201609142014 DSM Report, Johnson Exhibit 1.pdf

DAVID J. MEYER
VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF COUNSEL OF
REGULATORY & GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
AVISTA CORPORATION
P.O. BOX 3727
1411 EAST MISSION AVENUE, MSC 27
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99220-3727
TELEPHONE: [phone]
EMAIL: david .meyer@avistacorp .com
BEFORE THE IDAHv PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF AVISTA CORPORATION FOR A
FINDING OF PRUDENCE FOR 2014-2015
EXPENDITURES ASSOCIATED WITH
PROVIDING ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS
ENERGY EFFICI ENCY SERVICE IN THE
STATE OF IDAHO
CASE NO. AVU-E-16-0~
ell~~ HO. AoY C 16
EXHIBIT NO. 1
DAN JOHNSON
FOR AVISTA CORPORATION
(ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS)
June 2015
RECE IVED
· P I 4 AM IQ: I I
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 1 of 60
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary ........................................................... 1
2 Cost-Effectiveness ............................................................. 3
2.1 Electric Cost Effectiveness Results .................................................. 4
3 Programs ............................................................................ 7
3.1 Residential .......................................................................................... 7
3.1 .1 Program Changes .............................................................................. 7
3. 1. 1. 1 Residential Program New Offerings ........................................ 8
3. 1. 1. 2 Residential Program Discontinuations .................................... 8
3.1.1.3 Residential Program Adjustments ........................................... 8
3.1.2 Residential Appliance Recycling ........................................................ 9
3.1 .3 hVAC Program ................................................................................ ~
3.1.4 Water Heat Program .......................................................................... 9
3.1.5 ENERGY STAR HOMES ................................................................... 9
3.1.6 Fuel Efficiency ................................................................................. 10
3.1 . 7 Residential Lighting ......................................................................... 1 O
3.1 .8 Shell 10
3.1.9 Opower Home Energy Reports ........................................................ 10
3.1.10 Customer Outreach ......................................................................... 11
3.2 Low Income ....................................................................................... 17
3.2.1 Program Changes ............................................................................ 17
3.2.2 2014 Program Details ...................................................................... 17
3.3 Nonresidential .................................................................................. 22
3.3.1 Program Changes ............................................................................ 22
3.3.1.1 Nonresidential Program New Offerings ................................. 22
3.3.1.2 Nonresidential Program Discontinuations ............................. 23
3.3.1.3 Nonresidential Program Adjustments .................................... 23
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 2 of 60
3.3.2 Prescriptive Path .............................................................................. 29
3.3.3 Site Specific Path ............................................................................. 29
4 Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification (EM&V) ...... 33
4.1 Process Evaluation Summary ......................................................... 33
4.1.1 Residential Sector ............................................................................ 33
4.1.1.1 Program Participation ............................................................ 33
4. 1. 1. 2 Program Design .................................................................... 34
4. 1.1.3 Program Implementation ....................................................... 35
4. 1. 1. 4 Marketing and Outreach ........................................................ 35
4.1 .2 Nonresidential Sector ...................................................................... 36
4.1.2.1 Program Management and Implementation .......................... 36
4.1.2.2 Customer Feedback .............................................................. 37
4.1.2.3 Market Feedback .................................................................. 37
4.1.2.4 Marketing and Outreach ........................................................ 37
4.1.2.5 Quality Assurance and Verification ....................................... 37
4.2 Impact Evaluation Summary ........................................................... 39
4. 2.1 RE'commendations .......................................................................... 39
4.2.1. 1 Residential Electric Programs ............................................... 39
4.2.1.2 Low Income Programs .......................................................... 40
4.2.1.3 Nonresidential Electric Programs .......................................... 42
4.2.2 Impact Evaluation Measurement Designations ................................ 44
5 Distribution Efficiency ..................................................... 46
6 Regional Market Transformation .................................... 47
7 Energy Efficiency Expenditures ...................................... 48
8 Tariff Rider Balances ....................................................... 50
9 Actual to Business Plan Comparison ............................. 51
10 Net Cost Effectiveness Results ....................................... 53
10.1 Electric Cost Effectiveness Results ................................................ 54
Appendix A Idaho 2014 Impact Memorandum .. Error! Bookmark
not defined .
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 3 of 60
1 Executive Summary
The 2014 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Annual Report summarizes Avista Utility's (Avista)
annual energy efficiency achievements for its Idaho electric customers. These programs are
intended to deliver a cost-effective, "least-cost" resource with the funding provided through
Avista's Schedules 91 and 191 , also known as the "Tariff Rider" which is a non-bypassable
system benefit charge applied to all electric retail sales.
In 2014, Avista acquired 15,743,727 kWh (unverified gross savings) in Idaho, or 95 percent of
the 2014 Business Plan target of 16,634,550 kWh.
A summary of acquired savings by sector is provided in Table ES-1 below.
Table ES-1: 2014 Idaho Electric Energy Savings (Unverified Gross)
I Segment kWh
I
Residential 8,896,105
Low Income 430,356
Nonresidential 6,417,265
Total 15,743,727
The above mentioned acquisition has been delivered through local energy efficiency programs
managed by the utility or third-party contractors. Avista also funds a regional market
transformation effort through the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), however,
reported electric energy savings, cost-effectiveness and other related information is specific to
local programs unless otherwise noted.
The savings indicated are unverified gross savings based on all program participants. Net-to­
gross adjustments made to the unverified gross savings for the cost-effectiveness analysis are
discussed in the Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification section of this report.
Avista judges the effectiveness of the energy efficiency portfolio based upon a number of
metrics. Two of the most commonly applied metrics are the TRC test, a benefit-to-cost test
encompassing the entire utility ratepayer population, and the PAC test, a benefit-to-cost test
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 5 of 60
from the perspective of achieving a minimization of the utility cost of delivering energy efficiency
services. Benefit-to-cost ratios in excess of 1.00 indicate that the benefits exceed the costs. In
2014, the gross TRC benefit-to-cost ratio was 1.76 and the PAC test benefit-to-cost ratios was
3.22 for the electric programs.
Nexant, Inc., in partnership with Research Into Action, (the Nexant Team) was retained as the
Company's external evaluator to independently measure and verify the portfolio energy savings
for the 2014-2015 biennium period. The energy efficiency savings and associated cost­
effectiveness results presented in this 2014 Annual Report are based on gross, unverified
savings. The 2014 savings will be evaluated by the Nexant Team in 2015 and reported as the
verified energy savings in the 2014-2015 biennium reporting.
Though the nature of this report is to look backwards on the performance of the previous year,
successes and lessons from this process are applied during the forward-looking business
planning process to inform and improve program design, including program modification and
termination where necessary. Avista remains committed to continuing to deliver responsible
and cost-effective energy efficiency programs to our customers.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 6 of 60
2 Cost-Effectiveness
The 2014 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Annual Report summarizes the Company's annual
energy efficiency achievements of its DSM programs.
Cost-effectiveness was reviewed using four of the five California Standard Practice Tests
including the Total Resource Cost (TRC), Program Administrator Cost (PAC), Participant, and
Rate Impact Measure (RIM) tests. For this annual report, cost-effectiveness of DSM programs
is based on unverified gross savings and methods consistent with those laid out in the California
Standard Practice Manual for Economic Analysis of Demand-Side Programs and Projects as
modified by the Council. Shown below in Table 2-2 through Table 2-5 are results for these four
California Standard Practice Tests -Total Resource Cost, Program Administrator Cost,
Participant, and Rate Impact Measure for electric and natural gas. Table 2-1 summarizes the
allocation of cost-effectiveness components as a cost or benefit to each cost-effectiveness test.
Table 2-1 : Cost-Effectiveness Component Inputs
I Program I Total I Participant I Rate
Component Administrator Resource Cost Test Impact
Cost Test Cost Measure
(PACT) (TRC) (PCT) (RIM)
Utility Energy & Capacity Avoided Costs Benefit Benefit Benefit
Non-Utility Energy & Capacity Energy Costs Benefit Benefit
Non-Energy Benefit Impacts Benefit Benefit
Incremental Equipment and Installation Costs Cost Cost
Program Non-incentive (admin) Costs Cost Cost Cost
Incentive Payments Cost Benefit Cost
The cost-effectiveness calculations only include non-energy benefits where the values are
reasonably defensible and quantifiable for a limited number of measures, including water
savings, equipment replacement and operation and maintenance benefits. The calculations
also include health and human safety non-energy benefits (dollar for dollar) for the low-income
programs. Non energy benefits not included, because they are not easily quantifiable, include
benefits for arrearage, health/safety/comfort, system reliability, and site specific air emissions to
name a few. The evaluation team will include survey and on-site questions of participating
customers to determine specific and demonstrable non-energy benefits as found and as
applicable.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 7 of 60
---------------------------------------
Cost effectiveness results within this report are based on unverified savings. Energy savings
reported by Avista's implementation team (both external and internal to Avista) were reviewed
by the Company's external evaluator, but savings were not evaluated for the 2014 programs.
The external evaluator will verify the 2014 and 2015 portfolio energy savings and verified
savings will be reported for the biennial period. The savings estimates represent gross energy
acquisition except as noted in section 4.2 of this report.
In summary, electric gross TRC is 1.76. Electric PAC test benefit-cost ratio is 3.22. Table 2-2
through Table 2-5 illustrates electric cost-effectiveness. Regular income includes all programs
offered in the residential and non-residential sectors (not including NEEA) and low-income
includes all programs offered in the low-income sector.
2.1 Electric Cost Effectiveness Results
Table 2-2: 2014 ID Electric Total Resource Cost (TRC) (Gross)
Regular Income Low Income O 11 p rtf ,.
Portfolio Portfolio vera O O 10
Electric Avoided Costs $13,714,278 $392,989 $14,107,267
Natural Gas Avoided Costs -$830,920 -$51 ,998 -$882,918
Non-Energy Benefits $85,165 $589,428 $674,593
TRC Benefits $12,968,523 $930,418 $13,898,941
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $1,724,418 $138,855 $1,863,273
Customer Costs $5,426,436 $627,690 $6,054,126
TRC Costs $7,150,854 $766,545 $7,917,399
TRC Ratio 1.81 1.21 1.76
Residual* TRC Benefits $5,817,669 $163,873 $5,981,542
*The "Residual TRC" is used to denote the difference between TRC benefits and costs. The term "Resid ual"
is used in lieu of the term "Net" as not to be confused with TRC benefits and costs where Net to Gross
adjustments have been applied.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 8 of 60
Table 2-3: 2014 ID Electric Program Administrator Cost (PAC) (Gross)
Regular Income Low Income O 11 p rtf 1-
Portfolio Portfolio vera O O 10
Electric Avoided Costs $13,714,278 $392,989 $14,107,267
Natural Gas Avoided Costs -$830,920 -$51 ,998 -$882,918
PAC Benefits $12,883,358 $340,991 $13,224,349
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $1 ,724,418 $138,855 $1 ,863,273
Incentive Costs $1 ,542,618 $700,170 $2,242,788
PAC Costs $3,267,036 $839,024 $4,106,060
PAC Ratio 3.94 0.41 3.22
Net PAC Benefits $9,616,322 -$498,034 $9,11 8,288
Table 2-4: 2014 ID Electric Participant Cost (PCT) (Gross)
Electric Bill Reduction
Gas Bill Reduction
Non-Energy Benefits
Participant Benefits
Customer Costs
Incentive Received
Participant Costs
Participant Ratio
Net Participant Benefits
Regular Income Low Income O 11 p rtf r
Portfolio Portfolio vera O O 10
$17,185,155 $654,626
-$11,257 -$2,680
$85,165 $589,428
$17,259,063 $1,241,373
$5,426,436 $627,690
-$1 ,542,618 -$700, 170
$3,883,818 -$72,479
4.44 N/A
$13,375,245 $1,313,853
$17,839,781
-$13,937
$674,593
$18,500,437
$6,054,126
-$2,242,788
$3,811,339
4.85
$14,689,098
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 9 of 60
Table 2-5: 2014 ID Electric Rate Impact Measure (RIM) (Gross)
' .. -. .
Savin s
Non-Participant Benefits
Electric Revenue Loss
Non-Incentive Utility Costs
Customer Incentives
Non-Participant Costs
RIM Ratio
Net RIM Benefits
Regular Income
Portfolio
$13,714,278
$17,185,155
$1,724,418
$1 ,542,618
$20,452,191
0.67
-$6,737,913
Low Income
Portfolio
$392,989
$392,989
$654,626
$138,855
$700,170
$1,493,650
0.26
-$1, 100,661
Overall Portfolio
• •
$14,107,267
$17,839,781
$1 ,863,273
$2,242 ,788
$21,945,841
0.64
-$7,838,575
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 1 O of 60
3 Programs
3.1 Residential
The Company's residential portfolio is composed of several approaches to engage and
encourage customers to consider energy efficiency improvements within their home.
Prescriptive rebate programs are the main component of the portfolio, but are augmented by a
variety of other interventions. These include: upstream buy-down of low-cost lighting and water
saving measures, select distribution of low-cost lighting and weatherization materials, appliance
recycling program, a low-interest loan program, direct-install programs and a multi-faceted,
multichannel outreach and customer engagement effort.
Over $575,000 in rebates were provided directly to Idaho residential customers to offset the cost
of implementing these energy efficiency measures. All programs within the residential portfolio
contributed over 8,896 MWh in annual first-year energy savings.
3.1.1 Program Changes
Program cnanges were made for tt1e 2014-2015 Bienn;um, including the introduction of new
programs, the discontinuation of programs and changes to eligibility or incentive levels of
existing programs. Avista communicates the majority of program changes once the Business
Plan is finalized and typically makes the changes effective at the beginning of the year. Program
changes are also made throughout the year as necessary, but mid-year changes are less
typical.
For residential programs, rebate amounts were updated to reflect business planning analysis
and to include inputs such as new unit energy savings (UES) and cost values. For changes that
were effective January 1, 2014, Avista continued to accept rebate applications and honored
incentive amounts through March 31, 2014 for 2013 measures (the 90 days allowed for a
smooth transition when rebate programs change, allowing enough time for customers in the
pipeline to complete their projects, yet closed out changes in a timely but balanced approach).
The following outlines additions, adjustments and discontinuations of residential programs and
incentive levels beginning in 2014:
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 11 of 60
3.1.1.1 Residential Program New Offerings
The following measures were added to the residential program offering beginning January 2014:
• In October 2014 Avista launched a smart thermostat program that offered customers
installing qualifying wifi-enabled models either a $50 rebate for do-it-yourself installation
or $100 for contractor installed devices.
• Windows offered at $4.00 per square foot (replacement of single or double pane to U­
factor of 0.30 or lower).
3.1.1.2 Residential Program Discontinuations
The following measures and/or programs were discontinued from the residential portfolio:
• High Efficiency Air Source Heat Pumps were discontinued in January 2014.
3.1.1.3 Residential Program Adjustments
The following adjustments in program requirements and/or incentives levels were made to the
residential programs beginning January 2014:
• High Efficiency Electric Water Haater decreased from $30 to $20
• Electric to Natural Gas Furnace Conversion increased from $750 to $900
• Electric to Natural Gas Water Heater Conversion increased from $200 to $300
• Attic Insulation decreased from $0.25 per square foot to $0.15 per square foot (Existing
insulation R-value changes from R-12 or less to R-19 or less to be eligible)
• Wall Insulation decreased from $0.50 per square foot to $0.25 per square foot
• Floor Insulation decreased from $0.50 per square foot to $0.20 per square foot
• Electric or electric and natural gas Energy Star® Home, Stick Built from $650 to $1,000
• Electric or electric and natural gas Energy Star®/Eco-Rated Home, Manufactured from
$650 to $800
• Electric to Natural Gas Furnace Conversion increased from $900 to $2,300 (increased
on September 16, 2014 due to Fuel Efficiency Tariff Change)
• Electric to Natural Gas Water Heater Conversion increased from $300 to $600
(increased on September 16, 2014 due to Fuel Efficiency Tariff Change)
• Combination Electric to Natural Gas Space and Water Heat increased from $1,200 to
$3,200 (increased on September 16, 2014 due to Fuel Efficiency Tariff Change)
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 12 of 60
The remaining sub-sections outline each residential program offered in 2014 and the unverified
participation , incentives, energy savings, among other program achievements.
3.1.2 Residential Appliance Recycling
Avista has partnered with JACO, one of the nation's leading appliance recyclers, to provide
third-party administration of the refrigerator/freezer appliance recycling program. Customers
received $30 per appliance for participating which equated to $8,130 in incentives. This
appliance recycling program resulted in over 118 MWh in annual first-year savings in 2014 (see
Table 3-1).
3.1.3 HVAC Program
Electric customers with electric home heat are eligible for a rebate for the installation of a
variable speed motor on their forced air heating equipment ($100 rebate), or a conversion of
electric straight resistance space heat to an air source heat pump ($900 rebate). This program
achieved over 441 MWh in first-year savings in 2014 and customers received a total of $83,758
in incentives (see Table 3-2).
3.1.4 Water Heat Program
The Water Heat Program offers a $20 incentive for a high efficiency electric water heater (0.93
Energy Factor), and $7 buydown for Simple Steps, Smart Savings showerheads (reflected in
point of purchase price). Savings from free showerheads installed via the Shell program
(described below) are also tallied under Water Heat. The Water Heat Program achieved 184
MWh in first-year savings in 2014 (see Table 3-3). $10,525 was paid in incentives for this
program.
3.1.5 ENERGY STAR HOMES
Avista customers with a certified ENERGY STAR Home or ENERGY STAR/ ECORated
Manufactured Home are eligible for a $1,000 or $800 rebate, respectively. Eligible homes must
be all electric to qualify for these rebate levels. Alternatively, customers who subscribe to Avista
electric service for lighting and appliances and natural gas service for space and water heating
are eligible for a program rebate of $650 regardless of construction type. Avista achieved 27
MWh savings in 2014 (see Table 3-4). A total of $2,790 was paid out in incentives for this
program.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 13 of 60
3.1.6 Fuel Efficiency
This program offers incentives for converting existing straight resistance electric space heat to a
natural gas furnace ($900 rebate); and/or converting their existing electric water heater to a
natural gas water heater ($300 rebate). This program achieved 633 MWh in first-year savings in
2014 (see Table 3-5), with customers receiving $120,100 in paid incentives.
3.1.7 Residential Lighting
Avista continues to participate in the regional manufacturer buy-down of CFL twists, specialty
bulbs, LED bulbs, and showerheads through Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) and
its contactor. The bulbs resulted in 4,760 MWh in annual first-year savings during 2014 (see
Table 3-6). The showerhead savings are tallied under Avista's Water Heat program. The
Company contributed over $280,260 in incentives toward this buydown effort.
3.1.8 Shell
The primary measures included wall, attic, and floor insulation and window replacements. In
2014, the Shell Program acquired 446 MWh in first-year energy savings (see Table 3-7).
3.1 .9 Opower Home Energy Reports
Avista launched a Home Energy Reports program in June 2013, targeting 25,200 Idaho high
use electric customers. Eligibility for treatment includes several criteria such as sufficient (2
year) billing history, enough peers to build comparison group, not in the control group, not a 'do
not solicit' customer and high enough electric use to be cost-effectively treated, which produced
a treatment group with an average over 18,000 kWh and the lowest use customers in the group
were over 8,000 kWh annual. In an effort to reduce energy usage through behavioral changes,
Home Energy Reports show personalized usage insights and energy saving tips. Customers
also see a ranking of similar homes, comparison to themselves and a personal savings goal on
the Reports. In addition to closely matching usage curves, the similar home comparisons are
also based on the following four criteria, square footage, home type, heat type and proximity.
As shown in Table 3-8 initial participating customer counts began at higher counts than the
program targets to account for Opt-Outs and Attrition. Customers have the choice of receiving
the reports and can opt-out at any time. Attrition results in customers closing their Avista
account and therefore no longer being counted in the Program. Opower's reported energy
savings results (fixed-effects model as reported by OPower) in Idaho are 2,283 MWh (see Table
3-9).
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 14 of 60
3.1.10 Customer Outreach
Avista's DSM programs encourage the customer to take action through participation in currently
available programs. Energy efficiency outreach efforts are varied and usually are a combination
of both broad reach and targeted media, online, print and attendance at local community events.
In 2014, Avista's residential outreach included the repeat of popular broad reach media
promotions "Efficiency Matters" and "Home Energy Advisor". A bill insert in the early spring
offered to tips to manage energy use and a link to rebate offerings.
Idaho customers could tune into a radio segment called "House to Home" ; each quarter it
featured an Avista energy engineer discussing energy efficiency information based on the
season and related topics. Web searches for key words such as "gas conversion" or "rebates"
resulted in a banner ad for Avista and a link to avistautilities.com. As opportunities arise, energy
efficiency tips are provided to local media outlets. Typical topics include winter weather and
summer heat energy efficiency tips. Avista provides updates to area vendors about program
information through mailings and webinars who in turn pass that information on to their
customers.
These are the highlights of specific acti·,ities thc1t are reinforced and compliment the ongoing
outrea ch and messaging throu~h the websi~e, cu stomer service reps, printed rebate forms,
trainings, sponsorships, etc. As noted in funher detdil in the Low Income outreach and while we
target low income customers, our energy fairs are open to all customers.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 15 of 60
Table 3-1 : 2014 ID Residential Appliance Recycling Summary1
P · kWh A .d d Therms Non-Customer Non-roiect . vo1 e 'd 1 1 . . Measure C Incentives kWh Therms C Avo1 ed energy ncrementa 1ncent1ve ount osts .. Costs Benefits Costs Ut1l1ty Costs
Refrigerator 207 $6,210 87,768 $24,081 $0 $0 $6,210 $6,591
Freezer 64 $1 ,920 30,592 $8,845 $0 $0 $1 ,920 $2,421
Total 271 $8,130 118,360 $32,926 $0 $0 $8,130 $9,012
Table 3-2: 2014 ID Electric HVAC Program Summary1
Non-
p . kWh Therms Non-Customer . . roJect . . . 1ncent1ve Measure C Incentives kWh Therms Avoided Avoided energy Incremental U .
1
. ount t11ty Costs Costs Benefits Costs C
E Thermostat WA/ID DIY I $50 961 $559 I $0
X E Air Source Heat Pump 15 $1 ,308 5,055 $3,755 I $0 I
E Electric To Air Source Heat Pump 68 $61 ,200 341 ,556 $253,717 I $0
E Variable Speed Motor 211 I
i
$21 ,100 I 93,068 $57,211 I $0
E Thermostat WA/ID PD Install 1 l $100 i 961 $559 $0 !
Total 296 $83,758 441,601 $31 5,801 i $0
Table 3-3: 2014 ID Electric Water Heat Program Summary1
1 All kWh values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of applicable NTG ratios.
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
osts
$264 $153
$44,158 $1 ,028
$360,574 $69,442
$273,837 $15,659
$445 $153
$679,278 $86,434
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 16 of 60
Non-
p . kWh Therms Non-Customer . t· roiect . . . 1ncen 1ve Measure C Incentives kWh Therms Avoided Avoided energy Incremental U .
1
. ount ti 1ty Costs Costs Benefits Costs C osts
Simple Steps Showerheads 1,682 $10,265 183,470 $88,254 $0 $0 $40,368 $24,155
E Electric Water Heater 13 $260 1,430 $831 $0 $0 $6,632 $227
Total 1,695 $10,525 184,900 $89,085 $0 $0 $47,000 $24,383
Table 3-4: 201410 ENERGY STAR Homes Electric Program Summary2
P . kWh Therms Non-Customer Non-~~ . . . . . Measure C Incentives kWh Therms Avoided Avoided energy Incremental incentive
ount C fi C U .. C Costs osts Bene its osts t1hty osts
E Estar Home -Manuf, Furnace 4 $2,790 27,388 $26,750 $0 $659 $12,000 $7,322
Total 4 $2,790 27,388 $26,750 $0 $659 $12,000 $7,322
Table 3-5: 2014 ID Electric Fuel Conversion Program Summary2
Non-. kWh Therms Non-Customer . . Proiect . . . incentive Measure C Incentives kWh Therms Avoided Avoided energy Incremental U .
1
• ount ti 1ty Costs Costs Benefits Costs C
E Electric To Natural Gas Water
Heater 17 $10,200 62,577
2 All kWh values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of applicable NTG ratios.
(3,672) $25,156 -$116,639 $0
osts
$35,244 $6,885
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 17 of 60
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace 45 $103,500 540,540 (22,094) $217,302 -$701 ,806 $0 $219,972 $59,475
E Electric To Natural Gas Fur & WH 2 $6,400 30,386 (1,426) I $12,215 -$45,296 $0 $10,576 $3,343
Total 64 $120,100 633,503 (27,192) ! $254,674 -$863,741 $0 $265,792 $69,704
Table 3-6: 2014 ID Electric Residential Lighting Program Summary 2
kWh Therms Non-Customer N . t· Project . . on-1ncen 1ve Measure Incentives kWh Therms Avoided Avoided energy Incremental U ·i·t C Count t1 1 y osts Costs Costs Benefits Costs
Simple Steps LED 53,015 $1 43,235 1,119,394 ! i
Simple Steps CFL 206,422 $136,053 3,636,394
Customer Outreach CFLs l 240 $720 I 3,600 I (Residential)
Customer Outreach LEDs 84 $252 1,092 (Residential)
Total 259,761 $280,260 4,760,480
$449,897 $0 $0
$1,072,864 $0 $0
$1 ,041 $0 $0
$520 $0 $0
$1 ,524,322 $0 $0
$651 ,558 $123,137
$673,140 $293,642
$359 ! $285
$1 ,032 $142
$1,326,090 $417,206
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 18 of 60
Table 3-7: 2014 ID Electric Shell Program Summary3
Non-
p . t kWh Therms Non-Customer . . roiec . . . incentive Measure C Incentives kWh Therms Avoided Avoided energy Incremental .. ount Utility Costs Costs Benefits Costs C osts
E Attic Insulation With Electric Heat 21 $4,569 22,267 ;i,20,184 $0 $742 $28,109 $5,524
E Floor Insulation With Electric Heat 6 $1 ,690 I 9,949 $9,018 $0 $212 I $7,696 $2,468
E Wall Insulation With Electric Heat 12 $3,189 I 22,331 $20,242 $0 $339 I $12,717 $5,540 I
E Window Replc From Double Pane W ! 80 ! $30,286 I 142,941 ! ! $129,570 [ $0 ! $0 I $264,582 Elec Heat I i $35,463
E Window Replc From Single Pane W 67 $29,504 I 246,514 $223,455 i $0 $0 I $257,323 Elec Heat ! $61 ,159
G Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat 1 $340 I 2,776 320 $4,130 $0 $0 $1,256 $1 ,130
Total 187 $69,578 I 446,778 320 $406,599 $0 $1,294 $571,681 $111 ,286
Table 3-8: 2014 OPower Participation Summary
P Initial Opt-outs Closed Accounts Participating State rogram p . . .
Tar et art1c1pating 2013 2014 2013 2014 Customers 2014
g Customers Year-End
ID 25,200 21,545 0.88%
3 All kWh values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of applicable NTG ratios.
1.11% 2,323 2,535 18,988
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 19 of 60
Table 3-9: 2014 ID Electric Residential OPower Program Summary
Non-kWh Therms Non-Customer . t· Project . 1ncen 1ve Measure C Incentives kWh Therms Avoided Avoided energy Incremental ut·i·t ount 11 y Costs Costs Benefits Costs C
OPower Home Energy Reports 0 $0 2,283,095 $286,741 $0 $0
osts
$244,569 $244,569
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 20 of 60
3.2 Low Income
The Company leverages one Community Action Program (CAP) agency to deliver energy
efficiency programs for the Company's low income residential customers in the Idaho service
territory. The Community Action Partnership out of Lewiston has resources to income qualify,
prioritize and treat clients homes based upon a number of characteristics. In addition to the
Company's annual funding , the agency has other monetary resources that they can leverage
when treating a home with weatherization or other energy efficiency measures. The agency
either has in-house or contractor crews to install many of the efficiency measures of the
program.
3.2.1 Program Changes
In 2014, the Company continued to reimburse Community Action Agencies for 100% of the cost
of installation for a select group of "Approved" energy efficiency measures.
New in 2014, the Company established a "Rebate List" of other energy efficiency measures.
This rebate list allows the agencies to receive funding for measures that are not as cost­
effective as those on the Approved List but are still necessary for the homes overall
functionality. The reimbursement amount is only equal to the energy value of the improvement
from the Utility perspect ve. Thi'., approach focus s the /l gency towards i stE.lling measures that
have the greatest cost-effectiveness, from the utility perspective, but still offers an opportunity to
fund other measures if needed. To allow for additional flexibility, the agency may also choose to
utilize their Health and Safety dollars to fully fund the cost of the measures on the Rebate list.
3.2.2 2014 Program Details
Eligible efficiency improvements are similar to those offered under the traditional residential
rebate programs, as well as mirroring a variety of the same measures found on the state
program priority list. An Avista approved measure list is provided to the agencies in an attempt
to manage the cost-effectiveness of the low income program (see Table 3-10). The agencies are
given discretion to spend their allotted funds on electric efficiency improvement based on the
need of the clients The program includes improvements to insulation, infiltration, ENERGY
STAR® doors and refrigerators along with fuel conversion from electric resistance space and
water heat to natural gas. Avista's funding covers the full cost of the improvement from the
Approved Measures list.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 21 of 60
Table 3-10: 2014 Low Income Program Approved Measure List
Electric Measures
• Air infiltration
• Insulation (floor and wall)
• Duct sealing
• ENERGY STAR doors
• Electric to Natural Gas Conversion
(Space and Water Heat)
• ENERGY STAR Refrigerators
• Variable speed Motor
As mentioned above , beginning in 2014 a "Rebate" list was established to allow the agencies to
receive funding for measures that are not as cost-effective as those on the Approved List but
are still necessary for the homes overall functionality. This measure list is outlined in Table 3-11 .
Table 3-11: 2014 Low Income Program Rebate Measure List
Electric Measures
• Insulation (duct and attic)
• ENERGY STAR refrigerators (for
replacement of a refrigerator that is not
fully operational)
• High efficient water heater
• Electric to air source heat pump
• Electric to natural gas water heater
• ENERGY ST AR windows
• High efficiency air source heat pump
The one Idaho agency received a total funding amount of $700,000 in 2014. The annual
contract allows the agency to spend their annually allotted funds on electric efficiency measures
at their discretion, and charge a 15 percent administration fee towards the cost of each
measure. In addition, up to 15 percent of their annual funding allocation may be used towards
Health and Safety improvements in support of energy efficiency measures installed in the home.
It is at the agencies discretion whether or not to utilize their funds for health and safety and
other home repairs to ensure the habitability of the home where the energy efficiency
improvements were installed.
For the 2014 program year, Idaho income-qualified homes installed approximately 3,640
individual measures in 253 individual homes, acquiring more than 430 MWh while expending
the $700,000 thousand in Idaho contracts. Refer to Table 3-12 for details on the low income
program.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 22 of 60
In partnership with the Company's Demand-Side Management efforts, Avista's Consumer
Affairs department conducts conservation education and outreach for the low income, senior
and vulnerable customers. The company reaches the target population through workshops,
energy fairs, mobile and general outreach. Each of these methods include demonstrations and
distribution of low-cost and no-cost materials with a focus on energy efficiency, conservation tips
and measures, and information regarding energy assistance that may be available through
agencies.
The company has recognized the following educational strategies as efficient and effective
activities for delivering the energy efficiency and conservation education and outreach:
• Energy Conservation workshops for groups of Avista customers where the primary
target audiences are seniors and low income participants.
• Energy Fairs where attendees can receive information about low cosUno cost
methods to weatherize their home; this information is provided in demonstrations and
limited samples. In addition, fair attendees can learn about billing assistance and
demonstrations of the online account and energy management tools. Community
partners that provide services to low income populations and support to ir.crease
personal self-sufficiency are invited, at no cost, to host a booth to provide information
abou their services and how to access them.
• Mobile Outreach is conducted through the Avista Energy Resource Van (ERV) where
visitors can learn about effective tips to manage their energy use, bill payment
options and community assistance resources.
• General Outreach includes bill payment options and assistance resources in senior
and low income publications. General Outreach can also be accomplished by
providing energy management information and resources at events (such as
resource fairs) and through partnerships that reach our target populations.
In 2014, in Idaho, Avista facilitated 16 workshops with 470 participants; two energy fairs that
had 550 attendees; 19 mobile outreach events touching 3,319 visitors; and 4 general outreach
partnerships and events reaching 455 individuals for a total of 4,794 senior and low income
individual touches.
In addition to the Avista led outreach, a $50,000 conservation education (ConEd) grant funded
through the DSM tariff rider was provided to the Community Action Partnership (CAP) in
Lewiston. The grant covers the costs for brochures and flyers to reach individuals seeking
energy assistance at the CAP offices and in the service area. The objectives of CAP's low
income consumer energy conservation education program include:
• Increase ConEd knowledge and awareness of low income individuals
• Build capacity for ConEd in local communities, and
• Decrease energy consumption
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 23 of 60
These objectives are achieved through low, medium and high impact strategies. These
strategies start with basic awareness building (low impact) activities through a print materials
that are available to individuals as they wait for their energy assistance appointment in CAP
offices; through this strategy 17,791 individuals were reached in 2014. Medium impact includes
workshops and participation in community events to increase individual knowledge of energy
conservation; through this strategy 2,085 individuals were reached. Finally, high impact
activities include one-on-one education with those are receiving weatherization and other
energy efficiency installations in their home, 4 individuals received this form of education;
additionally, 177 weatherization households were sent a letter that provided an analysis of their
prior year's energy use.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 24 of 60
Table 3-12: ID 2014 Electric Low-Income Measures Summary4
P . kWh Therms Non-Customer N . t· roiect . . . on-mcen 1ve Measure C Incentives kWh Therms Avoided Avoided energy Incremental U .
1
. C ount ll 1ty osts Costs Costs Benefits Costs*
Customer Outreach CFLs 2,977 $3,558 ; 49,620 $14,347 ! $0 i $0 I $4,457 ! $5,072 (Low Income)
Customer Outreach LEDs 285 $341 3,705 $1 ,764 $0 $0 I $5,130 $624 (Low Income) j
E Ins -Ceil/Attic 25 $26,325 9,261 $15,763 $0 $0 $12,156 $5,572
E Ins -Duct 8 $331 524 $356 I $0 $0 $667 i $126 i t
E Ins -Floor 41 $96,197 60,842 $103,556 $0 $0 ! $80,890 $36,609
E Ins -Wall 11 $20,587 11 ,020 $1 8,757 I $0 $0 $39,326 I $6,631
E Energy Star Windows 20 $253 405 $689 i $0 $5,733 $477 $244
E Energy Star Doors 27 $18,247 8,880 $15,114 I $0 $34,254 $20,276 i $5,343 I
E To G Furnace Conversion 47 $181 ,989 124,809 (5,989) I $11::.,134 1 -$40,941 i $78,ooo I $176,031 i $39,995
E To G H20 Conversion 38 $96,225 44,672 (2,761) i $22,881 I -$11 ,051 $25,000 i $78,737 $8,089
E To G Heat Pump 5 $7,120 24,872 $18,476 $0 $0 I $15,542 $6,531 Conversion
E Air Infiltration 54 $55,570 29,084 $21 ,604 $0 $0 I $73,624 $7,637 !
Federal H&Hs 6 $0 $0 $0 $0 j $9,408 i
1 $0
Health & Human Safety 53 $183,306 $0 i $0 $446,441 ! $90,907 ! $0 i ' l
E Duct Sealing 43 ! $10,121 62,662 $46,547 I $0 $0 l $20,063 $16,455
$392,989 ! -$51,998 I
Total 3,640 $700,170 430,356 (8,750) $589,428 j $627,690 I $138,928
*Customer incremental costs are the incremental measure cost absent any incentive. Therefore, the values should not be zero for the low income program. These
incremental values are used in cost-effectiveness calculations.
4 All kWh values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of applicable NTG ratios.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 25 of 60
3.3 Nonresidential
The nonresidential energy efficiency market is delivered through a combination of prescriptive
and site-specific offerings. Any measure not offered through a prescriptive program is
automatically eligible for treatment through the site-specific program, subject to the criteria for
participation in that program. Prescriptive paths for the nonresidential market are preferred for
measures that are relatively small and uniform in their energy efficiency characteristics.
In 2014, 323 prescriptive and site specific nonresidential projects were incented. Avista
contributed over $967,000 for energy efficiency upgrades in nonresidential applications.
Nonresidential programs contributed over 6,417 MWh in annual first-year energy savings. Table
3-15 and Table 3-16 provide details on the electric nonresidential programs.
3.3.1 Program Changes
Program changes made at the beginning of 2014 to the nonresidential programs include the
addition of new program offerings, discontinued programs and changes to eligibility or incentive
levels. Avista communicates the majority of program changes once the Business Plan is
finalized and those changes become effective at the beginning of the year. In addition, some
program changes are made throughout the year as necessary but these are less typical.
For nonresidential programs, rebates were updated to reflect business planning analysis to
include inputs such as new unit energy savings (UES) and cost values. Changes were effective
January 1, 2014 and Avista accepted rebate applications through March 31 , 2014 for 2013
measures and amounts. This 90 day grace period allows for a smooth transition when rebate
programs change to allow enough time for customers in the pipeline to complete their projects
yet close out changes in a timely but balanced approach.
The following sections outline additions, adjustments and discontinuations of nonresidential
programs and incentive levels beginning in 2014.
3.3.1.1 Nonresidential Program New Offerings
In 2014, Avista offered several new pilot programs as described in the Business Plan. The
timing of projects for these pilot programs is identified as follows:
• AirGuardian Pilot:
• Identification of pilot sites occurred in November 2014
• Completion of device installations at pilot sites occurred in December 2014
• Completion of data collection (pre-and post-device operation) in January 2015
• Final report submitted to Avista in February 2015
• Cascade Energy Pilot:
• The contract with the third-party implementer for this pilot was signed in February
2014 and all scoping reports were done that summer. No contracts have been
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 26 of 60
signed for Phase 2. Two customers are interested in going forward. One has
operational constraints due to the type of manufacturing processes and security
where they are still considering their option to proceed. A second company is
also still evaluating timing of the investment and operational considerations.
• Fleet Heat Pilot:
• The goal of this pilot is to determine if there are cost-effective savings without
operational issues by adding a temperature device to turn engine block heaters
on and off as appropriate during the winter season . Anecdotally the fleet
approach is often to begin using engine block heaters around the end of October
until the end of April due to potential cold temperatures. Avista delivered the
cords to a local school district in November 2014 and a local packaged food
delivery company and local freight company shortly after.
3.3.1.2 Nonresidential Program Discontinuations
The following nonresidential programs and/or measures were discontinued beginning January
2014:
• Nonresidential Hot Water Heater Program
• Standby Ge erc=tor lock Heater Program
• From the Nonresidential Windows and Insulation Program new and retrofit windows
were discontinued.
• From the Nonresidential Food Service Equipment Program hot food holding carts were
discontinued.
3.3.1.3 Nonresidential Program Adjustments
The following adjustments in program requirements or incentive levels were made to the
nonresidential programs beginning January 2014:
• Nonresidential HVAC VFD Program-all applications were changed to $1 30 per HP
• Nonresidential Clothes Washers were increased from $75 to $100 per unit.
• Nonresidential Lighting Interior and Exterior Incentives Program Announcement: Avista
offers a variety of prescriptive incentives for Non-T12 Lighting Retrofits. In 2014, Avista
has expanded the interior and exterior incentive options which are now available on two
separate Prescriptive Commercial Lighting Incentive Agreement Forms. Please note the
lighting program changes listed in Table 3-13.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 27 of 60
Table 3-13: Nonresidential Lighting Interior and Exterior Changes
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 28 of 60
Program Existing Light Retrofit Light Old New Notes
Change I Incentive Incentive '
' '
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 29 of 60
Deletion 1000 watt HID 400-575 watt Digital HID fixture $400 $0 Exterior
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 30 of 60
Deletion 1000 watt HID 400-470 watt LED fixture $475 $0 Exterior
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 31 of 60
Program Existing Light Retrofit Light Old New Notes
Change Incentive Incentive
Deletion 750 watt HID 320-400 watt Digital HID fixture I $300 $0 !Exterior
Deletion 750 watt HID 210-240 watt LED fixture $350 $0 !Exterior
Increased 400 watt HID 250 watt Digital HID fixture $150 $260 Exterior
Incentive
Modified 400 watt HID 125-175 watt LED fixture $275 $255 Exterior
Eligibility
Addition 320 watt HID 125-160 watt LED fixture $0 $180 Exterior
Modified 250 watt HID 85-140 watt LED fixture $175-200 $145 Exterior
Eligibility
Deletion 175 watt HID 40 watt Induction Fluorescent $150 $0 Exterior
fixture
Modified 175 watt HID 35-85 watt LED fixture $175 $135 Exterior
Eligibility
Modified 150 w att HID 35-50 watt LED fixture $175 $130 Exterior
Eligibility
Modified 90-1 00 watt HID 25-50 watt LEO fixture $1 CO $75 Exterior
Eligibility
Modified 70-90 watt HID 15-35 watt LED fixture $75 $55 Exterior
Eligibility
Decreased 400 watt HID 4 lamp T5 fixture $110 $105 Interior
Incentive
Deletion 400 watt HID 6 lamp High Performance TB $140 $0 Interior
Decreased 250 watt HID 4 lamp High Performance T8 or 2 $55 $50 I Interior
Incentive lamp T5 fixture I
Varied Interior HID T5 or High Performance TB with $35-45 $30-40 Interior
Incentive occupancy sensor
Modified Over: 150 watt 2 lamp High Performance TB $40 $40 Interior
Eligibility incandescent
Modified 40 watt incandescent 6-10 watt LED lamp NIA $6 Interior
Eligibility
Modified 60 watt incandescent 9-13 watt LED lamp NIA $8 Interior
Eligibility
Modified 75-100 watt 12-20 watt LED lamp NIA $10 Interior
Eligibility incandescent I
Addition 20 watt MR16 2-4 watt MR 16 LED lamp NIA $5 I Interior
Addition 35 watt MR16 4-6 watt MR16 LED lamp NIA $6 Interior
Addition 50 watt MR16 6-9 watt LED* lamp NIA $10 I Interior
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 32 of 60
• Commercial Lighting Canopy LED and LED Sign Incentives Program Announcement:
Avista increased the incentives for canopy LED lighting retrofits and added the LED
Sign Lighting Program in the summer of 2014. The increased incentive amounts for
canopy lighting were added on the Exterior Prescriptive Commercial Lighting Incentive
Agreement Form. In order to qualify for this rebate, customers must meet the
requirements of replacing all the canopy fixtures; and replacing at least 4 or more
canopy LED lights which excludes LED wall packs, soffit fixtures and pole lights. The
canopy LEDs must be on one of the approved LED fixture lists. In addition, the new LED
Sign Lighting program has its own separate form and will state specific requirements in
regards to LED sign lighting qualifications. Existing signs must be T12 fluorescent
lighting and operate for at least 11.5 hours per day or 4,288 hours annually. Please note
the Program changes in Table 3-14. New measures or increased incentives took effect
July 1, 2014.
Table 3-14: Nonresidential Lighting Canopy LED and LED Sign Changes
Program Existing Light Retrofit Light Old Incentive New Notes
Change Incentive**
Increased
Increased
Incentive
Addition
400 watt HID
320 watt HID
T12 Sign
122-1 75 watt LED Canopy fixture
122-160 watt LED Canopy fixture
Exterior LED Sign Lighting
$255 $325 Ex~erior
$180 $250 Exterior
Site Specific $17 per sq ft Signs only
The remaining sub-sections outline the nonresidential programs offered in 2014 and the
unverified participation, incentives, energy savings, etc for each measure offered in the
programs.
3.3.2 Prescriptive Path
Prescriptive paths do not require pre-project contracting , as the site-specific program does, and
thus lend themselves to streamlined administrative and marketing efforts. Incentives are
established for these prescriptive programs by applying the incentive formula contained within
Schedules 90 and 190 to a prototypical installation. Actual costs and savings are tracked,
reported and available to the third-party impact evaluator. When applicable, the prescriptive
measures utilize RTF unit energy savings.
3.3.3 Site Specific Path
Site specific is the most comprehensive offering of the nonresidential segment and brings in
more than a third of the nonresidential savings. Avista's Account Executives work with
nonresidential customers to provide assistance in identifying energy efficiency opportunities.
Customers receive technical assistance in determining potential energy and cost savings as
well as identifying and estimating incentives for participation. Site specific incentives, in which
the tier structure applies, are capped at seventy percent of the incremental project cost for
lighting projects with simple paybacks of less than 3 years and nonlighting projects (or lighting
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 33 of 60
projects with a verified life of 40,000 hours or more) with simple paybacks less than 5 years. All
other project incentives calculated under the tier structure will be capped at fifty percent of the
incremental project cost. Simple payback criteria for eligible projects is greater than 1 year and
less than 8 years for lighting measures or less than 13 years for non-lighting and LED lighting
measures. Site specific projects include appliances, compressed air, HVAC, industrial process,
motors (non-prescriptive), shell and lighting with the majority being HVAC, lighting and shell.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 34 of 60
Table 3-15: 2014 ID Electric Nonresidential Prescriptive Measures Summary5
PSC Com Water Heater 3 $60 190 $110 $0
PSC Commercial Windows and lnsul 5 $4,066 35,561 $28,676 $0
PSC EnergySmart-Case Lighting 37 $99,784 518,839 $129,340 I $0
I
PSC EnergySmart-Industrial Proc 35 $56,923 437,212 $246,938 i $0
I
PSC Food Service Equipment 14 $5,151 71 ,236 $39,263 I $0
PSC Green Motors Rewind 18 $2,883 32,893 $13,223 $0
PSC Lighting Exterior 94 I $227,357 1,022,213 $523,526 I $0
PSC Lighting Interior 47 I $62,618 542,648 $312,206 I $0
PSC Motor Controls HVAC 1 $1 ,250 15,841 $9,738 $0
PSC Standby Generator Block 3 $1,210 7,228 $4,443 $0
Total 257 $461,302 2,683,860 $1,307,465 I $0
5 All kWh values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of applicable NTG ratios.
$0 !
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$56,590
$26,622
$0
$0
$83,212
$76 I $8 I
$16,118 I $2,002
I
$147,426 I $9,028 !
$230,612 i $17,236 I I
$32,984 I $2,740
I
$5,949 I $923
$435,894 I $36,541
$140,813 I $21 ,791
'
$3,100 I $680
$4,780 $310
$1,017,751 $91,259
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 35 of 60
Table 3-16: 2014 ID Electric Nonresidential Site Specific Measures Summary6
Project . kWh Therms kWh The.rms Non-Customer Non-Incentive
Measure C t Incentives S . S . Avoided Avoided Energy Incremental Utlt Co ts oun avings avmgs Costs Cost Benefits Costs 1 1 y s
SS Appliances 1 I $7,817 j 4,092 ! 2,598 ! I
SS Compressed Air 1 I ; $74,400 350,583
SS HVAC Combined 10 I $62,816 ! 636,815
SS Industrial Process 2 $28,422 270,682
SS Lighting Exterior 18 I $60,900 376,781
SS Lighting Interior 32 i $242,493 2,010,969
SS Motor Controls Industrial 1 I $17,716 I 83,483
SS HVAC Heating 1 ! $1 1,611 4,834
Total 66 I $506,176 i 3,733,405 7,432
6 All kWh values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of applicable NTG ratios.
$10,810 $9,689 $0
$589,472 $0 $0
$3,342,934 $0 $0
$1 ,573,061 $0 $0
$505,525 $0 $0
5,3,352,571 $0 $0
$95,542 I $0 $0
$0 $23,133 I $0
I $9,469,916 $32,822 I $0
$15,510 $1 ,422
$166,419 $41 ,144
$362,766 $233,331
$54,974 I $109,797 !
! $174,410 i $35,285 !
$419,075 I $234,003
I $37,954 i $6,669
! $23,037 I $1 ,594
, $1,2s4,14s I $663,244
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 36 of 60
4 Evaluation, Measurement, and
Verification (EM&V)
The Nexant Team was retained to provide impact and process evaluations for the 2014-2015
electric and natural gas programs.
The following sections outline the major recommendations from the impact and process
evaluation reports completed for the 2012-2013 portfolio of programs and notes what changes
were made to the 2014-2015 Avista programs as a result of these evaluations.
4.1 Process Evaluation Summary
Recommendations from Avista's 2012-2013 process evaluation7 report and subsequent
implementation actions taken by Avista are summarized below.
4.1.1 Residential Sector
4.1.1.1 Program Participation
Conclusion: Avista's implementation of new and continued support for existing third-party
implemented programs such as Simple Steps, Smart Savings and Residential Behavior
effectively captures energy savings in the residential market segments.
Recommendation: Continue exploring new measures, program designs, and delivery
mechanisms that leverage the national expertise of experienced third-party implementation
firms. Possible programs may include additional partnership with ENERGY STAR in the form of
the Home Performance with ENERGY STAR program.
Status: In 2014 the Company offered Energy Star rebates through NEEA as the
implementer, and distinguished between an Energy Star stick build home and a
manufactured home.
Conclusion: Avista's continued investment in pilot programs provides a low-risk way test the
effectiveness of new measure offerings, delivery channels, and implementation partners.
Recommendation: Continue testing new program designs and measure offerings through the
use of pilots-even if secondary sources of funding or local partners are not available.
7 Avista 2012-2013 Process Evaluation Report, The Cadmus Group, Inc., May 15, 2014.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 37 of 60
Status: Avista initiated 3 pilot programs in 2014, a pilot program for reducing losses in
compressed air systems called Air Guardian, a pilot program to test the efficacy of
controlling block heaters on vehicles to reduce losses, and a pilot program to perform
strategic energy management (SEM) in our industrial customers. The Company has yet
to get an industrial customer to sign up for the second phase of the SEM initiative, but
should have some preliminary results from the other two pilots by August of 2015.
Conclusion: While still early, evaluation findings indicate the Residential Behavior program is
an effective way to capture savings in the residential market and Opower is a strong partner for
program implementation.
Recommendation: If determined to be cost-effective, consider expanding the Residential
Behavior program (for example, lowering the energy consumption threshold for participation and
implementing measures to track the methods these customers use to save energy). Given that
Avista has already included all cost-effective customers in their target population for this
program, future opportunities for expansion may be limited.
Status: The Company will consider expansion of the OPower Residential Behavior
program pending 2014-2015 cost effectiveness results. Avista will take into
co11sideration 'he cost effectiveness of the program over th _ fu ll program lif,~.
4.1.1.2 Program Design
Conclusion: Inconsistencies continue to exist in measure and program naming and
organization across program planning, tracking and reporting activities which result in less
transparency in program operations and limit effective program evaluation.
Recommendation: As part of the transition to the new data tracking system, consider aligning
program and measure names with offerings articulated in annual business plans and other
planning materials.
Status: Avista's transition to a new tracking system has taken considerably longer to
accomplish than was considered at the writing of this recommendation due to a
prolonged initiation of the new customer information system. The present thought
process, at the time of this report, is that Avista will enhance the historical savings
database, Saleslogix, with tracking capabilities in the same database. As that change is
made in the 2nd and 3rd quarter of 2015, the alignment of program, measure, planning
materials and business planning will be a priority.
Conclusion: The elimination of appliance rebates gives customers fewer ways to participate in
Avista energy-efficiency rebate programs.
Recommendation: Consider ways to encourage repeat participation (such as marketing
targeted at previous participants and online profiles that reduce application paperwork).
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 38 of 60
Status: The Company has noted the response of its General Population Survey which
indicated that approximately 10% of surveyed customers planned to replace HVAC
equipment in the next couple years. Avista will continue to promote these measures to
serve this demand.
Conclusion: Considering self-report customer freeridership scores and market baseline data
from the RTF is an effective way to assess the appropriateness of measure offerings.
Recommendation: Continue use of customer freeridership and market assessments as a way
to assess the appropriateness of measure offerings.
Status: Avista is employing accepted Northwest Power and Conservation Council
methodologies to the extent possible, to include the use of unit energy savings and
freeridership values as identified by the RTF. When such values are not available, Avista
will utilize the best estimate of what future third-party impact evaluation will reveal. Avista
will continue to track freeridership values for measures and programs and will consider
program changes and measure offerings in cases where market transformation has fully
occurred.
4.1.1.3 Program Implementation
Conclusion: Avista prioritization of customer satisfaction has been very successful and overa ll
participant experience is very positive across all rebate programs.
Recommendation: Continue Avista's commitment to customer satisfaction, but monitor
increased staffing costs and impacts of the 90-day participation window on freeridership.
Status: Avista agrees and continues to be committed to customer satisfaction. Staffing
costs are continually tracked and efforts have been made to save where possible. Avista
believes there is a long standing approach that balances customer's ability to participate
along with implementation/operational considerations. Avista typically provides 90 days for
program changes to allow for market communications and smooth transitions in and out of
programs. Avista believes the 90 day participation window is an optimal, balanced approach
considering customer equity and increasing documentation requirements.
4.1.1.4 Marketing and Outreach
Conclusion: Avista implements a strong general awareness campaign around energy­
efficiency, but some room exists in market segmentation and targeting specific customer
groups.
Recommendation: Utilize survey results from this evaluation and other data collection activities
to understand which audiences are more likely to participate in Avista programs.
Status: Avista appreciates the intent of this recommendation, however, due to limitations in
our customer care and billing system, the Company doesn't have a comprehensive
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 39 of 60
customer relationship management tool that allows for segmentation and targeting and
campaign management. The Company does believe that a continued broad reach approach
engages new customers and further engages customers who have previously participated in
energy efficiency programs demonstrated by repeat customers. The Company has found
success in highlighting some programs but usually in the context of broader messaging that
drives customers to our website to find offerings that are available to them. The Company
has also had success in stretching our outreach efforts by building relationships with media
partners such as local television stations and personalities and weekly newspapers that
leverage and add endorsement.
4.1.2 Nonresidential Sector
4.1.2.1 Program Management and Implementation
Conclusion: Several parties over several years, internal and external to Avista, have observed
the need for greater data quality assurance, in both documentation and input tracking.
Quantitative inputs to the savings and rebate calculations have repercussions for tariff
compliance, incentive payments, and savings realization rates.
Recommendation: Avista should contin ue efforts to improve program processes. The
evaluation team believes unifying the organizational structure under central leadership is a step
in the right direction and may help alleviate some previously documented issues with internal
communications. In addition to the reorganization, it was recommended that Avista develop
standardized processes within the DSM group, including clear delineation of roles and precise
description and assignment of all processes and responsibilities for both residential and
nonresidential programs. All affected parties should be included in formalizing and standardizing
the DSM group's processes, roles, and responsibilities. Further, all parties must formally agree
to clearly delineated responsibilities under the new organizational structure. While these
activities need to be prescriptive and precise, we caution that the resulting structure should still
allow some flexibility: increased clarity, transparency, and accountability should serve to
enhance program delivery and customer satisfaction.
Status: In 2014, the Company carefully reviewed the recommendations from external
evaluators, Advisory Group and Commission Staff regarding the DSM Team
Organization. By April 2014, the Customer Solutions Team, including the Energy
Efficiency Group was reorganized and is now reporting to one Leadership individual, a
Sr. Director. In July, the Energy Efficiency Team was re-organized to report to one Sr.
Manager to include Program Managers across all three states (WA/ID/OR), Energy
Efficiency Engineering , and the Analyst Team. This reorganization has facilitated
coordination and communication by the team members in delivering successful
programs to customers. In addition, this new organizational structure included a
thorough review of the Standard Operating Practices, EM&V Framework, Duel Fuel
Incentive Calculators, and the Top Sheet Reviews. These process documents are
expected to be complete in early 2015 and made available to the Advisory Group at the
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 40 of 60
Spring 2015 meeting The team continues to be committed to developing, designing, and
implementing prudent cost effective programs for the Company's customers.
4.1.2.2 Customer Feedback
Conclusion: Customers were highly satisfied with the program overall and with individual
components. Customer satisfaction has increased since 2011, which had in turn increased from
2010.
Recommendation: Continue to prioritize and monitor program satisfaction.
Status: Customer satisfaction and feedback will continue to be collected on programs
through third party evaluation efforts conducted for 2014-2015 program years.
4.1.2.3 Market Feedback
Conclusion: According to commercial lighting contractor feedback, the nonresidential programs
are successful in driving incremental energy-efficient equipment sales, and the market has not
yet transformed to make energy efficiency standard practice.
Recommend tio11: Continue to monitor market transformation indicators to measure programs'
marke impact over time.
Status: Avista will continue monitoring signs of market transformation in the
Nonresidential sector through efforts taken by the third party evaluator.
4.1.2.4 Marketing and Outreach
Conclusion: The characteristics of the evaluation survey respondents indicate that the office I
professional services and local government sectors may be underserved by the programs
relative to their incidence in the nonparticipant population. Further research is necessary to
determine whether this is true.
Recommendation: Identify underserved industries, and seek opportunities to target outreach to
specific underserved industries such as; investigate overall customer industry distribution,
compare to participant industry distribution, and develop targeted outreach strategies for any
underserved sectors.
Status: This will be investigated as part of the 2014-2015 process evaluation.
4.1.2.5 Quality Assurance and Verification
Conclusion: Avista monitored its site-specific project review process and instituted refinements
during the evaluation period in response to feedback from users. While this has led to
improvements, including notably improved reliability of reported savings in 2012, quality
assurance problems may persist.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 41 of 60
Recommendation: Continue to monitor the effectiveness of the site-specific project review
process and refine as needed. The third party evaluator recommends implementing the
following to ensure continued improvement:
Status: Avista implemented the following review model on April 24, 2015 that focuses
on review guidelines based on a risk assessment:
• Measures that have an incentive of $0 and an energy based simple payback of
over 20 years require no report and no review, just a form letter to the customer.
• Measures that have incentives between $1 and $2,000 will be processed by the
reporting engineer without any other review.
• Measures that have incentives between $2001 and $25,000 will be reviewed
before going to the customer by another qualified engineer.
• Measures over $25,000 will be reviewed by another qualified engineer with an
additional technical management review prior to releasing to the customer.
• Measures over $40,000 will be reviewed by another qualified engineer, a
technical manager, and an additional director review prior to releasing to the
customer.
• Ench eview obOV8 will use the technical Top Sheet as a reviewing instrument
with appropriate name and review level noted.
• A completed project must be re-submitted through the technical review process
only if the incentive changes more than 10% when the savings or costs from the
original report change. The report and DFIC will always be changed and
recorded when savings or incremental costs change upon completion .
Recommendation: Conduct an external third-party review of Top Sheets, including reviewing a
random sample of completed Top Sheets for completeness and accuracy. These were not
reviewed as part of the 2012-2013 process evaluation, but should be included in the next
process evaluation. Review should not only verify the presence of the Top Sheets, but also the
quality and accuracy of the information provided.
Status: Several implementation improvements, either in-progress or recently completed,
were reviewed and their impact upon 2014 program performance was discussed by the
Avista implementation team. These improvements include:
• Revisions to the site-specific program implementation processes to improve
clarity and promote the timely movement of projects through the pipeline.
• The establishment of three checklists (or 'Top Sheets"), one prior to contracting
and one prior to the payment of the incentive, in order to ensure consistent
documentation and treatment of each project as it progresses through these
processes towards completion.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 42 of 60
4.2 Impact Evaluation Summary
Recommendations from Avista's 2013 Idaho Electric Impact evaluation8 report and subsequent
implementation actions taken by Avista are summarized below.
4.2.1 Recommendations
4.2.1.1 Residential Electric Programs
The 2013 Idaho Electric Impact evaluation recommended the following changes to Avista's
residential electric programs. Applicable updates have been included under the "status" sub
bullet.
Recommendation: Consider updating its per-unit assumptions of recycled equipment to reflect
the 2012-2013 evaluation findings in order to ensure that planning estimates of program savings
are in line with evaluated savings.
Status: Per unit energy savings for refrigerators were updated from 482 to 424 kWh,
and per unit energy savings for freezers were updated from 555 to 478.
Recommendation: If clothes washer rebates are reinstated, Avista shou ld track them all with in
the electric program unless there is a large penetrati on of gas dryers.
Status: Clothes washer rebates were not reinstated .
Recommendation: Increase the measure level detail captured on applications and include this
detail in the tracking database. Specific additional information should include energy factors or
model numbers, baseline information for insulation, and home square footage, particularly for
the ENERGY STAR Homes program.
Status: Energy factors and home square footage are being captured in Avista's tracking
database. Model numbers are captured on rebate applications as well as baseline
information for insulation which will likely be considered in 2016 after the new tracking
database has been stabilized. Energy Star Homes is a regional (NEEA) program that
has its own builder training, inspections, certifications and database. Avista requires
customers meet and provide proof of their Energy Star Homes certification. Avista also
collects square footage, primary space heating fuel and primary water heating fuel.
Recommendation: Consider tiered incentives by SEER rating as higher SEER systems
generally require ECM fan motors to achieve certain SEER ratings.
Status: The Air Source Heat Pump rebate is no longer offered due to not meeting cost
effectiveness requirements.
8 Avista 2013 Idaho Electric Impact Evaluation Report, The Cadmus Group, Inc., June 17, 2014.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 43 of 60
Recommendation: Avista should consider completing a lighting logger study within its territory
if Avista believes the results of the forthcoming RBSA study do not accurately represent usage
in their territory.
Status: A lighting logger study is being conducted by the Nexant Team as a part of the
2014-2015 independent third-party evaluation activities.
Recommendation: Avista should consider researching the percentage of Simple Steps, Smart
Savings bulb purchase that are installed in commercial settings. This could increase the
average installed hours of use and increase program savings.
Status: This research is being conducted by the Nexant Team during the 2014-2015
evaluation period
Recommendation: Perform a billing analysis on ENERGY STAR homes using a non­
participant comparison group once enough homes have participated under the new
requirements to justify performing the work. This research could be used to demonstrate the
achieved savings through energy efficiency construction practices.
Status: If enough homes participate during the 2014-2015 program period that allow for
a study opulation large enough to produce statistically significant results, this research
will be conducted by the Nexant Team during the 2014-2015 evaluation period.
Recommendation: Consider researching the current variable speed motor market activity to
determine if this measure should continue as a stand-alone rebate or be packaged with other
equipment purchases.
Status: This research is being conducted by the Nexant Team as part of the 2014-2015
evaluation.
Recommendation: Continue to promote efficiency programs in the Behavior Program energy
reports, as the reports increased both the rate of efficiency program participation and savings.
Status: Avista will continue to promote efficiency programs bi-annually on the Behavior
Program energy reports.
Recommendation: Avista should consider performing additional research about the peak­
coincident demand savings from the behavior program.
Status: This will be considered for the 2014-2015 evaluation and largely depends on the
data available and whether or not a study of peak-coincident demand savings is
applicable for planning purposes.
4.2.1.2 Low Income Programs
The 2013 Idaho Electric Impact evaluation recommended the following changes to Avista's low
income programs. Applicable updates have been included under the "status" sub bullet.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 44 of 60
Recommendation: Consider including a control/comparison group in future billing analyses.
Status: In the 2014-2015 evaluation, a billing analysis will be used to analyze energy
impacts; a comparison group approach will be used as the preferred method if sufficient
data is available.
Recommendation: Consider options for increasing the analysis sample size due to small
program populations (such as combining Washington and Idaho program participants).
Status: In the 2014-2015 evaluation, combination tactics are being utilized to increase
the analysis sample size.
Recommendation: Obtain a full list of weatherization measures from agencies.
Status: The list of weatherization measures from agencies is provided in Section 3.2 of
this report.
Recommendation: Consider targeting high-use customers.
Sti.tus: The Community Action Agencies have a priority screen that they utilize which
inc'udes high energy use customers. Additional data mining fro m Avista is not possible
as the Utility does not have access to income data and as such does not p esume that a
high use customer would also be eligible for low income weatherization services. The
high use customer data has been used in the past to target potential participants for the
residential behavior program along with electric to natural gas conversion opportunities.
Recommendation: Track and compile additional data from agency audits .
Status: Avista includes on the Agency billing invoice a space for type of home (e.g. stick
built or mobile) age of home, square footage of home, heating fuel and whether or not air
conditioning exists. Additional data points will be gathered as needed.
Recommendation: Consider performing quantitative, non-energy benefit analyses.
Status: Avista currently quantifies two primary non-energy benefits for Low Income
Programs. One is a dollar for dollar benefit related to health and human safety (H&HS)
improvements. Savings are not currently claimed applicable to H&HS but these are
improvements that protect the investment of and/or enable the energy efficiency
improvements to occur. The other is the benefit equivalent to the cost of the standard
efficient equipment benefit compared to the high efficiency equipment measure (e.g.
furnaces, water heaters, refrigerators and broken windows). For some measures, like
insulation, the incremental cost is the full cost as if the customer did not have to replace
anything and could have just left the under-insulated space untreated. For the high
efficiency improvements, Avista is making the assumption that the baseline equipment is
at or close to end of life and, is therefore a replace upon burnout situation .
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 45 of 60
4.2.1.3 Nonresidential Electric Programs
The 2013 Idaho Electric Impact evaluation recommended the following changes to Avista's
nonresidential electric programs. Applicable updates have been included under the "status" sub
bullet.
Recommendation : Create a quality control system to double-check all projects with savings
over 300,000 kWh.
Status: Avista implemented the review model on April 24, 2015 as discussed in Section
4.1.2 above. Avista uses measure level evaluation because the number of measures in
a project may change, but the incentives and risks on a per measure basis will stay
consistent. Avista found the incentive levels that most closely matched the 300,000 kWh
threshold to create the risk-based strategy below as outlined.
Recommendation: Consider working with participants to accelerate the process of claiming
energy savings and paying the project incentive. Preferably this should happen within one year
of measure installation, depending on Avista's requirements for post-installation data on the
particular project.
Status: A"ista continually wor'<s with participants to accelerate the prc,cess of claiming
energy savings and paying the project incentive. Balancing the level of rigor required to
make sure savings claims are as accurate as possible, appropriate documentation is
received and requirements for post installation data are achieved is part of our on-going
active management of projects. Site specific projects that are not performance based are
typically paid within weeks of invoice receipt and verification of installation. For
performance based projects, the payment timeframe is determined by the ability to
collect adequate performance data unique to the project parameters. Performance
periods are typically within one year of installation.
Recommendation: Avista may want to consider tracking and reporting demand reduction to
better understand measure load profiles and peak demand reduction opportunities.
Status: Avista is working with their Power Supply department to find the value of
demand reduction at different times for different measures. Presently the program
operates only on commodity savings. Avista already calculates and reports demand
reduction when it occurs both in custom and prescriptive measures and will continue this
process.
Recommendation: Update prescriptive measure assumptions and sources on a regular basis.
Status: Technical Reference Manual (TRM) updates, including prescriptive measure
assumptions, are being conducted as part of the 2014-2015 independent evaluation
activities.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 46 of 60
Recommendation: Streamline its file structure to enable reviewers to more easily identify the
latest documentation.
Status: All documentation pertaining to a project is now stored in one file for each
projecUopportunity. This includes; Energy Efficiency Report, DFIC, Top Sheets,
Contract, Invoices, lnstallationNerification report and copy of incentive check. A PDF file
can easily be developed to upload to external FTP sites or it can be viewed by anyone
with access to Saleslogix. Avista has changed the naming convention for projects to
account for version control.
Recommendation: Continue to perform follow-up measure confirmation and/or site visits on a
random sample of projects (at least 10%).
Status: Avista continues to perform installation verifications on all Site Specific projects
and 10% of all Prescriptive projects.
Recommendation : Consider flagging sites for additional scrutiny when the paid invoice does
not include installation labor.
Status: Avista will implement data collection concerning installation labor on the
tech nical Top Sheet on May 11 , 2015. While labor for some customers is a sunk cost
and will not show up in the incremental costs, for those that must have it be a part of the
incremental costs, it will be recorded and reviewed as part of the technical Top Sheet
process.
Recommendation: Avista may consider adding a flag to the tracking database to automatically
calculate the unit of energy savings per dollar (kWh/$ or therm/$) to provide a quick check to
identify extreme outliers.
Status: Avista added this metric to the lighting calculators in 2014 and this will be added
to th e other cal culators as they are updated in 2015.
Recommendation: In the case of redundancy, Avista may want to consider incenting pump
projects through the Site-Specific Program to more accurately characterize the equipment
operating hours.
Status: This issue has not been significant enough to change the prescriptive process
for VFD's to site specific at this time.
Recommendation: Avista may want to adopt modeling design guidelines to set minimum
standards, such as The Energy Trust of Oregon guidelines.
Status: Avista uses both eQUEST and Energy Plus for modeling and will design
minimum standards for modeling design for contractors and Avista DSM engineers to
use, drawing on the experience of Energy Trust and others in 2015.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 47 of 60
4.2.2 Impact Evaluation Measurement Designations
As a result of efforts and activities conducted for the 2013 portfolio evaluation, the application of
RTF unit energy savings values to measures offered through Avista's programs was defined.
The 2014-2015 portfolio evaluation will continue to apply RTF UES values for applicable
measures. Table 4-1 summarizes the evaluation and reporting methodology for gross and net
energy savings values when RTF values are applicable and in instances where there is no RTF
value to reference. The table presents the methodology applied for the 2013 evaluation and this
table will be reviewed and updated as applicable for the 2014-2015 evaluation. The Designation
column represents the identified evaluation methodology summarized by:
• RTF: Acquisition savings based on a UES value provided by the RTF library, including
consideration of the adjusted market baseline inherent in the analysis, or the acquisition
as derived by the savings calculation methodology including appropriate factors and
criteria .
• Gross: Acquisition savings without the application of a NTG factor, using a traditional
approach of code minimum or current standard practice as the evaluation baseline.
• Net: Acquisition savings resulting from the application of an evaluated survey-based net­
to-gross factor or as a fundamental net savings based on the applied analysis method.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 48 of 60
Table 4-1: 2012-2013 Impact Evaluation Methodology
Program Designation Reporting Method
Residential
Appliance Recycling RTF
CFL Contingency RTF
ENERGY STAR Products RTF
ENERGY STAR Homes RTF
Geographic CFL Giveaway RTF
Heating and Cooling Efficiency Gross
Manufactured Home Duct Sealing I Gross
Residential Behavior Net
Simple Steps, Smart Savings RTF
Space and Water Conversions Gross
Weatherization and Shell Gross
Water Heating Efficiency RTF
Low Income
All Measures Gross
Nonresidential
All Measures Gross
RTF UES with spillover
RTF methodology and inputs
RTF UES with spillover
RTF UES with spillover
RTF methodology and inputs
Billing Analysis
Direct install measures, NTG assumed as
1.00
Billing analysis results net due to control
group
RTF methodology and inputs
Billing analysis
Billing an.:1lysis
RTF UES with spitlover
NTG assumed as 1.00
Consistent with CPA, NTG assumed as
1.00
Notes: Regional Technical Forum (RTF), Unit Energy Savings (UES), Conservation Potential
Assessment (CPA), Net-to-gross (NTG)
The application of freeridersh ip and spillover are also important considerations. Gross savings
do not have freeridership or spillover factors applied. Net savings include both freeridership and
spillover considerations. The RTF adjusted market baseline definition of savings accounts for
freeridership but not spillover, allowing for identified spillover savings to be applied to the
appropriate results when based on the RTF UES.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 49 of 60
5 Distribution Efficiency
Avista did not acquire any distribution savings in Idaho in 2014.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 50 of 60
6 Regional Market Transformation
Avista's local energy efficiency portfolio consists of programs and supporting infrastructure
designed to enhance and accelerate the saturation of energy efficiency measures through a
combination of financial incentives, technical assistance, program outreach and education. It is
not feasible for Avista to independently have a meaningful impact upon regional or national
markets.
Consequently, utilities within the northwest have cooperatively worked together through the
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) to address those opportunities that are beyond the
ability or reach of individual utilities. Avista has been participating in and funding NEEA since
the 1997 founding of the organization. NEEA is currently in its fourth funding cycle (2010-2014).
This fourth five-year period saw a doubling of the contractual funding from $20 million to $40
million regionally. Concurrently, Avista's share of NEEA funding increased from 4.0% to 5.4%
due to shifts in the distribution of regional retail end-use load.
Avista\; criteria for funding NEEA's electric market transformation portfolio calls for the portfolio
to eliver incrementally cost-effective resources eyond what could be acquired through the
Company's local portfolio alone. Avista has historically communicated with NEEA the
importance of NEEA delivering cost-effective resources to our service territory. The Company
believes that NEEA will continue to offer cost-effective electric market transformation in the
foreseeable future. Avista will continue to play an active role in the organizational oversight of
NEEA. This will be critical to insure that geographic equity, cost-effectiveness and resource
acquisition continue to be primary areas of focus.
Electric savings by NEEA is provided after the Biennium period is complete, Avista expects to
have the 2014-2015 NEEA savings by spring of 2016.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 51 of 60
7 Energy Efficiency Expenditures
During 2014, Avista incurred over $4.7 million in costs for the operation of electric energy
efficiency programs. Of this amount, $625,000 was contributed to the Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance to fund regional market transformation ventures.
Forty-eight percent of expenditures were returned to ratepayers in the form of incentives or
products (e.g. CFLs). During the 2014 calendar year, a little over $200 thousand , or 4.2 percent,
was spent on evaluation in an effort to continually improve program design, delivery and cost­
effectiveness.
Evaluation, as well as other implementation expenditures, can be directly charged to the
appropriate state and/or segment(s). In cases where the work benefits multiple states or
segments, these expenditures are charged to a "general" category and are allocated based on
avoided costs for cost-effectiveness purposes.
The expenditures illu.,trated in the following tables represent actual payments incurred in tr e
2014 calendar year a d often differ from t e cost-effectiveness section where all benefits and
costs associated with projects completing in 2014 are evaluated in order to provide matching of
benefits and expenditures resulting in a more accurate look at cost-effectiveness. While natural
gas programs were suspended in 2014, minimal costs were incurred in the 2014 program year
for natural gas measures carried over from 2013, and are therefore reported below.
Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 provide a summary of energy efficiency expenditures by fuel type.
Table 7-1: Avista Electricity Energy Efficiency Expenditures
Segment Incentives Implementation EM&V NEEA Total
Residential I $575,141 $545,259
Low Income I $700,170 $63,880
Nonresidential I $967,477 $391 ,841
Regional $0 $26,466
General $0 $631,823
Research $0 $11,771
Total $2,242,788 $1,671,039
$43,831 $0
$11,687 $0
$65,934 $0
$23,891 $603,481
$45,698 $0
$0 $0
$191,041 $603,481
$1 ,164,230
$775,737
$1,425,252
$653,838
$677,520
$11 ,771
$4,708,348
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 52 of 60
Table 7-2: Avista Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Expenditures
Segment Incentives Implementation EM&V NEEA Total
Residential $1 ,310 $710
Low Income $0 $0
Nonresidential $18,938 $404
Regional $0 $116
General $0 $259
Total $20,248 $1,489
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $21 ,662
$10,061 $0
$10,061 $21,662
$2,020
$0
$19,342
$21 ,778
$10,311
$53,451
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 53 of 60
-------------------~----------------------
8 Tariff Rider Balances
As of the start of 2014, the Idaho electric and natural gas (aggregate) tariff rider balances were
underfunded by $2,785,130. During 2014, $5.9 million in tariff rider revenue was collected to
fund energy efficiency while $4. 7 million was expended to operate energy efficiency programs.
The $2.8 million under-collection of tariff rider funding resulted in a year-end balance of $1.6
million underfunded balance.
During the first quarter of 2015, the underfunded balance has decreased to a total underfunded
amount of $1.1 million. The bulk of this amount is attributable to Idaho electric which ended the
year with an underfunded balance of $1.6 million mostly due to the nonresidential prescriptive
and site specific lighting programs.
Table 8-1 illustrates the 2014 tariff rider activity by fuel type.
Table 8-1 Tariff Rider Activity
Electric Natural Gas
Beginning Balance (UnderfLnded) (S:3,459, 1B9)
Energy Efficiency Funding $6,542,812
Net Funding for Operations $3,083,623
Energy Efficiency Expenditures $4,708,389
Ending Balances (Underfunded) ($1,624,766)
$674,059
($630,683)
$43,376
$53,463
($10,088)
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 54 of 60
9 Actual to Business Plan Comparison
For 2014 operations, Avista exceeded budgeted electric energy efficiency expenditures by $80
thousand, or less than 2 percent and natural gas expenditures were exceeded by $53 thousand.
The biggest driver of expenditures is incentives. This demand for incentives was slightly higher
than anticipated and its impact resulted in the underfunding in the Idaho electric programs. The
Idaho Natural Gas Portfolio was discontinued in 2014 but minimal expenditures were made in
2014 due to carry-over measures from 2013.
While the business plan provides an expectation for operational planning, Avista is required to
incent all energy efficiency that qualifies under Schedules 90 and 190. Since customer
incentives are the largest component of expenditures, customer demand can easily impact the
funding level of the Tariff Riders.
Table 9-1 provides detail on the budget to actual comparison of energy efficiency expenditures
by fuel type.
Table 9-1 Business Plan to Actual Comparison9
Electric Natural Gas
Business Plan
Incentives Budget $2,089,705
Non-incentives and Labor $2,538,280
Total Budgeted Expenditures $4,627,985
Actual 2014 Expenditures
Incentives $2,242,788
Non-Incentives & Labor $2,465,560
Total Actual Expenditures $4,708,348
Variance (Unfavorable) ($80,363)
9 Budget values are from 2014 Business Plan
$0
$0
$0
$20,248
$33,203
$53,451
($53,451)
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 55 of 60
•
10 Net Cost Effectiveness Results
This section reports the cost-effectiveness results with net to gross values, including
freeridership and spillover, as determined in verification and impact evaluations conducted on
the 2012-2013 programs. In summary, electric net TRC is 1.58. Electric net PAC test benefit­
cost ratio is 2.46. Table 10-1 through Table 10-4 illustrate electric cost-effectiveness results. .
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 57 of 60
10.1 Electric Cost Effectiveness Results
Table 10-1: 2014 ID Electric Total Resource Cost (TRC) (Net)
Regular Income Low Income O 11 p rtf ,.
Portfolio Portfolio vera O O 10
Electric Avoided Costs $10,059,529 $392,989 $10,452,518
Natural Gas Avoided Costs -$311 ,417 -$51 ,998 -$363,416
Non-Energy Benefits $85,165 $589,428 $674,593
TRC Benefits $9,833,276 $930,418 $10,763,695
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $2 ,107,940 $138,855 $2,246,795
Customer Costs $3,946,791 $627,690 $4,574,481
TRC Costs $6,054,731 $766,545 $6,821,276
TRC Ratio 1.62 1.21 1.58
Residual TRC Benefits $3,778,546 $163,873 $3,942,419
Table 10-2: 2014 ID Electric Program Administrator Cost (PAC) (Net)
Electric Avoided Costs
Natural Gas Avoided Costs
PAC Benefits
Non-Incentive Utility Costs
Incentive Costs
PAC Costs
PAC Ratio
Net PAC Benefits
Regular Income Low Income O II p rtf r
Portfolio Portfolio vera O O 10
$10,059,529 $392,989
-$311,417 -$51,998
$9,748,111 $340,991
$2,107,940 $138,855
$1,157,898 $700,170
$3,265,838 $839,024
2.98 0.41
$6,482,274 -$498,034
$10,452,518
-$363,416
$10,089,102
$2,246,795
$1 ,858,067
$4,1 04,862
2.46
$5,984,240
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 58 of 60
Table 10-3: 2014 ID Electric Participant Cost (PCT) (Net)
Regular Income Low Income O II p rtf r
Portfolio Portfolio vera O O 10
Electric Bill Reduction $13,059,770 $654,626 $13,714,396
Gas Bill Reduction -$11,080 -$2,680 -$13,760
Non-Energy Benefits $85,165 $589,428 $674,593
Participant Benefits $13, 133,855 $1,241,373 $14,375,228
Customer Costs $3,946,791 $627,690 $4,574,481
Incentive Received -$1 , 157,898 -$700, 170 -$1 ,858,067
Participant Costs $2,788,893 -$72,479 $2,716,414
Participant Ratio 4.71 N/A 5.29
Net Participant Benefits $10,344,962 $1,313,853 $11,658,815
Table 10-4: 2014 ID Electric Rate Impact Measure (RIM) (Net)
Electric Avoided Cost
Savin s
Non-Participant Benefits
Electric Revenue Loss
Non-Incentive Utility Costs
Customer Incentives
Non-Participant Costs
RIM Ratio
Net RIM Benefits
Regular Income Low Income O 11 p rtf 1.
Portfolio Portfolio vera O O 10
$10,059,529 $392,989
$10,059,529 $392,989
$13,059,770 $654,626
$2,107,940 $138,855
$1 ,157,898 $700,170
$16,325,608 $1,493,650
0.62 0.26
-$6,266,079 -$1,100,661
$10,452 ,518
$10,452,518
$13,714,396
$2,246,795
$1 ,858,067
$17,819,258
0.59
-$7 ,366, 7 40
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 59 of 60
,
Appendix A Idaho 2014 Impact Memorandum
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 1, Page 60 of 60
IDAHO 2015 ANNUAL
CONSERVATION
REPORT
JUNE 24, 2016
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 1 of 41
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary ........................................................... 4
2 Cost-Effectiveness ............................................................. 6
2.1 Electric Cost Effectiveness Results .................................................. 8
3 Programs .......................................................................... 10
3.1 Residential ........................................................................................ 10
3.1.1 Program Changes ............................................................................ 11
3. 1. 1. 1 Residential Program Discontinuations .................................. 11
3. 1. 1. 2 Residential Program Adjustments ......................................... 11
3.1 .2 Residential Appliance Recycling ...................................................... 12
3.1 .3 HVAC Program ................................................................................ 12
3.1.4 Water Heat Program ........................................................................ 12
3.1.5 ENERGY STAR HOMES ................................................................. 12
3.1.6 Fuel Efficiency ................................................................................. 13
3.1.7 Residential Lighting ......................................................................... 13
3.1 .8 Shell 13
3.1 . 9 Opower Home Energy Reports ........................................................ 13
3.1.10 Customer Outreach ......................................................................... 14
3. 1. 10. 1 Residential Customer Outreach ............................................ 14
3. 1. 10. 2 Nonresidential Customer Outreach ....................................... 15
3.2 Low Income ....................................................................................... 21
3.2.1 Program Changes ............................................................................ 21
3.2.2 2015 Program Details ...................................................................... 21
3.3 Nonresidential .................................................................................. 25
3.3.1 Program Changes ............................................................................ 25
3.3.1.1 Nonresidential Program New Offerings ................................. 26
3.3.1.2 Nonresidential Program Discontinuations ............................. 26
3.3.1.3 Nonresidential Program Adjustments .................................... 26
3.3.2 Prescriptive Path .............................................................................. 29
3.3.3 Site Specific Path ............................................................................. 29
4 Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification (EM&V) ...... 32
5 Generation and Distribution Efficiency .......................... 32
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 2 of 41
6 Regional Market Transformation .................................... 32
7 Energy Efficiency Expenditures ...................................... 34
8 Tariff Rider Balances ....................................................... 35
9 Actual to Business Plan Comparison ............................. 36
10 Net Cost Effectiveness Results ....................................... 37
10.1 Electric Cost Effectiveness Results ................................................ 37
Appendix A Idaho 2014-2015 Electric Impact Evaluation Report ..... A-1
Appendix B 2014-2015 Process Evaluation Report. ........................ B-1
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 3 of 41
1 Executive Summary
The 2015 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Annual Report summarizes Avista Utility's (Avista)
annual energy efficiency achievements for its Idaho electric customers. These programs are
intended to deliver a cost-effective, "least-cost" resource with the funding provided through
Avista's Schedules 91 and 191 , also known as the ''Tariff Rider" which is a non-bypassable system
benefit charge applied to all electric retail sales.
In 2015, Avista acquired 14,789,283 kWh (verified gross savings) in Idaho, or 94% percent of its
Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) goal of 15,666,200 kWh (Table ES-1). A summary of acquired
savings in 2015 by sector is provided in Table ES-2. Primary drivers for electric savings included
the nonresidential site-specific and residential lighting efforts. Behavioral savings and
nonresidential prescriptive lighting also contributed a significant amount to the overall savings.
Table ES-1: 2015 Idaho Electric Energy Savings vs IRP Goal
2015 kWh
Local Evaluated Savings 14,789,283
2015 IRP Goal (2013 IRP) 15,666,200
Percent of Goal 94%
ID Electric Realization Rate 97%
Table ES-2: 2015 Idaho Electric Energy Savings (Verified Gross)
Segment kWh
Residential 8,995,214
Low Income 433,246
Nonresidential 5,360,823
Total 14,789,283
In 2014, Avista acquired 16,291 ,755 kWh (verified gross savings) or 106% of the Integrated
Resource Plan goal (Table ES-3). Table ES-4 outlines Avista's verified savings achievements
compared to the IRP goal for 2014-2015 combined.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 4 of 41
Table ES-3: 2014 Idaho Electric Energy Savings vs IRP Goal
2014 kWh
Local Evaluated Savings 16,291,755
2014 IRP Goal (2013 IRP) 15,330,000
Percent of Goal 106%
ID Electric Realization Rate 97%
Table ES-4: 2014-2015 Idaho Electric Energy Savings vs IRP Goal
2014-2015 kWh
Local Evaluated Savings 31,081 ,038
2014-2015 IRP Goal (2013 IRP) 30,996,200
Percent of Goal 100%
Avista Idaho NEEA 4,029,600
ID Electric Realization Rate 97%
The above mentioned acquisition has been delivered through local energy efficiency programs
managed by the utility or third-party contractors. Avista also funds a regional market
transformation effort through the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), however, reported
electric energy savings, cost-effectiveness and other related information is specific to local
programs unless otherwise noted. The savings indicated above are gross, verified savings based
on all program participants.
Avista judges the effectiveness of the energy efficiency portfolio based upon a number of metrics.
Two of the most commonly applied metrics are the TRC test, a benefit-to-cost test encompassing
the entire utility ratepayer population , and the PAC test, a benefit-to-cost test from the perspective
of achieving a minimization of the utility cost of delivering energy efficiency services.
Benefit-to-cost ratios in excess of 1.00 indicate that the benefits exceed the costs. In 2015, the
gross TRC benefit-to-cost ratio was 1.29 and the PAC benefit-to-cost ratio was 2.39.
Nexant, Inc., in partnership with Research Into Action, (the evaluation team) was retained as the
Company's external evaluator to independently measure and verify the portfolio energy savings
for the 2014-2015 biennium period. The energy efficiency savings and associated cost-
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 5 of 41
effectiveness results presented in this 2015 Annual Report are based on the evaluation findings
and are presented as gross, verified savings.
Though the nature of this report is to look backwards on the performance of the previous year,
successes and lessons from this process are applied during the forward-looking business
planning process to inform and improve program design, including program modification and
termination where necessary. Avista remains committed to continuing to deliver responsible and
cost-effective energy efficiency programs to our customers.
2 Cost-Effectiveness
The 2015 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Annual Report summarizes the Company's annual
energy efficiency achievements of its DSM programs.
Cost-effectiveness was reviewed using four of the five Californ ia Standard Practice Tests
including the Total Resource Cost (TRC), Program Administrator Cost (PAC), Participant, and
Rate Impact Measure (RIM) tests. For this annual report, cost-effectiveness of DSM programs is
based on unverified gross savings and methods consistent with those laid out in the California
Standard Practice Manual for Economic Analysis of Demand-Side Programs and Projects as
modified by the Council. Shown below in Table 2-2 through Table 2-5 are results for these four
California Standard Practice Tests -Total Resource Cost, Program Administrator Cost,
Participant, and Rate Impact Measure for electric and natural gas. Table 2-1 summarizes the
allocation of cost-effectiveness components as a cost or benefit to each cost-effectiveness test.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 6 of 41
Table 2-1 : Cost-Effectiveness Component Inputs
Program Total p rf . t Rate
C t Administrator Resource Ca 'tcTtpant Impact omponen os es Cost Test Cost (PCT) Measure
Utility Energy & Capacity Avoided Costs
Non-Utility Energy & Capacity Energy Costs
Non-Energy Benefit Impacts
Incremental Equipment and Installation
Costs
Program Non-incentive (admin) Costs
Incentive Payments
(PACT) (TRC) (RIM)
Benefit Benefit Benefit
Benefit Benefit
Benefit Benefit
Cost Cost
Cost Cost Cost
Cost Benefit Cost
The cost-effectiveness calculations only include non-energy benefits where the values are
reasonably defensible and quantifiable for a limited number of measures, including water savings,
equipment replacement and operation and maintenance benefits. The calculations also include
health and human safety non-energy benefits (dollar for dollar) for the low-income programs. Non
energy benefits not included, because they are not easily quantifiable, include benefits for
arrearag8, health/safety/comfort, system reliability, and site specific air emissions to name a few.
The evaluation team will include survey and on-site questions of participating customers to
determine specific and demonstrable non-energy benefits as found and as applicable.
Cost effectiveness results within this report are based on verified savings. Energy savings
reported by Avista's implementation team (both external and internal to Avista) were reviewed by
the Company's external evaluator, adjusted for any major discrepancies in reporting and
evaluated as part of the 2014-2015 evaluation activities. The savings estimates represent gross
energy acquisition except as noted in Section 10 of this report.
In summary, electric gross TRC is 1.29 and the electric PAC test benefit-cost ratio is 2.39. Table
2-2 through Table 2-5 illustrates electric cost-effectiveness. Regular income includes all programs
offered in the residential and Nonresidential sectors (not including NEEA) and low-income
includes all programs offered in the low-income sector.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 7 of 41
2.1 Electric Cost Effectiveness Results
Table 2-2: 2015 ID Electric Total Resource Cost (TRC) (Gross)
Regular Income Low Income O II p rtf r
Portfolio Portfolio vera O O 10
Electric Avoided Costs $11 ,554,913 $485,674 $12,040,587
Natural Gas Avoided Costs -$1 ,498,596 -$18,227 -$1 ,516,823
Non-Energy Benefits $97,043 $306,334 $403,376
TRC Benefits $10,153,360 $773,781 $10,927,141
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $1 ,512,612 $159,542 $1 ,672,154
Customer Costs $6,162,777 $616,385 $6,779,161
TRC Costs $7,675,388 $775,927 $8,451,315
TRC Ratio 1.32 1.00 1.29
Residual* TRC Benefits $2,477,972 -$2,146 $2,475,826
*The "Residual TRC" is used to denote the difference between TRC benefits and osts. The term "Residual" is
used in lieu of the term "Net" as not to be confused with TRC benefits and costs where Net to Gross
adjustments have been applied.
**Includes costs funded to the CAP agencies.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 8 of 41
Table 2-3: 2015 ID Electric Program Administrator Cost (PAC) (Gross)
Regular Income Low Income O II p rtf r Portfolio Portfolio vera O O 10
Electric Avoided Costs $11,554,913 $485,674 $12,040,587
Natural Gas Avoided Costs -$1,498,596 -$18,227 -$1 ,516,823
PAC Benefits $10,056,317 $467,447 $10,523,764
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $1 ,512,612 $159,542 $1 ,672,154
Incentive Costs $2,112,543 $616,385 $2,728,928
PAC Costs $3,625,155 $775,927 $4,401,082
PAC Ratio 2.77 0.60 2.39
Net PAC Benefits $6,431,162 -$308,480 $6,122,683
Table 2-4: 2015 ID Electric Participant Cost (PCT) (Gross)
Electric Bill Reduction
Gas Bill Reduction
Non-Energy Benefits
Participant Benefits
Customer Costs
Incentive Received
Participant Costs
Participant Ratio
Net Participant Benefits
Regular Income Low Income O 11 p rtf 1-
Portfolio Portfolio vera O O 10
$16,030,397 $667,521
-$29,905 -$861
$97,043 $306,334
$16,097,534 $972,994
$6,162,777 $616,385
-$2, 112,543 -$616,385
$4,050,233 $0
3.97 NIA
$12,047,301 $972,994
$16,697,918
-$30,767
$403,376
$17,070,528
$6,779,161
-$2,728,928
$4,050,233
4.21
$13,020,295
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 9 of 41
Table 2-5: 2015 ID Electric Rate Impact Measure (RIM) (Gross)
Regular Income Low Income O 11 p rtf 1-
Portfolio Portfolio vera O O 10
Electric Avoided Cost Savings $11 ,554,913 $485,674 $12,040,587
Non-Participant Benefits $11,554,913 $485,674 $12,040,587
Electric Revenue Loss $16,030,397 $667,521 $16,697,918
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $1 ,512,612 $159,542 $1 ,672,154
Customer Incentives $2,112,543 $616,385 $2,728,928
Non-Participant Costs $19,655,552 $1,443,448 $21,099,000
RIM Ratio 0.59 0.34 0.57
Net RIM Benefits -$8, 100,638 -$957,774 -$9,058,413
3 Programs
3.1 Residential
The Company's residential portfolio is composed of several approaches to engage and encourage
customers to consider energy efficiency improvements within their home. Prescriptive rebate
programs are the main component of the portfolio, but are augmented by a variety of other
interventions. These include: upstream buy-down of low-cost lighting and water saving measures,
select distribution of low-cost lighting and weatherization materials, appliance recycling program,
direct-install programs and a multi-faceted, multichannel outreach and customer engagement
effort.
Over $2.7 million in rebates were provided directly to Idaho residential customers to offset the
cost of implementing these energy efficiency measures. All programs within the residential
portfolio contributed over 8,995 MWh to the 2015 annual energy savings.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 1 O of 41
-------------------------------------------
3.1.1 Program Changes
Program changes were made for the 2014-2015 Biennium, including the introduction of new
programs, the discontinuation of programs and changes to eligibility or incentive levels of existing
programs. Avista communicates the majority of program changes once the Business Plan is
finalized and typically makes the changes effective at the beginning of the year. Program changes
are also made throughout the year as necessary, but mid-year changes are less typical.
For residential programs, rebate amounts were updated to reflect business planning analysis and
to include inputs such as new unit energy savings (UES) and cost values. For changes that were
effective January 1, 2015, Avista continued to accept rebate applications and honored incentive
amounts through March 31 , 2015 for 2014 measures (the 90 days allowed for a smooth transition
when rebate programs change, allowing enough time for customers in the pipeline to complete
their projects, yet closed out changes in a timely but balanced approach).
The following outlines additions, adjustments and discontinuations of residential programs and
incentive levels beginning in 2015:
3.1.1.1 Residential Program Discontinuations
The following measures and/or programs were discontinued from the residential portfolio:
• The Appliance Recycling Program was discontinued in June 2015.
3.1.1.2 Residential Program Adjustments
The following adjustments in program requirements and/or incentives levels were made to the
residential programs beginning January 2015:
• Electric to Natural Gas Direct Vent Wall Heater was added to the Fuel Efficiency
Program at an incentive of $1,300
The remaining sub-sections outline each residential program offered in 2015 and the verified
participation, incentives, energy savings, among other program achievements.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 11 of 41
3.1.2 Residential Appliance Recycling
Avista partnered with JACO, one of the nation's leading appliance recyclers, to provide third-party
administration of the refrigerator/freezer appliance recycling program until June 30, 2015. After
this date the program ended because it became non-cost effective due to revised RTF values that
came into effect July 2015. Customers received $30 per appliance for participating which equated
to $3,390 in incentives. This appliance recycling program resulted in over 71 MWh in annual first­
year savings in 2015 (see Table 3-1).
3.1.3 HVAC Program
Electric customers with electric home heat are eligible for a rebate for the installation of a variable
speed motor on their forced air heating equipment ($100 rebate), or a conversion of electric
straight resistance space heat to an air source heat pump ($900 rebate). Customers are also
eligible for the installation of a smart thermostat. This program achieved over 262 MWh in first­
year savings in 2015 and customers received a total of $85,188 in incentives (see Table 3-2).
3.1.4 Water Heat Program
The Water Heat Program offers a $20 incentive for a high efficiency electric water heater (0.94
Energy Factor), $7 buydown for Simple Steps, Smart Savings showerheads and $35 buydown
for Simple Steps, Smart Savings clothes washers (reflected in point of purchase price). The Water
Heat Program achieved 216 MWh in first-year savings in 2015 (see Table 3-3). $28,833 was paid
in incentives for this program.
3.1.5 ENERGY ST AR HOMES
Avista customers with a certified ENERGY STAR Home or ENERGY STAR / ECORated
Manufactured Home are eligible for a $1,000 or $800 rebate, respectively. Eligible homes must
be all electric to qualify for these rebate levels. Alternatively, customers who subscribe to Avista
electric service for lighting and appliances and natural gas service for space and water heating
are eligible for a program rebate of $650 regardless of construction type. Avista achieved 132
MWh savings in 2015 (see Table 3-4). A total of $14,043 was paid out in incentives for this
program.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 12 of 41
3.1.6 Fuel Efficiency
The Fuel Efficiency Program offers incentives for converting existing straight resistance electric
space heat to a natural gas furnace ($2,300 rebate); and/or converting their existing electric water
heater to a natural gas water heater ($600 rebate). The program also offers an incentive for the
conversion of electric to natural wall heaters ($1,300 rebate). This program achieved 2,786 MWh
in first-year savings in 2015 (see Table 3-5), with customers receiving $939,873 in paid incentives.
3.1.7 Residential Lighting
Avista continues to participate in the regional manufacturer buy-down of CFL lamps, specialty
bulbs, LED bulbs, and showerheads through Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) and
its contactor and some self-directed giveaways. The bulbs resulted in 5,151 MWh in annual first­
year savings during 2015 (see Table 3-6). The Simple Steps showerhead savings are tallied
under Avista's Water Heat program. The Company contributed over $168,521 in incentives
toward this buydown effort.
3.1.8 Shell
The primary measures included in the Shell Program are wall, attic, and floor insulation and
window replacements. In 2015, the Shell Program acquired over 174 MWh in first-year energy
savings (see Table 3-7).
3.1.9 Opower Home Energy Reports
Avista launched a Home Energy Reports program in June 2013, targeting 25,200 Idaho high use
electric customers. Eligibility for treatment included several criteria such as sufficient (2 year)
billing history, enough peers to build comparison group, not in the control group, not a 'do not
solicit' customer and high enough electric use to be cost-effectively treated. In an effort to reduce
energy usage through behavioral changes, Home Energy Reports show personalized usage
insights and energy saving tips. Customers also see a ranking of similar homes, comparison to
themselves and a personal savings goal on the Reports. In addition to closely matching usage
curves, the similar home comparisons are also based on the following four criteria; square
footage, home type, heat type and proximity.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 13 of 41
As shown in
Table 3-8, initial participating customer counts began at higher counts than the program targets
to account for opt-outs and attrition. Customers have the choice of receiving the reports and can
opt-out at any time. Attrition results in customers closing their Avista account and therefore no
longer being counted in the Program.
The program saved 2,815 MWh (gross verified) in Idaho over the 2014-2015 biennium (see
Table 3-9).
3.1.10 Customer Outreach
Avista's programs encourage the customer to take action through participation in currently
available programs. Energy efficiency outreach efforts are varied and usually are a combination
of both broad reach and targeted media as well as attendance at local community events. Energy
Efficiency is also featured throughout the year in Avista's "Connections" monthly newsletter,
distributed with the bill and posted online.
3.1.10.1 Residential Customer Outreach
Avista's residential outreach included the repeat of the popular broad reach media promotions
"Efficiency Matters" (April-June). A bill insert in the early spring offered tips to manage energy use
and a link to rebate offerings.
Avista conducted four Energy Fairs in September and October -two were held in Spokane, one
in Lewiston, ID and another in Post Falls, ID. Communications tactics used to increase awareness
of the Energy Fairs included a media partnership with KXL Y (ABC), posters, emails, news
releases, and print/ radio/ online advertising.
In October and November, Avista ran a campaign to increase awareness of/ participation in
energy efficiency programs for residential customers. The campaign utilized radio and online
advertising to communicate low-cost/ no-cost energy savings tips and to promote the rebates we
offer. It also included direct mail, which highlighted our enhanced electric-to-natural gas
conversion rebate. Social media was utilized throughout the campaign to extend reach.
We continued to update and promote the online fuel cost calculator that helped customers
understand the value of natural gas compared to other heating fuel types. We also leveraged
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 14 of 41
local sponsorships to highlight "Energy Efficiency Night" at Spokane Chiefs hockey and Gonzaga
University basketball games.
In November, we fielded a survey to determine customer opinions on energy efficiency-including
awareness of and participation in Avista's programs.
We also had varied activities for commercial and industrial customers. Print ads and case studies
featuring two of our large account customers ran in various local, regional , trade, and national
(zoned) publications (September-December). We updated collateral and delivered via the
commercial account executives to highlight the multifamily natural gas direct use program.
Targeted print advertising opportunities were utilized at local contractor associations that
promoted residential programs as well as engaged developers.
3.1.10.2 Nonresidential Customer Outreach
In 2015 we continued our effort of building awareness of energy efficiency and programs through
our electronic newsletter to commercial customers.
While we moved away from quarterly updates due to a lack of engagement from dealers, we
continued to offer 1-2 rounds of updates for HVAC dealers focused on primarily residential
programs and outreach for lighting contractors and electricians focused on commercial lighting.
We offered these in various locations throughout the service territory and through webinar to
increase accessibility.
As opportunities arise, energy efficiency tips are provided to local media outlets. Typical topics
include winter weather and summer heat energy efficiency tips. Avista provides updates to area
vendors about program information through mailings and webinars who in turn pass that
information on to their customers. The general awareness efforts successfully position Avista to
actively pursue and react to these earned media opportunities.
These are the highlights of specific activities that are reinforced and compliment the ongoing
outreach and messaging through the website, customer service reps, printed rebate forms,
trainings, sponsorships, etc.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 15 of 41
Table 3-1 : 2015 ID Residential Appliance Recycling Summary1
Project . kWh Avoided The_rms Non-Customer Non-incentive
Measure C t Incentives kWh Therms C I Avoided energy Incremental Utlt C t
oun os s Costs Benefits Costs 1 1 Y os s
Refrigerator 90 $2,700 57,240 $15,414 $0 $0 $2,700 $1,306
Freezer 23 $690 14,076 $4,390 $0 $0 $690 $372
Total 113 $3,390 71,316 $19,804 $0 $0 $3,390 $1,678
Table 3-2: 2015 ID Electric HVAC Program Summary1
p · t kWh A .d d Therms N Customer Non-
Measure ~oJe~ Incentives kWh Therms C vf1 e Avoided ~n-en~rgy Incremental incentive
oun os s Costs ene I s Costs Utility Costs
E Smart Thermostat Diy 2 ! $103 1,922 I $847 $0 $0 ! $301 $72
E Electric To Air Source Heat 64 $60,406 155,370 I $162,723 $0 $0 $361 ,904 $13,791 Pump I ! !
E Variable Speed Motor 226 $23,543 94,859 I $62,336 I $0 $0 $225,395 $5,283
E Smart Thermostat Paid Install 11 $1,136 10,571 ! $4,658 I $0 $0 $11,424 $395
Total 303 $85,188 2s2,122 I I $230,564 $0 ! $0 $599,024 $19,541
Table 3-3: 2015 ID Electric Water Heat Program Summary2
P . kWh A .d d Therms Non-C t N . 1· roiect . vo1 e . us omer on-1ncen 1ve Measure C I Incentives kWh Therms C t Avoided energy 1 1 1 C t Utlt C t oun os s Costs Benefits ncremen a os s 1 1 y os s
Simple Steps: Clothes Washer 432 $15,120 57,024
Simple Steps Showerheads 1,971 $13,639 158,849 3,063
E Electric Water Heater 6 $124 660
Total 2,409 $28,883 216,533 3,063
$24,763 $0 $0
$82,051 $12,317 $0
$469 $0 $0
$107,283 $12,317 $0
$34,560 $2,099
$23,652 $6,954
$3,132 $40
$61,344 $9,093
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 16 of 41
Table 3-4: 2015 ID ENERGY STAR Homes Electric Program Summary2
P . kWh A .d d Therms N Customer N . t· roiect . vo1 e . on-energy on-incen 1ve
Measure Count Incentives kWh Therms Costs A~~~t:d Benefits lnc~:~;tal Utility Costs
E Energy Star Home -Stick Built, Id 2 $4,130 26,801 $46,071
E Estar Home -Manuf, Furnace 12 $9,913 106,114 $142,464
Total 14 $14,043 132,915 $188,535
1 All kWh and therm values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of applicable NTG ratios.
2 All kWh and therm values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of applicable NTG ratios.
$0 $0
$0 $1 ,978
$1,978
$12,000 $3,905
$36,000 $12,074
$48,000 $15,979
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 17 of 41
Table 3-5: 2015 ID Electric Fuel Conversion Program Summary3
kWh Therms Non-Customer Non-incentive
Project Incentives kWh Therms Avoided Avoided energy Incremental Costs Utility Costs Measure Count Costs Costs Benefits
E Electric To Natural Gas Water Heater 13 $7,866 47,010 (2,586) l $33,371 -$12,531 $0 $22,160 $2,828
E Electric To Natural Gas Wall Heater 3 $4,027 31 ,873 (1,398) $34,508 -$10,095 $0 $14,967 $2,925
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace 157 $372,865 1,166,064 (78. 142) 1 $1 •4~4•68 -$564.239 $0 $648,219 $124,137
_l __
E Electric To Natural Gas Fur & Wh 168 $555,115 ! 1,541 ,530 (119,816) i $1•9!6•30 ! -$865,157 $0 $765,369 $164,109
--
Total 341 $939,873 2,786,477 (201,942) l $3,4~8•87 ! $1,4s2,02 $0 $1,450,715 $293,999
! 1
Table 3-6: 2015 ID Electric Residential Lighting Program Summary3
p . Th kWh A .d d Therms Non-C N . . Measure roiect Incentives kWh erm voi e Avoided energy ustomer on~incentive
Count s Costs C t B fit Incremental Costs Utility Costs
Simple Steps LED 36,298 $34,063 923,288
Simple Steps CFL 189,226 $129,892 4,1 79,278
Customer Outreach CFLs (Residential) 1,584 $2,919 47,639
Customer Outreach LEDs (Residential) 295 $1 ,646 1,161
Total 227,403 $168,521 5,151,365
os s ene Is
$646,078 $0 $0
$1 ,852,813 $0 $0
$20,639 $0 $0
$813 $0 $0
$2,520,342 $0 $0
$242,424 $54,757
$392,495 $157,032
$2,827 $1 ,749
$1 ,594 $69
$639,341 $213,608
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 18 of 41
Table 3-7: 2015 ID Electric Shell Program Summary3
kWh Therms Non-Customer N . t· Project on-1ncen 1ve Measure C Incentives kWh Therms Avoided Avoided energy Incremental ut·i·t C t ount 11 y OS s Costs Costs Benefits Costs
E Manuf Attic Insulation With Electric Heat 1 i $170 197 $391 $0 $0 $706 $33
E Attic Insulation With Electric Heat 23 i $4,585 8,930 $11 ,217 $0 $813 $20,494 $951
E Floor Insulation With Electric Heat 6 I $1 ,197 3,053 $3,835 $0 $212 $6,393 $325
E Wall Insulation With Electric Heat 5 $1,283 5,199 $6,531 $0 $141 $7,769 $554
E Window Replc From Double Pane W Elec Heat 70 $33,860 59,092 $74,225 $0 $0 $277,101 $6,291
E Window Replc From Single Pane W Elec Heat 78 $33,497 97,980 I $123,073 $0 $0 $303,972 $10,431
Total 183 $74,593 174,453 ! $219,272 $0 $1,166 $616,435 $18,584 I
Table 3-8 2014-2015 ID Opower Participation Summary
Closed Accounts P rt· . t· a 1c1pa mg Initial Participating Customers 2015 State Program Target Customers 2014 2015 Year-End
ID 25,200 22,122
3 All kWh and therm values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of applicable NTG ratios.
2,756 1,731 17,635
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 19 of 41
Table 3-9: 2014-2015 ID Electric Residential Opower Program Summary
Non-
p . kWh Therms Non-Customer . . roJect . . 1ncent1ve Measure C Incentives kWh Therms Avoided Avoided energy Incremental U .
1
. ount t1 1ty Costs Costs Benefits Costs C t
OPower Home Energy Reports $0 2,814,300 $312,482 $0 $0
OS S
$0 J $501 ,853
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 20 of 41
3.2 Low Income
The Company leverages the one Community Action Program (CAP) agency to deliver energy
efficiency programs for the Company's low income residential customers in the Idaho service
territory. The Community Action Partnership out of Lewiston has resources to income qualify,
prioritize and treat clients homes based upon a number of characteristics. In addition to the
Company's annual funding, the agency has other monetary resources that they can leverage
when treating a home with weatherization or other energy efficiency measures. The agencies
either have in-house or contractor crews to install many of the efficiency measures of the program.
3.2.1 Program Changes
In 2015, the Company continued to reimburse Community Action Agencies for 100% of the cost
of installation for a select group of "Approved" energy efficiency measures, and continued to offer
an additional "Rebate List" of other energy efficiency measures. This rebate list allows the
agencies to receive funding for measures that are not as cost-effective as those on the Approved
List but are still necessary for the homes overall functionality. The reimbursement amount is only
equal to the energy value of the improvement from the Utility perspective. This approach focuses
the Agency towards installing measures that have the greatest cost-effectiveness, from the utility
perspective, but still offers an opportunity to fund other measures if needed. To allow for additional
flexibility, the agency may also choose to utilize their Health and Safety dollars to fully fund the
cost of the measures on the Rebate list.
3.2.2 2015 Program Details
Eligible efficiency improvements are similar to those offered under the traditional residential
rebate programs, as well as mirroring a variety of the same measures found on the state program
priority list. An Avista approved measure list is provided to the agencies in an attempt to manage
the cost-effectiveness of the low income program (see Table 3-10). The agencies are given
discretion to spend their allotted funds on either electric or natural gas efficiency improvement
based on the need of the client. The program includes improvements to insulation, infiltration,
ENERGY STAR® doors and refrigerators along with fuel conversion from electric resistance
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 21 of 41
space and water heat to natural gas. A vista's funding covers the full cost of the improvement from
the Approved Measures list.
Table 3-10: 2015 Low Income Program Approved Measure List
Electric Measures Natural Gas Measures
• Air infiltration • Insulation (Wall, Ceiling, and Floor)
• Insulation (floor, ceiling, wall) • Air infiltration
• Duct sealing • Duct sealing
• ENERGY STAR doors • ENERGY STAR doors
• Electric to Natural Gas Conversion (Space and • ENERGY STAR windows
Water Heat)
• ENERGY STAR Refrigerators
Along with the Approved Measure List, Avista has also established a "Rebate List" of eligible
measures. The Rebate List allows the agencies to receive funding for other measures that are
not as cost-effective as those on the Approved List but are still necessary for the homes overall
functionality. This measure list is outlined in Table 3-11 .
Table 3-11: 2015 Low Income Program Rebate Measure List
Electric Measures Natural Gas Measures
• Duct insulation • Duct insulation
• ENERGY STAR refrigerators (for replacement • High efficiency furnace
of a refrigerator that is not fully operational) • High efficiency water heater
• High efficient water heater
• Electric to air source heat pump
• Electric to natural gas water heater
• ENERGY STAR windows
Individually, the annual contract for each agency allows them to spend their annually allotted
funds on either natural gas or electric efficiency measures at their discretion, and charge a 15
percent administration fee towards the cost of each measure. In addition, up to 15 percent of their
annual funding allocation may be used towards Health and Safety improvements in support of
energy efficiency measures installed in the home. It is at the agencies' discretion whether or not
to utilize their funds for health and safety and other home repairs to ensure the habitability of the
home where the energy efficiency improvements were installed.
For the 2015 program year, Idaho income-qualified homes installed over 3,760 individual
measures, acquiring more than 426 MWh . Refer to Table 3-12 for details on low income
programs.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 22 of 41
In partnership with the Company's Demand-Side Management efforts, Avista's Consumer Affairs
department conducts conservation education and outreach for our low income, senior and
vulnerable customers. The company reaches the target population through workshops, energy
fairs, mobile and general outreach. Each of these methods include demonstrations and
distribution of low-cost and no-cost materials with a focus on energy efficiency, conservation tips
and measures, and information regarding energy assistance that may be available through
agencies. Low income and senior outreach goals increase awareness of energy assistance
programs such as the Avista Low Income Rate Assistance Program (LIRAP) in Washington and
Oregon and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and Project Share in
all jurisdictions.
The Company has recognized the following educational strategies as efficient and effective
activities for delivering the energy efficiency and conservation education and outreach:
• Energy Conservation workshops for groups of Avista customers where the primary target
audiences are seniors and low income participants.
• Energy Fairs where attendees can receive information about low cost/no cost methods to
weatherize their home; this information is provided in demonstrations and limited samples.
In addition, fair attendees can learn about billing assistance and demonstrations of the
online account and energy management tools. Community partners that provide services
to low income populations and support to increase personal self-sufficiency are invited, at
no cost, to host a booth to provide information about their services and how to access
them .
• Mobile Outreach is conducted through the Avista Energy Resource Van (ERV) where
visitors can learn about effective tips to manage their energy use, bill payment options and
community assistance resources.
• General Outreach is accomplished by providing energy management information and
resources at events (such as resource fairs) and through partnerships that reach our target
populations. General Outreach also includes bill payment options and assistance
resources in senior and low income publications.
In 2015, in Idaho, Avista facilitated 13 workshops with 278 participants; two energy fairs that had
500 attendees; 21 mobile outreach events to 5,273 visitors; and 8 general outreach partnerships
and events reaching 1,014 individuals for a total of 7,065 contacts with senior and low income
individuals.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 23 of 41
Table 3-12: ID 2015 Electric Low-Income Measures Summary4
. kWh Therms Customer . . Proiect . . . Non-energy Non-incentive Measure C Incentives kWh Therms Avoided Avoided 8 fi Incremental U .1. C ount C C ene its C • t1 1ty osts osts osts osts
Customer Outreach CFLs ! 1,549 $4,764 23,235 $10,066 $0 $0 $4,764 $3,307 (Low Income) !
Customer Outreach LEDs
I 1,838 $29,669 23,894 i $16,720 I $0 I $0 $29,669 I $5,492 (Low Income) I I
i I ; E INS -Attic 22 $12,639 4,949 $11,228 $0 $0 $12,639 ! $3,688
E INS-DUCT 14 $909 528 $509 i $0 $0 $909 I $167
E INS-FLOOR i 37 $72,106 20,031 $45,444 j $0 $0 $72,106 I $14,928
E INS-WALL 6 $8,385 1,211 $2,747 I $0 $0 $8,385 $903
E HE Water Heater 1 $49 61 $30 ! $0 $0 $49 ! $10
E Energy Star Windows I 33 $1 ,697 578 $1 ,311 i $0 I $63,059 $1 ,697 I $431
E Energy Star Doors 33 I $23,103 4,766 $10,812 I $0 I $53,827 $23,103 i $3,552
E To G Furnace Conversion I 30 I $148,961 179,982 (2,009) $226,014 I -$14,509 i $45,000 $148,961 I $74,264
E To G H2o Conversion ! 22 $60,549 67,675 (868) $49,939 I -$3,718 $11 ,000 $60,549 1 $16,405 !
E To Heat Pump Conversion I 9 l $29,673 43,157 $45,199 $0 ! $0 $29,673 ! $14,848 !
E Air Infiltration 59 $87,818 16,674 ! $17,463 I $0 $0 $87,818 I $5,737
Health & Human Safety 55 $106,172 385 $17 $0 $133,447 $106,172 j $6
E Duct Sealing 54 $21 ,812 39,688 $41 ,566 $0 l $0 $21,812 i $13,654
Total I 3,762 $608,304 426,815 (2,877) $479,128 \ -$18,221 1 $306,334 $608,304 $157,391
*Customer incremental costs are the incremental measure cost absent any incentive. Therefore, the values should not be zero for the low income program. These
incremental values are used in cost-effectiveness calculations.
4 All kWh and therm values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of applicable NTG ratios.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 24 of 41
3.3 Nonresidential
The nonresidential energy efficiency market is delivered through a combination of prescriptive
and site-specific offerings. Any measure not offered through a prescriptive program is
automatically eligible for treatment through the site-specific program, subject to the criteria for
participation in that program. Prescriptive paths for the nonresidential market are preferred for
measures that are relatively small and uniform in their energy efficiency characteristics.
In 2015, 333 prescriptive and site specific nonresidential projects were incented . Avista
contributed more than $750,000 for energy efficiency upgrades in nonresidential applications.
Nonresidential programs realized over 5,000 MWh in annual first-year energy savings. Table 3-14
and Table 3-15 provide detail on the electric nonresidential programs.
3.3.1 Program Changes
Program changes made at the beginning of 2015 to the nonresidential programs include the
addition of new program offerings and changes to eligibility or incentive levels. Avista
communicates the majority of program changes once the Business Plan is finalized and those
changes become effective at the beginning of the year. In addition, some program changes are
made throughout the year as necessary but these are less typical.
For nonresidential programs, rebates were updated to reflect business planning analysis to
include inputs such as new unit energy savings (UES) and cost values. Changes were effective
January 1, 2015 and Avista accepted rebate applications through March 31 , 2015 for 2014
measures and amounts. This 90 day grace period allows for a smooth transition when rebate
programs change to allow enough time for customers in the pipeline to complete their projects yet
close out changes in a timely but balanced approach.
The following sections outline additions, adjustments and discontinuations of nonresidential
programs and incentive levels beginning in 2015.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 25 of 41
3.3.1.1 Nonresidential Program New Offerings
In 2015, Avista added the Small Business program to their nonresidential offering.
3.3.1.2 Nonresidential Program Discontinuations
The following programs/measures were discontinued during the 2015 program year:
• Standby Generator Block Heater Program -last day to apply for rebate was March 31,
2015
• Commercial Water Heater Rebate Program -last day to apply for rebate was March 31 ,
2015
• Commercial Window Program, New and Retrofit -last day to apply for rebate was
March 31 , 2015
• Commercial Food Service Equipment-Hot Food Holding Cabinets measure was
discontinued
3.3.1.3 Nonresidential Program Adjustments
The following adjustments in program requirements or incentive levels were made to the
nonresidential programs beginning January 2015:
• Commercial HVAC Variable Frequency Drive Retrofit was increased to $130 per HP for
all
• Commercial Clothes Washer rebates was increased to $100 per unit
• Avista increased the incentives for canopy LED lighting fixture retrofits and added the
LED Sign Lighting and T12/T8 to High Performance T8 or LEDs to the Commercial
Lighting Program. New measures and increased incentives took effect January 1, 2015.
Commercial Lighting Program changes are listed in Table 3-13 Nonresidential Lighting
Interior and Exterior Changes below:
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 26 of 41
Program Change Existing Light Retrofit Light Old Incentive New Incentive** Notes
Increased Incentive 400 watt Canopy HID 122-175 watt LED* Canopy Fixture
Increased Incentive 320 watt Canopy HID 122-160 watt LED* Canopy Fixture
Addition 250 watt Canopy HID 85-140 watt LED* Canopy Fixture
Addition T12 Sign Exterior LED Sign Lighting
Addition 1000 watt HID 400-575 watt Digital HID Fixture
Decreased Incentive 400 watt HID 250 watt Digital HID Fixture
Modified Eligibility 400 watt HID 122-175 watt LED* Fixture
Modified Eligibility 320 watt HID 122-160 watt LED* Fixture
Modified Eligibility 250 watt HID 85-140 watt LED* Fixture
Modified Eligibility 175 watt HID 35-85 watt LED* Fixture
Modified Eligibility 150 watt HID 35-50 watt LED* Fixture
Modified Eligibility 90-100 watt HID 25-50 watt LED
Modified Eligibility 70-90 watt HID 15-35 watt LED* Fixture
Addition 4'41amp T12/T8 4'3 lamp HP TB***
Addition 4'41amp T12/T8 4'2 lamp HP TB***
Addition 4'31amp T12/T8 LED* 2x4 Fixture
Addition 4'31amp T12/T8 4'2 lamp HP TB***
Addition 4'21amp T12/T8 4'1 lamp HP TB***
Addition 4'11amp T12/T8 4'1 lamp HP TB***
Addition 8'41amp T12/T8 8'4 lamp or 4'8 lamp HP TB***
Addition 8'21amp T12/T8 LED* Fixture
Addition 8'11amp T12/T8 LED* Fixture
$255
$180
$145
Site Specific
Site Specific
$260
$255
$180
$145
$135
$130
$75
$55
Site Specific
Site Specific
! Site Specific
i Site Specific
Site Specific
Site Specific
Site Specific
Site Specific
Site Specific
$325
$250
$155
$17 per sq ft
$225
$150
$255
$180
$145
$135
$130
$75
$55
$32
$35
$60
$15
$13
$13
$54
$80
$40
Exterior**
Exterior**
Exterior**
Sign
Exterior**
Exterior**
Exterior**
Exterior**
Exterior**
Exterior**
Exterior**
Exterior**
Exterior**
Interior
Interior
Interior
Interior
Interior
Interior
Interior
Interior
Interior
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 27 of 41
Program Change Existing Light Retrofit Light Old Incentive New Incentive** Notes
Increased Incentive 400 watt HID 4 lamp TS or 6 lamp HP T8 Fixture $105 $120 Interior
Increased Incentive 400 watt HID 4 lamp TS or 6 lamp HP T8 Fixture w/ OC $145 $150 Interior
Increased Incentive 400 watt HID 8 lamp HP T8 Fixture $115 $125 Interior
Increased Incentive 400 watt HID 8 lamp HP T8 Fixture with OC sensor $145 $155 Interior
Increased Incentive 250 watt HID 4 lamp HP T8* or 2 lamp TS $50 $90 Interior
Increased Incentive ! 250 watt HID ; 4 lamp HP T8* or 2 lamp TS plus OC I $80 $120 1 Interior ; Sensor
Increased Incentive 75-100 watt incandescent 12-20 watt LED* lamp $10 i $15 Interior
Increased Incentive 60 watt Incandescent 9-13 watt LED* lamp $8 $12 Interior
Increased Incentive 40 watt Incandescent 6-10 watt LED* lamp $6 $10 Interior
Increased Incentive 50 watt MR16 6-9 watt LED* lamp $10 $12 Interior
Increased Incentive 35 watt MR16 4-6 watt MR16 LED* lamp $8 $11 Interior
Increased Incentive 20 watt MR16 2-4 watt MR16 LED* lamp $5 $10 Interior
Deletion Exit Signs New LED Exit Signs $20 $0 Interior
Increased Incentive No Oc Sensor Occupancy Sensor with relays $20 $30 Interior
* LED Requirements-Fixtures and Lamps (for each type) must be on approved LED lists; go to www.lightingdesignlab.com. Invoices must include LED Manufacturer name, model#,
and wattage. Application must include a printed screen shot (.pdf) of the LED product on the approved list for each fixture and/or lamp.
** New construction incentives takes effect January 1, 2015.
The remaining sub-sections outline the nonresidential prescriptive and site specific program paths offered in 2015 and the small business
program which began mid-2015. The verified participation, incentives, energy savings, etc for each measure offered in the programs is
outlined in Table 3-14 and Table 3-15.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 28 of 41
3.3.2 Prescriptive Path
Prescriptive paths do not require pre-project contracting, as the site-specific program does, and
thus lend themselves to streamlined administrative and marketing efforts. Incentives are
established for these prescriptive programs by applying the incentive formula contained with in
Schedules 90 and 190 to a prototypical installation. Actual costs and savings are tracked,
reported and available to the third-party impact evaluator. When applicable, the prescriptive
measures utilize RTF unit energy savings.
3.3.3 Site Specific Path
Site specific is the most comprehensive offering of the nonresidential segment and brings in
more than half of the nonresidential savings. Avista's Account Executives work with
nonresidential customers to provide assistance in identifying energy efficiency opportunities.
Customers receive technical assistance in determining potential energy and cost savings as
well as identifying and estimating incentives for participation. Site specific incentives, in which
the tier structure applies, are capped at seventy percent of the incremental project cost for
lighting projects with simple paybacks of less than 3 years and non-lighting projects (or lighting
projects with a verified life of 40,000 hours or more) with simple paybacks less than 5 years. All
other project incentives calculated under the tier structure will be capped at fifty percent of the
incremental project cost. Simple payback criteria for eligible projects is greater than 1 year and
less than 8 years for lighting measures or less than 13 years for non-lighting and LED lighting
measures. Site specific projects include appliances, compressed air, HVAC, industrial process,
motors (non-prescriptive), shell and lighting with the majority being lighting measures.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 29 of 41
Table 3-14: 2015 ID Electric Nonresidential Prescriptive Measures Summary5
Project . kWh Avoided The_rms Non-Energy Customer Non~ Measure C t Incentives kWh Therms C t Avoided B fit Incremental Incentive
oun os s Cost ene I s Costs Utility Costs
PSC Commercial Windows 4 $2,032 10,200 I $8,629 and lnsul
PSC EnergySmart-Case 34 $78,300 I 719,497 I $192,996 Lighting
PSC EnergySmart-Industrial 38 $45,939 ! 390,989 I $230,771 Proc
PSC Food Service 6 $1,563 32,362 $16,053 Equipment
' PSC Green Motors Rewind 5 I $762 5,995 $2 ,536
PSC Lighting Exterior 144 $197,781 1,192,613 $728,272
PSC Lighting Interior 44 $53,937 717,780 $437,034
PSC Motor Controls HVAC 3 $28,343 244,166 $156,866
Total 278 $408,656 3,313,602 $1,773,157
5 All kWh and therm values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of applicable NTG ratios.
$0 I $0 ! i
$0 $0 i
I $0 $0 !
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $38,346
$0 $55,059
$0 $0
$0 $93,405
$19,798 $1 ,235
$232,584 $27,622
$131 ,033 $33,028
$27,524 $2,298
$22,772 $363
$645,933 $104,231
$138,193 $62,549
$51 ,755 $22,451
$1 ,269,593 $253,775
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 30 of 41
Table 3-15: 2015 ID Electric Nonresidential Site Specific Measures Summary6
Therms Non-Non-Project . kWh Avoided . Customer . Measure C Incentives kWh Therms C Avoided Energy 1 1 C t Incentive cunt osts C 8 t· ncrementa os s U .1. C ost ene ,ts t1 1ty osts
SS Appliances 2 $624 3,877 $9,726
SS HVAC Combined 1 $486 5,041 $3,266
SS Industrial Process 1 $11 ,012 68,455 $54,746
SS EnergySmart-5 $17,898 188,890 $185,382 Industrial Proce
SS Lighting Exterior 20 $69,645 552,892 $809,076
SS Lighting Interior 23 $90,593 693,679 $1 ,615,454
SS Multifamily 2 $162,029 272,581 (12,620) $169,923
SS HVAC Heating 1 $882 5,482 $3,615
Total 55 $353,168 1,790,898 (12,620) $2,851,188
6 All kWh and therm values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of applicable NTG ratios.
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $132
$0 $361
-$58,892 $0
$0 $0
-$58,892 $493
$3,196 $1 ,392
$897 $467
$36,448 $7,835
$46,389 $26,532
$270,642 $115,796
$265,446 $231 ,205
$442,888 $24,319
$5,107 $517
$1,071,013 $408,064
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 31 of 41
4 Evaluation, Measurement, and
Verification (EM&V)
Nexant, Inc., in partnership with Research Into Action, (the evaluation team) was retained as the
Company's external evaluator to independently measure and verify the portfolio energy savings
for the 2014-2015 biennium period. The energy efficiency savings and associated cost­
effectiveness results presented in this 2015 Annual Report are based on the evaluation findings
and are presented as gross, verified savings.
The impact and process evaluation reports can be found in Appendix A and B respectively.
5 Generation and Distribution Efficiency
Avista did not acquire any generation and distribution savings in Idaho in 2015.
6 Regional Market Transformation
Avista's local energy efficiency portfolio consists of programs and supporting infrastructure
designed to enhance and accelerate the saturation of energy efficiency measures through a
combination of financial incentives, technical assistance, program outreach and education. It is
not feasible for Avista to independently have a meaningful impact upon regional or national
markets.
Consequently, utilities within the northwest have cooperatively worked together through the
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) to address those opportunities that are beyond the
ability or reach of individual utilities. Avista has been participating in and funding NEEA since the
1997 founding of the organization.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 32 of 41
NEEA allocates the savings using funder shares. The shares vary based on the funding cycle.
Savings from previous investments receive the previous funder share. Savings from current
investments receive the current funder share.
Avista's criteria for funding NEEA's electric market transformation portfolio calls for the portfolio
to deliver incrementally cost-effective resources beyond what could be acquired through the
Company's local portfolio alone. Avista has historically communicated with NEEA the importance
of NEEA delivering cost-effective resources to our service territory. The Company believes that
NEEA will continue to offer cost-effective electric market transformation in the foreseeable future.
Avista will continue to play an active role in the organizational oversight of NEEA. This will be
critical to insure that geographic equity, cost-effectiveness and resource acquisition continue to
be primary areas of focus.
NEEA estimates Avista's 2015 annual electricity energy savings are 0.46 aMW (4,029 MWh)
(Table 7-2). These savings are above the NEEA baseline7 and not counted as part of Avista's
Idaho local program savings.8
Table 6-1 2015 Annual Report Savings Estimates for Idaho Service Territory (aMW)
2015 (aMW) Total Regional Co-C~eated Net Market
Savings Savings Effects*
Residential 1.40 0.37 0.36
Commercial 0.29 0.06 0.05
Industrial 0.12 0.04 0.04
Agriculture 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 1.81 0.47 0.46
*Net Maket Effects are electric energy savings less savings counted as Baseline and/or claimed
through the Energy Trust of Oregon, Bonneville Power Administration, and local utilities.
7 NEEA estimates Baseline as the savings that would have occurred without NEEA, utility, the Bonneville Power
Administration, and the Energy Trust of Oregon's market intervention.
8 NEEA estimates the share of energy savings claimed through Bonneville, the Energy Trust of Oregon and local
utilities based on program data an on NEEA's annual survey of local utility programs.
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 33 of 41
7 Energy Efficiency Expenditures
During 2015, Avista incurred over $5.3 million in costs for the operation of electric energy
efficiency programs in Idaho. Of this amount, $564 ,000 was contributed to the Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance to fund regional market transformation ventures.
Forty seven percent of expenditures were returned to ratepayers in the form of incentives or
products (e.g. CFLs}. During the 2015 calendar year, a little over $311 thousand, or 5.9 percent,
was spent on evaluation in an effort to continually improve program design, delivery and cost­
effectiveness.
Evaluation, as well as other implementation expenditures, can be directly charged to the
appropriate state and/or segment(s). In cases where the work benefits multiple states or
segments, these expenditures are charged to a "general" category and are allocated based on
avoided costs for cost-effectiveness purposes.
The expenditures illustrated in the following tables represent actual payments incurred in the 2015
calendar year and often differ from the cost-effectiveness section where all benefits and costs
associated with projects completing in 2015 are evaluated in order to provide matching of benefits
and expenditures resulting in a more accurate look at cost-effectiveness.
Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 provide a summary of energy efficiency expenditures by fuel type.
Table 7-1: Avista Electricity Energy Efficiency Expenditures (ID)*
Low Income $379,332 $62,367
Nonresidential $797,020 $370,950
Regional $0 $852
General $0 $708,784
Research $0 $252,461
Total $2,491,875 $1,924,615
$0
$19,891
$27,590
$263,830
$0
$311,332
$0
$0
$563,571
$0
$0
$563,571
$441 ,699
$1,187,861
$592,013
$972,614
$252,461
$5,291,394
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 34 of 41
* Year-end accruals for low income incentives for Washington electric and Idaho electric did not occur
correctly, but the tariff rider balances for both are correct as of the end of January 2016. The expenditure
charts match the financial accounting system, but for accuracy in the cost effectiveness tests $273 ,052.57
low income incentive expenditures have been moved resulting in a decrease in Washington electric low
income expenditures and an increase in Idaho electric low income expenditures.
Table 7-2: Avista Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Expenditures (ID)*
Segment Incentives Implementation EM&V NEEA Total
Residential $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Low Income $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nonresidential $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Regional $0 $0 $0 $50,807 $50,807
General $0 $127 $0 $0 $127
Total $0 $127 I $0 $50,807 $50,680
8 Tariff Rider Balances
As of the start of 2015, the Idaho electric and natural gas (aggregate) tariff rider balances were
underfunded by $1 ,634,854. During 2015, $6.5 million in tariff rider revenue was collected to fund
energy efficiency while $5.3 million was expended to operate energy efficiency programs. The
$1 .6 million under-collection of tariff rider funding resulted in a year-end balance of $493 thousand
underfunded balance.
Table 8-1 illustrates the 2015 tariff rider activity by fuel type.
Table 8-1 Tariff Rider Activity (2015)
Electric Natural Gas
Beginning Balance ($1 ,624,766) (Underfunded)
Energy Efficiency Funding $6,484,376
Net Funding of Operations $4,859,610
Energy Efficiency Expenditures $5,291 ,394
Ending Balances ($431 ,784) (Underfunded)
($10,088)
$0
$10,088
$50,681
($60,768)
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 35 of 41
9 Actual to Business Plan Comparison
For 2015 operations, Avista exceeded budgeted electric energy efficiency expenditures by just
under $300 thousand, or less than six percent, and natural gas expenditures were exceeded by
$51 thousand . The biggest driver of expenditures is incentives. This demand for incentives was
slightly higher than anticipated and its impact resulted in the underfunding in the Idaho electric
programs. The Idaho Natural Gas Portfolio was discontinued in 2014 but minimal expenditures
were made in 2015 due to carry-over measures from 2014.
While the business plan provides an expectation for operational planning, Avista is required to
incent all energy efficiency that qualifies under Schedules 90 and 190. Since customer incentives
are the largest component of expenditures, customer demand can easily impact the funding level
of the Tariff Riders.
Table 9-1 provides detail on the budget to actual comparison of energy efficiency expenditures
by fuel type.
Table 9-1 Business Plan to Actual Comparison9
Incentives Budget
Non-incentives and Labor
Total Budgeted Expenditures
Incentives
Non-incentives and Labor
Total Actual Expenditures
Variance (Unfavorable)
9 Budget values are from 2015 Business Plan
Electric Natural Gas
Business Plan
$3,159,736
$2,430,543
$5,590,279
Actual 2015 Expenditures
$2,491,875
$2,799,518
$5,291,394
$298,885
$0
$0
$0
$0
$50,681
$50,681
{$50,681)
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 36 of 41
10 Net Cost Effectiveness Results
This section reports the cost-effectiveness results with net to gross values, including freeridership
and spillover, as determined in the impact evaluations conducted on the 2014-2015 programs. In
summary, electric net TRC is 1.03 and the electric net PAC test benefit-cost ratio is 1.48. Table
10-1 through Table 10-4 illustrate electric cost-effectiveness results.
Electric Cost Effectiveness Results
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 37 of 41
Table 10-1: 2015 ID Electric Total Resource Cost (TRC) (Net)
Regular Income Low Income O 11 P rtf 1.
Portfolio Portfolio vera O o 10
Electric Avoided Costs $7,138,288 $485,674 $7,623,962
Natural Gas Avoided Costs -$1 ,080,219 -$18,227 -$1 ,098,446
Non-Energy Benefits $97,043 $306,334 $403,376
TRC Benefits $6,155,112 $773,781 $6,928,893
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $2,268,943 $159,542 $2,428,485
Customer Costs $3,663,386 $616,385 $4,279,770
TRC Costs $5,932,329 $775,927 $6,708,256
TRC Ratio 1.04 1.00 1.03
Residual TRC Benefits $222,783 -$2,146 $220,637
Table 10-2: 2015 ID Electric Program Administrator Cost (PAC) (Net)
Electric Avoided Costs
Natural Gas Avoided Costs
PAC Benefits
Non-Incentive Utility Costs
Incentive Costs
PAC Costs
PAC Ratio
Net PAC Benefits
Regular Income Low Income O 11 p rtf 1.
Portfolio Portfolio vera O o 10
$7,138,288 $485,674
-$1 ,080,219 -$18,227
$6,058,069 $467,447
$2,268,943 $159,542
$1 ,356,212 $616,385
$3,625,155 $775,927
1.67 0.60
$2,432,914 -$308,480
$7,623,962
-$1 ,098,446
$6,525,516
$2,428,485
$1 ,972,597
$4,401,082
1.48
$2,124,434
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 38 of 41
Table 10-3: 2015 ID Electric Participant Cost (PCT) (Net)
Regular Income Low Income O II p rtf r
Portfolio Portfolio vera O O 10
Electric Bill Reduction $10,135,501 $667,521 $10,803,022
Gas Bill Reduction -$50,408 -$873 -$51 ,281
Non-Energy Benefits $97,043 $306,334 $403,376
Participant Benefits $10,182,136 $972,982 $11,155,118
Customer Costs $3,663,386 $616,385 $4,279,770
Incentive Received -$1 ,356,212 -$616,385 -$1 ,972,597
Participant Costs $2,307,174 $0 $2,307,174
Participant Ratio 4.41 N/A 4.83
Net Participant Benefits $7,874,962 $972,982 $8,847,944
Table 10-4: 2015 ID Electric Rate Impact Measure (RIM) (Net)
Electric Avoided Cost Savings
Non-Participant Benefits
Electric Revenue Loss
Non-Incentive Utility Costs
Customer Incentives
Non-Participant Costs
RIM Ratio
Net RIM Benefits
Regular Income Low Income O 11 p rtf 1.
Portfolio Portfolio vera O o 10
$7,138,288 $485,674
$7,138,288 $485,674
$10,135,501 $667,521
$2,268,943 $159,542
$1 ,356,212 $616,385
$13,760,656 $1,443,448
0.52 0.34
-$6,622,368 -$957,774
$7,623,962
$7,623,962
$10,803,022
$2,428,485
$1 ,972,597
$15,204,104
0.50
-$7,580, 142
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 39 of 41
Appendix A Idaho 2014-2015 Electric Impact Evaluation
Report
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 40 of 41
Appendix B 2014-2015 Process Evaluation Report
Exhibit No. 1
D. Johnson, Avista
Schedule 2, Page 41 of 41