20131227AVU to Staff 1,8,10,14,17,19.pdf

Avista Corp.
1411 East Mission P.O.Box 3727 urWISTA
Spokane.Washington 99220-0500
Telephone [phone] Corp.
Toll Free 800-727-9170
2r:r2 P!:32
December23,2013 L
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W.Washington St.
Boise,ID 83720-0074
Attn:Karl T.Klein
Deputy Attorney General
Re:Production Request of the Commission Staff in Case No.AVU-E-13-09/G-13-02
Dear Mr.Klein,
Enclosed are an original and three copies of Avista’s responses to IPUC Staffs production
requests in the above referenced docket.Included in this mailing are Avista’s responses to
production requests 01,08,10,14,17,and 19.The electronic versions of the responses were
emailed on 12/20/13 and are also being provided in electronic format on the CD included in this
mailing.
Also included are Avista’s CONFIDENTIAL responses to PR O1C.This response contains
TRADE SECRET,PROPRIETARY or CONFIDENTIAL information and is separately filed
under IDAPA 31.01.01,Rule 067 and 233,and Section 9-340D,Idaho Code.It is being
provided under a sealed separate envelope,marked CONFIDENTIAL.
If there are any questions regarding the enclosed information,please contact Paul Kimball at
[phone] or via e-mail at [e-mail]
Sincerel
Paul Kimball
Regulatory Analyst
Enclosures
CC (Email):IPUC (Klein,English,Donohue)
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:IDAHO DATE PREPARED:12/20/2013
CASE NO:AVU-E-13-09/AVU-G-13-02 WITNESS:Lori Hermanson
REQUESTER:IPUC Staff RESPONDER:Mark Baker
TYPE:Production Request DEPARTMENT:Energy Solutions
REQUEST NO.:Staff-Ol TELEPHONE:[phone]
REQUEST:
Please list all expenses charged to the Idaho DSM Rider (“Rider”)for the years 2010-2012.Please
include date,vendor,amount,and a brief description of the expense.Please separate expenses by
year and by program.If any expenses were allocated to Idaho,please provide the total system
expense and the method of allocating Idaho’s share.
RESPONSE:
Please see Avist&s response Staff_PR_04C,which contains TRADE SECRET,
PROPRIETARY or CONFIDENTIAL information and exempt from public view and is
separately filed under IDAPA 3 1.01.01,Rule 067 and 233,and Section 9-340D,Idaho Code.
Please see Staff_PR_O1C Confidential Attachment A -Expenses Electric &Gas 2010 —2012 for
the information requested including the allocation of expenses to Idaho.
Due to the voluminous nature of the reports they are being provided in electronic format only.
AWSTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:IDAHO DATE PREPARED:12/20/2013
CASE NO:AVU-E-13 -09/AVU-G-13-02 WITNESS:
REQUESTER:IPUC Staff RESPONDER:Lori Hermanson
TYPE:Production Request DEPARTMENT:DSM Policy,Planning &Analysis
REQUEST NO.:Staff-08 TELEPHONE:[phone]
REQUEST:
Page 10 of Ms.Hermanson’s testimony says Cadmus was retained for another two years in part to
provide a “deeper evaluation for the 2012 and 2013 program years.”Please explain in detail the
deep evaluation services Cadmus provided in the contract extension that could not have been
provided by another evaluator.
RESPONSE:
The contract extension allowed Cadmus to continue analysis from where they had left off as
opposed to a new evaluator starting with information-seeking meetings from various groups of
staff and spending time data-gathering and familiarizing themselves with people,processes and
systems.This resulted in time and money savings in expenditures that would have been charged to
the tariff rider,while concentrating on identified evaluation issues.
For example,Cadmus was able to leverage the 2010-2011 analysis for the residential electric and
natural gas HVAC projects.While these resulted in a 90%realization rate,there was high
variability due to expected cooling loads.Findings and areas needing clarification were used to
develop customer research and participant surveys.Results from these will be used to refine
energy savings estimates specific to Avista’s service territory and will be submitted to the
Regional Technical forum to inform the Power Councils’7th Power Plan specific to Avista’s
service territory and Regional Technical Forum Unit Energy Savings.Furthermore,study findings
will also aid in weatherization measure calculations for Avista and the region.
In addition,the nonresidential realization rate was determined to be 90+%.In spite of the relatively
high realization rate,there was a lot of variability between the individual projects.This is another
area of study that Cadmus further delved into during their process work in 2012.Cadmus was
well-suited for this task because the impact work from the previous biennium provided the
background to perform the deeper evaluation on these projects to ascertain reasons for the
variability.
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:IDAHO DATE PREPARED:12/30/2013
CASE NO:AVU-E-13 -09/AVU-G-13-02 WITNESS:
REQUESTER:IPUC Staff RESPONDER:Lori Hermanson
TYPE:Production Request DEPARTMENT:DSM Policy,Planning &Analysis
REQUEST NO.:Staff-lO TELEPHONE:[phone]
REQUEST:
Besides health and safety measures,what other non-energy benefits (“NEB5”)were included in
the low income cost-effectiveness calculation?
RESPONSE:
Avista funds the full cost of efficiency measures installed in income-qualified homes.A
symmetric treatment of costs and benefits calls for the benefits associated with these costs to be
valued within the cost-effectiveness calculation.
The non-energy benefits associated with end-use services are as follows:
Energy Star Doors (electric &natural gas)—Total cost less $50/ca
Energy Star Windows (electric &natural gas)—Total cost less $3 .99/square ft.
High Efficiency Water Heater (electric)-$500/ca
Fuel-efficiency furnace Conversions -$1 500/ca
Fuel-efficiency Water Heater Conversions -$500/ca
High Efficiency furnace (natural gas)-Total cost less $700/ca
The incremental cost associated with the energy efficiency is appropriately matched to the avoided
cost value of the energy savings.However,the funding of the baseline (standard efficiency)
measure would have no offsetting benefit.Consequently,the Company quantifies the value of the
end-use services associated with the base case measure as the cost of that base case measure.
AWSTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:IDAHO DATE PREPARED:12/20/2013
CASE NO:AVU-E-13-09/AVU-G-13-02 WITNESS:
REQUESTER:IPUC Staff RESPONDER:Lori Hermanson
TYPE:Production Request DEPARTMENT:DSM Policy,Planning &Analysis
REQUEST NO.:$taff-14 TELEPHONE:[phone]
REQUEST:
Page 16 of the 2012 Process Evaluation Memorandum contains a line that reads “(see Error!Not
a valid bookmark self-reference.).”Please provide the correct reference source for the omission.
RESPONSE:
Please refer to Staff PR 14 Attachment A for the reference intact.
CADMUS
MEMORANDUM
To:Lori Hermanson,Avista
From:Danielle Koip and Hope Lobkowicz,Cadmus
Subject:2012 Process Evaluation Memorandum
Date:August 2,2013
Cadmus’2012 process evaluation activities for the Avista nonresidential portfolio included the following:
•A Best Practice Comparative Review (memo delivered in February 2013)
•In-person interviews with program stakeholders
•Database and realization rate review
Because Cadmus is not developing a formal process evaluation report for Avista until 2014,this memo
presents the findings of the staff interviews and database and realization rate review conducted for the
2012 program year.Our objective is to provide key personnel at Avista with findings now to assist them
in improving program processes in real-time.
Key Findings
Interview Findings:Large Project Review Challenges and Changes
In August 2011,Avista instated a new internal system to independently review site-specific projects with
incentives greater than $50,000.This review stemmed from a recommendation in the 2010 Moss Adams
process report,pursuant to the 2010 Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission fUTC)rate
case settlement terms.The objective of the independent review was to examine project evaluation
reports prior to entering into contract with the customer,to ensure that:
•All supporting documentation was in place,
•Savings calculations were reasonable and well supported,and
•The project complied with tariff rules.
Avista staff who participated in the review process experienced multiple challenges,which are discussed
in more detail below.By the end of 2012,staff concluded that the review process was not functioning
efficiently,nor did it align with the intention of the Moss Adams report recommendation.Avista
suspended the review process on January 1,2013.In 2013,Avista intends to implement a new approach
for reviewing site-specific projects,with the goal of balancing customer service and expediency with a
sound review.In June 2013,Avista demand-side management (DSM)staff were finalizing this new
approach.
720 SW Washington Street Corporate Headquarters:
Suite 400 100 5th Avenue,Suite 100
Portland,OR 97205 Waltham,MA 02451
Voice:503.467,7100 An Employee-Owned Company Voice:617.673.7000
Fax:[phone] www.cadmusgroup.com Fax:[phone]
Staff PR 14 Attachment A Page 1 of 21
Review Process Challenges Identified by Avista
Cadmus interviewed five Avista DSM staff who were involved in the review process.During the
interviews,we discussed several core areas of concern with the process and determined that the
intended protocol was not being followed.The process dictated that the Planning,Policy,and Analysis
(PPA)team independently review the energy savings and proposed incentive levels of all site-specific
projects with incentives greater than $50,000,to ensure these impacts were calculated reasonably.In
2012,only one-third of projects that met the criterion were sent to PPA for review.
When Cadmus asked staff about the challenges with this review process,the following four main issues
surfaced:
1.Differentfocused attention across teams.One staff person reported that the key personnel
within the DSM department involved in the review had different focused attention,which in
some cases translated to varying objectives for reviewing and approving projects.This is a
problem across many organizations and is,by no means,limited to Avista.While
implementation teams are most concerned with customer satisfaction and speedy and efficient
delivery,planning and evaluation teams are most concerned with compliance.At Avista,the
Implementation team was focused heavily on the customer relationship,while PPA was focused
on ensuring compliance with the tariff,minimizing the risk of uncertainty associated with
claimed savings,and navigating relationships with regulatory bodies and stakeholders.This is
not to say that neither team was unconcerned with the other’s objectives.While staff agreed
that their roles support the comprehensive functions and all overarching goals of Avista’s DSM
programs,specific daily priorities added to misunderstandings about the value of the review
and,in some cases,differing opinions on how and when to resolve issues.
2.Transparency.Some staff who were heavily involved in Avista’s site-specific projects reported
not understanding the purpose,actions,or outcomes of the review.Without program
stakeholder buy-in at all levels of the process,successful implementation was challenging.One
particular concern was a lack of information regarding how long the review would take to
complete for each project;this made it difficult to communicate accurate information to
customers on the status of their projects and the expected timeline.
3.Time lag and time commitment.A common obstacle cited by all staff interviewed by Cadmus
was that the review process took too long to complete for each project.Often,the issues
identified during the review required further discussion to understand the assumptions behind
the savings estimation,new data or information requests from the customer,or new analysis,
which caused delays.Another challenge was the volume of the projects and limited staff
resources.Having only one engineer dedicated to reviewing the large projects was problematic
and often caused bottlenecks.
4.Linking review with concrete actions.The review process lacked a formal follow through
procedure for problems uncovered during the review.This caused frustration as,at times,
findings and recommendations were not implemented.Interviews and documentation of the
review process indicated that the extent to which the issues were resolved varied.For enhanced
2
StaffyR_14 Attachment A Page 2 of 21
delivery of DSM services,there needs to be an agreement regarding the best path forward for
calculating savings.
Issues Identified Through the Large Project Review
One of the major findings of the review was the overall reliance on customer-supplied data and the
need for a reliable and replicable approach to source that data.Avista staff were in agreement that
increasing the clarity and transparency about where engineering assumptions and inputs were coming
from was a needed improvement and a successful outcome of the review process.
Cadmus reviewed the communication logs for 22 projects that underwent the internal review.In
addition to the above issue of reliance on customer-supplied data or assumptions (which was inaccurate
in some cases),the following issues were documented for these projects:
•Interactive effects were accounted for incorrectly
•Projects had missing documentation,such as invoices
•Engineering errors resulted in incorrect claimed savings and incentive amounts (the significance
of these errors varied in size)
Planned Process Improvements
In 2013,Avista staff worked together to design a new system to address the challenges cited and issues
discovered with the 2012 review process.The staff is currently implementing a two-step review process
for all site-specific projects that entails a technical review by the engineering team and an administrative
review by program staff.
•Technical Review:Ensures that savings and incentive calculations in a project’s Evaluation
Report are well-supported,and calculated according to tariff terms and Dual Fuel Incentive
Calculator policy.The new system includes a checklist with questions that guide the review,
along with instructions and policy guidelines.The Technical Review will be completed before the
evaluation report is sent to the customer,which contains estimated energy savings and the
corresponding incentive level.
•Administrative Review:Ensures that minimum requirements are met before a contract is issued
with a customer and before an incentive is paid.
In the new process,PPA conducts random spot-checks to QA/QC projects,and ensures that the review
process is smooth and effective.A main distinction between the 2012 and 2013 process is that this
random spot-check is intended to happen after the project has entered contract,or,in some cases,after
the incentive has been paid.According to implementation staff,this will help overcome bottleneck
challenges.
Both checklists (the Technical Review and Administrative Review)will be formalized documents known
as Top Sheets,which will be attached to project documentation through the life of the project.Avista
intends to synchronize the Top Sheet information with Tracker,the engineering database,and with
SalesLogix,the customer information system that houses nonresidential rebate and incentive
information.In June 2013,the Implementation team began using Top Sheets for all projects.
3
Staff_PR_l4AttachmentA Page 3 of 21
2011-2012 Database and Realization Rate Review
As part of the 2012 process evaluation,Cadmus reviewed Avista’s 2012 nonresidential project database
and the 2011 and 2012 realization rates for the nonresidential portfolio.The documents that were part
of each effort and our associated research questions are listed in Table 1.
Table 1.Database and Realization Rate Review Activities
DocumentsReviewActivity Research QuestionsReviewed
Are data being tracked accurately and consistently?
2012 SalesLogixDatabaseReview Are contracts issued in accordance with Avista policy?
DatabaseExtract —-
-.Do incentives comp with tanif rces for Washington and Idaho?
2011 and 2012 Why do some projects have a very low or very high realization rate?
Realization Rate Impact Evaluation Are there opportunities for Avista to improve the process of
Review .Sample calculating reported savings to improve the realization rates?
Database Review
Tariff Schedules 90 and 190 govern how Avista can spend funds from the Energy Efficiency Rider
Adjustment paid by Washington and Idaho ratepayers.’To assess compliance with these Tariff
Schedules,we examined two main indicators:
1.Project incentive amount:electric and natural gas project incentives should not exceed 50%of
the incremental cost of the project (pp.3 of Schedule 90;pp.2 of Schedule 190).
2.Project simple payback
a.For lighting measures,the simple payback period must be a minimum of one year and
should not exceed eight years.(pp.2 of Schedule 90)
b.For non-lighting electric and natural gas measures,the simple payback period must be a
minimum of one year and should not exceed 13 years.(pp.2 of Schedule 90;pp.2 of
Schedule 190)
Schedule 90:Electric Energy Efficiency Programs,Washington.Available at:
http://www.avistautilities.com/services/energypricin/wa/elect/Documents/WA 090.pdf;Schedule 190:
Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Programs,Washington.Available at:
http://www.avistautilities.com/services/eneypricing/wa/gas/DocumentsfWA 190.pdf and Schedule 90:
Electric Energy Efficiency Programs,Idaho.Available at:
http://www.avistautilities.com/services/energvpricing/id/electfDocuments/ID 090.pdf
4
Staff_PR_14 Attachment A Page 4 of 21
The tariff rules make exceptions for the following programs or projects
(pp.
3 of Schedule 90;pp.2 of
Schedule 190):
•DSM programs delivered by community action agencies contracted by Avista to serve limited
income or vulnerable customer segments,including agency administrative fees and health and
human safety measures;
•Low-cost electric/natural gas efficiency measures with demonstrable energy savings (e.g.,
compact fluorescent lamps);and
•Programs or services supporting or enhancing local,regional,or national electric/natural gas
efficiency market transformation efforts.(In 2012,Avista considered new construction fuel
conversions in multifamily building projects and T12 to 18 commercial lighting conversion
projects as market transformation efforts.)
Applicability of Tariff to Prescriptive Projects
At the time of this memo,Avista’s tariff was undergoing revisions and a new tariff was filed on June 26,
2013.
Avista uses the tariff provisions to:1)design prescriptive measure offerings and incentive amounts and
2)evaluate the eligibility of site-specific projects on a project-by-project basis to ensure compliance
before approving them.Cadmus does not believe the tariff language was clear enough on the topic of
compliance to conclude whether individual prescriptive projects should be subject to the simple payback
period and incentive cap restrictions at the time of rebate application approval.Internally,Avista staff
also expressed disagreement on this matter.
For purposes of this review,Cadmus evaluated both prescriptive and site-specific projects against the
provisions of the tariff described above,to allow Avista to review the findings and incorporate them into
their planning.It should be clear that by presenting the prescriptive findings below,Cadmus is simply
suggesting that better clarity is needed and not necessarily that these projects were out of compliance.
Avista’s proposed tariff clarifies that moving forward,site-specific projects are subject to the incentive
cap and simple payback periods at the time of project approval,while these parameters will be used in
the planning process for prescriptive measure offerings and incentive amounts.
Simple Payback Findings
The majority of projects were in compliance with simple payback rules.Cadmus found that all site
specific projects met the 13-year and eight-year payback periods,with the exception of some legacy
projects that were initiated before the new tariff rules took effect on January 1,2011.
Less than 10%of prescriptive projects exceeded tariff simple payback periods.Table 2 summarizes our
findings.
5
Staff_PR_14 Attachment A Page 5 of 21
Table 2.2012 Projects Exceeding Simple Payback Periods
Site-Specific Projects
Prescriptive Lighting
(includes market
transformation and 112
projects)*
Prescriptive Non-Lighting
(excludes multifamily)
113,398 kWh 2%
7,810 therms 7%
*Avista’s database extract does not denote which projects involved 112-18 lighting conversions.
Upon reviewing a sample of 10 prescriptive lighting projects that exceeded the eight-year simple
payback period,Avista found that five projects involved a T12 to T8 conversion and three projects
contained database errors that inflated the simple payback period.In these cases,what should have
been entered as months were assumed to be years,and multiplied by 12.
The sample size for this manual review was not large enough to extrapolate findings to the full
population.However,based on the review findings,it is probable that a large proportion of the projects
included in Table 2 involved T12 to T8 conversions and/or experienced database errors,thus
significantly lowering the impact on energy savings and incentive costs.
Project Incentive Findings
Site Specific
The vast majority of site-specific projects had incentive costs that were compliant with the tariff rule not
to exceed 50%of the incremental project cost.Initially,Cadmus found 74 site-specific projects f 19%)
that exceeded this cap.Upon reviewing these projects,however,we found that nearly half experienced
a rounding error from Avista’s Dual Fuel Incentive Calculator that put them over the 50%limit by just
$0.25 (see Figure 1).Avista staff reviewed the remaining projects to understand why they exceeded the
incentive cap,and found that the majority were incorrectly entered in SalesLogix.Avista reported that
these projects had been calculated and processed as prescriptive projects,but incorrectly entered into
the database as site-specific.
6
Projects ExceedijJ Cost Impact (incentive
Savings Impact
Measure Type Tariff Payback Period payments)
Frequency J %Amount Amount
0
281
0 n/a
9%4,438,942 kWh
n/a
13%
39 6%
n/a
$855,535
$72,131
n/a
10%
7%
Total 452,340 kWh 12%
Staff_PR_14 Attachment A Page 6 of2l
Figure 1.Range of Incentive Amounts Exceeding 30%of Incremental Costs,2012 Site-Specific Projects
Prescriptive
Significantly more prescriptive projects f74%)exceeded the 50%cap.As noted above,this finding was
expected because Avista’s program design and delivery strategy did not consider prescriptive payments
as being subject to the tariff rules,and the lighting market transformation effort exceeded 50%by
design.Table 3 outlines the incentive payment and energy savings impacts from projects that exceeded
the 50%incentive cap.
Table 3.2012 Prescriptive Projects Exceeding 50%Incentive Cap
Prescriptive Lighting
(includes market 2,574 80%26,747,965 kwh 81%$2,290,031 28%
transformation and T12
projects)**
Prescriptive Non-Lighting 3,220,704 kWh 58%
349 50%$475,437 45%
(excludes multifamily)16,684 therms 14%
.:YI129,968,669 kWh 77%
Total Prescriptive 1 2,923 1 t”--.$2,765,468 30%
16,684 therms 14h
*Cost impact represents the aggregate amount exceeding 50%of the incremental cost.
**Avista’s database extract does not denote which projects involved T12-T8 lighting conversions.
Again,Avista manually reviewed 10 lighting projects that were over the 50%cap,and found that eight
were 112 to T8 conversion projects,considered market transformation.Based on these findings,it is
probable that a large proportion of the lighting projects listed in Table 3 involved T12 to T8 conversions,
which would greatly reduce the cost impacts and energy saving impacts of from lighting projects over
the 50%cap.
7
60
504-C 40
30
ö 20
0 10
0
cy.
c4’4”4”
Frequency Amount
Cost Impact (incentive
payments)*
Staff_PR_14 Attachment A Page 7 of 21
Data Entry and Data Tracking
In addition to assessing policy conformance,Cadmus reviewed the 2012 database for data accuracy and
completeness.We found that:
•8 projects were recorded as paid before construction was completed (most of these were entry
errors)
•12%of all projects were missing Construction Complete dates
•44 projects (1%of all projects)were missing incremental cost data
•18%of site-specific projects were missing contract date fields in SalesLogix
•44%of site-specific projects were missing post-verification dates (and it is Avista’s policy to
conduct post-installation inspections of all site-specific projects)
Avista reviewed 20 prescriptive lighting projects to determine whether they were market-
transformation projects (as noted above).They also uncovered several data errors with these specific
projects.In all 20 projects,at least one of the following issues was found:
•Simple payback periods were entered in the database in years instead of months,
•Simple payback periods were entered incorrectly (SalesLogix data fields were not consistent
with calculations),
•Prescriptive projects were entered as site-specific projects,
•Information from invoices regarding quantity and type of light fixtures was not transferred to
prescriptive incentive forms and SalesLogix correctly,
•Ineligible measures were rebated,and
•Incentives were calculated incorrectly.
Realization Rate Review
Cadmus’impact evaluation methodology consisted of validating the reported savings for a sample of
projects by conducting independent metering,simulation,or regression analysis and by visiting the
project sites to verify that equipment was installed and operating as intended.The result of our project-
level measurement and verification tasks is a verified,or ex post,savings value for each project in the
sample.The ratio of verified savings to reported savings is the project’s realization rate.A realization
rate of 100%indicates that no adjustments were made to the reported savings value.
In 2011,Cadmus’nonresidential impact evaluation sample consisted of 179 electric and gas projects.2 Of
those,the majority (n=112)required a saving adjustment by more than 10%.That is,63%of projects
had realization rates of either 110%or greater,or 90%or lower.Specifically,just 35%of electric projects
and 42%of gas project realization rates ranged between 90%and 110%.This changed in 2012,when the
2 This number reflects projects with gas savings and electric savings.We actually evaluated 157 unique projects,
some of which achieved dual-fuel savings.For the purpose of the realization rate review,we treated gas
savings separately from electric savings.
8
Staff_PR_14 Attachment A Page 8 of 21
majority of projects (64 of 1O1)experienced realization rates between 90%and 110%(see Figures 4 and
5 below).
Cadmus analyzed how frequently the evaluation resulted in an upward or downward adjustment of
reported savings,by how much,and the reasons behind the discrepancy between reported and
evaluated savings.The purpose of this review is to provide Avista with information to assist in improving
the reliability of the reported savings in the future,thereby improving realization rates for the
nonresidential portfolio.
Direction,Frequency,and Magnitude of Verified Savings Adjustments
Cadmus determined that when savings needed to be adjusted by more than 10%,they were more likely
to decrease than increase.In other words,most reported savings for projects in this group were being
overestimated,and the verification process resulted in a downward adjustment.This was true for all
2011 projects,and for all 2012 electric projects.In 2012,gas projects required more upward
adjustments.
2011 Projects
Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of realization rates in increments for 2011 projects.In 2011,51
electric projects had a realization rate below 90%(42%),while 27 electric projects had a realization rate
above 110%(23%).Gas projects exhibited a similar pattern,with 26 projects having a realization rate
below 90%(44%)and eight having a realization rate above 110%(14%).
Figure 2.Distribution of 2011 Realization Rates by Increments for Electric and Gas Projects*
The full 2012 impact evaluation sample contained 109 projects.We excluded eight projects from our analysis
that still had measurement and verification activities occurring at the time of writing this report.
9
•0
90 to 110%
•Below 50%
110%to 125%
7
Electric Projects (n=120)
•50 to 75%
w 125%to 150%
4%14%10%
75 to 90%
R Over 150%
Proportion of Reported
kWh 8%16%7%
Gas Projects (n=59)
Proportion of Reported
Therms
*Note:Percentages may not match above text exactly due to rounding
29%6%2%
Staff_PR.j4 Attachment A Page 9 of2l
For electric projects,the relative proportion of reported kWh savings in each increment was relatively
consistent with the number of projects in that increment.However,for gas projects,the relative
proportion of reported therm savings in each increment did not accurately represent the corresponding
number of projects.For example,while just 19%of gas projects experienced a realization rate of below
50%(but more than 0%),these projects represented 47%of reported savings.
Dividing the projects by increments revealed that a large portion of the projects with realization rates
below 90%were in fact below 50%,and most of the projects with realization rates over 110%were
actually over 150%.This indicates that not only was the range of realization rates large,but a significant
portion of reported savings values were substantially different from verified savings,requiring an
adjustment of 50%or greater.
2012 Projects
In 2012,realization rates improved.Rates were less variable,and projects required smaller reported
savings adjustments than those in 2011.For example,61%of electric projects and 67%of gas projects
had a realization rate between 90%and 110%,leaving only approximately one-third of projects that
required an adjustment over 10%(see Figure 3).
Of the 2012 electric projects that required an adjustment over 10%,most required a downward
adjustment (18 projects;31%).This is consistent with 2011 results.Of those 2012 gas projects that
required an adjustment over 10%,the direction was upward (eight projects;19%).
Cataloging Projects with High and Low Realization Rates
To understand more about the projects that had severe adjustment factors (very high or very low
realization rates),we conducted a desk review of the project files and engineering analyses for a sample
10
Figure 3.Distribution of 2012 Realization Rates by Increments for Electric and Gas Projects
a 90%to 110%
•Below 50%
110%to125%
•50%to75%
Electric Projects (n=59)
125%to 150%
75%to 90%
Proportion of Reported kWh
•Over 150%
Gas Projects (n=42)
Proportion of Reported Therms
*Note:Percentages may not match above text exactly due to rounding
StaffyR_14 Attachment A Page 10 of2l
of projects from 2011 and 2012.Specifically,this sample entailed projects with electric savings that had
been adjusted by over 25%in either direction (a realization rate below 75%or above 125%).
The original sample size was 75 projects;57 from 2011 and just 18 from 2012.Upon reviewing the 2011
project files,we found that seven projects did not have sufficient reported savings documentation to
accurately conclude the reason for the savings adjustment.Therefore,the final 2011 sample size was 50,
leading to an overall sample size of 68.
Based on our review,Cadmus concluded that there were nine main reasons for the savings adjustments;
these are outlined in Table 4.
Table 4.Reason Categories for Variable Realization Rates
Reason for Savings Adjustment Description
2.Calculation Error in Reported
Savings
Cadmus used updated deemed savings values for ENERGY STAR clothes
washers,dishwashers,freezers,and refrigerators to verify savings,
requiring an adjustment from the reported values,which relied on older
deemed savings estimates
Cadmus used metering results to inform verified savings,while Avista used
other tools to generate reported savings estimates
---—-
-Both Cadmus and Avista used metering results to inform savings values;
however,the companies’parameters or timing differed
Some values in the database extract were erroneous due to a database
error,not a human error,and savings needed adjustment to reflect the
accurate value
Cadmus and Avista used different methodologies to calculate savings (i.e.,
regression analysis versus simulation),creating different results
The on-site equipment parameters (size and efficiency)differed from the
9.EquipmentVerification ....assumptions used in the original sa\ngs esmate
In 2011,the most frequent reasons for savings adjustments of 25%or greater were due to metering
results being over the original estimates formed using simulation or analysis (n=10)and calculation or
assumption errors in the reported savings values (n=10).Other top reasons included ENERGY STAR
deemed savings updates fn=9)and differences in Cadmus’and Avista’s calculation methodology (n=8).
In 2012,there were far fewer projects with adjustment factors of 25%or greater.The top reason
categories in 2012 stayed relatively consistent with those in 2011,excluding the ENERGY STAR deemed
savings updates.
1.Participant Operator Error Savings required adjustment due to customer actions,such as installing or
operating equipment incorrectly
Reported savings calculations or assumptions were incorrect
3.ENERGY STAR®Appliances
Deemed Savings Update
4.Cadmus Metering Results vs.
Avista Simulation or Analysis
5.Cadmus Metering Results vs.
Avista Metering Results
6.Database Error
7.Cadmus Calculation
Methodology vs.Avista
Calculation Methodology
8.Inaccurate Lighting Hours-of-Use
tHOU)Estimates
The reported savings for some lighting projects were based on incorrect
HOU assumptions
11
Staff_Pftj4 Attachment A Page 11 of2l
Figure 4 illustrates the number of projects in each of the reason categories
outlined in Table 4,across both years.Appendix A
Table 8 catalogues the projects requiring a savings adjustment of 25%or greater.
Table 8,at the end of the memo,lists the specific projects included in the review and a description of
each project’s specific savings adjustment.
Figure 4.Number of Projects with Savings Adjustments of 25%or Greater by Category,2011-2012 -
Impact on Gross Savings
While the majority of savings adjustments in 2011 resulted in decreased savings,certain reason
categories experienced realization rates higher than 100%,on average.For example,three reason
categories (Cadmus Metering Results vs.Avista Simulation or Analysis,ENERGY STAR Appliances
Deemed Savings Update,and Equipment Verification)resulted in increased savings.In other words,the
projects in these groups experienced realization rates higher than 100%,on average.
In 2012,just one reason category (Cadmus Metering Results vs.Avista Simulation or Analysis)resulted in
increased savings.Projects in the other 2012 reason categories (Calculation Error in Reported Savings,
Cadmus Calculation Methodology vs.Avista Calculation Methodology,and Participant Operator Error)
resulted in decreased savings.
The aggregate kWh impact for each 2011 reason category is listed in Table 5.The aggregate kWh impact
for each 2012 reason category is listed in Table 6.
12
In4-,U
0I0.
0
Ia.’.0E
z
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-‘C,.
12012
12011
\O k
C”I
\c q —
\C)
Staff_PR_14 Attachment A Page 12 of 21
Ca
d
m
u
s
Me
t
e
r
i
n
g
Re
s
u
l
t
s
vs
.
Av
i
s
t
a
Si
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
or
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Er
r
o
r
in
Re
p
o
r
t
e
d
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
EN
E
R
G
Y
ST
A
R
Ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
De
e
m
e
d
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
Up
d
a
t
e
*
Th
i
s
is
th
e
ne
t
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
as
a
pe
r
c
e
n
t
of
th
e
to
t
a
l
ve
r
i
f
i
e
d
sa
v
i
n
g
s
in
th
e
im
p
a
c
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
sa
m
p
l
e
.
14
Ta
b
l
e
5.
20
1
1
Re
p
o
r
t
e
d
an
d
Ve
r
i
f
i
e
d
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
Re
a
s
o
n
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
fo
r
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
wi
t
h
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
Ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
of
25
%
or
Gr
e
a
t
e
r
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
of
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
of
Ne
t
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
of
Re
p
o
r
t
e
d
Ve
r
i
f
i
e
d
kW
h
Re
a
s
o
n
Co
u
n
t
kW
h
Lo
s
s
Ve
r
i
f
i
e
d
Ve
r
i
f
i
e
d
Im
p
a
c
t
Ve
r
i
f
i
e
d
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
Ga
i
n
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
(k
W
h
)
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
*
10
1,
5
6
3
,
7
6
8
3,
1
8
9
,
9
8
9
-3
2
6
,
7
6
8
3%
1,
9
5
2
,
9
8
9
16
%
1,
6
2
6
,
2
2
1
10
1,
3
7
7
,
2
3
0
54
7
,
1
3
1
-8
5
9
,
2
1
0
7%
29
,
1
1
1
0.
2
%
-8
3
0
,
0
9
9
9
89
2
2
04
3
55
0%
1
20
6
0%
1,
1
5
1
13
%7%0%
Ca
d
m
u
s
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
vs
.
Av
i
s
t
a
8
15
1
,
2
3
1
14
3
,
7
0
9
-5
7
,
2
6
2
0%
49
,
7
4
0
0.
4
%
-7
,
5
2
2
0%
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
In
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
HO
U
6
39
4
97
7
12
8
,
4
4
9
-2
6
7
,
4
7
2
2%
94
4
0%
-2
6
6
,
5
2
8
1
2%
——
—
—
—
—
—
.
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
Op
e
r
a
t
o
r
Er
r
o
r
3
78
8
71
3
0
78
8
71
3
7%
0%
78
8
,
7
1
3
Da
t
a
b
a
s
e
Er
r
o
r
2
18
6
83
2
11
1
57
1
75
26
1
1%
0%
75
,
2
6
1
1%
Ca
d
m
u
s
Me
t
e
r
i
n
g
Re
s
u
l
t
s
vs
:
1
63
7
53
4
47
7
,
1
8
0
-1
6
0
,
3
5
4
1%
-
0%
-1
6
0
,
3
5
4
H
1%
Av
i
s
t
a
Me
t
e
r
i
n
g
Re
s
u
l
t
s
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
1
86
9
1
11
1
-
0%
24
2
0%
.2
4
2
0%
To
t
a
l
50
5
10
2
04
6
4
60
1
,
1
8
3
2,
5
3
5
,
0
9
5
21
%
20
3
4
,
2
3
2
17
%
5O
0
,
8
6
3
4%
St
a
f
f
_
P
R
_
1
4
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
Pa
g
e
73
of
2
l
Ta
b
l
e
6.
20
1
2
Re
p
o
r
t
e
d
an
d
Ve
r
i
f
i
e
d
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
Re
a
s
o
n
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
fo
r
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
wi
t
h
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
Ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
of
25
%
or
Gr
e
a
t
e
r
Re
a
s
o
n
Co
u
n
t
Ca
d
m
u
s
Me
t
e
r
i
n
g
Re
s
u
l
t
s
vs
.
Av
i
s
t
a
Si
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
or
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
Ca
d
m
u
s
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
vs
.
Av
i
s
t
a
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
6 6
1,
5
4
4
,
2
1
1
1,
7
6
8
,
1
7
3
-2
4
3
,
9
2
3
2%
49
9
,
2
4
1
1,
4
9
1
,
3
5
5
96
8
,
4
2
4
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
of
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
of
Ve
r
i
f
i
e
d
Ne
t
Ve
r
i
f
i
e
d
Im
p
a
c
t
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
Sa
v
l
n
g
s
*
-5
3
4
,
1
2
0
4%
4%
24
,
7
7
7
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Er
r
o
r
in
Re
p
o
r
t
e
d
—
—
5
42
0
20
8
34
0
76
8
17
3
09
2
1%
93
65
2
1%
79
,
4
4
0
1%
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
Op
e
r
a
t
o
r
Er
r
o
r
1
21
00
0
21
00
0
0%
21
,
0
0
0
O%
J
To
t
a
l
-
18
34
7
6
,
7
7
4
3,
0
7
7
,
3
6
5
97
2
,
1
3
5
8%
61
7
,
6
7
0
-
5%
-
35
4
,
4
6
5
’
3%
J
25
5
,
3
1
8
2%
0%
-5
0
9
,
3
4
3
4%
*
Th
i
s
is
th
e
ne
t
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
as
a
pe
r
c
e
n
t
of
th
e
to
t
a
l
ve
r
i
f
i
e
d
sa
v
i
n
g
s
in
th
e
im
p
a
c
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
sa
m
p
l
e
.
15
St
a
f
f
_
P
R
_
1
4
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
Pa
g
e
14
of
2
l
Figure 5 illustrates 2011 projects in each reason category as a percentage of the total sample compared
to the percentage of each categories’net kWh impact.While the ENERGY STAR Appliances Deemed
Savings Update category contained nine projects (representing about 8%of the total sample),the net
difference in ex ante and ex post savings was actually minimal:a gain of 1,151 kWh (see Table 5),less
than 0.07%of savings in the impact evaluation sample.The Cadmus Calculation Methodology vs.Avista
Calculation Methodology category had similarly minimal savings despite containing a relatively large
number of projects (eight).On the other hand,the Cadmus Metering Results vs.Avista Simulation or
Analysis and Participant Operator Error categories represented 8%and 3%of projects,respectively,but
the net differences in exante and expost savings represented 13%and 7%of the total verified savings in
the impact sample,respectively.
Figure 5.Relative Proportions of Projects and Savings Impacts by Reason Category,2011
In 2012,the percentage of projects in each category was higher than the respective percentage of kWh
savings in each category (see Figure 6).For example,the Cadmus Metering Results vs.Avista Simulation
or Analysis and the Cadmus Calculation Methodology vs.Avista Calculation Methodology categories
both represented 10%of all projects in the evaluation sample,but their net differences in ex ante and ex
post savings were relatively small,representing only 2%and 4%of the total verified savings in the
sample,respectively.
16
•Metering vs.Simulation
ES Appliances Update
•Inaccurate HOU
Database Error
i2 Equip.Verificati n
Net Difference as
%of Verified
Savings in Sample
•Calculation Error,Rprtd Savings
•Duff.Methodology
•Participant Error
•Duff.Metering Results
13%7%—2%
%of Total Projects
in Sample
L1%1,’
8%I 2%1%1 0
Staff_PR_i 4 Attachment A Page 15 of 21
Figure 6.Relative Proportions of Projects and Savings Impacts by Reason Category,2012
I Metering vs.Simulation I Calculation Error,Rprtd Savings Duff.Methodology I Participant Error
1
Large Project Review Process
Recommendations:
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the above findings,we offer the following conclusions and encourage Avista consider the
recommendations listed below to improve their internal processes.
Conclusion:Avista’s 2011 Large Project Review process was not implemented successfully due to a
series of communication issues and the absence of a mechanism to address concerns about project
parameters and correct mistakes.In the first half of 2013,Avista has been designing a new process for
all site-specific projects.While this process is underway,we have several recommendations may assist
Avista with successful implementation and an effective process.
•Effectively communicate the new project review process to all key team members.Many of the
issues identified through Avista staff interviews regarding the prior review process centered on
communication challenges.When implementing the new process,ensure that all stakeholders
have a clear understanding of the review goals and correct protocol.
•Ensure there are clear protocols in place for addressing issues identified during the review and
the spot-check.To ensure that Avista and its customers are benefiting from the time and
resources dedicated to this process,consider implementing some check-points and policies to
clarify how and when to alter project savings and incentive levels if issues arise during the
review.This may include designating a senior-level point person to serve as the decision-maker
for questions or disagreements regarding a project or its calculation methodology.Consider
identifying methods to ensure that all issues are discussed and resolved before incentive
amounts are communicated to the customer.
•Establish a goalfor the number or percentage ofprojects that should undergo a random spot
check.Avista’s new process dictates that the PPA team will independently review a sample of
17
Page 16 of2l
Net Difference as %of Verified Savings in
Sample 2%1%
¾of Total Projects in Sample
10j
10%8%
]
Staff_PR_i4 Attachment A
projects,in addition to the peer review process.We suggest establishing a clear metric for the
number or percentage of projects this sample will include,such as five projects or 10%of all
projects.
•Establish a reasonable goalfor how long the review process should take.A core challenge with
the prior review process was the time lag.Keeping in mind that any process aimed at improving
the quality and accuracy of incentive payments and claimed savings will add time to existing
procedures,Avista should internally discuss the amount of delay that is reasonable.It may be
beneficial to create objectives for how long various steps of the process should reasonably take.
For example,Avista could establish one goal to complete the first Top Sheet review within a
certain timeframe,then establish another goal to guide how long it should take to resolve any
issues,if identified.
•Consider adopting a tiered approach to the review so that larger,high-risk projects receive
more scrutiny before contracts are issued and incentives are paid.Under the planned
approach,all site-specific projects will undergo peer review.Often,utilities employ a risk-
mitigation approach to ensure that the largest and most expensive projects receive the most
rigorous review before they are approved.Avista might explore adjusting their review process to
focus the most time and resources on larger projects.An example of this type of approach is
provided in Table 7.
Table 7.Example of Tiered Approach to Large Project Review
Level of Review Description
Peer Review All projects
Second Engineering Review Projects above $50,000
Third Engineering Review Projects above $75,000
PPA Review Projects above $100,000
Pre-Installation Visits Projects above $100,000,plus others as needed
Random Audit (spot-check)5 projects or 10%of all projects
•Consider structuring random spot-checks,or “audits,”to occur at various times of the process.
The current review structure plans to have some projects receive independent review after the
project evaluation report is complete or after the project is paid,so that any mistakes can be
corrected for future projects.However,it may be beneficial to stagger projects so that a
random portion also receives independent audits before incentive information is communicated
to the customer.
Database and Realization Rate Review
Conclusion:The accuracy of Avista’s claimed savings,measured by realization rates,improved
significantly from 2011 to 2012.Three of the four main reasons for large savings adjustments in 2012
are largely outside Avista’s control.However,Avista can still improve the reliability of claimed savings
estimates falling into the reason category of Calculation Error in Reported Savings.
18
Staff_PR14 Attachment A Page 17 of 21
Recommendation:
•Continue to move forward implementing the new review process to identify and resolve savings
calculation errors.
Conclusion:Most of the nonresidential projects were compliant with the 2012 tariff rules,but
disagreement among DSM staff on tariff interpretation makes it difficult to draw conclusions about
prescriptive projects.Avista has already begun updating the tariff to address this concern and create a
more coherent policy.There are several improvements Avista can make to data tracking activities to
clarify policy compliance on a project-by-project basis and improve data collection overall.
Recommendations:
•Clearly document legacy projects or market transformation projects in SalesLogix.Avista’s
tracking system specifies measure type,but lacks detailed information such as whether the
project involved a T12 to 18 lighting conversion.This makes it challenging to understand which
projects are considered market transformation.Further,legacy projects are not specified.To
streamline internal tracking,auditing,and evaluation,consider adding a field to denote which
projects are eligible for transition policy (legacy projects)and which projects are considered
market transformation,as well as any other project characteristics that warrant exception to
tariff rules under Avista’s new policy.
•Continue to improve data entry in Salestogix to reduce missing or incorrectfields and enhance
the comprehensive dataset.
19
Staff_Pftj4 Attachment A Page 18 of 21
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
Ta
b
l
e
8
ca
t
a
l
o
g
u
e
s
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
re
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
a
sa
v
i
n
g
s
ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
of
25
%
or
gr
e
a
t
e
r
.
Ta
b
l
e
8.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
In
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
Re
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Ra
t
e
Re
v
i
e
w
Ca
t
a
l
o
g
i
n
g
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Re
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Ye
a
r
ID
St
a
t
e
Me
a
s
u
r
e
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Re
p
o
r
t
e
d
kW
h
Ve
r
i
f
i
e
d
kW
h
Ra
t
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
20
1
1
36
8
8
8
WA
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
59
,
7
2
8
10
5
,
2
2
0
17
6
%
Di
f
f
.
Me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
20
1
1
34
6
8
1
ID
Sh
e
l
l
1,
9
5
7
2,
6
9
9
13
8
%
Du
f
f
.
Me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
20
1
1
34
6
8
2
ID
Sh
e
l
l
98
3
19
8
20
%
Di
f
f
.
Me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
20
1
1
35
3
7
2
ID
Sh
e
l
l
48
,
9
5
0
5,
9
8
8
12
%
Di
f
f
.
Me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
20
1
1
36
9
7
4
WA
Ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
21
1
20
F
Di
f
f
.
Me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
20
1
1
33
6
5
1
WA
HV
A
C
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
40
1
5
—
66
6
0
16
6
%
Di
f
f
Me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
20
1
1
35
8
2
0
WA
Ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
32
,
7
6
0
19
,
4
3
6
59
%
Du
f
f
.
Me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
20
1
1
35
8
3
8
ID
Pr
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
In
t
e
r
i
o
r
2,
6
2
7
3,
4
8
8
13
3
%
Di
f
f
.
Me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
20
1
1
36
1
7
0
ID
Pr
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
LE
D
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Si
g
n
a
l
s
53
,
7
8
4
27
,
9
7
3
52
%
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Er
r
o
r
,
Rp
r
t
’
d
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
20
1
1
lt
i
d
L
i
t
f
l
B
I
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
11
7
,
8
2
3
42
%
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Er
r
o
r
,
Rp
r
t
’
d
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
20
1
1
29
1
2
9
WA
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
57
1
,
7
5
0
28
3
,
7
4
7
50
%
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Er
r
o
r
,
Rp
r
t
d
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
20
1
1
34
2
6
2
ID
Sh
e
l
l
20
9
26
12
%
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Er
r
o
r
,
Rp
r
t
’
d
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
20
1
1
36
3
4
1
WA
Pr
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Sh
e
l
l
2,
4
1
1
10
,
6
8
2
44
3
%
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Er
r
o
r
,
Rp
r
t
d
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
20
1
1
36
6
2
8
WA
Pr
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Sh
e
l
l
1,
1
2
4
0
0%
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Er
r
o
r
,
Rp
r
t
’
d
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
20
1
1
36
3
1
5
WA
Pr
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
Mo
t
o
r
s
43
8
27
4
63
%
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Er
r
o
r
,
Rp
r
t
d
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
20
1
1
23
3
3
5
WA
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
30
8
,
6
5
2
0
0%
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
_
E
r
r
o
r
,
Rp
r
t
’
d
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
35
5
4
0
Pr
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
Ug
h
t
i
n
g
Ex
t
e
r
i
o
r
20
,
4
1
7
41
,
2
5
7
20
2
%
Ca
i
c
u
t
i
o
n
Er
r
o
r
,
Rp
r
d
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
20
1
1
32
6
5
4
WA
HV
A
C
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
13
4
,
5
4
3
65
,
3
4
9
49
%
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Er
r
o
r
,
Rp
r
t
’
d
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
20
1
1
37
3
9
5
WA
HV
A
C
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
32
,
5
7
0
16
,
2
8
5
50
%
Da
t
a
b
a
s
e
Er
r
o
r
20
1
1
37
3
9
6
WA
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
In
t
e
r
i
o
r
15
4
,
2
6
2
95
,
2
8
6
62
%
Da
t
a
b
a
s
e
Er
r
o
r
20
1
1
3
7
0
7
4
WA
En
e
r
g
y
S
t
a
r
C
t
h
e
s
Wa
s
h
e
r
14
32
2
23
0
1
%
ES
A
p
p
h
a
n
c
e
s
Up
d
a
t
e
pi
37
0
7
5
WA
En
e
r
g
y
S
t
a
r
D
i
s
h
w
a
s
h
e
r
22
62
%
ES
A
p
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
U
p
d
a
t
e
20
1
1
37
0
7
0
WA
En
e
r
g
y
St
a
t
Cl
o
t
h
e
s
Wa
s
h
e
r
1
24
0
49
4
20
6
%
ES
Ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
Up
d
a
t
e
20
1
1
37
3
8
5
24
0
,
3
2
2
13
4
%
ES
A
p
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
Up
d
a
t
e
20
St
a
f
f
_
P
R
_
1
4
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
Pa
g
e
19
of
21
St
a
f
f
_
P
R
_
1
4
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
Pa
g
e
20
of
21
20
1
1
20
1
1
20
1
1
20
1
1
Re
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Re
p
o
r
t
e
d
kW
h
Ve
r
i
f
i
e
d
kW
h
Ra
t
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
20
1
1
20
1
1
37
0
2
5
WA
En
e
r
g
y
St
a
r
Cl
o
t
h
e
s
Wa
s
h
e
r
Pr
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
Co
m
m
Cl
o
t
h
e
s
36
8
9
4
WA
Wa
s
h
e
r
20
1
1
36
1
4
0
ID
20
1
1
20
1
1
20
1
1
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
24
0
86
9
20
1
1
33
8
8
9
WA
HV
A
C
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
23
0
,
5
4
3
33
5
1
0
WA
HV
A
C
Co
o
l
i
n
g
__
_
_
18
8
,
8
7
9
34
6
5
3
WA
Mo
t
o
r
Co
n
t
r
o
l
s
HV
A
C
:
25
,
5
5
0
63
7
,
5
3
4
33
3
3
4
WA
Mo
t
o
r
Co
n
t
r
o
l
s
HV
A
C
81
,
7
6
0
HV
A
C
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
HV
A
C
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
Mo
t
o
r
Co
n
t
r
o
l
s
HV
A
C
36
6
1
6
WA
En
e
r
g
y
St
a
r
Di
s
h
w
a
s
h
e
r
36
22
1
62
%
ES
Ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
Up
d
a
t
e
35
3
7
1
Id
a
h
o
En
e
r
g
y
St
a
r
Di
s
h
w
a
s
h
e
r
36
22
62
%
ES
Ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
Up
d
a
t
e
35
8
4
1
ID
En
e
r
g
y
St
a
r
Di
s
h
w
a
s
h
e
r
36
22
62
%
ES
Ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
Up
d
a
t
e
37
0
8
9
WA
En
e
r
g
y
St
a
r
Cl
o
t
h
e
s
Wa
s
h
e
r
14
32
2
23
0
1
%
ES
Ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
Up
d
a
t
e
[_
_
4
9
4
20
6
%
ES
Ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
Up
d
a
t
e
1,
1
1
1
L1
2
8
%
Eq
u
i
p
.
V
e
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
47
7
,
1
8
0
75
%
Du
f
f
.
Me
t
e
r
i
n
g
Re
s
u
l
t
s
_5
8
2
7
7
[
25
%
77
j
18
%
e
d
n
g
v
s
S
i
m
u
I
a
o
n
73
,
1
9
3
I
28
6
%
Me
t
e
r
i
n
g
vs
.
Si
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
23
4
,
2
1
9
28
6
%
Me
t
e
r
i
n
g
vs
.
Si
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
20
1
1
1
33
4
2
4
ID
16
,
4
1
4
25
,
5
5
7
15
6
%
Me
t
e
r
i
n
g
vs
.
Si
r
n
u
t
i
o
n
20
1
1
L3
3
4
3
2
ID
10
,
6
4
4
32
,
9
9
7
31
0
%
Me
t
e
r
i
n
g
v
s
.
S
i
r
n
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
20
1
1
H
ID
16
8
,
6
3
0
48
3
,
0
7
6
28
6
%
Me
t
e
r
i
n
g
vs
.
Si
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
ro
96
3
8
0
84
9
,
0
4
2
28
6
%
Me
t
e
r
i
n
g
v
s
.
Si
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
20
1
1
37
4
7
8
ID
Mo
t
o
0n
t
r
0
1
A
C
41
9
,
0
2
0
1,
2
0
0
,
3
7
0
28
6
%
Me
t
e
r
i
n
g
v
s
.
Si
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
20
1
1
2
9
6
4
6
WA
°°
12
5
4
8
19
8
8
1
15
8
%
Me
t
e
r
i
n
g
v
Si
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
20
1
1
j
36
1
3
7
m
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
In
t
e
r
i
o
r
20
,
2
0
7
-
3,
1
6
0
16
%
In
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
HO
U
L2
0
1
1
L3
6
4
7
o
WA
-
Pr
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
In
t
e
r
i
o
r
-
5,
6
7
6
17
6
5
31
%
—
In
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
HO
U
L2
0
1
1
36
5
5
9
WA
Pr
e
s
c
n
p
t
i
v
e
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
l
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
35
3
,
2
2
8
11
3
,
2
9
8
32
%
In
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
H
O
U
-
-—
20
1
1
-
37
1
8
7
Pr
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
In
t
e
r
i
o
r
9,
1
0
8
—
3,
8
0
3
42
%
In
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
HO
U
—
36
0
1
6
WA
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
In
t
e
r
i
o
r
4,
2
1
8
2,
9
3
9
70
%
In
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
HO
U
36
0
1
7
WA
Pr
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
In
t
e
r
i
o
r
2,
5
4
0
3,
4
8
4
13
7
%
In
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
HO
U
ID
HV
A
C
He
a
t
i
n
g
48
,
1
7
3
0
0%
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
Er
r
o
r
21
2
7
8
ID
-
Co
m
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
Ai
r
64
8
,
5
6
0
0
0%
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
Er
r
o
r
-
-
35
4
3
0
WA
Mo
t
o
r
Co
n
t
r
o
l
s
HV
A
C
91
,
9
8
0
0
0%
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
Er
r
o
r
37
9
8
1
WA
SS
Mu
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
69
2
,
7
0
0
44
8
,
2
3
2
65
%
Di
f
f
.
Me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
20
1
1
20
1
1
20
1
1
20
1
1
20
1
1
20
1
2
21
55
HV
A
C
He
a
t
i
n
g
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
PS
C
En
e
r
g
y
S
m
a
r
t
-
Ca
s
e
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
PS
C
En
e
r
g
y
S
m
a
r
t
-
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Pr
o
c
55
HV
A
C
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
__
_
_
_
_
55
Ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
55
Co
m
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
Ai
r
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
In
t
e
r
i
o
r
55
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
55
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
55
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
In
t
e
r
i
o
r
34
,
7
0
0
45
,
2
5
2
13
0
%
53
,
2
5
0
7,
6
5
0
14
%
91
,
8
2
3
38
,
9
3
4
8,
4
1
3
16
5
,
1
4
1
10
1
,
5
8
1
20
1
2
35
6
0
2
WA
20
1
2
33
9
1
4
SS
Mu
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
WA
20
1
2
39
5
3
3
WA
20
1
2
38
9
9
2
WA
HV
A
C
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
I
Re
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
f
Me
a
s
u
r
e
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Re
p
o
r
t
e
d
kw
h
Ve
r
i
f
i
e
d
kw
h
Ra
t
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
69
2
,
7
0
0
20
1
2
38
3
9
7
WA
20
1
2
40
7
6
6
WA
20
1
2
34
9
9
8
WA
44
8
,
2
3
2
65
%
Di
f
f
.
Me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
59
,
5
4
9
24
,
4
7
2
41
%
Di
f
f
.
Me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
7,
9
8
6
0
0%
Di
f
f
.
Me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
3,
7
2
0
__
_
_
_
_
2,
2
3
6
60
%
Di
f
f
.
Me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
Du
f
f
.
Me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Er
r
o
r
,
Rp
r
t
’
d
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
20
1
2
39
1
1
2
WA
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
20
1
2
35
0
0
0
WA
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
20
1
2
39
7
9
4
W
A
SS
S
h
e
N
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
20
1
2
35
9
7
2
ID
__
_
_
_
_
1—
——
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
20
1
2
39
9
6
9
WA
20
1
2
.
38
2
3
6
WA
20
1
2
38
2
7
6
WA
55
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
In
t
e
r
i
o
r
20
1
2
39
7
5
0
WA
PS
C
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
In
t
e
r
i
o
r
20
1
2
39
4
1
1
WA
PS
C
li
g
h
t
i
n
g
In
t
e
r
i
o
r
20
1
2
32
3
7
6
ID
PS
C
PC
Ne
t
w
o
r
k
Co
n
t
r
o
l
s
42
%
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Er
r
o
r
,
Rp
r
t
’
d
_
S
a
v
i
n
g
s
__
_
_
_
_
_
0
0%
Zj
.
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Er
r
o
r
,
Rp
r
t
d
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
25
8
,
7
9
3
15
7
%
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Er
r
o
r
,
Rp
r
t
’
d
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
35
,
3
9
1
35
%
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Er
r
o
r
,
Rp
r
t
’
d
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
1,
0
4
7
,
7
3
7
1,
4
0
6
,
9
0
4
13
4
%
Me
t
e
r
i
n
g
vs
.
Si
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
11
5
,
9
1
1
16
5
,
6
3
6
14
3
%
Me
t
e
r
i
n
g
vs
.
Si
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
17
7
,
9
3
4
10
3
,
4
2
5
58
%
Me
t
e
r
i
n
g
vs
.
Si
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
18
5
,
6
8
8
86
,
7
9
4
47
%
6,
3
1
8
3,
9
5
3
10
,
6
2
3
1,
4
6
1
21
,
0
0
0
0
Me
t
e
r
i
n
g
vs
.
Si
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
63
%
Me
t
e
r
i
n
g
vs
.
Si
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
14
%
Me
t
e
r
i
n
g
vs
.
Si
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
0%
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
Er
r
o
r
22
St
a
f
f
_
P
R
_
1
4
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
Pa
g
e
21
of
2
l
AWSTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:IDAHO DATE PREPARED:12/20/2013
CASE NO:AVU-E-13-09/AVU-G-13-02 WITNESS:
REQUESTER:IPUC Staff RESPONDER:Lori Hermanson
TYPE:Production Request DEPARTMENT:DSM Policy,Planning &Analysis
REQUEST NO.:Staff-17 TELEPHONE:[phone]
REQUEST:
Please provide the percentage ofresidential,commercial,and industrial customers who
participated in Avista’s DSM programs in 2010,2011,and 2012.
RESPONSE:
The percentage of residential customers who participated in Avista’s DSM programs are 4.3
percent,3.2 percent and 2.0 percent for 2010,2011 and 2012 respectively.The percentage of
nonresidential (commercial and industrial)customers who participated in Avista’s DSM programs
are 2.1 percent,1.8 percent and 3.5 percent for 2010,2011 and 2012 respectively.This is based on
customer incentives processed in-house and does not include third-party implemented programs
such as Simple Steps Smart Savings and appliance recycling.
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:IDAHO DATE PREPARED:12/20/2013
CASE NO:AVU-E-13-09/AVU-G-13-02 WITNESS:
REQUESTER:IPUC Staff RESPONDER:Lori Hermanson
TYPE:Production Request DEPARTMENT:D$M Policy,Planning &Analysis
REQUEST NO.:Staff-19 TELEPHONE:[phone]
REQUEST:
Please provide Avista’s cost-effectiveness calculations,including all input and assumptions in
executable Excel format,for the TRC/UCT Simple Steps Smart Savings program in 2012 (17.04)
and 2011 (1.95).
RESPONSE:
Please see Staff PR 19 Attachment A for the cost-effectiveness calculations,inputs and
assumptions for Simple Steps Smart Savings lighting buy-down for 2011 and 2012.The
executable Excel file is also being provided as requested.Please note that a cell reference was
discovered making the 2012 TRC 7.31 as opposed to the 17.04.
IPUC PR-19
Sim pie Steps Lighting Cost-effectiveness
2011 2012
kWh Claimed 4,620,825 2,997,434
EUL 7 6
e avoided cost 1,551,723 1,120,363
e lost revenue 397,622 254,422
pv e lost revenue 2,157,923 1,212,339
non-energy benefits --
est.incentives 525,889 109,383
est.incremental customer cost 525,889 109,383
est.non-incentive utility cost 268,686 43,986
TRC 1.95 7.31
UCT 1.95 7.31
Staff_PR_19 Attachment A.xlsx Page 1 of 1