20210805PAC to Staff Attach 109 2016-2017 Idaho Low Income Weatherization Program.pdf

Idaho Low Income Weatherization Program
Evaluation, Measurement & Verification Report
2016-2017

Prepared for
Rocky Mountain Power
November 2020

Prepared by:

ADM Associates, Inc.
3239 Ramos Circle
Sacramento, CA 95827

Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary .................................................................................. 1
2. Introduction and Purpose of Study ............................................................ 7
3. Description of Program ............................................................................. 8
4. Impact Evaluation ................................................................................... 11
5. Process Evaluation ................................................................................. 21
6. Cost Effectiveness Evaluation ................................................................ 33
7. Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................... 37
8. Appendix: Participant Survey .................................................................. 39

List of Tables
Table 1-1: Idaho Low Income Weatherization Program Claimed and Evaluated
Energy Savings for 2016-2017 ................................................................. 1
Table 1-2: Low Income Weatherization Non-Energy Impacts by Program Year ........ 2
Table 1-3: Low Income Program Level Results PY2016-2017 .................................. 4
Table 1-4: Low Income Program Level Cost-Effectiveness Results PY2016 ............. 4
Table 1-5: Low Income Program Level Cost-Effectiveness Results PY2017 ............. 4
Table 3-1: Rocky Mountain Power’s Low Income Weatherization Program in
Idaho Number of Participants by Implementation Agency 2016-2017 ...... 9
Table 3-2: Quantities of Measures Installed 2016-2017 ............................................. 9
Table 4-1: Idaho Low Income Weatherization Program Claimed and Evaluated
Energy Savings for 2016-2017 ............................................................... 11
Table 4-2: Regression Results Idaho LIW Energy Savings Per Home 2016-2017 .. 16
Table 4-3: Analysis of Changes in External Assistance Payments Based on
Mean Monthly Payments ........................................................................ 18
Table 4-4: Analysis of Changes in Arrearages Based on Mean Monthly Arrearage
Balances ................................................................................................. 19
Table 4-5: Health and Safety Measures ................................................................... 20
Table 4-6: Low Income Weatherization Non-Energy Impacts by Program Year ...... 20

Table 5-1: How did respondents learn about the program? ..................................... 25
Table 5-2: Why did respondents decide to participate in the program? ................... 26
Table 5-3: What measures did survey respondents receive? .................................. 26
Table 6-1: Low Income Weatherization Program Inputs .......................................... 33
Table 6-2: Low Income Weatherization Annual Program Costs ............................... 33
Table 6-3: Low Income Weatherization Non-Energy Impacts by Program Year ...... 34
Table 6-4: Low Income Weatherization Program – Savings by Program Year ........ 34
Table 6-5: Benefit/Cost Ratios by Program Year ..................................................... 35
Table 6-6: Low Income Program Level Results PY2016-2017 ................................ 35
Table 6-7: Low Income Program Level Cost-Effectiveness Results PY2016 ........... 36
Table 6-8: Low Income Program Level Cost-Effectiveness Results PY2017 ........... 36

List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Idaho Low Income Weatherization Program Funding Flow ....................... 2
Figure 3-1: Idaho Low Income Weatherization Program Funding Flow ....................... 8
Figure 5-1: Satisfaction with Energy Savings Measures ........................................... 28
Figure 5-2: Satisfaction with Scheduling, Energy Education and Savings on
Electric Bills. ........................................................................................... 31
Figure 5-3: Overall Program Satisfaction .................................................................. 32

Executive Summary 1

1. Executive Summary
This report provides the results of ADM’s impact and process evaluations of Rocky
Mountain Power’s Low Income Weatherization (LIW) program in Idaho during 2016 and
2017.
The program provides energy-efficiency weatherization services at no cost to income-
eligible Rocky Mountain Power customers living in single family homes, manufactured
homes, or multi-unit residential housing in Idaho. During the evaluation period, Rocky
Mountain Power reimbursed program implementers for installing energy efficient
refrigerators as well as building shell, health and safety, HVAC, lighting and water heating
measures. One hundred and twenty six households participated in the program during
the evaluation period.
1.1 Impact Evaluation Results
Energy saving impacts
Table 1-1 presents the claimed gross savings, evaluated gross savings, and realization
rates that resulted from the program in 2016 and 2017.
Table 1-1: Idaho Low Income Weatherization Program
Claimed and Evaluated Energy Savings for 2016-2017
Year Measure Quantity
Claimed
Gross
Savings
(kWh/yr)
Evaluated
Gross
Savings
(kWh/yr)
Realization
Rate
2016 ID Weatherization - ID 66 140,069 85,536 61%
2017 ID Weatherization - ID 60 131,340 77,760 59%
Total 126 271,409 163,296 60%

Non-energy impacts
ADM evaluated non-energy impacts including the changes in payment assistance and
arrearage balances for program participants. The direct cost of health and safety repairs
is also included as a NEI and is quantified as a cost-offset to the program. Health and
safety repair costs are provided by Rocky Mountain Power. The total payment assistance
and arrearages benefits that resulted from the program in 2016 and 2017 are shown in
Table 1-2.

Executive Summary 2

Table 1-2: Low Income Weatherization Non-Energy Impacts by Program Year
Non-Energy Impacts PY2016 PY2017
Health & Safety $35,758.42 $143,417.40
Payment assistance $3,697.32 $4,518.00
Arrearages $1,332.54 $1,817.40
Total $40,788.28 $149,752.80

1.2 Process Evaluation Results
In Idaho, Rocky Mountain Power’s LIW program is implemented by two non-profit
Community Action Partnership organizations: Eastern Idaho Community Action
Partnership and Southeastern Idaho Community Action Agency. Each provides a variety
of wraparound services to income-eligible families and individuals, including federally
funding Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and Weatherization
Assistance Program (WAP) services; see Figure 1-1. Agencies leverage “braided
funding” from multiple sources to offer comprehensive weatherization services to
participants.
Figure 1-1: Idaho Low Income Weatherization Program Funding Flow

Rocky Mountain Power benefits from working with these implementation agencies in the
following ways:
Trained workforce. By working with implementing agencies, Rocky Mountain Power
benefits from access to crews that receive annual weatherization workforce training.
Both implementation agencies are members of a National Community Action
Partnership (NCAP) network, an association of local organizations many of which are
WAP implementers that benefit greatly from national and regional WAP conferences.

Executive Summary 3

Leveraged funding. By combining funding sources, agencies can leverage shared
program resources and can maximize the number of measures installed in a single
home, maximizing benefits for customers and energy savings.
Lower program administration costs. By managing multiple funding streams,
agencies distribute overhead costs across funders.
ADM conducted a participant survey to verify measure installations and determine
customer satisfaction. All survey respondents shared positive feedback about the
program. Respondents rated their satisfaction with program measures and their overall
experience highly.
1.3 Cost Effectiveness Results
Guidehouse estimated the cost-effectiveness results for the Idaho Low Income
Weatherization Program, based on 2016 and 2017 costs provided by Rocky Mountain
Power and evaluated savings provided by ADM. They conducted the following cost-
effectiveness tests:
◼ Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC) + Conservation Adder
o The TRC test shows benefits and costs from the perspective of all utility
customers (participants and nonparticipants) in the utility service territory.
The 10% conservation benefit and adder is included in addition to
quantifiable non-energy impacts.
◼ Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) No Adder
◼ Utility Cost Test (UCT)
o The UCT test is an economic test used to compare the present value of the
benefits to the present value of the costs over the useful life of an energy
efficiency measure or program from the utility revenue requirement
perspective.
◼ Rate Impact Test (RIM)
o The RIM test shows impact of efficiency measure on non-participating
ratepayers overall
◼ Lifecycle Revenue Impacts ($/kWh)
Since program participants do not incur costs, the Participant Cost Test (PCT) was not
conducted. The program did not pass the cost-effectiveness tests during the evaluation
period. Table 1-3 through Table 1-5 Error! Reference source not found. report cost
effectiveness test results.

Executive Summary 4

Table 1-3: Low Income Program Level Results
PY2016-2017
Cost-Effectiveness Test Levelized
$/kWh Costs Benefits Net
Benefits
Benefit/Cost
Ratio
Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC) +
Conservation Adder $0.2103 $495,819 $405,257 -$90,562 0.82
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
No Adder $0.2103 $495,819 $385,738 -$110,081 0.78
Utility Cost Test (UCT) $0.2103 $495,819 $195,197 -$300,622 0.39
Rate Impact Test (RIM) $759,151 $195,197 -$563,954 0.26
Lifecycle Revenue Impacts ($/kWh) $0.0000031637

Table 1-4: Low Income Program Level Cost-Effectiveness Results
PY2016
Cost-Effectiveness Test Levelized
$/kWh Costs Benefits Net
Benefits
Benefit/Cost
Ratio
Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC) +
Conservation Adder $0.2003 $247,333 $174,714 -$72,619 0.71
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
No Adder $0.2003 $247,333 $162,539 -$84,794 0.66
Utility Cost Test (UCT) $0.2003 $247,333 $121,751 -$125,582 0.49
Rate Impact Test (RIM) $385,712 $121,751 -$263,961 0.32
Lifecycle Revenue Impacts ($/kWh) $0.0000029204

Table 1-5: Low Income Program Level Cost-Effectiveness Results
PY2017
Cost-Effectiveness Test Levelized
$/kWh Costs Benefits Net
Benefits
Benefit/Cost
Ratio
Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC) +
Conservation Adder $0.2213 $248,486 $230,543 -$17,943 0.93
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
No Adder $0.2213 $248,486 $223,199 -$25,287 0.90
Utility Cost Test (UCT) $0.2213 $248,486 $73,446 -$175,040 0.30
Rate Impact Test (RIM) $373,439 $73,446 -$299,993 0.20
Lifecycle Revenue Impacts ($/kWh) $0.0000034139

Executive Summary 5

1.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
ADM’s evaluation results in the following conclusions:
◼ During the evaluation period, the program resulted in total evaluated energy
savings of 271,409 kWh/year from 126 participating households.
◼ The program also reduced participants’ reliance on energy payment assistance
programs by a total of $8,215.32 and reduced the arrears balances carried by
participants by $3,149.94.
◼ Rocky Mountain Power continued their partnership with two community action
agencies to implement the LIW program in Idaho. The agencies expressed positive
program outcomes including reduced energy demand, improved home comfort,
reduction of health and safety hazards, and retention of homes in the affordable
housing inventory. Participant testimonials express deep gratitude for the positive
impact the program had on participants’ quality of life.
◼ The program did not pass the cost-effectiveness tests during the evaluation period.
Based on its evaluation, ADM recommend the following actions for Rocky Mountain
Power to consider in its future implementation of its LIW program in Idaho:
◼ Rocky Mountain Power should continue partnering with agencies that provide
federally funded weatherization services to take advantage of existing program
infrastructure and leveraged funding, and access to a trained weatherization
workforce.
◼ Rocky Mountain Power could consider providing branded, up-to-date educational
materials to distribute during weatherization implementations to improve education
and funding attribution. The company might also consider reinforcing or
reintroducing the past practice of installing Rocky Mountain Power branded yard
signs at homes during active project cycle to reinforce funding attribution.
◼ Rocky Mountain Power could consider sharing its program objectives (qualitative
and quantitative) with its partner community action agencies in order to more clearly
determine the success of the program. Both Rocky Mountain Power and the
agencies would likely benefit from more explicit program goals.
◼ Rocky Mountain Power could consider requesting more detailed tracking data from
implementers to increase the accuracy and granularity of measures’ specifications.
For example, additional data could include baseline and efficient wattages for bulbs
installed through the program, specifications for baseline and replacement efficient
refrigerators, and pre- and post-installation insulation conditions. Implementers are
already recording extensive data in the DOE-approved auditing software used for

Executive Summary 6

projects that include Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) funding, and
therefore the additional data reporting should not create an unreasonable burden.
◼ Rocky Mountain Power could consider reducing the interval between program
implementation and evaluation to facility more accurate and timely energy savings
estimates.
◼ Rocky Mountain Power could consider implementing a process for collecting
weatherization program customers’ email addresses to enable more accurate and
comprehensive program evaluations.
◼ Rocky Mountain Power could consider increasing its promotion of the
weatherization program to its customers in Southeast Idaho Community Action
Agency service area.
◼ Rocky Mountain Power could consider rebalancing the allocation of funding across
implementation agencies to address unmet demand in Eastern Idaho Community
Action Partnership’s service area.
◼ Rocky Mountain Power could consider using a blended ex-ante value from prior
program years analysis, rather than updating annually to the most recent evaluation
findings. The small sample sizes in Low Income program create high variability in
program savings across years. Using an average value across a couple prior
evaluation cycles could reduce the fluctuation in realization rates by program year.

Introduction and Purpose of Study 7

2. Introduction and Purpose of Study
This report provides results of the ADM Associates, Inc. (ADM) impact and process
evaluations of the Rocky Mountain Power 2016-2017 Low Income Weatherization (LIW)
program in Idaho. It also includes results of a cost effectiveness evaluation completed by
Guidehouse.
2.1 Impact evaluation
The primary objective of the impact evaluation was to determine ex-post verified gross
energy (kWh) savings that resulted from the installation of energy saving measures
through the program. The impact evaluation also an estimate of the program’s impact on
participants’ reliance on energy assistance payments and participants’ arrears balances.
2.2 Process evaluation
The objective of the process evaluation was to gain an in-depth understanding of program
operations and identify both program strengths and opportunities for improvement. The
process evaluation includes information gathered from Rocky Mountain Power staff, staff
of both agencies that implement the program, and program participants.
2.3 Cost effectiveness evaluation
The cost-effectiveness evaluation, completed by Guidehouse using cost estimates
provided by Rocky Mountain Power and energy saving estimates provided by ADM,
includes results of the following cost effectiveness tests:
◼ PacifiCorp Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC) + Conservation Adder
◼ Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) No Adder
◼ Utility Cost Test (UCT)
◼ Rate Impact Test (RIM)
◼ Lifecycle Revenue Impacts ($/kWh)
Since program participants do not incur costs, the Participant Cost Test (PCT) was not
conducted. The following chapters provide descriptions of the methods used to complete
these evaluations and their results.

Description of Program 8

3. Description of Program
In Idaho, Rocky Mountain Power’s LIW program is implemented by two non-profit
Community Action Partnership organizations: Eastern Idaho Community Action
Partnership and SouthEastern Idaho Community Action Agency. Each provides a variety
of wraparound services to income-eligible families and individuals, including federally
funding Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and Weatherization
Assistance Program (WAP) services; see Figure 3-1. Agencies leverage “braided
funding” from multiple sources to offer comprehensive weatherization services to
participants.
Figure 3-1: Idaho Low Income Weatherization Program Funding Flow

Rocky Mountain Power benefits from working with these implementation agencies in the
following ways:
Trained workforce. By working with implementing agencies, Rocky Mountain Power
benefits from access to crews that receive annual weatherization workforce training.
Both implementation agencies are members of a National Community Action
Partnership (NCAP) network, an association of local organizations many of which are
WAP implementers that benefit greatly from national and regional WAP conferences
and training.
Leveraged funding. By combining funding sources, agencies can leverage shared
program resources and can maximize the number of measures installed in a single
home, maximizing benefits for customers and energy savings.
Lower program administration costs. By managing multiple funding streams,
agencies distribute overhead costs across funders.
Table 3-1 includes participant counts for each agency.

Description of Program 9

Table 3-1: Rocky Mountain Power’s Low Income Weatherization Program in Idaho
Number of Participants by Implementation Agency 2016-2017
Agency 2016 2017 Total
Eastern Idaho Community Action Partnership 60 48 108
SouthEastern Idaho Community Action Agency 6 12 18
Total 66 60 126

Covered costs: For its customers who are program participants, Rocky Mountain Power
provided funding for 85 percent of the cost of eligible measures and a 15% administrative
allowance with a maximum value that ranges from $50-$350 per home depending on the
scope of the project. Rocky Mountain Power allows up to 15% of reimbursed costs to be
used for health and safety measures.
Table 3-2 includes the quantities of each measure that was installed during the evaluated
period.
Table 3-2: Quantities of Measures Installed 2016-2017
Measure Type 2016 2017 Total
Appliances
901 Refrigerator Replacement - ID 44 29 73
Building Shell
08 Wall Insulation - ID 11 9 20
09 Ceiling Insulation - ID 50 26 76
10 Attic Ventilation - ID 45 19 64
11 Floor Insulation - ID 22 19 41
18 Air Sealed/Infiltration - ID 66 60 126
31 Thermal Doors - ID 45 45 90
32 Double Glass Replacement - ID 29 48 77
ID Weatherization - ID 66 60 126
Container
Low Income Weatherization Typical 1 - 1
Health and Safety
274 Health and Safety - ID 67 60 127
HVAC
15 Duct Insulation/Sealing Insulation - ID 15 19 34
271 Furnace Repair - ID 26 35 61
272 Furnace Replacement - ID 9 22 31

Description of Program 10

Program goals: The agencies indicated that their programs goals included: enabling
people to stay in their homes, reduce their utility bills and increase home comfort. Neither
Rocky Mountain Power nor the agencies indicated that there were specific energy saving
performance goals.

Measure Type 2016 2017 Total
Lighting
21 CFL Bulbs - ID 184 64 248
21 Fluorescent Lighting - ID 112 112
50 LED Bulbs - ID 48 408 456
50 LED Bulbs - WY 8 8
Non-TRL Measures
Low Income Weatherization Payments - - -
Water Heating
12 Pipe Insulation HYD - ID 55 58 113
240 Water Heater Repair - ID 28 39 67
273 Water Heater Replacement - ID 1 2 3
Total 932 1,022 1,954

Impact Evaluation 11

4. Impact Evaluation
This chapter provides the results of ADM’s impact evaluation of the Rocky Mountain
Power LIW program in Idaho during 2016 and 2017. The impact analysis estimates the
energy and non-energy impacts that resulted from the program including:
◼ energy saving (kWh)
◼ reduced need for payment assistance
◼ reduced arrears balances
During the evaluation period, Rocky Mountain Power reimbursed program implementers
for installing energy efficient refrigerators as well as building shell, health and safety,
HVAC, lighting, and water heating measures.
4.1 Energy Savings
Rocky Mountain Power estimated energy savings using a single measure ex-ante value
per home, Weatherization - ID, that represented the bundled effect of all installed
measures. ADM used a regression analysis of billing data to verify the savings that
resulted from the program.
Table 4-1 presents the energy impact evaluation results including the quantity, claimed
gross savings, evaluated gross savings, and realization rates for the evaluation period.
Table 4-1: Idaho Low Income Weatherization Program
Claimed and Evaluated Energy Savings for 2016-2017
Year Measure Quantity
Claimed
Gross
Savings
(kWh/yr)
Evaluated
Gross
Savings
(kWh/yr)
Realization
Rate
2016 Weatherization - ID 66 140,069 85,536 61%
2017 Weatherization - ID 60 131,340 77,760 59%
Total 126 271,409 163,296 60%

Total ex post energy savings were comparable to the prior evaluation cycle. Ex ante
reported savings were higher than the prior evaluation cycle savings. The updates from
the last completed evaluation were not reflected in this cycle’s reported ex ante savings,
resulting in a low realization rate.
4.1.1 Energy Savings Evaluation Methodology
The impact evaluation component of this report estimates annual gross energy savings
(kWh) as framed by the following research question:

Impact Evaluation 12

◼ How many homes received the weatherization and energy savings measures?
◼ What were the kWh savings achieved by the program?
◼ Did the program have other non-energy impacts such as reducing program
participants’ reliance on energy assistance payments or a reducing their arrears
with Rocky Mountain Power?
4.1.2 Data Collection and Measure Verification
ADM reviewed and reconciled program tracking data to the participation counts and ex-
ante savings indicated in the 2016 and 2017 annual reports. ADM reviewed a census of
program tracking data. In concert with tracking data reviews, ADM also reviewed the
savings values and measure savings assumptions and calculations contained in the
Technical Resource Library (TRL) files. ADM issued data requests as needed to ensure
that all data was collected that could be reasonably expected or required for this
evaluation.
ADM took the following steps to evaluate tracking data and verify program savings.
Review of the program tracking database is an essential first step for verifying data
integrity. ADM assessed the program data management system DSMC – which facilitates
data collection and organization. ADM reviewed a census of program tracking data
contained in DSMC. Each program year’s dataset was reviewed for completeness,
consistency, and compliance with the provided TRL files.
Review of measure savings assumptions and calculations occurred concurrent with
the DSMC data reviews mentioned above. Savings values are maintained in the
Technical Reference Library (TRL). The TRL files sometimes include measure savings
assumptions, calculations, source papers or files (e.g. RTF versions), and additional
documentation that together comprise the generally accepted rules and guidance for
evaluating programs. ADM reviewed all TRL documentation and included in this report
any errors, omissions, or inconsistencies identified during ADM’s review.
Data requests related to EM&V activities occurred throughout the period of this
evaluation. ADM provided Rocky Mountain Power various data requests for DSMC and
TRL data pulls and reports, billing data, and other program data and verification, as
necessary.
Established a comparative sample consisting of 2018 – 2019 program participants.
4.1.3 Database Review
ADM reviewed and reconciled the program tracking data to the claimed participation
counts and ex-ante claimed savings in the 2016 and 2017 annual reports. Further, ADM

Impact Evaluation 13

verified that all energy savings are claimed in accordance with the applicable TRL
documents and calculations
For the Weatherization - ID measure in 2016 and 2017, Rocky Mountain Power claimed
an ex-ante Unit Energy Savings (UES) value of 1,308 kWh/year for 5 homes (all served
in 2016) and 2,189 kWh/year for 121 homes (served in 2016 and 2017).
ADM verified that the source for the 2,189 kWh/year ex-ante UES value is the Idaho
Low­Income Weatherization Program Evaluation Report for Program Years 2010-20121
and the source for the 1,308 kWh ex-ante value is the Idaho Low-Income Weatherization
Program Evaluation (2007-2009)2. Both ex-ante values were the result of regression
analysis of billing data completed during their respective evaluations. ADM believes it was
reasonable to use past evaluated savings as ex-ante values to estimate energy savings
given that there were not significant changes to the program or measure assortment.
4.2 Evaluated Gross Annual Energy (kWh) Savings
ADM completed a regression analysis to determine an ex-post estimate of energy savings
per participating home. The following sections document how the regression analysis was
completed.
4.2.1 Data Cleaning
ADM began its analysis by cleaning the billing and tracking data to develop a streamlined,
simple format for analysis. Both the tracking and billing data contain a billing account
number (called “Bill Account Number” in the tracking data and “Concat Agreement
Number” in the billing data) which can be used to match a specific premise and customer
with their received measures and measure installation date.
The billing data contains line-items unique to a given billing period and as such contains
multiple line-items which are unique to given premise. Each line-item breaks down the
billed kWh energy into multiple categories (Summer/Winter, Block 1/Block 2, Off Peak/On
Peak). The billed consumption is aggregated across these categories to develop a single
value for the billing period. Additionally, the data includes the date at which the billing
meter registered the period consumption amount along with the number of days in the
billing period. A calculation was made to determine a separate value of the number of
days in the billing period. Approximately .30% of the data points disagreed with the
original estimate for the number of days in the billing period. The independently calculated
value for the billing period was used and the average kWh per day (KWHD) was
calculated for each line-item.

1 Smith & Lehmann Consulting and H Gil Peach & Associates, January 26, 2015.
2 The Cadmus Group, Inc. / Energy Services, April 20, 2011.

Impact Evaluation 14

4.2.2 Incorporate Weather Data
Zip codes in the billing data were used to match line items with the nearest weather
stations by calculating the Haversine distance between latitudinal and longitudinal
coordinates.
An optimizing algorithm applied on integer sets of possible cooling degree day (CDD) and
heating degree day (HDD) base conditions is used on the billing data and associated
weather data to determine the appropriate average degree day bases by selecting the
set of parameters that minimizes the root mean squared error of a piecewise regression
on consumption. The optimal values were found to be 72 for a CDD base and 55 for a
HDD base.
The cumulative CDD and HDD for a given line item in the billing data is assigned based
on the listed billing cycle start and end dates. These values are divided by the number of
days in the billing cycle to get average cooling degree days per day (CDDD) and heating
degree days per day (HDDD) values.
4.2.3 Regression Analysis
The billing and tracking data were merged together based on their account numbers and
data points are assigned a “POST” dummy variable that is 1 if the billing period start date
is after the “Measure Effective Date” and 0 if the billing period end date is before it.
Comparison groups are created from the population of program participants that
participated in program during 2018 and 2019. Any premise classified as a member of
the comparison group had their data filtered to data points prior to their measure
installation date.
Data points that indicated there was less than 3 kWh of consumption per a day across a
given billing period were removed. This removed 6.1 percent of the data points. Any
premise that had less than 6 data points in their pre or post period was removed from
consideration in the analysis.
A graphical review of pre-period data for the treatment and comparison groups was
conducted to ensure the parallel trends assumption of the difference-in-differences
methodology was not broken.

Impact Evaluation 15

After verifying the validity of the comparison group, ADM completed a regression analysis
using the following equation.
𝑘𝑊ℎ
𝐷𝑎𝑦=𝑎0 +𝑎1 ∗𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡+𝑎2 ∗𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡+𝑎3 ∗𝐶𝐷𝐷𝐷+𝑎4 ∗𝐻𝐷𝐷𝐷+𝑎5
∗𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡∗𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡+𝑎6 ∗𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡∗𝐶𝐷𝐷𝐷+𝑎7 ∗𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡∗𝐶𝐷𝐷𝐷+𝑎8 ∗𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡∗𝐻𝐷𝐷𝐷
+𝑎9 ∗𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡∗𝐻𝐷𝐷𝐷+𝑎10 ∗𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡∗𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡∗𝐶𝐷𝐷𝐷+𝑎11 ∗𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡
∗𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡∗𝐻𝐷𝐷𝐷+(1|𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑡𝑁𝑢𝑚
𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ)+ 𝜖

Where the terms in this equation are described in the table below:

Impact Evaluation 16

Symbol Definition
kWh / Day The average daily consumption in a given billing period.
Treat A dummy variable representing inclusion in either the treatment group (treat = 1) or the
comparison group (treat = 0).
Post A dummy variable representing before (post = 0) or after (post = 1) the measure
installation.
CDDD The average daily cooling degree days for a given data point (one billing period). Base
temperature of 72 degrees Fahrenheit
HDDD The average daily heating degree days for a given data point (one billing period). Base
temperature of 55 degrees Fahrenheit
ϵ Error term
The inclusion of the HDDD and CDDD terms control for weather variation during the pre-
and post-periods and between the treatment and comparison groups. The model includes
a nested random effects term allowing each premise (defined by its account number) to
adopt unique intercept values for each month.
Average daily savings are then calculated according to the following formula.
𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠= 𝛼5 +𝛼10 ∗𝐻𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐴𝑣𝑔𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡+ 𝛼11 ∗𝐶𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐴𝑣𝑔𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡
The results of the regression analysis are included in Table 4-2
Table 4-2: Regression Results Idaho LIW Energy Savings Per Home 2016-2017
Daily
Energy
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Energy
Savings
(kWh)
Treatment
Premises
Comparison
Premises
Pre-Period
Treatment
Data
Points
Post-
Period
Treatment
Data
Points
Pre-Period
Comparison
Data Points
Post-Period
Comparison
Data Points
3.55 1,296 105 78 2,851 3,229 1,762 1,550
4.3 Non-energy Impact Analysis
ADM estimated non-energy impacts of Rocky Mountain Power’s Low-Income
Weatherization Program in Idaho for 2016 and 2017. Three types of non-energy impacts
were assessed:
◼ Reduced external assistance payments to program participants to help them in
paying electric bills.

Impact Evaluation 17

◼ Reduced arrearages for program participants, where an arrearage is measured
by an unpaid ending monthly balance on a customer’s bill.
◼ Health and safety measures.
4.3.1 Method of Analysis
ADM determined the magnitude of the payment assistance and arrearage impact on a
per-participant basis using a difference-in-differences analysis. With this analysis, the
magnitude of the benefit attributable to the program was determined by comparing
changes in payment assistance or arrearages before and after participation for program
participants to changes for a comparison group.
Program participants were divided into two groups for the analyses: those participating in
2016 and those participating in 2017. Separate analyses were performed for each group.
The comparison group for each analysis included those customers who participated in
the program in 2018 or 2019.
Periods for before and after participation were defined as follows.
◼ For the analysis for 2016 participants, the before period included 2015 and 2016.
The after period was 2017, the year after program participation for these
customers.
◼ For the analysis for 2017 participants, the before period included 2016 and 2017.
The after period was 2018, the year after program participation for these
customers.
4.3.2 Results from Analysis of External Assistance Payments
For the analysis of external assistance payments, PacifiCorp provided payment data for
the years 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 for LIW program participants in the Idaho (ID)
service territory. The data provided identified participants by site and customer account
numbers and included payment amounts, payment dates, and source of payment (e.g.,
Payment Assistance Organization). For the analysis of external assistance payments,
data were extracted for valid payments made by a payment assistance organization.
Table 4-3 presents the results of the difference-in-differences analysis of external
assistance payments. Mean monthly external assistance payments were calculated for
participant and comparison group customers for before and after periods for program
participants in 2016 and 2017. The numbers of observations used for the calculations of
means are as follows.
◼ For the analysis of 2016 program participants, the numbers of observations for
participants were 64 for the before period and 32 for the after period.

Impact Evaluation 18

◼ For the comparison group, there were 67 observations for the before period and
74 for the after period.
◼ For the analysis of 2017 program participants, the numbers of observations for
participants were 59 for the before period and 30 for the after period.
◼ For the comparison group, there were 100 observations for the before period and
69 for the after period.
Table 4-3: Analysis of Changes in External Assistance Payments
Based on Mean Monthly Payments
Program Participants Comparison Group Net
difference
Before After Change %
Change Before After Change %
Change
2016 $411.98 $335.94 -$76.04 32.44% $350.98 $330.96 -$20.02 -5.70% $56.02
2017 $361.13 $348.12 -$13.01 132.44% $333.88 $396.17 $62.28 18.65% $75.30
The analysis of changes in external assistance payments shows the following.
◼ For 2016 program participants, mean monthly external assistance payments
decreased by $76.04 from the before period to the after period. For comparison
group customers, there was a decrease in mean payments of $20.02. Because
the decrease in mean monthly payments for 2016 program participants was
$56.02 more than for the comparison group, the net program benefit associated
with external assistance payments for these participants was $56.02. That is, in
the absence of the program, 2016 participants would have required average
monthly external assistance payments that would have been $56.02 higher.
◼ For 2017 program participants, mean monthly external assistance payments
decreased by $13.01 from the before period to the after period. For comparison
group customers, there was an increase in payments of $62.28. Because the
difference in change to mean monthly payments for 2017 program participants
was $75.30, the net program benefit associated with external assistance
payments for these participants was $75.30. That is, in the absence of the
program, 2017 participants would have required average monthly external
assistance payments that would have been $75.30 higher.
4.3.3 Results from Analysis of Arrearages
For the analysis of arrearages, PacifiCorp provided arrearage data for the years 2016,
2017, 2018, and 2019 for LIW program participants in the Idaho (ID) service territory.

Impact Evaluation 19

Using these data, we calculated the change in arrearages for Program participants and
compared this to the change in arrearages for the comparison group.
Table 4-4 presents the calculations for this difference-in-differences analysis of
arrearages. Mean monthly arrearages were calculated for participant and comparison
group customers for before and after periods for program participants in 2016 and 2017.
The numbers of observations used for the calculations of means are as follows.
◼ For the analysis of 2016 program participants, the numbers of observations for
participants were 1,090 for the before period and 486 for the after period. For the
comparison group, there were 1,553 observations for the before period and 957
for the after period.
◼ For the analysis of 2017 program participants, the numbers of observations for
participants were 1,195 for the before period and 571 for the after period. For the
comparison group, there were 1,794 observations for the before period and
1,006 for the after period.
Table 4-4: Analysis of Changes in Arrearages Based on
Mean Monthly Arrearage Balances

Program Participants Comparison Group Net
difference
Before After Change %
Change Before After Change %
Change
2016 $98.39 $106.91 $8.52 8.66% $45.53 $74.24 $28.71 63.06% $20.19
2017 $94.25 $114.66 $20.41 21.66% $66.85 $117.55 $50.70 75.84% $30.29

The analysis of changes in arrearages shows the following.
◼ For 2016 program participants, mean monthly arrearages increased by $8.52
from the before period to the after period. For comparison group customers,
there was an increase in mean arrearages of $28.71. Had program participants
showed the same increase as comparison group customers, their mean monthly
arrearage would have been higher by $20.19. Thus, for 2016 program
participants the net program benefit associated with arrearages was $20.19 per
participant. That is, the 2016 program participants had mean monthly arrearages
that were $20.19 lower than would have occurred had they not participated in the
program.
◼ For 2017 program participants, mean monthly arrearages increased by $20.41
from the before period to the after period. For comparison group customers,
there was an increase in mean arrearages of $50.70. Had program participants

Impact Evaluation 20

showed the same increase as comparison group customers, their mean monthly
arrearage would have been higher by $30.29. Thus, for 2017 program
participants the net program benefit associated with arrearages was $30.29 per
participant. That is, the 2017 program participants had mean monthly arrearages
that were $30.29 lower than would have occurred had they not participated in the
program.
4.3.4 Health and Safety Measures
Rocky Mountain Power provides funding for health and safety repairs to bring the home
into a condition for which energy saving measures can be effective. Table 4-5 presents
the health and safety non-energy impacts.
Table 4-5: Health and Safety Measures
PY2016 PY2017 Total
Health & Safety $35,758.42 $143,417.40 $179,175.82
4.3.5 Total Non-energy impacts
The total non-energy impacts that resulted from the program in 2016 and 2017 are shown
in Table 4-6.
Table 4-6: Low Income Weatherization Non-Energy Impacts by Program Year
Non-Energy Impacts PY2016 PY2017
Health & Safety $35,758.42 $143,417.40
Payment assistance $3,697.32 $4,518.00
Arrearages $1,332.54 $1,817.40
Total $40,788.28 $149,752.80

Process Evaluation 21

5. Process Evaluation
ADM completed a process evaluation of the Rocky Mountain Power LIW program during
2016 and 2017 that consisted of:
◼ In-depth interviews with program staff
◼ Review of program materials
◼ Program participant survey
5.1 In-depth Interviews with Program Staff and Review of Program Materials
ADM evaluators interviewed LIW program staff from Rocky Mountain Power and from the
two community action agencies that implemented the program. Interviews were
conducted to gain insight into program design, to identify program objectives and to
assess the program during the evaluation period of 2016 and 2017. The evaluators also
reviewed available program materials.
5.1.1 Roles and Responsibilities
Rocky Mountain Power is a subsidiary of PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp’s LIW program manager
oversees the program in Utah, Wyoming, Washington, Idaho, and California. The
program manager who oversaw the program during the 2016-2017 evaluation period is
no longer with PacifiCorp and was therefore unavailable to interview. Current program
staff, some of whom held positions in the LIW program during evaluation period, were
interviewed.
PacifiCorp’s LIW program manager works with two community action agencies to
implement the program for Rocky Mountain Power in Idaho: Eastern Idaho Community
Action Partnership and Southeastern Idaho Community Action Agency. ADM’s evaluators
interviewed staff at both. Both agencies provide a variety of wraparound services for
vulnerable populations, including federally funded LIHEAP and WAP services.
Implementation agencies are responsible for the following program management
activities:
◼ Determine applicants’ eligibility
◼ Perform energy audits and identify eligible measures
◼ Manage installation of qualifying measures
◼ Provide certified quality control inspectors to visit and inspect all project sites
◼ Process invoices for payment by Rocky Mountain Power

Process Evaluation 22

5.1.2 Tracking and Reporting
Rocky Mountain Power provided ADM with program tracking data that specified what
measures were installed per project and estimated energy savings. Customers’ phone
numbers and email addresses at the time of participation in the program were included in
the tracking data when available. Data about measures installed per project site were
provided by the implementation agencies to Rocky Mountain Power when they submitted
invoices for completed projects.
Agencies were able to invoice Rocky Mountain Power for eligible measures by
submitting an electronic file that output from audit software. This is an efficient billing
system for the agencies.
5.1.3 Communication
Both agencies reported that the relationship with Rocky Mountain Power is “good.”
Agencies felt that Rocky Mountain Power’s annual monitoring trip provided a good
opportunity for the agencies and Rocky Mountain Power to develop a stronger
relationship. Neither Rocky Mountain Power nor the agencies expressed concerns about
their level of communication.
5.1.4 Marketing and Outreach
Eastern Idaho Community Action Partnership engaged with participants primarily by
phoning LIHEAP program participants and letting them know that they were eligible for
the LIW program. LIHEAP customers who return the agency’s calls were then scheduled
for home energy audits to determine if their homes were appropriate for LIW funding.
The Southeastern Idaho Community Action Agency reported that few Rocky Mountain
Power customers submitted LIW program applications. Not enough applicants applied to
the program to spend the allocated funding. The agency suggested that Rocky Mountain
Power could promote the program through power bill inserts.
5.1.5 Quality Assurances and Quality Controls (QA/QC)
The program’s quality assurance and quality control practices were driven by DOE’s
Weatherization Assistance Program QA/QC requirements that were implemented in
2015, after the previous program evaluation period. DOE requires that all jobs are
inspected by Quality Control Inspectors (QCIs) who have been certified by the Building
Performance Institute.
Agencies reported complying with DOE auditing, quality control and inspection
requirement for federal weatherization programs.

Process Evaluation 23

Agencies’ QCIs inspected work before submitting invoices to Rocky Mountain Power for
qualified installed measures and services.
Rocky Mountain Power representatives join state WAP program managers on an annual
monitoring trip to inspect 4-5 homes.
5.1.6 In Depth Interview Takeaways
The following findings resulted from ADM’s in-depth interviews with program staff:
◼ Testimony from program clients is indicative of the transformative effect that
weatherization program can have on individuals’ quality of life. One client
expressed gratitude with great emotion not only for the benefits of the
weatherization services, but also of her gratitude for the dignity with which the
implementer treated her family.
◼ Eastern Idaho Community Action Partnership had a remarkably low 2% deferral
rate. The agency uses EPA Affordable Housing funds to make repairs to homes
that would otherwise not be in condition for weatherization.
◼ The two agencies differ drastically in time from application to service delivery.
Eastern Idaho Community Action Partnership has nearly a 3-year wait list, while
Southeastern Idaho Community Action Agency does not have a wait list and
generally begins services within weeks and completes most projects within 3 to 4
months of receiving the client’s application.
◼ While both agencies provide energy efficiency educational materials to clients,
Southeastern Idaho Community Action Agency appears to be more focused on
client education, providing materials and training at least three times for each
client throughout the entire project.
◼ Both agencies collect customer satisfaction data from clients after projects have
been completed, though neither reported that they have made changes to the
program as a result of the survey results.
◼ Eastern Idaho Community Action Partnership’s annual funding cap from Rocky
Mountain Power was $200,000, and Southeastern Idaho Community Action
Agency’s annual funding cap was $100,000. During years when Southeastern
Idaho Community Action Agency does not spend their entire budget, Rocky
Mountain Power transfers funds to Eastern Idaho Community Action Partnership.
◼ The agencies weatherization and energy assistance programs use a joint
application process that reduces processing redundancy both for agency staff
and applicants.

Process Evaluation 24

◼ Eastern Idaho Community Action Partnership does not advertise to promote their
program. Given existing wait lists, it does not feel that any additional program
promotion is warranted. In contrast, Southeastern Idaho Community Action
Agency has great difficulty finding clients that are eligible for Rocky Mountain
Power funding and could benefit from additional program promotion.
◼ Idaho compliancy requirements create barriers for agencies to hire contractors
(HVAC, plumbing, electrical), especially for Southeastern Idaho Community
Action Agency. Few contractors were willing to complete background checks and
comply with all training requirements in order to be eligible to bid for
weatherization projects.
5.2 Program Participant Survey
The participant survey evaluation was designed to research and document the
experiences of program participants. ADM used survey results to assess implementation
strategies and program design. The participant survey was designed to answer the
following questions.
◼ How did participants hear about the program?
◼ Why did customers decide to participate in the program?
◼ How satisfied were participants with the work performed, the scheduling and
application processes, and other aspects of program participation?
◼ What were the perceived energy and non-energy impacts associated with the
program?
To address these researchable issues, ADM reviewed program documentation and
administered participant surveys.
Program Documentation Review: ADM reviewed tracking data that included
information about install measures and program participants contact information.
Participant Survey: ADM conducted a mixed mode (online and telephone) survey of
qualifying income-qualified participants who received measures or services from the
program. Participant emails (n = 22) and phone numbers (n = 118) were identified from
data provided by Rocky Mountain Power and linked to the tracking data. ADM attempted
to contact a total of 126 program participants as part of the survey efforts.
ADM sent emails to participants a total of four times throughout the month of December
2019 inviting them to participate in the survey, resulting in one completed survey and four
hard bounced emails. ADM staff made 315 phone calls to 117 participants with phone
numbers during the month of December (up to four unsolicited call attempts per
household) resulting in 35 completed surveys, 26 disconnected phones, nine refusals,

Process Evaluation 25

four who did not recall participating in the program, and eight wrong numbers. Phone calls
and email campaign messages were discontinued after ADM collected enough surveys
(n = 36) to represent the total population of 126 program participants. Due to the small
sample size obtained, a +10% precision was not able to be met, rather a +11.59%
precision with 90% statistical confidence was achieved.
ADM analyzed survey responses from 36 participants: online responses to an email
campaign (n = 1) and telephone responses (n = 35). Program participants were offered
monetary incentives ($10 gift cards) for completing the survey. Survey topics covered
measure installation rates as well as customer experiences with the program, installation
crew, and agency staff.
This section summarizes feedback received from survey respondents.
5.2.1 Program Awareness
LIW program respondents first learned about the program through a variety of channels.
Most participants reported learning about the program from a community agency (39%),
word of mouth (22%) from friends or neighbors, or from Rocky Mountain Power (22%) as
well as other sources as indicated below in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1: How did respondents learn about the program?
Respondents reported deciding to participate in the program to save money on their
energy bills (92%), to improve home comfort (78%), because the services were provided
at no cost (58%), to reduce energy use for environmental reasons (47%), to improve the
value of the home (42%) and other reasons (3%) as shown in Table 5-2.
Response n Percentage of
Respondents
From a community agency/another program 14 39%
From a friend/neighbor 8 22%
From information received through Rocky Mountain Power 8 22%
From an information brochure 3 8%
Former program participant 1 3%
From the internet 0 0%
Don’t remember 0 0%
Other 2 6%

Process Evaluation 26

Table 5-2: Why did respondents decide to participate in the program?
Response n Percentage of
Respondents
To save money on energy bills 33 92%
To improve home comfort 28 78%
The services were provided at no cost 21 58%
To reduce energy use for environmental reasons 17 47%
To improve value of the home 15 42%
Other 1 3%
Note: The sum of n may exceed the total surveyed (36) and percentages may
exceed 100% because respondents could choose more than one response.
5.2.2 Measures Installed
ADM asked survey respondents to confirm measures were installed in their homes
through the program. Survey respondents confirmed receipt of all (100%) LED and CFL
light bulbs, ceiling and wall insulation, heat duct sealing/insulation, thermal doors,
windows, and furnace replacement. Respondents confirmed receipt of 63-95% (Average
of measures = 85%) of the remaining measures captured in the survey. It is likely that the
extended time period between participation and collection of survey data as well as the
unseen nature of many weatherization measures (insulations being inside walls or under
the floor for example) can explain the lower than 100% confirmation rates. Table 5-3
displays a summary of the measures that survey respondents reported receiving. The
one program participant who received water heater replacement did not complete the
survey because they were unable to be reached (no email nor phone number available).
Table 5-3: What measures did survey respondents receive?
Measures Yes No Don’t
know
Percentage
confirming
Yes
ENERGY STAR certified refrigerator 20 1 0 95%
LED light bulbs 19 0 0 100%
CFL light bulbs 16 0 0 100%

Process Evaluation 27

Air drafts sealed 33 1 2 92%
Ceiling insulation 25 0 0 100%
Floor insulation 12 0 1 92%
Wall insulation 4 0 0 100%
Attic ventilation 20 0 1 95%
Thermal door(s) 26 0 0 100%
Window replacement 26 0 0 100%
Heat duct sealing and/or insulation 11 0 0 100%
Furnace repair 12 3 1 75%
Furnace replacement 8 0 0 100%
Water pipe insulation 28 6 0 82%
Water heater repair 15 8 1 63%
Water heater replacement 0 0 0 0%
Note: The percentages may exceed 100% because respondents were only
asked to confirm receipt of measures indicated in tracking data and
percentages were calculated for each item individually.
ADM asked respondents to rate their satisfaction with the measures they received
through the program on a scale from 1 to 5, in which 1 meant “very dissatisfied” and 5
meant “very satisfied”. ADM asked respondents to rate their satisfaction with the
measures they received through the program on a scale from 1 to 5, in which 1 meant
“very dissatisfied” and 5 meant “very satisfied”. Most respondents (55-100%) rated their
satisfaction with the measures a “4” or “5” with “don’t know” responses interspersed. A
few ratings of “3” or lower were noted; comments noted include refrigerators being too
small, not functioning properly and breaking easily, LED bulbs having a dull light, the
thermal door locks did not work and the furnace (“heater”) runs up the bill super high.
Figure 5-1 displays survey respondents’ level of satisfaction with items that were among
the most received by program participants.

Process Evaluation 28

Figure 5-1: Satisfaction with Energy Savings Measures

All respondents who confirmed receipt of refrigerators, windows, thermal door(s) and
furnace replacements through the program reported they were still installed (100%).
Approximately two-thirds of respondents (59% LED, 38% CFL) reported they had not
uninstalled any of the lightbulbs they received through the program. The remainder of
respondents noted they had removed some of the light bulbs they received through the
program (41% LED, 62% CFL). Twenty-four percent of respondents who recalled details
on the number of bulbs received from the program reported they were given LED bulbs
that were never installed, all stating they were given to them as extras or spares.
Of the respondents that mentioned some or all LED and CFL light bulbs had been
removed, all of them noted the reason was they broke or burned out (100% each). Most

Process Evaluation 29

participants reported LED bulbs (71%) that were removed were done so more than one
year after installation. In comparison, most participants reported CFL bulbs (75%) that
were removed were done so within the first year of installation.
Most respondents (71% LED, 100% CFL) who reported receiving light bulbs said they
replaced incandescent bulbs and 12% noted the LEDs replaced CFLs (percentages sum
to greater than 100% for LEDs as one household reported LED bulbs replaced more than
one type of bulb). Twenty-four percent of participants who installed LEDs did not recall
what bulb or fixture the new LED replaced.
Given the time lapse between the installation of measures and the survey, participants
were prompted again later in the survey to recall whether they received some of the
measures not easily seen in the home (insulations, ground cover, repairs etc.). For
example, two participants who initially denied that ceiling insulation was installed as
stated in program records, later changed their answer and confirmed the installation had
been installed. In the case of air drafts that were sealed in the home, two of the thirty-six
participants (5.6%) who initially denied the installation occurred or said they did not know,
later changed their answer and confirmed it was indeed installed. Response changes can
be seen across many measures (as shown in Table 5-4 below) suggesting participants
recall of the installations has faltered over time. Therefore, we assume a 100% installation
rate for these measures.
Table 5-4: Respondents consistency in recall of installation
Number of participants who answered a repeated prompt with the same response
Measures
Yes
1st/2nd
Survey
Prompts
No
1st/2nd
Survey
Prompts
Don’t know
1st/2nd
Survey
Prompts
2nd Prompt
Responded
“Don’t
Remember”
Air drafts sealed 33/35 1/0 2/1 0
Ceiling insulation 25/25 0/0 0/0 0
Floor insulation 12/11 0/0 1/0 0
Wall insulation 4/3 0/0 0/0 0
Attic ventilation 20/20 0/1 1/0 0
Duct sealing and/or insulation 11/10 0/0 0/0 1
Furnace repair 12/12 3/3 1/0 1
Water pipe insulation 28/28 6/4 0/0 2

Process Evaluation 30

Water heater repair 15/16 8/5 1/0 2
Note: The total number of participants who completed the second prompt for recall may not total
the same number who completed the first prompt as participants could choose not to respond.
5.2.3 Audit Experience
Most survey respondents reported they had a positive experience with the home energy
audit. All respondents rated their satisfaction with scheduling their audit a 4 (3%) or 5
(97%) on a scale from 1 to 5 in which 1 represented “not at all useful” and 5 represented
“extremely useful” (see Figure 5-2). All respondents (100%) stated their visit was
scheduled at a convenient time, and nearly all (92%) stated the home energy auditor or
inspector arrived at their home on time or at least within 15 minutes of the scheduled
appointment. Eight percent of participants reported they did not remember the details of
the auditor’s arrival time.
Many respondents (92%) indicated they spoke with the auditor about ways to save energy
in their home or that the auditor left educational materials about how to save energy, while
the remainder reported they did not receive information (6%) or they did not remember
(3%). Ninety-one percent of respondents indicated they felt they knew more about saving
energy after the auditor’s visit and the majority (97%) rated their satisfaction with the
information’s they received about ways to use less electricity a 4 (5%) or 5 (92%) (see
Figure 5-2).
Fifty-nine percent of respondents noted that they have done something in their home or
changed their behavior to use less electricity since the auditor visited; the remainder
(41%) changed nothing.
Of the respondents who reported an effort to use less electricity and left comments with
specifics, 44% were more conscious of keeping lights off when they are not in use, 44%
unplugged appliances when not in use or used them at appropriate times, 39% made
heating related adjustments (lowering and regulating thermostat, opening/closing doors
and windows), and 17% purchased or made efforts to use more energy efficient devices
or appliances3. Eighty-three percent of respondents said that they have noticed energy
savings since participating in the program; eighty-four percent of these respondents rated
their satisfaction with the savings either a 4 (10%) or 5 (74%) as shown in Figure 5-2.

3 Percentages may total greater than 100% as respondents often reported more than one category of
energy savings behavior.

Process Evaluation 31

Figure 5-2: Satisfaction with Scheduling, Energy Education
and Savings on Electric Bills.

5.2.4 Program Satisfaction
Thirty-one percent of survey respondents indicated they had contacted agency staff with
questions about the items or services they could receive through this program through
the course of participation. Of those that contacted agency staff, the majority (73%) were
satisfied with their communications and gave ratings of 4 (9%) or 5 (64%). Twenty-seven
percent of respondents rated their communication with agency staff a 3 and did not leave
comments as to why.
Overall, program participants rated their satisfaction with the LIW program incredibly high.
All participants rated the program a 4 (11%) or 5 (89%) out of 5 as shown in Figure 5-3.
Respondents were given the opportunity to provide additional feedback and took this
opportunity to request a copy of their home audit report or additional help involving
plumbing. Others commented on their dissatisfaction with the contractors and their work.
Another respondent reported issues with the new windows that were installed indicating
leakage from rainy weather.

Process Evaluation 32

Figure 5-3: Overall Program Satisfaction

5.2.5 Participant Survey Takeaways
ADM noted the following results from the participant survey:
◼ Most survey respondents shared positive feedback and support for the program.
◼ A small portion of respondents noted issues with the program and shared
comments regarding areas for potential improvement including:
◼ More direct or clear ways to communicate issues with agency staff
◼ Inclusion of additional measures
◼ Improving customer service
◼ A small portion of participants chose the “don’t remember” or “don’t know” option
available in some questions indicating difficulty recalling details 2-4 years after
participation.

Cost Effectiveness Evaluation 33

6. Cost Effectiveness Evaluation
The cost-effectiveness evaluation, completed by Guidehouse using cost estimates
provided by Rocky Mountain Power and energy saving estimates provided by ADM,
includes results of the following cost effectiveness tests:
◼ PacifiCorp Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC) + Conservation Adder
◼ Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) No Adder
◼ Utility Cost Test (UCT)
◼ Rate Impact Test (RIM)
◼ Lifecycle Revenue Impacts ($/kWh)
Since program participants do not incur costs, and Participant Cost Test (PCT) was not
conducted. Table 6-1 includes the cost effectiveness evaluation inputs for 2016 and 2017.
Table 6-1: Low Income Weatherization Program Inputs
Parameter PY2016 PY2017
Discount Rate 6.66% 6.66%
Residential Line Loss 11.47% 11.47%
Residential Energy Rate ($/kWh) ¹ $0.1041 $0.1034
Inflation Rate 1.90% 1.90%
¹ Future rates determined using a 1.90% annual escalator.
Table 6-2 reports program costs by year.
Table 6-2: Low Income Weatherization Annual Program Costs
Program
Year
Engineering
Costs
Utility
Admin
Program
Delivery
Program
Development Incentives
Total
Utility
Costs
Gross
Customer
Costs
2016 $0 $12,986 $13,429 $357 $220,561 $247,333 $0
2017 $0 $14,858 $14,689 $3,953 $214,986 $248,486 $0
2016-
2017 $0 $27,844 $28,118 $4,310 $435,547 $495,819 $0

Cost Effectiveness Evaluation 34

Table 6-3 includes non-energy impacts that resulted from the program during the
evaluation period.
Table 6-3: Low Income Weatherization Non-Energy Impacts by Program Year
Non-Energy Impacts PY2016 PY2017 Perspective
Adjusted
Health & Safety $35,758.42 $143,417.40 PTRC, TRC
Payment assistance $3,697.32 $4,518.00 PTRC, TRC
Arrearages $1,332.54 $1,817.40 PTRC, TRC
Total $40,788.28 $149,752.80

Table 6-4 includes energy savings resulting from the program for the evaluation period.
Table 6-4: Low Income Weatherization Program – Savings by Program Year
Program
Year
Gross kWh
Savings
Realization
Rate
Adjusted
Gross kWh
Savings
Net to Gross
Ratio
Net kWh
Savings
Measure
Life
2016 140,069 61% 85,536 100% 85,536 25
2017 131,340 59% 77,760 100% 77,760 25
2016-2017 271,409 60% 163,296 100% 163,296 25

Table 6-5 includes the summarized results of the following cost effectiveness tests for the
evaluation period: Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC), Total Resource Cost Test (TRC),
Utility Cost Test (UCT), Rate Impact Test (RIM).
The program did not pass cost effectiveness tests for the evaluation period. The 2016-
2017 Low Income Weatherization program outperformed prior years with respect to
average savings achieved per household. The average program and incentive costs per
participating household were slightly lower than prior program years and the total non-
energy impacts were comparable. Avoided costs per kWh decreased between the 2013-
2015 program cycle and the 2016-17 program cycle, causing the program to not pass
PTRC.
Table 6-5: Benefit/Cost Ratios by Program Year
Program Year PTRC TRC UCT RIM
2016 0.71 0.66 0.49 0.32

Cost Effectiveness Evaluation 35

2017 0.93 0.90 0.30 0.20
2016-2017 0.82 0.78 0.39 0.26

Table 6-6 through Table 6-8Error! Reference source not found. report cost
effectiveness test results for the 2016-2017 period and for 2016 and 2017 individually.
Table 6-6: Low Income Program Level Results
PY2016-2017
Cost-Effectiveness Test Levelized
$/kWh Costs Benefits Net
Benefits
Benefit/Cost
Ratio
Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC) +
Conservation Adder $0.2103 $495,819 $405,257 -$90,562 0.82
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
No Adder $0.2103 $495,819 $385,738 -$110,081 0.78
Utility Cost Test (UCT) $0.2103 $495,819 $195,197 -$300,622 0.39
Rate Impact Test (RIM) $759,151 $195,197 -$563,954 0.26
Lifecycle Revenue Impacts ($/kWh) $0.0000031637

Cost Effectiveness Evaluation 36

Table 6-7: Low Income Program Level Cost-Effectiveness Results
PY2016
Cost-Effectiveness Test Levelized
$/kWh Costs Benefits Net
Benefits
Benefit/Cost
Ratio
Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC) +
Conservation Adder $0.2003 $247,333 $174,714 -$72,619 0.71
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
No Adder $0.2003 $247,333 $162,539 -$84,794 0.66
Utility Cost Test (UCT) $0.2003 $247,333 $121,751 -$125,582 0.49
Rate Impact Test (RIM) $385,712 $121,751 -$263,961 0.32
Lifecycle Revenue Impacts ($/kWh) $0.0000029204
Table 6-8: Low Income Program Level Cost-Effectiveness Results
PY2017
Cost-Effectiveness Test Levelized
$/kWh Costs Benefits Net
Benefits
Benefit/Cost
Ratio
Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC) +
Conservation Adder $0.2213 $248,486 $230,543 -$17,943 0.93
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
No Adder $0.2213 $248,486 $223,199 -$25,287 0.90
Utility Cost Test (UCT) $0.2213 $248,486 $73,446 -$175,040 0.30
Rate Impact Test (RIM) $373,439 $73,446 -$299,993 0.20
Lifecycle Revenue Impacts ($/kWh) $0.0000034139

Conclusions and Recommendations 37

7. Conclusions and Recommendations
ADM’s evaluation results in the following conclusions:
◼ During the evaluation period, the program resulted in total evaluated energy
savings of 271,409 kWh/year from 126 participating households.
◼ The program also reduced participants’ reliance on energy payment assistance
programs by a total of $8,215.32 and reduced the arrears balances carried by
participants by $3,149.94.Rocky Mountain Power continued their partnership with
two community action agencies to implement the LIW program in Idaho. The
agencies expressed positive program outcomes including reduced energy
demand, improved home comfort, reduction of health and safety hazards, and
retention of homes in the affordable housing inventory. Participant testimonials
express deep gratitude for the positive impact the program had on participants’
quality of life.
Based on its evaluation, ADM recommend the following actions for Rocky Mountain
Power to consider in its future implementation of its LIW program in Idaho:
◼ The program did not pass the cost-effectiveness tests during the evaluation period;
The decreased avoided costs create an additional barrier to passing cost
effectiveness. Therefore, Rocky Mountain Power could consider discussions with
stakeholders on the application of incentive payments for the TRC test. Currently
the program costs include both material and labor costs. The TRC test is designed
to capture benefits and costs from the perspective of all utility customers
(participants and nonparticipants) in the utility service territory. ADM confirmed that
for the 2016-17 program cycle the labor payments for the work completed stayed
in the service territory. Meaning, because the work was completed by agencies and
contractors with employees residing in the service territory, the economic benefit
for the work completed is essentially shifted to another utility customer. Rocky
Mountain Power could consider applying only the material cost as a program cost.
◼ Rocky Mountain Power should continue partnering with agencies that provide
federally funded weatherization services to take advantage of existing program
infrastructure and leveraged funding, and access to a trained weatherization
workforce.
◼ Rocky Mountain Power could consider providing branded, up-to-date educational
materials to distribute during weatherization implementations to improve education
and funding attribution. The company might also consider reinforcing or
reintroducing the past practice of installing Rocky Mountain Power branded yard
signs at homes during active project cycle to reinforce funding attribution.

Conclusions and Recommendations 38

◼ Rocky Mountain Power could consider sharing its program objectives (qualitative
and quantitative), in addition to its budget, with its partner community action
agencies in order to more clearly determine the success of the program. Both
Rocky Mountain Power and the agencies would likely benefit from more explicit
program goals.
◼ Rocky Mountain Power could consider requesting more detailed tracking data from
implementers to increase the accuracy and granularity of measures’ specifications.
For example, additional data could include baseline and efficient wattages for bulbs
installed through the program, specifications for baseline and replacement efficient
refrigerators, and pre- and post-installation insulation conditions. Implementers are
already recording extensive data in the DOE-approved auditing software used for
projects that include Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) funding, and
therefore the additional data reporting should not create an unreasonable burden.
◼ Rocky Mountain Power could consider reducing the interval between program
implementation and evaluation to facility more accurate and timely energy savings
estimates.
◼ Rocky Mountain Power could consider implementing a process for collecting
weatherization program customers’ email addresses to enable more accurate and
comprehensive program evaluations.
◼ Rocky Mountain Power could consider increasing its promotion of the
weatherization program to its customers in Southeast Idaho Community Action
Agency service area.
◼ Rocky Mountain Power could consider rebalancing the allocation of funding across
implementation agencies to address unmet demand in Eastern Idaho Community
Action Partnership’s service area.
◼ Rocky Mountain Power could consider using a blended ex-ante value from prior
evaluations, rather than using only the most recent evaluation findings. The small
sample sizes in Low Income program create high variability in program savings
across years. Using an average value across a couple prior evaluation cycles could
reduce the fluctuation in realization rates by program year.

Appendix: Participant Survey 39

8. Appendix: Participant Survey
Idaho Rocky Mountain Power Home Energy Efficiency Program Survey
Variables
◼ Window replacement
◼ Wall Insulation
◼ Ceiling Insulation
◼ Attic Ventilation
◼ Floor Insulation
◼ Water Pipe Insulation
◼ Duct Insulation and Sealing
◼ Air Sealed/Infiltration
◼ CFL bulbs
◼ Water Heater Replacement
◼ Thermal Doors
◼ Water heater repair
◼ LED bulbs
◼ Furnace repair
◼ Replacement refrigerator
◼ Replacement Customer
◼ Name
◼ Site Address
◼ Site City
◼ Site State
◼ Site Zip
◼ Customer Phone
◼ Contact Email Address
◼ Agency Name

Screening
Page exit logic: Skip / Disqualify LogicIF: #1 Question "Do you recall participating in [question
('value'), id='299'] Home Energy Efficiency Program? Through this program you may have
received light bulbs, or you may have had an appliance replaced with an ENERGY STAR
certified appliance; you may also have received home weatherization or other home energy
improvement measures." is one of the following answers ("No”, “Don’t know") THEN: Disqualify
and display: "Thank you for your time!"

Do you recall participating in [question ('value'), id='299'] Home Energy Efficiency
Program? Through this program you may have received light bulbs, or you may have
had an appliance replaced with an ENERGY STAR certified appliance; you may also
have received home weatherization or other home energy improvement measures.*
◼ Yes
◼ No
◼ Don't know

Appendix: Participant Survey 40

Awareness
How did you first learn about the Home Energy Efficiency Program?
◼ From an information brochure
◼ From a friend/neighbor
◼ From your property owner/landlord
◼ From a community agency
◼ From a contractor
◼ From the internet
◼ From information received through Rocky Mountain Power
◼ Other (please specify)

Why did you choose to participate in the program? (Select all that apply)
◼ To save money on energy bills
◼ To reduce energy use for environmental reasons
◼ The services were provided at no cost
◼ To improve home comfort
◼ To improve value of the home
◼ Other (please specify)
◼ Don’t remember
◼ Don’t know

Do you rent or own this property?
◼ Rent
◼ Own

Appendix: Participant Survey 41

Program records indicate that you received the following items from the Home Energy
Efficiency Program. Could you please confirm whether these records are correct? *

Yes No Don't know
LED light bulbs
CFL light bulbs
ENERGY STAR® certified refrigerator
Air Drafts Sealed
Ceiling insulation
Floor insulation
Wall insulation
Attic Ventilation
Thermal door(s)
Window replacement
Heat duct sealing and/or insulation
Furnace repair
Furnace replacement
Water pipe insulation
Water heater repair
Water heater replacement
Logic: Hidden unless: Question "LED light bulbs" is one of the following answers ("Yes")
Before today, had you ever heard of light emitting diode light bulbs, or LED light bulbs?
◼ Yes
◼ No
◼ Don't know

Appendix: Participant Survey 42

Logic: Hidden unless: Question "LED light bulbs" is one of the following answers ("Yes")
Do you believe you could identify a typical LED light bulb if one was placed in front of
you?
◼ Yes
◼ No
◼ Don't know
Logic: Hidden unless: Question "CFL light bulbs" is one of the following answers ("Yes")
Before today, had you ever heard of compact fluorescent light bulbs, or CFL light bulbs?
◼ Yes
◼ No
◼ Don't know
Logic: Hidden unless: Question "CFL light bulbs" is one of the following answers ("Yes")
Do you believe you could identify a typical CFL light bulb if one was placed in front of
you?
◼ Yes
◼ No
◼ Don't know
Participation Efficiency
Our records indicate that you received an energy audit that was provided as part
of this program
Logic: Show/hide trigger exists.
Did someone visit your household to discuss ways of saving energy and to install energy
efficient equipment?
◼ Yes
◼ No
◼ Don’t remember
◼ Don't know
Logic: Show/hide trigger exists. Hidden unless: Question "Did someone visit your household to
discuss ways of saving energy and to install energy efficient equipment?" is one of the following
answers ("Yes")
Are you the person who scheduled the home visit?
◼ Yes
◼ No
◼ Don't know

Appendix: Participant Survey 43

Logic: Hidden unless: Question "Are you the person who scheduled the home visit?" is one of
the following answers ("Yes")
On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is "very difficult" and 5 is "very easy," how would you rate
the process of scheduling the visit?
Very Difficult
1 2 3 4
Very Easy
5 Don't remember Don't know
Logic: Show/hide trigger exists. Hidden unless: Question "Did someone visit your household to
discuss ways of saving energy and to install energy efficient equipment?" is one of the following
answers ("Yes")
Were you at home at the time of this visit?
◼ Yes
◼ No
◼ Don't remember
◼ Don't know
Logic: Hidden unless: Question "Were you at home at the time of this visit?" is one of the
following answers ("Yes")
During the home visit, did the program representative talk to you about how to save
energy in your home, or provide recommendations about how to use your appliances and
equipment in an energy efficient way?
◼ Yes
◼ No
◼ Don't remember
◼ Don't know

Appendix: Participant Survey 44

Logic: Hidden unless: #12 Question "Were you at home at the time of this visit?" is one of the
following answers ("Yes")

Using a scale where 1 means "completely disagree" and 5 means "completely agree,"
how much do you agree with the following statements about the work that was done on
the home:

Completely
disagree
1 2 3 4
Completely
agree
5
Don't
know
The completion of the work was timely and efficient
The work crew was courteous and professional
The information provided about your home’s energy
use was useful

The information provided about your home’s energy
use was easy to understand

Lighting LED
Logic: Show/hide trigger exists. Hidden unless: Question "LED light bulbs" is one of the
following answers ("Yes")
You indicated that you received LED light bulbs from the program. Program records
indicate you received [question("value"), id="18"] LED light bulbs. To the best of your
knowledge, is that number correct or did you receive a different number of LED light
bulbs?
◼ Yes, that is the correct number of LED light bulbs
◼ No, I received a different number of LED light bulbs
◼ Don't remember
◼ Don't know
Validation: Must be numeric Whole numbers only Positive numbers only
Logic: Hidden unless: Question "You indicated that you received LED light bulbs from the
program. Program records indicate you received [question("value"), id="18"] LED light bulbs. To
the best of your knowledge, is that number correct or did you receive a different number of LED
light bulbs?" is one of the following answers ("No, I received a different number of LED light
bulbs")
What is the correct number of LED light bulbs that you received?*
Logic: Show/hide trigger exists. Hidden unless: Question "You indicated that you received LED
light bulbs from the program. Program records indicate you received [question("value"), id="18"]

Appendix: Participant Survey 45

LED light bulbs. To the best of your knowledge, is that number correct or did you receive a
different number of LED light bulbs?" is one of the following answers ("Yes, that is the correct
number of LED light bulbs") OR Question "What is the correct number of LED light bulbs that
you received?" is greater than "0"
Has anyone removed any of the LED light bulbs that were installed through this program?
◼ Yes
◼ No
◼ Don't remember
◼ Don't know
Logic: Show/hide trigger exists. Hidden unless: #16 Question "Has anyone removed any of the
LED light bulbs that were installed through this program?" is one of the following answers
("Yes")
Why were some LED light bulbs removed? (Select all that apply)
◼ LED light bulb(s) broke or burned out
◼ LED light bulb(s) did not work as needed (e.g., lights too dim)
◼ Using them in another home or at work
◼ Storing them for later use
◼ Gave them away
◼ Returned them to the program
◼ Other (please specify)
Logic: Hidden unless: Question "Why were some LED light bulbs removed? (Select all that
apply)" is one of the following answers ("LED light bulb(s) broke or burned out”, “LED light
bulb(s) did not work as needed (e.g., lights too dim)","Using them in another home or at work”,
“Storing them for later use”, “Gave them away”, “Returned them to the program”, “Other (please
specify)")
How long were the LED light bulbs installed before someone removed them?
◼ Less than one year
◼ More than one year
Logic: Show/hide trigger exists. Hidden unless: (Question "You indicated that you received LED
light bulbs from the program. Program records indicate you received [question("value"), id="18"]
LED light bulbs. To the best of your knowledge, is that number correct or did you receive a
different number of LED light bulbs?" is one of the following answers ("Yes, that is the correct
number of LED light bulbs") OR Question "What is the correct number of LED light bulbs that
you received?" is greater than "0")
Were any of the LED light bulbs you received from the program never installed?
◼ Yes
◼ No
◼ Don't know

Appendix: Participant Survey 46

Logic: Show: Hidden unless: Question "Were any of the LED light bulbs you received from the
program never installed?" is one of the following answers ("Yes")
Why were some of the LED light bulbs never installed?
Page entry logic: This page will show when: ( Question "LED light bulbs" is one of the following
answers ("Yes") AND #15 Question "You indicated that you received LED light bulbs from the
program. Program records indicate you received [question("value"), id="18"] LED light bulbs. To
the best of your knowledge, is that number correct or did you receive a different number of LED
light bulbs?" is one of the following answers ("Yes, that is the correct number of LED light
bulbs"))

Lighting LED
Validation: Must be numeric Whole numbers only Positive numbers only
Logic: Hidden unless: ( Question "LED light bulbs" is one of the following answers ("Yes") AND
#15 Question "You indicated that you received LED light bulbs from the program. Program
records indicate you received [question("value"), id="18"] LED light bulbs. To the best of your
knowledge, is that number correct or did you receive a different number of LED light bulbs?" is
one of the following answers ("Yes, that is the correct number of LED light bulbs"))
To verify, of the [question("value"), id="18"] LED light bulbs you received, how many are
currently installed, were installed and removed, or were never installed?
◼ Number of LED light bulbs currently installed
◼ Number of LED light bulbs installed and removed
◼ Number of LED light bulbs never installed
Total : [#]
Page entry logic: This page will show when: ( Question "LED light bulbs" is one of the following
answers ("Yes") AND Question "What is the correct number of LED light bulbs that you
received?" is greater than "0")
Validation: Must be numeric Whole numbers only Positive numbers only
Logic: Hidden unless: ( Question "LED light bulbs" is one of the following answers ("Yes") AND
Question "What is the correct number of LED light bulbs that you received?" is greater than "0")
To verify, of the [question('value'), id='76'] LED light bulbs you received, how many are
currently installed, were installed and removed, or were never installed?
◼ Number of LED light bulbs currently installed
◼ Number of LED light bulbs installed and removed
◼ Number of LED light bulbs never installed
Total : [#]
Page entry logic: This page will show when: ( Question "LED light bulbs" is one of the following
answers ("Yes") AND (#15 Question "You indicated that you received LED light bulbs from the
program. Program records indicate you received [question("value"), id="18"] LED light bulbs. To
the best of your knowledge, is that number correct or did you receive a different number of LED

Appendix: Participant Survey 47

light bulbs?" is one of the following answers ("Yes, that is the correct number of LED light
bulbs") OR #15 Question "You indicated that you received LED light bulbs from the program.
Program records indicate you received [question("value"), id="18"] LED light bulbs. To the best
of your knowledge, is that number correct or did you receive a different number of LED light
bulbs?" is one of the following answers ("No, I received a different number of LED light bulbs")))
Logic: Hidden unless: ( Question "LED light bulbs" is one of the following answers ("Yes") AND
(#15 Question "You indicated that you received LED light bulbs from the program. Program
records indicate you received [question("value"), id="18"] LED light bulbs. To the best of your
knowledge, is that number correct or did you receive a different number of LED light bulbs?" is
one of the following answers ("Yes, that is the correct number of LED light bulbs") OR #15
Question "You indicated that you received LED light bulbs from the program. Program records
indicate you received [question("value"), id="18"] LED light bulbs. To the best of your
knowledge, is that number correct or did you receive a different number of LED light bulbs?" is
one of the following answers ("No, I received a different number of LED light bulbs")))
On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is "not at all confident" and 5 is "completely confident," how
confident are you of where in your home the LED light bulbs are currently installed?
Not at all confident
1 2 3 4
Completely confident
5 Don't remember
Page entry logic: This page will show when: ( Question "LED light bulbs" is one of the following
answers ("Yes") AND Q21A is greater than "0")
Validation: Must be numeric Whole numbers only Positive numbers only
Logic: Hidden unless: ( Question "LED light bulbs" is one of the following answers ("Yes") AND
Q21A is greater than "0")
To the best of your recollection, how many of the [question("value"), id="267"] LED light
bulbs received through the program are currently installed in each of the following
locations?
◼ Bedrooms
◼ Bathrooms
◼ Living room
◼ Kitchen
◼ Entryway
◼ Dining room
◼ Garage
◼ Basement
◼ Den
◼ Stairway
◼ Office
◼ Laundry room
◼ Other
Total: [#]

Appendix: Participant Survey 48

Page entry logic: This page will show when: ( Question "LED light bulbs" is one of the following
answers ("Yes") AND Q22A is greater than "0")
Validation: Must be numeric Whole numbers only Positive numbers only
Logic: Hidden unless: ( Question "LED light bulbs" is one of the following answers ("Yes") AND
Q22A is greater than "0")
To the best of your recollection, how many of the [question("value"), id="268"] LED light
bulbs received through the program are currently installed in each of the following
locations?
◼ Bedrooms
◼ Bathrooms
◼ Living room
◼ Kitchen
◼ Entryway
◼ Dining room
◼ Garage
◼ Basement
◼ Den
◼ Stairway
◼ Office
◼ Laundry room
◼ Other
Total: [#]
Page entry logic: This page will show when: (#15 Question "You indicated that you received
LED light bulbs from the program. Program records indicate you received [question("value"),
id="18"] LED light bulbs. To the best of your knowledge, is that number correct or did you
receive a different number of LED light bulbs?" is one of the following answers ("Yes, that is the
correct number of LED light bulbs") OR Question "What is the correct number of LED light bulbs
that you received?" is greater than "0")
Logic: Hidden unless: (#15 Question "You indicated that you received LED light bulbs from the
program. Program records indicate you received [question("value"), id="18"] LED light bulbs. To
the best of your knowledge, is that number correct or did you receive a different number of LED
light bulbs?" is one of the following answers ("Yes, that is the correct number of LED light
bulbs") OR Question "What is the correct number of LED light bulbs that you received?" is
greater than "0")

Appendix: Participant Survey 49

What type of light bulbs did the LED light bulbs replace? (Select all that apply)
◼ Incandescent
◼ CFL light bulbs
◼ LED light bulbs
◼ Installed in new fixture
◼ Other (please specify)
◼ Don't remember
◼ Don't know

Lighting CFL
Logic: Show/hide trigger exists. Hidden unless: Question "CFL light bulbs" is one of the
following answers ("Yes")
You indicated that you received CFL light bulbs from the program. Program records
indicate you received [question("value"), id="13"] CFL light bulbs. To the best of your
knowledge, is that number correct or did you receive a different number of CFL light
bulbs?
◼ Yes, that is the correct number of CFL light bulbs
◼ No, received a different number of CFL light bulbs
◼ Don't remember
◼ Don't know
Validation: Must be numeric Whole numbers only Positive numbers only
Logic: Hidden unless: Question "You indicated that you received CFL light bulbs from the
program. Program records indicate you received [question("value"), id="13"] CFL light bulbs. To
the best of your knowledge, is that number correct or did you receive a different number of CFL
light bulbs?" is one of the following answers ("No, received a different number of CFL light
bulbs")
What is the correct number of CFL light bulbs that you received?*
Logic: Show/hide trigger exists. Hidden unless: (#27 Question "You indicated that you received
CFL light bulbs from the program. Program records indicate you received [question("value"),
id="13"] CFL light bulbs. To the best of your knowledge, is that number correct or did you
receive a different number of CFL light bulbs?" is one of the following answers ("Yes, that is the

Appendix: Participant Survey 50

correct number of CFL light bulbs") OR #28 Question "What is the correct number of CFL light
bulbs that you received?" is greater than "0")
Has anyone removed any of the CFL light bulbs that were installed through this program?
◼ Yes
◼ No
◼ Don't remember
◼ Don't know
Logic: Show/hide trigger exists. Hidden unless: Question "Has anyone removed any of the CFL
light bulbs that were installed through this program?" is one of the following answers ("Yes")
Why were some CFL light bulbs removed? (Select all that apply)
◼ CFL light bulbs broke or burned out
◼ CFL light bulbs did not work as needed (e.g., lights too dim)
◼ Using them in another home or at work
◼ Storing them for later use
◼ Gave them away
◼ Returned them to the program
◼ Other (please specify)
Logic: Hidden unless: Question "Why were some CFL light bulbs removed? (Select all that
apply)" is one of the following answers ("CFL light bulbs broke or burned out", "CFL light bulbs
did not work as needed (e.g., lights too dim)","Using them in another home or at work", "Storing
them for later use", "Gave them away", "Returned them to the program", "Other (please
specify)")
How long were the CFL light bulbs installed before someone removed them?
◼ Less than one year
◼ More than one year
Logic: Show/hide trigger exists. Hidden unless: (#27 Question "You indicated that you received
CFL light bulbs from the program. Program records indicate you received [question("value"),
id="13"] CFL light bulbs. To the best of your knowledge, is that number correct or did you
receive a different number of CFL light bulbs?" is one of the following answers ("Yes, that is the
correct number of CFL light bulbs") OR #28 Question "What is the correct number of CFL light
bulbs that you received?" is greater than "0")
Were any of the CFL light bulbs you received from the program never installed?
◼ Yes
◼ No
◼ Don't remember
◼ Don't know
Hidden unless: #32 Question "Were any of the CFL light bulbs you received from the program
never installed?" is one of the following answers ("Yes")
Why were some of the CFL light bulbs never installed?

Appendix: Participant Survey 51

Page entry logic: This page will show when: ( Question "CFL light bulbs" is one of the following
answers ("Yes") AND #27 Question "You indicated that you received CFL light bulbs from the
program. Program records indicate you received [question("value"), id="13"] CFL light bulbs. To
the best of your knowledge, is that number correct or did you receive a different number of CFL
light bulbs?" is one of the following answers ("Yes, that is the correct number of CFL light
bulbs"))
Validation: Must be numeric Whole numbers only Positive numbers only
Logic: Hidden unless: ( Question "CFL light bulbs" is one of the following answers ("Yes") AND
#27 Question "You indicated that you received CFL light bulbs from the program. Program
records indicate you received [question("value"), id="13"] CFL light bulbs. To the best of your
knowledge, is that number correct or did you receive a different number of CFL light bulbs?" is
one of the following answers ("Yes, that is the correct number of CFL light bulbs"))
To verify, of the [question("value"), id="13"] CFL light bulbs you received, how many are
currently installed, were installed and removed, or were never installed?
◼ Number of CFL light bulbs currently installed
◼ Number of CFL light bulbs installed and removed
◼ Number of CFL light bulbs never installed
Total : [#]

Page entry logic: This page will show when: ( Question "CFL light bulbs" is one of the following
answers ("Yes") AND #28 Question "What is the correct number of CFL light bulbs that you
received?" is greater than "0")

Validation: Must be numeric Whole numbers only Positive numbers only

Logic: Hidden unless: ( Question "CFL light bulbs" is one of the following answers ("Yes") AND
#28 Question "What is the correct number of CFL light bulbs that you received?" is greater than
"0")
To verify, of the [question("value"), id="97"] CFL light bulbs you received how many are
currently installed, were installed and removed, or were never installed?
◼ Number of CFL light bulbs currently installed
◼ Number of CFL light bulbs installed and removed
◼ Number of CFL light bulbs never installed
Total : [#]

Logic: Hidden unless: ( Question "CFL light bulbs" is one of the following answers ("Yes") AND
(#27 Question "You indicated that you received CFL light bulbs from the program. Program
records indicate you received [question("value"), id="13"] CFL light bulbs. To the best of your
knowledge, is that number correct or did you receive a different number of CFL light bulbs?" is
one of the following answers ("Yes, that is the correct number of CFL light bulbs") OR #27
Question "You indicated that you received CFL light bulbs from the program. Program records
indicate you received [question("value"), id="13"] CFL light bulbs. To the best of your

Appendix: Participant Survey 52

knowledge, is that number correct or did you receive a different number of CFL light bulbs?" is
one of the following answers ("No, received a different number of CFL light bulbs")))
On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is "not at all confident" and 5 is "completely confident," how
confident are you of where in your home the CFL light bulbs are currently installed?
Not at all confident
1 2 3 4
Completely confident
5 Don't know

Page entry logic: This page will show when: ( Question "CFL light bulbs" is one of the following
answers ("Yes") AND Q35A is greater than "0")
Validation: Must be numeric Whole numbers only Positive numbers only
Logic: Hidden unless: ( Question "CFL light bulbs" is one of the following answers ("Yes") AND
Q35A is greater than "0")
To the best of your recollection, how many of the [question("value"), id="269"] CFL light
bulbs received through the program are currently installed in each of the following
locations?
◼ Bedrooms
◼ Bathrooms
◼ Living room
◼ Kitchen
◼ Entryway
◼ Dining room
◼ Garage
◼ Basement
◼ Den
◼ Stairway
◼ Office
◼ Laundry room
◼ Other
Total: [#]

Page entry logic: This page will show when: ( Question "CFL light bulbs" is one of the following
answers ("Yes") AND Q36A is greater than "0")
Validation: Must be numeric Whole numbers only Positive numbers only
Logic: Hidden unless: ( Question "CFL light bulbs" is one of the following answers ("Yes") AND
Q36A is greater than "0")

Appendix: Participant Survey 53

To the best of your recollection, how many of the [question("value"), id="269"] CFL light
bulbs received through the program are currently installed in each of the following
locations?
◼ Bedrooms
◼ Bathrooms
◼ Living room
◼ Kitchen
◼ Entryway
◼ Dining room
◼ Garage
◼ Basement
◼ Den
◼ Stairway
◼ Office
◼ Laundry room
◼ Other
Total: [#]
Logic: Hidden unless: (#27 Question "You indicated that you received CFL light bulbs from the
program. Program records indicate you received [question("value"), id="13"] CFL light bulbs. To
the best of your knowledge, is that number correct or did you receive a different number of CFL
light bulbs?" is one of the following answers ("Yes, that is the correct number of CFL light
bulbs") OR #28 Question "What is the correct number of CFL light bulbs that you received?" is
greater than "0")
What type of light bulbs did the CFL light bulbs replace? (Select all that apply)
◼ Incandescent
◼ CFL
◼ LED
◼ Installed in new fixture
◼ Other (please specify)
◼ Don't remember
◼ Don't know

Appliance Replacement
Logic: Hidden unless: Question "ENERGY STAR certified refrigerator" is one of the following
answers ("Yes")
You indicated that your refrigerator was replaced. What is the door-style of the new
refrigerator?
◼ Freezer-on-top
◼ Freezer-on-bottom
◼ Side-by-side
◼ Don't remember
◼ Don't know

Appendix: Participant Survey 54

Logic: Show/hide trigger exists. Hidden unless: Question "ENERGY STAR certified refrigerator"
is one of the following answers ("Yes")
Is the refrigerator you received still installed? *
◼ Yes
◼ No
◼ Don't remember
◼ Don't know

Logic: Hidden unless: #41 Question "Is the refrigerator you received still installed? " is one of
the following answers ("No")

Why is the refrigerator not currently installed? *
Logic: Hidden unless: #41 Question "Is the refrigerator you received still installed? " is one of
the following answers ("No")
How long did you have the refrigerator before it was removed?
◼ Less than one year
◼ More than one year

Shell
Logic: Hidden unless: ((((( Question "Air Sealed/Infiltration" is greater than "0" OR Question
"Ceiling Insulation" is greater than "0") OR Question "Floor Insulation" is greater than "0") OR
Question "Wall Insulation" is greater than "0") OR Question "Attic Ventilation" is greater than "0")
OR Question "Thermal Doors" is greater than "0")
Program records show that you had some home energy improvements such as air drafts
sealed, insulation, ground cover, and/or a new thermal door installed by a participating
agency or contractor. Is that correct?
Yes No Don't know
Air drafts sealed
Ceiling insulation
Floor insulation
Wall insulation
Attic insulation
Thermal door
Logic: Hidden unless: ((((( Question "Air drafts sealed" is one of the following answers ("Yes")
OR Question "Ceiling insulation" is one of the following answers ("Yes")) OR Question "Floor

Appendix: Participant Survey 55

insulation" is one of the following answers ("Yes")) OR Question "Wall insulation" is one of the
following answers ("Yes")) OR Question "Attic ventilation" is one of the following answers
("Yes")) OR Question "Thermal door" is one of the following answers ("Yes"))
On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is "not at all important" and 5 is "extremely important," how
important were the following factors in your decision to receive air draft sealing, insulation,
ground cover and/or a thermal door?

Not at all
important
1

2

3

4
Extremely
important
5
Don't
know
Improve home comfort
The improvements were provided at no cost
Reduce electric bills
Logic: Hidden unless: ((((( Question "Air drafts sealed" is one of the following answers ("Yes")
AND Question "Ceiling insulation" is one of the following answers ("Yes")) AND Question "Floor
insulation" is one of the following answers ("Yes")) AND Question "Wall insulation" is one of the
following answers ("Yes")) AND Question "Attic ventilation" is one of the following answers
("Yes")) AND Question "Thermal door" is one of the following answers ("Yes"))
Where there any other factors that were also important to your decision to receive the
home energy improvements? If so, what were they?
Window Replacement
Logic: Show/hide trigger exists. Hidden unless: Question "Window replacement" is one of the
following answers ("Yes")
You indicated that you received an energy saving window from the program. Is the
window currently installed?
◼ Yes
◼ No
◼ Don’t know
◼ Don’t remember
Logic: Show/hide trigger exists. Hidden unless: #47 Question "You indicated that you received
an energy saving window from the program. Is the window currently installed?" is one of the
following answers ("No")

Appendix: Participant Survey 56

Why was the window removed or otherwise not currently installed?
◼ Window broke
◼ Window not working as needed
◼ The window was never installed
◼ Other (please specify)
◼ Don’t remember
◼ Don’t know
Logic: Hidden unless: #47 Question "You indicated that you received an energy saving window
from the program. Is the window currently installed?" is one of the following answers ("No")
How long was the window installed before someone removed it?
◼ Less than one year
◼ More than one year
Logic: Hidden unless: #48 Question "Why was the window removed or otherwise not currently
installed?" is one of the following answers ("The window was never installed")
Why was the window never installed?

HVAC
Logic: Hidden unless: ( Question "Duct Insulation and Sealing " is greater than "0" OR Question
"Furnace repair" is greater than "0")
Program records show that you had some home energy improvements such as heat duct
insulation and sealing, and/or furnace repairs performed by a participating agency or
contractor. Is that correct?
Yes No Don’t
remember Don't know
Duct sealing/insulation
Furnace repair
Logic: Hidden unless: ( Question "Furnace repair" is one of the following answers ("Yes") OR
Question "Duct sealing/insulation" is one of the following answers ("Yes"))
On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is "not at all important" and 5 is "extremely important," how
important were the following factors in your decision to receive the heat duct insulation
and sealing, and/or furnace repairs?

Not at all
important
1

2

3

4
Extremely
important
5
Don't
know

Appendix: Participant Survey 57

Improve home comfort
The improvements were provided at no cost
Reduce electric bills
Logic: Hidden unless: ( Question "Duct sealing/insulation" is one of the following answers
("Yes") OR Question "Furnace repair" is one of the following answers ("Yes"))
Were there any other factors that were important to your decision to receive the heat duct
insulation and sealing, and/or furnace repairs? If so, what were they?
HVAC Furnace Replacement
Logic: Show/hide trigger exists. Hidden unless: Question "Furnace replacement" is one of the
following answers ("Yes")
You indicated that your furnace was replaced. Is the furnace currently installed?
◼ Yes
◼ No
◼ Don’t remember
◼ Don’t know
Logic: Show/hide trigger exists. Hidden unless: #54 Question "You indicated that your furnace
was replaced. Is the furnace currently installed? " is one of the following answers ("No")
Why was the furnace removed or otherwise not currently installed?
◼ Furnace broke
◼ Furnace not working as needed
◼ Returned it to the program
◼ Furnace was never installed
◼ Other (please specify)
◼ Don’t remember
◼ Don’t know
Logic: Hidden unless: #55 Question "Why was the furnace removed or otherwise not currently
installed?" is one of the following answers ("Furnace broke”, Furnace not working as needed”,
“Returned it to the program”, “Other (please specify)")
How long was the furnace installed before someone removed it?
◼ Less than one year
◼ More than one year

Appendix: Participant Survey 58

Logic: Hidden unless: #54 Question "You indicated that your furnace was replaced. Is the
furnace currently installed? " is one of the following answers ("Yes")
To the best of your recollection, what type of furnace or other heating source(s) did the
furnace that you received through the program replace? (Select all that apply)
◼ Hardwood stove
◼ Pellet stove
◼ Fuel oil furnace (diesel)
◼ Propane furnace
◼ Natural gas furnace
◼ Electric furnace
◼ Electric space heater
◼ Heat pumps
◼ Electric resistance (baseboard heater)
Water Heater Replacement
Logic: Show/hide trigger exists. Hidden unless: Question "Water heater replacement" is one of
the following answers ("Yes")
You indicated that your water heater was replaced. Is the water heater currently
installed? *
◼ Yes
◼ No
◼ Don’t remember
◼ Don’t know
Logic: Show/hide trigger exists. Hidden unless: Question "You indicated that your water heater
was replaced. Is the water heater currently installed? " is one of the following answers ("No")
Why was the water heater removed or otherwise not currently installed?
◼ Water heater broke
◼ Water heater not working as needed
◼ Returned to the program
◼ Water heater was never installed
◼ Other (please specify)
◼ Don’t remember
◼ Don’t know

Logic: Hidden unless: Question "Why was the water heater removed or otherwise not currently
installed?" is one of the following answers ("Water heater broke”, “Water heater not working as
needed”, “Returned to the program”, “Other (please specify)")

How long were the water heater installed before someone removed it?
◼ Water heater broke
◼ Water heater not working as needed
◼ Returned to the program

Appendix: Participant Survey 59

◼ Water heater was never installed
◼ Other (please specify)
◼ Don’t remember
◼ Don’t know
Logic: Hidden unless: Question "Why was the water heater removed or otherwise not currently
installed?" is one of the following answers ("Water heater broke”, “Water heater not working as
needed”, “Returned to the program”, “Other (please specify)")
How long were the water heater installed before someone removed it?
◼ Less than one year
◼ More than one year
Logic: Hidden unless: Question "Why was the water heater removed or otherwise not currently
installed?" is one of the following answers ("Water heater was never installed")
Why was the water heater you received from the program never installed?
Logic: Hidden unless: #64 Question "You indicated that you received a smart thermostat from
the program. Is the smart thermostat currently installed? " is one of the following answers ("No")
Why was the thermostat never installed?
Water heater pipe insulation and furnace repairs
Logic: Hidden unless: ( Question "Water pipe Insulation" is greater than "0" OR Question "Water
heater repair" is greater than "0")
Program records show that you had some home energy improvements such as water
pipe insulation and/or water heater repairs performed by a participating agency or
contractor. Is that correct?
Yes No Don’t
remember Don't know
Water pipe insulation
Water heater repair

Appendix: Participant Survey 60

Logic: Hidden unless: ( Question "Water pipe insulation" is one of the following answers ("Yes")
OR Question "Water heater repair" is one of the following answers ("Yes"))
On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is "not at all important" and 5 is "extremely important," how
important were the following factors in your decision to receive the water pipe insulation
and/or water heater repairs?

Not at all
important
1

2

3

4
Extremely
important
5
Don't
know
Improve home comfort
The improvements were provided at no cost
Reduce electric bills
Audit Experience
Was the home visit scheduled at a convenient time for you?
◼ Yes
◼ No
◼ Don’t remember
◼ Don’t know

Did the home energy auditor or inspector arrive within 15 minutes of the scheduled
appointment?
◼ Yes
◼ No
◼ Don’t remember
◼ Don’t know

Energy Education

Logic: Show/hide trigger exists.

When the auditor or inspector visited your home, did they talk with you about ways to
use less electricity in your home or leave materials with you that described how you
could save electricity?
◼ Yes
◼ No
◼ Don’t remember
◼ Don’t know

Logic: Show/hide trigger exists. Hidden unless: Question "When the auditor or inspector visited
your home, did they talk with you about ways to use less electricity in your home or leave

Appendix: Participant Survey 61

materials with you that described how you could save electricity?" is one of the following
answers ("Yes")

Because of the information you received from the auditor or inspector, do you feel you
now know more about how to save electricity in your home?
◼ Yes, I know more now
◼ No, I know about the same as before
◼ Don’t know

Logic: Show/hide trigger exists. Hidden unless: Question "When the auditor or inspector visited
your home, did they talk with you about ways to use less electricity in your home or leave
materials with you that described how you could save electricity?" is one of the following
answers ("Yes")

Because of the information you received from the auditor or inspector, have you done
anything in your home or changed any habits to use less electricity?
◼ Yes
◼ No
◼ Don’t know

Logic: Hidden unless: Question "Because of the information you received from the auditor or
inspector, have you done anything in your home or changed any habits to use less electricity?"
is one of the following answers ("Yes")

Because of the information you received from the auditor or inspector, what are the
things you have done to use less electricity?

Logic: Hidden unless: Question "Because of the information you received from the auditor or
inspector, do you feel you now know more about how to save electricity in your home? " is one
of the following answers ("Yes, I know more now")

On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is "not at all useful" and 5 is "extremely useful," how useful
was the energy education about saving electricity that you received form the auditor or
inspector?
Not at all useful
1 2 3 4
Extremely useful
5 Don't know

Would it have been helpful if the auditor or inspector had provided additional information
about your bill, energy saving tips, or referred you to other agencies?
◼ Yes, more information would have been helpful
◼ No, what was provided was enough
◼ Don’t know

Satisfaction

Appendix: Participant Survey 62

The final set of questions is about your satisfaction with the home improvements or
items you received and other aspects of the program. For each, please rate your
satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is “very dissatisfied” and 5 is “very satisfied.”

Very
dissatisfied
1

2

3

4
Very
Satisfied
5
Don't
know
LED light bulbs you received through the program
CFL light bulbs you received through the program
ENERGY STAR certified refrigerator(s) you
received through the program
Air drafts sealed through the program
Ceiling insulation you received through the program
Floor insulation you received through the program
Wall insulation you received through the program
Thermal door you received through the program
Window replacement you received through the
program
Heat duct sealing and/or insulation
Furnace repairs you received through the program
Water pipe insulation you received through the
program
Water heater repairs you received through the
program
Water heater replacement you received through the
program
The scheduling of the visit
The information you received about ways to use
less electricity

Appendix: Participant Survey 63

Logic: Hidden unless: ((((((((((((((((( Question "LED light bulbs you received through the
program" is one of the following answers ("Very dissatisfied 1","2") OR Question "CFL light
bulbs you received through the program" is one of the following answers ("Very dissatisfied
1","2")) OR Question "ENERGY STAR certified refrigerator(s) you received through the
program" is one of the following answers ("Very dissatisfied 1","2")) OR Question "Air drafts
sealed through the program" is one of the following answers ("Very dissatisfied 1","2")) OR
Question "Ceiling insulation you received through the program" is one of the following answers
("Very dissatisfied 1","2")) OR Question "Floor insulation you received through the program" is
one of the following answers ("Very dissatisfied 1","2")) OR Question "Wall insulation you
received through the program" is one of the following answers ("Very dissatisfied 1","2")) OR
Question "Attic ventilation you received through the program" is one of the following answers
("Very dissatisfied 1","2")) OR Question "Thermal door you received through the program" is
one of the following answers ("Very dissatisfied 1","2")) OR Question "Window replacement you
received through the program" is one of the following answers ("Very dissatisfied 1","2")) OR
Question "Heat duct sealing and/or insulation" is one of the following answers ("Very dissatisfied
1","2")) OR Question "Furnace repairs you received through the program" is one of the following
answers ("Very dissatisfied 1","2")) OR Question "Furnace replacement you received through
the program" is one of the following answers ("Very dissatisfied 1","2")) OR Question "Water
pipe insulation you received through the program" is one of the following answers ("Very
dissatisfied 1","2")) OR Question "Water heater repairs you received through the program" is
one of the following answers ("Very dissatisfied 1","2")) OR Question "Water heater
replacement you received through the program" is one of the following answers ("Very
dissatisfied 1","2")) OR Question "The scheduling of the visit" is one of the following answers
("Very dissatisfied 1","2")) OR Question "The information you received about ways to use less
electricity" is one of the following answers ("Very dissatisfied 1","2"))

You indicated you were less than satisfied with some of the product(s) or service(s) you
received. What was less than satisfactory about the product(s) or service(s)?

Logic: Show/hide trigger exists.

In the course of participating in the program, how often did you contact agency staff with
questions about the items or services you could or did receive through this program?
◼ Never
◼ Once
◼ 2 or 3 times
◼ 4 times or more

Logic: Show/hide trigger exists. Hidden unless: Question "In the course of participating in the
program, how often did you contact agency staff with questions about the items or services you
could or did receive through this program? " is one of the following answers ("Once","2 or 3
times","4 times or more")

How satisfied were you with the communication from agency staff? Please rate your
satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is “very dissatisfied” and 5 is “very satisfied.”

Appendix: Participant Survey 64

Very dissatisfied
1

2

3

4
Very Satisfied
5 Don't know

Logic: Hidden unless: Question "How satisfied were you with the communication from agency
staff? Please rate your satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is “very dissatisfied” and 5 is
“very satisfied.”" is one of the following answers ("Very dissatisfied 1","2")

What was not satisfactory?

Logic: Show/hide trigger exists.

Have you noticed any savings on your electric bill since the home improvements were
completed or items were installed?
◼ Yes
◼ No
◼ Not sure
◼ Don’t know

Logic: Hidden unless: Question "Have you noticed any savings on your electric bills since the
home improvements were completed or items were installed?" is one of the following answers
("Yes")

How satisfied are you with any savings you noticed on your electric bills? Please rate
your satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is “very dissatisfied” and 5 is “very
satisfied.”
Very dissatisfied
1

2

3

4
Very Satisfied
5 Don't know

How satisfied were you overall with the Home Energy Efficiency Program? Please rate
your satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is “very dissatisfied” and 5 is “very
satisfied.”
Very dissatisfied
1

2

3

4
Very Satisfied
5 Don't know

Logic: Show/hide trigger exists.

Do you have any suggestions for improving the Program?

Appendix: Participant Survey 65

◼ Yes
◼ No

Logic: Hidden unless: Question "Do you have any suggestions for improving the Program? " is
one of the following answers ("Yes")

What suggestions do you have for improving the program?

Conclusion

Page exit logic: Skip / Disqualify Logic IF: #85 Question "Would you like your gift card to be sent
to the following email address: [question('value'), id='31']? " is one of the following answers ("No
(Please enter correct email address)") THEN: Flag response as complete

Thank you for your input regarding the Home Energy Efficiency Program. You have now
completed the survey. We would like to send you a $10 gift card of your choice for your
participation.

Logic: Show/hide trigger exists.

Would you like your gift card to be sent to the following email address:
[question('value'), id='31']?
◼ Yes
◼ No (please enter correct email address)
◼ I will pass on the gift card

Logic: Hidden unless: #85 Question "Would you like your gift card to be sent to the following
email address: [question('value'), id='31']? " is one of the following answers ("Yes")

To confirm, your email address is [question("value"), id="31"]?
◼ Yes
◼ No

Logic: Hidden unless: #64 Question "Would you like your gift card to be sent to the following
email address: [question('value'), id='31']? " is one of the following answers ("I will pass on the
gift card")

If you have any questions regarding this survey, please send an email to:

[e-mail]

Once again thank you for your participation on behalf of Rocky Mountain Power. Have a
great day!

Logic: Hidden unless: #64 Question "Would you like your gift card to be sent to the following
email address: [question('value'), id='31']? " is one of the following answers ("Yes”, “No (Please
enter correct email address)")

Appendix: Participant Survey 66

You should be receiving an email with the link to your gift card approximately 10
business days. If you have any questions regarding this survey or would like to know
the status of your gift card, please send an email to:

[e-mail]

On behalf of Rocky Mountain Power, thank you for your participation! Have a great day.