP/PTAC Control Vendors
Vendor/Manufacturer Phone Number
Smart Systems [phone]
ENERNET [phone]
InnCom [phone]
Prescriptive Recommendation
In an effort to try to increase the penetration rates of occupancy based PTHP/PTAC control
units, incorporation of a prescriptive incentive for qualifying products in the FinAnswer Express
program is recommended. Additional details regarding this recommendation are provided below.
Measure Baseline
Baseline for this measure will be a PTHP or PTAC unit without an occupancy based control
system.
Minimum Efficiency Requirements
Controller units must include an occupancy sensor and include both the capability to setback the
zone temperature during extended unoccupied periods and setup the temperature once the zone is
occupied.
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
The deemed gross incremental measure cost for qualifying units is $200/unit. Estimated gross
annual energy and peak demand savings are 446 kWh/unit and 0.098 kW/unit, respectively,
based on numbers reported by Xcel Energy and scaled appropriately based on Pocatello weather
data. As these savings estimates are based on a single reference, it is recommended that
PacifiCorp work with early program participants to conduct actual pre- and post-measurement of
energy use to verify the accuracy of these values.
Incentive Levels
An incentive of $50 per qualifying unit is recommended.
Delivery Mechanism
A post-purchase customer incentive delivery mechanism, with the flexibility to allow customer
assignment of incentives to vendors if desired, is recommended for this measure. Equipment
vendors and installers would be invited to join the current HVAC Trade Ally network. Table
2-42 includes a summary of the key program delivery mechanism characteristics.
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-42
Table 2-42. PTHP/PTAC Occupancy Sensor Incentive Delivery Mechanism
Parameter Recommendation
Formal Trade Ally Network Yes – existing HVAC network
Pre-Purchase Agreement No
Application Process Incorporate measure into current HVAC
application
Incentive $50 per qualifying unit
Reported Costs Stipulated at $200/unit
Reported Savings Stipulated at 446 kWh/unit and 0.098 kW/unit

Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-43
2.10 VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVES
Measure Description
Variable frequency drives (VFD) or variable speed drives (VSD) are electronic controls that
regulate motor speed and torque, resulting in reduced energy consumption by motors and
pumping equipment under part load conditions. Energy savings from VFD installations vary
depending on the application, but range from 7% to 80%. In order to qualify for the FinAnswer
Express program in Idaho, VFDs must be installed HVAC fans and/or pumps that are less than
or equal to 100 horsepower. In addition, throttling or bypass devices, such as inlet vanes, bypass
dampers, three-way valves, or throttling valves must be permanently removed or disabled.
Measure/Technology Review
VFDs are a common energy efficiency measure. Table 2-43 contains a summary of the key
findings from the primary data resources. Information from NYSERDA’s deemed cost and
savings database was also reviewed (Nexant, 2005).
Table 2-43. Review of VFD Measure Information
Measure
Information
Available
Resource Size Notes
Annual
Energy
Savings1
(kWh/unit)
Demand
Savings1
(kW/unit)
Incremental
Cost 2
($/unit)
Yes Ecotope 2003 Various In conjunction
with ECMs 1 kWh/sqft $130/HP
Yes PG&E 2003 Various HVAC
application 753/HP 0 $202/HP
Yes Stellar Processes 2006 Various
Various
Tower pumps
Motors
1%
2% $0.20/kWh
$0.67/kWh
Yes Xcel Energy 2006 Various All applications 3,657kWh
/kW $500/kW
Yes Quantec 2005 Various Market level savings and
costs

Yes DEER HVAC application $222/HP
Yes KEMA 2006 5 HP HVAC Fan 465 0.24 $385
No CEE
No Energy Star
No RTF
No NPCC 2005
Yes Nexant 2005
Various
Various
Various
HVAC fan
HVAC pump
Boiler pump
1656/hp
1084/hp
1636/hp
0.25/hp
0.31/hp
0.36/hp
$80/hp
$80/hp
$80/hp
1 Savings are gross savings at the meter.
2 Costs are gross customer costs.
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-44
Utility DSM Program Review
Table 2-44 contains current prescriptive incentive offers from various utility companies.
Table 2-44 VFD Prescriptive Utility DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive
Incentive
Available
Utility Incentive
($/unit) Notes Reference
Yes Avista $60 - $95 HVAC applications Avista, 2006
No ETO ETO, 2006
Yes PSE $50-$65/hp HVAC applications PSE, 2006
No Idaho Power Idaho Power, 2006
Yes Xcel Energy $30/hp HVAC applications Xcel Energy, 2006
Yes PG&E $80/hp HVAC applications PG&E, 2006
Yes NYSERDA $10-$20/hp Any application NYSERDA, 2006
Yes Focus On Energy $30/hp HVAC and pool applications FOE, 2006
Code Review
IECC 2003 includes variable control requirements on air handling fans 25 HP and larger. IECC
2006 includes similar requirements, but for air handling fans 10 HP and larger.
Measure Vendors
Table 2-45 contains contact information for three equipment manufacturers or vendors that sell
VFDs in Idaho. In addition, PacifiCorp’s FinAnswer Express program is currently supported by
approximately 10 motor and 10 HVAC contractors and distributors through the Motor Energy
Efficiency Alliance, many of whom provide VFD sales and service. A current listing, including
complete contact information, of these allies is available through the program’s web site.
Table 2-45. VFD Vendors
Vendor/Manufacturer Phone Number
RSD Total Control [phone]
Applied Automation Inc. [phone]
Control Equipment Company [phone]
Prescriptive Recommendation
It is recommended that prescriptive incentives for variable frequency drives continue to be
offered under the FinAnswer Express program.
Measure Baseline
Motors serving variable loads but without VFD modulation capability will serve as the baseline
for this measure.
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-45
Minimum Efficiency Requirements
In order to qualify for the FinAnswer express program, VFDs must be installed on HVAC fans
and/or pumps that are less than or equal to 100 horsepower. In addition, throttling or bypass
devices, such as inlet vanes, bypass dampers, three-way valves, or throttling valves must be
permanently removed or disabled. VFDs required by code will not be eligible for incentives.
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
RSD Total Control provided cost data for several sizes of VFDs. From this data, an average cost
per horsepower was estimated at $187/HP. A review of the various price estimates, summarized
in Table 2-43, shows that this is within the range of other cost data identified and will therefore
be used as the deemed cost for evaluating preliminary measure cost effectiveness. Customer
applications will require an invoice, where the actual unit cost will be taken for reporting
purposes. To estimate the energy savings for eligible measures, a prototypical office building
was modeled in EQuest in Pocatello, ID. Table 2-46 summarizes the prescriptive cost and
savings assumptions for this measure.
Table 2-46. VFD Unit Measure Cost and Savings – HVAC Applications
Gross Net2
Measure
Incremental
Customer
Cost ($/HP)
Demand
Savings1
(kW/HP)
Annual
Energy
Savings1
(kWh/HP)
Incremental
Customer
Cost1 ($/HP)
Demand
Savings1
(kW/HP)
Annual
Energy
Savings1
(kWh/HP)
HVAC Fan VFD $ 187.00 0.0 1,184 $ 179.52 0.0 1,137
HVAC Pump VFD $ 187.00 0.0 919 $ 179.52 0.0 882
1 Savings values reflect savings at the customer meter
2 Net cost, demand, and energy savings are calculated using an estimated Net to Gross (NTG) ratio of 0.96 (DEER 2006).
Incentive Levels
The recommended incentive level for qualifying VFD equipment is $65/hp, reduced from
$80/hp.
Delivery Mechanism
A post-purchase customer incentive delivery mechanism, with the flexibility to allow customer
assignment of incentives to vendors if desired, is recommended for this measure. Application
materials would include a disclosure that savings will only be realized for installations where a
variable load is present. Due-diligence review activities should attempt to identify ineligible
projects (e.g. those where code applies). In addition, applicants should be required to indicate
what control signal will be used to modulate the VFD. Equipment vendors and installers would
be invited to join the current HVAC or Motor Trade Ally network. Table 2-47 includes a
summary of the key program delivery mechanism characteristics.
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-46
Table 2-47. VFD Incentive Delivery Mechanism
Parameter Recommendation
Formal Trade Ally Network Yes – existing HVAC and Motor networks
Pre-Purchase Agreement No
Application Process Incorporate measure into current HVAC and
revised motor application
Incentive $65 per HP
Reported Costs Actual costs from application and invoice
Reported Savings Deemed based on project – see Table 2-46
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-47
2.11 ELECTRONICALLY COMMUTATED MOTORS
Measure Description
An electronically commutated motor (ECM) is a fractional horsepower direct current (DC)
motor used most often in commercial refrigeration applications such as display cases, walk-in
coolers/freezers, refrigerated vending machines, and bottle coolers. ECMs can also be used in
HVAC applications, primarily as small fan motors for packaged terminal units or in terminal air
boxes. ECMs generally replace shaded pole (SP) motors and offer at least 50% energy savings.
Analysis efforts summarized in this report focused on the most prevalent use of ECMs –
refrigeration, where motor sizes are typically listed in watts (10-140 W), and HVAC
applications, where motors sizes are typically listed in horsepower (e.g. 1/3 to 1 HP).
Measure/Technology Review
Five of the primary data sources reviewed for this effort contained data for ECMs in
refrigeration and HVAC applications. The NPCC study gave savings estimates for upgrading a
CAV box single speed motor to an ECM. The other four studies gave wide-ranging savings and
cost data for compressor, condenser, and evaporator fan motors. kW Engineering completed a
study for PacifiCorp in October of 2005 regarding the market for ECMs in walk-in refrigerators
(kW Engineering, 2005). This study included the market share in each state for refrigeration
ECMs as well as cost and energy savings data. These values for incremental costs and energy
and demand savings are given in Table 2-48 below.
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-48
Table 2-48. Review of ECM Measure Information
Measure
Information
Available
Resource Application
Annual
Energy
Savings1
(kWh/unit)
Demand
Savings1
(kW/unit)
Incremental
Cost 2
($/unit)
Yes Ecotope 2003 Small Evaporator Fan ECM 200 0.0 $40
Yes PG&E 2003 Evaporator Fan 673 0.077 $160
Yes Stellar Processes 2006 Small Evaporator Fan ECM 200 0.0 $40
No Xcel Energy 2006
No Quantec 2005
No DEER
No KEMA 2006
Yes CEE
Evaporator Fan – Freezer
Condenser Fan – Freezer
Compressor Fan – Freezer
Evaporator Fan – Refrigerator
Condenser Fan – Refrigerator
Compressor Fan - Freezer
115
141
985
294
141
690
0.013
0.016
0.112
0.034
0.016
0.079
$24
$24
$160
$48
$22
$150
No Energy Star
No RTF
Yes NPCC 2005 CAV Box 517 0.397 $200
Yes kW Engineering 2005 Evaporator Fan 734 0.084 $250
1 Savings values reflect gross savings at the customer meter
2 Customer costs reflect gross incremental measure cost unless otherwise noted
Utility DSM Program Review
Table 2-49 contains current prescriptive incentive offers from various utility companies.
Table 2-49. Prescriptive ECM DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive
Incentive
Available
Utility Notes Reference
Yes Avista $10/motor new applications; $90/motor retrofit applications
(35W motor size); other incentives for 6 to 25 W units Avista, 2006
No ETO ETO, 2006
No Idaho Power Idaho Power, 2006
Yes PG&E $20/motor PG&E, 2006
Yes PSE $0.12/sqft up to 50% of incremental costs – AHU applications PSE, 2006
No Xcel Energy Xcel Energy, 2006
Yes APS $10/motor APS, 2006
Code Review
DOE is initiating a proposed energy efficient test procedure and standard for small electric
motors. However, small motors will not cover shaded pole (SP), permanent split capacitor (PSC)
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-49
motors, or ECMs because they do not meet NEMA performance requirements for general
purpose motors, specifically the torque requirements. Neither IECC 2003 nor IECC 2006
includes minimum efficiency requirements for affected motor sizes and types. As a reference, in
2008 ECMs with a minimum efficiency of 70% will be required for all walk-in
refrigeration/freezer fans in California, including all condenser, compressor, and evaporator fans.
Measure Vendors
Table 2-50 contains contact information for three equipment manufacturers or vendors that sell
ECMs in Idaho.
Table 2-50. ECM Measure Vendors and Contact Information
Vendor/Manufacturer Phone Number
D&S Electrical Supply [phone]
Johnstone Supply Store [phone]
RSD Total Control [phone]
Jim Magana from the GE Supply Store in Renton, Washington provided valuable information
regarding the market for ECMs and the cost of both SP and ECM motors (Magana, 2006). The
two main markets for ECMs are refrigeration and HVAC systems. Most refrigeration ECM
applications are replacements for SP motors that result in a 50% increase in efficiency at an
incremental cost of $40-$50. HVAC applications for ECMs are usually the replacement of the
fan motor within an AHU for which result in a 20% to 30% efficiency increase.
Prescriptive Recommendation
Based on the availability of prescriptive incentives from other utilities and appropriate deemed
cost and savings values, it is recommended that ECMs be considered for inclusion within the
prescriptive delivery component of the FinAnswer Express program. Additional information on
appropriate baseline, minimum efficiency, costs, savings, and incentives is provided below.
Measure Baseline
The standard motor type for this application is a shaded pole (SP) motor. Table 2-51 contains the
baseline annual energy consumption, demand, and cost for ECM equivalent SP motors.
Table 2-51. ECM Measure Baseline Characteristics
Measure Annual Energy
Consumption1 Demand1 Cost1
Shaded Pole (SP) motor,
Refrigeration applications 18 kWh/W 0.002 kW/W $ 1.22/W
Shaded Pole (SP) motor,
HVAC applications 3,508 kWh/HP 0.800 kW/HP $40.00/ HP
1 Energy consumption, demand, and cost reflect gross values.
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-50
Minimum Efficiency Requirements
Any ECM up to 1 HP in size will meet the minimum efficiency requirements to qualify for an
incentive, including both retrofit and new construction installations. Table 2-52 contains the
estimated annual energy consumption, demand, and cost for these two different ECM
applications.
Table 2-52. ECM Minimum Efficiency Requirements 1
Measure Annual Energy
Consumption Demand Cost
ECM – Refrigeration applications 8.7 kWh/W 0.001 kW/W $ 2.22/W
ECM –
HVAC applications 613 kWh/HP 0.140 kW/HP $440.00/ HP
1 Energy consumption, demand, and costs reflect gross values.
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
Table 2-53 summarizes the estimated incremental measure costs and savings for potential
prescriptive ECM measures.
Table 2-53. ECM Unit Measure Cost and Savings1, 2
Gross Net
Measure Incremental
Customer
Cost
Demand
Savings
Annual
Energy
Savings
Incremental
Customer
Cost
Demand
Savings
Annual
Energy
Savings
ECM –
Refrigeration
applications
$ 1.00/W 0.001 kW/W 9.3 kWh/W $ 0.96/W 0.001 kW/W 8.9 kWh/W
ECM –
HVAC
applications
$ 400/HP 0.660 kW/HP 2895 kWh/HP $ 384/HP 0.634 kW/HP 2779 kWh/HP
1 Savings values reflect gross savings at the customer meter.
2 Net cost, demand, and energy savings assume an estimated Net to Gross (NTG) ratio of 0.96 (DEER 2006).
Incentive Levels
Proposed incentive levels are shown in Table 2-54.
Table 2-54. ECM Proposed Incentive Levels
Measure Application Type Incentive
ECM Refrigeration $0.50/W
ECM HVAC $50/HP
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-51
Delivery Mechanism
A post-purchase customer incentive delivery mechanism, with the flexibility to allow customer
assignment of incentives to vendors if desired, is recommended for this measure. Equipment
vendors and installers would be invited to join the current HVAC or Motor Trade Ally network.
Table 2-55 includes a summary of the key program delivery mechanism characteristics.
Table 2-55. ECM Incentive Delivery Mechanism
Parameter Recommendation
Formal Trade Ally Network Yes – existing HVAC and Motor networks
Pre-Purchase Agreement No
Application Process Incorporate measure into current HVAC and
revised motor application
Incentive See Table 2-54
Reported Costs Deemed based on project – see Table 2-53
Reported Savings Deemed based on project – see Table 2-53
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-52
2.12 PREMIUM EFFICIENCY MOTORS
Measure Description
Prescriptive incentives for premium efficiency motors are a key component of PacifiCorp’s
FinAnswer Express program. Schedule 115 includes prescriptive incentive levels for a wide
variety of NEMA premium efficiency motors from 1 to 200 hp. Cost, savings, and incentive
levels were reviewed for appropriateness for this measure.
Measure/Technology Review
Each of the primary resources provided data for motors with the exception of Energy Star.
Premium efficiency motors are a mature technology and a wealth of information exists on the
measure. A summary of the key resources is included in Table 2-56 below.
Table 2-56. Review of Motor Measure Information
Measure
Information
Available
Resource Notes
Yes Ecotope 2003 Motor savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study
Yes PG&E 2003 Savings and costs for common motor retrofits
Yes Stellar Processes 2006 Motor savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study
Yes Xcel Energy 2006 Program level savings and cost estimates for high-efficiency motors
Yes Quantec 2005 Motor savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study
Yes DEER Savings and costs for common motor retrofits
Yes KEMA 2006 Motor savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study
Yes CEE Industrial motor efficiency initiative
No Energy Star
Yes RTF Savings and costs for common motor retrofits
Yes NPCC 2005 Market information and overview of savings potential
Yes NEMA 2002 Minimum efficiency levels for premium efficiency motors
Yes MotorMaster+ Comprehensive resource of motor efficiencies, costs, and tools to calculate
savings
Utility DSM Program Review
Prescriptive motor incentives are currently available from four of the six primary utilities
reviewed, although PG&E’s program provides incentives upstream to motor distributors rather
than directly to customers. All programs use the same minimum efficiency requirements as the
FinAnswer Express program. Table 2-57 and Table 2-58 provide an overview these programs.
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-53
Table 2-57. Prescriptive Motor Utility DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive
Incentive
Available
Utility Notes Reference
Yes Avista Representative incentives shown in Table 2-58 Avista, 2006
Yes ETO Representative incentives shown in Table 2-58 ETO, 2006
No Idaho Power Idaho Power, 2006
Yes PG&E Up-stream incentives for motor distributors PG&E, 2006
No PSE PSE, 2006
Yes Xcel Energy Representative incentives shown in Table 2-58 Xcel, 2006
Yes Motor Up Representative incentives shown in Table 2-58 Motor Up 2006
Table 2-58. Prescriptive Motor Incentive Levels ($/motor) 1
HP FinAnswer
Express ETO Avista Xcel Energy Motor Up
1 $45 $10 $10 $10 $50
1.5 $45 $15 $10 $15 $50
2 $54 $20 $10 $20 $60
3 $54 $30 $20 $25 $60
5 $54 $50 $20 $35 $60
7.5 $81 $75 $30 $50 $90
10 $90 $100 $50 $65 $100
15 $104 $150 $50 $75 $115
20 $113 $200 $10 $100 $125
25 $117 $250 $70 $125 $130
30 $135 $300 $80 $150 $150
40 $162 $400 $100 $200 $180
50 $198 $500 $170 $250 $220
60 $234 $600 $170 $300 $260
75 $270 $750 $90 $350 $300
100 $360 $1,000 $90 $450 $400
125 $540 $1,250 $260 $500 $600
150 $630 $1,500 $270 $550 $700
200 $630 $2,000 $420 $600 $700
1 Incentives for 1800 rpm TEFC motors
Code Review
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 set federal minimum motor efficiency levels. Neither IECC 2003
nor IECC 2006 includes minimum efficiency levels for motors.
Measure Vendors
PacifiCorp’s FinAnswer Express program is currently supported by approximately 10 motor
contractors and distributors through the Motor Energy Efficiency Alliance. A current listing,
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-54
including complete contact information of these allies, is available through the program’s web
site.
Prescriptive Recommendation
It is recommended that prescriptive incentives for premium efficiency motors continued to be
offered under the FinAnswer Express program.
Measure Baseline
Federal minimum efficiency levels for motors have not changed since the last program update
and no change to the current baseline efficiencies is recommended.
Minimum Efficiency Requirements
NEMA Premium Efficiency motor levels continue to be industry standard for minimum
efficiency levels for incentives. While NEMA does include minimum efficiency requirements for
motors up to 500 hp, few programs provide prescriptive incentives for motors above 200 hp. Due
to the wide variation in costs and savings for motors larger than 200 hp, it is recommended that
PacifiCorp continue to process high-efficiency motors larger than 200 hp through the custom
path of FinAnswer Express or Energy FinAnswer. Savings and incentive calculations using
MotorMaster+ (as is currently used for custom projects in FinAnswer Express) is a quick and
easy approach for these measures.
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
Estimates of incremental customer costs associated with premium efficiency motors continue to
vary widely. Incremental customer costs are cited by numerous references as having little
correlation to horsepower and efficiency. It is suspected that this is due to manufacturer
discounts and various market conditions that may influence discounts and pricing on a monthly
basis. Table 2-59 illustrates the wide range in incremental cost estimates. As current estimates of
incremental customer costs were derived from MotorMaster+, it is recommended that estimates
be updated with revised cost estimates from MotorMaster+.
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-55
Table 2-59. Incremental Motor Costs ($/motor) 1
HP FinAnswer
Express PG&E (2003) DEER Motor Up MotorMaster+
1 $43.20 -$18.00 $30.98 $8.00 -$36.00
1.5 $47.50 -$15.00 $40.13 $118.00 $90.00
2 $42.67 -$29.00 $49.29 $63.00 $96.00
3 $53.33 -$11.00 $67.61 $89.00 $42.00
5 $59.50 -$20.00 $104.24 $71.00 $52.00
7.5 $59.17 -$16.00 $134.86 $248.00 $72.00
10 $94.00 -$25.00 $300.20 $384.00 $96.00
15 $120.33 -$49.00 $292.02 $246.00 $119.00
20 $128.50 $11.00 $254.43 $614.00 -$22.00
25 $175.33 $304.00 ($3.53) $586.00 $237.00
30 $162.17 $191.00 $95.94 $805.00 $223.00
40 $344.33 $489.00 $294.91 $669.00 $516.00
50 $337.83 $322.00 $493.91 $775.00 $398.00
60 $293.83 $428.00 $585.11 $576.00 $270.00
75 $278.83 $773.00 $579.62 $1,534.00 $36.00
100 $464.50 $1,203.00 $570.47 $1,667.00 $130.00
125 $571.50 $1,070.00 $561.32 $1,392.00 $1,153.00
150 $498.00 $2,408.00 $457.36 $222.00 $657.00
200 $961.17 $3,406.00 $2,050.13 $558.00 $624.00
1 Where costs varied, values shown are for 1800 rpm TEFC motors.
Table 2-60 and Table 2-61 summarize current energy and demand savings estimates,
respectively, for the FinAnswer Express program and others. With the exception of savings
estimates from the Energy Trust of Oregon, there is good agreement on savings values for
smaller motors. However, on larger motors some savings assume a baseline efficiency that is
significantly less than code, based on the assumption that the motors would have been rewound
instead of replaced. Based on a review of motors submitted under the FinAnswer Express
program to date, over half of large motors (> 100 hp) were identified as new, not replacement
units. Further conversations with participating motor allies indicate that customers purchasing
large replacement motors under the program are generally not doing so in lieu of rewinding
existing equipment. For these reasons, no adjustments to the current deemed savings estimates
under the program are recommended at this time.
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-56
Table 2-60. Estimated Annual Energy Savings (kWh/motor) 1,2
HP FinAnswer
Express PG&E (2003) DEER ETO
1 97 112 49 547
1.5 95 136 660
2 106 181 563
3 143 306 1,533
5 192 336 148 1,719
7.5 349 612 2,340
10 443 705 311 2,957
15 493 932 290 4,998
20 718 1,243 746 3,705
25 1,054 5,155 547 5,605
30 1,334 6,324 6,055
40 1,458 7,477 7,968
50 1,994 9,938 1,346 5,974
60 2,036 10,009 7,501
75 2,344 12,266 12,449
100 3,103 15,246 1,575 15,053
125 5,633 20,673 19,693
150 5,862 21,718 2,080 20,265
200 7,403 28,958 3,255 20,156
1 Savings are for 1800 rpm TEFC motors
2 Savings values reflect gross savings at the customer meter
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-57
Table 2-61. Estimated Peak Demand Savings (kW/motor) 1,2
HP FinAnswer
Express PG&E (2003) DEER ETO
1 0.036 0.02 0.02 0.09
1.5 0.035 0.02 0.01
2 0.039 0.03 0.09
3 0.052 0.05 0.24
5 0.070 0.05 0.07 0.27
7.5 0.109 0.10 0.37
10 0.138 0.11 0.15 0.47
15 0.154 0.15 0.14 0.79
20 0.224 0.20 0.26 0.58
25 0.291 0.81 0.19 0.88
30 0.368 1.00 0.95
40 0.402 1.18 1.25
50 0.550 1.56 0.47 0.94
60 0.437 1.58 1.18
75 0.503 1.93 1.96
100 0.666 2.40 0.55 2.37
125 1.133 3.25 3.10
150 1.179 3.42 0.73 3.19
200 1.489 4.56 1.45 3.17
1 Savings are for 1800 rpm TEFC motors
2 Savings values reflect gross savings at the customer meter
Incentive Levels
No changes in current incentive levels are recommended as current incentive levels for premium
efficiency motors are within the range offered by similar utility programs (see Table 2-58).
Delivery Mechanism
A survey of the top motor vendors in the Utah market (both current participating allies and non-
participants) indicates that significant additional program participation is achievable by
modifying the current point-of-purchase delivery model. Specifically, Nexant contacted six
motor vendors in Utah and five motor vendors in Washington. Table 2-62 lists the vendors
contacted, and Appendix D contains their individual blinded survey responses.
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-58
Table 2-62. Motor Vendor Survey List
Utah Vendors Washington Vendors
Applied Industrial Technologies Applied Industrial Technologies
Dykman Electrical Dykman Electrical
Energy Management Corporation Grainger
Grainger H&N Electric
Kaman Industrial Technologies Schaefer Refrigeration
Motion Industries
By changing to a post-purchase incentive mechanism akin to the current model used for unitary
equipment, additional vendors have stated a willingness to support the program. The more
flexible nature of this approach would still allow vendors to continue offering their customers the
incentives at the point of sale if they choose by having the customer assign the incentives to
them on the application form.
The primary drivers behind this modification are:
To allow motor dealers that were unable to meet the requirements of the current program
(e.g. crediting incentives directly on customer purchase orders) due to corporate policies
To capture markets served by vendors that refused to sign the Motor Alliance Agreement
due to conflicts with the terms and conditions of the agreement
To engage dealers that did not want to be responsible for program paperwork and hence
chose not to promote the program to their customers
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-59
2.13 SOLID DOOR REFRIGERATORS AND FREEZERS
Measure Description
Commercial refrigerators and freezers are commonly found in restaurants and other food service
industries. Reach in, solid door refrigerators and freezers are significantly more efficient than
regular refrigerators and freezers due to better insulation and higher efficiency components.
There are recognized high-efficiency designations, Tier 1 or Tier 2, for these types of
refrigerators and freezers, which relate the volume of the appliance to its daily energy
consumption. Tier 1 corresponds to Energy Star minimum efficiency levels while Tier 2 is the
minimum efficiency level set by the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE). Tier 2
refrigerators and freezers are 40% and 30% more efficient than Tier 1 refrigerators and freezers
respectively. The three most common size refrigerators and freezers, one, two and three door, at
both Tier 1 and Tier 2 levels, were analyzed for this report.
Measure/Technology Review
Five primary resources contained data for solid door refrigerators and freezers. The Energy Star
web site contained energy savings calculators for Tier 1 level refrigerators and freezers, while
CEE had information for both Tier 1 and Tier 2. The NPCC report and Ecotope studies gave
savings and cost estimates, but did not include the volume of the appliances. NYSERDA’s
deemed savings and cost database (Nexant 2005) contained data for both refrigerators and
freezers at both Tier levels at three common sizes. The values from these studies for incremental
costs and energy and demand savings are given in Table 2-63 below.
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-60
Table 2-63. Review of Solid Door Refrigerators and Freezers Measure Information
Measure
Information
Available
Resource Type Size
(ft3)
Annual
Energy
Savings1
(kWh/unit)
Demand
Savings1
(kW/unit)
Incremental
Cost 2
($/unit)
Yes Ecotope 2003 Reach-in Refrigerator N/A 2619 0.30 $400
No PG&E 2003
No Stellar Processes 2006
No Xcel Energy 2006
No Quantec 2005
No DEER
No KEMA 2006
Yes CEE
T1 Refrigerator
T1 Refrigerator
T2 Refrigerator
T2 Refrigerator
T1 Freezer
T1 Freezer
T2 Freezer
T2 Freezer
24
48
24
48
24
48
24
48
482
1577
1132
1701
311
294
1512
2546

5-8%
5-8%
5-8%
5-8%
15%
15%
15%
15%
Yes Energy Star T1 Refrigerator
T1 Freezer
43.5
22.7
1967
1383
0.22
0.16
$197
$139
No RTF
Yes NPCC 2005 Refrigerator
Freezer
N/A
N/A
3004
3915
0.34
0.45
$432
$388
Yes Nexant 2005
T1 Refrigerator
T1 Refrigerator
T1 Refrigerator
T2 Refrigerator
T2 Refrigerator
T2 Refrigerator
T1 Freezer
T1 Freezer
T1 Freezer
T2 Freezer
T2 Freezer
T2 Freezer
24
48
72
24
48
72
24
48
72
24
48
72
561
823
1086
1183
1778
2374
508
665
823
1655
2811
3968
0.06
0.09
0.12
0.14
0.20
0.27
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.19
0.32
0.45
$200
$250
$300
$200
$250
$300
$200
$250
$300
$200
$250
$300
1 Savings are gross savings at the meter.
2 Costs are gross customer costs.
Utility DSM Program Review
Table 2-64 contains current prescriptive incentive offers from various utility companies.
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-61
Table 2-64 Solid Door Refrigerators and Freezers Prescriptive Utility DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive
Incentive
Available
Utility Type Size Incentive
($/unit) Reference
No Avista Avista, 2006
No ETO ETO, 2006
Yes PSE
T1 Refrigerator
T1 Refrigerator
T1 Refrigerator
T2 Refrigerator
T2 Refrigerator
T2 Refrigerator
T2 Freezer
T2 Freezer
T2 Freezer
1 door
2 door
3 door
1 door
2 door
3 door
1 door
2 door
3 door
$30
$40
$50
$125
$150
$175
$150
$175
$200
PSE, 2006
No Idaho Power Idaho Power, 2006
No Xcel Energy Xcel Energy, 2006
No PG&E PG&E, 2006
Yes Tacoma Power Program matches PSE offering Tacoma Power, 2006
Yes NYSERDA
T2 Refrigerator
T2 Refrigerator
T2 Refrigerator
T2 Refrigerator
T2 Freezer
T2 Freezer
T2 Freezer
T2 Freezer
< 19 ft3
19-30 ft3
31-60 ft3
61-90 ft3
< 19 ft3
19-30 ft3
31-60 ft3
61-90 ft3
$75
$100
$150
$225
$100
$200
$325
$500
NYSERDA, 2006
Code Review
Current federal minimum efficiency levels for solid door refrigerators and freezers are shown in
Table 2-65. Also included are the minimum efficiencies levels for the Energy Star Tier 1 and
CEE Tier 2 specifications.
Table 2-65. Solid Door Refrigerator and Freezer Efficiency Levels
Equipment Type Tier Level
Maximum Daily
Energy Consumption1
(kWh/day)
Refrigerator Baseline 0.125*V + 2.76
Refrigerator Tier 1 0.1*V + 2.04
Refrigerator Tier 2 0.06*V + 1.22
Freezer Baseline 0.398*V + 2.28
Freezer Tier 1 0.4*V + 1.38
Freezer Tier 2 0.28*V + 0.97
1 V is the volume of the refrigerator or freezer in cubic feet
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-62
New federal minimum efficiency standards for solid door refrigerators and freezers will become
effective January 1, 2010 (EPACT 2005). The new standards will make Tier 1 the baseline
efficiency level for all solid door refrigerators and freezers.
Measure Vendors
Table 2-66 contains contact information for three equipment manufacturers or vendors that sell
high-efficiency solid door refrigerators in Idaho.
Table 2-66. Solid Door Refrigerators and Freezers Vendors
Vendor/Manufacturer Phone Number
Ward HVACR [phone]
Industrial Ventilation Inc. [phone]
Kelly Mincks [phone]
Prescriptive Recommendation
In an effort to try to increase the penetration rates of solid door refrigerator and freezers,
incorporation of a prescriptive incentive for qualifying products in the FinAnswer Express
program is recommended. Additional details regarding this recommendation are provided below.
Measure Baseline
The standard refrigerator/freezer efficiency is based on Table 2-65. Table 2-67 contains the
baseline annual energy consumption, demand, and cost for solid door refrigerators and freezers.
Table 2-67. Baseline Solid Door Refrigerator and Freezer Measure Information
Type Size Range
(cubic ft)
Annual
Energy
Consumption1
(kWh/unit)
Demand1
(kW/unit)
Cost2
($/unit)
Solid Door Refrigerator < 30 2102 0.24 $700
Solid Door Refrigerator 31 - 60 3197 0.37 $1,000
Solid Door Refrigerator > 61 4292 0.49 $1,300
Solid Door Freezer < 30 4319 0.49 $2,300
Solid Door Freezer 31 - 60 7805 0.89 $2,600
Solid Door Freezer > 61 11292 1.29 $2,900
1 Savings represent gross savings at meter
2 Costs are gross customer costs
Minimum Efficiency Requirements
To qualify for prescriptive incentives, new solid door refrigerators and freezers will need to meet
Tier 1 minimum efficiency requirements. A second tier incentive is suggested for equipment that
meets Tier 2 minimum efficiency requirements. Table 2-68 summarizes the estimated
performance and cost information for qualifying units.
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-63
Table 2-68. Qualifying Solid Door Refrigerator and Freezer Measure Information
Type Size Range
(cubic ft)
Annual
Energy
Consumption1
(kWh/unit)
Demand1
(kW/unit)
Cost2
($/unit)
T1 Solid Door Refrigerator < 30 1542 0.176 $756
T1 Solid Door Refrigerator 31 - 60 2374 0.271 $1,080
T1 Solid Door Refrigerator > 61 3206 0.366 $1,404
T2 Solid Door Refrigerator < 30 920 0.105 $805
T2 Solid Door Refrigerator 31 - 60 1419 0.162 $1,150
T2 Solid Door Refrigerator > 61 1918 0.219 $1,495
T1 Solid Door Freezer < 30 3811 0.435 $2,484
T1 Solid Door Freezer 31 - 60 7139 0.815 $2,808
T1 Solid Door Freezer > 61 10468 1.195 $3,132
T2 Solid Door Freezer < 30 2663 0.304 $2,645
T2 Solid Door Freezer 31 - 60 4993 0.57 $2,990
T2 Solid Door Freezer > 61 7323 0.836 $3,335
1 Savings represent gross savings at meter
2 Costs are gross customer costs
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
Deemed measure costs and savings for qualifying solid door refrigerators and freezers are
presented in Table 2-69.
Table 2-69. Deemed Cost and Savings Information for Solid Door Refrigerators and Freezers
Gross Net
Type
Size
Range
(ft3)
Annual
Energy
Savings1
(kWh/unit)
Demand
Savings1
(kW/unit)
Incremental
Cost2
($/unit)
Annual
Energy
Savings1
(kWh/unit)
Demand
Savings1
(kW/unit)
Incremental
Cost2
($/unit)
T1 Refrigerator < 30 561 0.06 $56 538 0.06 $54
T1 Refrigerator 31 - 60 823 0.09 $80 791 0.09 $77
T1 Refrigerator > 61 1086 0.12 $104 1043 0.12 $100
T2 Refrigerator < 30 1183 0.14 $105 1135 0.13 $101
T2 Refrigerator 31 - 60 1778 0.20 $150 1707 0.19 $144
T2 Refrigerator > 61 2374 0.27 $195 2279 0.26 $187
T1 Freezer < 30 508 0.06 $184 488 0.06 $177
T1 Freezer 31 - 60 666 0.08 $208 639 0.07 $200
T1 Freezer > 61 823 0.09 $232 791 0.09 $223
T2 Freezer < 30 1656 0.19 $345 1589 0.18 $331
T2 Freezer 31 - 60 2812 0.32 $390 2699 0.31 $374
T2 Freezer > 61 3968 0.45 $435 3810 0.43 $418
1 Savings represent values at the meter
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-64
Incentive Levels
Proposed incentive levels for solid door refrigerator and freezer are equal to the levels used by
Puget Sound Energy and are summarized in Table 2-70.
Table 2-70. Proposed Incentive Levels
Measure Size Range
(ft3)
Incentive
($/appliance)
T1 Refrigerator < 30 $30
T1 Refrigerator 31 - 60 $40
T1 Refrigerator > 61 $50
T2 Refrigerator < 30 $125
T2 Refrigerator 31 - 60 $150
T2 Refrigerator > 61 $175
T1 Freezer < 30 $30
T1 Freezer 31 - 60 $40
T1 Freezer > 61 $50
T2 Freezer < 30 $150
T2 Freezer 31 - 60 $175
T2 Freezer > 61 $200
Delivery Mechanism
A post-purchase customer incentive delivery mechanism, with the flexibility to allow customer
assignment of incentives to vendors if desired, is recommended for this measure. Initially,
Nexant does not recommend the creation of a new formal trade ally network of refrigeration
equipment vendors and installation contractors due to the associated costs, although initial
outreach and coordination with market actors will be necessary. Key steps involved in this
process may include:
Identification of key vendors in addition to those listed in Table 2-66
Holding an initial informational meeting with interested parties to answer questions and
distribute application materials
Maintaining an informal listing of interested vendors for distribution of occasional
updates and or program modifications
When the application and savings volume increases to a sufficient level, or as more refrigeration
measures are added in the future, a formal trade ally network may be established. Table 2-71
includes a summary of the key program delivery mechanism characteristics.
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-65
Table 2-71. Solid Door Refrigerator/Freezer Delivery Mechanism
Parameter Recommendation
Formal Trade Ally Network Not initially
Pre-Purchase Agreement No
Application Process New refrigerator/freezer application
Incentive See Table 2-70
Reported Costs Deemed based on project – see Table 2-69
Reported Savings Deemed based on project – see Table 2-69
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-66
2.14 COOL ROOFS
Measure Description
Cool roofs include a variety of paints, coatings, tiles and other materials applied to roof surfaces
that reduce the amount of solar radiation absorbed by a facility’s roof. Cool roofing materials
have high solar reflectance and high radiative emittance that reduce solar gain to the roof and
subsequently reduce the cooling load for the space; however, heating loads can be increased.
Roof insulation also plays a role in determining the heating and cooling loads and must be
considered as well. Roof insulation levels should meet applicable code requirements to further
reduce cooling and heating energy consumption. Analysis efforts concentrated on increased
reflectance and emittance for applications with code-compliant insulation levels.
Measure/Technology Review
While several of the primary resources reviewed discussed cool roofs, only a select few
contained detailed cost and savings information. Table 2-72 and Table 2-73 include a summary
of the key findings. Where presented, cost information represents the incremental cost to install a
cool roof at the time of normal roof replacement or construction.
Table 2-72. Review of Cool Roof Measure Information
Measure
Information
Available
Resource Notes
No Ecotope 2003 Reviewed as an emerging technology, but not summarized in report
Yes PG&E 2003 Cost and savings for light colored roof applications
No Stellar Processes 2006
No Xcel Energy 2006
Yes Quantec 2005
Reflective and Spray Evaporative Cool Roofs included in market level savings
potential study, but detailed information on key assumptions was not provided
in the report
DEER
Incremental cost and savings for a variety of building types in each of
California’s 14 climate zones; incremental cost data for 0.8 to 0.45 roof
absorptivity change
Yes KEMA 2006
Savings from Cool Roof installations in facilities with either Chiller and DX
cooling equipment included in market level savings potential study, but
detailed information on key assumptions was not provided in the report
No CEE No primary data on Cool Roofs
Yes Energy Star
Specifications and labeling for Cool Roof products; for low slope roofs, initial
solar reflectance > 0.65 and must be > 0.50 after three years; for steep slope
roofs, initial solar reflectance > 0.25 and must be > 0.15 after three years; for
steep slope roofs. Also includes link to rough savings calculator.
No RTF
No NPCC 2005
Yes DOE Cool Roof 2006 Savings calculator for Cool Roofs that includes inputs for heating and cooling
equipment efficiencies, insulation levels, and reflectance/emittance levels
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-67
Table 2-73. Cool Roof Savings and Cost Information1
Description
Annual Energy
Savings2
(kWh-yr/sqft)
Demand
Savings2
(W/sqft)
Incremental Cost
($/sqft) Reference
Cool Roof in facility with chiller 0.33 0.23 $0.35 KEMA 2006
Cool Roof in facility with DX cooling 0.63 0.43 $0.35 KEMA 2006
Cool roof (0.8 to 0.45 absorptivity) 3 0.33 0.46 $0.67 DEER
Cool roof 0.50 0.30 $0.32 PG&E 2003
1 Heating penalties associated with Cool Roofs average $0.02/sqft/yr across PacifiCorp’s service territory assuming
$0.80/therm gas costs (DOE Cool Roofs, 2006)
2 Savings are gross savings at the meter
3 Savings are from a representative large office building in San Diego
Utility DSM Program Review
Table 2-74 contains current prescriptive incentive offers from various utility companies.
Table 2-74 Cool Roof Prescriptive Utility DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive
Incentive
Available
Utility Minimum
Reflectivity
Minimum
Emittance
Incentive
($/sqft) Notes Reference
No Avista Avista, 2006
No ETO ETO, 2006
No PSE PSE, 2006
Yes Idaho Power 0.65 None $0.05
New
construction
only
Idaho Power, 2006
Yes Xcel Energy 0.85 (Energy
Star) None
$0.198 to
$0.370
depending on
Δ R value
Combination
Cool Roofs
and insulation
upgrade
Xcel Energy, 2006
No PG&E PG&E, 2006
Yes Austin
Energy 0.75 None $0.15 Austin Energy,
2006
Yes Progress
Energy 0.65 None $0.50 $1,000
incentive cap
Progress Energy,
2006
Code Review
Neither IECC 2003 nor IECC 2006 establishes minimum roofing reflectivity levels, although as
a point of reference, California’s Title 24 does include cool roof specifications and requirements.
Measure Vendors
Table 2-75 contains contact information for three equipment manufacturers or vendors that sell
cool roof materials in Idaho.
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-68
Table 2-75. Cool Roof Vendors and Contact Information
Vendor/Manufacturer Phone Number
Thomas D. Robinson Roofing Inc. [phone]
Pocatello Roofing Inc. [phone]
Smith Roofing [phone]
Prescriptive Recommendation
In an effort to try to increase the penetration rates of cool roof products, incorporation of a
prescriptive incentive for qualifying cool roof products in the FinAnswer Express program is
recommended. However, based on the complex interaction between roof insulation, heating and
cooling equipment, and characteristics of the cool roof product, savings estimates should be
calculated for submitted projects using the simplified calculation tool developed by Nexant in
2005. Application and marketing materials developed and distributed for this measure should
also include a disclosure on the potential heating penalties that customers may incur. Additional
details are provided below.
Measure Baseline
Baseline data for savings calculations should be taken from existing roofing construction details.
For new construction projects, inputs into the simplified savings calculation tool should reflect a
code compliant building shell or the proposed baseline system, if available.
Minimum Efficiency Requirements
Cool roof material shall be labeled under the Energy Star Reflective Roof Products category.
Incentives will only be available for spaces with mechanical cooling. In addition, as part of the
application process, participants shall be required to submit the following:
A copy of the invoice for the reflective roof product and its installation
A copy of the manufacturer’s warranty statements
A copy of the manufacturer’s product information
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
Estimated deemed gross incremental measures costs of $0.35/sqft will be used (KEMA 2006).
Savings for completed projects will be calculated using the simplified approach on a case-by-
case basis. For the purposes of forecasting and evaluating measure cost effectiveness, a gross
annual energy savings and peak demand savings of 0.13 kWh/sqft/yr and 0.23 W/sqft will be
used.
Incentive Levels
Recommended incentive levels for qualifying installations of cool roof materials is $0.10/sqft.
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-69
Delivery Mechanism
A post-purchase customer incentive delivery mechanism, with the flexibility to allow customer
assignment of incentives to vendors if desired, is recommended for this measure. Initially,
Nexant does not recommend the creation of a new formal trade ally network of equipment
vendors and installation contractors due to the associated costs, although initial outreach and
coordination with market actors will be necessary. Key steps involved in this process may
include:
Identification of key vendors in addition to those listed in Table 2-75
Holding an initial informational meeting with interested parties to answer questions and
distribute application materials
Maintaining an informal listing of interested vendors for distribution of occasional
updates and or program modifications
When the application and savings volume increases to a sufficient level, a formal trade ally
network may be established. Table 2-76 includes a summary of the key program delivery
mechanism characteristics.
Table 2-76. Cool Roof Incentive Delivery Mechanism
Parameter Recommendation
Formal Trade Ally Network Not initially
Pre-Purchase Agreement No
Application Process New cool roof application
Incentive $0.10/sqft
Reported Costs Deemed based on project
Reported Savings Deemed based on project

Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-70
2.15 PLUG LOAD OCCUPANCY SENSORS
Measure Description
Plug load occupancy sensors are devices that control low wattage devices (<150 watts) using an
occupancy sensor. Common applications are computer monitors, desk lamps, printers, and other
desktop equipment. Three size tiers were analyzed based on available products in the market: 25,
50, and 150 watt.
Measure/Technology Review
Four resources contained information on plug load occupancy sensors. The costs, energy
savings, and amount of equipment controlled per sensor varied widely. The values for
incremental costs and energy and demand savings are given in Table 2-77 below.
Table 2-77. Review of Plug Load Occupancy Sensor Measure Information
Measure
Information
Available
Resource Type Size
Annual
Energy
Savings1
(kWh/unit)
Demand
Savings1
(kW/unit)
Incremental
Cost 2
($/unit)
No Ecotope 2003
Yes PG&E 2003 Plug load occupancy
sensor 150 300 0.124 $ 20.00
No Stellar Processes 2006
No Xcel Energy 2006
Yes Quantec 2005 Power strip occupancy
sensor N/A 27 0.012 $ 90.00
Yes DEER Plug load occupancy
sensor 50 143 0.051 $ 117.25
No KEMA 2006
No CEE
No Energy Star
No RTF
Yes NPCC 2005 Cubicle occupancy
sensor 25 55 0.025 $ 14.00
1 Savings are gross savings at the meter.
2 Costs are gross customer costs.
Utility DSM Program Review
Table 2-78 contains current prescriptive incentive offers from various utility companies. The
current program offering from PG&E is similar to several other programs offered by California
utilities.
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-71
Table 2-78 Plug Load Occupancy Sensor Prescriptive Utility DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive
Incentive
Available
Utility Incentive ($/unit) Notes Reference
No Avista Avista, 2006
No ETO ETO, 2006
No PSE PSE, 2006
No Idaho Power Idaho Power, 2006
No Xcel Energy Xcel Energy, 2006
Yes PG&E $15 PG&E, 2006
Yes
Eugene
Water and
Electric
Board
$15 Eugene, 2006
Code Review
Neither IECC 2003 nor IECC 2006 includes requirements for plug load occupancy sensors.
There are currently no federal standards either.
Measure Vendors
Table 2-79 contains contact information for three equipment manufacturers or vendors that sell
plug load occupancy sensors in Idaho.
Table 2-79. Plug Load Occupancy Sensor Vendors
Vendor/Manufacturer Phone Number
Watt Stopper [phone]
USA Technologies [phone]
Garcy/SLP [phone]
Representatives from Watt Stopper and USA technologies provided useful information regarding
the cost of plug load occupancy sensors. Both manufacturers agree that most products will cost
between $90 and $120. From this data and the price of their own products, an assumed
equipment cost of $90 was used for this analysis.
Prescriptive Recommendation
In an effort to try to increase the penetration rates of plug load occupancy sensors, incorporation
of a prescriptive incentive for qualifying products in the FinAnswer Express program is
recommended. Additional details regarding this recommendation are provided below.
Measure Baseline
Table 2-80 contains the baseline annual energy consumption, demand, and cost for plug load
occupancy sensors.
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-72
Table 2-80. Plug Load Occupancy Sensor Baseline Data
Size
(watts)
Annual Energy
Consumption1
(kWh/ unit)
Annual
Operating
Hours
Demand1
(kW/ unit)
Cost1,2
($/unit)
25 110 4400 0.025 $ 0.00
50 220 4400 0.05 $ 0.00
150 555 3700 0.15 $ 0.00
1 Energy consumption, demand, and cost reflect gross values.
2 Baseline cost is zero assuming the office equipment is already in use.
Minimum Efficiency Requirements
Table 2-81 contains the annual energy consumption, demand, and cost for plug load occupancy
sensors.
Table 2-81. Plug Load Occupancy Sensor Minimum Efficiency Requirements
Size
(watts)
Annual Energy
Consumption1
(kWh/ unit)
Annual
Operating
Hours
Demand1
(kW/ unit)
Cost1,2
($/unit)
25 45 1452 0.025 $90.00
50 91 1452 0.050 $90.00
150 234 1250 0.150 $90.00
1 Energy consumption, demand, and cost reflect gross values.
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
Deemed measure costs and savings for various sized plug load occupancy sensors are provided
in Table 2-82.
Table 2-82. Plug Load Occupancy Sensor Unit Measure Cost and Savings
Gross Net2
Measure
Incremental
Customer
Cost
($/unit)
Demand
Savings1
(kW/ unit)
Annual
Energy
Savings1
(kWh/ unit)
Incremental
Customer
Cost
($/unit)
Demand
Savings1
(kW/ unit)
Annual
Energy
Savings1
(kWh/ unit)
25 watt sensor $90.00 0.000 65 $86.40 0.000 62
50 watt sensor $90.00 0.000 129 $86.40 0.000 124
150 watt sensor $90.00 0.000 321 $86.40 0.000 308
1 Values reflect gross savings at the customer meter.
2 Net cost, demand, and energy savings are calculated using an estimated Net to Gross (NTG) ratio of 0.96 (DEER 2006).
Incentive Levels
Proposed incentive levels for plug load occupancy sensors are $15/unit, equal to current levels
offered by PG&E and Eugene Water and Electric Board.
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-73
Delivery Mechanism
A post-purchase customer incentive delivery mechanism, with the flexibility to allow customer
assignment of incentives to vendors if desired, is recommended for this measure. Table 2-83
includes a summary of the key program delivery mechanism characteristics.
Table 2-83. Plug Load Occupancy Sensor Incentive Delivery Mechanism
Parameter Recommendation
Formal Trade Ally Network No
Pre-Purchase Agreement No
Application Process New application for plug sensors
Incentive $15 per qualifying unit
Reported Costs Deemed based on project – see Table 2-82
Reported Savings Stipulated – see Table 2-82
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-74
2.16 TRANSFORMERS
Measure Description
Dry-type, low voltage transformers are used to decrease the voltage from utility lines to standard
voltages used by equipment and machinery. Analysis focused on low voltage, three phase
transformers in seven sizes (all values given are in kVA): 15, 30, 45, 75, 112.5, 150, and 225.
Measure/Technology Review
The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) standard, TP 1, Guide for
Determining Energy Efficiency for Distribution Transformers is currently the basis for
evaluating all potential savings across all the resources reviewed. Both KEMA and Stellar
Processes incorporated TP-1 transformers into their comprehensive market studies for Xcel
Energy and the Energy Trust of Oregon, respectively, but cost and savings data were aggregated
into a single measure. Energy Star labels TP-1 compliant transformers and provides a
comprehensive calculator to assist in determining the energy and cost savings associated with
high-efficiency transformers. The calculator is flexible in nature, allowing users to enter the
efficiency levels of the two units for comparison. A summary of the data evaluated during this
review is provided in Table 2-84.
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-75
Table 2-84. Review of Transformer Measure Information
Measure
Information
Available
Resource Size
(kVA) Efficiency
Annual
Energy
Savings1
(kWh/unit)
Demand
Savings1
(kW/unit)
Incremental
Cost 2
($/unit)
Yes Ecotope 2003 75 98.0% 920 0.11 $332
No PG&E 2003
Yes Stellar Processes 2006 Various TP-1 NA NA $0.188/kWh
No Xcel Energy 2006
No Quantec 2005
No DEER
Yes KEMA 2006 Various TP-1 $0.064/kWh
Yes CEE
15
30
45
75
112.5
150
225
500
97.0%
97.5%
97.7%
98.0%
98.2%
98.3%
98.5%
98.7%
1032
1299
1687
2071
3030
3944
4964
6178

$314
$296
$313
$476
$629
$789
$879
$1274
Yes Energy Star
No RTF
No NPCC 2005
Yes Nexant 2005
15
30
45
75
112.5
150
225
97.0%
97.5%
97.7%
98.0%
98.2%
98.3%
98.5%
311
622
933
1555
2332
3109
4664
0.06
0.10
0.11
0.17
0.21
0.19
0.28
$522
$536
$797
$903
$1032
$1385
$2506
1 Savings are gross savings at the meter.
2 Costs are gross customer costs.
Utility DSM Program Review
Table 2-85 contains current prescriptive incentive offers from various utility companies.
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-76
Table 2-85 Transformer Prescriptive Utility DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive
Incentive
Available
Utility Size
(kVA) Incentive Notes Reference
No Avista Avista, 2006
No ETO ETO, 2006
Yes PSE Various $2.50/kVA TP-1 efficiency levels PSE, 2006
No Idaho Power Idaho Power, 2006
No Xcel Energy Xcel Energy, 2006
No PG&E PG&E, 2006
Yes Tacoma Power
15
30
45
75
112.5
150
225
$210
$310
$445
$505
$665
$825
$1810
TP-1 efficiency levels Tacoma Power, 2006
Code Review
New federal minimum efficiency standards low-voltage dry-type transformers will become
effective January 1, 2007 (EPACT 2005). The new standards will make NEMA TP-1 levels the
baseline efficiency (see Table 2-86).
Table 2-86. NEMA TP-1 Low Voltage Dry Type Transformer Efficiency Levels
Single Phase Three Phase
Size
(kVA)
Minimum
Efficiency
Size
(kVA)
Minimum
Efficiency
15 97.7% 15 97.0%
25 98.0% 30 97.5%
37.5 98.2% 45 97.7%
50 98.3% 75 98.0%
75 98.5% 112.5 98.2%
100 98.6% 150 98.3%
167 98.7% 225 98.5%
250 98.8% 300 98.6%
333 98.9% 500 98.7%
750 98.8%
1000 98.9%
Measure Vendors
Table 2-87 contains contact information for three equipment manufacturers or vendors that sell
high-efficiency transformers in Idaho.
Section 2 Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-77
Table 2-87. Transformer Vendors
Vendor/Manufacturer Phone Number
D&S Electric Supply [phone]
Wheeler Electric [phone]
Electrical Equipment
Company Inc. [phone]
Prescriptive Recommendation
Due to the forthcoming increase in federal minimum efficiency requirements and a lack of any
significant cost or specifications for low-voltage dry-type transformers that will exceed these
requirements, a prescriptive incentive for this measure is not recommended. Until more data
become available, Nexant recommends that customers wishing to install transformers that
exceed the minimum efficiency requirements shown in Table 2-86 utilize the custom incentive
path available in either FinAnswer Express, or when installed as part of a more comprehensive
project, Energy FinAnswer. To simplify analysis efforts to estimate savings, however, it is
recommended that the Energy Star Transformer Efficiency Calculator be used.
Measure Baseline
Baseline efficiencies for any new low-voltage dry-type transformers will be NEMA TP-1 levels
after January 1, 2007.
Minimum Efficiency Requirements
Only transformers that exceed NEMA TP-1 levels are expected to provide savings, and
therefore, be eligible for incentives under the current FinAnswer Express or Energy FinAnswer
programs.
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
Incremental measure costs for transformers that exceed NEMA TP-1 were not identified through
research efforts associated with this measure. Customers applying for incentives should be asked
to obtain two quotes from their equipment vendors, one for the proposed unit and another for a
NEMA TP-1 compliant unit, to establish incremental costs until a robust data set is established
and can be used to estimate incremental costs. Savings for high-efficiency transformer projects
can be calculated using the Energy Star Transformer Efficiency Calculator available at
www.energystar.gov.
Incentive Levels
Current Energy FinAnswer or FinAnswer Express custom incentives would be paid for
qualifying high-efficiency transformers.
Measure Information Section 2
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-78
Delivery Mechanism
No changes to the current delivery mechanism for high-efficiency transformers are
recommended. To help simplify the savings analysis for qualifying units, Nexant recommends
use of the Energy Star Transformer Efficiency Calculator.

Section 3 Savings Potential
This section contains a summary of the estimated incremental costs and savings associated with
the potential modifications to the current FinAnswer Express program.
Nexant estimated the measure-level participation rates from a variety of sources, including
referenced DSM market potential studies, program participation estimates filed with
commissions by other utilities for similar measures, and realized values from existing programs.
Nexant estimated that a measure introduced to the market would experience participation
numbers that are 50% of a mature measure in the first year. This is to account for program
participation ramp-up effects associated with the time it takes vendor networks and the customer
base to become familiar with the eligible technologies and incentive process. The second year
participation numbers for the same measure would increase to 80%; culminating in a mature
measure by the third year. This approach allows natural market activities to occur, such as
increasing the local supply of high efficiency equipment stock and recognizing the benefit of
conservation practices for new technologies.

Incremental utility administrative costs have been estimated assuming a rate of $0.06 per new
kWh/yr of customer energy savings. Table 3-1 summarizes the incremental cost and savings
estimates by measure and year. Cost estimates do not include a one time design costs to
incorporate these changes of approximately $2,500 and incremental program evaluation
(estimated at $5,000 /yr) or marketing expenses (estimated at $1,500/yr). Estimated measure
lifetimes for all measures identified in Table 3-1 are approximately 15 years, with the exception
of the plug load occupancy sensors, which have an estimated measure lifetime of 8 years (PG&E
2003).
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 3-1
Savings Potential Section 3
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 3-2
Table 3-1. Estimated Incremental Costs and Savings from Recommended Program Modifications1
Measure/
Year
Administrative
Costs
($/yr)
Incentives
($/yr)
Total Utility
Costs 2
($/yr)
Net
Customer
Incremental
Costs 3
($/yr)
Net Annual
Energy
Savings
(kWh/yr) 4
Net Peak
Demand
Savings
(kW) 4
LED Channel Letter Signs
Year 1 $51 $68 $119 $441 851 0.2
Year 2 $82 $108 $190 $705 1,362 0.3
Year 3 $102 $135 $237 $881 1,703 0.4
Occupancy-Based PTAC/PTHP Controls
Year 1 $450 $875 $1,325 $4,800 7,499 1.6
Year 2 $720 $1,400 $2,120 $7,680 11,999 2.6
Year 3 $900 $1,750 $2,650 $9,600 14,999 3.3
ECMs
Year 1 $606 $563 $1,169 $1,087 10,106 1.2
Year 2 $970 $901 $1,871 $1,740 16,170 1.8
Year 3 $1,213 $1,126 $2,339 $2,174 20,212 2.3
Motors (Incremental from Enhanced Delivery Mechanism)
Year 1 $237 $1,301 $1,538 $7,269 3,952 1.0
Year 2 $237 $1,301 $1,538 $7,269 3,952 1.0
Year 3 $237 $1,301 $1,538 $7,269 3,952 1.0
Solid Door Refrigerators and Freezers
Year 1 $525 $608 $1,133 $1,192 8,754 1.0
Year 2 $840 $972 $1,812 $1,908 14,007 1.6
Year 3 $1,051 $1,215 $2,266 $2,385 17,509 2.0
Cool Roofs
Year 1 $157 $726 $883 $2,439 2,616 1.6
Year 2 $251 $1,161 $1,412 $3,902 4,186 2.6
Year 3 $314 $1,452 $1,766 $4,878 5,232 3.2
Plug Load Occupancy Sensors
Year 1 $119 $240 $359 $1,037 1,976 0.0
Year 2 $190 $384 $574 $1,659 3,161 0.0
Year 3 $237 $480 $717 $2,074 3,952 0.0
Total
Year 1 $2,145 $4,379 $6,525 $18,264 35755 6.6
Year 2 $3,290 $6,227 $9,517 $24,862 54837 10.0
Year 3 $4,053 $7,458 $11,512 $29,260 67558 12.2
1 Estimates are for a full year program period. 2 Utility costs include administration and incentives, but not design, marketing or evaluation costs. 3 Customer costs represent the net values inclusive of net-to-gross estimates, but do not include the impacts of available incentives.
4 Energy and demand savings reflect net impacts at the customer meter with an assumed net-to-gross ratio of 0.96 (DEER 2006).
Table 3-2 shows the savings and cost estimates from the original market characterization report
for Idaho for the current Lighting, HVAC, and motor measures. Table 3-3 includes an
Section 3 Savings Potential
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 3-3
adjustment to the original estimates made by removing customers on rate schedule 10 from the
eligible customer base.
Table 3-2. Original FinAnswer Express Measure Estimates 1
Year Incentives Net Customer
Incremental Cost
Net Annual
Energy Savings
(kWh)
Net Peak
Demand Savings
(kW)
Motors
Year 1 $1,632 $1,794 9,369 2
Year 2 $2,601 $2,829 14,762 3
HVAC
Year 1 $1,974 $2,785 1,134 3
Year 2 $4,066 $5,737 2,336 6
Lighting
Year 1 $ 28,314 $ 103,739 232,079 42
Year 2 $ 56,441 $ 206,796 462,631 84
Total
Year 1 $ 31,920 $ 108,318 242,582 47
Year 2 $ 63,108 $ 215,362 479,729 93
1 Savings are net savings at the meter while customer costs represent the net values inclusive of free-ridership
estimates.
Table 3-3. Schedule 10 Adjusted Original FinAnswer Express Measure Estimates 1
Year Incentives Net Customer
Incremental Cost
Net Annual
Energy Savings
(kWh)
Net Peak
Demand Savings
(kW)
Motors
Year 1 $1,086 $1,194 6,236 1
Year 2 $1,731 $1,883 9,826 2
HVAC
Year 1 $1,314 $1,854 755 2
Year 2 $2,706 $3,819 1,555 4
Lighting
Year 1 $18,847 $69,052 154,480 28
Year 2 $37,569 $137,651 307,943 56
Total
Year 1 $21,247 $72,100 161,471 31
Year 2 $42,007 $143,353 319,324 62
1 Savings are net savings at the meter while customer costs represent the net values inclusive of free-ridership
estimates.
Table 3-4 summarizes the total estimated costs and savings associated with the FinAnswer
Express program for a three-year period following the incorporation of the recommended
changes and modifications provided in this report.
Savings Potential Section 3
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 3-4
Table 3-4. Estimated Total Costs and Savings for Modified FinAnswer Express Program1
Measure/
Year
Administrative
Costs
($/yr)
Incentives
($/yr)
Total Utility
Costs 2
($/yr)
Net
Customer
Incremental
Costs 3
($/yr)
Net Annual
Energy
Savings
(kWh/yr) 4
Net Peak
Demand
Savings
(kW) 4
Lighting Measures
Year 1 $17,691 $37,637 $55,328 $138,091 308,795 56.11
Year 2 $17,722 $37,677 $55,399 $138,356 309,306 56.22
Year 3 $17,742 $37,704 $55,446 $138,532 309,646 56.30
Non-Lighting Measures
Year 1 $23,055 $8,750 $31,805 $23,525 46,285 12.39
Year 2 $24,169 $10,557 $34,726 $29,859 64,856 15.63
Year 3 $24,912 $11,761 $36,673 $34,081 77,236 17.79
Total
Year 1 $40,746 $46,386 $87,133 $161,617 355,080 68.50
Year 2 $41,891 $48,234 $90,125 $168,214 374,161 71.86
Year 3 $42,654 $49,465 $92,120 $172,613 386,883 74.10
1 Estimates are for a full year program period.
2 Utility costs include administration and incentives, but not design, marketing or evaluation costs.
3 Customer costs represent the net values inclusive of net-to-gross estimates, but do not include the impacts of available incentives.
4 Energy and demand savings reflect net impacts at the customer meter with an assumed net-to-gross ratio of 0.96 (DEER 2006).

Section 4 Summary
Recommendations provided in this report follow the original objective of seeking to increase
cost-effective energy and demand savings realized within PacifiCorp’s Idaho service territory
and continue to improve new construction participation levels. Maintaining and improving
consistency of program delivery across the service territories, as well as looking for
opportunities to reduce administrative costs, have also been evaluated and included.
4.1 RECOMMENDATIONS
Table 4-1 summarizes the recommendations from this effort. Minor changes in program delivery
methods and housekeeping issues are recommended for current technologies. For all of the new
technologies, opportunities to avoid complex and expensive custom analysis efforts were
identified and recommended. Only high-efficiency transformers were not recommended for a
prescriptive offering under the FinAnswer Express program at this time, due primarily to
upcoming code changes and limited equipment information and costs for units exceeding the
new minimum efficiency levels. For all remaining new technologies, Nexant recommends that
PacifiCorp evaluate the cost-effectiveness of affected measures before incorporating the changes
in the program.
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 4-1
Summary Section 4
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 4-2
Table 4-1. Recommendations for Evaluated Technologies 1
Reported Costs Reported Savings
Measure
Pre-
Purchase
Agreement
Required
Trade
Ally
Network Actual
Deemed
based on
project
Deemed
based on
measure
Simplified
Analysis
Deemed
based on
project
Deemed
based on
measure
Lighting 2 Lighting
Lighting controls 2 Lighting
LED channel letter signs 2 Lighting
LED message center signs Lighting
Unitary air conditioners and
heat pumps HVAC
Evaporative coolers HVAC
Water chilling packages HVAC
Programmable thermostats HVAC
Occupancy-based
PTHP/PTAC controls HVAC
Variable frequency drives HVAC &
Motor
Electronically commutated
motors HVAC &
Motor
Premium efficiency motors Motor
Solid door refrigerators and freezers
Cool roofs
Plug load occupancy
sensors
Transformers
1 Deemed costs and savings based on project incorporate project specific variables (e.g. deemed energy and demand savings as a
function of horsepower for premium efficiency motors), while deemed costs and savings based on measure are only a function of
the measure type (e.g. programmable thermostats)
2 Pre-purchase agreement only recommended on retrofit projects – not for new construction or major renovation
In addition to the new measures summarized in Error! Reference source not found., the
following recommendations are made to help improve the overall program:
Incorporate prescriptive incentives for a variety of new lighting fixture upgrades
identified in Table 2-5
Clarify the distinction between retrofit, major renovation, and new construction measures
― Define retrofit as an elective project within existing square footage
― Define major renovation as either a change in facility use type or where existing
system will not meet owner/tenant projected requirements within existing square
footage
― Define new construction as a project within new square footage
Section 4 Summary
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 4-3
Treat major renovation lighting projects the same as new construction
Create a separate incentive table for prescriptive new construction lighting upgrades
Update the estimated incremental lighting fixture costs for new construction measures to
values provided in Table B - 2 in Appendix B
Allow trade allies and customers the opportunity to submit post-purchase applications for
new construction lighting upgrades
Increase the incentive cap for custom projects from 35% of eligible project cost to 50%
of project cost to encourage more comprehensive projects
Incorporate the design team honorarium from the Energy FinAnswer tariff (Schedule
115) because all new construction projects benefit from early involvement in energy
efficiency efforts
Modify the current motor incentive delivery mechanism to allow for customer post-
purchase applications
Update the deemed incremental measure cost for premium efficiency motors
Adjust the VFD incentive from $80/HP to $65/HP
Revise programmable thermostat eligibility requirements to reflect changes in the Energy
Star program
Update minimum efficiency requirements for HVAC equipment < 65,000 Btu/hr to
values provided in Table 2-23
4.2 QA/QC PROCEDURES
To help maintain program and savings integrity, PacifiCorp is encouraged to expand their
existing internal prescriptive measure quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC)
procedures to new prescriptive technologies identified in this report. Specifically, application
processing activities should include, at a minimum, verification of the following items:
Customer electric account number
Installation address for submitted account number
Valid equipment installation date
Equipment eligibility
Equipment capacity and efficiency ratings, where applicable
The requested incentive amount
In addition to the application due diligence activities outlined above, PacifiCorp should initiate a
tiered inspection procedure commensurate with the level of monetary risk to PacifiCorp.
Suggested efforts include inspecting 5% of all submitted applications to verify equipment
Summary Section 4
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 4-4
purchase and installation. The inspection selection process should balance the need for
randomness with the need to verify the compliance of multiple Alliance Participants where
applicable. Consideration of incentive amounts should also be included in sample selection.
These field inspections should serve to verify the following information:
Installation address
Equipment make and manufacturer
Equipment model number
Equipment size

Section 5 References
ASHRAE Standard Project Committee 90.1 Cognizant TC: TC 9.6, Systems Energy Utilization.
2001. ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-2001 Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise
Residential Buildings. ASHRAE 90.1_2001.
ASHRAE Standing Standard Project Committee 90.1 Cognizant TC: TC 7.6 Systems Energy
Utilization. 2004. ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004 Energy Standard for Buildings
Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings ASHRAE 90.1_2004.
Barakat & Chamberlin. 1994. Lighting Load Shape Field Study. Prepared for Public Service
Company of Colorado.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2005.
http://www.archenergy.com/lrp/products/brochures/deliverable_6.2.5_CaseStudy_5.1.pdf
Ecotope et. al. 2003. Energy Efficiency and Conversation Measure Resource Assessment for the
Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Agricultural Sectors. Prepared for Energy Trust of
Oregon.
IECC 2003. 2003 International Energy Conservation Code. Fourth Printing, April 2004.
International Code Council.
IECC 2006. 2006 International Energy Conservation Code First Printing, January 2006.
International Code Council.
Keese et al. 2004. 2005 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential
Buildings. (CA Title 24) Prepared for the California Energy Commission.
KEMA. 2006. Colorado DSM Market Potential Assessment, Volumes 1 and 2. Prepared for Xcel
Energy.
Kubo et al. 2001. Opportunities for New Appliance and Equipment Efficiency Standards: Energy
and Economic Savings Beyond Current Standards Programs. Report Number A016.
Prepared for American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
kW Engineering. 2005. Walk-in Evaporator Fan ECM Market Evaluation. Prepared for
PacifiCorp.
Magana, Jim. 2006. Personal communication via email on 7/19/2006.
National Electrical Manufacturers Association. 2002. NEMA Standards Publication TP 1-2002,
Guide for Determining Energy Efficiency for Distribution Transformers.
NEMA. 2002. NEMA Premium – Product Scope and Nominal Efficiency Levels.
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 5-1
References Section 5
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 5-2
Nexant. 2005. NYSERDA Deemed Savings Measure Database. Prepared for NYSERDA.
NPCC. 2005. The Fifth Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Plan.
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). 2003. 2004-2005 Express Efficiency Work Papers.
Quantec. 2005. Assessment of Technical and Achievable Demand Side Resource Potentials.
Prepared for Puget Sound Energy.
RSD Total Control, Idaho. 2006. Personal communication via telephone on 7/7/2006.
Stellar Processes et. al. 2006. Energy Efficiency and Conversation Measure Resource
Assessment. Prepared for Energy Trust of Oregon.
Washington State Building Code Council, 2005. Washington State Energy Code 2004 Edition,
Chapter 51-11 WAC.
Xcel Energy. 2006. 2007/2008/2009 Triennial Plan Minnesota Natural Gas and Electric
Conversation Improvement Program.
Web Sites
APS. 2006. www.aps.com/aps_services/business/waystosave/default.html
Adobe Air. 2006. http://adobeair.com
Austin Energy. 2006. http://austinenergy.com/Energy%20Efficiency/Programs/
Avista Utilities. 2006. www.avistautilities.com/saving/com_incentives.asp
BC Hydro. 2006. Power Smart Product Incentive Program.
www.bchydro.com/business/incentive/incentive8821.html
BPA. 2006.
www.bpa.gov/Energy/N/projects/conservation_augmentation/eso/pdf/ESO_Lighting_Rebate
_Offer.pdf
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2005. Bi-level Stairway Lighting Case Study.
www.archenergy.com/lrp/products/brochures/deliverable_6.2.5_CaseStudy_5.1.pdf
Consortium for Energy Efficiency. 2006. www.cee1.org/
Database for Energy Efficient Resources (DEER). 2006. http://eega.cpuc.ca.gov/deer/
Department of Energy Cool Roof, 2006.
www.ornl.gov/sci/roofs+walls/facts/CoolCalcEnergy.htm
Section 5 References
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 5-3
Energy Trust of Oregon. 2006. www.energytrust.org/business/index.html
Energy Star. 2006. www.energystar.gov
Florida Power and Light. 2006. www.fpl.com/largebusiness/savings/index.shtml
Focus On Energy (FOE). 2006. www.focusonenergy.com
Idaho Power. 2006.
www.idahopower.com/energycenter/energyefficiency/YourBusiness/default.htm
Manitoba Hydro. 2006. www.hydro.mb.ca/power_smart_for_business/
MotorMaster+. 2006. www1.eere.energy.gob/industry/bestpractices/software.html
MotorUp Program. 2006. www.motoruponline.com/
National Grid. 2006. www.nationalgridus.com/non_html/shared_energyeff_ei_ems_pif.pdf
Nevada Power. 2006. www.nevadapower.com/conservation/commercial/
New Jersey’s Clean Energy Program. 2006.
www.njsmartstartbuildings.com/main/equip_inc.html
NStar Electric. 2006. www.nstaronline.com/ss/your_business/ee-forms/ee-131.pdf
NYSERDA. 2006. www.nyserda.org/incentives.asp
PG&E, 2006. www.pge.com/biz/rebates/
Phoenix Manufacturing Inc (PMI). 2006. www.evapcool.com
Progress Energy, 2006. www.progress-energy.com/custservice/flacig/efficiency/index.asp
Puget Sound Energy. 2006. www.pse.com/solutions/ForBusiness_EfficiencyPrograms.aspx
Regional Technical Forum (RTF). www.nwcouncil.org/energy/rtf/Default.htm
Tacoma Power. 2006. www.ci.tacoma.wa.us/power/
Xcel Energy. 2006. www.xcelenergy.com/XLWEB/CDA/0,3080,1-1-3_4530-282-2_68_132-
0,00.html

Appendix A Supplemental Lighting Cost Survey and Results
PacifiCorp is asking a small handful of our top allies for a little feedback. Please provide your
input on "ballpark" differential pricing for a few common lighting measures. These are not
pricing quotes for a specific project, we are simply looking to get a feel for the approximate price
comparison, or cost that end users could expect to see, when comparing A to B. Your time is
valuable and your help is appreciated.
1. What is the price difference between a 400w MH (not pulse start) and a 320w MHPS
fixture?
Vendor # Comments
1 $70 increase per 320W PS fixture
2 $2 decrease per 320W PS fixture
3 $20 increase per 320W PS fixture
2. What are the price differences between standard F32 T8 and Premium T8 1, 2, 3, and 4
lamp fixtures?
Vendor # Comments
1 lamp - $12
2 lamps - $14 1 3 lamps - $16
4 lamps - $18
1 lamp - $1.45
2 lamps - $1.45 2 3 lamps - $1.95
4 lamps - $3.35
1 lamp - $1
2 lamps - $2 3 3 lamps - $3
4 lamps - $4
3. What is the price difference between a standard electronic ballast (0.88 ballast factor) and
a premium ballast (< 0.8 ballast factor)?
Vendor # Comments
1 $10 per fixture, installed at factory
2 $1.75 per fixture
3 No difference in cost
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements A-1
Supplemental Lighting Cost Survey and Results Appendix A
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements A-2
4. What is the incremental cost between a T5HO lamp and a T8F32 lamp?
Vendor # Comments
1 2 to 3 times more expensive for T5HO lamps
2 $7.20 for T5HO, $2.00 for T8F32 lamps (3.6 times more expensive)
3 $5.00 more expensive for T5HO lamp than T8F32 lamp
5. What is the incremental cost between a ballast for T5HO lamp and a ballast for a T8F32
lamp?
Vendor # Comments
1 2 to 3 times more expensive for T5HO ballasts
2 $35 for T5HO, $15 for T8F32 ballast (2.3 times more expensive)
3 $20 more expensive for T5HO ballast than T8F32 ballast
6. What is the price difference between a T5HO fixture and a T8F32 fixture?
Vendor # Comments
1 2 to 3 times more expensive for T5HO fixtures
2 $189 for T5HO, $136 for T8F32 fixture (1.4 times more expensive)
3 $35 more expensive for T5HO fixture than T8F32 fixture

Appendix B Lighting Measure Information
Table B - 1. Compiled Lighting Retrofit Cost Data1
Fixture # Installed
Average
Material Cost
($/unit)
Average
Labor Cost
($/unit)
Average
Total Cost
($/unit)
1LF32T8Elec 2 $18.37 $30.00 $48.37
1LF96T8HOElect 22 $69.06 $37.06 $106.12
2LF32T8Elec 1,678 $43.26 $28.77 $68.59
2LF55T5HO 14 $269.83 $102.86 $325.03
2LF96T8Elect 75 $50.33 $25.27 $75.60
2LF96T8HOElect 232 $88.44 $15.45 $103.16
3LF32T8Elec 1,035 $75.70 $44.24 $114.25
4LF32T8Elec 1,614 $64.37 $64.54 $112.43
4LF55T5HO- 499 $245.14 $71.98 $297.04
4LF55T5HO/OCS 12 $275.00 $125.00 $400.00
6LF32T8Elec/Highbay- 786 $263.76 $163.55 $320.91
6LF32T8Elec/Highbay/OCS 148 $177.43 $74.38 $224.50
6LF55T5HO- 1,617 $306.71 $104.97 $337.31
CFL12W /screw-in 51 $7.96 $2.04 $10.00
CFL14W/screw-in 20 $8.45 $4.70 $13.15
CFL15W/screw-in 130 $10.79 $3.67 $14.45
CFL17W/screw-in 300 $8.90 $3.34 $12.24
CFL19W/screw-in 2 $7.66 $5.00 $12.66
CFL20W/screw-in 259 $4.67 $2.10 $6.77
CFL22W/screw-in 493 $8.68 $2.93 $11.61
CFL25W/screw-in 122 $13.00 $2.00 $15.00
CFL26W/Hardwire 4 $78.33 $52.50 $69.55
CFL26W/screw-in 470 $6.84 $2.54 $9.38
CFL27W/screw-in 13 $15.89 $5.79 $21.69
CFL30W/screw-in 16 $11.66 $60.94 $72.60
CFL42W/screw-in 931 $15.51 $19.21 $31.78
Exit elctro/luminescent 41 $278.66 $106.03 $368.79
ExitLED 591 $40.92 $20.44 $61.36
MH250 48 $171.66 $60.94 $232.60
MH70 1 $267.70 $112.00 $189.85
MHPS100- 11 $115.10 $17.18 $132.28
MHPS175- 36 $73.77 $47.50 $114.89
MHPS320- 154 $255.89 $205.51 $461.40
Prem 1T8 <30W Lmp 0.8 BF 4 $17.00 $14.70 $31.70
Prem 1T8 3100 lum<0.8 BF 24 $20.77 $22.93 $43.69
Prem 2T8 <30W Lmp 0.8 BF 614 $23.05 $22.92 $44.90
Prem 2T8 3100 lum<0.8 BF 1407 $34.07 $27.18 $61.31
Prem 3T8 < 30W Lmp 0.8 BF 421 $48.30 $30.84 $72.22
Prem 3T8 3100 lum<0.8 BF 852 $49.72 $25.05 $74.30
Prem 4T8 <30W Lmp 0.8 BF 1035 $47.15 $31.07 $64.33
Prem 4T8 3100 lum<0.8 BF 866 $64.02 $39.67 $92.60
1 Listed values correspond to the average of all completed lighting measures submitted by PacifiCorp’s Lighting Trade
Allies from October of 2005 through June of 2006

2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements B-1
Lighting Measure Information Appendix B
Table B - 2. Prescriptive New Construction Lighting Fixture Costs and Incentives 1
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements B-2
New Construction
Fixture Baseline
Fixture
Current
Deemed
Cost
($/unit)
Recommended
Deemed Cost
($/unit)
Current
Incentive
($/unit)
Recommended
Incentive
($/unit)
Prem 1T8 <30W Lmp 0.8 BF 1LF32T8Elec $8 $5 $10 $7
Prem 2T8 <30W Lmp 0.8 BF 2LF32T8Elec $9 $6 $10 $7
Prem 3T8 < 30W Lmp 0.8 BF 3LF32T8Elec $10 $7 $15 $10
Prem 4T8 <30W Lmp 0.8 BF 4LF32T8Elec $11 $8 $15 $10
Prem 1T8 3100 lum<0.8 BF 1LF32T8Elec $8 $5 $10 $7
Prem 2T8 3100 lum<0.8 BF 2LF32T8Elec $9 $6 $10 $7
Prem 3T8 3100 lum<0.8 BF 3LF32T8Elec $10 $7 $15 $10
Prem 4T8 3100 lum<0.8 BF 4LF32T8Elec $11 $8 $15 $10
4LF32T8Elec/Highbay MH400 $90 $33 $50 $45
6LF32T8Elec/Highbay MH400 $90 $37 $50 $45
CFL5W/Hardwire $20 $10 $0
CFL7W/Hardwire $10 $10 $0
CFL10W/Hardwire $20 $15 $0
CFL12W /Hardwire $20 $15 $0
CFL14W/Hardwire $20 $15 $0
CFL15W/Hardwire $25 $15 $0
CFL17W/Hardwire $25 $15 $0
CFL19W/Hardwire $25 $15 $0
CFL20W/Hardwire $25 $20 $0
CFL22W/Hardwire $30 $20 $0
CFL25W/Hardwire $30 $20 $0
CFL26W/Hardwire $30 $20 $0
CFL27W/Hardwire $30 $20 $0
CFL2W/Hardwire $10 $10 $0
CFL30W/Hardwire $30 $20 $0
CFL36W/Hardwire $30 $20 $0
CFL42W/Hardwire $30 $20 $0
MHPS150 MH $30 $29 $60 $30
MHPS175 MH $30 $29 $60 $30
MHPS250 MH $30 $29 $80 $30
MHPS300 MH $30 $29 $80 $30
MHPS320 MH400 $30 $29 $80 $30
MHPS350 MH400 $30 $29 $100 $30
MHPS400 MH400 $30 $29 $100 $30
MHPS450 MH $30 $29 $120 $30
MHPS750 MH $10 $29 $120 $30
CMH39 MH $40 $40 $25 $20
CMH50 MH $50 $40 $25 $20
CMH70 MH $50 $40 $25 $20
Appendix B Lighting Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements B-3
New Construction
Fixture Baseline
Fixture
Current
Deemed
Cost
($/unit)
Recommended
Deemed Cost
($/unit)
Current
Incentive
($/unit)
Recommended
Incentive
($/unit)
CMH95 MH $65 $40 $25 $20
CMH250 MH $130 $54 $100 $40
CMH300 MH $145 $54 $100 $40
CMH320 MH $145 $54 $100 $40
CMH400 MH $150 $54 $120 $40
1LF28T5 2LF32T8Elec $15 $15 $20 $10
2LF28T5 3LF32T8Elec $20 $20 $20 $25
3LF28T5 4LF32T8Elec $25 $25 $20 $30
2LF55T5HO 4LF32T8Elec $30 $74 $20 $20
3LF55T5HO (high bay) MH250 $75 $66 $70 $40
4LF55T5HO (high bay) MH250 $125 $73 $75 $60
6LF55T5HO (high bay) MH400 $125 $80 $75 $60
LED Channel Signage - Indoor
Red < 2 feet high
Indoor Neon < 2
feet high $18 $18 $4 $4
LED Channel Signage - Indoor Red > 2 feet high Indoor Neon > 2 feet high $33 $33 $6 $6
LED Channel Signage -
Outdoor Red < 2 feet high
Outdoor Neon <
2 feet high $18 $18 $2 $2
LED Channel Signage -
Outdoor Red > 2 feet high
Outdoor Neon >
2 feet high $33 $33 $3 $3
1 Fixture codes taken from PacifiCorp’s lighting tool, with the exception of these listed as “MH”. In those cases, it was assumed
that there could be two or more different metal halide fixtures installed as a baseline fixture.

2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements B-4
Table B - 3 below contains the results of the prescriptive retrofit lighting equipment incentive review. Cells highlighted in green were
flagged for potential incentive increase and those highlighted in red were flagged for potential incentive reductions. See Section 2-1
Incentive Levels for a complete description of the screening process and any corrective actions taken.
Table B - 3. Prescriptive Retrofit Lighting Equipment Incentive Review
Baseline
Fixture
Retrofit
Fixture Incentive PG&E ETO PSE BPA Avista Xcel
Energy
Incentive/
kWh
Incentive/
kW
% of
Cost SPB
1LF40T12Mag 1LF32T8Elec $5.00 $4.25 NA $35.00 $15.00 $8.00 $5.00 $0.12 $417 10% 14.4
1LF40T12Mag Prem 1T8 <30W Lmp 0.8 BF $10.00 $4.25 NA $35.00 $20.00 $8.00 $5.00 $0.14 $625 32% 4.3
1LF40T12Mag Prem 1T8 3100 lum<0.8 BF $10.00 $4.25 NA $35.00 $20.00 $8.00 $10.00 $0.41 $714 22% 21.1
1LF96T12Mag Prem 2T8 <30W Lmp 0.8 BF $20.00 $8.50 $15.00 $45.00 $40.00 $12.00 $10.00 $0.13 $571 41% 2.6
2LF40T12Mag 2LF32T8Elec $5.00 $8.50 $15.00 $35.00 $30.00 $8.00 $5.00 $0.08 $385 9% 11.2
2LF40T12Mag Prem 1T8 3100 lum<0.8 BF $15.00 $10.25 NA $35.00 $20.00 $20.00 $10.00 $0.10 $349 30% 3.2
2LF40T12Mag Prem 2T8 <30W Lmp 0.8 BF $10.00 $8.50 $15.00 $35.00 $40.00 $8.00 $10.00 $0.06 $417 23% 3.0
2LF40T12Mag Prem 2T8 3100 lum<0.8 BF $10.00 $8.50 $15.00 $35.00 $40.00 $8.00 $10.00 $0.13 $500 17% 8.9
2LF96T12HOMag 2LF96T8HOElect $15.00 $15.00 $10.00 $35.00 $40.00 $35.00 $10.00 $0.07 $319 15% 6.2
1LF96T12Mag 1LF96T8Elect $10.00 $7.50 $8.00 $35.00 $15.00 $12.00 $5.00 $0.18 $833 28% 6.9
2LF96T12Mag 2LF96T8Elect $10.00 $15.00 $8.00 $35.00 $30.00 $20.00 $10.00 $0.25 $1,250 13% 23.0
2LF96T12Mag Prem 4T8 <30W Lmp 0.8 BF $20.00 $17.00 $15.00 $50.00 $40.00 $20.00 $18.00 $0.19 $625 23% 9.3
2LF96T12Mag Prem 4T8 3100 lum<0.8 BF $20.00 $17.00 $15.00 $50.00 $40.00 $20.00 $18.00 $0.11 $952 25% 4.9
3LF40T12Mag 2LF32T8Elec $15.00 $14.50 $15.00 $50.00 $30.00 $25.00 $5.00 $0.09 $268 8% 14.7
3LF40T12Mag 3LF32T8Elec $10.00 $12.75 $15.00 $40.00 $30.00 $20.00 $9.00 $0.06 $385 16% 4.2
3LF40T12Mag Prem 1T8 3100 lum<0.8 BF $20.00 $16.25 NA NA $15.00 NA $10.00 $0.03 $233 51% 0.4
3LF40T12Mag Prem 3T8 < 30W Lmp 0.8 BF $15.00 $12.75 $15.00 $40.00 $40.00 $20.00 $18.00 $0.15 $333 38% 3.5
3LF40T12Mag Prem 3T8 3100 lum<0.8 BF $15.00 $12.75 $15.00 $40.00 $40.00 $20.00 $18.00 $0.16 $405 22% 8.1
4LF32T8Elec Prem 4T8 <30W Lmp 0.8 BF $15.00 $17.00 $15.00 $40.00 $40.00 $20.00 $18.00 $0.23 $714 39% 5.1
4LF40T12 Mag 2LF32T8Elec $25.00 $20.50 $15.00 $45.00 $30.00 $35.00 $5.00 $0.10 $294 34% 2.7
4LF40T12 Mag 3LF32T8Elec $15.00 $18.75 $15.00 $50.00 $30.00 $30.00 $9.00 $0.10 $273 13% 9.3
4LF40T12 Mag 4LF32T8Elec $10.00 $17.00 $15.00 $40.00 $40.00 $20.00 $9.00 $0.08 $313 21% 4.1
4LF40T12 Mag Prem 2T8 <30W Lmp 0.8 BF $30.00 $20.50 $15.00 $45.00 $40.00 $35.00 $10.00 $0.14 $313 65% 1.0
4LF40T12 Mag Prem 2T8 3100 lum<0.8 BF $30.00 $20.50 $15.00 $45.00 $40.00 $35.00 $10.00 $0.10 $326 49% 1.5
4LF40T12 Mag Prem 3T8 < 30W Lmp 0.8 BF $20.00 $18.75 $15.00 $50.00 $40.00 $30.00 $18.00 $0.09 $270 26% 3.6
4LF40T12 Mag Prem 3T8 3100 lum<0.8 BF $20.00 $18.75 $15.00 $50.00 $40.00 $30.00 $18.00 $0.11 $303 28% 4.1
4LF40T12 Mag Prem 4T8 <30W Lmp 0.8 BF $15.00 $17.00 $15.00 $40.00 $40.00 $20.00 $18.00 $0.07 $283 23% 3.6
Appendix B Lighting Measure Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements B-5
Baseline Fixture Retrofit Fixture Incentive PG&E ETO PSE BPA Avista Xcel Energy Incentive/ kWh Incentive/ kW % of Cost SPB
4LF40T12 Mag Prem 4T8 3100 lum<0.8 BF $15.00 $17.00 $15.00 $40.00 $40.00 $20.00 $18.00 $0.13 $357 17% 9.2
Exit FL ExitLED $15.00 $27.00 NA $35.00 NA NA NA $0.19 $1,667 20% 10.9
Exit Incan Exit elctro/luminescent $15.00 $27.00 NA $35.00 NA $25.00 $6.00 $0.06 $500 4% 19.9
Exit Incan ExitLED $15.00 $27.00 NA $35.00 $30.00 $25.00 $6.00 $0.06 $556 26% 2.6
HPS250 4LF32T8Elec $50.00 NA NA $80.00 $80.00 NA NA $0.11 $273 45% 1.9
HPS400 6LF32T8Elec/Highbay- $50.00 $100.00 NA $160.00 $120.00 $80.00 $75.00 $0.03 $213 17% 1.8
HPS400 6LF55T5HO- $75.00 $100.00 NA NA $100.00 $80.00 $75.00 $0.16 $658 21% 8.2
HPS400 MHPS320- $100.00 $100.00 $30.00 $100.00 $100.00 $55.00 $55.00 $0.23 $862 32% 7.1
Incandescent100W CFL17W/screw-in $4.00 NA $2.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 NA $0.10 $48 33% 2.7
Incandescent100W CFL22W/screw-in $4.00 NA $2.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 NA $0.05 $51 30% 1.7
Incandescent100W CFL27W/screw-in $4.00 NA $2.00 $6.00 $6.00 $3.00 NA $0.02 $55 20% 0.9
Incandescent100W CFL42W/screw-in $4.00 NA $2.00 NA $6.00 $3.00 NA $0.06 $69 25% 2.7
Incandescent150W CFL42W/screw-in $4.00 NA $2.00 $12.00 $6.00 $3.00 NA $0.01 $37 15% 0.8
Incandescent300W CFL30W/screw-in $4.00 NA $2.00 $6.00 $6.00 $3.00 NA $0.00 $15 6% 1.1
Incandescent40W ExitLED $15.00 $27.00 NA $35.00 $30.00 $25.00 $6.00 $0.05 $405 9% 6.8
Incandescent60W CFL12W /screw-in $4.00 NA $2.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 NA $0.01 $83 40% 0.2
Incandescent60W CFL14W/screw-in $4.00 NA $2.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 NA $0.05 $87 32% 1.6
Incandescent60W CFL15W/screw-in $4.00 NA $2.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 NA $0.03 $89 27% 1.2
Incandescent60W CFL17W/screw-in $4.00 NA $2.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 NA $0.03 $93 33% 0.8
Incandescent60W CFL20W/screw-in $4.00 NA $2.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 NA $0.09 $100 60% 0.8
Incandescent60W CFL22W/screw-in $4.00 NA $2.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 NA $0.12 $105 36% 2.9
Incandescent60W CFL26W/screw-in $4.00 NA $2.00 $3.00 $6.00 $3.00 NA $0.03 $118 21% 1.4
Incandescent60W CFL27W/screw-in $4.00 NA $2.00 NA $6.00 $3.00 NA $0.06 $121 16% 4.5
Incandescent75W CFL12W /screw-in $4.00 NA $2.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 NA $0.06 $63 40% 1.2
Incandescent75W CFL14W/screw-in $4.00 NA $2.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 NA $0.03 $66 27% 1.1
Incandescent75W CFL15W/screw-in $4.00 NA $2.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 NA $0.02 $67 31% 0.7
Incandescent75W CFL17W/screw-in $4.00 NA $2.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 NA $0.02 $69 31% 0.5
Incandescent75W CFL19W/screw-in $4.00 NA $2.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 NA $0.03 $71 32% 0.9
Incandescent75W CFL20W/screw-in $4.00 NA $2.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 NA $0.02 $73 34% 0.6
Incandescent75W CFL22W/screw-in $4.00 NA $2.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 NA $0.02 $75 14% 2.3
Lighting Measure Information Appendix B
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements B-6
Baseline Fixture Retrofit Fixture Incentive PG&E ETO PSE BPA Avista Xcel Energy Incentive/ kWh Incentive/ kW % of Cost SPB
Incandescent75W CFL25W/screw-in $4.00 NA $2.00 $3.00 $6.00 $3.00 NA $0.07 $80 27% 2.9
Incandescent75W CFL26W/screw-in $4.00 NA $2.00 $6.00 $6.00 $3.00 NA $0.07 $82 46% 1.2
MH1000 6LF55T5HO- $75.00 $100.00 NA NA $140.00 NA NA $0.03 $103 23% 1.2
MH1000 MHPS750- $120.00 NA $30.00 $100.00 $150.00 $130.00 $65.00 $0.12 $436 67% 0.9
MH400 6LF32T8Elec/Highbay- $50.00 $100.00 NA $160.00 $120.00 $80.00 $75.00 $0.06 $219 21% 3.4
MH250 MHPS175- $80.00 NA $30.00 $100.00 $100.00 $50.00 $25.00 $0.28 $792 70% 1.7
MH250 4LF32T8Elec $50.00 $100.00 NA $80.00 $80.00 NA NA $0.08 $273 124% (0.2)
MH400 4LF55T5HO- $75.00 $100.00 NA $160.00 $120.00 $105.00 $75.00 $0.06 $338 25% 2.7
MH400 4LF55T5HO/OCS $75.00 $100.00 NA $160.00 $120.00 $105.00 $75.00 $0.08 $279 19% 4.9
MH400 6LF32T8Elec/Highbay- $50.00 $100.00 NA $160.00 $120.00 $80.00 $75.00 $0.07 $219 21% 3.7
MH400 6LF32T8Elec/Highbay/OCS $75.00 $100.00 NA $160.00 $120.00 $80.00 $75.00 $0.04 $274 33% 1.2
MH400 6LF55T5HO- $75.00 $100.00 NA NA $100.00 $55.00 $75.00 $0.11 $701 20% 6.2
MH400 MHPS320- $100.00 $45.00 $30.00 $100.00 $100.00 $55.00 $55.00 $0.37 $917 10% 49.8
MV400 4LF55T5HO- $75.00 $100.00 NA $160.00 $50.00 $105.00 $75.00 $0.12 $342 21% 6.4
MH250 3LF55T5HO $70.00 NA NA NA $50.00 $105.00 NA $0.21 $588 95% 0.1
1LF40T12Mag 1LF28T5 $20.00 $4.25 NA NA $15.00 NA $5.00 $0.57 $2,000 44% 10.2
2LF40T12Mag 2LF28T5 $20.00 $8.50 NA NA $30.00 NA $5.00 $0.71 $2,500 17% 48.5
3LF40T12Mag 3LF28T5 $20.00 $12.75 NA NA $30.00 NA $16.00 $0.32 $1,111 40% 6.9
4LF40T12 Mag 2LF55T5HO $20.00 $20.50 NA NA $25.00 NA NA $0.20 $769 31% 6.2

Appendix C Standard Fixture Wattage Table
A copy of the Standard Fixture Wattage Table legend is provided on the following page. Due to
its size, a hardcopy of the Standard Fixture Wattage Table is not included here. An electronic
version accompanies this report.
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements C-1

Appendix D Motor Vendor Survey and Results
1. How can we get more motors/volume?
Vendor # State Comments
1 Utah It’s a pain because of the paperwork involved. In CA, the incentive goes to the distributor to make it worth their while.
2 Utah Require alliance members to be serious about participating. Make them commit to so many
motors a year.
3 Utah
Make it easier to apply. Getting information such as the account no. and/or the meter no. is
difficult because the maintenance people buying the motors do not have access to the bills
etc.—accounting people do.
4 Utah Have the customers apply for the incentive and leave them out of it.
5 Utah Make more field visits with distributors
6 Utah
Need to get buy-in from sales people. Right now they see the program as an obstacle rather
than a sales tool. It is cumbersome for sales people and they do not see that it gets them
anything.
1 Washington We are doing all that we can.
2 Washington Show savings and dollars.
3 Washington Advertise
4 Washington We already advertise premium efficiency motors and only sell premium efficiency.
5 Washington Advertise premium efficiency motors.

2. How can we promote the program more?
Vendor # State Comments
1 Utah No response
2 Utah Work through RMP reps to generate more business. Have them refer business to trade allies
who are serious.
3 Utah No response
4 Utah No response
5 Utah Put on a symposium or conference sponsored by RMP.
6 Utah Need to get sales people to promote it.
1 Washington Advertise.
2 Washington Advertise more. Co-marketing plan.
3 Washington Advertise. Customers care about savings in dollar amounts.
4 Washington Remind customers occasionally.
5 Washington That’s done on a corporate level.

2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements D-1
Motor Vendor Survey and Results Appendix D
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements D-2
3. What percentage of your business is premium now?
Vendor # State Comments
1 Utah No response
2 Utah 70%
3 Utah Hard to say because cyclical. 50% maybe a good guess.
4 Utah No response
5 Utah Unable to comment on such short notice.
6 Utah Growing. 60-70% maybe.
1 Washington 5% - 10% but increasing
2 Washington 20%
3 Washington 5%
4 Washington 75% - 90%
5 Washington Unknown

4. What percentages of your premiums are going through the program?
Vendor # State Comments
1 Utah No response
2 Utah 10%. Not doing it unless they have to in order to get the business.
3 Utah 25%$
4 Utah None. Not using the program as it is too cumbersome
5 Utah No response
6 Utah 1% if that
1 Washington 100%
2 Washington 100%
3 Washington One motor only.
4 Washington Very small percentage. Only when customers mention the program is it offered.
5 Washington No response.

Appendix D Motor Vendor Survey and Results
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements D-3
5. What do customers prefer—invoice incentive or post purchase application for incentive?
Post purchase application help?
Vendor # State Comments
1 Utah
Would just be shifting the paperwork to the customer, Would rather have the incentive go to
the distributor as compensation for doing the paperwork and taking the extra effort to push
premiums.
2 Utah They would like to see post purchase application from their standpoint. However, from a program standpoint, our participation levels will go down even further because customers will
stick with standard when they see that it will be more work for them to go premium.
3 Utah
Might actually be detrimental to the program because customers may not want the hassle of
filing. Right now it is easy for the customer, harder for the distributor but because the
customer doesn’t have to file, the program may be better off.
4 Utah This would be the way to go but would be surprised if we would go this way from what he has
seen from utilities in the past.
5 Utah Would definitely help. They have been wanting this since the program started.
6 Utah Would definitely help. Less paperwork. Would be huge! Would bring us to the next level. They
want this right now.
1 Washington Like the process as it is to receive incentives now, not later.
2 Washington POS incentives for customers is better, although our company has to wait on the incentive.
3 Washington Advertise to residential customers, commercial customers don’t care.
4 Washington POS incentives are a financial burden on our company
5 Washington No response

Appendix E Prescriptive Lighting Incentive Tariff Information
Table E - 1. Retrofit Lighting Incentive Table
Category Replace With Retrofit
Incentive
4’-1 or 2 T12 lamp(s) + 1 magnetic
ballast (MB)
4’- 1 or 2 T8 lamps+1 electronic ballast
(EB) $5
4’-3 or 4 T12 lamp(s) + MB(s) 4’ - 3 or 4 T8 lamps + EB $10
8' - 1 or 2 T12 lamp(s) + MB(s) 4' – 2, 3 or 4 T8 lamps + EB $10
Fluorescent Fixture Upgrade to
Standard T8 Fixtures [Standard T8
lamps and electronic ballasts with
ballast factor (BF) <0.88]
8’-1,2,3 or 4 T12 lamps + MB(s) 8’ - 1,2,3 or 4 T8 lamps +EB $10

8’-1,2,3 or 4 T12 HO/VHO lamps +
MB(s)
8’ - 1,2,3, or 4 T8 HO/VHO lamps
+EB(s) $15
4' - 1 or 2 T12 lamp(s) + MB or
Standard T8 lamp(s) + EB 4' - 1 or 2 Premium T8 lamp(s) + EB $10
4' - 3 or 4 T12 lamps + MB(s) or
Standard T8 lamps + EB 4' - 3 or 4 Premium T8 lamps + EB $15
Fluorescent Fixture Upgrade to 4’
Premium T8 Fixtures [Lamps
with initial lumens >3100 or
wattage <30 W; electronic ballasts
with BF <0.8] 8' - 1 or 2 T12 lamp(s) + MB(s) 4' – 2, 3 or 4 Premium T8 lamps + EB $20
4’-2 T12 lamps + MB 4’ - 1 Standard T8 lamp +EB $10
4’-3 T12 lamps + MB(s) 4’ - 2 or 1 Standard T8 lamp +EB $15
4’-4 T12 lamps + MB(s) 4’ - 3 Standard T8 lamps +EB $15
Fluorescent Delamping and Standard
T8 Fixture Upgrade [Standard T8
lamps and electronic ballasts (EB)
with BF <0.88 - Fixture removal is
not eligible] 4’-4 T12 lamps + MB(s) 4’ - 2 or 1 Standard T8 lamp +EB $25
4’-2 T12 lamps + MB 4’ – 1 Premium T8 lamp +EB $15
4’-3 T12 lamps + MB(s) 4’ – 1 or 2 Premium T8 lamp +EB $20
4’-4 T12 lamps + MB(s) 4’ – 3 Premium T8 lamps +EB $20
Fluorescent Delamping and Premium
T8 Fixture Upgrade [Lamps with
initial lumens >3100 or wattage <30
W; electronic ballasts with BF <0.8.
Fixture removal is not eligible] 4’ – 1 or 2 Premium T8 lamp +EB $30 4’-4 T12 lamps + MB(s)
T8 Fluorescent Lamp Upgrade <> 32 W T8 lamp 30 W T8 lamp $0.50
Incandescent <10W (nominal) CFL hardwire fixture $10 Compact Fluorescent Lighting (CFL)
≥10W and < 20W (nominal) CFL
hardwire fixture Incandescent $15
Incandescent $20 ≥20W (nominal) CFL hardwire fixture
Incandescent >40W two-piece screw-in CFL $5
Incandescent Single-piece screw in CFL (all wattages) $2
≥250 W MH, MV or HPS 3 T5HO lamps (nominal 4’) + EB (High
Bay) $70 T5 Fluorescent Fixture Upgrade
4,5, or 6 T5HO lamps (nominal 4’) + EB
(High Bay) $75 ≥ 400 W MH, MV, or HPS
2 T5 lamps (nominal 4’) + EB (interior
fixtures) 4’ 4 T12 lamps + MB(s) $30
2 T5HO lamps (nominal 4’) + EB
(interior fixtures) 4’ 4 T12 lamps + MB(s) $25
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements E-1
Prescriptive Lighting Incentive Tariff Information Appendix E
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements E-2
Category Replace With Retrofit
Incentive
High Intensity Discharge (HID)
Upgrades
Based on lamp wattages
incandescent or tungsten ≤100W Ceramic Metal Halide $25
≥400W MH, MV or HPS ≤320W Ceramic Metal Halide $100
≥750W MH, MV, or HPS <400 W Ceramic Metal Halide $120
>150W and < 250W MH, MV, or HPS,
or >150W incandescent >125W and <175W Pulse Start MH $60
>250W and < 400W MH, MV, or HPS >175W and <320W Pulse Start MH $75
> 400W MH, MV, or HPS <400W Pulse Start MH $100
≥1000W MH, MV or HPS <750W Pulse Start MH $100
> 250 W & < 750 W MH, MV, or HPS 4’ 4, 5, or 6 T8 lamps + EB (High Bay) $75
>750 W MH, MV or HPS 4’- 8 lamp T8 + EB(s) (High Bay) $100
Exit Signs
Incandescent or fluorescent exit sign
Light Emitting Diode (LED) or Electro
luminescent (EL) Exit Sign – 1 or 2
faced
$15
Lighting Controls
Wall switch or no control Wall or Ceiling Mounted Occupancy
Sensor (per sensor) $30
No control Integral occupancy sensor $25
No control Photocell (per sensor) $20
No control Time clock (per control) $20
LED Lighting Indoor Incandescent, neon, or fluorescent
signage LED channel letter signage < 2ft high $4/linear foot
LED channel letter signage > 2ft high $6/linear foot
Outdoor Incandescent, neon, or
fluorescent signage LED channel letter signage < 2ft high $2/linear foot
LED channel letter signage > 2ft high $3/linear foot
Notes for retrofit lighting incentives:
1. Incentives are capped at 50 percent of EEM Costs
2. 2’ U-tube lamps may be substituted for 4’ linear fluorescent lamps in the above table.
3. For retrofits of existing equipment, lighting incentives will be paid on a one-for-one equipment replacement basis. If fixture counts are
changing, the project may be considered under the approach for measures not listed.
4. Incentives for this measure may not be combined with other fluorescent fixture incentives. Incentives for this measure will only be
paid once per facility.
5. Eight-foot T8s, T8 HO/VHO and High Bay T-8 electronic ballasts are required to have a BF< 1.2 to be eligible for incentives.
Maximum of two electronic ballasts per fixture.
6. To determine the length of LED channel letter signs, measure the length of individual letter at the centerline and add the individual
values; do not measure the distance between letters.

Appendix E Prescriptive Lighting Incentive Tariff Information
2006 FinAnswer® Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements E-3
Table E - 2. New Construction/Major Renovation Lighting Incentive Table
Category Install NC/MR
Incentive
4' - 1 or 2 Premium T8 lamp(s) + EB $7 Premium T8 Fluorescent Fixture Upgrade [Lamps
with initial lumens >3100 or wattage <30 W;
electronic ballasts with BF <0.8] 4' - 3 or 4 Premium T8 lamps + EB $10
2 T5HO lamps (nominal 4’) EB (interior fixtures) $20
3 T5HO lamps (nominal 4’) + EB (High Bay) $40
>4 T5HO lamps (nominal 4’) + EB(s) (High Bay) $60
1 T5 lamp (nominal 4’) + EB (interior fixtures) $10
2 T5 lamps (nominal 4’) + EB (interior fixtures) $25
T5 Fluorescent Fixture Upgrade
3 T5 lamps (nominal 4’) + EB (interior fixtures) $30
T8 Fluorescent Fixture Upgrade (High Bay) 4’ >4 T8 lamps + EB(s) (High Bay) $45
≤100W Ceramic Metal Halide $20 High Intensity Discharge (HID) Upgrades
Based on lamp wattages >100W Ceramic Metal Halide $40
>125W Pulse Start MH $30
Lighting Controls Integral occupancy sensor $25
LED Lighting Indoor LED channel letter signage < 2ft high $4/linear foot
Indoor LED channel letter signage > 2ft high $6/linear foot
Outdoor LED channel letter signage < 2ft high $2/linear foot
Outdoor LED channel letter signage > 2ft high $3/linear foot
Notes for new construction and major renovation lighting incentives:
1. Incentives are not available for lighting controls required under the current version of the Utah energy code. The date of the building
permit application shall establish the current version of the Code
2. 2’ U-tube lamps may be substituted for 4’ linear fluorescent lamps in the above table.
3. Electronic ballasts for High Bay fixtures are required to have a ballast factor < 1.2 to be eligible for incentives.
4. The total connected interior lighting power for New Construction projects required to comply with the energy code must be 10 percent
lower than the interior lighting power allowance calculated under the current version of the Utah energy code. The date of the building
permit application shall establish the current version of the Code. For New Construction projects not required to comply with the
energy code, the total connected lighting power must be 10% lower than common practice as determined by the Company.
5. To determine the length of LED channel letter signs, measure the length of individual letter at the centerline and add the individual
values; do not measure the distance between letters.

The Power of Experience

1338 S. Foothill Drive, #269
Salt Lake City, UT 84108

tel: [phone]
fax: [phone]

www.nexant.com