20150402INT to Staff 1-7.pdf

EXECUTIVE OFF]CES
lNrennaouNTAlru Gas Couparuv
555 SOUTH COLE ROAD . p.O. BOX 7608 . BO|SE, TDAHO 83707 . (208) 377_6000 o FAX:377_6097
r r 1" r'! _'_ : 'l ,-!
?015"fiP -2 Pl{ h: 37
?Cl5 f,l?";Z Ptt lr' 3'l
'la !! i'r-l'-1_ ,:. _ill:r-.1 iiI..'; . ;.:'.ru:
.-l ;i_l-i1..., ,".., , ,, . -1,_,.,Apil2,2015
Jean Jewell
Commission Secretary
Idatro Public Utilities Commission
472West Washington St.
P. O. Box 83720
Boise,lD 83720-0074
RE: First Production Request of the Commission Staffto Intermountain Gas Company
Case No. INT-G-15-01
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed for filing with this Commission are the original and seven (7) copies of Intermountain
Gas Company's response to the First Production Request of the Commission Staff, in the above
referenced Case.
Also attached hereto is a disc containing the applicable electronic files.
If there are any questions regarding the attached, please contact me at [phone].
Very truly yours,
ichael P. M6Grath
Director, Re gulatory Affairs
Intermountain Gas Company
Enclosure
cc: Scott Madison
REQUEST NO. 1: Page 46 of the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) states: "It should be noted
that during the preparation of the data provided in the survey, it was discovered that the historical
daily [Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition] (SCADA) data indicated that quite a few of the
large volume customer's peak day usage exceeded their actual contract [Maximum Daily Firm
Demand] (MDFQ)." Please describe how SCADA data is monitored, analyzed and compared to
customers MDQF. Please include applicable process descriptions and procedures.
Responder:
Record Holder:
John Whiting
Director, Gas Supply & Control
509-734.4549
Dave Swenson
Manager, lndustrial Services
208-377-6118
MichaelP. McGrath
Director, Reg ulatory Affairs
Intermountain Gas Gompany
555 S. Gole Rd.
Boise, lD 83709
208-377-6168
RESPONSE: SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) is a system operating with
coded signals over communication channels so as to provide control or data acquisition of
remote equipment. Intermountain uses such a system to monitor meter usage (consumption) and
pressures at sites across its distribution system. Where feasible, Intermountain installs SCADA
and related telemetry equipment at large volume customer meter sites to provide "real time"
measured meter throughput and relay that information to its central server unit. The system saves
the individual customer data in hourly increments and also transmits that data to a website where
those customers can view or download their hourly or daily usage.
For the IRP study, the then most recent three years of customer specific daily usage data
(SCADA) was downloaded into Excel. The peak day and its associated date for each year was
identified and then compared against the then current MDFQ (or Firm Daily Demand for T-5).
The data was sorted by peak day over firm demand/MDFQ and those customers with peak days
higher than contract demand where further sorted by Area Of Interest (AOI).
See Attachment No. I for SCADA vs. Contract data.
REQUEST NO. 2: Page 46 of the IRP states: "The variance between these figures [SCADA
vs. contract MDFQ] were compared and assessed customer-by-customer by AOI with the
assistance of the engineering group to determine which of the customers were located in
geographic areas that currently have available peak day capacity. Where possible, Intermountain
will allow those customers to adjust the contract MDFQ to levels consistent with actual peak day
use. Those located in areas that do not have available capacity will be required to invest in new
facilities in order to increase their MDFQ. The Base Case MDFQ quantities beginning in 2015
include these adjusted MDFQ assumptions."
a) Please provide and explain the adjusted MDFQ assumptions used to develop
the Base Case.
b) For each schedule, please provide the number and percentage of large-volume
customers with peak day usages exceeding their actual contract MDFQ.
c) How many customers does the Company estimate will adjust their contract
MDFQ to levels consistent with actual peak day use?
d) Why are some customers being required to invest in new facilities in order to
increase their MDQF, when historically, the Company has been able to
provide service given their actual peak day use?
e) Based on the Company's assumptions, please describe the estimated financial
impact to all customer classes.
Responder: Russ Nishikawa
Engineer lll
208-377-6038
Dave Swenson
Manager, lndustrial Services
208-377-6118
Record Holder: Michael P. McGrath
Director, Reg ulatory Affairs
lntermountain Gas Company
555 S. Cole Rd.
Boise, !D 83709
208-377-6168
RESPONSE:
a) The MDFQ should reflect the maximum amount of capacity that Intermountain would
need to provide for a customer on the peak day based on the customer's installed gas-fired
equipment and actual historical usage patterns. The Base Case assumed either the then existing
customer MDFQ or the higher MDFQ where approved pursuant to the engineering variance
study.
b)Rate Class
LV-I
T-4
T-5
Number
5
26
7
Percent
29%
33%
54%
c) At least the 3l LV-l and T-4 customers. The T-5 customers will be on a case-by-case
basis. Pursuant to Rate Schedule T-5, all daily usage over the Firm Daily Demand (analogous to
the T-4 MDFQ) is "Over-run" and therefore considered intemrptible. The T-5 customers are
aware of that. Because increasing the contracted Firm Daily Demand would also require a higher
monthly demand charge and because they highly value load factor, it may not be correct to
simply assume that these customers will automatically increase the daily firm rights even if
capacity is available.
d) Intermountain's distribution system is designed to serve firm loads on the peak day under
design weather conditions. On the peak day, all core customers are assumed to be at their
maximum level of natural gas usage and firm large volume customers will be at their maximum
contract levels. On the Peak Day there are areas on the Company's system that have location
specific capacity available. It follows then that on a non-Peak Day, there is available capacity on
the distribution system that large volume contract or even intemrptible customers may access
above firm rights with no penalty. However Intermountain always has the right to limit a
customer to its MDFQ when conditions dictate.
The Company's engineering peak day study indicates where Intermountain may offer available
capacity to increase contract customer's MDFQ but only if three conditions exist: l) an adequate
amount of location specific firm capacity is available;2) that capacity is not required to serve a
growing core market; and 3) the large volume customer can actually demonstrate a need for that
capacity. On the other hand, if a large volume customer requests and can demonstrate a need for
additional firm capacity but none is available, the customer is required to pay for any additional
facilities necessary to provide that additional capacity. To do otherwise would require that all
remaining customers subsidize that customer's needs.
e) Facilitating the incremental, more efficient higher load factor use of under-utilized
Company assets (pipes in the ground and related infrastructure that have available capacity)
provides benefits to all of Intermountain's customers. An estimated financial impact of this
benefit has not been calculated as the study's focus was from an engineering, or available
capacity, perspective. It should also be noted that contract customer's MDFQ's are subject to
renegotiation at the expiration of the customer's contract period.
REQUEST NO.3: Page 83 of the IRP states: "IGC has participated in [Gas Technology
Institute Research and Development (GTI R&D)] projects, and will continue that collaboration
as the opportunities arise." Please describe how the Company selects which GTI R&D projects
it becomes involved in. As part of the response, please provide the Company's GTI R&D budget
and forecast. If the Company does not have a GTI R&D budget and forecast, please explain how
it accounts for and plans its projects.
Responder: Hart Gilchrist
Director, Operations Services
208-377-6086
Byron Defenbach
Manager, Energy Utilization
208-377-6080
Record Holder: MichaelP. McGrath
Director, Regulatory Affairc
lntermountain Gas Company
555 S. Cole Rd.
Boise, lD 83709
208-377-6168
RESPONSE: Intermountain Gas Company (IGC) participates in two R&D components of the
Gas Technology Institute (GTI); Operations Technology Development (OTD) and Utilization
Technology Development (UTD). Additionally, IGC funds another R&D program, Emerging
Technologies Program (ETP). See Attachment No. 2.
Annually, IGC dues (otherwise known as the investment dollars allocated toward R&D projects
each year) for each area of R&D are as follows:
o OTD $150,000 (based on $0.50/meter)o UTD $122,000 (based on $0.40/meter)o ETP $ 25,000 (flat rate allocation)
OTD
OTD and its 23 members serve over 38 million natural gas consumers in the United States and
Canada. These companies work together to develop, test and implement new technologies
related to safe and reliable operation of the natural gas infrastructure.
IGC's annual R&D funding amounts to $150,000, which is based on meter count. Below is a
listing of R&D projects IGC has participated in dating back to 2002:
o Portable Methane Detectoro Evaluation of Pavement Restoration Technologyo Mechanical Repair Sleeve for Polyethylene Pipeo Emergency Response to Blowing Gas. Lightrveight Stopping Equipmento Yield Strength Projecto GPS Consortium Projecto Installation and Monitoring of Meter Hardening Shelterso Assessment of Intrepid Biogas Processo GPS Integration
While IGC has participated in some of the GTI R&D projects, we do not participate in all of
them. We base our decisions on new technologies, the make-up of our system as it relates to
projects (i.e. we fund projects centered around plastic pipe, cathodic protection, etc. and not
projects centered around cast iron pipe).
We also look at projects that have an environmental influence like the Carbon Management
Information Center (CMIC), which we currently co-fund with our OTD and UTD funds.
Currently, IGC is helping fund the following projects in the OTD arena:
o Assessment of Squeeze off location for small diameter plastic pipeo Remote Field QA/QC. Cross Bores Sewer System Cleanout Safeguard Deviceo No Stub Service Lateral Retiremento Tracking and Traceability of Weldso Residential Methane Detectors Programo GPS Consortium
UTD
IGC's participation in GTI R&D projects is through collaboration with other gas utilities in the
Utilization Technology Development (UTD) not for profit corporation. UTD is composed of 16
member utilities that pool their resources to fund R&D projects conducted and managed by GTI.
GTI performs the various R&D projects, as well as UTD administration through a service
agreement with UTD.
IGC selects GTI R&D projects for funding based on the characteristics and usage of our
customers. Space and water heating, as well as transportation have been areas of emphasis.
Our annual dues to UTD are $122,000, based on $.40 per meter. These funds provide the base of
financial support for UTD projects. This is how we account for our participation in GTI projects.
Please see Attachment #3 for UTD description.
REQUEST NO. 4: Page 83 of the IRP states: "In the Fall of 2014, GTI and IGC [the Company]
will collaborate on cold-climate testing of the NextAire natural gas heat pump." On the same
page, the Company also states: "As of Summer 20|4,IGC [the Company] is also working with
GTI to collaborate with the Northwest Energy Eff,rciency Alliance (NEEA) on Idaho field testing
of residential Gas Heat Pump Water Heater (GHPWH)." Please provide a status update on both
projects. As part of the response, please explain whether the Company plans to include a
summary of these projects in the next IRP. If not, please explain why not.
Responder: Byron Defenbach
Manager, Energy Utilization
208-377-6080
Record Holder: MichaelP. McGrath
Director, Regulatory Affairc
lntermountain Gas Company
555 S. Gole Rd.
Boise, lD 83709
208-977-6168
RESPONSE: Please see Afiai ent No. l. lntermountain can provide a sunmary of these
projects as part of its next IRP filing.
REQUEST NO. 5: Aside from the Company's collaboration with the Gas Technology Institute
(GTD, please describe how the Company works independently with the Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) natural gas efforts. As a part of the response, please explain
whether or not the Company plans to be an active member in NEEA's natural gas efforts?
Responder: Byron Defenbach
Manager, Energy Utilization
208-377-6080
Record Holder: MichaelP. McGrath
Director, Regulatory Affairs
lntermountain Gas Gompany
555 S. Cole Rd.
Boise, lD 83709
208-377-6168
RESPONSE: Aside from IGC's collaboration with the GTIA{EEA project, we have not worked
independently with NEEA's natural gas efforts. We have no plans at this time for fuither
collaboration, but will consider mutually beneficial opportunities with NEEA.
REQUEST NO. 6: Page 83 of the IRP states: "IGC has provided financial assistance to
the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab to further that entity's energy effrciency research
and training." Please describe the Integrated Design Lab's natural gas research and training. As
part of the response, please provide the historical and forecasted funding levels, and explain how
the Company has applied this research to benefit customers.
Responder: Byron Defenbach
Manager, Energy Utilization
208-377-6080
Record Holder: Michael P. McGrath
Director, Regulatory Affairs
lntermountain Gas Company
555 S. Cole Rd.
Boise, lD 83709
208-377-6168
RESPONSE: The Integrated Design Lab provides education and training to building design and
engineering professionals to improve energy efficiency in their projects. Areas of treatment
include thermal comfort, building envelope behavior, ventilation, indoor air quality, and energy
conservation.
In 10/04 Intermountain Gas made a $l0K contribution to UI IDL. There was one other for $500
in 2011 for IDL's grand opening in their new space downtown Boise. In that case IGC paid for a
direct expense for food or speaker travel costs for the 2011 event. We have also participated
with IDL in providing consumption data information for an Energy Use Intensity project in
2009.
We have no forecast of further IDL assistance. We would anticipate providing fruther assistance
when requested. Requests from IDL are handled as received. IDL's results of their studies are
distributed within the Architectural and Engineering communities, and make their way into the
marketplace from there.
REQUEST NO. 7: Page 91 of the IRP states "As a result of the nearly 40olo residential price
reduction since 2008, the residential DSM programs previously analyzed for pilot
implementation still will not provide the cost-benefits estimated under the significantly higher
gas prices seen by [the Company] in recent earlier years." Please provide the avoided cost
calculations the Company used to determine that natural gas demand-side management is not
cost-effective. Please provide and explain the assumptions used, including the avoided costs of
additional storage, distribution capacity, and interstate transportation capacity. Please separate
the fixed and variable components of the avoided cost.
Responder: Byron Defenbach
Manager, Energy Utilization
208-377-6080
Lori Blattner
Regulatory Analyst lV
208465-5526
Record Holder: Michael P. McGrath
Director, Regulatory Affairs
lntermountain Gas Gompany
555 S. Cole Rd.
Boise, !D 83709
208-377-6168
RESPONSE: In reviewing the IRP document, the Company notes that there was a typo on Page
91. The corrected quote should read, "As a result of the nearly 40% residential price reduction
since 2008, the residential DSM programs previously analyzed for pilot implementation still will
not provide the cost-benefits estimated under the significantly Uower] gas prices seen by IGC in
recent years."
The Company has included the DSM analysis as part of this Production Request (see Attachment
No. 4). The analysis assumes that the current levels of fixed costs are sunk costs. The only
avoided fixed costs would be those that are incremental to our current operating levels. Since
this IRP forecasts no need for additional storage or interstate transportation capacity, the fixed
component of the avoided cost rate is zero. The variable portion of the avoided cost rate is the
Company's WACOG at the time the analysis was performed of $0.37341. As you will note,
when compared to the avoided cost rate, none of the DSM measures tested were cost effective
for either the residential or commercial customer classes.
cAsE NO. INT-G-15-01
First Production Request of the
Commission Staff to
lntermountain Gas Company
Attachment 1
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
SUMMARY OF IARGE VOTUME MDFq VS PEAK DAY TOADS
2015-2019 rRP
RATE
crAss
T,5
T-4
r-4
r-4
LV-1
T-5
LV-1
T-4
r-4
r-4
T-5
T-5
r-slr-4
T-4
T-5
T-4
T-4
T-sfi-4
T-5
T-4
I4
T-4
LV-1
r-s/r-4
T-4
T-4
LV-1
T-4
r-5lr-4
T-4
T-4
T-4
T-4
r-4
T-4
T-4
T-4
LV- 1
T-4
T-4
r-4
T-4
LV- 1
T-4
T-4
LV-1
T-4
T-4
T,4
r-4
LV.1
T-4
LV- 1
T-4
r-4
I-4
r.4
LV.1
r-4
T-4
T-4
T-4
r-4
r-4
T-4
NO. CUSTOMER NAME
1 CUSTOMER NO. 1
2 CUSTOMIR NO.2
3 CUSTOMIR NO.3
4 CUSTOMER NO.4
5 CUSTOMER NO.5
6 CUSTOMER NO. 6
7 CUSTOMER NO.7
8 CUSTOMER NO.8
9 CUSTOMER NO.9
10 CUSTOMER NO. 10
11 CUSTOMER NO. 11
12 CUSTOMER NO. 12
13 CUSTOMER NO. 13
14 CUSTOMER NO. 14
15 CUSTOMER NO. 15
16 CUSTOMER NO. 16
17 CUSTOMER NO. 17
18 CUSTOMER NO. 18
19 CUSTOMTR NO.19
20 CUSTOMER NO.20
21 CUSTOMER NO. 21
22 CUSTOMER NO.22
23 CUSTOMER NO.23
24 CUSTOMER NO.24
25 CUSTOMER NO.25
26 CUSTOMER NO.26
27 CUSTOMER NO.27
28 CUSTOMER NO.28
29 CUSTOMTR NO.29
30 cusToMtR No.30
31 CUSTOMER NO.3I
32 CUSTOMER NO.32
33 CUSTOMER NO.33
34 CUSTOMER NO.34
35 CUSTOMER NO.35
36 CUSTOMER NO,36
37 CUSTOMER NO.37
38 CUSTOMER NO. 38
39 CUSTOMER NO.39
40 CUSTOMER NO.40
41 CUSTOMER NO.4I
42 CUSTOMER NO.42
43 CUSTOMER NO.43
44 CUSTOMER NO.44
45 CUSTOMER NO.45
46 CUSTOMTR NO.46
47 CUSTOMER NO.47
48 CUSTOMTR NO.48
49 CUSTOMER NO.49
50 CUSTOMER NO.50
51 CUSTOMER NO.51
52 CUSTOMER NO.52
53 CUSTOMER NO.53
54 CUSTOMER NO. 54
55 CUSTOMER NO.55
56 CUSTOMER NO.56
57 CUSTOMER NO.57
58 CUSTOMER NO.58
59 CUSTOMER NO.59
60 CUSTOMER NO. 60
61 CUSTOMER NO.6I
62 CUSTOMER NO.62
63 CUSTOMER NO.63
64 CUSTOMER NO.64
65 CUSTOMER NO.65
BASC
7,000
53,000
18,000
7,400
1,500
50
1,400
20,000
80,000
8,800
900
2,500
8,400
22,OOO
2,500
29,ofi)
4,000
8,ofi)
3,000
1,500
26,660
5,000
1,500
8,000
2,500
6,500
1,300
900
1,300
2,O00
3,O00
700
2,2N
3,300
4,500
1,500
2,O00
1,700
2,400
4,400
2,000
2,500
1,600
1,200
800
1,700
6,800
4,2@
5,600
2,000
1,300
3,900
1,600
45,444
3,200
12,000
18,000
r,000
1,300
80,000
3,600
2.650
15,O00
5,000
4,000
2ND
600
9,500
3.200
TOTAT
7,000
s3,000
18,000
7,400
1,500
50
1,400
20,000
80,000
8,800
900
2,500
13,000
22,W
2,500
29,000
4,000
8,600
3,000
1,500
26,660
s,000
1,500
17,500
2,500
6,500
1,300
900
4,500
2,0(m
3,000
700
2,2@
3,300
4,500
1,500
2,000
L,700
2,400
4,400
2,000
2,500
1,600
1,200
800
1,700
6,800
4,200
s,600
2,000
1,300
3,900
1,600
45,444
3,200
12,000
18,000
1,000
1,300
80,000
3,600
2,650
r5,000
5,000
4,000
2013
3,O57,555
10,4 18,198
7,433,927
4,794,181
389,696
237,961
327,844
8,208,903
17,102,840
3,254,6s4
793,957
1,269,O12
4,869,356
3,315,352
r,325,624
8,O71,678
369,694
2,774,850
1,391,974
854,425
9,475,013
1,347,572
795,529
5,325,005
1,031,661
1,233,374
408,532
390,158
76s,896
548,947
307,805
207,944
4t4,730
955,504
610,631
220,837
484,328
47,244
220,lLr
82t,774
307,919
47,909
314,405
444,248
199,148
205,275
t,628,299
727,335
98s,262
370,402
299,213
850,591
315,076
12,755,813
570,208
1,7t4,954
1,606,948
206,465
251,323
2,637,460
285,685
4t7,784
2,719,200
592,800
457,096
20t2
2,662,752
10,641,786
7,197,Ot7
4,248,t60
144,345
272,t27
300,724
6,843,604
t6,552,L29
2,930,280
762,753
1,134,818
4,847,607
7.080.634
1,389,135
7,464,982
457,177
3,433,O41
7,379,612
767,309
8,886,706
7,279,279
657,970
5,275,48s
1,096,754
1,181,615
368,507
368,342
735,439
458,469
280,266
193,045
380,596
800,676
466,561
243,806
420,O82
o
209,389
937.530
224,367
496,150
299,472
377,962
208,999
208,654
L,546,246
645,525
916,722
335,889
279,92t
814,469
228,548
9,079,180
520,159
1,468,483
895,01s
200,747
273,935
250,388
236,212
437,649
3,3r7,510
568,679
445,216
2013
30,858
70,625
27,749
16,820
to,779
8,760
9,385
26,790
86,717
t4,3L2
6,263
7,655
17,490
26,294
6,s63
32,888
7,787
12,343
6,565
4,003
29,1 10
7,760
3,600
19,370
4,330
8,000
2,723
2,125
5,440
2,922
3,88r
1,520
3,020
4,011
5,140
2,tto
2,603
2,297
2,99r
4,924
2,420
2,916
2,003
L,597
1,041
1,931
6,981
4,329
5,728
2,123
r,327
3,910
L,207
47,216
2,750
70,464
9,325
1,000
1,300
to,679
3,600
2,!t4
11,354
4,779
4.000
2012
2f ,370
49,148
26,379
13,507
4,908
9,642
1,540
27,984
81,922
t4,673
6,930
6,662
76,997
24,990
6,132
29,493
7,553
72,L42
6,447
3,596
27,467
5,490
0
19,058
0
s,692
2,134
2,O20
3,7L8
3,436
6,687
1,215
2,424
3,996
4,233
o
2,O53
0
4,643
s,053
0
17,977
1,788
1,358
I,O37
1,931
6,26t
3,964
4,884
t,702
1,1 13
3,401
0
37,473
2,637
7,861
9,345
0
0
5,474
0
2,199
7L,O57
3,282
0
4,600
PEUmlUilec PEAK DAY
ovER Mryq
23,8s8
77,625
9,749
9.420
9.279
8,710
7,985
6,790
6,717
5,512
s,363
5,155
4,490
4,294
4,063
3,888
3,787
3,743
3,565
2,503
2,450
2,160
2,100
1,870
1,830
1,500
1,423
r.225
940
922
881
820
820
7LL
640
610
603
597
591
524
420
4L6
403
397
241
231
181
r29
128
t23
23
10
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
M:\Dept\lndustrial\o2-24-14 lndustrial LV Peak Day vs MDFQ 2013.xlsx
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
SUMMARY OT LARGE VOTUME MDTQ VS PEAK DAY TOADS
2015-2019 rRP
NO.CUSTOMER NAME
RATC
crAss
LV.1
r-4
r-5/r.4
T-4
r-4
r-4
r-4
T-4
T-4
r-4
LV-1
T,4
T-4
LV-1
r-4
r-4
T-4
T-4
T-4
T'4
r-4
T-4
r-4
LV.1
T-4
T-5
r-4
r-4
r-4
r-4
tv-1
LV- 1
tv- 1
1-4
r-4
1-4
.;DCtf,OAY.ltilEE PEAK DAY
9_VEAllplq
65 CUSTOMER NO.66
67 CUSTOMER NO.67
68 CUSTOMER NO.68
69 CUSTOMER NO.69
70 CUSTOMER NO.70
71 CUSTOMER NO,71
72 CUSTOMER NO.72
73 CUSTOMER NO.73
74 CUSTOMER NO.74
75 CUSTOMER NO. 75
76 CUSTOMER NO.76
77 CUSTOMTR NO.77
78 CUSTOMER NO.78
79 CUSTOMER NO.79
80 CUSTOMER NO.80
81 CUSTOMER NO.81
82 CUSTOMER NO.82
83 CUSTOMER NO.83
84 CUSTOMER NO.84
85 CUSTOMER NO.85
86 CUSTOMER NO. 86
87 CUSTOMER NO.87
88 CUSTOMER NO.88
89 CUSTOMER NO.89
90 CUSTOMER NO.90
91 CUSTOMER NO.91
92 CUSTOMER NO.92
93 CUSTOMER NO.93
94 CUSTOMER NO.94
95 CUSTOMER NO.95
96 CUSTOMER NO.96
97 CUSTOMER NO.97
98 CUSTOMER NO.98
99 CUSTOMER NO.99
1OO CUSTOMER NO. 1OO
101 CUSTOMER NO. 101
102 cusToMER NO. 102
103 CUSTOMER NO. 103
104 CUSTOMER NO. 104
105 CUSTOMER NO. 105
106 cusToMER NO. 106
107 CUSTOMER NO, 107
108 CUSTOMER NO. 108
rO9 CUSTOMER NO. 109
TOTAL FIRM
calq 2Np
1,800
1,200
1,685 2,975
6,000
13,409
25,000
300
6,500
20,000
3,856
20,000
20,000
2,100
14,800
4,560
18,300
35,000
120,000
2,500
1,600
27,728
1,300
2,400
2,500
4,000
14,000
74,200
9,000
50,o00
2,350
2,400
1,500
2,300
1,800
6,200
1,600
2,460
8,000
1,800
2,250
1,000
1,400
2,000
42,O00
r-4
T-5
T-4
T-4
r-4
T-4
r-4
r-4
TOTAT
1,800
1,200
4,600
6,000
Lf ,409
25,000
300
6,500
20,000
3,856
20,000
20,0,00
2,100
14,800
4,560
18,300
35,000
120,0@
2,500
1,600
27,728
1,300
2,400
2,500
4,000
14,000
L4,200
9,000
50,000
2,350
2,4@
1,500
2,300
1,800
6,200
1,600
2,460
8,000
1,800
2,250
1,000
1,400
2,000
42,W
2013
346,724
397,130
865,006
735,237
2,313,353
2,438,935
305,722
1,1s2,532
4,738,625
297,325
1,97t,225
2.996,s44
457,176
2,O78,826
540,653
3,785,356
7,655,597
7,L73,O57
293,82L
259,6t7
2,6s2,749
283,070
232,827
288,235
97,035
186,580
116,503
1,416,103
t2,L6L,598
344,604
374,335
380,711
276,\03
476,977
72r,O77
287,63t
2s3,821
1,767,O55
328,490
186,438
2L2,753
21t,298
565,118
5.473.973
20t2
3 14,603
387,726
808,110
755,814
2,473,399
2,216,807
272,608
1,260,818
4,626,798
298,73r
1,73t,34r
2,368,194
471,825
2,O74,985
550,074
3,293,399
7,189,833
6,802,0s9
310,384
2L4,972
2,s35,952
286,036
222,749
241,166
92,431
17,679
60,643
1,283,913
1o,324,286
279,6t7
f74,689
302,310
246,508
558,916
697,868
282,647
215,700
t,232,9t4
299,801
193,869
797,730
232,gLO
619,896
3,962,588
2013
1,379
1 ,200
3,351
2,740
10,996
9,437
300
6,400
16,890
1,744
11,609
76,321
2, roo
7,778
3,054
16,863
29,434
36,421
2,OtO
1,600
27,728
7,294
2,400
2,s00
3,267
5,970
2.s60
8,574
38,636
2,350
2,400
1,500
2,300
1,800
3,140
t,570
1,887
5,030
1,800
1,800
1,O00
1,400
2,000
20t2
0
0
2,7L5
2,652
71,450
8,374
0
5,686
16, r84
t,476
9,913
72,L18
0
6,716
3,459
t7,9L6
24,945
36,500
0
0
0
1,366
0
0
3,O2s
130
3,797
6,7t6
47,543
0
0
0
0
0
2,944
1,431
1,4t8
0
0
1,805
0
0
o
2t,542 77,796
835,052 15,615 8s0,667 128.275,377 1 13,768,835 594.145 469.965 31,986
M:\Dept\lndustrial\o2-24-14 lndustraal LV Peak Day vs MDFQ 2013.xlsx
cAsE NO. INT-G-15-01
First Production Request of the
Commission Staff to
Intermountain Gas Company
Attachment 2
rr9FJo)
lo
oN
Z"
(U
-ootL
ct)o
-
.Ai9oLl--chO\,
.O +,F?
-ao
E FA
b9booo
,, *E
6 B"E
BE flal-o
'{=o)
EO(/)\o oo)a\ C0)(ELT;E\ (o-If,
bc
-o EEo\ tco.qo(o 3b
i
I
I
I
I
I__l
LLI.L
f,aE
5 Ne
at
o) (o0) I c
EH *E*E uHg.;"*$E g:gE EHEEEE'; EHEi EH; Ea
EE EEOE EE}if,g
gfig E,gFEr E [E fiEE
Frf
C')
-o
IJJ
IILJo
t<U'
IIJ
=oIIto
o
tr
G
CL
Eoo
'i=o)
o+,
Lo+,t>E'A(ri6
>., =Eo).EOot-+,co(U(l)oEEoOC
Hfr-o).9 .=e aeb =?.iil =-aa= t^ OO* t 09)E e R-uE EEtrh d et
n
EoCt-(Eo-
6CC(E
.Co
at-o
Eo
(t,5o
oCCoU't-oo-
E
f
-o
(U
o)C
-o(U
Co
bo+t
t-o+,
oo
Eoo
fo
.E.C+,'=
EoIt
E'
-oE
l-orF
+,.E
IJEo
CL
CLoooE'=
ot-(L
n
CL
+,oo.ct
o.C+t
9 -eo'Eo
oo
EE8eeo)o ^L(u8.9L-g9==.> r*- -O,r OJOO
n
(u
oocog
6+t
.=
E
.=
o.C+,oC(o
c(Uo-
Eo
C)
t-'6
.C+)rtsoaoooC
fl.aaot-Eo(E
o
Co
Eo-oE
oEaao
C)ot-o-
o)oot-o-
ooCofrF
.=oC(5
(r!ttro
cD(r
o
oUot,
o
a-Ltt
@i-oECf
LL
n
o
.z+,(,oErtsoI+,ooo
.C,
.o)I
n
(\.a
E
(UL
cr)oL
o-
o
ouou
o
!Itlr,
(trt-o
.cI(tr
-I oo
er-
=
'{=
ct,
-(E6E E
;gEfiE
HI ;.g*
H s€E;o= qroEp.=e!E
€BEC$a'' E =E o PEdE PE e H6 c'= h.:: f, 'rN e d*65 .s
e I FEeE t
H;HE$€ B
SEEsgsfi
oOEDfo
BB sI
-9 ats*8aEfl-
EH,EE,c)E.Ub8 r, o
EfiTE E e E
IE*g€E E
#EEsgr $
.€[
e:=
7<9
EgE"E E*
SEE
Eil-o
e Ee
.E e F'P(E# C (Uf o ooE.EE c
LE s€Yi5l,C
E e€ P
E E Egi, cDO !+
E gH
=tagEEE E 9ll o q-o
Eo
E
9c&eo5>trEDOoE9gEo.
EEFcU
oF
rsEa
E sreO .s e,aE
gEgEgE
aaoool-
o-tttr
(E
a
E
(El-
cr)ol-
o-
o
out
rrEl'o,
$ # EBeo ga
sE Ee, t* iE EE
EEagBggEgEetg
#EEEEEI I I
n
an$
EiFo
=oIIto
ooFo
'{=o)efu
cJl
E3
PaFL.
'tfr\ J
EAo-z
-E
5Elt
d$E
Er;
tt
5
s
0,1
tr.l
.d
E
OJ(n
?d{
ffIE
C"
E8_b-;llC'GilEr-9c=*
-.E
SE(Egcr= eI
UJd,(,tv
-
HT
zt :- frE
Eg;s
-
AJ}vElga
ooa(U
o)(u
a
Bfl$oFo
aoIItr
G
CL
Eoo
f-oSI
Eo
=
Eg$oFo
of-
=rh,o
=L-th,
@
CL
II?
-al-otr+,t-
G'o-
tlr,
II
I
TI+,
=aGo
HH
T'o1^.= ,s!PXEJOs(JO
i""*^"**-"--*-------1
::it:!oPi: L_C i!foovti! !'a eE ;(u(ttr.=t,lo, EUAo>L^ 9.6.9O\JssEg ifrl
= i:= O ;i .jg lE€6ri E3ifittl11,1rrt!o
rn8PH E EEF-Eoo,EE E >.E€bo P-g'3
H+EgEE€E
E P.; E E 5 S E3==3 t I I I
E.rr
'{=o)
'{=o)
ao5
TL
o
+.(E
E
E
'= I Eo)!co.9 (U (l)y y t-
LuE 8.E',.ifi9fi86 38 Po0 y ou>btE.O'6Fto1UIEOE@IUE.U)
o
.EcOooa-YA.96
==llotstr-c q)+rOE5tr€
o o =.!PBsEBEHOE
EEqEgsEr
=EEE6:o9V(E(E'=(EEE = Ecl!rrJm
nnnn
oFo
a(Eof-
a
=(,o
IJ.
cr)o
-otrFr-o
P
rr9FJo)I
Ep-o';gE
(EFLFo
:*oIorh g.=- (tr
EE BF<(L
o.g(L
o6a3st-3
b(EEc
Jo6]oL
=o.)t
.Yoo
o.o
(ULo
E(Eo
oo-c
0)Y
oo-o.
tn,Oc
Hg.E&V!vd>*A5 -Horiro QL-A\-
=(5ari5i!E gHg
=o hE !o
flP+<+
ocG-co
E,^?-Y
^LotL#p!?oYooto
oooo-oC
c.ooJ
LL
fg)
I.JJ(L
LoP(Jo
oo
oc(o
o
o
-o(o
oa-
Ec
E
I
I
iEgioFo
ao
I o.
E(ExIU?
EEoil6fr
?FI- ,\OEgH
'{=o)6B
= {j>,q 3 EBF > EOb-H, &E s,EE; EE 9
EgigugfiEugpgEsE rEilF
=
aoscD.=
Ee=oO=?L.6s
gr6
oLofiE H
-E 9=orsEg6ZG
CL CDs
=tr-r -r rrrr*,
PE€
=o6HE PF ttr -+,
o)o
oC.C
C)ga(oo)
a)i
€
tr
'{=
ct)
gn$
aFo
#l
Utilization
lbchnology
Development
Utilization Technology Development
With growing natural gas demand, there is a tremendous opportunity to take advantage of the positive
attributes of this clean and abundant resource to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance
energy security.
Utilization Technology Development (UTD) is at the forefront of research, development, and deployment for
end-use equipment and appliances. As a not-for-profit corporation establish ed in 2004 and led by our I 6
member companies, we represent over 24 million natural gas customers in the United States and Canada,
UTD directs and sponsors a wide-ranging program to enhance the use, reliability, and efficiency of natural
gas appliances and technologies, By taking R&D projects from the laboratory to the field, UTD enhances
market success via field testing and commercialization.
Cooperative research is showcasing the benefits of nafural gas in residential, commercial, industrial, power
generation, and transportation markets as an environmentally friendly energy source, creating efficient and
cost-effective new technologies, and identiffing emerging needs and solutions.
Member companies pool their resources to leverage their R&D investments with supplemental program
funding from federal and state government sources and other industry stakeholders, benefitting utilities and
their customers.
As markets continue to evolve, there is an wgent need for ongoing investment in advanced utilization technology
to address changes, along with new opportunities to lower energy intensity and consumption, provide sigaificant
economic and environmental benefits, and c,omplement energy efficiency programs.
Through participation in UTD, members are combining interests, expertise, and resources into focused R&D
projects that will shape our energy future and contribute to a robust economy.
Background
- UTD was formed based on extensive input from
energ/ utilities and GTI's Public Interest Advisory
Committee. The intent of this communication was to
develop a mechanism to leverage investments in
utilization research, development, and demonstration
(RD&D) to maximize the benefit to these companies
and their ratepayers.
It became clear that managers at today's energy
utilities operate in a difficult business environment.
Among the challenges they face are volatile energy
prices; environmental regulations; the influence of
mergers and acquisitions; the uncertain progress of
corporate unbundling and retail competition, and the
decoupling of rates. These utitities are often hampered
in their struggle by a shortage of end-use technologies
and information to enable them to offer end users a
compelling value proposition.
Surveys of UTD companies have identified the
following needs and opportunities :
r Better end-use technologies: Utitities and their
customers are looking for new technology and
more sophisticated products to lower energy
bills, lower equipment first costs, meet
increasingly stringent environmental
regulations, address the challenges associated
with carbon management, and integtate
renewable resources.
o Residential segments: New increased-
efficiency and lower-emissions gas equipment
must be developed to ensure that existing and
new homes and multifamily buildings continue
to choose natural gas options (for space and
water heating and other applications) which
offer the consumer clear benefits.
Commercial segments: Several traditional
natural gas product segments, including food
service and heating are being displaced by
electric technologies. This can reduce product
options for customers and increase their life-
cycle cost for enerry systems. lncreased-
efficiency gas equipment can be the answer.
Industrial segments: In today's highly
competitive and demanding economy, utilities
are willing to work with industrial customers to
help them become more efficient and less
polluting, thereby staying solvent, even at the
expense of gas throughput.
. Transportation segments: The transportation
area is increasingly recognizing the economic
benefits of natural gas vehicles (NGV$.
Reducing the costs of adopting NGVs and their
fueling infrastructure, particularly first-cost
entry into the market, is impo(ant to utilities.
Ensuring a variety of NGV engines is important
in expanding this market segment.
o Distributed energy: Utilities agreed that fuel
cells, microturbines, and advanced engines
represent a huge opporhlnity for customers and
gas utilities, but important technical and other
barriers remain.
. Integrated cooling and power packages: Gas
cooling continues to attract managerial interest
due to its potential to balance gas loads and
reduce gas-fired peak electricity loads. The new
opportunity may be for a packaged, off-the-shelf
system integrating power generation and cooling
technology.
r Information needs: Specific value is seen in
more material in electronic format for their
websites; and quantitative information on the
costs and economic benefits to customers of
installing advanced gas equipment.
Visionv To address these urgent needs, GTI and several
leading gas utilities worked together to define and
launch a not-for-profit corporation, Utilization
Technology Development, NFP (UTD), that builds
and manages an investor-driven collaborative RD&D
program. This collaborative program, guided by direct
industry involvement and perspective, confibutes to a
healthy scenario for the industry and provides
sustained benefits for the gas consumer. It is funded
by the utilities, government and other interested
stakeholders.
UTD addresses the needs identified by participating
companies and provides an opportunity to address the
significant gap in product-versus-potential in the
marketplace. UTD identifies and advances tech-
nologies and best practices for a robust gas product
porrfolio and provides near-term impact by delivering
advanced technologies that offer the consumer lower
enerry bills, lower first costs, environmental benefits,
and other advantages.
UTD coordinates activities with other industry organ-
izations to provide the best value to its investors.
Value to lnvestorsv UTD provides participants with information,
tools, and products to aid their customers in value-
driven gas markets. This includes an understanding of
opportunities, an assessment of the implementation
bariers, and assistance with the deployment to
achieve sustained market impacl Members meet in
person two times a year and via teleconference on a
regular basis.
Specific energy utility needs addressed include:
o Identification and assessment of barriers and
relevant technologies for near-term
implementation
. Development of advanced increased-efficiency
technologies to broaden the gas product portfolio
o An industry forum that enables peer
networking and opportunities for shared
leaming from the varied experiences of other
utilities
o Validation of performance, operating
characteristics, and emissions for developed
and emerging technology
o Substantial funding leverage and market impact
through collaboration with other gas companies
and subsequent partnering with public and
private funding parbrers.
UTD provides members with a balanced perspective
and porrfolio for technology investment providing
risk reduction, security, and benefits under a range
of scenarios. Achieving the.optimal balance w_ithin a
diverse technology progam for the gas industry and
its customers is a primary objective of UTD,
Selecting Projectsv Individual projects are proposed by various
sources including UTD members and research
performers. Those proposals are reviewed and
prioritized by the UTD members. Projects
designated as high priority to one or more members
are presented to the membership for funding
consideration, Each member has control over
their funds and determines what to fund and how
much to invest on each project. Once a project
receives adequate funding, and the statement of
work, cost and timeline are agreed to by the funding
members, it is initiated.
DeliverablesY The deliverables in the Project Portfolio are
based upon the final projects selected, and are
finalized through guidance and recommendations of
participants, but are expected to include:
o Detailed periodic reports; a final report; and
relevant software
. Periodic project-specific teleconference or web-
based conferences
. Opportunities for field evaluation and
demonstration in service territory
. Opportunities for intellectual property royalty or
return, based upon any technolory that may
result from cofunding applied to the develop-
ment of these respective systems
r Opportunities to participate in and/or guide the
development ofproposals for leveraged co-
funding from state agencies and federal agencies
or other RD&D funding sources.
Program lnvestmentv Investment in UTD is offered to gas companies
on a per-meter basis. A portion of these funds will
support UTD program management and G&A
activities.
Funding commitment is for an initial one-year period,
with annual approval thereafter.
Membership dues are set at US$0.40 per meter per
year with a minimum annual dues level of
-US$100;000 and a maxirnurn.annual dues level of
US$250,000 for an individual company. At their
discretion, individual companies can invest and direct
additionai funds towards projects of specific interest.
Companies with less than 250,000 meters can pool
with other gas companies to meet the minimum
investment level.
Non-gas utilities and other organizations may be
allowed to participate upon approval of the UTD
Board of Directors.
Gorporate Structure and Governance
' UTD is incorporated as "Utilization Technolory
Development, NFP" (UTD), a 501(c)(6) not-for-profit
corporation in the State of Illinois. UTD is govemed
by a Board of Directors which is comprised of
utilities providing the full per-meter charge and
meeting the minimum investment level. The Board
finalizes and approves the bylaws and provides policy
and operating guidance for UTD. Board decisions are
based on a one vote per company basis.
, t:-:.:l
Project-level decisions are made by the investing
companies for each specific project. Decisions on
projects are made on an investrnent-weighted basis.
Contacts
v Greg Maxfield
Utility Program Administrator
9s2t250-7197
greg.maxfi el [e-mail]
v Bill Liss
Managing Director, End Use Solutions
8471768-0753
bi ll. I iss@gastechnology. org
v Ron Snedic
UTD President
8471768-0572
ron.snedic@gastechnolory. org
Utilization Technology Development
1700 South Mount Prospect Road
Des Plaines, IL 60018
www.utd-co.org
I :::
l:i
I
@
(Uo
o
F
(r)
t-
E
-ooEo
eE
.ghccLEpo'=
beEI1- anxotLt.=ooi
=oECoEoc.,o3c)o
EEE3ocLEtEC8Erc .Ec-cg>.oEE,9b
CLE9oo- -cu,r;_€.o?rEg
CJoo
u!.o-E.go-c>
CE
EE.EoOo-rloxd)iE'b9
EEFL
cP'oE
:f o :'. orF>-\
I
-s.go iEA iE8EE6E
ol-3
€E fi-o@ 9t r.t (U
-va -*o oo E: U'E od bG -.C O,,n U) r+r,F EO 6H se E\J Er^r oL-C)
€psP= i €E
EEE g€ s,,Eqf'E
3 =t 3 E E e E
=
E
nEEHEEsEE8& ict;
.grtI-aI-o
-o
Eo
I
(or
coq-olzoo
=I
9a
-GEoa.t= O-(Uo
EI:+3ac(n5.oG EqY?U 6 H,N€I EH EE P,E i9 a.=
$ssE-:EEE\Ennggs'E E,toIf jo-r--6h.=Ebbgg
E g g FE !E gfi
= 't '!=-,H '| '| R "
l.o
(orON
I
\-ON
t-orr-
(D
=T)ol=&oa
ao-
=ol-
(,
o)C
=l-o
=
U'ooCoberFJ
Fhru
jooCA(U(Uaptc)
=Ca.-€g
a
.9C
(U
o-
Eoo
t-o
-o
Eo
Ecalro;E E E
F = rE =5E!DEp
EftEEp- 3#
*H#EEEEfig9rr'=rrEr
l-o
Eo.F'a
=C)
I
a{-,oo'5','
l-o-
GJp
EC
I
Co
.F'
(Ut-!F'
.9,
.E
E
N
(Ut-o
o
I
lzoN
-oEooTF
oE'=
ol-o-
orh,
.=C5gt-oo-o-o
o
ooC
G
EI-oEo(L
.CoaEE
fr4"Et-r Apsfi.E+CgdrA
A tl\ LJ
Ll l+-aF( u
FEE
-3 =.l- )l-,
-.= oJ-' .- va = coO.Y *-,t-L--Jo o-=rFri
-
+ ol6tst2 cq1 <o'E Ou)-t-l--A(6 ==xH_ 6>o
tlt
.= a aig OE.L
E 3EE
oo\ro,ts 1)(u= o
.=
=E(ut-
C,)ot-o-
Eol-lF
a
=)aol-
aot-
G
a
a
r.9lclolo-
IE
l8
(5
Ea
E
-(U
oo,t-
(U
-o
-o
#,(o
o-'6
l-
(Uo-a
=o
I
o
.za
-J
Etr
ot-JP
C)
=T-tF'a
#tCo
Eoo)(Uc(U
E
-
GaaoooCc
=
ECG
E(0ol-t-o
oao
.N
E
.E
I
o
{r,ootstll
T{r,ooo
.l-,ool-oiF'
.E
q-o
a+,oo'E'
o-
o
o-a
o.F'aEC
=
ao*,,(Uoo
(5
rl-,oo
o
C(Uo-
Eo
C)
eoG
tU
I
trlol
.E
o
o
-JE'tr
I
tu
C')
.gEC
=o
TLoFf
o
'6.o Aofror-oo9'o--O r-Ego'
=(U:-:(U
=;gL'ca
oAo@ \.' c)(U(oo-oo(UU)oo
65E ? .C
o+,
U)Co
.l-,5
oa
o)ooC.CoorF'
o-o
o
E
o+t
l-ol-
its,oo)o.a-,
lzt-o
=ao
r{-,:=+,f
U)
(U
o)
ot-o
-C
=C(uo-
Eo
oi-+,Co
C)
It-o-o
Eo
E
.F'iEol-o-
Il-ol{-
I+,oc
(o
orOro
oco
(U
Ec(E+ta
a
ao
Jo;
EE
=o&=
no@
aof,o
q
cf)@
o
o
o-oEo
(or
\f,OoN
Eo
-Ca
-o(s+.,
U)
tU
!oF
:)
o
Co
o
E
o
C
o-oEo
E
E
8"3
-co
8'p"
LtJ o-
-c, athOEFode>d
U'
.9,
Co
E
Eoo
=o.E
o
ooF
:)
cAsE NO. INT-G-15-01
First Production Request of the
Commission Staff to
Intermountain Gas Company
Attachment 3
*z
lnl
-(U.=oi:ETqC ACC.\JF6EE= &
:=
;g S i €EHg
*I*+ i l* tEtER.? :.=E^H'U
EEEE EE EEEE: .=iy,c o=.=o8 Efr
*EgH.;f;s'f;sEE.E38dtr6 , ,
ltjI
1.,'
:,
:
!
t--,
ir.
o
(E
E
=
Q
oa'6
m
.s
o(Uo
C'6
c
Jo
E
oc
(o
I
C'
tu
oEo
ocoNI
:
=o
Exoz
q-o
ooCN
E
oEoo-
o
o
E
C)
]C
ooo
_(l)
.E
o
--co
o
+,oo5'o
a
o-
-I
(,
=Fot-
xoz
ol-*r{-,
l{-o
--oln{-,$l-
I
CNCo
Eoo
T)
.9
TL
o
G
.Eo
T)
oO
+,o-:O sf B.Fr
H--o-r aaaa
20L4 Proposal
$ 294,000
$ 270,000
$ 24,ooo
In-kind support from IntelliChoice
1
gtL
Contact: Pat Rowley
UTD Champion: Bryon Defenbach
Start: Stage 5
Completion: Stage 5
Subs: none
Previous Work: UTD 1.12.U
1.14.I Cold Climate Field Demonstration
of the NextAirerM GHP s",
Project Duration: 18 months
Project Cost UTD Total Funding
UTD 2014 Funding
UTD 2015 Funding
Cofunding
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this project is to monitor
the actual installed cold climate
performance of the NextAirerM t5-ton
Multi-Zone Model E gas engine-driven
heat pump (GHP) in a heating dominated
climate. The ultimate goal is to expand
the GHP market.
INDUSTRY NEED
A significant goal of the gas industry is to
develop and apply gas heat pumps in the
broad market for commercial buildings.
GHPs combine high efficiency heating
-('t;2{.5 e0P)-'and-eooting (0' 95- [.2 COP]
offering reduced operating and lifecycle
costs as compared to conventional HVAC
equipment, In addition, GHPs
significantly reduce peak electric demand
and water use compared to electric
chillers.
This project will assist the industry by
developing a case study for the cold
climate performance of the NextAire"
Multi-Zone 1S-ton gas engine-driven heat
pump.
BACKGROUND
The NextAire'" Multi-Zone GHP was
tested extensively in the hot/dry climate
of the Southwestern United States by
federal agencies and gas utilities.
Although designed and targeted as a gas
cooling option for hot climates, its high
heating efficiency (1.2 COP) can
significantly reduce energy use and
operating costs. Heat recovery from the
engine jacket and exhaust supplement
the GHP output increasing overall system
efficiency in heating mode and provide
additional heating capacity at low
temperatures, In contrast, electric heat
pumps require inefficient resistance
heating to supplement the heat pump
output at low outdoor temperatures.
Figure 7 - NextAire'" 75-ton
Gas Engine-drive Heat Pump
'lhe inforrrratron contained in ihis prol:osal is picprietary afld confderitial. t.lse crl this information is linrited io members of Lltilization iechnology
Deveiopnrenl (l.lTD) arrd their enrployees, and may only be used by tile memlrcrs for internal pLtrposes and ntay not bo disclcrsed to hird patlies.
TIiIS II.IFORI4ATION I,IAY NOT BE RHLEASEi]'IO ANY THIRD PARfi
dels-.-+he-$4edet€-uses-tws--*__a n d e I e ctri c i ql_u se. Th e rm o co u p I es,
compressors instead of four. The unit humidity sensors and pressure
has a higher ventilation rate and has a transmitters will be installed at each air
slightly smaller footprint, Unlike the handler to determine the heating or
Colder climates can take advantage of the
high efficiency heating to generate more
than enough savings in energy costs to
offset the equipment cost premium. The
cost premium is further reduced by
providing heating and cooling with the
same unit. Cold climate applications also
benefit from reductions in peak electric
demand and water use provided from gas
cooling,
The IntelliChoice Energy's NextAirerM
Multi-Zone GHP offers 10:1 capacity
modulation using a varlable refrigerant
flow (VRF) system. The Multi-Zone GHP
combines high efficiency scroll
compressors and an Aisin/Toyota engine
with a demonstrated long life (30,000
hours). The units have a maintenance
interval of 6,000 to 10,000 hours,
Variable-speed engine controls allow the
GHP to more closely follow the load and
maintain efficiency.
The 1S-ton Multi-Zone GHP has
demonstrated operational and lifecycle
cost savings at several installations in hot
climates, Certified for the U.S. in 20L3,
the NextAire'" Multi-Zone Model E
incorporates several design changes from
qtl"
manufacturing partners in taunctfng the
Multi-Zone Model E GHP for cold climate
applications.
SCOPE
For this project, GTI will work with
Intermountain Gas to monitor the first
U.S. installation of the cold climate Multi-
Zone Model E GHP. GTI will create a case
study to demonstrate the Model E
performance and economics in a cold
climate application. GHP equipment and
installation costs, shown in Task 4, will be
funded by Intermountain Gas.
Task 1. Field Test Plan and lnstallation
(4 Months . $60k)
GTI will work with Intermountain Gas to
develop a field test plan including
instrumentation selection, measurement
protocols, data collection, and a site visit,
leveraging GTI's experience with other
GHP installations.
GTI will provide and install
instrumentation to measure GHP energy
use, and heating or cooling delivered to
determine the seasonal efficiency (COP)
for this application. The GHP will be sub-
metered to measure gas consumption
cooling delivered to the building. This
budget is based on one 1S-ton unit and
up to five 3-ton air handlers.
Task 2. Performance Monitoring
(14 Months - $25k)
GTI will conduct a detailed analysis of one
year of performance data collected at the
installation. Data will be downloaded
remotely on a monthly basis. Annual
performance and cost benefits will be
presented in a case study format.
Task 3. Project Management
(18 Months - $9k)
previous model which required significant
changes for hot, moderate or cold
climates, the Model E will be used for all
U,S. locations and only requires a retrofit
kit for installations in colder climates.
In a parallel UTD project, GTI is currently
conducting a laboratory evaluation of the
Model E cold climate peformance.
Preliminary results show that the Model E
heating capacity at full load was reduced
by just 5olo at temperatures as low as 5F
with only a slight decrease in efficiency,
IntelliChoice Energy and Aisin have
agreed to work with GTI as
The inforrnation contained in this proposal is fir'oprieia y and confidelrtial. Use ol ihis inlormation is limited to members of Utilization Technology
Oevelopment (UTD) and theh errrployees. and tnay oniy be used by the members for intenial purposes and rnay not be clisclosed to third parties,
THIS II.IFORMATION i,iAY NC}I BE RELEASED I O ANY THIRD PARTY
Task 4. GHP Equipment lnstallation
(6 Months - $200k, funded by lntermountain Gas)
GTI will work with ICE and the local
mechanical contractor to specify,
purchase, and install one 15-ton GHP unit
for the Boise demonstration site. Costs
for this task include:. GHP outdoor units and VRV air
handlers (ICE). Contractor training and certification
(rcE). Equipment installation (contractor). QC inspection, startup and
commissioning (ICE). Controls programming, tutorial, and
scheduling (ICE). GTI labor for support and
management
These costs do not include an interface to
integrate with any existing building
management system.
DELIERABLES
The deliverables for the project include a
field test plan for monitoring the
NextAire'M Multi-Zone GHP system and an
instrumented unit. GTI will develop a
case study documenting both the
performance and economics of the new
Model E GHP in a cold climate installation.
BUSINESS VALUE
The NextAire'M GHP offers the gas
industry a viable option to electric heat
pumps. Expanding the GHP market to
include cold climates will potentially lead
to higher production volumes and
reduced equipment costs.
For heating dominated climates, the GHP
high heating efficiency G.2 COP) has the
potential to reduce energy costs and
offset the cost premium of the
equipment. In cooling mode, GHP
operating and maintenance costs are
projected to be 30o/o less than electric
heat pump equipment. Electric power
use is expected to be up to B0o/o less than
conventional equipment and peak electric
demand is reduced. Since the packaged
unit does not require a separate cooling
tower; reduction in water consumption is
estimated up to 17,000 gallons per 15-
ton unit per year, compared to an electric
chiller.
BUDGET
The total cost for this project to develop a
case study for the cold climate Model E
1S-ton Multi-Zone GHP is $294,000 for
18-month duration.
SCHEDULE
PROJEGT TEAM
Project Manager: Pat Rowley
Senior Engineer, End Use Solutions
Phone: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
oatricia. rowley@oastech noloqy. org
Manufactu ring Partner:
Tom Young, IntelliChoice Energy
[e-mail]/
Develcrprneni (LITD) and {heir emplrryees and nray only bf u$ecj for [he merlbers internal purpose and not be disclosed io third parties.
THIS IhIFORFIA.ION |\JAY NOT BE REI.EASED TO ANY THIRD PAPJY
gti.
QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT
Cold Climate Field I)emonstration of NextAire'" GID
UTD 1.I4.I, GTI21658
Fourth Quarter 2014
GTI Projcct Manager: Pat Rowley
UTD Manager: Greg Maxfield
A sigrificant goal of the gas industy is to develop and apply gas engine-driven heat pumps (GlIPs) in the broad irnarket for commercial buildings. GHPs combine high efficiency heating (1.2-1,5 COP) and cooling (0.95-1.2
COP) providing lower operating and lifecycle costs than conventional fryAC equipment. GIIPs also reduce
lpeak elecffic demand and water use as compared to electric chillers. Heat recovery from the engine jacket and i
exhaust supplement the GHP output inueasing overall system efficiency in heating mode and maintains heating
capacity and supply temperatures at cold ambient conditions. Colder climates can take advantage of the GHP
trigh etrtcien"y tlutng to generate the savings in energy and operating costs needed to offset thi premium in '
equipment cost.
l
Project Objective
:
The project objective is to monitor the installed performance of the NextAirerM 15-ton Multi-Zone Model E gas
engine-driven heat pump (GHP) in a cold climate. This demonstration at InterMountain Gas in Boise, ID is one ;
ofthefirstcoldcIimateinstallationsoftheModelEandisneededtoasseSStheinstalledperformanceand
economics of a new cold climate application of this emerging technology. The project will determine the annual
heating and cooling performance, energy savings, and economic benefits of the GIIP as compared to the existing i
packaged rooftop units. The ultimate goal of this project is to expand the GHP market to include cold climates in i
addition to the existing gas heat pump market. The scope of work consists of four tasks: i
Task I - Field Test Plan and Installation:
. Specifr, procure, and program data acquisition system "rSitevisittoinstallandcommissiondataacquisitionsystem
-----Tzisk2 - P
io Monitor GFIP performanoe for a full calendar year. Downlo ad, anilyz.e,and report GHP perfonnance monthly
l
Task 3 - Project Management i
r Develop case study on GHP annual performance and economic benefits
. Draft quarterly and final report summarizing GHP performance under cold climate conditions ,
Task 4 - GHP Equipment Installation (funded by InterMountain Gas)
o Work with InterMountain Gas, ICE and local contractor to speciff, purchase, and install one l5-ton
GIIP unit and ancillary equipment for the Boise demonshation site l
Accomplishments during Last Quarter
.GHPsysteminstalledandstartedupNovember2014atlnterMountainGas
oInstrumentationanddataacquisitionsysteminstalledandcommissioned.
o Prelimin ary dataanalysis conducted.
Page I of2
Con-fidential - Access Limited to UTD Members
UTD L 14.I Quarterly Progress Report 3/2512015
agtr
Project Issues and Scope of Work Change
o GIIP fan coils were installed in interior offices and conference rooms inside InterMountain Gas'
Westem Region office building, while the perimeter heating load is met by the remaining RTUs that
service the rest of the building. lnitial data indicated that the GHP system switches from cooling to
heating and back throughout the day. In order to collect data on the GHP heating performance, the GHP
system will be operated at night when the RTUs are shut down. Data will be collected and anallzed for
this portion of the day to determine heating COP. Total energy savings and economics will be estimated
based on this data.. A MicroMotion flow meter was installed in the liquid refrigerant line near the outside unit to measure
total heating and cooling delivered to the fan coils. The meter providos consistent readings during' cooling mode, but indicates an error state during heating. MicroMotion was notified of this problem and
will adjust meter settings on site.
Schedule Update
None
Work Expected to be Performed during Next Quarter
o Continue data collection and analysis
Budget Update (as of.l20lll4\
Contract Value $ 309,800
Funded Value $ 285,800
Accruals This Quarter $263,497
Total Accruals To-Date s278,064
Remaining Budget $ 31,736
Funds Available $ 7,736
Page2 of.2
Confidential - Access Limited to UTD Members
UTD l. l4.l Quarterly Progress Report 3t25/2015
tz
Gas Heat Pump Water Heater
21}OLS Project Update
Emerging Technology Program Opportunity
For gas-fired residential water heating, the U.S. and Canada are predominantly supplied by minimum
efficienry storage water heaters with Energy Factors (EFs) in the range of 0.60 to 0,65. Higher efficiency
and higher cost ($700 - 52,000) options serve about L5% of the market, but still have EFs below 1.0,
ranging from 0.65 to 0.95. These options each have their drawback, as follows:
o Non-condensing storage EnergyStaro water heaters yield nominal savings, with EFs of 0,57-0.70,
however electrical service is required, adding installation and operating cost and potentially
erasing net savingsl.
. Small condensing storage water heaters require a venting upgrade and power service, which
while they are rated as greater than 90% thermal efficiency, uncertified laboratory testing
shows performance would result in an EF of less than 0.8091.
. Tankless water heaters, with an EF between 0.82 and 0,95, require a venting upgrade, power
service, and an up-sizing in the gas service from /r" lo r/c". However, the rated efficiency of
tankless units is widely disputed due to cyclic/startup losses from distributed hot water usage,
resulting ln Title 24 and other groups "de-rating" the nominal efficiency by up to 9%2.
To develop a new class of water heating products that exceeds the traditional limit of thermal efficiency
concluding in 2013, an R&D project team, led by Stone Mountain Technologies lnc. (SMTI) with support
from GTl, AO Smith, and Georgia Tech designed and demonstrated a packaged water heater driven by a
erasing net savingsl.
Emerging Technology Program
currently at the pre-commercial prototype stage, can achieve EFs of 1.3 or higher, at a projected
consumer cost of S1,800 or less. The technology is expected to become commercially available in 2016.
Cu sto mer Tech n ology Be nefits
o The units are designed to retrofit common gas storage water heaters, limiting installed costs,
requiring tfT" gas piping flue venting is L/2" -3/4 " PVC piping, and 120 VAc electrical service,
r From preliminary field test data, the GHPWH has the highest source enerBy efficiency of any
residential water heating technology3.
t Kosar, D,, Glanville, P., and Vadnal, H (2012). "Facilitating the MarketTransformation to Hlgher Efficiency Gas-
Fired Water Heatingl', Prepared for the California Energy Commission, CEC-500-2013-060.
' nESNET. Results of Electronic Ballot of RESNET Board of Directors on Adopting Proposed Standard Amendment on
Adjusting lnstantaneous Water Heater Efficienry. April 4,2072.
3 Not including systems with integrated solar PV/thermal inputs.
::: :r-n :ij::i:::: j : l,:::-:
#turu
Erner$'irrS T*eli:rolqgy Prqg16m
o Potential in future for ducting of evaporator air, to limit interaction with space heating system if
installed in a conditioned/sem i-conditioned space.
The GHPWH represents a similar leap forward in water heating efficiency to the recent generation of
residential electric heat pump water heaters (EHPWH), that have demonstrated delivered efficiencies at
least twice that of standard electric resistance water heaters. Like the packaged EHPWHs, a GHPWH is
comprised of three major components: a) storage tank, b) sealed system (set of heat exchangers
containing the refrigerant) and c) supporting components such as the evaporator fan, combustion
system and controls. Within the sealed system, the total ammonia charge is about 1,5 lbs, much less
than the 6.6 lb limit required for indoor use by ASHRAE Standard 15. The safe use of ammonia as a
refrigerant for indoor equipment has been well demonstrated since the first widespread use of
absorption refrigerators in the early 20th century to current times where the quieter absorption mini-
refrigerators are preferred by large hotels.
The first generation GHPWH units were designed and
demonstrated through laboratory testing from 2009 to 2013,
with primary funding from the US DOE and with substantial
support from UTD. Since late 2013 at the close of the DOE-
funded laboratory prototype development the 3rd and 4th
GHPWH prototypes built have been monitored in field-
installations within a short drive of the SMTI facility in Johnson
City, TN. Four additional GHPWH units were installed in the
Pacific Northwest in early 2015, with a seventh field unit
planned for testing in California. Through these initial field
tests, critical information has been used to improve the
GHPWH control strategies and future design improvements
development, the project team of GTl, Stone Mountain
Technologies, and OEM partners are continuing to look
beyond these options for gas water heating efficiency by
optimizing, demonstrating, and commercializing a packaged
absorption GHPWH. Knowledge gained in the lab evaluations was used to develop technology
demonstrations in UTD member territories, the Pacific Northwest, through a partnership with the
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, lnc. (NEEA) and lntermountain Gas, and UTD.
Gos Utility/Energy Elficiency Progrom Benefits
o This technology represents a step-change in energy efficiency for gas water heating, a product
category that has remained important for gas utilities but challenged to deliver new technology
for lasting therm savings.o With forthcoming changes in US minimum efficiency standards and the revised method of test,
both impacting the industry in 2015, this technology "primes the pump" for future innovative
products in a competitive landscape with reduced cost EHPWH products.
Figure 1: Prototype GHPWH lnstalled ln
Paciflc Northwest Field Testing
o Further state-level and other jurisdictional requirements for higher efficiency gas water heating,
such as proposed in California for new construction, require Energy Factors greaterthan
traditional gas storage water heaters can deliver (> 0.80). This necessitates gas technologies
capable of delivering EFs of 1.0 or greater.
1j
ii
i'
l;
I
I
I.
i
Technology Background
The operating principle of a GHPWH is very similar to the EHPWH; the
electric driven compressor is replaced by a "thermal compressor"
comprised of two heat exchangers (desorber-absorber) and a very small
solution pump. Energy from the ambient air is stilltransferred to the heat
pump via an evaporator coil, slightly cooling the ambient air stream. The
COP of the cycle ranges from 1,8 when the water in the tank is warm, to
1.4 when the water is hot. After accounting for combustion and stand-by
losses and the small amount of electrical power needed for the pump and
evaporator fan, the resulting EF is projected to be 1.3. An important
distinction between this GHPWH and the EHPWHs on the market is that,
due to the nature of the gas-fired absorption process, only a fraction of
the heat delivered to the tank comes from ambient air, the balance is heat
recovered from the combustion products. Depending on ambient
conditions, the evaporator load (amount of cooling to the space) of the
GHPWH is Ll2-t/3 of a comparably sized EHPWH.
The packaged GHPWH heats the approximately 75 gallons of stored water
with a nominal 10,000 Btu/hr output ammonia-water absorption
heat pump, driven by a small 5,300 Btu/hr Low NOx gas burner.
Figure 2 Residential Heat Pump
Water Heater (Patent Pending)
Source: Stone Mountain
Technoloeies lnc.
Emer$,ng Trrhnologt F.ogrrm
q.
installation advantages over other high-efficiency gas products:
compatibility with existing'/r" gas piping, smalldiameter3A" PYC
venting, and it reguires standard 120 VAC service. With a target
installed cost comparable with alternative high-efficiency gas-
fired options (EF 0.8 - 0.95), the GHPWH will provide a faster
economic payback compared to gas tankless or condensing
storage models.
MarketAnalysis
The target markets for this new technology are in the residential and small multifamily sectors, with a
typical hot water need of up to 120 gallons a day, most typically single-family housing. As the
technology develops and ranges of product sizes are introduced, light commercial and large multi-family
applications are good tarBets. Anticipated unit installation costs without incentives may challenge
adoption; two to three times that of a conventional minimum efficiency system. Like the electric
Figure 3: Diagram of Absorption Process
IMW CHP Center]
t.::t'
I
I
1..
I:
i.
t'
version, the GHPWH may require incentives to spur market adoption. However, the significant
improvement in efficiency, even over best-in-class condensing systems, may justify energy efficiency.
+. $3,000.00
o
lrllll r I I l l l."
Noncondendrns{:.""'::::"."i*-"J:.5"';::::}'*'l)'I..Purnps'iorase
Figure 4: Estimate of Water Heater Equipment and lnstallation Costs (6Tl Estimate, 2014)
l
According to the U.S, Energy lnformation Administration's 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey
(RECS), annual residential water heating totals 1.80 quads of energy annually, or !8o/o of the energy
delivered to residential buildings. These numbers translate lo L7% of household consumption in the
Northeast to 27% in the Western states. Over the past seventy years, gas and electric storage water
heaters have been the predominant water heatertypes in the United States.
Heat pump technology has entered the domestic hot water industry through the deployment of electric
_ heat pump water heaters (EHPWHs)._ While market penetration is still small, deployment efforts by
manufacturers and energy efficiency programi
operation of an electric heat pump is similar to gas, regions with successful EHPWHs are well positioned
to adopt GHPWHs as many common market barriers are being addressed. lt should be noted that
GHPWHs offer lower operating costs compared to EHPWHs in most regions.
taboratory Development and Testing
With support from the U.S. Department of Energy and UTD, Stone Mountain Technologies lnc. (SMTI)
led the initial R&D effort with support from GTl, AO Smith and Georgia Tech. At the close of the
development, in late 2012, lab-built prototypes were designed, built, and evaluated at GTI and AO Smith
laboratories to support validation of analysis tools, including a new method of test and rating
procedures, examination of protocols forfield studies, and evaluation of venting materials and systemsa.
a Garrabrant, M. Development ond Volidotion of o Gos-Fired Residentiol Heot Pump Water Heoter - Finol Report.
2013. Link: httpl//www,osti.eov/scitech/biblio/1060285
efl tF/$i0g TeqhA,Qlo!l Prcgraffr
Emerling Tech rology Faogram
Goal
1. To demonstrate a functioning laboratory prototype GHPWH with a projected EF of 1,3
2. Design the GHPWH towards a competitive equipment cost of no more than <51,800
Key R&D Finding - Efficiency Benefit of Advanced Gycle not Cost-Effective
1. ln seeking to optimize system performance through cycle modeling and breadboard testing, the
team evaluated the opportunity for single-effect vs, generator-absorber heat exchange (GAX)
cycle, simulating performance under e)dreme conditions. The results showed the following,
leading SMTI to select a more cost-effective single effect cycle: GAX performance was higher
overall compared to single effect by 41%
2. To reach performance of 5-LO% higher than that of single effect equipment, the GAX would
have to be at least 10 cm taller and costlier than single effect model
Single effect reached target goal of an EF at 1.3 while maintaining practical footprint and projected cost.
Field Assessment Proiect Approach
Critical to successful rollout of this new product class, completion of and dissemination of results from
this field evaluation of the pre-production GHPWH will support a) the commercializing partners SMTI
and a major OEM through identifying equipment modifications necessary for successful field installation
and operation, b) gas utilities through familiarization with this advanced technology to better assess and
achieve therm savings through their efficiency programs, and c) the broader water heating cornmunity,
including researchers, contractors, and regulators, to identify and resolve issues early for this emerging
class of high-efficiency equipment.
L. lnstalled Performance: How do GHPWH differ from prior laboratory GHPWH testinB under standard
conditions?
2, Predicted Savings: Compared to the baseline water heater delivered efficiency (as measured in pre-
GHPWH install field monitoring and from other published data), what therm savings can gas utilities
anticipate from GHPWHs?
3. lnstallation Contractor Education: What knowledge gaps exist concerning the GHPWH technoloiy
for end users and contractors that may require resolution prior to market introduction?
4, Market Barriers: What GHPWH retrofit installation issues present barriers to market adoption and
what are the benefits over existing high-efficiency gas-fired equipment?
Also of specific importance to this technology is the GHPWH impact on space conditioning systems with
its Northern Climate Specification operation on its environment-as is similar with the electric heat
pump water heater (EHPWH). While this space cooling effect is per Btu of heating is much lower (1/3 -
1/2) than EHPWHs, as inherent to the absorption heat pump process a portion of the heat delivered to
the stored water is through heat recovery from the products of combustion, this effect will be quantified
throughout this study, Additionally, the absorption cycle can operate over a large range of ambient
temperatures (35 - 125'F) with a more muted impact on system efficiency than EHPWHs. This impact
will also be a focus for this field study.
The field evaluation program consists of:
Field Test Plon ond Preporation: 1) Determining geographical locations for the units with sponsor input,
2) Develop desired installation attributes (occupancy, water heater location, etc.), 3) ldentify suitable,
licensed water heater installation/service company, 4) Develop a list of candidate installation sites and
survey for appropriateness, 5) Choose final installation sites and complete homeowner agreement
contracts in collaboration with local utilities.
Baseline Field Testing; 1) lnstall data acquisition equipment on existing water heater (baseline), 2)
Collect baseline water heater performance data for 2.5 months.
GHPWH Testing:1)Build GHPWH units followed by limited laboratory evaluation (SMTI Only), 2)lnstall
GHPWH at test site, 3) Collect GHPWH performance data for 8 months, with periodic homeowner
surveys, 4) Remove GHPWH and data logging equipment, final homeowner survey.
Project Reporting:1) Data analysis and reporting, 2) Aggregation of data with other ongoing GHPWH
field testing and dissemination of results through formal publication and/or presentation (e.g. ASHRAE).
February ?,OLS Proiects Update
ln this early-stage field trial prior to the full commercialization, the team intends to focus on:
cycle and the water heating system,
Quantifying delivered efficiency versus prior laboratory testing
ldentifying installation issues and other barriers to market entry
Assessing end-user satisfaction with hot water production and potential nuisances (e.g. system
noise)
Providing data concerning space cooling effect in support of potential Northern Climote
Specificotion for future GHPWHs
Currently six prototype systems are installed in the field, with the seventh scheduled for early 2015,
Figure 5 provides a high-level summary of all field sites across all projects,
a
a
a
Inrgrgn g Teqh4qlqgl Progrirrn
I
Figure 5: Location of Field GHPWHs
Covering the geographic range of the participating gas utilities-Puget Sound Energy (PSE), Northwest
Natural (NWN), Avista, lntermountain Gas, and SoCalGas - the goal was to identify one residential site
in each service territory. Finding a qualified host sites that represent the target GHPWH installation is
critical to understanding the performance and installation barriers. To assist with this search, GTI
developed the following criteria of the ideal host site: at least three or more occupants, existing gas-
storage water heater, single-family residential site, space to accommodate both current water heater
and GHPWH, simple installation and removal of equipment, "friendly" host site, meaning willingness to
cooperate fully with all aspects of the demonstration. GTI developed an online thirty-four question
application that covered the critical aspects of the host site criteria. Concurrently, GTI designed a one
page flyer describing the technology, opportunity, with a link to the application, When GTI closed the
three territories appeared to meet the bulk of the host site criteria and were selected to move forward
with the field site visit. Washington State University, scheduled visits to conductfield site surveys, install
baseline monitoring equipment, and deliver preliminary information to the installation contractors.
After one to two months of baseline monitoring of the existing gas water heating systems, the GHPWHs
were built by SMTI with support from GE, shipped to the host sites, and installed in early 2015. GTI and
SMTI are currently monitoring their operation.
Performance Summary
While data from the four units installed in the Pacific Northwest are too recent to provide, data from the
first two GHPWH prototypes installed in Eastern, TN have provided critical information on system
reliability, improvements for controls, and response to variable operating conditions (water
temperature, ambient conditions, usage patterns, etc.). These units, with summary data in Figure 6 for
2014, confirm the projected performance of a 1.3 EF if rated as a "high usage" water heater by the
revised US DOE method of test. A performance and data summary from all seven GHPWH units will be
provided in the subsequent project update report. All units will continue to be monitored through Q3
2015.
En:q,rqirr(rl Tttlrnol0gy Ftogrxm
Pac. NW Demonstration (WA/OR/ID)
Four GHPWHS are Installed ln major NW citles for flrst
'true' prototype demonstration, willfocus on
seasonal performance, heatln g system I nteractl on,
end user satisfaction, and contractor educatlon,
lnitial Controlled Demonstration (TN)
Two GHPWHS are lnstalled near SMTI, at homes of
SMTI employee (since 2013) and employee of local
utlllty (Atmos, lnstalled 03-14). Focus on reftnlng
system controls and assesslng rellablllty.
CA Focus Demo (CA)
Concurrent with NW demo, one
GHPWH wlll be evaluated ln
important 6as WH market of CA,
wlthfocus on perlbrmance and
emlssions compliance.
GOIO / VERY GOLD
H0T-OBY / [flXEO-ORY
':-::::::-J:i. i=:il
Figure 6: GHPWH Performance as Output vs, lnput for Eastern, TN GHPWHS
Table 1 - Paclfic Northwest Prolect Schedule
Emerglng Technology Program (ETP) ls a collaborative program managed by Gas Technology lnstitute (GTl) focused on
acceleratlng the commercialization and adoption of the latest end use and energy efflciency technologies. The program is
deslgned to help compantes "ss
To learn more about ETP and the prggram's inltiatives, visit www.castechnoloqv.ol'F/ETP. , .: ', , .,'
NEITHER Gn NOR THE ETP PROGRAM PARflCIPANIS: A) MAKE ANY WARRANTr OR REPRESENTATION, A(PR€SS On lMPuEq WTH RESPECT TO THE ACCURACv,
COMPLETENESS OR USEFULNESS OF THE INFORMAfION CONIAINED IN IHIS REPORT, OR THAI THE USE OF ANY CONTENT ASCLOSED IN THIS REPORT MAY NOf
INFRINGE PRIVAT€LY-OWNED RIGHIS; OR 8) ASSUMES ANY LIABILIT| FOR ANY DAMAGES RESULTNG FROM fHE U'E OF ANY CONTENT DISCLOSED IN IHIS
REPORT, REFERENCES TO ANY SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL PRODUC|, MANUFACTURER, OR OTHERWISE DOES NOT CONSNTWE OR IMPLY IIS ENDORSEMENT OR
RECOMMENDATION BY GTI ONTHE ETP PROGRAM PARTIAPANTS.
Emsr$isq Te(hl}$l$Sf Frrsram
70000
50000
E s0000
aof +ooooes. soooo
t!o 20000
10000
0 30000 40000
Daily Output (Btu)
60000
rr9FJo)
(E
T'0)
EoL;sI(,,>o>oIatod
c.co
E.+f,C'oroo
Ia([
oco'6
ot
.o)
l-
(,)C
a'xo
o
oa
oco-oo-c
ot-o
(u
.C
=ECo
Coyo.oEo
oL
o
E
o
ot-o
G-o
@
o)
=U)
,9,co
o
itso.c
o
o
I
=ILI(,
+,(U(..s
oE9:fo
oLl-dE 'ii=*,iDeL{LLGGE=
n
o
oO'E-c o-
E',.g
C=oooocOo!iooL
E
c)
(!
E
(Ut+,aLoo(u
coo
EcGa
oaf
!co
.C
o)ooc
oo
I
=o-
:Eo
(5.C
=ooE
Eo-c.9,
-o
=
a(U
oCo'6
q
0)
(D
-crF.
oE
=or
c.
.ElC
(Loo
Eo+ta
a
ro
t-o
,-i.
a
=
.tsa
ooo-U)i'6om0(t)o-!
o'--co+t()
(sfE
o
o
F
a
otr
U)
.oo)o6c.Co.o)F-
C'(E
cf,o
oCo
U)
:-:-:.: :!
.C
=o)C
=o
=
tr(,
o
J
=aC
(,)ooc
-Co.oF-a(U
(,
o.CF
It
-(Eo(,
*,oo.-oL
o-
xooo-oo)
o(,)Eo
Eoc.V
(U
-c
=tro*,(Uo
t,
IJJt-o+,()
(EL+,troo
tro
flr!
(E*,o
n
eet-#OO
G, F(\.o;aCEIb;=
E E+5 or ?iilo cv
I-I_L L6.ts eu, c€Aoo
E5EE6.goiE=+. tr
EE I
E EE
F I ..-,6= =od R
s5 3.=6'q
B reEl o'9oo6E=o
=aFEEEo- b*
n
Ecoo
Eo'oc(U
U,
0)ioc
o)C
oo
]E
=0-I(,
e,ro
oLo-oo
o.E
o-
Eo
l-o
E
cfo-coo
OEE'goc)bP
6sEEfo
=Eo-EIcUoEO([EaOElC 0)
AEro
ii H'2a
(u
ts9)
€E
flEt, _co=
==+. >\th
n
C@)Co.o(tIa6gcuo-cE,gc(u'=o
PE
=;o).E.E=oo6€.co--c
E9o?-(u,o
5E'*o
E'E
pao
(u
(U
I
=ILr(,
o
(UoI
o
(6
=o-
E
o-
(u
o)I
aG(,
alrl
8l
EIr-ot-
o-
Zs
; : : ::i -1:.-:.t-:-:-::.:l!
rr9l'o)
ii.i
tO ,r,F{ il:'-O ,'"
(Il r;r,E.:,:rc,(! i',:lP' :'rrt .
d-rtt
!
Eo
=o6P(E-cP
Vog0
(o.9(J
(n
Iz
]a(g
E
r;l .i.i'
'riil' i'
';,1,'
,l Ii,,
E
r':(U',
U.ioi'
uoc
.ao
q;b
e
a-
e
o
q
sE{-
o
=o,c
Go.C
o
(U
=oct)g
oaaNo)
co
E
Eoo
E
.C.=
=o
-oG
o
o
=aoEo]CCos
.Co.oF
.qo)
oo(,
ECG
.C.=
E
o
Fo
Eo
Eo.. o-|oo-EJ6aEO
EPth(r=t=ArFF
EE
@ .LJ
I8
?o)q''a
IOoo
?
-oIIt,o.rILo
oo
cnoIocer-o
P
II
=o-
-Io
'{=o,
.9
.o]Co
oo-
ozoa
o
o,CEio=-co
=(U-n o-
8Pf\ .=
i-i (II\ro
tsptso-tr(U([)()E
oo
Lop0o)
oo,oto
ooa
.E
E'o
(E
q,
.EI
=(L
Io
EoE.(f
(U
-C.E
=Eo
o
o(got-coo-oooCaa(U
-C
=c:l
o
-CF
o-
E
o-
+o
.E
o
G
o
o)C'6
Eoa
o'6
*o
Eo.=5(,o
.=c
=o
.9,om
o
-C
aoECo'6
o
oP
(U
(u
Co
(U
(l)
o-o
o
a.Yoo
=E
o
oa
o
n
:o
=Do
(u
oo-o
oa
=o-co
E 9=+t+rl-A _ l_.4U' C Jo:l= P+' at. I .aE 62.9.
*d I bFqE:u;^=.=U
EEfi
=.-i-^ggEP€sa'= (U .=
,tt L rt-, I-
=:E
?P* E;8gPEg
o .lJ Ol .E
,.-J- >.C A
=rsHtr)+=HE6q 8E
-o)cac
r.-z $@oE' .Coo--c :fotzao
=Go-o-c a)=oheo--fioOE
Hg
P=r- O-o-r;q
+, O)'a'6
9., o6;.a=o(/)m
(E6Eo.L
o
o-
Eoo
a.C
Co
E
o
E
ooo
oo-
o)c.E
o.=Co
E
o
.EEa(o
m
F
-{ra
E)?-o
(E
o
=o{.,oo{r,
o
.9oo
EEALVOfa- L.fa- rr
9gE,E th 9,tr O^!- LL,rF\
r.E 5
EEE,-(tso'F
E E$
;oo+,
o.tsoI0.)+,troLLIJ(,tro(J
T)
CL
:)
*,a
P
f,
-oII
IJ.
T
=o-
IIo
t,I-{-t
C:D
ao
,=a
o
Eoo
T'
I otI
II
=o-
II
o(Eo
tr
(trr
o-
o)
IIl-o{r,IItro
=t,tr
(tr
rl.,a
P
EIoIIII
cAsE NO. INT-G-15-01
First Production Request of the
Commission Staff to
lntermountain Gas Company
Attachment 4
E
EE!
E
s
I
<cotF<!I!
38ARa888888
ouo-6aooo--
?
2
aaaaddllltiltliiirr
EiEr
8888888t8eeSBaPSASSddd
to-6oooo
*xs$594ss98Ers
HH:
A
Hd5t
E
rR:=FesaInfi
I
1tb:Fl
z
EFqA$eE$il38
ooo-oo660oo
EE!
EEEEEEEEqqq
E F qe -E-€ e'-'--R- d
--66AOCO-60
{!D!za<zti
E!
.RFSSgsenEE
E:
HE
aaE
t
z $rrrrfIEE?;
,tEZ
<a
zi
gEFEEEFEEgE
I7
I(
tI
I
aaa
I8,
EE
Ei
Hi
sg*t**-*$E=, €E
E
E
II
u
,jE$ta r
if$llfEiBss
SHEES;$;583
>2aliE
UEaB:!ga;<iH>e26ZE-az
Z
>r2tr62()ts
23
984
EqEal3aEt8lr2
Eqses
EEEEEao66E
esces
QQEeEegI$.d96i
<€€€€
ECCeg
--qqeq
a!
Ec
!t
s