20190603Avista to Staff 22-32.pdf

Avista Corp.
1411 East Mission P.O.Box3727
Spokane. Washington 99220-0500
Telephone [phone]
TollFree 800-727-9170
May 31,2019
lWtsrfr
RECEIVED
;01, JUH -3 At{ 9: Ztr
rtf?iliicctu#18.,0*
Gorp,
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472W. Washington St.
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Attn: Diane Hanian
Re: Third Production Request of Commission Staff in Case No. AVU-G-18-08
Dear Ms. Hanian,
Enclosed is Avista's response to IPUC Staffs production request in the above referenced docket.
Included in this mailing are the original and two paper copies of Avista's response to production
request: Staff 22-32. In addition to the written copies provided, all Excel and electronic files
have also been provided on CD with formulas activated. The electronic version of the responses
were also emailed on 05i3112019.
Also included is Avista's CONFIDENTIAL responses to Staff_PR_25C, Staff_PR_27C and
Staff_PR_31C. These responses, and associated attachments, contain TRADE SECRET,
PROPRIETARY or CONFIDENTIAL information and are separately filed under IDAPA
31.01.01, Rule 067 and233,and Section 9-340D,Idaho Code. Due to its voluminous nature,
Staff_PR_31C_Attachment A is being provided in electronic format only, via CD, 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].
Sincerely,
Paul Kimball
Mgr., Compliance & Discovery
Enclosures
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
AVU-G-18-08
IPUC Staff
Production Request
Staff -22
DATE PREPARED: 05/1712019WITNESS: N/A
RESPONDER: Amber Gifford
DEPARTMENT: Energy Efficiency
TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:
Please provide workpapers showing how the Target Confidence/Precision (C/P) totals were
calculated in Table 3-l: Planned Sampling and Evaluation Rigor for Gas Residential Programs
(p.26) and Table 3-2: Planned Sampling and Evaluation Rigor for Gas Nonresidential Programs
(p.26) of the 2016-2017 Natural Gas Impact Evaluation.
RESPONSE:
The response below has been provided by Avista's 3'dparty EM&V evaluator, Nexant, Inc.:
Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 were originally created as part of the Evaluation Plan, dated October 14,
2016 and the 90/10 confidence/precision (C/P) was a target minimum planned for the impact
evaluation activities at the portfolio level. These tables have been recreated in StaflPR_23_
Attachment Ar. Please refer to worksheet 16 lT ID_G_Impact_Tables, rows 82 thru 101.
The totals noted in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 are the sum of the sample sizes for each program in the
portfolio, and the sample sizes for each program were set to ensure that the total sample size for the
portfolio met the 90/10 C/P target for participation in years 2016 and2017 combined. When
setting target sample sizes for each program, the evaluation team chose aClP target based on prior
evaluation results, anticipated size of the program, and level of uncertainty in the program savings.
Because the actual program participation for the full20l6-2017 program cycle was unknown
when determining the sample sizes to meet each program target C/P, either historical program
population information was used, or an infinite population was assumed. A 'census' target C/P is
set for those programs wherein a billing analysis will be conducted because the billing analysis
targets all program participants.
I Nexant file name 'Final Evaluation Tables All Sectors ID 060818-FINAL-forID-updated 052419.x1sx'
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
AVU-G-18-08
IPUC Staff
Production Request
Staff - 23
DATE PREPARED: 0511712019WITNESS: N/A
RESPONDER: Amber Gifford
DEPARTMENT: Energy Efficiency
TELEPHONE: (509) 49s-2896
REQUEST:
Please provide workpapers showing how the Achieved Precision values were calculated in Table
3-3: Achieved Sampling and Confidence/Precision for Gas Residential Programs (p.27) and Table
3-4: Achieved Sampling and Evaluation Rigor for Gas Nonresidential Programs (p.27) of the
2016-2017 Natural Gas Impact Evaluation were calculated.
RESPONSE:
The response below has been provided by Avista's 3'd party EM&V evaluator, Nexant, Inc.
In the workpaper previously provided to ID PUC staff titled 'Avista Commercial Tracking Sheet
051618-ID Gas-for ID', refer to tab titled 'Realization Rates' cells Xl5, Xl6, X77,X18, Xl9, X20
and X22 for the calculation of achieved precision for the programs listed in Table 3-4: Achieved
Sampling and Evaluation Rigor for Gas Nonresidential Programs.
Achieved precision in Table 3-3 for programs analyzed using billing analysis is not calculated via
"workpapers" but is output based on statistical software coding using Stata statistical software.
The precision for the regressions is based on the standard errors, the required z-score, and the point
estimate. Regression outputs are included in Appendix C of the Idaho Impact Evaluation Report,
which provided the necessary datato assess the validity of the models.
Please see StaflPR_23 Attachment Ar. The Water Heat program precision is calculated in the
workpaper tab titled '16 17 ID_G_Impact_Tables' cell2187. The ENERGY STAR Homes
program precision is based on the analysis conducted in the 2014-2015 impact evaluation.
rNexant file name "FinalEvaluation Tables All Sectors ID 060818-FINAL-for ID-updated 052419"
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
AVU-G-18-08
IPUC Staff
Production Request
Staff - 24
DATE PREPARED: 05117 12019WITNESS: N/A
RESPONDER: Amber Gifford
DEPARTMENT: Energy Efficiency
TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:
Please provide workpapers showing how the Achieved Confidence/ Precision (C/P) values,
including the Total, were calculated in Tables 3-3: Achieved Sampling and Confidence/Precision
for Gas Residential Programs (p.27), Table 3-4: Achieved Sampling and Evaluation Rigor for Gas
Nonresidential Programs (p.27), and 5-2: Residential Program Achieved Evaluation Sample (p.60)
of the 2016-2017 Natural Gas Impact Evaluation.
RESPONSE:
The response below has been provided by Avista's 3'd pa.ty EM&V evaluator, Nexant, Inc.
In the workpaper previously provided to ID PUC staff titled 'Avista Commercial Tracking Sheet
051618-ID Gas-for ID', refer to tab titled 'Realrzation Rates' cells Xl5, Xl6, X17,X18, Xl9, X20
andX22 for the calculation of achieved precision for the programs listed in Table 3-4: Achieved
Sampling and Evaluation Rigor for Gas Nonresidential Programs.
Program-level precision values in Table 3-3 are discussed in the response to Staff PR_23 and
Portfolio-level precision in Table 3-3 is calculated in StaflPR_23_ Attachment Ar. Please refer to
tab titled 'T6 77 ID_G_lmpact_Tables' cell GI15.
rNexant file name "Final Evaluation Tables All Sectors ID 060818-FINAL-for ID-updated 052419.x1sx"
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
AVU-G-18-08
IPUC Staff
Production Request
Staff - 26
DATE PREPARED: 05117 12019WITNESS: N/A
RESPONDER: Ryan Finesilver
DEPARTMENT: Energy Efficiency
TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:
For each project in the table shown in Request No. 25, please provide workpapers showing how
the Simple Payback (Col H), KWH (Col I), THERM (Col J), Incentive Electric (Col K), Incentive
Gas (Col L), and Measure Cost (Col N) were calculated.
RESPONSE:
Please refer StaflPR_25c_Attachments A-D (Confidential) for the included Dual Fuel Incentive
Calculator for the requested information.
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
AVU-G-18-08
IPUC Staff
Production Request
Staff - 28
DATE PREPARED: 0511712019WITNESS: N/A
RESPONDER: Ryan Finesilver
DEPARTMENT: Energy Efficiency
TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:
The Company's method for reviewing potential site-specific projects is summarized on pages I I
and 72 of the Impact Evaluation Report. Please explain how the results of third-party evaluations,
such as those conducted by Nexant, are used to improve this process.
RESPONSE:
The Company pursues continued improvement of their processes and programs; recommendations
from its EM&V vendor are valuable in identifying areas where improvements can take place. For
engagements where the EM&V vendor has identified issues caused by deficiency in our policies,
procedures, or practices, the Company will work internally to develop ways to avoid the
deficiency going forward. Recommendations made by the 3'd party evaluator are suggestions for
improvement and in general, the Company makes adjustments based on those recommendations
when appropriate. In instances where the Company does not agree with the evaluator's
recommendations, those responses are documented and shared with the Company's Energy
Efficiency Advisory Group. During the 2016-2017 period, there were no recommendations that
the Company took issue with.
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION: IDAHO
CASE NO: AVU-G-I8-08
REQUESTER: IPUC StaffTYPE: Production Request
REQUEST NO.: Staff - 29
DATE PREPARED: 05117 12019WITNESS: N/A
RESPONDER: Ryan Finesilver
DEPARTMENT: Energy Efficiency
TELEPHONE: (s09) 495-4873
REQUEST:
When reviewing potential site-specific projects, does the Company typically conduct site visits
and take measurements in the course of its review to determine if a project is eligible? If so, please
describe how the information is gathered and documented during the site-specific visit.
RESPONSE:
The Company employs several approaches in order to determine eligibility of potential
site-specific projects, however all site specific projects require an initial site visit in order to
determine the baseline for the energy savings to be based upon. The information from the
customer's site visit is gathered by doing a physical walkthrough of the project site, interviewing
the customer on their desired project, and asking questions in order to determine relevant factors
that would contribute to the project scope. The Company's engineering department then
documents the information collected about the project and includes it in the customer's
application.
As all site specific projects are custom and unique in nature, no technical manual exists to support
this request. Each site specific project contains a full project documentation file that consists of
calculations, methodology, assumptions, etc.
As offered previously, Avista's Energy Efficiency Engineering Staff believe an in-person meeting
with Staff to walk through any of our site specific projects and corresponding documentation
would be valuable.
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
AVU-G-18-08
IPUC Staff
Production Request
Staff - 30
DATE PREPARED: 05117 12019WITNESS: N/A
RESPONDER: Amber Gifford
DEPARTMENT: Energy Efficiency
TELEPHONE: (s09) 49s-2896
REQUEST:
Table 4-4: Energy Smart Grocer Reported Energy Savings by Measure (p.38) states that four
Energy Smart Grocer projects were completed in Idaho in 2017; however, Table 4-5: Energy
Smart Grocer Achieved Sample (p.39) indicates that 12 audits and six on-site inspections were
conducted. A footnote under Table 4-6: Energy Smart Grocer Impact Energy Realization Rate
Results (p.41) indicates that the audit includes projects in Washington and Idaho jurisdictions.
a. Please confirm that the audit described in Table 4-5 (p. 39) was conducted using both
Idaho and Washington projects. If not, please explain.
b. What was the total population size from which the sample of l2 projects in Table 4-5
was drawn?
c. Did the sample population only include projects from 201 7 or were 2016 projects also
included?
RESPONSE:
The response below has been provided by Avista's 3'd party EM&V evaluator, Nexant, Inc.:
a. Please confirm that the audit described in Table 4-5 (p. 39) was conducted using both
Idaho and Washington projects. If not, please explain.
Response: Yes, the sample of 12 was composed of 3 Idaho projects and 9
Washington projects.
b. What was the total population size from which the sample of 12 projects in Table
4-5 was drawn?
Response: The total population of Energy Smart Grocer projects that achieved
natural gas savings was 20 projects (5 in ID, l5 in WA).
c. Did the sample population only include projects from2017 or were 2016 projects
also included?
Response: The evaluation sample included both 2016 and20l7 projects
AVISTA CORPORATION
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JUzuSDICTION:
CASE NO:
REQUESTER:
TYPE:
REQUEST NO.:
IDAHO
AVU-G-18-08
IPUC Staff
Production Request
Staff - 32
DATE PREPARED: 0511712019WITNESS: N/A
RESPONDER: Amber Gifford
DEPARTMENT: Energy EfficiencyTELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:
Please provide workpapers showing how the Energy Realization Rate and 80% precision listed in
Table 4-6: Energy Smart Grocer Impact Energy Realization Rate Results of the Natural Gas
Impact Evaluation Report were calculated.
RESPONSE:
The response below has been provided by Avista's 3"lparty EM&V evaluator, Nexant, [nc.:
Please see the workpaper already provided to IPUC Staff, sent in CD format via overnight mail on
February 21,2019, titled 'Avista Commercial Tracking Sheet 051618-lD Gas-for ID', refer to the
tab titled 'Realization Rates' cell Ql6 for the energy realization rate and cell X16 for the
calculation of achieved precision for the Energy Smart Grocer program listed in Table 4-6.