20240116INT to Staff 26 Attachment.pdf

Intermountain Gas Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee
Residential Energy Efficiency Program Updates

September 16, 2020 at 1:00 PM
Minutes Recorded by Kody Thompson

Attendees:
Lori Blattner – Intermountain Gas Company
Mark Chiles – Intermountain Gas Company
Kody Thompson – Intermountain Gas Company
John Fisk – Intermountain Gas Company
Donn English – IPUC
Brad Iverson-Long – IPUC
Katie Pegan – OEMR
Heath Chisholm – Building Energy
Ben Otto – Idaho Conservation League
Jerry Peterson – Home Energy Services
Kevin Keyt - IPUC
Marissa Warren – OEMR
Mike Morrison – IPUC
Brian Bennett – The Energy Auditor
Matthew Vandermeer – Momentum
Michael Shepard - Neighborworks
Guests and Presenters:
Kathy Wold – Intermountain Gas Company
Adam Thomas – ADM
Melissa Kosla – ADM
Meeting Facilitator: Kathy Wold

1:00 PM – Meeting Convened
Kathy Wold opened the meeting, welcoming the group to Intermountain Gas Company’s meeting about
the completion of the Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification (EM&V) process, as well as proposed
updates to the residential rebate program.
1:15 PM – EM&V Overview – Adam Thomas
Kathy provided background on the selection of the evaluators, before turning the presentation over to
Adam Thomas from ADM. Adam present the methods applied and the results of the impact evaluation
of the whole home measure and furnace measure The following key points were discussed:
• Whole Home Program evaluation
o Billing analysis of 2018 and 2019 homes compared to non-program homes
o Reviewed sample of home simulation models
o Overview of current incentive requirements
• Space Heating Evaluation
o Billing analysis of 2018 and 2019 homes compared against non-participants
o Review of sample of project applications
o Overview of current incentive requirements
• Evaluation Approach and Results Implications
o Baseline specification includes non-program homes and non-participants
 This potentially indicates net savings
o The evaluation approach was used as a substitute for free-ridership surveying
It was questioned why County assessor’s data for property data was used in place of the information IGC
collects when installing a line extension. This is due to more detailed information being available at the
assessor. Why Eastern Idaho wasn’t included in the analysis was questioned, this was also due to
focusing on where the greatest detail of information was available.
2:30 PM – Proposed Residential Program Updates – Kathy Wold
Kathy briefly discussed the considerations taken when designing the updated program. Completed and
In Development process evaluation recommendations were discussed, including: exploring
opportunities to incorporate new measures, standardizing the tracking database, developing
educational materials and training opportunities for raters, builders and adding the real estate sector,
provide cost savings estimates, standard operating procedures manual. Process recommendations
under consideration include: establishing a builder/contractor network, create ability for 3rd party to
track the status of rebates.
Additional Impact Evaluation recommendations discussed were:
• Collecting installation type for each rebate
o Replace-on-burnout, early retirement, new construction
• Collecting prior efficiency for each early retirement furnace
• Encouraging contractor training for Manual J sizing calculations
• Whole Home offering needs to be re-evaluated
o ENERGY STAR certified home requirement is a barrier to participation
o Planning a more stringent HERS requirement
o HERS is fuel neutral
o Planning to target natural gas savings by additional requirements.
It was recommended to collect the size of the previous furnace in conjunction with the efficiency of the
unit.
The Company proposed a revised whole home rebate structure based on a user defined
reference home requiring a HERS score of 60, and specific energy performance targets of 3 ACH, 2% duct
leakage to outside and 95% AFUE furnace requirement to target natural gas savings, citing all proposed
additional requirements could be verified on a HERS certificate. Under the proposed changes ENERGY
STAR would no longer be a program requirement. Committee members expressed concern that builders
would not participate under this revised rebate structure due to the reduced rebate amount, and felt
the HERS threshold, ACH and duct leakage targets were too aggressive. While Committee members
agreed the current rebate HERS threshold of 75 was not aggressive enough, some expressed concern
builders would drop out of the program at the proposed levels. One energy rater estimated of the 5
builders currently participating, only 1 one would probably continue at the proposed $650 rebate level
and these requirements, others would see it as “not worth the time.” Both ADM and energy rater Brian
Bennet mentioned exploring a tiered rebate structure.
Due to a lack of time, The Company gave a very high-level overview of the proposed changes to
the remaining measures in the portfolio. The Committee discussed whether measures with a UCT of less
than 1 should be included, an important consideration given the interest and savings potential of smart
thermostats, and the fact the estimated UCT was 0.90. Adam Thomas from ADM commented the 8-year
measure life of the smart thermostat referenced in the proposal appeared too low and recommended a
minimum 11-year measure life be used. No objections were raised.
Due to the abbreviated discussion time, The Company suggested sending the presentation to
committee members for further review. The Committee approved this suggestion and agreed to
reconvene for further discussion at a later date.