20040624Responses of Avista to CAPAI Part II.pdf

VISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.
Idaho
A VU-O4-01 / A VU-O4-
CAP AI
Data Request
DATE PREPARED:
WITNESS:
RESPOND ER:
DEP ARTMENT:
TELEPHONE:
06/18/2004
Don Kopczynski
on Powell
Utility Strategies
[phone]
REQUEST:
Please provide any cost-benefit analysis, completed since January 1 , 1996, of low-income
energy-efficiency program offered by the Company.
RESPONSE:
Since January 1999, the Company has completed periodic cost benefit analysis of it's low-
income energy efficiency program, and has included that information in it's reports to the
External Energy Efficiency ("Triple-) board as part of that groups oversight role.
Please see the attached DSM Workpapers 1-, for Brian Hirschkorn, and the Workpapers
Asscoiated with Calculations of Demand-Side Management Calculations - 2004 Idaho aRC -
Jon Powell, 2/5/04.
fi~ /1
t7 JPt
j 'A
~ /
...lJ-, .
DAVIDJ. MEYER
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL
A VIST A CORPORATION
O. BOX 3727
1411 EAST MISSION AVENUE
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99220-3727
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: [phone]
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MA TIER OF THE APPLICATION
OF A VISTA CORPORATION FOR THE
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS RATES
AND CHARGES FOR ELECTRIC AND
NATURAL GAS SERVICE TO ELECTRIC AND
NATURAL GAS CUSTOMERS IN THE STATEOF IDAHO
CASE NO. A VU-04-
CASE NO. A VU-04-
DSM WORKPAPERS 1-
BRIAN J. HIRSCHKORN
FOR A VISTA CORPORATION
(ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS)
__.
Triple-E Report
January 1, 1999 to July 31, 1999
,.-
A vista Utilities
Customer Solutions Department
Jon Powell
b5H ~m ~Ctp2J~~ 2-
Table 1 Utility Costs Aggregated by Programs and Customer Segments
Implementation Incentives M&E TOTAL
SEGMENTS
Agricultural 566 566
Government 156,238 156,238
Food Service 430 430
Health Care 142 142
Hospitality 289 289
Limited Income 637 747 637 747
Manufacturing 187 673 187 673
Office 127 314 127 314
Residential2 $
Retail 32,266 266
GENERAL
General (Implementation)459 616 459;616
General (M&E)
OTHER EXPENDITURES
. '
NEEA3 $088 508,014 565,102
Leases
" $
(67 894) $238,470 170 576
OLD PROGRAMS 427 682 630
TOTAL 876,492 963 149 630 841 271
BROKEN OUT BY CATEGORY
. ,
Total assigned to segments 216 665 216 665
Total assigned to general 459,616 459 616
Total assigned to other (10 806)746,485 735,679
Total assigned to old programs 427 682 630 429 312
TOTAL 876,492 963 149 630 841 271
CATEGORY AS A PERCENT
Total assigned to segment 42.42.
Total assigned to general 16.16.
Total assigned to other 26.25.
Total assigned to old programs 15.15.
TOTAL 30.69.100.
NOTES:
1) Incentives are accounted for on an accrual basis, and are therefore de-rated (in the same way as kWh, therms , etc.
2) Costs for this trimester s portion (1/3) of the Natural Gas Awareness Campaign are included in Residential.
3) Costs associated with membership in NEEA are included in this table, but are excluded from all other tables.
4) Costs associated with outstanding leases are included in this table, but are excluded from all other tables.
5) The Government segment includes educational institutions as well as federal, state and local governments.
Ta
b
l
e

2
As
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t

o
f

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t
s

t
o

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

Se
g
m
e
n
t
s
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
l
u
r
a
l
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
Fo
o
d

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
He
a
l
l
h

C
a
r
e
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
t
y
li
r
n
t
e
d

I
n
c
o
m
e
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
Of
f
i
c
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Re
t
a
i
l
To
t
a
l
u
t
i
l
To
t
a
l

o
t
d

p
g
r
r
As
s
i
g
n
e
d
As
s
i
g
n
e
d
as
s
i
g
n
e
d
Ge
n

I
m
p
l
Ge
n

M
&
E
To
l
a
l

a
l
l
o
c
Ol
d

p
g
m

a
l
l
o
c

O
l
d

p
g
m

a
l
l
o
c
no
n
-
in
c
e
n
t
TO
T
A
L
TO
T
A
L
TO
T
A
L
GR
A
N
D
Im
p
\
.
M&
E
no
n
-
In
c
e
n
l

$
al
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
al
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
ov
e
r
h
e
a
d
im
p
l

c
o
s
t
M&
E

c
o
s
t
al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
IM
P
L
M&
E
IN
C
E
N
T
I
V
E
TO
T
A
L
IA
I
IB
I
le
i
ID
I
lE
I
IF
I
IG
I
IH
I
III
IJ
I
IK
I
II
I
IM
I
76
5
78
1
05
4
05
4
81
9
56
6
40
1
30
1
32
6
62
7
12
9
82
3
12
9
,
82
3
22
5
12
4
32
6
15
6
,
23
8
38
1
68
8
57
,
18
1
19
6
57
,
37
6
17
7
17
7
35
8
19
6
43
0
98
3
53
0
56
3
41
2
41
2
15
.
94
2
15
,
14
2
31
,
11
6
82
5
23
,
90
7
60
6
60
6
43
2
57
.
28
9
90
.
80
2
30
1
32
6
62
7
11
5
64
8
11
5
64
8
21
0
94
9
32
6
63
7
74
7
84
9
02
2
47
6
24
4
72
0
90
4
90
4
15
0
38
0
24
4
18
7
67
3
33
8
29
7
65
0
16
3
81
3
68
,
89
2
89
2
11
6
,
54
3
16
3
12
7
31
4
24
4
02
0
23
,
82
5
90
7
17
,
16
5
23
,
82
5
90
7
82
5
90
7
17
,
16
5
16
5
99
1
32
,
26
6
33
8
45
2
,
67
9
54
8
45
4
22
7
42
7
,
68
2
44
4
84
7
88
0
,
36
1
54
8
S
1
,
21
6
66
5
S
2
09
8
,
57
4
S
8
8
1
91
0
(A
)
IB
)
IC
J
ID
)
IE
)
IF
)
(G
)
IH
)
II
)
IJ
)
IK
J
IL
)
1M
)
IN
)
Th
e

I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
l
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t

c
h
a
r
g
e
d

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

10

I
h
a
t

c
u
s
l
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
.
Th
e

M
&
E

c
o
s
t

c
h
a
r
g
e
d

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

1
0

t
h
a
i

c
u
s
l
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
.
Th
e

l
o
t
a
l

u
t
i
l
i
t
y

n
o
n
-
in
c
e
n
t
i
v

Th
e

g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
l
a
t
l
o
n

c
o
s
l

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

10

t
h
e

c
u
s
l
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
.
, T
h
e

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

M
&
E

c
o
s
t

a
l
l
o
c
a
l
e
d

10

I
h
e

c
u
s
l
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
l
Th
e

t
o
l
a
l

a
l
l
o
~
l
e
d

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

c
o
s
t
.
Th
e

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

'
ol
d

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
' (
t
h
o
s
e

n
o
t

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d

a
s

c
u
s
l
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

I
n

I
h
e

n
e
w

t
a
r
i
f
f
)

1
0

n
e
w

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
.
Th
e

M
&
E

c
o
s
t

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

'
ol
d

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
' (
t
h
o
s
e

n
o
t

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d

a
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

I
n

I
h
e

n
e
w

t
a
r
i
f
f
)

t
o

n
e
w

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
.
Th
e

t
o
t
a
l

n
o
n
-
In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e

c
o
s
t

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

o
l
d

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

t
o

n
e
w

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
l
s
.
To
l
a
l

i
m
p
l
e
r
T
l
l

To
t
a
l

M
&
E

c
o
s
t

f
o
r

t
h
e

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

M
&
E

a
n
d

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

M
&
E

c
o
s
t

f
r
o
m

o
l
d

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
To
t
a
l

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

p
a
i
d

u
n
d
e
r

b
o
t
h

o
l
d

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

a
n
d

n
e
w

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

t
r
i
m
e
s
t
e
r

10

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

w
i
t
h
i
n

t
h
i
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
.
To
t
a
l

u
t
i
l
i
t
y

c
o
s
t

(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
)

f
o
r

I
h
e

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
.
Th
e

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

M
&
E

c
o
s
t

a
s

a

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

t
o
l
a
l

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

c
o
s
t
.
NO
T
E
S
:
In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

a
r
e

a
c
c
o
u
n
t
e
d

f
o
r

o
n

a
n

a
c
c
r
u
a
l

b
a
s
i
s
,

a
n
d

a
r
e

t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e

d
e
-
r
a
t
e
d

(
I
n

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

w
a
y

a
s

k
W
h
,
t
h
e
r
m
s
,

e
t
c
.
Co
s
t
s

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

t
r
i
m
e
s
t
e
r
'
s

p
o
r
1
i
o
n

(1
1
3
)

o
f

t
h
e

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

G
a
s

A
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s

C
a
m
p
a
i
g
n

a
r
e

I
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

I
n

Re
s
i
d
e
n
f
i
a
/
.
Co
s
t
s

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p

i
n

N
E
E
A

a
r
e

e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

t
h
i
s

t
a
b
l
e
,

a
n
d

a
r
e

e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
l
l

c
o
s
t
-
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Co
s
t
s

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

o
u
t
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g

l
e
a
s
e
s
'
ar
e

e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

t
h
i
s

t
a
b
l
e
,

a
n
d

a
r
e

e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
l
l

c
o
s
t
-
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Ta
b
l
e

3
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t
s

A
c
r
o
s
s

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

Se
g
m
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
As
s
l
s
t
l
v
e
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
l
e
Co
m
p
r
e
s
s
e
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Re
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
",

o
f
Ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
d
A
i
r
Co
n
t
r
o
l
s
HV
A
C
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Mo
t
o
r
s
Ne
w

T
e
c
h
Sh
e
l
l
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
TO
T
A
L

$
Po
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
83
5
83
5
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
l
17
,
66
5
47
1
62
5
10
1
93
7
45
7
55
,
29
5
22
5
45
0
25
.
6"
,
Fo
o
d

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
55
3
57
,
55
3
5"
,
He
a
l
t
h

C
a
r
e
05
6
91
9
97
4
8"
,
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
t
y
51
3
51
3
LI
m
i
t
e
d

I
n
c
o
m
e
52
1
14
2
,
75
4
21
1
,
27
5
24
.
0'1
0
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
00
5
43
0
54
5
70
,
64
3
15
0
62
4
17
.
1'1
0
Of
f
i
c
e
10
4
,
79
3
91
3
11
6
70
6
13
.
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
70
8
1,
7
0
8
70
8
70
8
70
8
70
8
70
8
70
8
70
8
70
8
70
8
70
8
70
8
70
8
90
7
7~
,
Re
t
a
i
l
34
2
38
,
73
0
41
,
07
2
TO
T
A
L

$
22
8
70
8
71
3
37
3
14
4
93
3
43
,
94
0
36
7
,
83
5
70
8
14
1
,
64
0
70
8
70
8
57
,
00
3
70
8
70
8
88
1
91
0
10
0
,
%
o
r

p
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
0"
,
2"
,
2"
,
16
.
41
.
2'1
0
16
.
2"
,
2"
,
2"
,
2'/
'
10
0
.
NO
T
E
S
:
In
c
e
n
l
i
v
e
s

a
r
e

a
c
c
o
u
n
l
e
d

r
o
r

o
n

a
n

a
c
c
r
u
a
l

b
a
s
i
s
,

a
n
d

a
r
e

I
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e

d
e
-
r
a
t
e
d

(
i
n

I
h
e

s
a
m
e

w
a
y

a
s

k
W
h
.

t
h
e
r
m
s
,
e
l
c
.
Co
s
t
s

r
o
r

I
h
i
s

t
r
i
m
e
s
t
e
r
s
p
o
r
t
i
o
n

(
1
/
3
)

o
(

I
h

Co
s
t
s

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p

i
n

N
E
E
A

a
r
e

e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d

(
r
o
m

t
h
i
s

l
a
b
l
e
.

a
n
d

a
r
e

e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d

(
r
o
m

a
l
l

c
o
s
l
-
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Co
s
l
s

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

o
u
t
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
'
l
e
a
s
e
s

a
r
e

e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

I
h
i
s

l
a
b
l
e
.

a
n
d

a
r
e

e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
l
l

c
o
s
l
-
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
...
Ta
b
l
e

4
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

D
i
r
e
c
t

I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

A
c
r
o
s
s

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

an
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
As
s
l
s
t
i
v
e
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
l
e
Co
m
p
r
e
s
s
e
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Re
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
Su
s
t
a
I
n
a
b
l
e
./
.

o
f
Ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
d
A
I
r
Co
n
t
r
o
l
s
HV
A
C
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
LI
g
h
t
i
n
g
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
I
n
g
Mo
t
o
r
s
Ne
w

T
e
c
h
Sh
e
l
l
Bu
i
l
d
I
n
g
TO
T
A
L

$
Po
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
56
6
56
6
2'-
.
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
00
2
46
0
40
1
25
8
11
7
15
6
23
8
12
.
Fo
o
d

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
43
0
43
0
He
a
l
t
h

C
a
r
e
56
7
57
5
14
2
2,
.
.
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
t
y
57
,
28
9
57
,
28
9
LI
m
i
t
e
d

I
n
c
o
m
e
22
0
65
7
38
2
11
6
34
,
97
4
63
7
,
74
7
52
.
4,
.
.
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
I
n
g
85
2
34
,
95
5
16
,
61
2
12
3
,
25
5
18
7
67
3
15
.
4,.
.
Of
f
I
c
e
11
0
,
48
9
82
5
12
7
,
31
4
10
.
5,.
.
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
0,.
.
Re
t
a
i
l
32
,
26
6
26
6
7,.
.
TO
T
A
L

S
22
0
65
7
12
,
85
2
00
2
38
2
,
57
6
92
2
26
7
91
0
22
9
77
1
34
,
97
4
S 1
21
6
66
5
10
0
.
0,
.
.
"I
.

of

p
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
18
.
0,
.
.
4,
.
.
31
.
2"
1
.
22
.
0"
1
.
0"
1
.
18
.
9"
1
.
0'%
10
0
.
0"
1
.
NO
T
E
S
:
In
c
e
n
l
l
v
e
s

a
r
e

a
c
c
o
u
n
l
e
d

f
o
r

o
n

a
n

a
c
c
r
u
a
l

b
a
s
i
s
,

a
n
d

a
r
e

t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e

d
e
.
r
a
l
e
d

(
i
n

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

w
a
y

a
s

k
W
h
.
I
h
e
r
m
s
.

e
l
c
.
In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e

c
o
s
t
s

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

t
r
i
m
e
s
t
e
r
'
s

p
o
r
1
l
o
n

I

In
c
e
n
l
l
v
e

c
o
s
l
s

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p

i
n

N
E
E
A

a
r
e

e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

t
h
i
s

t
a
b
l
e
.

a
n
d

a
r
e

e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
l
l

c
o
s
t
-
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
In
c
e
n
l
i
v
e

c
o
s
t
s

a
s
s
o
d
a
l
e
d

w
i
t
h

o
u
t
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g

l
e
a
s
e
s

a
r
e

e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

I
h
i
s

l
a
b
l
e
,

a
n
d

a
r
e

e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
l
l

c
o
s
t
-
e
f
f
e
c
l
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Ta
b
l
e

5
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c

S
a
v
i
n
g
s

A
c
r
o
s
s

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

an
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
As
s
l
s
t
l
v
e
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
l
e
Co
m
p
r
e
s
s
e
In
d
u
s
t
r
I
a
l
Re
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
Su
s
t
a
I
n
a
b
l
e
~.

o
f
Ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
d
A
i
r
Co
n
t
r
o
l
s
HV
A
C
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
LI
g
h
t
i
n
g
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Mo
t
o
r
s
Ne
w

T
e
c
h
Sh
e
l
l
Bu
i
l
d
I
n
g
TO
T
A
L

k
W
h
Po
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
51
.
32
6
51
,
32
6
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
49
5
.
53
1
13
,
22
2
17
,
52
1
85
9
,
48
4
38
7
34
4
55
1
.
10
2
32
4
20
4
30
.
4~
.
Fo
o
d

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
63
8
63
8
He
a
l
t
h

C
a
r
e
15
7
,
50
8
15
4
83
3
31
2
,
34
1
5~
.
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
t
y
46
7
,
96
8
46
7
,
96
8
LI
m
i
t
e
d

I
n
c
o
m
e
82
7
.
11
4
80
6
.
55
1
63
3
,
66
5
27
.
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
63
8
,
09
0
85
3
.
10
0
54
9
80
6
80
2
.
72
0
84
3
71
6
18
.
4~
.
Of
f
i
c
e
01
3
43
7
34
2
.
57
5
35
6
01
2
16
.
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
O~
.
Re
t
a
i
l
47
,
68
1
78
8
50
9
83
6
19
0
0~
.
TO
T
A
L

k
W
h
82
7
,
11
4
63
8
09
0
49
5
,
53
1
81
9
77
3
96
9
,
62
8
84
5
35
1
68
7
,
47
2
55
1
10
2
20
,
83
4
06
1
10
0
.
0~
.
%
o
f

p
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
1~
.
4~
.
18
.
37
.
7~
.
o~
.
17
.
O~
.
o~
.
4~
.
o~
.
0"
1
.
10
0
.
0~
.
NO
T
E
:

T
h
e
s
e

f
i
g
u
r
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

d
e
-
r
a
t
e
d

e
l
e
c
t
r
I
c

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
e
d

a
n
d

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
h
a
s
e
s
.
Ta
b
l
e

6
All
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

G
a
s

S
a
v
i
n
g
s

A
c
r
o
s
s

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
(0
1
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
;:
k
(f
,

(
'
Ct
f
"
\
)
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Re
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
TO
T
A
L
%o
f
Ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
HV
A
C
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
LI
g
h
t
i
n
g
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Mo
t
o
r
s
Ne
w

T
e
c
h
Sh
e
l
l
Bu
l
l
d
t
n
g
Th
e
r
m
s
Po
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
O~
.
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
73
8
(1
5
,
66
6
)
92
8
)
7~
.
Fo
o
d

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
O~
.
He
a
l
t
h

C
a
r
e
(6
9
)
(6
9
)
O~
.
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
t
y
(2
,
99
4
)
99
4
)
2~
.
LI
m
i
t
e
d

I
n
c
o
m
e
(7
7
92
6
)
(1
6
2
,
34
9
)
(2
4
0
27
6
)
92
.
Ma

n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
l
n
g
(1
.
81
6
)

(1
,
81
6
)
Of
f
i
c
e
00
4
)

00
4
)
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
o~
.
Re
t
a
i
l
(2
,
41
5
)
(2
,
41
5
)
9~
.
TO
T

A
L

T
h
e
r
m
s
(7
7
92
6
)
73
8
(1
6
2
,
34
9
)
(2
6
96
4
)
(2
5
8
50
2
)
10
0
,
O~
.
~.
o
f

p
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
30
,
O~
.
.3
.
62
.
8~
.
O~
.
10
,
4~
.
O~
.
O~
.
O~
.
0"
1
.
10
0
,
O~
.
NO
T
E
:

T
h
e
s
e

f
i
g
u
r
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

d
e
-
r
a
t
e
d

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

g
a
s

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

f
r
o
m

I
h
e

C
o
n
l
r
a
c
l
e
d

a
n
d

Co
n
s
l
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
h
a
s
e
s
.
Ta
b
l
e

7
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

N
o
n
-
En
e
r
g
y

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s

A
c
r
o
s
s

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
As
s
l
s
l
l
v
e
Co
m
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
Ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
Te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
Air
Co
n
l
r
o
l
s
HV
A
C
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
LI
g
h
t
i
n
g
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Mo
t
o
r
s
Ne
w

T
e
c
h
Re
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
s
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Sh
e
l
l
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
TO
T
A
L

N
E
B

S
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
Fo
o
d

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
He
a
l
t
h

C
a
r
e
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
t
y
li
m
i
t
e
d

I
n
c
o
m
e
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
Of
f
i
c
e
Re
s
l
d
e
n
l
l
a
l
Re
l
a
l
l
TO
T
A
L

N
E
B

S
NO
T
E
:

T
h
e

n
o
n
-
e
n
e
r
g
y

b
e
n
e
f
i
t

f
i
g
u
r
e
s

c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
d

i
n

t
h
i
s

l
a
b
l
e

a
r
e

l
i
s
t
e
d

a
s

n
e
t

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

v
a
l
u
e

(N
P
V
)
.
C.
:
-
-
Ta
b
l
e

8
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

C
o
s
t
s

A
c
r
o
s
s

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
As
s
l
s
t
l
v
e
Co
m
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
~.

o
f
Ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
Te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
Air
Co
n
t
r
o
l
s
HV
A
C
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
li
g
h
t
i
n
g
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Mo
t
o
r
s
Ne
w

T
e
c
h
Re
n
e
w
a
b
t
e
s
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Sh
e
l
l
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
TO
T
A
L

N
E
B

$
Po
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
15
.
06
7
08
7
5"
/
.
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
l
15
1
.
83
4
34
0
71
3
59
4
12
7
43
2
.
40
8
23
2
,
42
2
40
,
Fo
o
d

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
21
7
21
1
2"
1
.
He
a
l
t
h

C
a
r
e
22
,
24
3
63
5
87
8
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
t
y
15
5
71
0
15
5
71
0
LI
m
i
t
e
d

I
n
c
o
m
e
22
0
65
7
38
2
.
11
6
97
4
83
7
,
74
7
20
.
8"
/
.
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
70
4
21
4
63
0
31
1
27
6
52
7
52
1
,
11
2
11
.
0"
1
.
Of
f
i
c
e
21
2
.
43
6
62
9
32
4
06
5
10
.
6"
1
,
Re
s
l
d
e
n
l
l
a
l
0"
1
.
Re
l
a
l
l
56
6
01
3
11
2
59
9
TO
T
A
L

N
E
B

S
22
0
65
7
70
4
15
1
83
4
38
6
45
8
29
9
99
&
14
6
05
&
79
4
20
0
.
S
91
4
05
9
87
1
10
0
.
0"
1
.
% o
f

p
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
2"
1
.
12
.
6"
1
.
8"
1
.
31
.
O~
.
26
.
0~
.
0"
/
.
0"
1
.
1"
1
.
0"
1
.
10
0
.
NO
T
E
:

T
h
e

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

c
o
s
t

f
i
g
u
r
e
s

c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
d

I
n

t
h
i
s

t
a
b
l
e

a
r
e

n
o
t

a
d
j
u
s
l
e
d

f
o
r

In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
.

I
n
s
t
e
a
d
.
t
h
e
y

r
e
n
e
c
l
t
h
e

e
n
t
i
r
e

d
e
-
r
a
t
e
d

c
o
s
t

o
f

t
h
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

p
r
o
j
e
c
\
.
Table 9 Cost-Effectiveness Statistics by Customer Segment
Total Non-
Resource Utility Cost Participant Participant
Cost Test Test Test Test
Agricultural
Govemment
Food Service
Health Care
Hospitality
Limited Income
Manufacturing
Office
Residential
Retail
PORTFOLIO
. I
Table 10 Cost-Effectiveness Statistics by Technology
Total Non-
Resource Utility Cost Participant Participant
Cost Test Test Test Test
Appliances
Assistive Technologies
Compressed Air
Controls
HVAC 141.
Industrial Process
Lighting
Monitoring
Motors
New Tech
Renewables
Resource Management 2.45 2.45
Shell
Sustainable Building
PORTFOLIO
NOTES:
Costs for this trimester s portion (1/3) of the Natural Gas Awareness Campaign are included in Residential.
Costs associated with membership in NEEA are excluded "from all cost-effectiveness calculations.
Costs associated with outstanding leases are excluded from all cost-effectiveness calculations.
N/A" is listed for segments and technologies with benefits, but no costs.
Pc:,
Table 11 Net Benefits by Customer Segment
Total Non-
Resource Utility Cost Participant Participant
Cost Test Test Test Test
Agricultural 334) $167 (9,665) $331
Govemment (384 352) $691 833 $ (542,851) $176 630
Food Service (61 285) $(56,498) $303) $(56 982)
Health Care 072) $664 (29 856) $26,014
Hospitality (118 762) $(20 341) $(77 271) $(31,494)
Limited Income (724 009) $(724 009) $911 534 (932 504)
Manufacturing 242,640 576 139 $ (150 208) $398,913
Office 154 526 351 277 (39,835) $208 233
Residential (23 907) $(23,907) $(23,907)
Retail (13,562) $66,771 (40 716)35,220
PORTFOLIO (940 118) $903 095 829 (197 546)
Table 12 Net Benefits by TechnologyTotal Non-
Resource Utility Cost Participant Participant
Cost Test Test Test Test
Appliances $ (236 969) $ (236 969) $ 336,544 $ (500,291)
AssistiveTechnologies $ (1 708) $ (1 708) $ $ (1 708)
Compressed Air $ 71 490 $ 84 342 $ 27 731 $ 43,759
Controls $ $ 14,097
HVAC $ (456 796) $ (452 916) $ 546,484 $ (373,464)
Industrial Process $ (87 615) $ 173 459 $ (218,988) $ 131,373
Lighting $ (255 065) $ 623,081 $ (512 579) $ 348 059
Monitoring $ (1 708) $ (1 708) $ $ (1 708)
Motors $ 38 941 $ 603 370 $ (395,239) $ 434 180
New Tech $ (1,708) $ (1 708) $ $ (1,708)
Renewables $ (1 708) $ (1 708) $ $ (1 708)
Resource Management $ 82 937 $ 82 937 $ 307,508 $ (224 572)
Shell $ (36,682) $ (36 682) $ 25,468 $ (62,150)
Sustainable Building $ (1 708) $ (1 708) $ $ (1 708)
PORTFOLIO $ (940 118) $ 903,095 $ 16 829 $ (197 546)
NOTES:
Net benefits are calculated by subtracting costs from benefits.
Costs and benefits included in each cost-effectiveness test are detailed in Table 13.
Costs for this trimester s portion (1/3) of the Natural Gas Awareness Campaign are included in Residential.
Costs associated with membership in NEEA are excluded from all cost-effectiveness calculations.
Costs associated with outstanding leases are excluded from all cost-effectiveness calculations.
Pcb
Table 13 Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Tests and Descriptive Statistics
Regular
Income Limited Income
Total Resource Cost Test portfolio Overall portfolio
Electric avoided cost 932,508 320 399 252,907
Non-Energy benefits $
Natural Gas avoided cost $(55,852)(1,195,385)251 237)
TRC benefits 876 656 125 013 001 669
UtilitY Cost Test
Electric avoided cost
Natural Gas avoided cost
UCT benefits $
Regular
Income
DOrtfolio
932,508
(55,852)
876,656
Limited Income
portfolio Overall portfolio
$ 1 320,399 $ 4 252,907
$ (1 195,385) $ (1,251 237)
$ 125 013 $ 3 001 669
Non-incentive utDity cost 670 635 211 275 881 910
Customer cost $422,130 637 747 059 877
TRC costs 092,765 849 022 941 787
TRC ratio
Net TRC benefits $(216 109) $(724,009) $(940,118)
Non-incentive utility cost $ 670 635 $
Incentive cost $ 578 918 $
UCT costs $ 1 249,552 $
211 275 $
637 747 $
849 022 $
881 910
216 665
098 574
UCT ratio 2.
Net UCT benefits $ 1,627,103 $(724,009) $903,095
Regular
Income Limited Income
Particlcant Test DOrtfolio oortfolio Overall DOrtfolio
Bill Reduction $948,507 911,534 860 041
Non-Energy benefits
Participant benefits $948 507 911,534 860,041
Non-Particicant Test
Electric avoided cost savings
Non-Part benefits
Regular
Inc:ome
I!Q.tl!Q!jQ
$. ~932,508
$ 2,932,508
Limited Income
I!Qtl!Q!!Q
$ 1,320 399
$ 1 320 399
Overall oortfolio
$ 4 252,907
$ 4 252,907
Customer project cost 422,130 637 747 059,877
Incentive received $(578 918) $(637 747)216 665)
Participant costs 843.212 843,212
Participant Test ratio
Net Participant benefits (894 705)911,534 829
Electric revenue loss 947 998 403 881 351 879
Non-incentive utility cost S 670 635 211.275 881 910
Customer incentives $578 918 637 747 216 665
Non-Part costs 197 550 252903 4,450 453
Non-Part. ratio
Net Non-Part. benefits $734,958 (932,504)(197,546)
Descriptive Statistics
Annual kWh savings
Annual therm savings
Regular
Income
.I2Q!1f.Q!!Q
200 396
(18 226)
Limited Income
Overall oortfolio
633,665 20 834 061
(240 276) (258 502)
NOTES:
Costs for this trimester's portion (113) of the Natural Gas Awareness Campaign are included in Residential.
Costs associated with membership in NEEA are excluded from all cost-effectiveness calculations.
Costs associated with outstanding leases are excluded from all cost-effectiveness calculations.
N/A" is listed for segments and technologies with benefits, but no costs.
Pq;
('"
Triple-E Report
August 1 , 1999 to November 30 , 1999
Avista Utilities Controllers Dept.
Resource Analyst Team
Jason Fletcher
Steve Negretti
Jon Powell
B3+j b~W\ Wo V" r( pApef --3
Table of Contents
Introduction..,...,.."..."...,...........,..,.....,..,..,........,...,.,.....,..,.....,.".....,."........",...,.....".........,.........
Quantitative Results...... ......... .........
..,.....,...... ,.,.., ...... ..,... ......... ......... ...."...............,........ ......... .....
Cost-Allocations... ,..
""" ...... ............ .................. ,.. .., ,., ,.. ,., ..." ......' ...... ... ,..,........ ...... ,........ ....., ....
Table Utility Costs Aggregated by Programs and Customer Segments....................,.......................
Table 2, Assignment of Costs to Customer Segments.....
. ... """ ............... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...
Table Allocation of Utility Costs Across Customer Segments and Technologies.................................
Table 4, Allocation of Direct Incentives Across Customer Segments and Technologies..........................
Customer Costs and Non-Energy Benefits................................. .................. ...... ............ ............
......
Treatment of "De-Rated" Energy Savings.....,.....,.".......,.................................,...........",.."..........".
Energy Savings...... ",... ...... ............ .....,...,...oo ...... ... ""...oo......... ...,.....
"....... ". ", ....,...,... ..............
Table 5, Allocation of Electric Savings Across Customer Segments and Technologies...........................
Table 6, Allocation of Therm Savings Across Customer Segments and Technologies............................
Cost-Effectiveness and Descriptive Statistics.,...,..,.........".,.,..........,......".......,..........,....,.............,..
Table Cost-Effectiveness Statistics by Customer Segment.,...,..,..".......",.",........,...
,.,."...."...",..,
Table 8, Cost-Effectiveness Statistics by Technology......................................................................
Table Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Tests and Descriptive Statistics............................................
Energy Efficiency Tariff Rider Balances............................................................... ...........................
Table 10, Calculation of Energy Efficiency Tariff Rider Balance and Interest...
... ... ....,. ... ... ." .,. .,. ,.. .,. .".
Analysis Measurement and Evaluation Summary...............................................................................
New Technologies Program Overview....................................."..........,.........................,......"....,...
Results of Individual Reviews of the New Technologies Program.......................................................
Resource Management Partnership Program (RMPP) Overview..............."..........,....,......,.,................
Results of Individual Reviews of the Resource Management Partnership Program...............................,
Limited Income Program Overview........"......",.............,...............................................,...............
Results of Individual Reviews of the Limited Income Program...........................................................
Trade Ally Program Overview............................".........................,...........,............,.,........,.,.........
Results of Individual Reviews of the Trade Ally Program..................................................................
Site Specific Program Overview..............,........................................................................ ...,.........
Results of Individual Reviews of the Site Specific Program...............................................................
Prescriptive Lighting and School Leasing Program Overviews,........,.,.................................................
Results of Individual Reviews of the Prescriptive Lighting and School Leasing Programs........................
Results of the Avista Torchiere Turn-In Event...............,..,....,........................ ............. ...........
...... .....
Database Programming Correction..,.............................,
........................,......................................
Policy U pd ates.. .. ..
.. . ...... ... .. . .. . ... ... .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . ... .. . . .. .. . ... .. . .. . .. . ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . . .. . .. .., . .. .. . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...
Reporting Periods for the Triple-E Report...........,.,............................................,....................,.....,..
New Technologies Strategy..,....,.,.".,...,......,....,............",,.................,.................,...",..,.....",......
Technology or Project Updates............,......,........,.............,...,.........,......................,.......,........,........
VendingMI$ER Technology..........................................................................................................
Integrated Design Sustainable Building.....,..........................................
........................... ......... .....
Disclosures of Notable Projects...
........,.....,... ...... .....' ... ...... ...... ... .....,............ ......... ......... ............ .....
Natural Gas Awareness Pay for Performance Campaign.....,................................,..,..........................
Microchannel Heat Exchanger............... ... ... 'oo""" ...... ......... ...
"""'" """ ... ......... ..........., ......... ......
Large Idaho Manufacturing Customer.....................,.......................................................................
Rural Hospital,..............................................................................,..,..,..,........,..................,..,....
Preview of the Next Triple-E Report.........,..........,..................."..,....."...,........,...."...,.,..,.,...,.,..""..,..
Appendix A, Schedule 90 Electric Energy Efficiency Programs...............................................................
vista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
Introduction
This trimesterly Triple-E Report, is being produced in fulfillment of Avista Corporation s Schedule 90 Tariff
approval commitment to keep our External Energy Efficiency (Triple-E) Board informed, This report will
cover the quantitative results of the August 1, 1999 through November 30, 1999 trimester, including
costs, energy savings, cost-effectiveness and descriptive statistics; energy efficiency Tariff Rider
balances, measurement and evaluation (M&E) activities, policy updates, and large project disclosures.
Since this is the first in a series of Triple-E Reports, it will also go into some detail regarding analysis
methodology. Future reports will defer these explanations to an appendix.
Our intent is to create a useful management tool for the implementation of Avista Corporation s energy
efficiency programs. We have made revisions to our methodology to further explore some of the
analytical findings, and we will detail these revisions as part of this report.
Throughout the report references are made to components of the current Schedule 90 Tariff. For your
convenience, the Tariff has been attached as Appendix A. Refer to it for definitions and descriptions of
customer segments and technologies.
We appreciate any feedback from the Triple-E Board regarding these findings, and we will seek to
incorporate any particular concerns into our future analytical process.
Page
vista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
Quantitative Results
The following is a description of the methodology used for the completion of the cost-effectiveness
analysis and the descriptive statistics for the August - November 1999 Trimester. Observations made
the course of completing this analysis have been noted as well.
Cost-Allocations
A number of discoveries and modifications were added to the original cost-allocation procedures
flowcharted in the preliminary Triple-E Report issued November 18, 1999. While most of these are aresult of the transition from Commission approved programs to customer segments, there are also other
notable discoveries that will persist beyond the year 2000.
Before proceeding further, it is useful to include a few notes regarding the managerial accounting
procedures that have been, and continue to be, used by Avista for purposes of DSM analysis.
De-Rating" of Enerav Savings
Individual projects pass through up to five phases as they proceed towards completion. These phases
are:
Scope: Projects in this phase are under initial investigation. Engineering estimates of energy savings
are generally unknown at this point.
Study : Projects in the study phase are being actively pursued with the intent of estimating energy
savings and moving the project to the next phase.
Contracted: Contracted projects are characterized by an identifiable customer commitment to
proceed (usually a signed contract) and by a firm estimate of energy savings (usually an engineering
estimate, or a deemed amount of energy savings based upon a prior impact M&E analysis),
Construction: A project in Construction is required to be either under physical construction or to have
a verifiable commitment to completing the project in place. A contract (which does not penalize the
customer for failing to proceed) is not considered an adequate commitment for this phase. The
placement of an order for a substantial proportion of the equipment necessary for the project isadequate in most cases.
Completed: Completed projects have been post-verified in some manner, which varies considerably
across applied technologies. Large projects (formerly site specific projects) are independently post-
verified by Energy Services staff, smaller projects may be considered complete upon receipt of
notification by the customer and/or vendor (e.g. the LED exit sign program). All completed projects
are subject to independent post-verification.
Several years ago it was determined that the irregularities created by projects moving through the
pipeline , the seasonal nature of some programs, and the variability caused by large projects could be
reduced by granting partial credit for energy savings as projects proceed through the pipeline. Based
upon estimates made at the time, a partial credit of 75% was granted to projects in the Contracted phase,
and 95% to projects in the Construction phase. These amounts were chosen based upon (1) the utility
expense invested in projects that eventually went to completion at each of these phases and (2) the
proportion of projects that successfully moved from each of these two phases to completion. The level
partial credit allowable for these two phases based upon the second criteria above (drop-outs fromprojects in Contracted and Construction) was reevaluated in 1998 and found to be consistent with the
75% and 95% levels.
Page 2
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
Projects in the Scope and Study phases are not granted any credit for energy savings due to the lack of
defined measures and energy savings characteristic of these early phase projects, as well as therelatively low percentage of these projects that proceed to completion.
Completed projects are granted a full 100% of the post-verified engineering estimate or deemed savings
for the measure, subject to modification resulting from measurement and evaluation.
General Costs and Sub-Account Distinctions
Each program or customer segment expense can be allocated into one of three categories;
implementation cost, incentive cost or M&E costs. General costs can be similarly allocated to
implementation or M&E.
These sub-accounts allow for the separation of utility costs from incentive costs (necessary for theperformance of standard practice cost-effectiveness tests) as well as allowing for the evaluation of the
distribution of resources within each program, segment, or technology.
We have 8-stablished a policy that general costs are those difficult or impossible to accurately allocate to
programs or customer segments. These would include, for example, labor spent at departmental staff
meetings or generic training without a clear project or customer segment beneficiary. Other costs, suchas meeting with an individual customer or training in a particular technology disproportionately benefiting
one or just a few customer segments , are to those segments individually.
The allocation of costs followed the methodology outlined in the preliminary Triple-E Report fairly closelywith one notable exception.
It was originally anticipated that during the transition period Avista would track the old programs and thenew segments independently, with general costs being allocated to both programs and segments. In
completing the cost-allocation it became apparent that simultaneously tracking the ramp-down of the oldprograms and the ramping-up of the new segments would create a distorted view of these individual
components.
The programs, in the ramping-down phase, were clearly incurring relatively low costs as a result of the
maturity of the projects within the program portfolios. Since the programs were no longer available,implementation costs were confined to guiding existing contracted projects through the pipeline. Withouthaving to bear the burden of marketing the program to new customers and moving that customer to theContracted phase, the implementation costs per kWh were likely to.be disproportionately low.
Similarly, the new customer segments were incurring significant costs for marketing; initiating projects and
bringing them to the Contracted phase, However, since most of these projects had not yet reached the
Contracted phase (where the segment would realize 75% of the energy savings engineering estimates),these programs were likely to be extraordinarily cost-ineffective.
This situation was remedied by allocating all attributes of the old programs (implementation, M&E,incentives and kWh credit) to the applicable customer segment and technology. The completion of theseprojects was treated as though they had been transferred over to the appropriate segment.
We have thus removed the effect of the arbitrary ramping-up and ramping-down of programs, which is
largely a regulatory artifact created by our most recent filing and has very little to do with how the pre-
existing projects are completed.
Page 3
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
The cost- allocation for this first report was carried out using the methodology indicated above. As a
result of this analysis several useful conclusions were reached.
General costs (both implementation and M&E) compose 28% of the overall utility costs and 42% ofutility non-incentive costs during this trimester. Avista had originally proposed not to incorporate
these general costs in the cost-effectiveness of the individual customer segment technology cells of
our portfolio matrix, but include it in the calculation of the overall portfolio cost-effectiveness, This
was based upon the potential for inappropriately concluding that some segment technology
applications were cost-ineffective when in truth they may be incrementally cost-effective but are
unable to bear allocated general costs. Potentially, segment technology applications which
positively contribute to the overall portfolio could be inappropriately de-emphasized by segment ortechnology managers.
Based upon the objections of external parties, we had committed to include all costs, including
allocated general costs, in the calculation of each cell of the matrix. We had indicated that we mightprovide duplicate calculations based upon the Avista-preferred methodology if the percentage of
general costs was large relative to the overall portfolio costs. While we did 'not establish a level that
would trigger such an evaluation , our belief is that 28% is high enough to warrant such an effort.
In order to make the analysis more meaningful, we have elected to defer this calculation until we have
one full year of data upon which to base the analysis. At that point, assuming that this situation
persists, we will compare the cost-effectiveness of segment technology applications with and without
allocated general costs. As will be discussed in the following item. we also intend to reemphasize the
need for accurate and consistent assignment of utility non-incentive costs in the future,
The collection and allocation process led to several notable conclusions that need to be addressed in
future management and analysis. These include the following:
There may be lapses in the consistency and accuracy of the reporting of implementation and
M&E costs. These have become more important to the analysis as a result of our transition from
ten individual programs into 150 individual segment technology applications. The small number
of projects coming to fruition in each individual portfolio component substantially amplifies any
inaccuracy in cost-allocation. These variations should subside when longer histories are
available, but in order to provide timely management information under our new segmentationformat it is now much more important to accurately report these costs, Another impact of this
increased accuracy may be to reduce the percentage of non-incentive utility costs that areassigned to general costs and are subsequently re-allocated to individual segments.
It was anticipated that the assignment of general costs to individual customer segments would
increase the accountability of those whom manage general costs. This has , to some degree,
already occurred. Segment managers who are being burdened with a large percent of general
costs (as a percent of their total segment costs) have begun to question the allocations.
Eventually this may result in an improved management of those costs and greater efforts to
leverage resources for the benefit of individual customer segments.
Segment managers need feedback on some components of their costs on a more frequent basis
than other components. This should be a topic for further internal discussions.
An improved means of identifying the applicable segment and technology in internal accountingsystems is necessary. This would increase the accuracy and decrease the cost of assigning the
incentives and the consequential energy savings to each segment technology application. A
solution has already been put in place to address this issue.
Page 4
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report ovem her 1999
The fifteen technologies identified in the tariff filing may not be the most appropriate definitions for
analytical purposes, Several measures are applicable to multiple technologies, and the resulting
assignment makes the cost-allocation more arbitrary. For example, agricultural sprinklers could
be regarded as industrial (as a component of the customers process). motors (as a result of
reduced pumping), controls (since controls are required to implement the measure). monitoring (if
part of an energy management plan), new technology (if part of a scientific irrigation scheduling
program) or regional (if incorporated into NEEA's agricultural program). An internal discussion of
the definitions of the technology and perhaps collapsing some technologies into the same
category seems warranted.
Both the accuracy and the methodology for the collection of customer costs and non-energy
benefit data needs to be reviewed. This data is of critical importance in light of the fact that
customer costs are 73% of this trimesters total resource cost. We intend to begin experimenting
with the review of each project by an analyst in an early stage of the process. This will help to
ensure consistency between the cost and energy savings assumptions as well as to capture all
salvage costs and non-energy benefits. We also plan to pay particular attention to the non-
energy benefit of deferring capital upgrades with the installation of new. energy efficient
equipment.
The distribution of general costs is much more concentrated (as a percent of overall segment
costs) than was anticipated. General costs ranged from 6% to 90% of the costs of individual
customer segments (excluding regional programs). This will be useful feedback for both the
managers of general costs and for the individual customer segment managers. It should also be
noted that situations where general costs account for a large portion of costs for a customer
segment are often the result of disproportionately low assigned costs within that segment.
Although the size of large industrial projects makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions, the bulk of
incentives are directed to limited income HVAC applications, manufacturing industrial measures,
and lighting measures across many segments. These accounted for 90% of all incentives during
this trimester.
Refer to Tables 4 for utility and customer costs allocated across programs, customer segments, and
technologies.
Page 5
A vista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
Table 1 Utility Costs Aggregated by Programs and Customer Segments
ImDlementation Incentives M&E TOTAL
NEW SEGMENTS
NEEA $261,339 120 261 459
Agriculture $405 8,405
Manufacturing $45,479 580 172 90,231
Health Care $632 729
Hospitality $308 778 086
Office $288 925 274
Food Service $ ,911 931
Retail $11,091 420 572
Residential $637 114 751
Limited Income (electric) $138 291 377 198 301 713
RMPP Education $75,244 301 510 055
GENERAL
General (Implementation) $452,203 452,203
General (M&E) $49,715 715
OLD PROGRAMS
Leasing $727 45,179 906
Home Automation $11,117 11,117
New Technology $352 200 589 73.141
HVAC System Eff. 148
LED exit signs $274 574 15,848
LED Traffic Signals $715 041 756
Fuel Switching $620 690
Trade Ally $074 898 076 39,048
Prescriptive Lighting $685 805 201 12,691
Site-specific $122 360 192 399 860 315,619
TOTAL 139,881 613,723 56,484 810,088
BROKEN OUT BY CATEGORY
Total assigned to segments $426,937 349 267 002 777,206
Total assigned to general 452,203 49,715 501 918
Total assigned to old pgms. $260 741 264,456 767 530 964
TOTAL 139,881 613,723 56,484 810,088
CATEGORY AS A PERCENT
Total assigned to segments 23.19.42.
Total assigned to general 25.27.
Total assigned to old pgms.14.4%14.29.
TOTAL 63.33.100.
Page 6
Av
i
s
t
a

U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Tr
i
p
l
e
-
E
R
e
p
o
r
t
No
v
e
m
b
e
r

1
9
9
9
Ta
b
l
e

2
si
g
n
m
e
n
t

o
f

C
o
s
t
s

t
o

C
u
s
t
o
m
e!

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
NE
E
A
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
He
a
l
t
h

C
a
r
e
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
t
y
Of
f
i
c
e
Fo
o
d

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Re
t
a
i
l
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Li
m
i
t
e
d

I
n
c
o
m
e
RM
P
P

Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l

u
t
i
l
To
t
a
l

o
l
d

p
g
m
.
Al
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
As
s
i
g
n
e
d
As
s
i
g
n
e
d
as
s
i
g
n
e
d
Ge
n

I
m
p
l
Ge
n

M
&
E
To
t
a
l

a
l
l
o
c
Old

p
g
m

a
l
l
o
c

O
l
d

p
g
m

a
l
l
o
c
no
n
-
in
c
e
n
t
.
TO
T
A
L
TO
T
A
L
TO
T
A
L
GR
A
N
D
ov
h
d

a
s

a
Im
p
/
.
M&
E
no
n
-
in
c
e
n
t

$
al
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
al
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
ov
e
r
h
e
a
d
im
p
l

c
o
s
t
M&
E

c
o
s
t
al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
IM
P
L
M&
E
IN
C
E
N
T
I
V
E
TO
T
A
L
%
o
f

t
o
t
a
l
(a
)
(b
)
(c
)
(d
)
(e
)
(f
)
(g
)
(h
)
(I
)
(j
)
(k
)
(I)
1m
)
In
)
$
2
6
1
33
9
26
1
33
9
26
1
33
9
18
8
)
26
0
15
1
8,4
0
5
40
5
35
5
99
4
35
0
10
,
76
0
99
4
75
5
28
.
45
,
47
9
17
2
45
,
65
1
$
1
0
5
98
5
45
7
$
1
1
3
,
44
2
14
4
37
2
11
7
14
5
,
48
9
29
5
,
83
6
74
6
$
1
9
0
,
25
6
49
4
83
8
22
.
10
4
98
3
08
7
41
5
12
8
54
3
61
7
11
1
26
2
98
9
86
.
4
%
30
8
30
8
35
,
32
8
45
7
78
6
30
1
21
4
51
5
46
.
93
7
67
1
85
8
46
6
77
.
28
8
34
9
65
7
48
6
73
,
14
2
87
3
25
4
12
7
85
,
81
8
80
1
15
,
04
2
10
3
,
66
0
70
.
91
1
91
1
70
,
65
7
97
2
62
8
30
1
21
4
51
5
78
,
86
9
18
5
12
0
17
4
89
.
09
1
15
2
35
,
32
8
97
2
40
,
30
0
10
4
23
4
33
8
52
4
26
6
04
0
61
,
83
0
65
.
63
7
63
7
35
5
2,
4
8
6
84
1
19
9
19
9
19
1
48
6
70
0
37
7
22
.
10
,
13
8
19
8
10
,
33
6
11
,
77
6
45
7
23
3
91
4
65
5
$
2
9
1
,
37
7
32
0
,
94
6
75
,
24
4
51
0
75
,
75
4
65
7
45
2
10
8
17
6
60
7
72
,
78
3
21
5
07
6
$
1
2
,
56
9
$
1
1
0
,
25
6
33
7
,
90
1
23
.
4
%
$
4
2
6
,
93
7

'
00
2

42
7
93
9

$
4
5
2
,
20
3
49
,
71
5
$
5
0
1
91
8
26
0
74
1
76
7

26
6
,
50
8
$
1
13
9
,
88
1
$
5
6
,
48
4
$
6
1
3
,
72
3
$
1
81
0
,
08
8
(a
)

T
h
e

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t

c
h
a
r
g
e
d

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

t
o

t
h
a
t

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
.
(b
)

T
h
e

M
&
E

c
o
s
t

c
h
a
r
g
e
d

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

t
o

t
h
a
t

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
.
(c
)

T
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

u
t
i
l
i
t
y

n
o
n
-
in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e

c
o
s
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
.
(d
)

T
h
e

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
v
e
r
h
e
a
d

c
o
s
t

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
.
(e
)

T
h
e

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

M
&
E

o
v
e
r
h
e
a
d

c
o
s
t
s

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
(1
)

T
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

o
v
e
r
h
e
a
d

c
o
s
t
.
(g
)

T
h
e

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t
s

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

'
ol
d

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
'
(
t
h
o
s
e

n
o
t

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d

a
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

i
n

t
h
e

n
e
w

t
a
r
i
f
f
)

t
o

n
e
w

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
.
(h
)

T
h
e

M
&
E

c
o
s
t
s

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

'
old

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
'
(
t
h
o
s
e

n
o
t

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d

a
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

i
n

t
h
e

n
e
w

t
a
r
i
f
f
)

t
o

n
e
w

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
.
(I
)

T
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

n
o
n
-
in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e

c
o
s
t
s

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

o
l
d

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

t
o

n
e
w

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
.
OJ

T
o
t
a
l

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t

f
o
r

t
h
e

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

se
g
m
e
n
t
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
v
e
r
h
e
a
d

a
n
d

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t

f
r
o
m

o
l
d

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
(k
)

T
o
t
a
l

M
&
E

c
o
s
t

f
o
r

t
h
e

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

M
&
E

o
v
e
r
h
e
a
d

a
n
d

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

M
&
E

c
o
s
t

f
r
o
m

o
l
d

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
(I
)

T
o
t
a
l

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

p
a
i
d

u
n
d
e
r

b
o
t
h

o
l
d

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

a
n
d

n
e
w

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

t
r
i
m
e
s
t
e
r

t
o

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

w
i
t
h
i
n

t
h
i
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
.
(m
)

T
o
t
a
l

u
t
i
l
i
t
y

c
o
s
t

(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
)

f
o
r

t
h
e

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
.
(n
)

T
h
e

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

M
&
E

o
v
e
r
h
e
a
d

a
s

a

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

c
o
s
t
.
Pa
g
e

7
Av
i
s
t
a

U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Tr
i
p
l
e
-
E
R
e
p
o
r
t
No
v
e
m
b
e
r

1
9
9
9
Ta
b
l
e

3
All
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t
s

A
c
r
o
s
s

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

an
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
As
s
i
s
t
i
v
e
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
%o
f
Ac
c
l
i
a
Te
c
h
M2
m
/:
:
!
Y
t
&
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
!.I
9
!
l
l
i
n
g
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
a
Ne
w

T
e
c
h

Re
a
i
o
n
a
l
Re
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
Mm
:
!
!
1
ID
!
m
!
bu
i
d
l
i
n
a
!2
!
2
L
S
co
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
NE
E
A

$
26
0
,
15
1
26
0
,
15
1
14
.
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e

$
52
6
52
6
52
6
17
5
11
.
75
5
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g

$
35
,
83
3
35
,
83
3
35
,
83
3
23
3
07
8
28
,
84
5
17
,
91
7
35
,
83
3
35
,
83
3
35
.
83
3
49
4
83
8
27
.
He
a
l
t
h

C
a
r
e

S
08
1
04
0
12
1
04
0
12
,
38
3
08
1
04
0
04
0
04
0
08
1
04
0
57
,
98
9
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
t
y

S
46
1
16
,
38
3
46
1
46
1
24
1
46
1
55
,
46
6
Of
f
i
c
e

$
69
3
84
6
22
,
45
3
41
,
82
1
84
6
10
3
,
66
0
Fo
o
d

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

$
S
'
02
7
42
,
14
7
17
4
Re
t
a
i
l

$
17
,
93
7
43
,
89
3
61
,
83
0
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

$
79
1
52
0
21
,
37
7
lim
i
t
e
d

I
n
c
o
m
e

(
e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
)

$
29
6
.
48
5
23
,
87
0
59
1
32
0
,
94
6
17
.
RM
P
P

Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

S
24
1
50
,
10
0
19
8
.
4
1
3
34
,
14
7
33
7
,
90
1
18
.
To
t
a
l

$
46
1
19
,
79
1
19
6
,
72
1
70
7
41
9
,
51
9
23
9
,
64
5
38
6
,
26
3
39
,
30
5
40
,
04
9
02
0
29
5
,
98
4
04
0
08
1
26
.
91
0
59
1
81
0
08
8
10
0
.
%
o
f

p
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
10
.
23
.
13
.
21
.
16
.
4
%
10
0
.
NO
T
E
:

T
h
i
s

i
s

a

c
o
m
p
i
l
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

a
l
l

u
t
i
l
i
t
y

c
o
s
t
s
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
,
b
y

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
.
Pa
g
e

8
Av
i
s
t
a

U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Tr
i
p
l
e
-
E
R
e
p
o
r
t
No
v
e
m
b
e
r

1
9
9
9
Ta
b
l
e

4
All
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

D
i
r
e
c
t

I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

A
c
r
o
s
s

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

an
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
As
s
l
s
t
i
v
e
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
%0
1
AD
o
l
i
a
n
c
e
Te
c
h
Co
n
t
r
o
l
s
Mo
t
o
r
s
HV
A
C
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
li
Q
h
t
i
n
Q
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Ma
n
n
a
r
i
n
o
Ne
w

T
e
c
h
Re
Q
i
o
n
a
l
Re
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
MQ
m
t
Sh
e
l
l
bu
i
d
l
i
n
Q
!2
!
.
&
1
Do
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
18
8
)

$
18
8
)
-0
.
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
17
9
,
32
8
10
,
92
8
19
0
25
6
31
.
0
%
He
a
l
t
h

C
a
r
e
26
2
26
2
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
t
y
85
8
85
8
1 %
Of
f
i
c
e
76
0
28
2
04
2
Fo
o
d

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
12
0
12
0
Re
t
a
i
l
04
0
04
0
Re
s
i
d
e
n
l
i
a
l
11
4
52
0
70
0
Li
m
i
t
e
d

I
n
c
o
m
e
26
7
50
7
23
,
87
0
29
1
37
7
47
.
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
09
5
95
3
73
,
20
8
11
0
,
25
6
18
.
TO
T
A
L
11
4
09
5
28
6
,
28
6
17
9
,
32
8
10
4
,
21
8
(1
,
18
8
)
23
,
87
0
61
3
72
3
10
0
.
%
o
f

p
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
3.4
%
46
.
29
.
17
.
-0
.
10
0
.
Pa
g
e

9
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
Customer Costs and Non-Energy Benefits
Customer costs are generally the bulk of the societal cost of energy efficiency measures. They are also,
for a number of reasons, some of the most difficult to accurately track. Energy efficiency measures are
often implemented as part of larger facility improvements, making it difficult to identify and value the
incremental cost that is consistent with the claimed energy savings,
Historically, it has been emphasized that the baseline assumed for customer costs must be consistent
with that used for the calculation of energy savings. It would be inappropriate, for example, to assume
that the cost of a lighting project is the difference between T-12 Energy Saver and T-8 fluorescent
fixtures, but that the energy savings is the difference between the installed T-8 fixtures and a hypotheticalleast-first-cost incandescent installation (even if the incandescent installation is allowable due toloopholes in the Non-Residential Energy Code). No error would be more detrimental to the calculation of
meaningful total resource cost (TRC) or participant cost-effectiveness calculations than inconsistent
baseline assumptions. Consequently these costs were reviewed in-depth prior to this analysis. Basedupon our findings we plan on a greater degree of analyst involvement in collecting this data in the future.
Changes to the incentive calculation as a result of our most recent filing are expected to make the
tracking of customer costs and non-energy benefits far easier and more accurate. Prior to the most
recent tariff, customer costs were irrelevant to the incentive calculation. Since the data was only beingcollected for purposes of analysis, and did not impact the immediate implementation issues or benefit the
customer in any way, accurate reporting had to be actively encourag~d. Customer cooperation was also
a contributing factor to this data collection problem (a lack of reporting would not prevent the customer
from receiving an incentive, and customers are often hesitant to release potentially proprietary project
information).
The new tariff requires a calculation of customer simple payback to determine incentive levels. In order tofacilitate a least-cost, accurate, and consistent implementation of this regulatory provision an incentive
calculation spreadsheet has been developed. These incentive spreadsheets also collect customer costs
and have additional fields for the quantification of, or at least identification of, customer non-energy
benefits.
For purposes of incentive calculation, policies for identifying appropriate baselines for retrofit projects
have been developed, The primary issue has revolved around the circumstances when existing
equipment versus new equipment should be the baseline. The resulting policy holds that the existingequipment should be the baseline unless it has failed or is in a state of "impending failure Whenreplacement equipment is the appropriate baseline, it is assumed the customer would install code-
minimum or industry standard equipment, whichever is the more energy efficient.
Incremental customer costs have been modified to exclude the customer value of deferring the capital
costs associated with replacing equipment nearing the end of its useful life. For example, replacing anelectric furnace with two years of remaining useful life with a gas furnace with a useful life of twenty years
requires an adjustment to reflect the difference in equipment life.
Treatment of "De-Rated" Energy Savings
As previously indicated, projects in the Contracted and Construction phases are credited with 75% and
95% of the engineering estimate of their energy savings. In order to properly calculate cost-effectiveness
it is necessary to include a similar estimate of the incentive costs, non-energy benefits and customer
costs in the analysis.
Page 10
vista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
In previous analyses, historical averages of the program in question, or one very closely related, were
used to estimate these costs for projects in progress. Customer costs and non-energy benefits will, continue to be extrapolated for each customer segment technology cell based upon similar programsoperating prior to the most recent change to the Tariff Rider.
This approach is not satisfactory in the case of customer incentives. Historical incentives were basedupon a different incentive formula. Since the current incentive formula is tiered based upon payback, it
isn t possible to simply scale up (or down) the incentives. Consequently, it was necessary to estimate an
average cost per kWh for each segment technology application that had a project in the Contracted or
Construction phase to complete this analysis.
As we develop a history with the new tiered incentive format we will be able to further refine these
incentive estimates for in-progress projects,
Energy Savings
During this trimester Avista participated in over 14.2 million kWh of energy savings, which resulted in anincrease of 248,000 therms of natural gas usage. This represents the progress of projects within the
pipeline" of the five sequential phases during the trimester.
As always, the net therm savings incorporate the additional therm usage of electric to natural gas
conversions. Within this trimester there was a significant fuel-conversion project in the Health Caresegment, in addition to the residential Natural Gas Awareness Campaign and a significant number of
limited income electric to gas conversions.
The energy savings attributable to Avista Corporation s November Torchiere Turn-In event are included in
this trimester s energy savings, and account for 333 843 kWh attributable to the Residential segment.
The energy savings of this program were based upon the results of analysis incorporated into this report.
It is also worth noting that a single hospital with four separate projects accounted for 14% of the energysavings for this trimester. This project is detailed in the Large Project Updates portion of this report. The
next largest customer was a manufacturing firm , accounting for 4% of the trimester s energy savings withfive separate projects. It is not coincidental that both of these customers had significant fuel-switching
projects incorporated into their improvements.
Avista Corporation s participation in the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance is within this report for
purposes of calculating utility costs , but has been exCluded for cost-effectiveness purposes. This is dueto the lack of definable energy savings at this point in time. During this trimester, NEEA accounted for
14.4% of our utility costs. On average, based upon the year 2000 NEEA funding contract and the
revisions to Avista Corporation s Idaho tariff rider, NEEA will account for slightly less than 20% of Avista
utility expenditures.
These calculations of energy savings do not include any estimates of free-riders, free-drivers, or anymarket transformation effects. At this point it is unclear how these effects will influence the total energy
savings of the portfolio. We will be investigating this _question in the near future in compliance with ourIdaho general ratecase order.
Refer to Tables and 6 for the allocations of electric and therm savings across customer segments and
technologies.
Page 11
Av
i
s
t
a

U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Tr
l
p
l
e
-
E
R
e
p
o
r
t
No
v
e
m
b
e
r

1
9
9
9
Ta
b
l
e

5
All
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c

S
a
v
i
n
g
s

A
c
r
o
s
s

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

an
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
As
s
l
s
t
i
v
e
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
Ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
Te
c
h
Co
n
t
r
o
l
s
Mo
t
o
r
s
HV
A
C
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Ug
h
t
i
n
g
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ne
w

T
e
c
h
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Re
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
Mg
m
l
Sh
e
l
l
bu
i
d
l
i
n
g
TO
T
A
l
NE
E
A
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
Ma
n
u
l
a
c
l
u
r
i
n
g
56
1
15
0
84
1
88
9
.
90
7
22
0
05
4
67
7
95
2
11
.
He
a
l
t
h

C
a
r
e
84
2
,
78
9
18
1
92
3
02
4
71
2
14
.
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
t
y
10
3
,
63
9
39
0
10
7
,
02
9
Off
i
c
e
43
,
78
9
96
,
20
9
33
4
23
7
,
33
2
70
/
.
Fo
o
d

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
60
0
60
0
Re
t
a
i
l
05
3
05
3
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
75
3
,
08
4
36
0
34
8
40
0
11
3
83
2
50
.
li
m
i
t
e
d

I
n
c
o
m
e

(
e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
)
10
8
04
0
32
4
15
2
,
36
4
RM
P
P

Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
19
3
04
1
47
7
26
8
86
,
38
4
47
6
07
6
61
0
,
12
2
84
2
,
89
0
13
.
TO
T
A
L
75
4
19
1
48
4
,
10
9
83
4
08
6
88
9
,
90
7
48
3
,
90
2
40
0
61
0
,
12
2
14
5
04
8
20
1
76
4
69
.
10
.
4
%
NO
T
E
:

T
h
e
s
e

r
l
g
U
r
e
S

in
c
l
u
d
e

d
e
-
r
a
t
e
d

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

C
o
n
l
r
a
c
t
e
d

a
n
d

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
h
a
s
e
s
.
Ta
b
l
e

6
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

T
h
e
r
m

S
a
v
i
n
s
A
c
r
o
s
s

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

S
e
me
n
t
s

a
n
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
ie
s
As
s
i
s
t
i
v
e
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
Ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
Te
c
h
Co
n
t
r
o
l
s
Mo
t
o
r
s
HV
A
C
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
lig
h
t
i
n
g
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ne
w

T
e
c
h
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Re
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
Mg
m
l
Sh
e
l
l
bu
i
d
l
i
n
g
TO
T
A
L
%
o
l
l
o
t
a
l
NE
E
A
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
Ma
n
u
'
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
9
82
9
)
(2
2
)
85
1
)
He
a
l
t
h

C
a
r
e
(4
3
,
21
4
)
41
8
)

(4
5
,
63
2
)
18
.
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
t
y
(1
8
5
)

(1
8
5
)
Of
f
i
c
e
11
1
(3
6
8
)

58
2
62
.
32
4
25
.
Fo
o
d

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Re
i
a
H
(1
2
)
(1
2
)
Re
s
i
d
e
n
'
i
a
l
(2
8
8
10
3
)
(2
8
8
,
10
3
)
11
5
.
Lim
i
t
e
d

I
n
c
o
m
e

(
e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
)
(1
8
,
77
9
)
(1
8
,
77
9
)
RM
P
P

Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
89
3
10
6
)
22
,
72
6
46
,
51
3
18
.
TO
T
A
L
89
3
(3
4
8
,
98
5
)
82
9
)
(6
,
11
0
)
72
6
58
2
(2
4
8
,
72
4
)
10
,
14
0
.
24
.
NO
T
E
:

T
h
e
s
e

f
i
g
u
r
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

d
e
-
r
a
t
e
d

t
h
e
r
m

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

l
r
o
m

'
h
e

C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
e
d

a
n
d

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
h
a
s
e
s
.
Pa
g
e

1
2
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
Cost-Effectiveness and Descriptive Statistics
Much of our periodic reporting process is geared towards assessing our successes, or failures , and to
make the appropriate mid-course corrections necessary to manage our energy efficiency program
portfolio. Much of this depends upon the calculation of the cost-effectiveness tests and related
descriptive statistics.
A review of cost-effectiveness and descriptive statistics has led to several reviews and has identified
management issues that will be tracked in future reports.
Prior to reviewing the cost-effectiveness results it is necessary to realize that Avista has never conducted
cost-effectiveness analysis on such a short (four-month) period of time. Consequently, much of ourconclusions must be tempered with the realization that we lack a historical basis to determine if
seasonality or normal variation over time is distorting our view of the cost-effectiveness results. When we
compare these results to our historical baseline we cannot, for the most part, state with certainty that this
four-month snapshot represents a significant departure from our longer-term trend.
With this major caveat in mind, the following issues were identified as a result of our review. Some
these issues were satisfactorily resolved as part of our review, others will require continued monitoring,
while still others have resulted in changes in our approach to implementing our energy efficiency
programs.
Preliminary calculations of cost-effectiveness indicated systematic erroneous customer cost data.
Upon review it was determined that the customer costs entered into the database from which cost-
effectiveness calculations are derived were inaccurate in approximately half of the cases. Some of
these inaccuracies were the result of misinterpretation of customer costs, and others were in need of
additional analysis to properly value the portion of the project cost attributable to energy efficiency.
Consequently an exhaustive review of nearly all projects claiming kWh impact during this trimester
was undertaken. The result was revision to about half of the customer costs. While the revisions of
individual projects were a mix of upward and downward adjustments, the process resulted in
significant downward revisions to customer costs overall. The magnitude of the errors in this
trimester was exacerbated by the presence of a large major remodel project at a rural hospital (major
remodels require particular attention to the details of project costs).
It is certain that a more timely review of the customer costs (and non-energy benefits) of the energy
efficiency portion of the project will increase the accuracy of this process. Consequently we have
internally redesigned the process through which a project will pass as it moves towards completion.
In the future an analyst will individually review each project for customer costs, non-energy benefits
incentive calculation, and the like.
The customer costs, within this trimester, are 73% of the total resource cost for the overall portfolio.
This makes the importance of accurately capturing this data clear, and it also emphasizes the need to
review customer costs as part of future program design efforts.
We will track customer costs and the non-energy benefits per kWh, per BTU and as a percent of total
resource cost in the future to determine if we are appropriately capturing all quantifiable benefits. It is
our expectation that increased accuracy will increase the cost-effectiveness (reduce the costs) of
energy efficiency projects.
It is also notable that the Limited Income segment was determined to be cost-effective. This is
primarily attributable to the low implementation cost per kWh (and BTU).
Page 13
vista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
These costs were specifically reviewed to ensure that they were accurate and appropriate for thecalculations being made. We discovered that the low costs were the result leveraging existing
Community Action Programs (CAP) for program delivery. A review of CAP agency costs was
completed to ensure we were capturing the true incremental implementation costs accruing to the
utility and to the CAP agency.
As Avista has mentioned in prior forums, the Non-Participant Test (or Rate Impact Measure, RIMTest) is a measure which we are mathematically certain to fail as long as our customer rates are
above our utility avoided cost. During this trimester our Non-Participant Test ratio was 0.44.
The textbook conclusion to a Non-Participant ratio below one is that the program acts to increase
rates. In combination with a TRC above one it can be said that rates increase but overall energy
costs are reduced (through the impact of reduced consumption).
To this Avista would add that our annual avoided costs do not reflect seasonal or time-of-use
variation in societal or utility avoided cost. We are contemplating revisions to the avoided cost
structure against which our programs are evaluated to correct this oversimplification.
At this point it is difficult to place a great deal of faith in the disaggregations of the cost-effectiveness
ratios or descriptive statistics by segment, technology or specific technology application cells within
the matrix, Part of the reason for this is transitional , that being the short period of time incorporated
within this report restrict the degree to which we can make firm conclusions regarding small
subsections of the market. Other issues, notably the accuracy of the allocation of fixed costs , arelikely to be an ongoing caveat applicable to these interpretations.
Given these caveats, it is notable that 88% of incentives during this time period were awarded forindustrial and lighting measures. While the industrial measures appear to be the result of a few large
projects moving towards completion, the lighting measures are characterized by large numbers of
relatively small projects. It is certain that lighting will continue to be a large part of our project
portfolio, It is premature to reach any conclusions regarding industrial projects, or to conclude thatother technologies that weren t heavily incentivized in this trimester won t substantially increase in the
future,
These factors will be revisited in future reports to determine which issues are persistent and demand
management attention and which issues are the result of unique, transitional or minor variations,
Refer to Tables and 8 for summaries of cost-effectiveness for all four standard practice tests by
customer segments and technologies.
Refer to Table 9 for further details on the calculation of the cost-eff.ectiveness ratios as well as someuseful descriptive statistics.
Page 14
A vista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
Table 7 Cost-Effectiveness Statistics by Customer Segment
Total Non-
Resource Utility Cost Participant Participant
Cost Test Test Test Test
NEEA
Agriculture
Manufacturing 0.40
Health Care 0.44
Hospitality 1.45
Office 10.
Food Service
Retail
Residential 78.0.48
Limited Income (electric)0.42
RMPP Education 16.
PORTFOLIO 0.43
PORTFOLIO wlo NEEA
Table 8 Cost-Effectiveness Statistics by Technology
Total Non-
Resource Utility Cost Participant Participant
Cost Test Test Test Test
Appliance
Assistive Tech
Controls 0.43
Motors 0.41
HVAC 0.47
Industrial 0.45
Lighting
Maintenance
Monitoring
New Tech
Regional
Renewable
Resource Mgmt 10.10.
Shell
Sustainable Building
PORTFOLIO 04 -0.43
PORTFOLIO w/o NEEA
Page 15
A vista Utilities
Table 9
Triple-E Report November 1999
Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Tests and Descriptive Statistics
Total Resource Cost Test
Electric avoided cost
Non-Energy benefits $
Natural Gas avoided cost
TRC benefits $
Implementation cost $
Customer cost $
TRC costs $
TRC ratio
Utility Cost Test
Electric avoided cost
Natural Gas avoided cost
UCT benefits $
Regular Income
portfolio without
NEEA
303,697 $
850 $
(859,424) $
521 122 $
Limited Income
portfolio
457,790
Overall portfolio
without NEEA$ 4,761,487
$ 76,850
(63,443) $ (922,867)
394,347 $ 3,915,469
905,457 29,569 935,026
273,339 291,377 564,716
178 795 320,946 3,499,742
Regular Income
portfolio without
NEEA
303,697 $
(859,424) $
3,444 273 $
Limited Income Overall portfolioportfolio without NEEA
457,790 $ 4,761,487
(63,443) $ (922,867)
394 347 $ 3,838,620
Implementation cost $905,457 29,569 935,026
Incentive cost 595,293 291,377 886 670
UCT costs 500,749 320,946 821,696
UCT ratio
Participant Test
Bill Reduction $
Non-Energy benefits $
Participant benefits
Customer project cost $
Incentive received
Participant costs
Participant Test ratio
Non-Participant Test
Avoided cost savings
Non-Part benefits $
Regular Income
portfolio without
NEEA
471 020 $
76,850 $
547,869 $
273,339 $
(595,293) $
678,046 $
71 NA
Regular Income
portfolio without
NEEA
444 273 $
444 273 $
Limited Income
portfolio
456 505
Overall portfolio
without NEEA$ 4,927,525$ 76,850$ 5,004,374456,505
291,377 $
(291,377) $
564 716
(886,670)
678,046
Limited Income Overall portfolioportfolio without NEEA
394.347 $ 3,838,620
394 347 $ 3,838 620
Revenue loss $274 491 619 887 894 378
Implementation $905,457 29.569 935,026
Customer incentives $595,293 291,377 886,670
Non-Part costs 775,240 940.833 716,073
Non.Part. ratio 0.44 0.42 0.44
Descriptive Statistics
Annual kWhs
Gust cosUkWh $
Impl cosUkWh $
Regular Income
portfolio without
NEEA
049,400
174 $
069 $
Page 16
Limited Income
portfolio
152.364
253 $
026 $
Overall portfolio
without NEEA
14,201,764
181
066
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
Energy Efficiency Tariff Rider Balances
Balances for the combined jurisdictions fell from $3.6 million to $3.2 million during the trimester,
Excluding interest, expenditures exceeded revenues by 32.8% ($470 000). It should be noted that
expenditures are subject to substantial variance as a result of incentives granted to large projects or the
quarterly payment of NEEA invoices.
Over 90% of the decrease in the Tariff Rider balance is attributable to Idaho, where the Tariff Rider was
reduced from 1.5% to 1.0% at the outset of this trimester. Within Idaho, expenditures were slightly morethan twice revenues during this time period (excluding interest). On a net basis, Avista expended
$368 000 more than it received in revenues within Idaho (excluding interest).
Based upon the results of this trimester, the Idaho balance will be reduced to zero in less than one year.
Revenues and expenditures were more balanced in Washington. Avista Corporation s expendituresexceeded revenues by 9.3% ($102,000) during the trimester, excluding interest.
Refer to Table 10 for calculations of Energy Efficiency Tariff Rider balances to year-end -1998 and month-by-month calculation of year-to-date 1999 amounts by jurisdiction,
Page 17
Av
i
s
t
a

U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Tr
i
p
l
e
-
E
R
e
p
o
r
t
No
v
e
m
b
e
r

1
9
9
9
Ta
b
l
e

1
0
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

E
n
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

T
a
r
i
f
f

R
i
d
e
r

B
a
l
a
n
c
e

a
n
d

I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
Id
a
h
o
Id
a
h
o
Id
a
h
o
Id
a
h
o
Id
a
h
o
DS
M
DS
M
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
En
d
i
n
g
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
En
d
i
n
g

b
a
l
.
DS
M
DS
M
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
En
d
i
n
g
Id
a
h
o
En
d
i
n
g

b
a
l
.
Mo
n
t
h
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
DS
M

b
a
l
a
n
c
e
DS
M

b
a
l
a
n
c
e
in
t
e
r
e
s
t

*
wi
t
h

i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
DS
M

b
a
l
a
n
c
e
DS
M

b
a
l
a
n
c
e
in
t
e
r
e
s
t

*
wi
t
h

i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
Ja
n
u
a
r
y

1
9
9
9
17
1
03
7
37
1
65
8
62
7
96
5
82
8
,
58
6
10
,
95
0
83
9
,
53
5
14
7
16
1
90
5
05
3
57
9
14
5
33
7
38
5
14
7
72
2
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
18
8
86
3
32
1

,
4
9
3
83
9
,
53
5
97
2
16
5
75
6
99
3
92
1
10
0
,
62
0
15
7
17
1
14
7
,
72
2
20
4
27
3
76
7
21
3
,
04
0
Ma
r
c
h
41
6
80
3
29
2
77
1
99
3
92
1
86
9
88
9
23
,
17
2
89
3
,
06
1
16
6
14
3
56
3
21
3
,
04
0
29
9
43
8
37
8
30
8
,
81
5
Ap
r
i
l
78
1
,
85
5
26
6
60
6
$
2
,
89
3
06
1
37
7
81
1
23
,
37
9
40
1
,
19
1
26
8
,
93
5
13
2
,
74
9
30
8
81
5
17
2
,
62
9
10
.
01
7
18
2
64
7
Ma
y
33
3
,
26
8
24
7
,
4
5
4
2,
4
0
1
19
1
31
5
,
37
7
01
5
33
6
39
2
13
1
68
9
12
1
,
68
6
18
2
,
64
7
17
2
64
4
89
4
18
2
53
8
Ju
n
e
28
3
,
07
9
26
6
98
1
$
2
,
33
6
,
39
2
32
0
29
4
18
,
80
5
33
9
,
09
9
74
9
12
1
98
6
18
2
,
53
8
21
6
77
5
39
1
22
6
16
5
Ju
l
y
31
5
,
85
4
23
7
11
5
33
9
,
09
9
26
0
36
0
18
,
56
7
27
8
92
7
66
2
12
1
01
8
22
6
,
16
5
26
4
52
1
56
6
27
4
08
7
Au
g
u
s
t
47
0
,
62
7
27
2
03
5
27
8
,
92
7
08
0
,
33
5
33
8
09
8
,
67
3
14
6
09
9
82
,
98
3
27
4
08
7
21
0
,
97
1
93
1
22
0
90
2
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
22
0
,
53
4
30
2
.
04
5
09
8
,
67
3
18
0
,
18
4
17

,
38
1
19
7
56
5
88
5
00
4
22
0
,
90
2
22
1
02
1
90
8
23
0
,
92
9
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
33
3
,
76
3
26
0
08
0
19
7
56
5
12
3
,
88
2
06
0
14
0
94
2
30
4
54
5
57
1
23
0
,
92
9
00
7
95
5
73
6
01
7
,
69
1
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
17
4
94
3
26
3
,
91
6
14
0
,
94
2
22
9
,
91
5
17
,
23
0
24
7
,
14
5
16
7
87
7
39
1
01
7
69
1
93
5
,
20
6
92
7
94
4
13
2
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
58
8
,
01
3
31
7
11
1
24
7
14
5
97
6
,
24
3
17
,
42
7
99
3
,
67
0
23
2
35
6
10
2
25
7
94
4
13
2
81
4
03
4
78
6
82
1
82
0
Ja
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
0
21
1
34
4
35
0
,
39
5
99
3
67
0
13
2
72
1
83
9
14
9
,
56
0
14
3
92
6
72
7
82
1
,
82
0
77
1
62
1
01
0
77
8
,
63
1
19
9
9

t
o
t
a
l
s
27
8
64
0
$
3
41
9
,
26
5
22
5
,
08
0
$
1
,
73
5
,
72
8
39
8
,
28
4
10
5
,
68
5
20
0
0

t
o
t
a
l
s
21
1
34
4
35
0
39
5
16
,
83
9
14
3
,
92
6
72
7
01
0
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
DS
M
DS
M
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
En
d
i
n
g
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
En
d
i
n
g

b
a
l
.
Mo
n
t
h
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
DS
M

b
a
l
a
n
c
e
DS
M

b
a
l
a
n
c
e
in
t
e
r
e
s
t

.
.
wi
t
h

i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
Ja
n
u
a
r
y

1
9
9
9
24
1
18
5
53
3
56
3
68
1
54
4
97
3
,
92
2
13
,
33
5
98
7
,
25
7
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
28
9
,
48
3
47
8
66
4
98
7
25
7
17
6
,
43
8
30
,
52
3
20
6
,
96
1
Ma
r
c
h
47
3
,
96
9
43
6
,
33
4
$
4
20
6
,
96
1
16
9
,
32
6
32
,
54
9
20
1
,
87
6
Ap
r
i
l
05
0
,
79
0
39
9
35
5
$
4
20
1
,
87
6
55
0
,
4
4
0
33
,
39
7
58
3
,
83
7
Ma
y
46
4
95
6
36
9
14
0
58
3
,
83
7
48
8
,
02
1
30
,
90
9
51
8
,
93
0
Ju
n
e
37
0
,
82
8
38
8
,
96
7
51
8
,
93
0
53
7
06
9
28
.
19
6
56
5
26
5
Ju
l
y
39
8
,
51
6
35
8
13
3
56
5
26
5
52
4
,
88
1
28
,
13
3
55
3
,
01
4
Au
g
u
s
t
61
6
72
6
35
5
01
8
55
3
,
01
4
,
3
29
1
,
30
6
28
.
26
9
31
9
57
5
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
30
6
41
9
38
8
,
04
9
$
3
31
9
,
57
5
40
1
20
5
28
9
42
8
,
49
4
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
63
8
30
8
34
1
65
1
$
3
,
42
8
49
4
13
1
83
7
26
,
79
6
15
8
,
63
4
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
34
2
,
82
0
34
9
,
30
7
15
8
,
63
4
16
5
12
1
15
7
19
1
,
27
7
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
82
0
.
36
9
41
9
,
36
8
$
3
,
19
1
27
7
79
0
.
27
7
25
,
21
3
81
5
,
4
9
0
Ja
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
0
35
5
,
27
0
44
4
12
2
$
2
81
5
,
4
9
0
90
4
,
34
2
84
9
92
8
,
19
1
19
9
9

t
o
t
a
l
s
01
4
36
8
$
4
81
7
54
9
33
0
76
5
20
0
0

t
o
t
a
l
s
35
5
,
27
0
44
4
12
2
23
,
84
9
Pa
g
e

1
8
vista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
Analysis Measurement and Evaluation Summary
The analysis team has been producing the Goals Verification Report on a trimesterly basis for several
years. The content of the report varies over time in order to ensure a reasonable coverage of a wide
variety of programs. Programs, processes , and technologies to be reviewed are not revealed to the
Energy Services Department prior to the verification. This is necessary to obtain a representative view ofimplementation activities.
While a portion of the verification reports are based upon a random selection of implementation activities,the majority of the projects were prompted for review by the analyst team.
Ten projects or programs were selected for in-depth review as part of this report, only three of which
resulted in a change to their claimed energy savings.
Generally, programs or projects selected for in-depth review go through both process and impact
analyses. It is difficult to conduct a comprehensive analysis of one type without substantial affect on the
other. Consequently, most reviews result in new insights into program design or implementation, These
insights are noted in this report even when they don t have a direct impact upon energy savings,
The attached reviews summarize the findings of each report. The transition from programs to the
customer segments, under the latest schedule 90 tariff, will affect most of these projects. The analysisteam plans to format future summaries to include specific indications of changes to energy impact,
process recommendations, policy recommendations and other information to accurately portray Avista
Corporation s energy efficiency activities. The format of this report has been revised to incorporate someof the comments made in the November 1999 Triple-E Board meeting. Transition from the Goals
Verification Report to the Triple-E Reporting structure will be completed by the next trimester.
For confidentiality reasons, customer names have been omitted except in the case of governmental
organizations. More detailed reports are available for these projects upon request.
New Technologies Program Overview
This program has accumulated a total of 7 279,973 kWh/year savings from January 1995 to
November 1999.
Reductions resulting from analytical reviews through November 1999 totaled 760 239 kWh, The
reduction came from the LED Traffic Signals program (approx. 740,239 kWh) and from the LED ExitSign program (approx. 20 000 kWh). The adjustments to the LED Traffic Signals program were found
necessary due primarily to problems in process rather than the engineering estimates of savings.
The small adjustment to the LED Exit Sign program was based upon analytical revisions to the pre-
existing fixture baseline.
New Technologies are considered to be energy efficiency measures which are new to the local
market, are unproven as demonstrated by a lack of significant history, present higher risk of achieving
theoretical energy savings, and/or use a proven technology in new application.
Due to the potential risk for the customer, larger incentive amounts are provided to assist the
customer in overcoming barriers that obstruct the decision to install these energy efficiency
measures. The incentives provided are approximately twice those provided for other measures.
Page 19
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
Over the course of the New Technologies program, analytical reviews have resulted in significant
adjustments to the energy savings estimated by Energy Services.
Results of Individual Reviews of the New Technologies Program
Segment or Program:
Technology:
Sites:
New Technologies
Light Emitting Diode (LED) Exit Signs
Multiple Sites in Washington and Idaho
Study Summary
This study resulted in no impact on energy savings estimates,
Following an impact analysis completed in the second quarter of 1999, a downward adjustment wasmade (from 227 kWh/year to 200 kWh/year, a 12% reduction), to the prescriptive kWh savingsclaimed per LED exit sign installed. As part of this Triple-E Report, it was verified that the ~ew
savings figure was being accurately incorporated into the current LED program and had"been appliedretroactively as well.
Five customer sites were randomly selected for verification and study by the analysis team. The
quantity of LED exit signs at each location, as reported by Energy Services, was verified. This bringsthe total quantity of customer sites verified to approximately twenty-five since this program was
initiated.
It should also be noted that the LED exit sign program implementation allows incentives to be
awarded directly to the contractor without the signature or knowledge of the end-use customer. Theintent is to make the program implementation more effective and to leverage trade ally involvement in
promoting the program. The analysis team has conducted frequent post-verifications of LED exit sign
installations in recognition of the potential for error in this process. To date, no such errors have been
detected,
Based on a decision made earlier in 1999 the LED exit sign program will be transitioning out of the
New Technology classification at the end of the calendar year 1999. Customers who have applied for
incentives in 1999 will have until the end of calendar year 2000 to complete their projects. Starting
January 1 , 2000, installation of LED exit signs will be incentivized as standard lighting efficiency
measure.
Backaround
The LED Exit Sign program has been established as a component of the New Technologies program
since January of 1997. Under the conditions of this program, incentives are paid at $0.1 O/kWh annualenergy savings.
Given the nature of this technology (many customers with small savings per customer) this program wasimplemented on a prescriptive basis. A fixed savings estimate per LED exit sign was established basedon a study of the watt reduction in retrofit situations. Furthermore, the prescriptive approach was a good
fit for this measure since exit signs are continuously illuminated.
An initial study of the retrofit wattage reduction yielded an energy savings estimate of 227 kWh/year foreach installation. The basecase assumed LED exit signs would typically replace either two 20-watt
incandescent lamps, two 1S-watt incandescent lamps , or two 7.S-watt compact fluorescent lamps. The
Page 20
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
expectation was that this mix of existing fixtures would be weighted heavily toward those lamps with
higher usages.
An impact evaluation in early 1999 found that a high portion of the existing lamps were compact
fluorescents. This was largely due to the high success of the program in reaching institutional customers,a customer class with a higher quantity of fixtures and a greater penetration of compact fluorescent exit
signs. As a consequence of these findings, the savings per installed LED exit sign was adjusted from 227
to 200 kWh/year. The adjusted energy savings were actually more consistent with the $20.00 per signincentive offered by the program. Therefore no adjustment in the customer incentive was required.
As part of this report, the energy savings adjustment was investigated and verified. The verification foundthat the adjustments had been properly made. A second objective of this report was to independentlypost-verify the installation of a sample of LED exit signs. Since incentives for this program are oftenawarded directly to the trade ally (generally the electrical or lighting contractor), there has been anacknowledgement that frequent post-verification is necessary. Independent post-verifications ofapproximately 20 sites have been successfully completed in previous studies without discovering anyerroneous entries"
Five sites were selected for independent post-verification as part of this analysis. Four of these siteswere randomly selected. One site was selected based upon the large number of signs at the location.These site visits confirmed the findings of Energy Services.
During the course of this review, tangential discussions reopened the issue of the New Technology status
of LED exit signs. After nearly two years of New Technology funding the local market for LED exit signs
has changed, LED exit signs are readily available, considered to be cost-effective , and are beingincorporated into standard building practices. Although comprehensive pre- and post-project penetrationshave not been estimated for this program, implementation experience and contact with numerous trade
allies indicate the program is no longer in need of the enhanced incentives offered under the New
Technologies program. Consequently, incentives for the program will no longer be offered on a
prescriptive basis, but will be offered as part of a general lighting retrofit funding under the terms of thelatest energy efficiency tariff as of January 1, 2000. Customers with active applications submitted prior to
12/31/1999 will have until the end of calendar year 2000 to complete installations under the terms of the
prescriptive program.
Segment or Program:
Technology:
Sites:
New Technologies
Supermarket Refrigerator Case Pilot Project
Two Individually Owned Supermarkets in Washington and Idaho
Studv SummarY
This study resulted in no impact on energy savings estimates.
These projects were not randomly selected for review, but were prompted as a result of several
factors. First, extensive and long term studies were already being performed. Second, the
technologies under study were part of a package , which was being considered as a potential regionalmarket transformation program by the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. Last, these projects
were prompted for review because of high incentive levels per kWh.
Following the review, a decision was made that the projects would be more appropriately categorized
as Technology Demonstration Projects (a test of a new set of technologies that could establish a
basis for a new program directed at all supermarkets and grocery stores) rather than New
Page 21
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
Technologies projects. The appearance of a high cost per kWh saved was a result of "start-up" costs
that would normally be borne by a new program.
As a result of the change mentioned above , certain expenses related to the projects were transferred
from direct incentive expenses to implementation expenses. These costs included equipment and
some of the fees paid to an outside professional engineering firm hired on a consultant basis.
Energy Services did obtain an additional benefit for promotion of energy efficiency when written
contractual permission was obtained from the customers to allow the use of their facilities as
demonstration sites, granting reasonable access upon reasonable notice.
These projects allowed Energy Services the opportunity to define what a typical demonstration
project is and to improve methods of dealing with future demonstration projects, including an internal
process improvement which will require a formal written plan to be completed prior to the start up of
such projects,
The energy efficiency measures considered are still being utilized and future follow-up by Energy
Services and the analysis team is required before a final evaluation is made onfu~ure implementation
of the studied measures as a new program or set of technologies.
Backaround
Two supermarkets from two separate chains were participants in these projects.
The projects were intended to increase the energy efficiency of grocery store case refrigerators and walk-
in freezers. The projects included the following measures:
New insulated T-8 lamps, low temperature electronic ballasts, and new insulated lamp lenses were
installed to replace the existing T-12 magnetic ballast lighting system,
Humidistat" anti-sweat heater controls were installed on the case doors in place of pre-existing anti-
sweat heaters, allowing them to cycle on and off as needed. The existing units operated continuously.
Existing shaded pole (SP) evaporator coil fan motors were replaced with higher efficiency, permanent
split capacitor (PSC) motors.
The retrofit sought to reduce the electric load and heat input to the food cases thus reducing the
refrigeration required to maintain the desired temperatures.
Energy Services contracted with a professional engineering company for the management of this project.
The consultant monitored energy consumption of the equipment both pre- and post-installation. Thereports delivered by the consultant were reviewed and found to be complete and thorough.
Upon investigation, it was determined that these demonstration projects were intended to establish the
feasibility of a new set of measures as the basis for a new program directed at supermarkets, grocery
stores, and other establishments operating freezers and refrigerated cases.
Financial analysis of the projects found that the cost$ for new equipment was being paid for by Energy
Services as a direct incentive with the customer reimbursing Avista Corporation an amount equal to one
full year of the calculated energy savings. As technology demonstration projects, the equipment costs,
less the customer co-payment, should have been charged as an implementation expense rather than as
a direct incentive.
Page 22
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
This review resulted in a clarification of the appropriate accounting for demonstration projects. In
addition, written plans on the justifications and expectations of demonstration projects will be required in
the future. Significant demonstration projects will be disclosed in the Triple-E Report. This will also givethe analysis team greater opportunity for involvement early in the program development process.
The customers are considering the purchase of additional retrofits for their other locations should the
projects prove cost effective. Savings provided by future equipment installations should be monitored and
added to the savings provided by the original work.
Segment or Program:
Technology:
Sites:
New Technologies
Light Emitting Diode (LED) Traffic Signals
City of Spokane, City of Coeur d'Alene , City of Lewiston, and
Spokane County
Study Summarv
This study resulted in a 740 238 kWh reduction in energy savings claimed under the LED Traffic
Signals program.
This electric energy efficiency measure is the replacement of incandescent traffic signal lamps with a
new LED array. The incandescent lamps typically consume between 60 and 150 watts , while the LEDarray consumes approximately 18 watts.
During a review of this program. discrepancies were found in various spreadsheets and records
detailing the total quantity of LED traffic signals installed and initial over estimation of savings for
some installations. These discrepancies caused conflicts between the data in the Energy Services
Tracker" database and hardcopy records. As a result, a total of 557 702 kWh per year of energysavings were removed from the LED Traffic Signals program. An additional 182 536 kWh of energysavings were removed from the New Technologies program as a result of a data entry error
discovered during analysis.
After the adjustment, energy savings attributed to the LED Traffic Signals program total 972,041 kWh,which represents a significant contribution and indicates a substantial penetration of a technology
previously ignored by the local market.
Future tracking of LED traffic signals will clearly specify the location of the installation before any
energy savings claim will be accepted.
Future projects participating in the LED Traffic Signals program will not claim energy savings until
reaching the Completed phase. This process will stay in place until improvements are made enabling
reconciliation of all project records.
The LED Traffic Signals program will transition to a standard efficiency technology as of 12/1/99.
Customers with projects under contract prior to this time have until 5/1/00 to reach completion and
receive incentive under the New Technologies program.
Backoround
It was discovered as a result of general inquiries into the LED Traffic Signals program that there was notan adequate tracking of the physical locations of the installations and that duplicate records existed.
Page 23
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
An extensive review of this project over a seven-month period was necessary to determine the exact
location of all lights that had been installed under the program. Irregularities were noted and corrected.Following all attempts at reconciling the data , a determination was made that the most reasonable
method of ensuring an accurate report of energy savings, would be to remove all the savings normally
claimed under project phases other than Complete. This ensured that savings provided by only trafficsignals installed and operating were captured. Projects in the Contracted and Construction phases were
removed from the savings total.
Segment or Program:
Technology:
Sites:
New Technologies
Canopy Lighting
Several Gas Stations and Convenience Stores
Study Summary
This study resulted in no impact on energy savings estimates.
The projects involved the retrofit of existing high wattage metal halide lamps and fixtures with lower
wattage lamps and fixtures with better diffusion properties.
This review precipitated a discussion regarding the selection criteria for New Technologies approved
measures. The results of this discussion are contained in the Policy Updates portion of this report,
Backaround
This project was selected for review as a result of the technology being installed and after a periodic
review of the Tracker database by the analysis team. There was some question as to whether canopy
lighting technology was appropriate for inclusion under the New Technologies program. Investigationrevealed that incentives for these installations were not paid under the New Technologies program.
The project was independently post-verified and the estimated savings calculations were favorably
reviewed. It was also found that the pre-project measurement was entirely adequate for future use in
measurement and evaluation studies,
Resource Management Partnership Program (RMPP) Overview
This program has accumulated a total of 17 107,285 kWh of annual energy savings from January1995 to November 1999.
The RMPP program seeks to improve the efficiency of use of all resources, not solely energy. by
providing a Resource Conservation Manager to work with school districts and other appropriate
segments.
RMPP no longer exists as a program. It was integrated into the Education segment as part of the
transition to the customer segment approach to energy efficiency projects.
Results of Individual Reviews of the Resource Management Partnership Program
Segment or Program:Resource Management Partnership Program
Page 24
A vista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
Technology:
Sites:
Multiple Technologies
Multiple Sites
Studv Summary
This study resulted in the accumulation of 150,000 kWh in energy savings claimed under the RMPP
program.
A re-assessment of the weather normalization assumptions may be necessary in the near future.
This was last reviewed prior to the two consecutive mild winters experienced in our service territory.
As a result of substantial additional square footage being added to one of the RCM school districts,
we have agreed to tentatively increase the baseline usages of that school by 50% of the added
square footage. This recognizes that usages are related not only to changes in square footage but
also to end use of the facility and other factors such as enrollment.
The segment manager will identify non-quantifiable benefits at the end of each trimester. Claimed
energy savings have changed from 460,000 to 610,000 kWh (a net increase of 150,000 kWh). This is
a result of a change in the approach to netting out energy savings claimed by other programs from
the billed savings claims of the RMPP program.
Backaround
The RMPP program is reviewed at each trimesterly goal verification period. Savings for this program are
based upon metered usages at school districts where an Avista Resource Conservation Manager has
been assigned. The periodic metered savings analysis occurs one month prior to the close of any
particular verification period in order to allow the program manager the opportunity to compile the
necessary data.
Conversion of the metered usages into verified energy savings is a process that has evolved over the
course of the program, Specific policies have been established to recognize the re-adoption of short-lived
behavioral and operational measures as well as traditional hard-wired measures, Weighted average
measure lives are determined based upon data consistent with the re-adoption assumptions.
Additionally, several policies have been established and are under continuous review regarding weather
normalization, treatment of new schools, changing enrollments, demolitions, additional square footage,
movement of portables, and the energy savings claims made in these districts by other programs.
Segment or Program:
Technology:
Sites:
Resource Management and Trade Ally
Lighting Efficiency
The University of Idaho , Multiple Campus Locations
Studv Summary
This study resulted in no impact on energy savings estimates.
This project was an example of an attempt to reach beyond the normal venue of the RMPP program
and extend RCM expertise to a higher education facility that lacked a full time RCM. This project also
took advantage of funding available under the Trade Ally program to offset some expenses.
Page 25
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
This project involved replacing high wattage incandescent lights with high output compact fluorescent
lights. Lights with high annual run times throughout the campus were targeted for this installation,
Retrofits occurred at thirteen different buildings on the U of I campus with 615 new lights installed.Energy savings totaled 266,295 kWh/year.
The M&E evaluation of this project found a very high level of detail in documentation and verification
of all project costs and light installations.
Backaround
This project demonstrated that there still exist opportunities to capture significant energy savings fromrelatively simple projects. Projects such as this, involving high wattage incandescent lights, retrofitted tocompact fluorescents, are considered to be part of the ubiquitous "low hanging fruit" This projectdemonstrates that some low hanging fruit is still exists.
Persistence of the compact fluorescent lights should be monitored as this measure is generallyconsidered to have a ten year life. While compact fluorescents have an average life of 10 000 hoursthose operating 24 hours a day will need replacement approximately every 14 months.
Limited Income Program Overview
This program has accumulated a total of 16,056,478 kWh of annual energy savings from January
1995 to November 1999.
The Limited Income program serves residential customers primarily working through local Community
Action Program (CAP) agencies. The primary measures include conversion of electric to natural gasfired space heat and hot water, as well as weatherization improvements.
The program serves approximately 250 residential customers each year throughout Avista
Corporation s retail electric service territory in Washington and Idaho.
Results of Individual Reviews of the Limited Income Program
Segment or Program:
Technology:Limited Income Program
Conversions from Electric to Natural Gas Space and Domestic
Hot Water Heating
Multiple SitesSites:
Studv Summarv
An earlier impact analysis resulted in a substantial increase in annual savings claimed under this
program. A review was conducted during this trimester to ensure the energy savings claims were
being appropriately calculated.
Review indicated that the savings being claimed are not correct. Energy Services is following up on
the findings of the analytical team to determine the cause of the discrepancy.
A review was also conducted of energy savings being claimed for Limited Income projects in the
Construction phase. The methodology used to track these projects could not be adequately verified.As a result, energy savings for Limited Income projects will no longer be credited until those projects
Page 26
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
reach completion. Furthermore, all kWh listed under the Construction phase were removed from the
accounting system.
Backaround
An extensive process and impact analysis was conducted during July of 1999 that resulted in anadditional 2,586 092 kWh of energy savings accrued toward the Limited Income program, a 19% increaseover existing claimed savings.
The analysis was conducted through examination six years of billing history for twenty individual LimitedIncome projects. These projects were selected at random, subject to achieving adequate geographicstratification in order to reflect the ratio of locations involved in the program.
Trade Ally Program Overview
This program has accumulated a total of 14 715 705 kWh of annual energy savings from January1995 to November 1999.
The Trade Ally program captures energy efficiencies by providing education, and financial and
technical assistance to customers. As the program name suggests, there is an emphasis
leveraging trade allies in the energy efficiency market.
Results of Individual Reviews of the Trade Ally Program
Segment or Program:
Technology:
Site:
Trade Ally
Lighting Efficiency
Orthodontic Office in Post Falls, Idaho
Studv Summary
Estimated energy savings were adjusted, but with no impact on claimed energy savings. The project
was reviewed prior to reaching the Contracted phase. As such, no energy savings were beingclaimed.
The Energy Services project involved providing technical assistance and financial incentives to installhigh efficiency lighting measures in a new orthodontic office to be constructed in Post Falls, Idaho,
The project was independently post-verified by Energy Services and the analysis team.
The industry standards utilized in the Energy Services energy evaluation included fixtures that are nolonger considered standard efficiency. Specifically, magnetic ballasts were listed for fluorescent
fixtures throughout the facility, but electronic ballasts have become the industry standard in our
region.
While verifying formulas and methodologies contained within the spreadsheet used for lightinganalyses, two errors were found. First, a reference was improperly formatted and did not connect
with the appropriate target. Second, the rate schedules included for Idaho had not been updated
since the finalization of the last rate case. Both of these errors have been rectified.
Page 27
A vista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
Backaround
Because this project was new construction, existing fixtures could not be used to establish baseline
usages. Because this facility was to be constructed in Idaho, code minimum fixtures also could not beused. In lieu of no better alternative, industry standard technologies were estimated and used forbaselines usages
This project was the first of its kind to be incentivized under the customer segment model. The analysisspurred discussion as to the segment best suited to contain such projects. This type of facility bearssimilarity to both the Office and Health Services customer segments. It was determined best fit underHealth Services because of end-uses that most closely align with those of a health facility.
The project was initiated as part of the Trade Ally program, but completed under the customer segmentmodel. As with all projects straddling the transition period, the customer was given the choice of which
incentive structure to complete under. The incentive paid was $632., or $342.00 more than thecustomer qualified for under the Trade Ally program. Overall we have estimated incentives will increaseby approximately eight percent.
Site Specific Program Overview
This program has accumulated a total of 50 838,487 kWh of annual energy savings from January
1995 to November 1999. This figure represents approximately 41.6 % of the total electric energyefficiency savings reported since 1995.
The Site Specific program has traditionally been the staple of Avista Corporation s commercial andindustrial energy efficiency efforts. Most large industrial projects were completed through this
program.
This program was developed with the ability to handle all projects on a case by case basis. Theprojects could be unique for a specific customer s needs, or could include the application of a
combination of technologies.
Results of Individual Reviews of the Site Specific Program
Segment or Program:
Technology:
Site:
Site Specific Program
Multiple Technologies New Construction
S. Postal Service Regional Facility
at Spokane International Airport Business Park
Studv Summarv
This study resulted in no impact on energy savings estimates.
This project involved the construction of a large regional U.S. Postal Service distribution facility.
Under the Site Specific program, new construction measures are only eligible for participation if they
are either prescriptive in nature or exceed the energy code for the jurisdiction, in this case theWashington State Non-Residential Energy Code. Such projects have historically been technically
challenging.
Page 28
vista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
Several eligible measures were included in this project that enhanced the efficiency of the new
facility; including variable frequency drives, high efficiency chillers, day lighting, and various controls.These measures provided an estimated 541,990 kWh/year in energy savings,
A significant number of measures were recommended by Energy Services for consideration and
appear to never have been seriously considered by the end use customer.
Process errors were discovered early in the review. Fortunately, the review was performed
immediately after project completion. This allowed corrective action to be taken by Energy Services.
The error of greatest concern was the lack of a signed energy efficiency agreement between Avista
Corporation and the USPS. The error evidently occurred due to confusion as several departments
were involved with the customer. New electric and gas services were constructed and several
agreements were executed, but the Energy Services agreement was never completed.
agreement was executed by both parties soon after discovery of the omission.
BackQround
This project was completed under the Site Specific program and was randomly selected for review from a
search conducted for projects that had recently completed and involved new construction.
A verification of the installation had been performed and photographs of the equipment were included in
the project file. The engineering calculations were reviewed and found to be adequate.
The project file did not contain a signed contract, which is an internally established requirement in the SiteSpecific program process. The project coordinator was under the impression that provisions normallycontained in energy efficiency agreements were incorporated into the electric and natural gas services
agreement package executed with the customer. When the analysis team reviewed the electric andnatural gas services agreement, the energy efficiency provisions were not included, Consequently, theEnergy Services project lead took immediate corrective action and returned to the customer to have a site
specific energy efficiency agreement signed.
Energy Services staff recommended many additional cost-effective measures. The most logical time toinclude these measures (including 14 additional variable frequency drives to control up to 475
horsepower of electric motors) is during new construction. The review pointed out that the lack of
participation, which would have required change orders to the original project bid, may have been the
result of administrative difficulties within the USPS, rather than a lack of persuasion on the part of Energy
Services.
Prescriptive Lighting and School Leasing Program Overviews
The Prescriptive Lighting program has accumulated a total of 1 ,226,030 kWh/year energy savingsfrom January 1995 to November 1999.
The Leasing program was operated only in conjunction with other programs, so it never accrued kWhsavings as a stand-alone program. The Leasing program, as it existed for this project, has beenphased out.
Results of Individual Reviews of the Prescriptive Lighting and the School LeasingPrograms
Page 29
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
Segment or Program:
Technology:
Site:
Prescriptive Lighting and School Leasing Program
Lighting Efficiency
Private Parochial Elementary School
Studv Summary
This study resulted in no impact on energy savings estimates.
A lease was successfully executed with the customer that enabled the costs of new energy efficient
lighting installations to be recovered through savings in the monthly electric and natural gas service
bills.
Estimated annual energy savings provided by the retrofit were 22,639 kWh/year. The lease payment
transaction was reviewed and found to be charged at the appropriate interest rate. Appropriate
incentives were also paid to the customer under the Prescriptive Lighting program.
Backaround
As with many schools, this private school operates on a minimum budget. A large capital investment for
facility improvement is not feasible as available funds are spent on other more pressing
educational needs.
Energy Services worked with the customer to provide an attractive financial alternative through the lease
program, direct incentives, and project management.
Results of the Avista Torchiere Turn-In Event
Segment or Program:
Technology:
Residential
Lighting Efficiency
Study Summarv
Avista sponsored a Torchiere Turn-In event on November 13, 1999 at Spokane-area Home Depot stores.
The event was marketed thoroughly in cooperation with the Spokane Fire Department and local radio and
print media. The message incorporated both energy efficiency and safety,
The five-hour event resulted in the collection of 1 644 halogen torcheires, for which customers received
$10 certificates toward the purchase of energy efficient compact fluorescent torcheires. Based upon
survey results, customers repurchased 1,460 CF torcheires using certificates received during the event.
The estimate of energy savings is based upon the repurchased compact fluorescent torcheires. It is
presumed that the other torcheires turned in during the event were either not in service at the time or they
were replaced with other lighting of similar efficiency.
A review of the collected halogen torcheires indicated that the vast majority used 300 watt lamps. The
replacement torcheires averaged 60 watts, including ballast usage, but only produced 70% of the useful
light of the 300 watt halogens. In calculating the energy savings we presumed that the halogen torcheireswere dimmed to 210 watts (resulting in the same light output as a CF torchiere). This assumption not
only made the analysis convenient; it reflects the observation that most residential customers don
operate their halogen torcheires at full power.
Page 30
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
Applying a runtime of 1 524 hours per year (based upon survey results) the above assumptions resulted
in an estimate of 333 843 annual kWh of energy savings.
It was assumed that the customer cost of the replacement torchiere was $21 , which was the price of the
least expensive compact fluorescent torchiere available at Home Depot on the date of the event. Anyadditional cost above that amount was assumed to be a purchase of aesthetics and not attributable to the
cost of the energy efficiency measure.
We did not apply any non-energy benefits to the program in spite of the substantial safety value of the
halogen to compact fluorescent conversion. The quantification of this value would be highly speculative.
Database Programming Correction
Summary
It was discovered that the database used to track energy efficiency projects would on occasion not
update the total kWh savings claimed when a revision was made to a project. This programming error
was corrected and there was a net increase of 416,497 kWh of energy savings,
Page 31
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
Policy Updates
Reporting Periods for the Triple-E Report
We have proposed a trimesterly format for the Triple-E Report to replace the quarterly format proposed
earlier. The trimesterly format is consistent with the trimesterly goals that have been used internally for
the past several years. The reporting periods would end November 30, March 30, and July 31 of everyyear. These dates have been chosen to avoid placing the holiday season at the end of a trimester.
New Technology Strategy
The energy efficiency Tariff Rider, under which we are currently operating, has three types of incentive;
general electric efficiency, fuel-conversion, and new technology. The new technology incentives are
approximately twice the incentives available for general electric efficiency projects.
It is our intent to establish criteria for the selection of technologies and applications to which these
enhanced incentives apply and to require a written strategy for each selected technology. This process
will include the following:
documentation of the objectives expected from the enhanced incentive structure (e.g. what market
barriers are being addressed).
indicators of success or failure (e,g. target penetration rates, saturation levels, adoption by strategic
customers).
the criteria for removal from the new technology list (e.g. at a specific date, when specific goals are
reached , if specific goals are not reached by certain times).
To a significant degree , we will be using the New Technologies program as a form of small scale or
localized market transformation. We have had success in using this approach in the past and, with added
rigor, believe that the process can be further improved.
Measures have been initiated to remove two technologies formerly incentivized under the NewTechnologies program. LED exit signs and LED traffic signals are currently being transitioned into the
incentive tier for electric efficiency measures, As such, rates of incentive will be reduced by roughly 50%.
For both technologies customers were given until January 1 , 2000 to submit applications and receive
funding under the terms of the prior energy efficiency tariff. Customers with active applications for LED
exit signs submitted prior to this date have until the end of calendar year 2000 to complete installations
under the terms of the New Technologies program. Customers with active applications for LED traffic
signals submitted prior to January 1 , 2000 have until May 1, 2000 to complete installations under the
terms of the New Technologies program.
Page 32
vista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
Technology or Project Updates
VendingM/$ER Technology
We have approved the VendingM/$ER for full reimbursement within our service territory for a limited time.
The VendingM/$ER is a control mechanism for vending machines, and was demonstrated to Energy
Services in June 1999. The device utilizes an occupancy sensor and "fuzzy" logic to minimize theelectrical usage of the lights and compressor within a vending machine. VendingM/$ER is claimed to
save 20-75% of electrical usage. An Avista study earlier this year resulted in a savings estimate of 46%.Savings per unit are expected to be around 1500 annual kWh. This agreement is within the tariffguidelines, either under New Technologies or as a product sample. We will be paying 100% of theproduct cost plus shipping. The customer will be responsible for installation and will reimburse Avista for
any units incentivized but not installed,
Integrated Design Sustainable Building
Avista is working on several prospective integrated design projects. These include:
a pharmaceutical facility in a proposed industrial park
a limited income residential project in cooperation with SNAP
a combined residential, retail, and office community to be located along the Spokane River near
Downtown.
These buildings are all new construction.
The fifth project, a major renovation of a major museum, is proceeding with only the daylighting
recommendations incorporated into the overall plan. The limited success of this project was the result of
the maturity of the project and the fact that it was a remodel.
Page 33
vista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
Disclosures of Notable Projects
Natural Gas Awareness Pay for Performance Project
We have completed an analysis of a "pay for performance" residential (regular and limited income) fuel-
conversion agreement. This agreement incentivizes the Avista Marketing Department to achieve electricto natural gas conversion levels above an established baseline of natural adoption. This, of course. onlyapplies to Avista electric customers. To the extent that they exceed the level of natural adoption, the
department is paid at the incentive levels incorporated in the conversion tier of our tariff rider.
Microchannel Heat Exchanger
Avita is studying two potential demonstration sites for the microchannel heat exchanger. For purposes of
full disclosure, one of these two properties is an Avista-owned building. The heat recovered in thatapplication will be used to reduce the space heating requirement on a building receiving tariffed electric
service. The other building being studied is the Spokane Regional Health District Building.
Large Idaho Manufacturing Customer
An incentive of $111,603 was paid to this customer for the electric to natural gas conversion of an
intermediate product drying process. The project achieved electric savings of 2,045 758 annual kWh at a
cost of 69,822 therms per year of increased consumption. This particular project was initiated in August
1998.
This customer has four other projects in progress that have changed phase within this trimester.
Collectively, the projects will save 3,326,138 annual kWh at an expense of 96,575 annual therms at anincentive cost of $167 842.
Rural Hospital
Incentives totaling $86,972 have been paid for four separate projects undertaken during the remodel of a
rural hospital. The energy savings will amount to 2,656 676 annual kWh when the four projects are
complete, at a cost of 60 750 annual therms.
Page 34
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report November 1999
Preview of the Next Triple-E Report
We have initiated planning of the Analysis Measurement and Evaluation Summary portion of futuretrimesterly Triple-E Reports, including the following:
The initiation of a persistence study for small commercial lighting projects. This study will focus on
projects completed between 1992 and 1999 for small (Schedule 11) customers. Depending upon theinitial results, we may disaggregate these customers by owned versus leased space , customersegment and/or physical building type.
The intent is to reinvestigate our assumptions of measure life in an application that has yielded, and
continues to yield, substantial energy savings. Presently, our measure life assumptions are based
upon a conservative estimate of the physical life of the original fluorescent ballast.
Since the initial results will determine the sample size and depth of investigation into each project, weare unable to estimate when such a project would be complete.
A trimesterly billing analysis will be conducted for the Resource Management Partnership Program
component of the Education segment. This program is restricted to school districts with dedicatedAvista-sponsored on-site resource conservation managers. The billing analysis permits the program
to realize gains made through both hardwired and behavioral energy savings. In the next trimesterwe will complete the natural gas billing analysis that could not be performed in this trimester due to
lack of data,
We plan to complete a process evaluation of Avista Corporation s December Torchiere Turn-In event.
We plan to independently post-verify a random sample of LED exit signs.
We expect to have preliminary results of our VendingMI$ER impact evaluation,
We will propose a methodology for a free-ridership study, as mandated by the Idaho general ratecasedecision.
In addition to the activity mentioned above, we will complete impact and process analyses on a number of
other projects and programs to be selected over the course of the trimester. While we willdisproportionately focus on large projects, all projects will be subject to random selection.
We remain open to requests from the Triple-E Board for other analysis oriented towards assisting them in
their management oversight responsibilities.
Page 35
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report
Append ix A
Schedule 90 Tariff
Page 36
November 1999
Tripl'Report
December 1 1999 to March 31 , 2000
Avista Utilities Controllers Dept.
Resource Analysis Team
Jason Fletcher
Steve Negretti
Jon Powell
B -:) H :t6 trY! t..LD
y ~
p./,l-(lM"
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
Introduction
This is the second Triple-E Report produced in fulfillment of Avista Corporation s commitment at the time
of the most recent Schedule 90 Tariff approval. This report covers quantitative results for the December
1, 1999 to March 31 , 2000 trimester. It includes costs, energy savings, cost-effectiveness and descriptive
statistics, Energy Efficiency Tariff Rider balances, measurement and evaluation (M&E) activities, policy
updates, and large project disclosures.
Given that much of the basic methodology was covered in the prior report, we have excluded that
discussion from this report. We are distributing an electronic version of the previous report for the
reader s reference.
In place of the methodology discussion, this report includes approximately three times as many tables
than were present in the last report. This is partially to facilitate comparison against the previous August
1 to November 30, 1999 trimester report, but this report also contains a more detailed disaggregation of
our impact "by jurisdiction and rateclass. Unless otherwise noted, the analytical methodology employed is
unchanged from the prior report.
This is the first report where the SalesLogix database has been used. Data quality has improved in
several areas of this process, including the incorporation of additional information fields and custom
reports.
Although the format of the June 2000 Triple-E Board meeting does not include discussion of this report
we would appreciate the opportunity to meet with any Triple-E Board member interested in the full detail
of these calculations, either individually or in small groups.
Page
vista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
General Analytical Notes
This section has been included to provide insight into analytical details that affect the results of this report.
This includes relevant information regarding the treatment of raw data that influences the analysis.
Database and Non-Database Projects
All Avista Corporation energy efficiency projects can be roughly divided into two categories; those that are
tracked on a project-by-project basis through the Sa/esLogix database and those that are handled outsidethe database.
Non-database projects include the Resource Management Partnership Program (RMPP), the LimitedIncome program and the Natural Gas Awareness Campaign. The analyses of these programs arebrought into the report only after a custom evaluation of their costs and benefits are completed.
Database projects are tracked individually through the Sa/esLogix database. Each of the characteristicsrelevant to the analysis , such as energy savings, non-energy benefits, utility revenue impact and
customer cost, are specified based upon each project's unique characteristics.
Database Project Details
Projects tracked through the database include all projects that are individually reviewed, as well as threemeasures that are analyzed in mass (due to the similarity of many of the project characteristics). Projectsreviewed in mass are comprised of the following measures:
1) VendinaM/$EFfM
VendingM/$ER is a control mechanism used to reduce the energy usage of cold drink vending
machines. A prescriptive analysis of non-energy benefits resulting from VendingM/$ER installationsrevealed that a significant portion (20%) of the participant benefit from this measure accrue in theform of non-energy (maintenance) savings. These results have been incorporated into the analysis.
Since this is a control device, benefits and costs accumulated through VendingM/$ER are allocated to
the Controls technology.
2) LED Exit Sians
A detailed analysis of LED exit sign annual energy savings was conducted in 1999, with the result
being a revision from 240 kWh per sign to 200 kWh per sign. This was primarily based upon a higher
inventory of compact fluorescents in the existing inventory than was anticipated. The analysis team
has also completed a prescriptive analysis of non-energy benefits resulting from the installation of
LED exit signs. The results of this analysis indicate that most (83%) of the participant benefit from
this measure accrue in the form of non-energy (maintenance) savings. These results have been
incorporated into the analysis. LED exit sign projects were incentivized as New Technologies. Assuch, benefits and costs accumulated through this program are allocated to the New Technologies
measure.
3) LED Traffic SiQnals
The energy savings from LED traffic signals are tracked by jurisdiction and are incorporated into theanalysis. This measure has also been the subject of a non-energy benefit analysis by the analysis
Page 2
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
team. The results of this analysis indicate that a significant portion (42%) of the participant benefit
from this measure accrue in the form of non-energy (maintenance) savings. These results have been
incorporated into the analysis, LED traffic signal projects were incentivized as New Technologies. Assuch, benefits and costs accumulated through this program are allocated to the New Technologies
measure.
All Other Projects
All projects tracked within Sa/esLogix, aside from those fitting the categories above, are individually
analyzed for their impacts. All characteristics relevant to cost-effectiveness calculations and descriptive
statistics are based upon project specific circumstances.
Non-Database Project Details
Resource Manaaement PartnershiD Proaram (BMEE)
This program derives resource savings by.placing resource managers in individual school districts. Theresources affected include electric, natural gas (and other energy), water, sewer and solid waste. For themost part, the non-energy resource impacts occur early during the resource manager s work with theschool district. During this particular trimester there were not any significant non-energy resource
savings. Energy savings, however, do require the ongoing presence of a district resource manager and
do not degrade as much as non-energy resource savings during the period of time that the resource
manager is present.
, '
The billing analysis captures the electric and natural gas savings. Non-utility energy impacts are capturedon a site-specific basis. The billing analysis for the RMPP program has, over time, resulted in severalpolicies dealing with such contingencies as new construction at an existing school site, the treatment of
portable buildings, the aggregation or disaggregation of loads across multiple meters, and so on.
Projects for which the customer receives a direct incentive at a school site where a resource manager is
present are removed from the metered savings calculation and credited to the technology that the direct
incentive applies toward. For example, the savings from lighting projects at schools are removed from thebilled energy savings and credited as an impact of the lighting technology. All billed energy savingsremaining after these specific projects have been removed are attributed to resource management
activities.
The resource management energy savings can then be characterized by three components; (1)
behavioral, such as turning off the lights as necessary, (2) operational , such as utilizing existing controlsor modifying the dispatch of end-uses and (3) hardwired measures that, for one reason or another, did notreceive a direct incentive. In recognition of the short life of the behavioral and operational measures, incalculating the energy savings for any particular period of time it is assumed that 50% of the energy
savings in the prior year and 25% of the energy savings two years preceding were readopted. This effectsubstantially increases the number of first-year kWh claimed by the program, but it also results in aweighted average life of only four years for these billed energy savings.
At this point we don t have enough data on school districts that have discontinued their resource managerprogram to verify the accuracy of the measure persistence figures being used.
Limited Income
The Limited Income program obtains energy savings through weatherization improvements and electric to
gas conversions (space heat and domestic hot water) for qualified electric utility customers. These
Page 3
vista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
savings enter the analysis by applying the results of a detailed billing analysis study completed in 1999 to
the water heat and space heat conversions claimed through the program. The weatherization savings
are based upon engineering estimates specific to the dwelling. Since the vast majority (99%) of the
energy savings in this segment is from fuel-conversions, this has been the focus of the measurement and
evaluation efforts to date.
The Limited Income program also funds structural and mechanical repairs to qualified homes, subject to a
cap, if they are necessary to ensure the persistence of the energy measures installed, or if they arenecessary on a health and human safety basis. It is assumed the benefits derived from these repairs
have a non-energy benefit commensurate with their costs.
In this particular trimester no costs associated with these repairs were reported to the analysis team.
will be following up on these impacts in more detail in the next trimester to determine if expenses had
been incurred that were not captured as non-energy benefits.
Since these programs are operated in conjunction with community action program (CAP) agencies as
part of their overall offerings to this customer segment, the utility costs of the programs are fairly minimal.
This leveraging strategy has substantially contributed to a cost-effectiveness higher than would be
expected out of this segment.
To clarify the meaning of the various tables reporting on this program, the customer cost is equal to the
utility incentive for the limited income programs because all costs associated with energy savings are paid
for through the incentive.
Natural Gas Awareness Camcaian (NGAC)
The effects of the NGAC are incorporated into the analysis based upon the most recent information on
actual residential conversions of space heating, water heating, clothes dryers, ovens and ranges. The
first 1 000 space heating conversions are excluded on the basis that these customers are part of the
natural adoption in our service territory. This is the only program that excludes the energy savings of
free-riders (or natural adopters).
The savings for this program will be adjusted when recently completed survey information is subjected to
our energy savings analysis and verification.
Non-Quantifiable Non-Energy Impacts
The analytical group has been working to further develop means of quantifying, where possible, and
identifying, where quantification is unreasonable, the non-energy impacts of our projects. The reason for
this is twofold; (1) to more accurately represent the cost-effectiveness of the projects and (2) to provide
management information about the overall benefits of our programs. This information will be used
refine the marketing of energy efficiency technologies.
At present our quantification of non-energy effects has been limited to two primary components; (1)
modifying the capital cost of projects to reflect differences in end-use equipment life and (2) incorporating
the maintenance savings. The quantified maintenance savings is almost exclusively related to lighting
projects. The non-quantifiable value of these non-energy benefits must be taken into consideration when
interpreting much of this analysis, and in particular the TRC test results.
We are endeavoring to improve our ability to identify and quantify these non-energy benefits in the future.
One of the changes implemented to address this issue is detailed under the Notable Projects, Disclosures
and Policy Update section of this report.
Page 4
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
Quantitative Results
The following contains descriptions of the methodologies used for completion of the cost-effectivenessanalysis and descriptive statistics for the December 1 . 1999 to March 31. 2000 trimester. Observations
noted in the course of performing this analysis have been noted as well.
Allocation of Utility Costs
This allocation methodology is essentially unchanged from our previous report.
The raw data for utility non-incentive costs comes in the form of actual expenses and journal entries
incurred by Tariff Rider accounts. The raw data for direct incentive costs comes in the form of accrual-
based expenses, drawn from the SalesLogix database. While non-incentive costs represent real
expenditures, incentives are de-rated in the same manner as kWh, therms, etc, As such, incentivesapplied to projects in the Contracted phase are accounted for at 75%, those applied to projects in the
Construction phase are accounted for at 95%, and those applied to Completed projects are accounted for
at 100%. This methodology was adopted this trimester in an effort to more closely align expenditures
with committed funds.
Each expenditure is incurred through an account number specific to the appropriate customer segment,
to an "old" program (prior to our shift to the customer segment model), or to general implementation or
M&E, In order to attribute all costs to customer segments and technologies, three allocations must be
made. The first allocation assigns the expenses associated with the old programs to customer segments.
Next, the general implementation and general M&E expense are allocated to customer segments. Last,
the utility non-incentive expenses associated with, or allocated to, each customer segment are allocatedto individual technologies within that segment.
The overall allocation process is heavily dependent upon the judgement of the individuals performing theallocation. The meaningfulness of these allocations is handicapped by the joint cost nature of many
expenditures. An audit, site visit, or marketing effort is generally targeted towards multiple technologies.
Consequently there is the potential for technologies which are cost-effective contributors to the overall
portfolio to be cost-ineffective as a result of being burdened with a disproportionate amount of allocatedgeneral costs. This should be considered when reviewing both cost-effectiveness ratios and net cost-
effectiveness results.
In our previous Triple-E Report we noted that the proportion of utility costs allocated to one of the general
categories seemed excessive. The general implementation and general M&E categories were only to be
used if a cost could not be reasonably allocated to one or more individual customer segments.
reiterated the need for accurate reporting of these costs to the staff on several occasions after that point.
The net result was an insignificant reduction in the proportion of costs charged to general (27.7% to27.5%). We will continue to follow up on this task, but our tentative interpretation is that the allocation to
general costs is appropriate in spite of the initial appearances.
Refer to Tables 4 for utility costs allocated across programs, customer segments, and technologies.
Page 5
A vista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
Table 1 Utility Costs A ated by Pro rams and Customer Se ments
Implementation Incentives M&E TOTAL
SEGMENTS
Agriculture 756 756
Education 120,099 208,958 912 331 969
Food Service 12,947 16,200 396 30,543
Health Care 11,486 22,715 34,279
Hospitality 784 25,240 241 265
Umited Income 12,960 414,492 427,452
Manufacturing 104 638 127 739 941 233 318
Office 26,709 30,441 004 60,154
Residential2 $77,689 319 78,007
Retail 789 657 620 066
GENERAL
General (Implementation)624,456 624,456
General (M&E)813 87,813
OTHER EXPENDITURES
f'..EEA 3 232 442,005 445,237
Leases 4 $867 44,798 50,665
OLD PROGRAMS
LED Traffic Signals 112 105 31,217
New Technologies 698 28,548 246
Prescriptive HV
Prescriptive Lighting 319 157 360 836
RMPP 475 475
Site Specific 186 020 110 28,316
SS-VFD 344 344
Trade Ally 779 293 110 182
TOTAL 086,523 407,504 98,585 592,611
BROKEN OUT BY CATEGORY
Total assigned to segments 421 857 853,761 192 285,809
Total assigned to general 624,456 87,813 712,269
Total assigned to other 099 486,803 495,902
Total assigned to old programs 111 940 580 98,631
TOTAL 086 523 407,504 98,585 592,611
CATEGORY AS A PERCENT
Total assigned to segment 16.32.0.4%49.
Total assigned to general 24.3.4%27.
Total assigned to other 0.4%18.19.
Total assigned to old programs
TOTAL 41.54.100.
NOTES:
1) , Incentives are accounted for on an accrual basis, and are therefore de-rated (in the same way as kWh, therms, etc.
2) Costs for this trimester's portion (1/3) of the Natural Gas Awareness Campaign are included in Residential.
3) Costs associated with membership in NEEA are included in this table, but are excluded from all other tables.
4) Costs associated with outstanding leases are included in this table, but are excluded from all other tables.
Page 6
Av
i
s
t
a

U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Tr
i
p
l
e
-
E
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ma
r
c
h

2
0
0
0
Ta
b
l
e

2

As
s
i
9
n
m
e
n
t

o
f

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t
s

t
o

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
Fo
o
d

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
He
a
l
t
h

C
a
r
e
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
t
y
Um
i
t
e
d

I
n
c
o
m
e
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
Of
f
i
c
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Re
t
a
i
l
To
t
a
l

u
t
i
!
To
t
a
l

o
l
d

p
g
m
As
s
i
g
n
e
d
As
s
i
g
n
e
d
as
s
i
g
n
e
d
Ge
n

i
m
p
l
Ge
n

M
&
E
To
t
a
l

a
l
l
o
c
Ol
d

p
g
m

a
l
l
o
c

O
l
d

p
g
m

al
l
o
c
no
n
-
in
c
e
n
t
.
T
O
T
A
L
TO
T
A
L
TO
T
A
L
GR
A
N
D
Im
p
!
.
M&
E
no
n
-
in
c
e
n
t

$
al
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
al
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
ov
e
r
h
e
a
d
im
p
l

c
o
s
t
M&
E

c
o
s
t
al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
IM
P
L
M&
E
IN
C
E
N
T
N
E
TO
T
A
L
rA
l
rB
l
rC
l
rD
l
rE
l
rF
l
rG
l
rH
l
rJ
l
rK
l
rM
l
75
6
75
6
$
1
4
52
2
08
2
$
2
1
60
4
42
5
42
5
70
3
08
2
78
4
$
1
2
0
09
9
91
2
$
1
2
3
,
01
1
$
1
1
6
,
17
8
$
1
1
87
0
$
1
2
8
,
04
7
53
8
61
7
$
2
4
6
,
81
5
$
1
4
86
1
$
2
3
7
93
2
$
4
9
9
60
8
94
7
39
6
34
3
$
2
9
,
04
4
25
3
$
3
7
29
7
48
0
52
7
42
,
47
1
69
6
$
1
6
,
20
0
68
,
36
6
48
6
11
,
56
4
$
5
8
,
08
9
80
9
$
6
6
89
8
50
1
55
2
75
,
07
6
93
8
$
2
2
71
5
10
6
72
9
$
2
4
78
4
24
1
26
,
02
5
$
8
7
,
13
3
$
1
0
35
4
$
9
7
48
7
48
0
52
7
11
2
,
39
7
$
1
1
,
64
2
$
2
5
,
78
3
14
9
82
2
96
0
96
0
$
7
2
61
1
65
6
$
8
2
,
26
7
57
1
65
6
$
4
1
4
49
2
$
5
0
9
,
71
8
$
1
0
4
63
8
94
1
$
1
0
5
57
9
$
1
1
6
,
17
8
$
1
1
87
0
$
1
2
8
04
7
42
2
46
9
$
2
2
9
,
23
8
$
1
2
,
85
7
$
1
6
1
,
81
6
$
4
0
3
,
91
1
$
2
6
,
70
9
00
4
29
,
71
3
$
5
8
,
08
9
62
7
$
6
6
71
6
62
7
11
0
73
7
42
5
$
1
1
74
1
$
3
3
,
22
8
13
2
,
39
4
$
7
7
68
9
68
9
$
2
9
04
4
35
5
$
3
4
,
39
9
82
2
10
6
,
75
0
35
5
31
9
11
2
,
42
4
$
2
1
78
9
62
0
22
,
4
0
9
$
4
3
,
56
7
94
0
$
4
9
,
50
7
62
2
20
0
82
2
97
8
76
0
21
7
95
4
$
4
2
1
,
85
7
$
1
0
19
2
$
4
3
2
,
04
9
$
6
2
4
45
6
$
8
7
,
81
3
$
7
1
2
,
26
9

31
,
11
1
58
0

34
,
49
6

$1
,
07
7
,
42
4
$
9
8
58
5
$
9
2
0
,
70
1

$
2
09
6
70
9
(A
)

T
h
e

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

co
s
t

c
h
a
r
g
e
d

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

t
o

t
h
a
t

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
.
(8
)

T
h
e

M&
E

c
o
s
t

c
h
a
r
g
e
d

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

t
o

t
h
a
t

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
.
(C
)

T
h
e

to
t
a
l

u
t
i
l
i
t
y

n
o
n
-
in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e

c
o
s
t

o
f

t
h
e

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
.
(0
)

T
h
e

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
.
(E
)

T
h
e

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

M&
E

c
o
s
t

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
(F
)

T
h
e

to
t
a
l

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

c
o
s
t
.
(G
)

T
h
e

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

co
s
t

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

'
old

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
'
(
t
h
o
s
e

n
o
t

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d

a
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

i
n

t
h
e

n
e
w

t
a
r
i
f
f
)

t
o

n
e
w

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
.
(H
)

T
h
e

M&
E

c
o
s
t

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

'
ol
d

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
'
(
t
h
o
s
e

n
o
t

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d

a
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

I
n

t
h
e

n
e
w

t
a
r
i
f
f
)

t
o

n
e
w

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
.
(I
)

T
h
e

to
t
a
l

n
o
n
-
in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e

c
o
s
t

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

o
l
d

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

t
o

n
e
w

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
.
(J
)

T
o
t
a
l

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

co
s
t

f
o
r

t
h
e

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

c
o
s
t

a
n
d

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t

f
r
o
m

o
l
d

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
(K
)

T
o
t
a
l

M&
E

c
o
s
t

f
o
r

t
h
e

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
,
I
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

M
&
E

a
n
d

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

M
&
E

c
o
s
t

f
r
o
m

o
l
d

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
(L
)

T
o
t
a
l

in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

p
a
i
d

u
n
d
e
r

b
o
t
h

o
l
d

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

a
n
d

n
e
w

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

t
r
i
m
e
s
t
e
r

t
o

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

w
i
t
h
i
n

t
h
i
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
.
(M
)

T
o
t
a
l

u
t
i
l
i
t
y

c
o
s
t

(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
)

f
o
r

t
h
e

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

se
g
m
e
n
t
.
(N
)

T
h
e

al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

M
&
E

c
o
s
t

a
s

a

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

c
o
s
t
.
NO
T
E
S
:
In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

a
r
e

a
c
c
o
u
n
t
e
d

f
o
r

o
n

a
n

a
c
c
r
u
a
l

b
a
s
i
s
,
a
n
d

a
r
e

t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e

d
e
-
r
a
t
e
d

(
i
n

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

w
a
y

a
s

k
W
h
,
t
h
e
r
m
s
,
e
t
c
.
Co
s
t
s

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

t
r
i
m
e
s
t
e
r
'
s

p
o
r
t
i
o
n

(
1
/
3
)

o
f

t
h
e

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

G
a
s

A
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s

C
a
m
p
a
i
g
n

a
r
e

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

i
n

Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
.
Co
s
t
s

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p

i
n

N
E
E
A

a
r
e

e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

t
h
i
s

t
a
b
l
e
,

a
n
d

a
r
e

e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
l
l

c
o
s
t
-
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
Co
s
t
s

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

o
u
t
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g

l
e
a
s
e
s

a
r
e

e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

t
h
i
s

t
a
b
l
e
,

a
n
d

a
r
e

e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
l
l

c
o
s
t
-
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Pa
g
e

7
Al
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
ov
h
d

a
s

%
of

t
o
t
a
l
rN
1 70
.
25
.
54
.
62
.
65
.
16
.
31
.
50
.
4
%
30
.
59
.
Av
i
s
t
a

U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Tr
i
p
l
e
-
E
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ma
r
c
h

2
0
0
0
Ta
b
l
e

3
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t
s

A
c
r
o
s
s

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

Se
g
m
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
As
s
l
s
t
l
v
e
Co
m
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
~o

o
f
Ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
Te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
Air
Co
n
t
r
o
l
s
HV
A
C
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
LI
g
h
t
i
n
g
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Mo
t
o
r
s
Ne
w

T
e
c
h
Re
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
s
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Sh
e
l
l
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
TO
T
A
L

S
Po
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
12
,
31
4
15
7
$
1
2
31
4
78
4
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
60
6
$
4
4
72
3
$
2
6
2
22
0
60
3
11
0
$
9
,
34
6
49
9
60
8
23
.
Fo
o
d

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
09
6
$
2
0
,
86
7
15
,
65
0
21
7
32
0
$
5
.
21
7
68
,
36
6
He
a
l
t
h

C
a
r
e
84
4
17
,
68
7
4,
4
2
2
68
7
4,
4
2
2
$
4
,
4
2
2
55
9
13
,
26
5
$
4
42
2
10
6
,
72
9
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
t
y
62
8
$
3
1
,
01
0
S
5
2
,
44
1
74
2
14
9
,
82
2
li
m
i
t
e
d

I
n
c
o
m
e
13
3
06
7
34
,
22
8
$
3
2
5
,
90
4
$
5
,
79
3
$1
0
72
6
50
9
,
71
8
24
.
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
97
7
$
3
3
32
6
$
6
3
.
60
2
22
,
26
9
29
,
61
3
14
,
38
5
$ 2
7
,
86
9
18
3
,
87
1
40
3
,
91
1
19
.
Of
f
i
c
e
$
2
6
,
91
3
$
2
7
04
5
38
6
$
9
01
5
18
,
78
1
$
(
4
76
1
)
01
5
13
2
39
4
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
11
,
26
4
46
5
31
9
$
3
0
.
37
5
11
2
,
42
4
Re
t
a
i
l
$
1
0
43
0
$
2
0
,
38
3
$
4
0
,
49
0
46
0
$
1
0
,
19
2
95
4
TO
T
A
L

S
14
4
33
1
10
4
,
69
4
97
7
S
1
9
0
47
5
$
5
8
1
,
59
6
32
,
84
8
S 4
6
4
,
48
7
02
3
$
5
9
41
3
32
4
,
33
6
97
,
37
5
$
3
5
14
0
01
5
S
2
09
6
70
9
10
0
.
0"
1
0
%
o
f

p
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
9~
0
27
.
22
.
1~
o
15
.
10
0
.
NO
T
E
S
:
In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

a
r
e

a
c
c
o
u
n
t
e
d

f
o
r

o
n

a
n

a
c
c
r
u
a
l

b
a
s
i
s
.
a
n
d

a
r
e

t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e

d
e
.
r
a
t
e
d

(
i
n

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

w
a
y

a
s

k
W
h
,
t
h
e
r
m
s
,
e
t
c
.
Co
s
t
s

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

t
r
i
m
e
s
t
e
r
s
p
o
r
t
i
o
n

(
1
/
3
)

o
f

t
h
e

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

G
a
s

A
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s

C
a
m
p
a
i
g
n

a
r
e

I
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

i
n

Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
.
Co
s
t
s

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p

i
n

N
E
E
A

a
r
e

e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

t
h
i
s

t
a
b
l
e
,

a
n
d

a
r
e

e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
l
l

c
o
s
t
-
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Co
s
t
s

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

o
u
t
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g

l
e
a
s
e
s

a
r
e

e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

t
h
i
s

t
a
b
l
e
,

a
n
d

a
r
e

e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
l
l

c
o
s
t
-
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Pa
g
e

8
Av
i
s
t
a

U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Tr
i
p
l
e
-
E
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ma
r
c
h

2
0
0
0
Ta
b
l
e

4
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

D
i
r
e
c
t

I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

A
c
r
o
s
s

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
As
s
l
s
t
i
v
e
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
/.

0
1
Ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
Te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
Co
m
p
r
e
s
s
e
d

A
i
r
Co
n
t
r
o
l
s
HV
A
C
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
li
g
h
t
i
n
g
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Mo
t
o
r
s
Ne
w

T
e
c
h

Re
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
s
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Sh
e
l
l
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
TO
T
A
L

S
Po
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
57
0
(2
,
00
5
)

$
17
8
11
0
29
.

2
5
8
23
7
,
93
2
25
.
Fo
o
d

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
15
.
88
0
32
0
16
,
2
0
0
He
a
l
t
h

C
a
r
e
22
,
71
5
22
,
7
1
5
2.5
0
/
.
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
t
y
12
3
21
,
4
3
2
22
8
78
3
2.8
0
/
.
LIm
i
t
e
d

I
n
c
o
m
e
12
9
,
20
4
27
4
56
2
10
,
41
4
49
2
45
,
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
56
5
45
6
00
2
75
8
97
2
14
0
.
97
4
16
1
,
81
6
17
.
6"
/
.
Of
f
i
c
e
88
3
19
.
34
1
76
6
(4
,
76
1
)
33
,
2
2
8
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
31
9
31
9
Re
t
a
i
l
23
8
51
8
1,4
6
0
21
7
TO
T
A
L
S
12
9
,
2
0
4
56
5
64
,
46
9
27
9
,
64
9
75
6
22
6
,
37
3
20
7
,
72
0
96
5
92
0
,
70
1
10
0
.
11
"
/
.
%
o
f

p
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
14
.
30
.
24
.
11
"
/
.
11
"
1
0
22
.
6"
/
.
10
0
.
00
/
.
NO
T
E
S
:
In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

a
r
e

a
a
:
o
u
o
t
e
d

f
o
r

o
n

a
n

a
c
c
r
u
a
l

b
a
s
i
s
,

a
n
d

B
r
e

t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e

d
e
-
r
a
l
e
d

(
n

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

w
a
y

a
s

k
W
h
,
t
h
e
r
m
s
,

e
t
c
.
In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e

c
o
s
t
s

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

t
r
i
m
e
s
t
e
r
'
s

p
o
r
t
i
o
n

(1
1
3
)

of
t
h
e

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

G
a
s

A
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s

C
a
m
p
a
i
g
n

a
r
e

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

I
n

Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
.
In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e

c
o
s
t
s

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p

I
n

N
E
E
A

a
r
e

e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

t
h
i
s

t
a
b
l
e
.

a
n
d

a
r
e

e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
n

c
o
s
t
~
r
r
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e

c
o
s
t
s

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

o
u
t
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g

l
e
a
s
e
s

a
r
e

e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

t
h
i
s

l
a
b
I
e
,
a
n
d

a
r
e

e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
U

c
o
s
t
~
r
r
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Pa
g
e

9
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
Treatment of De-Rated Project Results
As previously mentioned, projects in the Contracted and Construction phases are credited with 75% and
95% of the engineering estimates. This applies to kWh savings, therm savings, direct incentives, non-
energy benefits, and customer costs.
Energy Savings
During this trimester Avista participated in over 12.3 million kWh of energy savings, which resulted in an
increase of approximately 137 000 therms of natural gas usage. This represents the progress of projectswithin the "pipeline" of the five sequential phases during the trimester.
As always, the net therm savings incorporate the additional therm usage of electric to natural gas
conversions. The largest therm contributors this trimester were the Natural Gas Awareness Campaign
and the conversion component of the Limited Income program.
Avista Corporation s participation in the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance is within this report for
purposes of calculating utility costs, but has been excluded for cost-effectiveness purposes. This is due
to the lack of definable energy savings at this point in time. During this trimester, NEEA accounted for
17.2% of our utility costs.
These calculations of energy savings do not include any estimates of free-riders, free-drivers, or any
market transformation effects. At this point it is unclear how these effects will influence the total energy
savings of the portfolio. We will be investigating this question in the near future in compliance with our
Idaho general ratecase order.
Refer to Tables and 6 for the allocations of electric and therm savings (increases) across customer
segments and technologies.
Page
Av
i
s
t
a

U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Tr
i
p
l
e
-
E
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ma
r
c
h

2
0
0
0
Ta
b
l
e

5
All
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c

S
a
v
i
n
g
s

A
c
r
o
s
s

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

an
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
l
e
!
An
l
s
l
l
v
e
In
d
u
s
'
r
l
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
"I.

o
f
Ap
p
l
l
a
n
c
e
a
Te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
Co
m
p
r
e
s
s
e
d

A
i
r
Co
n
'
r
o
l
s
HV
A
C
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
LI
g
h
t
i
n
g
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Mo
t
o
r
s
Ne
w

T
e
c
h

Re
n
e
w
l
b
l
e
s
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Sh
e
l
l
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
TO
T
A
L

k
W
h
Po
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
0"
1
.
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
41
0
95
2
22
3
94
8
,
58
6
36
1
18
3
10
8
,
91
4
90
1
,
51
9
39
.
8"
1
.
Fo
o
d

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
24
5
86
1
24
0
20
0
21
0
,
30
1
2"
1
.
He
a
l
t
h

C
a
r
e
21
6
52
5
21
6
52
5
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
t
y
12
,
31
5
25
3
,
16
1
60
0
30
2
,
74
2
5"
1
.
Llm
l
'
e
d

I
n
c
o
m
e
64
1
41
8
29
5
,
50
2
05
4
95
7
,
03
4
15
.
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
12
2
.
18
8
91
,
11
8
12
4
50
1
15
,
12
1
11
7
06
6
16
8
01
9
63
9
.
28
4
13
.
0ff
I

C
8
11
4
,
52
0
49
3
35
0
82
1
10
3
,
02
1
(5
9
65
1
)
54
3
,
20
4
4"
1
.
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
46
0
,
18
1
15
5
19
0
84
1
25
1
,
18
3
18
.
3"
1
.
Re
t
a
i
l
62
5
21
4
64
6
14
,
60
1
23
1
81
8
TO
T
A
L

k
W
h
10
1
.
66
5
12
2
,
18
8
94
4
86
7
21
1
80
5
15
,
12
1
88
4
88
6
90
9
.
75
5
10
8
91
4
(3
9
.
59
1
)
12
,
32
0
27
1
10
0
.
"I
.

o
f

p
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
9"
1
.
1"
1
.
26
.
31
.
0"
1
.
15
.
0"
1
.
0"
1
.
10
0
.
NO
T
E
:

T
h
e
s
e

f
i
g
u
r
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

d
e
-
r
a
t
e
d

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

!
r
o
m

'
h
e

C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
e
d

a
n
d

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
h
a
s
e
s
.
Ta
b
l
e

6
All
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

G
a
s

S
a
v
i
n
g
s

A
c
r
o
s
s

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
l
e
!
As
s
l
s
t
l
v
e
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
lO
T
A
L
%
o
f
Ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
Te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
Co
m
p
r
e
s
s
e
d

A
i
r
Co
n
t
r
o
l
s
HV
A
C
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Mo
t
o
r
s
Ne
w

T
e
c
h
Re
n
e
w
a
b
l
u
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Sh
e
l
l
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Th
e
n
n
.
Po
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
96
4
(1
0
.
80
9
)
(5
1
)
40
.
29
9
40
4
28
.
Fo
o
d

S
.
r
v
l
c
e
61
2
67
2
He
a
l
t
h

C
a
r
e
0"
1
.
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
t
y
(3
1
9
)
(3
1
9
)
Llm
J
'
e
d

I
n
c
o
m
e
(1
1
51
0
)
(3
5
,
36
2
)

(5
4
1
)
(5
3
.
41
9
)
39
.
Ma
n
u
b
c
t
u
r
l
n
g
(1
3
8
)
(1
3
8
)
Of
f
I
c
e
(2
,
58
3
)
(2
1
,
90
4
)
(2
4
,
48
1
)
17
.
Re
s
l
d
e
n
l
l
a
l
(1
9
63
3
)
(7
6
,
40
2
)
(9
6
,
03
4
)
70
.
Re
'
a
l
l
(1
,
19
9
)
19
9
)
9"
1
.
TO
T
A
L

T
h
e
n
n
s
(3
1
,
14
3
)
96
4
(1
1
1
.
09
2
)
(1
5
,
04
8
)
(5
1
)
40
,
29
9
(2
2
,
45
1
)
(1
3
6
,
52
1
)
10
0
.
%
o
f

p
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
27
.
2"
1
.
0"
1
.
81
.
4,
.
.
11
.
0"
1
.
0"
1
.
29
.
5"
1
.
16
.
0"
1
.
10
0
.
NO
T
E
:

T
h
e
s
e

f
i
g
u
r
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

d
e
,
r
a
t
e
d

n
a
l
u
r
a
l

g
a
s

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

f
r
o
m

(
h
e

C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
e
d

a
n
d

C
o
n
s
l
r
u
c
l
i
o
n

p
h
a
s
e
s
.
Pa
g
e

1
1
vista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
Customer Costs and Non-Energy Benefits
A summary of customer costs incurred to achieve the energy savings portion of the projects captured in
this report has been included. The raw customer costs have been modified to exclude non-electric
components of customer projects, and to appropriately match the measure life of base-case and high-
efficiency alternatives. Customer cost figures listed are also not adjusted for direct incentives granted by
Avista Corporation.
These customer costs substantially affect the total resource cost test and the participant test. Customer
costs amount to approximately two-thirds of the total resource and participant costs.
The non-energy benefit data reflects the quantifiable non-energy benefits accruing to the energyefficiency projects. To date these quantifiable non-energy benefits are limited to maintenance savings
inherent in LED exit sign, LED traffic signal VendingM/$ER, and non-residential lighting projects.
We are continuing our research to quantify other non-energy benefits such as productivity, safety, retail
sales and so forth, To date we have not found a sufficient body of research that would reasonably
substantiate the numerical claims that have been made in these areas. These as yet non-quantifiablenon-energy benefits are clearly major influences on the adoption of energy efficiency measures and on
the cost-effectiveness of our portfolio, and they are actively used in marketing these measures to our
customers.
We are reviewing the database projects in greater depth to obtain information about increased production
and other relatively easily quantifiable values. We will also be working to better identify what non-energy
benefits accrue to what measures, even if those benefits are non-quantifiable.
Refer to Tab/es and 8 for the allocations of customer costs and non-energy benefits across customer
segments and technologies.
Page 12
Av
i
s
t
a

U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Tr
i
p
l
e
-
E
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ma
r
c
h

2
0
0
0
Ta
b
l
e

7
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

N
o
n
-
En
e
r
g
y

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s

A
c
r
o
s
s

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
Au
l
s
l
l
n
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
1.
Ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
Te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
Co
m
p
r
e
s
s
e
d

A
i
r
Co
n
t
r
o
l
s
HV
A
C
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
lI
g
h
l
l
n
g
Mo
n
h
o
r
i
n
g
Mo
l
o
n
;
Ne
w

T
a
c
h
Re
n
s
w
a
b
l
e
s
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Sh
e
l
l
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
TO
T
A
L

N
E
B

S
Po
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
Ed
u
c
a
l
l
o
n
05
2
.
53
5
,
51
0
.
54
2
,
10
5
.
10
5
66
8
.
62
.
Fo
o
d

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
77
5
.
77
5
.
3'1
.
He
a
l
t
h

C
a
r
e
19
0
,
70
4
.
19
0
70
4
.
10
.
7'Y
.
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
t
y

S
58
2
.
24
.
22
1
.
83

S
54
.
61
4
.
11
6
41
9
.
8'Y
.
Llm
l
l
e
d

I
n
c
o
m
e
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g

S
40
6
.
06
5
.
60

S
79
0
.
16
,
26
2
.
9'Y
.
Of
f
i
c
e
58
4
.
10
1
,
04
8
.
15
3
,
72
8
.
26
1
,
36
2
.
14
.
7'Y
.
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
Re
t
a
i
l
21
9
.
58
.
25
2
.
93

S
79
6
.
26
9
.
TO
T
A
L

N
E
B

S

S
84
5
.
72
7
09
9
.
96
9
,
51
5
.
77
5
46
0
.
10
0
.
0'Y
.
'Y
.

o
f

p
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
O'Y
.
0"
1
.
41
.
0"
1
0
54
.
0"
1
.
10
0
.
NO
T
E
:

T
h
e

n
o
n
-
e
n
e
r
g
y

b
e
n
e
f
i
l

f
i
g
u
r
e
s

c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
d

I
n

I
h
l
s

l
a
b
l
e

e
r
e

I
I
s
l
e
d

a
s

n
e
l

p
r
e
s

e
n
'

v
a
l
u
e

(
N
P
Y
)
.
Ta
b
l
e

8
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

C
o
s
t
s

A
c
r
o
s
s

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
Au
l
s
l
l
v
e
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
%
o
f
Ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
Te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
Co
m
p
r
e
s
s
e
d

A
i
r
Co
n
t
r
o
l
.
HV
A
C
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
li
g
h
t
i
n
g
Mo
n
h
o
r
l
n
g
Mo
t
o
n
;
Ne
w

T
e
c
h
Re
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
.
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Sh
e
l
l
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
TO
T
A
L

N
E
B

S
Po
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
Ag
r
l
c
u
l
l
u
r
e
0"
1
.
Ed
u
c
a
l
l
o
n

S
11
8
.
76
8
.
(3
.
2
4
3
.
50
)

$
52
6
,
63
2
.
10

S
90
.
48
3
.
60

$
73
2
,
64
0
.
29
.
Fo
o
d

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

$
76
0
,
78
7
.
28

S
32
,
54
7
.
He
a
l
t
h

C
a
r
e

S
96
1
.
40

S
47
,
98
1
.
Ho
s
p
l
'
a
l
i
t
y

$
31
0
.
93

$
29
.
71
3
.
00
4
.
4
9

$
02
8
.
LI
m
n
e
d

I
n
c
o
m
e

S
12
9
.
20
4
.
43

S
27
4
56
1
.
59

$
S
1
0
,
72
5
.
41
4
,
49
1
.
16
.
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
'
u
r
l
n
g

S
15
,
26
9
.
35

S
47
4
.
70

S
29
,
05
9
.
00

S
85
4
.
00

S
65
0
,
57
9
.
23

$
71
3
,
23
6
.
28
.
Of
f
i
c
e

S
23
.
92
7
.
15

S
00
0
.
00

$
02
1
.
75

S
25
,
34
5
.
S
8
6
.
04
2
.
00

S
14
6
33
6
.
8'Y
.
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
14
5
51
4
.
53

$
75
0
.
00

$
23
4
67
4
.
38
0
9n
.
15
.
Re
t
a
i
l

$
28
2
.
15

$
74
5
.
59
3
.
62
1
.
4'Y
.
TO
T
A
L

N
E
B

S

$
2
7
4
.
71
8
.
96

$
15
,
26
9
.
35

S
18
6
,
21
3
.
54
0
,
05
1
.
57
6
,
96
6
.
37

$
82
7
,
75
5
.
34

S
S
9
6
,
76
7
.
52

$
51
7
,
80
2
.
10
0
.
%
o
f

p
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
10
.
90
1
.
0"
1
0
21
.
22
.
32
.
0"
1
0
10
0
.
NO
T
E
:

T
h
e

c
:
u
s
'
o
m
e
r

c
o
s
l
U
9
u
r
e
.

c
o
n
l
a
i
n
e
d

I
n

I
h
l
s

l
a
b
l
e

a
r
e

n
o
l

a
d
j
u
s
l
e
d

f
o
r

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
.

I
n
s
l
e
a
d
.

t
h
e
y

r
e
n
e
c
t

I
h
e

en
U
r
e

d
e
-
r
a
l
e
d

c
o
s
l

o
r

I
h
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

p
r
o
j
e
c
l
.
Pa
g
e

1
3
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
Cost-Effectiveness and Descriptive Statistics
The following tables contain cost-effectiveness statistics for this trimester for all four standard
practice tests. Also included are net benefits for each test by customer segment and technology.
Net benefits have been included to give additional insight into the significance of each segment
and technology.
The Total Resource Cost (TRC) ratio is essentially unchanged from the previous trimester (1.
to 1.11). It is too early to ascertain if we were correct in our expectation that TRC cost-
effectiveness would increase as the one-time costs incurred in the August 1 to November 30,
1999 trimester were completed. As of yet, we do not have enough history of calculating cost-
effectiveness on a trimesterly basis to determine if the normal variation could conceal a
meaningful increase in cost-effectiveness.
The Utility Cost Test (UCT) ratio has fallen significantly from the previous trimester (2.11 to 1.11).
As mentioned previously, we are uncertain as to the normal variation that we should expect when
cost-effectiveness is calculated on a trimesterly basis, but it seems unlikely that a change of this
magnitude is within normal variation. It is .more likely that it is the result of the imposition of the
new Schedule 90 Tariff and the higher incentives contained therein. Supporting this hypothesis is
the fact that the proportion of "old programs" (those projects being completed under the old tariff)
has fallen significantly from the previous trimester.
It is possible that the decline in the UCT ratio will continue into the next trimester, as the last of
the "old programs" reach completion and the project pipeline is composed completely of the
higher incentive projects being completed under the new tariff. If this is the case, a management
review of the portfolio would be warranted to address the issue of identifying what the minimum
acceptable UCT ratio is and how the portfolio can be managed to achieve it.
The participant test ratio has moved from 2.98 to 4.46 in the last trimester. This increase lends a
certain amount of corroboration to the theory that the UCT ratio is falling as a result of increased
utility direct incentives. It may also imply that the free-ridership ratio has improved as a result of
offering enhanced incentives (the larger the incentive and the higher the participant ratio the more
likely it is that the program made the difference in adoption of the measure). The tiering of the
incentives based upon simple payback may further enhance that effect.
These interpretations will be incorporated into the free-ridership analysis that the Company was
requested to perform under the recently completed Idaho ratecase order. This may impact the
timing of the study. Having established the hypothesis that the new programs appear to be
impacting the free-ridership ratio, it would be necessary to segment "old" programs from "new
programs to develop an accurate view of free-ridership.
The non-participant test ratio (also called the rate impact measure) experienced a slight decline
from 0.44 to 0.33. As had been previously indicated, Avista is mathematically guaranteed to fail
this test (have a ratio below 1.0) as long as our rates are above our avoided costs. The Avista
response has been to offer a broad enough program portfolio to provide every customer the
opportunity to directly or indirectly benefit from our portfolio. The meaning of a non-participant
test is diminished as these program benefits become more widely distributed.
Comparison to the previous trimester indicates a slight increase in the customer cost per kWh (18
cents/kWh to 20 cents/kWh). A change of this magnitude is likely to be within the normal
variation of a trimesterly report.
The utility implementation cost also increased from 7 cents/kWh to 10 cents/kWh. This is
attributable to the reduction in energy savings from 14.2 million kWh to 12.3 million kWh. The
utility implementation costs actually fell from the previous trimester.
Page 14
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
We have added a measure of incentive cost per kWh to assist in diagnosing the UCT ratio issue
as previously discussed. The increase in incentive cost per kWh from five cents to seven centsreflects the most recent change to the Schedule 90 Tariff.
Refer to Tables and 10 for summaries of cost-effectiveness for all four standard practice tests
by customer segments and technologies.
Refer to Tables 11 and 12 for summaries of net benefits for all four standard practice tests by
customer segments and technologies.
Refer to Table 13 for further details on the calculation of the cost-effectiveness rations, as well assome useful descriptive statistics.
Page 15
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
Table 9 Cost-Effectiveness Statistics by Customer Segment
Total Non-
Resource Utility Cost Participant Participant
Cost Test Test Test Test
Agriculture NJA
Education
Food Service
Health Care 10.
Hospitality 16.
Umited Income NJA
Manufacturing
Office 0.49
Residential
Retail 1.46 127.
PORTFOLIO
Table 10 Cost-Effectiveness Statistics by Technology
Total Non-
Resource Utility Cost Participant Participant
Cost Test Test Test Test
Appliances
Assistive Technologies NJA
Compressed Air
Controls
HVAC 7.49
Industrial Process (8.01)
Ughting
Monitoring NJA
Motors NJA
New Tech 1.42
Renewables NJA NJA NJA N/A
Resource Management NJA
Shell (0.31)(1.11)(0,77)(0.12)
Sustainable Building N/A
PORTFOLIO
NOTES:
Costs for this trimester s portion (1/3) of the Natural Gas Awareness Campaign are included in Residential.
Costs associated with membership in NEEA are excluded from all cost-effectiveness calculations.
Costs associated with outstanding leases are excluded from all cost-effectiveness calculations.
N/A" is listed for segments and technologies with benefits. but no costs.
Page 16
vista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
Table 11 Net Benefits by Customer Segment
Total Non-
Resource Utility Cost Participant Participant
Cost Test Test Test Test
Agriculture (30 784) $(30,784)(30,784)
Education 958,778 347 818 2,417 921 (1,448,409)
Food Service (32 371) $(20 798) $98,941 (130,319)
Health Care 97,913 (67 544) $236,051 (138,138)
Hospitality 879 (92.295) $219.638 (210,100)
Limited Income (46,251) $(46,251) $276,036 (1,445,800)
Manufacturing (634,407) $(99,250) $(52,563) $(581 963)
Office 059 (67 195) $320,826 (274,598)
Residential (40 061) $340,559 827,902 103 064)
Retail 38,408 (40,457) $177,215 (140,418)
PORTFOLIO 402,162 223 803 521,968 (5,503,595)
Table 12 Net Benefits by Technology
Total Non-
Resource Utility Cost Participant Participant
Cost Test Test Test Test
Appliances (39,944) $105 571 444,788 (583,667)
Assistive Technologies (104 694)(104 694)(104,694)
Compressed Air (16,586)881) $25,756 (42,341)
Controls (39 177) $781 333,908 (365,394)
HVAC (146,462) $113 941 689,879 (2,093,761)
Industrial Process (29,492)(30,249) $817 (36,309)
Lighting 612,692 236 186 941.179 342,545)
Monitoring (24 023)(24 023)(24 023)
Motors (59 413)(59,413)(59,413)
New Tech 394 861 45,380 969,313 (574,515)
Renewables
Resource Management 527 28,527 270,812 (229,678)
Shell (165,112)(74 309)(160,482)(38,240)
Sustainable Building (9,015)015)(9,015)
PORTFOLIO 402,162 223 803 521,968 (5,503,595)
NOTES:
Net benefits are calculated by subtracting costs from benefits.
Costs and benefits included in each cost-effectiveness test are detailed in Table 13.
Costs for this trimesters portion (1/3) of the Natural Gas Awareness Campaign are included in Residential.
Costs associated with membership in NEEA are excluded from all cost-effectiveness calculations.
Costs associated with outstanding leases are excluded from all cost-effectiveness calculations.
Page 17
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report
Table 13
March 2000
Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Tests and Descriptive Statistics
Regular Income Limited Income
T.."" R.~..u",. C..~I T..,WIfgUg IIC.I!fgIjg
Electric avoided cosl $066,877 599,880
Non-Energy benefits $775,461
Natural Gas avoided cost $(209,832) $(136,413) $
632,506 463,467TRC benefits
Non-incentive utility cosl S 080,782 95,227
Customer cost $103,311 414 492
TRC costs 184,093 509,718
TRC ratio
Net TRC benefils S 448,413 (46,251) S
UtIlItY C""I T."I
Regular Income Limited Income
IID.tIfI:dig
066,877 S
(209,832) S
857045 $
DIItIfaIig Ovp.r~1I "nrtfnJin
599,880 S 2.666,757
(136,413) $ (346.244)
463,467 $ 2,320,512
Electric avoided cost S
Natural Gas avoided cost S
UCT benefits $
Non-Incentive ulility cost $080,782 95,227
Incentive cosl $506,209 414 492
UCT costs 586,991 509,718
UCT ralio
Nel UCT benelits $270,054 (46,251) $
Regular Income Limned Income
IID.tIfI:dig
067573 $
775,461 $
843,033 S
Ovp'",11 nnrtfnlln
666,757
775461
(346.244)
095,973
176,009
517,802
693,811
402,162
176.009
920.701
2;096,709
223,803
DIItIfaIig Ovp'",11 nnrtfnlin
276,036 $ 5,343,609$ 1,775,461
1,276,036 S 7,119,070
Partlel..anl Tell
Bill Reduclion $
Non-Energy benefits S
Participant benefils $
Customer project cost S 103,311 414,492
Incentive received S 506,209 414,492
Participant costs 597,101
Participant Tesl ratin N/A
Net Participant benellts $245.932 276,036
N..n,Partld..anl Te~I
Regular Income limited Income
QIIII1gJjQ
066,877 S
066,877 $
ggz:!!aIIg nv..",11 nnrtfnlin
599,880 S 2,666,757
599 880 $ 2,666,757
Electric avnlded cost savings S
Nnn-Part benefits S
Revenue loss $537,681 535 961
Non-incentive utility cost S 080,782 95,227
Customer Incentives S 506,209 414.492
Non-Part costs 124,672 045,679
Non-Pert. ratio
Net Non-Part. benefits $057,795) S (1,445,800) $
D..."rlnllvB Slsll~II,,~
Regular Income Limited Income
IID.tIfI:dig
10,363.237
- 0.20 S
10 $
20 $
05 $
Annual kWh savings
Custnmer cosUkWh $
Non-incentive utility cosUkWh S
Electric avoided cosUkWh $
Incentive cosUkWh $
IIC.I!fgIjg
957.034
21 S
05 $
31 S
21 S
517,802
920,701
597,101
521,968
073,642
176,009
920.701
170,351
(5,503595)
Ovp.r~1I nnrtfnlln
12,320,271
NOTES:
Costs lor 'his trimester s portion (1/3) 01 the Natural Gas Awareness Campaign are included inResiden/ie/.
Costs associated wI'h membership in NEEA are excluded Irom all cost.effectiveness calculations.
Costs associated with outstanding leases are excluded Irom all cost-effectiveness calculations.
N/A' Is lis'ed lor segments and technologies with benefits, but no costs.
Page 18
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
Energy Efficiency Tariff Rider Balance Calculations
The methodology of this calculation has not changed since the previous Triple-E Report, One
error, the omission of the effect of the one-month lag specified in the 1994 Accounting Guidelines
amounting to $10 949, has been corrected.
In the last twelve months Avista has:
spent $2.2 million more than it has collected as Tariff Rider revenues ($1.4 million in
Washington, $0.8 million in Idaho)
incurred expenditures in excess of rider revenues by 47% (41 % in Washington, 64% in
Idaho)
reduced the Tariff Rider balance by $1.9 million ($1.2 million in Washington , $0.7 million in
Idaho)
cut the balance by 45% (41 % in Washington, 53% in Idaho) and
incorporated within the balance $318 000 of interest assessments ($215,000 Washington
$103,000 Idaho).
This progress towards Avista Corporation s objective of reducing the balance through funding
cost-effective energy efficiency may somewhat overstate the progress to date due to a
disproportionate amount of NEEA invoices paid during this moving average. However, even
taking this into consideration, it does represent a significant increase in energy efficiency activity
on the part of the Company.
The TRC cost-effectiveness during this trimester indicates that it is not only an increase in
expenditures, but that the incremental expenditures do have energy savings commensurate with
their costs.
Refer to Table 14 for the most recent update to our tariff rider balance calculation.
Page 19
Av
i
s
t
a

U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Tr
i
p
l
e
-
E
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ma
r
c
h

2
0
0
0
Ta
b
l
e

1
4
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

E
n
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

T
a
r
i
f
f

R
i
d
e
r

B
a
l
a
n
c
e

a
n
d

I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
Id
a
h
o
Id
a
h
o
Id
a
h
o
Id
a
h
o
Id
a
h
o
DS
M
OS
M
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
En
d
i
n
g
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
En
d
i
n
g

b
a
t
.
DS
M
DS
M
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
En
d
i
n
g
Id
a
h
o
En
d
i
n
g

b
a
t
.
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
DS
M

b
a
l
a
n
c
e
DS
M

b
a
l
a
n
c
e
wit
h

i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
DS
M

b
a
l
a
n
c
e
DS
M

b
a
l
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h

i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
17
1
03
7
37
1
65
8

$
2,6
1
7
01
6
81
7
,
63
7
95
0

$
82
8
58
6
70
.
14
7
16
1
,
90
5

S
05
3
.
57
9

$
14
5
,
33
7
2,
3
8
5

$
14
7
,
72
2
18
8
,
86
3

S
32
1
49
3
82
8
,
58
6

S
96
1
.
2
1
6
66
8

$
2,9
8
2
,
88
5
10
0
,
62
0
15
7
,
17
1
14
7
72
2
20
4
,
27
3
76
7
1.2
1
3
,
04
0
41
6
80
3
29
2
.
7
7
1
98
2
,
88
5

S
85
8
,
85
3
23
,
08
4
88
1
,
93
7
57
,
16
6
14
3
,
56
3

$
1,2
1
3
04
0

$
29
9
,
43
8
37
8

$
1.3
0
8
,
81
5
78
1
.
85
5

$
26
6
,
60
6

$
2.8
8
1
93
7
36
6
,
68
8
23
.
2
9
1
38
9
97
9
26
8
,
93
5
13
2
.
7
4
9

$
30
6
,
81
5

S
17
2
,
62
9

S
10
,
01
7

S
1.1
8
2
,
6
4
7
33
3
,
26
8
24
7
45
4
38
9
,
97
9

$
30
4
16
5

$
20
,
92
7

$
32
5
,
09
2
13
1
68
9
12
1
68
6

S
18
2
64
7

S
17
2
,
64
4
89
4
18
2
.
5
3
8
28
3
,
07
9

S
26
6
98
1
2,3
2
5
,
09
2

$
30
8
,
99
4
18
.
71
6

S
32
7
,
71
0
74
9
12
1
98
6

S
18
2
,
53
8
21
6
,
77
5

$
39
1
22
6
.
16
5
Ju
l
31
5
,
85
4
23
7
11
5

$
32
7
71
0
2,
2
4
8
97
1
18
.
47
6

$
26
7
44
7
82
,
66
2
12
1
01
8

S
1.2
2
6
,
16
5

$
26
4
52
1
56
6
27
4
08
7
Au
g
u
s

S
47
0
,
62
7
27
2
,
0
3
5

S
2,
2
6
7
,
44
7
06
8
.
85
5
18
.
2
4
8

S
08
7
,
10
2
14
6
09
9
82
,
98
3

S
1,2
7
4
08
7
1.2
1
0
,
97
1
93
1
1,2
2
0
,
90
2
Se
p
l
e
m
b
e
r

S
22
0
,
53
4
30
2
,
0
4
5

$
08
7
,
10
2

$
2,
1
6
8
,
61
3
17
.
2
8
9

S
2,
1
8
5
,
90
3
88
5
00
4
1,2
2
0
,
90
2
22
1
02
1
90
8

S
1,2
3
0
,
92
9
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

$
33
3
.
76
3
26
0
.
08
0

S
18
5
90
3

S
2.1
1
2
,
2
2
0

S
96
8

S
2,
1
2
9
.
18
8
30
4
,
54
5
81
,
5
7
1
1,2
3
0
92
9
00
7
95
5

S
73
6

$
01
7
,
69
1
No
v
e
m
b
e
r

S
17
4
94
3

S
26
3
,
91
6

S
2.1
2
9
,
18
8

S
2.2
1
8
,
16
1
17
,
13
7

$
2,2
3
5
,
29
8
16
7
87
7
85
.
3
9
1
01
7
69
1
93
5
.
2
0
6

$
92
7

S
94
4
,
13
2
De
c
e
m
b
e
r

S
75
9
,
35
6
31
7
,
11
1
2.2
3
5
.
29
8
79
3
,
05
3
33
3

S
81
0
,
38
6
30
6
83
8
19
2
.
2
5
7
94
4
,
13
2

$
73
9
,
55
2

S
78
6

S
74
7
33
8
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
26
1
42
4
35
0
.
39
5

S
81
0
,
38
6

S
89
9
,
35
7
16
,
06
1
91
5
,
41
9
17
4
09
2
93
,
72
7
74
7
.
3
3
8
66
6
,
97
3
71
3

S
67
3
68
6
Fe
b
r
u
a
29
6
,
81
5
31
8
41
1
91
5
.
4
1
9

S
93
7
01
4
79
1
1.9
5
1
80
5
92
,
64
8
12
4
36
9

$
67
3
,
68
6

S
70
5
,
40
7
63
9

S
71
1
.
0
4
6

i
Ma
r
56
6
.
15
1
29
6
.
85
7

S
95
1
80
5
68
2
,
51
1
15
,
36
0

$
1.6
9
7
.
87
1
20
0
,
63
9

S
95
,
37
3

S
71
1
04
6
60
5
,
78
0

$
49
9

$
61
1
.
2
7
8
44
9
.
98
3
41
9
,
26
5
22
4
,
08
8
81
0
.
2
1
0
39
8
,
2
8
4
10
5
,
68
5
12
4
,
39
0

$
96
5
66
3
46
.
2
1
2
46
7
,
37
9
31
3
,
46
9
17
,
85
0
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
DS
M
DS
M
Be
g
I
n
n
i
n
g
En
d
i
n
g
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
En
d
i
n
g

b
a
t
.
Mo
n
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
DS
M

b
a
l
a
n
c
e
DS
M

b
a
l
a
n
c
e
in
t
e
r
e
s
t
wit
h

i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t

I
DS
M

b
;!.
l
;
l
m
:
l
!
.
r
e
d
u
c
t
l
o
n

I
n

m
o
s
t

r
e
c
e
n
t

t
w
e
l
v
e

m
o
n
t
h
s
:
Ja
n
u
a
r
y

1
24
1
,
18
5
53
3
,
56
3
67
0
,
59
5

S
96
2
,
97
3
13
,
33
5
97
6
,
30
8
Fe
b
r
u
a
28
9
48
3
47
8
,
66
4
97
6
,
30
8
16
5
48
9
30
,
43
6
19
5
,
92
5
$
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
%
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
Ma
r
47
3
96
9
43
6
,
33
4
19
5
,
92
5
15
8
,
29
0
32
,
46
2
19
0
75
2
In
t
e
r
e
s
t
Ap
r
i
l

S
05
0
,
79
0
39
9
.
35
5
19
0
,
75
2
53
9
.
31
7
33
,
30
9
57
2
,
62
6
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
39
8
,
66
3
)
14
1
%
18
4
,
06
6
41
%
21
4
59
7
46
4
95
6
36
9
,
14
0

S
57
2
,
62
6
47
6
80
9
30
,
62
0

$
50
7
,
63
0
Id
a
h
(8
0
0
.
54
3
)
16
4
%
69
7
53
7
53
%
10
3
,
00
6
37
0
,
82
8
38
8
,
96
7
50
7
,
63
0
52
5
,
76
8
28
,
10
7
55
3
,
87
5
Sy
s
t
e
rr
l
(2
,
19
9
,
20
6
)
14
7
%
88
1
60
2
45
%
31
7
60
3
39
8
51
6
35
8
.

1
3
3
55
3
,
87
5
51
3
,
49
2
28
,
04
3
54
1
,
53
4
61
6
72
6
35
5
,
01
8

$
54
1
,
53
4
3.
2
7
9
,
82
6
28
,
17
8
30
8
,
00
4
30
6
41
9
38
8
.
04
9
30
8
,
OQ
4
38
9
.
63
5
19
7
41
6
83
2
63
8
30
8
34
1
65
1
41
6
,
83
2
12
0
.
17
5
70
4
14
6
87
9
34
2
,
8
2
0
34
9
,
30
7
14
6
,
87
9
15
3
,
36
6
06
4
17
9
,
43
0
06
6
,
19
4
41
9
.
36
8
17
9
,
43
0
53
2
,
60
4
25
.
12
0
55
7
,
72
4
43
5
.
51
6
44
4
,
12
2
55
7
,
72
4
2,5
6
6
,
33
0
22
,
77
4
2,5
8
9
10
5
38
9
46
3
44
2
.
7
8
0

S
2,5
8
9
,
10
5

S
64
2
.
4
2
1
20
,
43
0
2,6
6
2
,
8
5
1
76
6
79
0
39
2
,
2
3
0
66
2
,
85
1
2.2
8
8
.
29
1
20
,
85
8
30
9
,
15
0
6,2
6
0
,
19
3
81
7
,
54
9
32
9
,
77
3
59
1
,
76
9
1.2
7
9
.
13
2
64
,
06
3
NO
T
E
S
:
In
l
e
r
e
s
t

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

h
a
v
e

b
e
e
n

r
e
v
i
s
e
d

t
o

b
e

b
a
s
e
d

u
p
o
n

t
h
e

p
r
i
o
r

m
o
n
t
h
s

b
a
l
a
n
c
e
s
, p
e
r

t
h
e

o
n
e

m
o
n
t
h

l
a
g

i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d

i
n
t
o

I
h
e

f
i
l
e
d

a
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
.
Ja
n
u
a
r
y

i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t

r
e
f
l
e
c
t
s

t
h
e

a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t

t
o

a
n
n
u
a
l

1
9
9
5

t
o

1
9
9
8

b
a
l
a
n
c
e
s

t
o

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

I
h
i
s

o
n
e

m
o
n
t
h

l
a
g
.
Pa
g
e

2
0
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
Analysis Measurement and Evaluation Summary
For this reporting period, seven projects and programs were selected for in-depth review. Thefollowing summaries highlight the findings of each review.
For confidentiality reasons, customer names have been omitted except in the case of
governmental organizations. More detailed reports are available upon request.
The analysis team continually endeavors to present to the Triple-E Board an accurate portrayal ofAvista Utilities' energy efficiency activities. Comments and suggestions regarding both the
content and format of this report are always welcome.
Program Updates
Resource Management Partnership Program (RMPP)
The billing analysis of all school districts participating in RMPP were reviewed and revised
meet the most recent policy decisions on these calculations.
It was notable that no non-energy benefits have been identified during the trimester. Follow-up
indicated that this was an accurate reflection of the programs current activity. Most of the
participating school districts have already realized the majority of the cost-effective non-energy
resource savings.
One meter located at Mead High School is currently under investigation. The usage on the meter
has dramatically increased to a level far beyond that which is reasonable for the tennis courtapplication that it was intended for. We are almost certain that the nearby construction of a major
addition to the school is the cause of the aberration. If we can positively identify construction asthe source of the usage we will revise the billed savings calculation upward by that amount.
VendingMI$ERTM Program
In the November 1999 Triple-E Report, it was reported that Avista was embarking on an
aggressive project to install VendingM/$ER control units on hundreds of cold drink vending
machines within the service territory. As of March 31, 2000, over 300 individual VendingM/$ERunits were installed, or in the process of being installed, on vending machines throughout Avista
Utilities' service territory.
The VendingM/$ER control unit is manufactured by Bayview Technology Group, Inc. It is
designed to operate as an intelligent power controller for cold product vending machines. It is notrecommended for use with vending machines containing perishable products. The
VendingM/$ER uses a passive infrared sensor to shut down the controlled vending machine
when the area surrounding the machine has been vacant for 15 minutes. The VendingM/$ER will
periodically re-power the vending machine to ensure the product stays cold.
Preliminary monitoring conducted by Avista has shown an estimated annual energy savings of
500 kWh per unit. These results closely match studies performed by Bayview and otheranalysis, including a study performed by Rutgers University, These preliminary studies form the
basis for the annual savings claim of 1 500 kWh per VendingM/$ERinstallation. Avista hasadopted this figure for a prescriptive program, with the understanding that further data collection
would occur and savings claims would be adjusted accordingly.
Page 21
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
The VendingM/$ER is appropriately considered a new technology since a microprocessor based
control of vending machines is new and such a technology was non-existent in the Avista service
territory prior to the launch of this program. Under the existing tariff, any new technology project
producing 1 500 kWh in annual savings would be eligible for an incentive of $150.00 to
$210.00,depending on the project simple payback. For this program Avista has chosen to
purchase VendingM/$ER units on behalf of customers, in lieu of direct financial incentives. The
cost per VendingM/$ER unit is $135.
Avista Utilities is currently in the midst of extensive monitoring of the VendingM/$ER control unit.
Data acquisition began in December of 1999. Monitoring is currently being performed on dozensof cold drink vending machines at customer locations throughout the service territory.
Datalogging of vending machines without control units installed , as well as those under
VendingM/$ER control, are underway. Data acquisition will continue until a large enough
population has been observed to provide us with adequate data for calculation of average annual
kWh savings. Datalogging results will be used to adjust annual energy savings claimed by Energy
Services if necessary.
The results of datalogging efforts for the VendingM/$ER program thus far have indicated that the
savings may average closer to 800 kWh per installation. However, given the substantial variance
of savings across projects we have decided to delay any adjustment until we can expand the
sample size. We will revisit this topic in the next Triple-E Report, with the benefits of a larger
sample size.
The analysis team intends to capture data on individual electricity consumption for as long as a
year, both pre and post installation. We are also striving to capture energy consumption on a
variety of vending machine makes and models, dispensing cold products of various sizes and in a
variety of locations.
Individual Project Reviews
Project Status:
Program/Segment:
Technology:
Site:
Location:
Completed August of 1999
Trade Ally and New Technology Programs
Canopy Lighting and LED Strip Lighting
Service Station and Convenience Store
Colville, Washington
Study Summary
This study resulted in no impact on energy savings estimates.
This project was randomly selected from a list of projects completed between January 1
1999 and February 15, 2000.
The project involved the lighting retrofits incorporated in the replacement of canopies over
gas pump islands. High wattage metal halide lights were replaced with lower wattage metal
halide light fixtures with some de-Iamping. High wattage fluorescent lights were replaced with
new technology light emitting diode (LED) strips.
After some investigation, the LED strip lighting was found to be appropriately incentivized as
a New Technology measure. It has been recommended that Energy Services attached
Page 22
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
documentation to New Technology projects to explain the rationale used to determine New
Technology status.
A process error was uncovered as the LED canopy strip lighting was mistakenly entered into
the project tracking database as "LED Exit Signs.
Studv Detail
This project was initiated after an energy audit of the customer s facility. The energy audit wascompleted in September of 1998. The customer was in the process of replacing canopies over
three gasoline and diesel pump islands and chose to install lower wattage metal halide fixtures.
The manufacturer of the new fixtures claims several design improvements allow the use of a
lower wattage lamps. The new fixture positions the metal halide lamp vertically rather than
horizontally, and uses an improved reflector and prismatic lens to direct light out of the fixture in a
uniform manner.
Lighting improvements were incentivized under the Trade Ally program in effect at the time.
the project neared completion, the Energy Services project lead separated the Light Emitting
Diode strip lighting savings from the remainder of the project. This allowed the LED portion of theproject to be incentivized as a New Technology.
After a review of the project file and discussion with the Energy Services project technical lead, it
was determined that New Technologies incentives were appropriately applied toward the LED
strip lighting as this was a relatively new product and this was the first application with Avista
involvement. Initially the project file lacked documentation , which would explain the rationale
behind assigning New Technology status to the LED strip lighting. This deficiency was brought to
the attention of Energy Services and additional notes were added to the project file. Analysis
staff recommended Energy Services incorporate such documentation with all New Technology
projects. As a result, a policy change has been incorporated.
A review of the accounting transactions revealed an error in data entry. The LED canopy strip
lighting was mistakenly entered into the Energy Services database as an LED exit sign project.
The error caused incentive payments to be charged to the LED exit sign program account.
Annual kWh savings were also erroneously credited to the LED exit sign program. Energy
Services was informed of the error and appropriate account corrections were made.
A post-verification of the installation was performed by Energy Services and photographs of the
equipment were included in the project file, The analysis team also performed an independent
verification of this project. The engineering calculations were reviewed and found to be accurate.
Energy savings for this project totaled 12,800 kWh per year for the metal halide canopy lighting
improvements and 8,340 kWh per year for the LED strip lighting. The customer received an
incentive of $1,084.00.
Project Status:
Program/Segment:
Technology:
Site:
Location
Completed January of 1999
Site Specific Program
Irrigation Pumping Efficiency Improvements
Farm
Kahlotus, Washington
Studv Summary
This study resulted in no impact on energy savings estimates.
Page 23
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
This project was randomly selected from a list of projects completed between January 1
1999 and February 15, 2000.
The project involved the installation of a variable frequency drive on a irrigation pump motor
and a retrofit from standard impact sprinkler heads to low pressure pivot rotator sprinkler
heads. The project was completed under a performance-based agreement.
Data was collected for over a year from water flow meters and Avista Utilities electric meters
on irrigation pumps serving seven pivot irrigation systems. The results of the data collection
analyses were used to establish energy and water savings, and the incentive amount.
Several non-energy benefits were documented by the owners of the farm; including improved
cold weather irrigation to provide a measure of frost protection, a large reduction in waterusage, and reduced equipment failure caused by high water pressure stress.
Studv Detail
In the summer of 1997, a study was begun at a family owned farm near Kahlotus, Washington.
The farmers of this land were seeking assistance to reduce both electric power consumption and
water usage.
The customer and the Energy Services technical lead chose to replace standard impact sprinkler
heads with a low-pressure pivot rotator sprinkler heads. To allow proper operation and control of
the new sprinklers, water pressure control was required. The pressure control was obtained by
installing a variable frequency drive on a 100 horsepower pump serving the seven irrigated crop
circles,
, .
The sprinkler heads provided several benefits; including reduced water run off, greater uniformity
in water application , reduced wind drift, and reduced water loss caused by evaporation. The new
sprinkler heads also allowed the farmer to vary the water droplet size, allowing improved
precision in water application.
The operators of the farm closely monitored water usage over several years. Electric usage
history was available from Avista .Utilities customer records. With this information, a performance-
based energy efficiency agreement was executed. Avista and the farm operators collected water
flow data and electric usage data for over one year following the installation of the low-pressure
pivot rotator sprinkler heads and the variable frequency drive. The data collection was completed
in December of 1998.
Several non-energy benefits were documented. Water savings totaled 554 acre-feet per year
(180,521,454 gallons). Superior water distribution capabilities allowed the farm to provide a
measure of frost protection. The customer anticipates significant maintenance cost savings from
reduced equipment failure caused by high water pressure. The customer also expressed
satisfaction with the improved water distribution on his crops, noting that liThe crop under the
rotator equipped center pivots was always in at least as good, or in better condition, than the
crops grown under impact sprinkler equipped machines.
A review of the incentive formula in the energy efficiency agreement found that the incentive
calculation was appropriately applied. A review of the accounting transactions found costs and
incentives were appropriately charged to the Site Specific program.
The savings for this project totaled 51 326 kWh per year. The customer received an incentive of
566.00.
Page 24
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
Project Status:
Program/Segment:
Technology:
Site:
Location:
Completed May of 1999
Trade Ally and Site Specific Programs
Cooling and Ventilation Improvements
Mine
Wallace, Idaho
Study Summary
This study resulted in no impact on energy saYings estimates.
This project was randomly selected from a list of projects completed between January 1,
1999 and February 15, 2000.
The project was completed using both the Trade Ally program and the Site Specific program.
The Trade Ally portion allowed for expenditures to study and implement the replacement of
Whizbang units with portable fans. The Site Specific program provided incentives for the
conversion of an adjacent mineshaft into an exhaust shaft.
The large scale and unique nature of these projects warrant an ongoing persistence study.
The large annual energy savings could be reduced should the mine scale back its operations
in the future,
Study Detail
Heat and humidity levels in the mineshafts are very high. The miners in the shafts developed a
device called a Whizbang to provide cooling. A Whizbang is essentially a pipe, drilled with
approximately a dozen 1/8" holes. The pipe is connected to a compressed air system and is
turned on and off by the miners as needed. The study performed by Energy Services in
coordination with the customer s own engineering staff indicated the mines had fifty Whizbangs
operating up to 5,408 hours per year. While these devices worked well and were compatible with
the extreme conditions found in the mines, they were created without regard to energy efficiency.
Energy Services proposed replacing the Whizbang units with individual portable 2 horsepower
cooling fans. The customer replaced the Whizbangs on a limited basis, removing eighteen units
and replacing them with two horsepower cooling fans,
The engineering estimates for the Whizbang replacements were reviewed and found to be
appropriate. However, the customer is under no obligation to continue the use of the individual
fans, nor does there appear to be a tracking mechanism in place to ensure that the air
compressor loads are reduced. Analysis staff recommended Energy Services coordinate a
follow-up study within the next six months to measure the persistence of this measure.
The ventilation project required that the mine open a connection to an adjacent shaft and use it
for exhaust ventilation. By making the connection to the adjacent shaft, ventilation to the mine
was increased and fan horsepower requirements were reduced.
Information included in the project file indicates a significant engineering effort was made to
ensure this operational change would greatly improve the ventilation in the mine and reduce the
required horsepower. Engineering calculations are detailed in an initial project memo from the
Avista project engineer, however the project changed over time and subsequent calculations
were absent in the project file. Final savings figures were presented only in a summary
spreadsheet and to recreate the final energy savings figures was difficult.
Analysis staff recommended Energy Services review project files upon project completion and
establish a procedure to ensure final energy savings calculations are clearly documented and
reflect all changes between initial study and project completion.
Page 25
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
As with the Whizbang project, any change in the mine s operation could dramatically alter the
energy savings provided by the ventilation project. A follow-up study of both of these projects, bythe analysis team in coordination with Energy Services, is to be initiated within the next six
months.
The savings for the Whizbang cooling replacement project totaled 2 091 300 kWh per year andsavings for the ventilation efficiency improvements totaled 1,942 100 kWh per year. The customer
received an incentive (capped at 50% of the project cost) of $62,500.00.
Project Status:
Program/Segment:
Technology:
Site:
Location
Contracted as of March 31 , 2000
Site Specific Program Manufacturing Segment
Process Fuel Conversion
Specialty Metals Manufacturer
Spokane, Washington
Studv SummarY
This study resulted in no impact on energy savings estimates.
This project was randomly selected from a list of projects which were in progress as of March
, 2000.
This project was listed as Contracted as of March 31 , 2000 and involves a process fuel
switch. An electric oven is to be replaced with a natural gas oven.
The project file contained a detailed engineering calculation to estimate potential electricity
savings,
A significant non-energy benefit was identified early in the study. The customer is nearing the
maximum capacity of existing transformers. The process fuel switch will allow the customer to
defer the installation of a new transformer and additional electrical circuit breakers and will
free up approximately 40 kW of capacity to be used for future production expansion.
. The process requires precise temperature control and requires specialized ovens.
Studv Detail
The manufacturing process, which is the subject of this project , involves the bonding of dissimilar
metals, In this case, steel is bonded to aluminum using a molecular bonding material. The bond
occurs as the steel and aluminum are heated in an oven with precise temperature control. The
customer s process allows bonding to occur without reductio~ or oxidation, which often occur
when dissimilar metals are in close proximity.
For this energy efficiency project, the customer will be replacing an existing radiant electric oven
with a new radiant natural gas oven. The customer also needed to increase processing capacity
and was considering several options including the installation of additional electric or gas fired
ovens. The new gas oven chosen by the customer will provide this increase in the production
capacity.
Energy Services personnel documented the operation of the existing electric oven and detailed
the operation of up to two additional electric ovens under consideration to meet the increased
process capacity. Using production information provided by the customer, it was calculated that
the heating elements in the original oven consumed 166,400 kWh per year. Adding two similar
Page 26
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
ovens to meet the increased capacity requirements would add 332,800 additional kWh per year
bringing the total annual electricity consumption to 499,200 kWh for the process.
The project was well documented and contained all the elements necessary for a project in the
Contracted phase. The customer contact log included in the project file was very useful in
understanding the progress of this project.
The annual energy savings anticipated for this project total 499 200 kWh. Should the project be
completed as stated in the energy efficiency agreement, an incentive will be paid to the customer
of $16,273.00. The incentive for this project is capped at 50% of the project cost. Also, should
this project continue to completion , it will transition from the Site Specific program to the
Manufacturing segment.
Project Status:
Program/Segment:
Technology:
Site:
Location:
Completed May of 1999
Site Specific Program
HV AC, Chiller Replacement
Bank and Office Building
Spokane, Washington
Studv Summary
This study resulted in no impact on energy savings estimates.
This project was randomly selected from a list of projects completed between January 1
1999 and February 15, 2000.
This project involved the replacement of two 250-ton chillers in a high rise office building.
The project allowed the customer to improve the overall efficiency of their air conditioning
system and eliminate the use of chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants (R-12).
Studv Detail
The chillers at a high rise bank and office building in downtown Spokane were significantly aged.
The customer had options of repairing the chillers, installing new chillers of similar efficiency, orinstalling new chillers with higher efficiency at a slightly higher cost.
Energy Services worked with the customer, a large property management firm, to verify energy
and cost savings provided by installing high-efficiency chillers. Efficiency improvements allowed
the customer to downsize both chillers from 250 tons to 225 tons each.
The new chillers utilize chlorine-fee hydrofluorocarbon refrigerant (HFC, R-134a), replacing ozone
depleting chlorofluorocarbon (CFC, R-12) used in the old equipment. This was noted as a non-
energy benefit by Energy Services.
A project review by the analysis team found this project was carefully and fully documented.Engineering calculations were easily located and, as the project changed somewhat in scope
calculations were clearly labeled and obsolete calculations were clearly marked,
Cut sheets and descriptions of the new chillers were also available, making a complete and
thorough project record.
An independent post-verification performed by the analysis team confirmed the completion of this
project.
Page 27
A vista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
Energy savings for this project totaled 192,208 kWh per year. The customer received an incentive
payment of $9,610.00.
Project Status:
Program/Segment:
Technology:
Site:
Location:
Completed late 1999
Site-specific program / education segment
Packaged HV AC equipment
Medical Lake High School
Medical Lake, Washington
Studv Summary
This project was selected for a random file review. The project involved packaged HVACunits installed in a "gut-and-remodel" of Medical Lake High School.
Initial review indicated a potential problem. It appeared as though the base-case for the
project was installed and incentivized under the Energy Efficiency Tariff Rider.
Further investigation revealed that, although the installed measure was the least cost option,
higher maintenance requirements and a significantly shorter measure life eliminated it for use
as the base-case.
Study Detail
The engineering report identified six HVAC options for the school. Included in this menu ofoptions was packaged HV AC units and heat pumps. The packaged HV AC units were the leastexpensive, both in first cost and lifecycle cost, and were the most energy efficient. However, theyhave approximately half the life of heat pumps and require more rooftop maintenance.
The energy savings was based upon the packaged HV AC system installed versus the lessefficient heat pump system. The validity of this base-case assumption rested upon thecorrectness of using the heat pump option as a base-case. Traditionally we have defined base-case as code-minimum, industry standard or least first cost. An initial review indicated thepackaged HVAC units installed should have been the base-case, and therefore no energysavings resulted from utility intervention.
Discussion with the implementation and engineering personnel and further investigation led the
analyst staff to revise our opinion of industry standard. This revision was based upon the historic
evidence provided by Energy Services that indicated that heat pumps were indeed the industry
standard. This evidence has taken the form of a review of eleven of the most recently
constructed schools, of which seven opted for heat pumps, three for four-pipe fan coils and onefor a two-pipe fan coil system. These eleven schools covered five different districts in the
Spokane area (including one heat pump system used within the Medical Lake school district
itself). The packaged HV AC systems were generally rejected because of the rooftop
maintenance requirements and the shorter physical life (typically less than the bond levies used
to finance the project).
In the final analysis it was determined that heat pumps were the most appropriate base-case, andthat marketing packaged HV AC efficiencies within the education segment may be an area where
we could pursue a market transformation strategy that would reach beyond our immediate project
contacts.
Page 28
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
Notable Projects , Disclosures, and Policy Updates
Database Change
The August 1 , 1999 to November 30, 1999 Triple-E Report was the last report to use the Tracker
database for individual project details. That database has now been replaced by the SalesLogix
database. Customized queries are being created to automate our unique requirements. These
queries will be useful in improving the timeliness of analysis and make the entire process more
efficient.
Ultimately it is our intent to take monthly "snapshots" of all fields within the SalesLogix database
and to utilize these as a basis for much of our analysis. These snapshots eliminate the need to
track each change in project progress and replace it with a relatively simple before and after
database comparison.
SalesLogix is also in the process of being updated to incorporate fields that will assist us in the
collection of project data. These fields may not be in full use until shortly before the end of the
April 1 to July 31, 2000 trimester.
Technology Revision
A revision being contemplated for implementation at the end of the April 1 to July 31 , 2000
trimester is that of re-defining the technologies reviewed for cost-effectiveness. The technology
list used in this (and the preceding) Triple-E Report was based upon the most recent Schedule 90
Tariff. While these technology descriptions may have been appropriate for tariff purposes, they
have become a significant analytical and interpretive problem.
Many of the projects could simultaneously meet the criteria for multiple technologies , sometimes
as many as four to five. For example, a project involving the use of low-misting agricultural
irrigation sprinklers could be Process (as part of the agricultural production), Motors (since the
energy savings accrue in the form of reduced motor runtime), Controls (since it is necessary to
add motor VFD controls to realize the savings) or Monitoring (since significant monitoring is
necessary to develop the motor controls necessary to achieve the energy savings).
As a consequence, it is our intention to develop technology descriptions that are more meaningful
in meeting the analytical needs of this report. For the most part, multiple technologies with
significant overlaps will be collapsed into a single more encompassing technology definition.
possible, we will redefine these technologies in a manner that allows comparisons to previous
Triple-E Reports.
Treatment of Direct Incentives and Non-Energy Benefits
Among the revisions made to the Schedule 90 Tariff are changes to the way direct customer
incentives are calculated. The former incentive format was a five cent /10 cent per kWh
incentive for high-efficiency / new technology projects respectively. In its place we have created
three categories of incentives (high-efficiency, fuel-conversion and new technologies) with each
of these three categories subdivided into three tiers based upon the simple payback of the
project. The new tariff continues the limitation of 50% of incremental customer cost (75% for New
Technology applications).
Clearly there are complications inherent in our new tariff format and a higher degree of judgement
and discretion is required to perform the calculations. In order to assure accurate and consistent
Page 29
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
calculations Avista has centralized those calculations in the Controller Resource Analysis team.
A policy manual has been established to ensure consistency in our calculations. This manual is
available to Triple-E Board members upon request.
Supermarket Refrigeration Case Retrofit Project
As a result of the two demonstration projects Avista has completed in separate supermarketchains in Washington and Idaho, one of those chains is in the process of incorporating higher
efficiency refrigerator cases into a store currently under construction.
It is premature to say that we have affected a significant transformation of this market, or evenwithin those particular supermarket chains that we are working with. Nevertheless, this is a
positive indication of success that we will continue to build upon.
Page 30
A vista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
Appendix A
Additional Descriptive
Statistics
The tables presented in Appendix A provide greater detail concerning the composition of energy
efficiency projects that progressed during this trimester. Information is segregated into two
categories; (1) database projects and (2) all projects. Database projects exclude values for those
projects tracked outside the SalesLogix database. This includes Limited Income, Natural Gas
Awareness, and Resource Management Partnership Program.
Refer to Tables A 1 and A2 for the disaggregation of project data; including quantity of projects,
kWh savings, and non-energy benefits (NEB) by project type. This has been provided as a
mechanism to track our success in various categories of projects. These results indicate
greater reliance on "mass" projects versus the "site-specific" projects. Lighting, which has
continued to be a significant component of our portfolio and is treated on a site-specific basis, is
the exception to that rule. It is also notable that we did not identify any quantifiable non-energy
benefits for projects pursued on a site-specific basis (except lighting) during this trimester,
Refer to Tables A3 and A4 for a breakdown of activity by jurisdiction. Our traditional jurisdictional
allocation has been 70% Washington and 30% Idaho, which has been substantiated by analysis
in the past. We will continue to track this disaggregation to determine if there is a persistent and
significant deviation from our standard.
Refer to Tables AS and A6 for a breakdown of activity by electric rate schedule. The breakdown
includes a category for "unknown" electric rate schedules, amounting to only two of the 568
projects.
Refer to Tables A 7 and AB for the same rate breakdown for natural gas impacts. A greater
proportion of "unknown" rate schedule participants is apparent in this category. This is the result
of projects conducted where natural gas service is non-existent, as well as projects that did not
impact natural gas usage and consequently weren t recorded in the SalesLogix database.
Page 31
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
Table A1 Breakdown of Database Projects by Type
Project Type Project Count % of Projects kWh Savings % of kWh NEB $Nr % of NEB $Nr
Lighting 27.986,659 42.60,203.30.
LED Exit Signs & Traffic Signals 110 37.550,838 22.$ 127,125.64.
VendingMI$ER 27.336,750 329.
Other 128,987 30.4%(45.81)
All 291 100,003,234 100,$ 198,613,100.
Table A2 Breakdown of All Projects by Type
Project Type Project Count % of Projects kWh Savings % of kWh NEB $Nr % of NEB $Nr
Lighting 13.986.659 24.60,203.30.
LED Exit Signs & Traffic Signals 110 19.4%550,838 12.$ 127,125.64.
VendingMI$ER 14.336 750 11,329.
Umited Income 125 22.957,034 15.
Natural Gas Awareness 141 24.251,028 18.
RMPP 108 974
Other 128,987 17.(45.81)
All 568 100.12,320,271 100.$ 198,613.100.
Table A3 Breakdown of Database Projects by State
State Project Count % of Projects kWh SavingsWA 147 50.5% 4,349,01910 144 49.5% 2,654,215All 291 100.0% 7,003 234
% of kWh
62.
37.
100.
Table A4 Breakdown of All Projects by State
State Project Count % of Projects kWh SavingsWA 344 60,6% 8,403,63710 224 39.4% 3,916.634All 568 100.0% 12,320,271
% of kWh
68.
31.
100,
Page 32
Avista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
Table A5 Breakdown of Database Projects by Electric Rate Schedule
Rate Schedule Project Count % of Projects kWh Savings % of kWh
325
28,230,082 17.
187 64.955,475 ,56.
763,220 25.
Unknown 43,133
All 291 100,003 234 100.
Table A6 Breakdown of All Projects by Electric Rate Schedule
Rate Schedule Project Count % of Projects kWh Savings % of kWh
269 47.4%219,387 34.
14.230,082 10.
198 34.064,449 41.
763,220 14.
Unknown 0.4%43,133 0.4%
All 568 100.12,320,271 100.
Table A7 Breakdown of Database Projects by Natural Gas Rate Schedule
Rate Schedule
101
111
121
None! Unknown
All
Project Count
147
291
Table AS
% of Projects Therm Savings % of Therms
20,6% (23,120) 84.
26.1 % (326) 1.7% (1 624) 5.
50.5% (2,296) 8.4%
100,0% (27,366) 100.
Breakdown of All Projects by Natural Gas Rate Schedule
Rate Schedule
101
111
121
NonelUnknown
All
Project Count
326
147
568
% of Projects Therm Savings % of Therms57.4% (172,574) 126.4%
13.4% (326) 0.2%3% 38 675 -28.
25.9% (2 296) 1.
100.0% (136 521) 100.
Page 33
A vista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
Appendix
Summary of Results from the
August 1 to November 30 , 1999 Re.port
For the convenience of Triple-E Board members in making comparisons between the current
Triple-E Report and the one produced for the August 1 to November 3D, 1999 trimester, we have
reproduced the historical tables and provided notations indicating the comparable table in the
current report.
Page 34
A vista Utilities Triple-E Report March 2000
Table 81 Utilit Costs A9.9!!Sated b Pro rams and Customer Se ments
Implementation Incentives M&E TOTAL
NEW SEGMENTS
NEEA $261 339 120 261.459
Agriculture $8.405 8.405
Manufacturing $45.479 44,580 172 90,231
Health Care $632 729
Hospitality $308 778 086
Office $288 925 274
Food Service $911 931
Retail $091 420 572
Residential $637 114 751
Limited Income (electric) $10,138 291 377 198 301,713
RMPP Education $75,244 301 510 84,055
GENERAL
General (Implementation) $452,203 452 203
General (M&E) $49,715 49,715
OLD PROGRAMS
Leasing $727 45,179 906
Home Automation $11,117 117
New Technology $352 200 589 141
HVAC System Eft. 148
LED exit signs 274 15,574 15,848
LED Traffic Signals $715 041 756
Fuel Switching $620 690
Trade Ally $074 898 076 048
Prescriptive Lighting $685 805 201 691
Site-specific $122,360 192,399 860 315 619
TOTAL 139,881 613,723 56.484 810,088
BROKEN OUT BY CATEGORY
Total assigned to segments $426 937 349,267 002 777,206
Total assigned to general 452,203 49,715 501,918
Total assigned to old pgms. $260,741 264.456 767 530,964
TOTAL 139,881 613,723 56.484 810 088
CATEGORY AS A PERCENT
Total assigned to segments 23.19.42.
Total assigned to general 25.27.
Total assigned to old pgms.14.4%14.29.
TOTAL 63.33.100.
REFERENCE: Comparable to Table 1 of March 2000 Report.
Page 35
Av
i
s
t
a

U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Tr
i
p
l
e
-
E
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ma
r
c
h

2
0
0
0
Ta
b
l
e

8
2
As
s
i
g
_
l1
f
!
1
e
!
1
t

ot

C
o
!s

t
o

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

S
e
g
me
n
t
s
NE
E
A
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
He
a
l
t
h

C
a
r
e
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
t
y
Of
f
i
c
e
Fo
o
d

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Re
t
a
i
l
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Lim
i
t
e
d

I
n
c
o
m
e
RM
P
P

Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l

u
t
i
l
To
t
a
l

o
l
d

p
g
m
.
Al
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
As
s
i
g
n
e
d
As
s
i
g
n
e
d
as
s
i
g
n
e
d
Ge
n

I
m
p
l
Ge
n

M
&
E
To
t
a
l

a
l
l
o
c
Ol
d

p
g
m

a
l
l
o
c

O
l
d

pg
m

a
l
l
o
c
no
n
-
in
c
e
n
t
.
TO
T
A
L
TO
T
A
L
TO
T
A
L
GR
A
N
D
ge
n
e
r
a
l

a
s

a
Im
p
!
.
M&
E
no
n
-
in
c
e
n
t

$
al
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
al
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
ge
n
e
r
a
l
im
p
l

c
o
s
t
M&
E

c
o
s
t
al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
IM
P
l
M&
E
IN
C
E
N
T
I
V
E
TO
T
A
L
% o
f

t
o
t
a
l
(a
)
(b
)
(c
)
(d
)
(e
)
(f)
(q
1
(h
)
(k
)
(I)
1m
!
(n
)
$
2
6
1
,
33
9

$
26
1
,
33
9
26
1
33
9
18
8
)
26
0
15
1
40
5

$
40
5
35
5
99
4
35
0
76
0
99
4
11
,
75
5
28
.
45
,
4
7
9
17
2
45
,
65
1
$
1
0
5
,
98
5
7,
4
5
7
11
3
,
44
2
14
4
37
2
11
7
14
5
,
4
8
9
29
5
,
83
6
74
6
$
1
9
0
,
25
6
49
4
83
8
22
.
97

$
47
,
10
4
98
3
08
7
4,
4
1
5
12
8
54
3
61
7
11
1
26
2
98
9
86
.
4
%
30
8

$
30
8
35
)
2
8
45
7
78
6
30
1
21
4
51
5
46
,
93
7
67
1
85
8
55
,
4
6
6
77
.
28
8

$
34
9
70
,
65
7
2,
4
8
6
14
2
87
3
25
4
12
7
85
,
81
8
80
1
15
,
04
2
10
3
,
66
0
70
.
91
1
91
1
70
,
65
7
97
2
75
,
62
8
30
1
21
4
51
5
78
,
86
9
18
5
12
0
17
4
89
.
11
,
09
1
11
,
15
2
32
8
97
2
40
,
30
0
10
4
23
4
33
8
54
,
52
4
26
6
04
0
83
0
65
.
63
7

$
63
7
35
5
48
6
84
1
19
9
11
,
19
9
17
,
19
1
48
6
70
0
21
,
37
7
22
.
10
,
13
8

$
19
8
10
,
33
6
11
,
77
6
7,
4
5
7
19
,
23
3
21
,
91
4
65
5
$
2
9
1
,
37
7
32
0
,
94
6
24
4
51
0
75
,
75
4
65
7
8,4
5
2

79
,
10
8
69
,
17
6
60
7
72
,
78
3
21
5
,
07
6
$
1
2
,
56
9
$
1
1
0
,
25
6
33
7
,
90
1
23
.
4
%
$
4
2
6
,
93
7
00
2

42
7
,
93
9

$
4
5
2
,
20
3
71
5
$
5
0
1
,
91
8
26
0
,
74
1
76
7
26
6
,
50
8
$
1
,
13
9
,
88
1
$
5
6
,
4
8
4
$
6
1
3
,
72
3
$
1
81
0
,
08
8
(a
)

T
h
e

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t

c
h
a
r
g
e
d

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

t
o

t
h
a
t

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
.
(b
)

T
h
e

M
&
E

c
o
s
t

c
h
a
r
g
e
d

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

t
o

t
h
a
t
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
.
(c
)

T
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

u
t
i
l
i
t
y

n
o
n
-
in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e

c
o
s
t

o
f

t
h
e

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
.
(d
)

T
h
e

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
.
(e
)

T
h
e

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

M
&
E

c
o
s
t

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
(f
)

T
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

c
o
s
t
.
(g
)

T
h
e

I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

'
ol
d

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
'
(
t
h
o
s
e

n
o
t

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d

a
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

i
n

t
h
e

n
e
w

t
a
r
i
f
f
)

t
o

n
e
w

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
.
(h
)

T
h
e

M
&
E

c
o
s
t

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

'
old

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
' (
t
h
o
s
e

n
o
t

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d

a
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

I
n

t
h
e

n
e
w

t
a
r
i
f
f
)

t
o

n
e
w

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
.
(I
)

T
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

n
o
n
-
In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e

c
o
s
t

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

o
l
d

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

t
o

n
e
w

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
.
OJ

T
o
t
a
l

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t

f
o
r

t
h
e

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

c
o
s
t

a
n
d

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t

f
r
o
m

o
l
d

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
(k
)

T
o
t
a
l

M
&
E

c
o
s
t

f
o
r

t
h
e

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

M
&
E

a
n
d

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

M
&
E

c
o
s
t

f
r
o
m

o
l
d

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
(I
)

T
o
t
a
l

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

p
a
i
d

u
n
d
e
r

b
o
t
h

o
l
d

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

a
n
d

n
e
w

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

t
r
i
m
e
s
t
e
r

t
o

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

w
i
t
h
i
n

t
h
i
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
.
(m
)

T
o
t
a
l

u
t
i
l
i
t
y

c
o
s
t

(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
)

f
o
r

t
h
e

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
.
(n
)

T
h
e

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

M
&
E

c
o
s
t

a
s

a

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

c
o
s
t
.
RE
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
:

C
o
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e

t
o

Ta
b
l
e

2
o
f

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
0
0

R
e
p
o
r
t
.
Pa
g
e

3
6
Av
i
s
t
a

U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Tr
i
p
l
e
-
E
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ma
r
c
h

2
0
0
0
Ta
b
l
e

8
3
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t
s

A
c
r
o
s
s

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

Se
g
m
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
As
s
i
s
t
i
v
e
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
%o
f
DD
l
Im
1
M.
Q
!
Q
r
1
!:I
Y
A
C
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Uo
h
t
i
n
a
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
o
Ne
w

T
e
c
h

Re
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
Mo
m
t
Sh
e
l
l
I2
!
!
!
!
.
l
NE
E
A

$
26
0
,
15
1
26
0
,
15
1
14
.
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e

S
52
6
52
6
52
6
17
5
75
5
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g

$
35
,
83
3
35
,
83
3
83
3
23
3
07
8
84
5
91
7
35
,
83
3
35
,
83
3
83
3
49
4
83
8
27
.
He
a
l
t
h

C
a
r
e

$
08
1
04
0
12
1
04
0
12
,
38
3
08
1
04
0
04
0
04
0
08
1
04
0
98
9
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
t
y

$
46
1
16
,
38
3
46
1
46
1
24
1
46
1
46
6
Of
f
i
c
e

$
19
,
69
3
84
6
22
,
45
3
41
,
82
1
84
6
10
3
,
66
0
Fo
o
d

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

S
42
.
02
7
14
7
84
.
17
4
Re
t
a
i
l

$
93
7
43
,
89
3
61
,
83
0
Re
s
i
d
e
n
l
i
a
l

$
19
,
79
1
52
0
37
7
Li
m
i
t
e
d

I
n
c
o
m
e

(
e
l
e
c
l
r
i
c
)

S
29
6
,
48
5
23
,
87
0
59
1
32
0
94
6
17
.
RM
P
P

Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

S
24
1
50
,
10
0
19
8
,
41
3
34
,
14
7
33
7
,
90
1
18
.
To
t
a
l

S
46
1
19
,
79
1
19
6
72
1
57
,
70
7
41
9
51
9
23
9
,
64
5
38
6
,
26
3
39
,
30
5
40
,
04
9
73
,
02
0
29
5
,
98
4
04
0
08
1
91
0
59
1
81
0
08
8
10
0
.
%
o
f

p
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
10
.
23
.
13
.
21
.
16
.
10
0
.
NO
T
E
:

T
h
i
s

i
s

a

c
o
m
p
i
l
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

a
l
l

u
t
i
l
i
t
y

c
o
s
t
s
,
I
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
,

b
y

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
.
RE
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
:

C
o
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e

t
o

Ta
b
l
e

3
o
f

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
0
0

R
e
p
o
r
t
.
Pa
g
e

3
7
Av
i
s
t
a

U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Tr
i
p
l
e
-
E
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ma
r
c
h

2
0
0
0
Ta
b
l
e

8
4
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

D
I
r
e
c
t

I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

A
c
r
o
s
s

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

an
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
As
s
l
s
l
i
v
e
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
%o
f
Ao
o
l
i
a
n
c
e
Co
n
t
r
o
l
s
Mo
t
o
r
s
HV
A
C
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
lJ
9
t
!
!
!
!
:
!
g
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
a
Ne
w

T
e
c
h
Re
a
i
o
n
a
l
Re
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
Ma
m
l
Sh
e
l
l
bu
i
d
l
i
n
a
To
t
a
l
S
oo
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l

$
18
8
)

$
(1
,
18
8
)
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e

$
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g

$
17
9
,
32
8
10
,
92
8
19
0
,
25
6
31
.
He
a
l
t
h

C
a
r
e

S
26
2
26
2
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
t
y

S
85
8
85
8
Of
f
i
c
e

S
76
0
12
,
28
2
15
,
04
2
Fo
o
d

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

$
12
0
12
0
Re
t
a
i
l

$
04
0
04
0
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
11
4
52
0
70
0
Lim
i
t
e
d

I
n
c
o
m
e

$
26
7
50
7
23
,
87
0
29
1
,
37
7
47
.
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

$
09
5
15
,
95
3
73
,
20
8
11
0
25
6
18
.
TO
T
A
L
11
4
09
5
28
6
,
28
6
17
9
,
32
8
10
4
,
21
8
(1
,
18
8
)

S
23
,
87
0
61
3
.
72
3
10
0
.
%
o
f

p
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
46
.
29
.
17
.
10
0
.
RE
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
:

C
o
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e

t
o

Ta
b
l
e

4
o
f

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
0
0

R
e
p
o
r
t
Pa
g
e

3
8
Av
l
s
t
a

U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Tr
l
p
l
e
-
E
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ma
r
c
h

2
0
0
0
Ta
b
l
e

8
5
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c

S
a
v
i
n
s
A
c
r
o
s
s

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

S
e
me
n
t
s

a
n
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
ie
s
As
s
l
s
t
i
v
e
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
Ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
Te
c
h
Co
n
t
r
o
l
s
Mo
t
o
r
s
HV
A
C
In
d
u
s
'
r
i
a
l
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ne
w

T
e
c
h
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Re
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
Mg
m
t
Sh
e
l
l
bu
i
d
l
i
n
g
TO
T
A
L
% o
f

t
o
t
a
l
NE
E
A
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
l
u
r
e
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
56
1
,
15
0
84
1
88
9
90
7
22
0
05
4
61
7
,
95
2
11
.
He
a
l
t
h

C
a
r
e
84
2
,
78
9
18
1
92
3
02
4
,
71
2
14
.
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
t
y
10
3
63
9
39
0
10
7
02
9
Of
f
i
c
e
43
.
78
9
20
9
33
4
23
7
,
33
2
Fo
o
d

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
60
0
60
0
Re
l
a
H
05
3
05
3
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
75
3
08
4
36
0
,
34
8
40
0
11
3
,
83
2
50
.
Lim
i
t
e
d

I
n
c
o
m
e

(
e
l
e
c
l
r
i
c
)
10
8
04
0
32
4
15
2
,
36
4
RM
P
P

Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
19
3
,
04
1
41
7
.
26
8
86
,
38
4
47
6
07
6
61
0
12
2
84
2
89
0
13
.
00
/
.
TO
T
A
L
75
4
19
1
48
4
10
9
83
4
08
6
88
9
,
90
7
48
3
90
2
40
0
61
0
,
12
2
14
5
,
04
8
20
1
76
4
69
.
10
.
4
%
NO
T
E
:

T
h
e
s
e

f
i
g
u
r
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

d
e
-
r
a
t
e
d

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
e
d

a
n
d

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
h
a
s
e
s
.
RE
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
:

C
o
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e

t
o

Ta
b
l
e

5

of
M
a
r
c
h

2
0
0
0

R
e
p
o
r
t
.
Ta
b
l
e

8
6
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

T
h
e
r
m

S
a
v
i
n
s
A
c
r
o
s
s

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

S
e
me
n
t
s

a
n
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
ie
s
As
s
i
s
t
l
v
e
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Su
s
l
a
l
n
a
b
l
e
Ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
Te
c
h
Co
n
t
r
o
l
s
Mo
t
o
r
s
HV
A
C
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Lig
h
t
i
n
g
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ne
w

T
e
c
h
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Re
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
Mg
m
t
Sh
e
l
l
bu
l
d
l
i
n
g
TO
T
A
L
%o
f
t
o
l
a
l
NE
E
A
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
82
9
)
(2
2
)
(4
,
85
1
)
He
a
l
l
h

C
a
r
e
(4
3
,
21
4
)
(2
,
41
8
)
(4
5
,
63
2
)
18
.
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
t
y
(1
8
5
)
(1
8
5
)
Of
f
i
c
e
11
1
(3
6
8
)
61
,
58
2
32
4
25
.
Fo
o
d

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Re
t
a
i
l
(1
2
)
(1
2
)
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(2
8
8
10
3
)
(2
8
8
10
3
)
11
5
.
Li
m
i
l
e
d

I
n
c
o
m
e

(
e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
)
(1
8
77
9
)
(1
8
77
9
)
RM
P
P

Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
89
3
10
6
)
22
,
72
6
51
3
18
.
TO
T
A
L
89
3
(3
4
8
98
5
)
(4
,
82
9
)
11
0
)
22
,
72
6
58
2
(2
4
8
,
72
4
)
-1
0
.
14
0
.
24
.
NO
T
E
:

T
h
e
s
e

f
i
g
u
r
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

d
e
-
r
a
l
e
d

t
h
e
r
m

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
e
d

a
n
d

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
h
a
s
e
s
.
RE
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
:

C
o
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e

t
o

Ta
b
l
e

6 o
f

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
0
0

R
e
p
o
r
t
.
Pa
g
e

3
9
A vista Utilities Triple-E Report
Table 87 Cost-Effectiveness Statistics b Customer Segment
Total Non-
Resource Utility Cost Participant Participant
Cost Test Test Test Test
NEEA
Agriculture
Manufacturing 0.40
Health Care 0.44
Hospitality 1.45
Office 10.
Food Service
Retail
Residential 78.0.48
Limited Income (electric)0.42
RMPP Education 16,
PORTFOLIO 0.43
PORTFOLIO wlo NEEA
REFERENCE: Comparable to Table 9 of March 2000 Report.
Table 88 Cost-Effectiveness Statistics by Technology
Total Non-
Resource Utility Cost Participant Participant
Cost Test Test Test Test
Appliance
Assistive Tech
Controls
Motors 0.41
HVAC 0.47
Industrial 0.45
Lighting
Maintenance
Monitoring
New Tech
Regional
Renewable
Resource Mgmt 10,10.0.47
Shell
Sustainable Building
PORTFOLIO 04 -0.43
PORTFOLIO wlo NEEA
REFERENCE: Comparable to Table 10 of March 2000 Report.
Page 40
March 2000
Avista Utilities
Table B9
Triple-E Report
Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Tests and Descriptive Statistics
Total Resource Cost Test
Electric avoided cost
Non-Energy benefits $
Natural Gas avoided cost
TRC benefits $
Implementation cost $
Customer cost $
TRC costs $
TRC ratio
Utility Cost Test
Electric avoided cost
Natural Gas avoided cost
UCT benefits $
Regular IncOme
portfolio without
NEEA
303,697 $
76,850 $
(859.424) $
521 122 $
limited Income
Dortfolio
457 790
Overall portfolio
without NEEA$ 4,761,487$ 76,850
$ (922,867)$ 3.915.469
(63,443)
394 347
905,457 569 935,026
273.339 291 377 564.716
178,795 320 946 3,499,742
Regular Income
portfolio without
NEEA
4.471,020 $
850 $
547,869 $
273,339 $
(595.293) $
678,046 $
Regular Income
portfolio without
NEEA
444 273 $
3,444 273 $
Regular Income
portfolio without
NEEA
13,049,400
174 $
069 $
330 $
046 $
REFERENCE: Comparable to Table 13 of March 2000 Report.
Regular Income
portfolio without
NEEA
303,697 $
(859,424) $
444 273 $
Page 41
limited Income Overall portfolio
Dortfolio without NEEA
457,790 $ 4 761,487
(63,443) $ (922,867)
394 347 $ 3,838,620
Implementation cost $905,457 29,569 935 026
Incentive cost 595,293 291 377 8B6 670
UCT costs 500,749 320,946 821 696
UCT ratio
limited Income
Dortfolio
456,505
Overall portfolio
without NEEA$ 4,927,525$ 76,850
$ 5 004 374
Participant Test
Bill Reduction $
Non-Energy benefits $
Participant benefits S
Customer project cost S
Incentive received S
Participant costs $
Participant Test ratio
Non-Participant Test
Avoided cost savings $
Non-Part benefits $
456,505
291,377 S
(291 377) $
564 716
(886,670)
678,046
71 NA
limited Income Overall portfolioDortfolio without NEEA
394 347 S 3,838,620
394 347 $ 3.838,620
Revenue loss $274,491 619,887 894 378
Implementation $905,457 29,569 935,026
Customer incentives $595 293 291 377 886,670
Non-Part costs S 775,240 940,833 716,073
Non-Part. ratio 0.44 0.44
DescriDtive Statistics
Annual kWhs
Gust cosUkWh $
Impl cosUkWh S
EI AC $IkWh $
Inc cosUkWh $
limited Income
Dortfolio
152.364
253 $
026 $
397 $
253 $
Overall portfolio
without NEEA
14,201,764
181
066
335
062
March 2000
....
(I)
&..........&..
c::
&..
::::I
1::
a::
C1)
....
t/)
C1)
:;:)
t/)
c:(
iiiIII 0)J:I ....c:: 01 l!:!
~ .
eo ,"0 .c::c ::
NOIOI'-COIOI'-Nen-NO-N~-~MtOCOONenC")NC")I'- 0 CO CC It) - 0 en 01 CC - CO CC
"':cwiaSNNtO~oo"':~ ~aS~-OCOCONI'-NC")-~NI'-
"!. ~
- - N- "!. N "!. O. en CO I'-
-.................................. ....
tit tit tit tit tit tit tit tit tit tit tit tit tit
10 I'-CO CC
0 - C") I'-
.c:: I/) N III f!!"0 0)
COI'-~....tO""COCCI'-CCO 1001'--01 en to C")O MN CO- CO-C")OCOMIOOIenI'-OII'-O CCO
ai 0 en en en ai ai en as
,..: ,..:
Ll"i r-:
tit ..., tit tit tit tit tit tit tit tit tit tit tit tit tit
B~~~re~~Nr::N:2~~Nc M N ~ CC CC ..... 10 en 01 N 0 0 ~.!!!Ll"i~aiNNtO~O"':"':Ili~~.c::'-III~Oenl'-l'-""CC""NOC")-1'--g J:I ""
. "!. "!.
.... N N. N
. "!. q
en CO I'-w::E""""""""""""""""""""
C tit tit tit tit tit W W tit W tit tit W W
01 f.)C C0 .- III.c:: c 'i6111 ,eo J:I
:E ~::E
en N 0I'- N ~It) I'- 0
cwi ,..: cwi10 ~
..... .... "!.
10 I'- co 10 I'- N en ....-~MCCCOONenCOCCIO""oenenccaSNNtO~OO"':OCOCONI'-NM-
..... ..... "!. "!. "!. "!. .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... ....
tit tit tit tit W W W tit W tit tit W tit
::E
111 :E C
10.... M encc toI/)Ol'-CC~COCOO)en-IO I'-CC 01::I .,.: ,..: cwi N
~ ~
CCCIO~C")NN0) .... ....
.... .... ....;:.
a::
COM~....-I'-I'- ~I'--COOl'-enION CONoenOIOC")NI'- NI'-
~ N CO' .... Ili N cwi as cwiNCOCOcocooen 01 en
.... ~....
M N
.... ~....
~ Nen co
tit tit tit tit W W tit tit tit tit tit W W tit tit
~ ... 0 '" "' '" '" N '" "' "' ...to to CO CCf!!~NCCC")CO~tOenco~1'-ION N N
::E ::I .... CC .... en CC ..... CC 0 co 10 CO I'- en:: 0 0
,..:
as ,..: N qj Ll"i
~,..:
Ll"i cwi-5i "0 I'- 0 10 CC M CO co CO 0 M ~M ~:E C
....
N..... .... M N....1'-
....
W tit tit W W W W W W tit tit tit tit tit tit tit
10 .... ....iiiC")NCC
!!!
f!!lOenoCI""aiMMeo 01 -C") 01 en.c:: ,eo .- CO en CO:Q-g:5NNN~ w 'tit tit tit tit tit W W tit tit tit ~ W W
- N 0101 en-C")Oqjen0 M M~ M MNNN
I'-MIONIONI'-CC~~en co 10 01
....
as as ,..: 0
,..:
.....enenoo:r~NO.... - NNNNNN
I'- co 10
en ~"t -.... N
iii I'-I'-It)I'-
'i6 I'-C")
....
I'-C")I'-
"!.
-:r:.
"!.
J:I
...
cwi Ili cwi Ll"il!:!I'-
........
:is eo .C")
....
"0 cwi
tit ~ w ~ tit tit ~ tit tit tit tit W tit
It)I'-I'-C")en I'-C")I'-I'-I'-C")C")C")C")OJ -I'-C")C")iii 10 C")I'-I/)
,..:,..:,..:,..:
Ili
,..:
Ll"i
,-
I!!C")
....
:is
......... ....................
C")C").c:: 0)I/) III tit tit tit tltWW www W tit tit W tit tit tit tit tit tit W W tit tit WtltWWW tit W
..........
co 0
....
I'-
.... .....
f.)
....
I'-f.)C")N ~C")I'-10 .....M.....I'-
"!.
CD
....
C"l111as Ll"i 111 ai 0
,..:
Ll"iI'-eo. C oo:r
........ ....
iii I'-1'- I'-J:I iii I'-I'-C")C")J:I
"!..... ..........
J:I ..... 10 oo:r
..... .....
I/)111 ::E
.....
::E
tit tit tltWW WWWtltWtlt tit tit W tit W W tit tit W tit www
f.)E C C01 ,- IIICiii
:E ,eo J:I
~::E
~ m
::E
.-
~ C111
.-
~ C111
T'"
J:2
10 10CC C")en 10,..: aiC")CC co
- - - NNccenenen 0 ..... MMM~tOOIOIOMenCO~MNNNN
OII'-C")IONIOOenNI'-COoo:r~1'-0 OICC It)en....co
en as as ,..: 0 ,..: MMl'-enOl~~enMNO""'-NOINNNNNN~
tit tit tit tit W W W tit tit W tit tit tit
CD C") ....I/) 10 en I'-O)CC~I'-::I . . C - - NI'-NOI
;:.
C") M
a::
CC ~ 10 10 10 0 CC ..... 10OIOCO-Moo:rco""....enen-oooen""MCOl'-tOl'-NNocwi"':oCC~tOC")I'-OCCCC-1ONNNNNC")NNMM
"0 01 f.)0) C C - 111
:iS 2iiiE '51 J:IO)::E
U m
I'-
10 N
.,.: ,..:
CD CDCC en
cwi cwi
CC I'-CC I'- M01 CO COqj .,.: M0 0 NNIO~~M
C") CCen N
as Ili
10 10
..... I'-
M ai10 -10 M
~ ~
en M
as a5
~ -
tit tit tit ~ W tit tit tit tit tit tit W W
10 10CC enC")ai 0
oo:r C")
eo ::EJ:I E C
C")""~IOOI/) CC co C") 10 oo:rO)IOCCMC")-~MaStOaienMI'-MenCC
;:.
IO""~C")M
a::tit tit tit tit W tit W tit tit tit tit W W tit tit
~ g ~
I!! O. CD
- ~
::I .... CO CC-I'-CD-
'6 .... oo:r
..., tit tit
.c::en ~.c::01 111 ~
0 en ::I 111::E ~ ii ::E
111 U.::I
111
IOcoenoo:rl'-~MC")M~IOCCI'-IONMCC""""'~CONOCOtOlOl'-enOM"':MMLl"ioocwi~aS~COMCD""I'-NMI'-CD""I'-MNM~NM""ION
tit tit tit tit tit tit W tit tit W tit tit
t:; ~ ~
::E ::I
:;.., ... ...
1/)::I ::I J:I ..c
::I 0) U~ 0.0
...
... 00)0..c ..c 0E EN~ B ~0) 111Z C ~
III
I'-MCOen-I'-CONCO C")-oo:r 10 OtONOI-OOCCC")M-
CD CD Ll"i as ai en CD 10 10 CD
..,. ~ - ~
C")C")MC")MM~~
I'- 0..... 01N ~
Ll"i01 -..... co
tit ..., tit tit tit tit tit ~ tit tit tit W W ..., tit
0 ~oo:r ..,.cc C")
as
.,.:
I'- ....N N eo ~J:I E C
~~~~~~
-gNN~O0)
tit tit tit tit tit tit
.c::~.c::.-:;..,0)COl I1l f.)5,I1I::l m~::E ::I
::E ~ ii ::E
III U.::I
111
I/) I/)'i6 iii
~ ~
01 0en 0en 0.... N
ccccenCDoeno-N-ONCCI'-IOI'-~C")COMNaSqjqjaSNOLl"ien""OC")~NIOC")CCC")CCMCOM
tit tit W tit tit W tit tit tit
:;..,- ... ....
1/)::I ::I ..c J:I::I 0) U~ 0. 0
...
... 00) 0) 0..c ..c 0E EN
~ B ~0) 111Z C ~
111
C1)
a..
10 enco ~I'-
C") NC")
en N..,. N10 -
,..: ..;..,.. ~..,.
c..
c:::
.c::f.)
...
111
CD 0co I'-C") N
-.i Ll"i.... 100 M
":I-
....
III
...
111c..
en eniii iii
~ ~
en 0en 0en 0.... N
u..