20160914Roy Direct.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
RE ,,E!VE D
201 'EP I l+ AM 10: I
BEFORE THE IDAHO 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 NAT URAL GAS
ENERGY EFFICIENCY SERVICE IN THE
STATE OF I DAHO
CASE NO. AVU-E-16-()(e
L f t5 I 21 t t I <
DIRECT TESTIMONY
OF
LYNN ROY
REP RESENTI NG
Nexant, Inc
FOR AVISTA CORPORATION
(ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS)
1
2 Q.
I. INTRODUCTION
Please state your full name, business address, and
3 company name.
4 A. My name is Lynn Michelle Roy , and my business address
5 is 867 Coal Creek Circle , Suite 120 , Louisville CO 800 2 7 . My
6 employer is Nexant , Inc .
7 Q. On whose behalf are you presenting testimony in this
8 proceeding?
9
10
A .
Q.
I am testifying on behalf of Avista Utilities .
Have you previously submitted testimony in this
11 procee iir..g?
12
13
14
A.
Q.
A.
No , I ha v e not .
Please describe your qualification.
I hold a Bachelors degree in Engineering Physics and a
15 Masters degree in Mechanical Engineering . I have been
16 working in the area of demand side management (DSM) program
17 d e s i gn , implementation , and evaluation since 2001 . I have
18 authored or co -authored several dozen reports on the
19 eval uation of DSM programs for utilities, as well as state ,
20 and federal agencies across North America . I have presented
21 at multiple energy efficiency industry conferences on
22 industry standard evaluation methods and findings of
23 interest . I am a member of the Association of Energy Service
Roy, Di 1
Nexant, Inc
1 Professionals (AESP) and the Associated Energy Engineers
2 (AEE) Certified Energy Manager (CEM).
3 Q. Descri be your current and previ ous job
4 responsibilities .
5 A. I am currently a Principal Consultant in Nexant's
6 Strategy and Pl anning group as part of the Utility Services
7 Business Unit . I help oversee the work of 30 engineers ,
8 analysts and consultants in the Strategy and Planning Group
9 including project oversight, subject matter expertise , staff
10 mentor ship , quality control , and management. From 2007
11 t h ro J gh 2011, p rio r t c wo rkin g i n t he St rat egy a nd Planning
12 g r oup , I p ro v i ded overs i ght t o a l l p r o jec t wo r k a ir2c t ed out
13 of the Colorado o ffic e .
14 Q. Describe your involvement in the delivery of Avi sta
15 DSM p rograms.
16 A. Nexant, al o ng with our subcont r actor Research Into
17 Act i on, was retained by Avista to serve as the third-party
18 independent evaluat o r of its 2014 and 2015 Demand Side
19 Management (DSM) programs in Idaho and Washington. As such ,
20 we conducted impact and process evaluations of the programs
21 in the residential , nonresidential , and low income sectors.
Roy , Di 2
Nexant , Inc
1 The evaluation covered elect ric programs in Idaho and
2 electric and natural gas programs in Washington .
3 Q. Were the evaluations prepared in accordance with
4 industry standards?
5 A. Yes . All evaluations were conducted in a manner meeting
6 industry standards and established protocols . These include :
7 (1) the Department of Energy Uniform Methods Project , 20 13 ,
8 2014 (2) International Performance Measurement and
9 Verification Protocols : Concepts and Options for Determining
10 Energy and Water Savings Volume 1 , January 2012 (3) Model
11 Energy Sff icienc y Pr ogram Impa c t Ev al~ation Guide: A
12 Res o urce of the Natio nal Ac ti on Plan fo r Ene r gy Effi c i ency ,
13 November 2007 ; a nd ( 4) Electric Power Research Ins t i tute :
14 Guidebook for Energy Efficiency Program Evaluation ,
15 Measurement , and Verification , 2008 .
16 Q. Have you conducted similar portfolio-level
17 evaluations before?
18 A. Yes . Under my supervi s ion , Nexant ha s recently
19 completed similar progra m evaluations for the following
20 electric and natural gas utilities and state and federa l
21 organizations other than Avista :
22 1 . Georgi a Power Company
23 2 . Mississippi Power
Roy , Di 3
Nexant , Inc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 Q.
3. NorthWestern Energy
4 . Effi ciency Maine
5 . Lawrence Berkley National Lab
6 . Co l orado Governors Energy Office
7. Oklahoma Department of Commerce
8 . Missouri Gas Energy
9 . Elizabethtown Gas
10 . Independent Electricity System Operator
Have your evaluations elsewhere been reviewed by Public
10 Utility Commissions or state-level evaluators?
11 A. Ye t.i . In cas e s li s ted i n the pn ,vi ou s que s ti Jn where
12 e vt1luat ::_on s we r e con du c t e d for a uti l ity, th e eva lua t ions
13 were either reviewed and approved or are in the p r ocess of
14 being reviewed and approved by the representative utility
15 commissions .
16 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony?
17 A. The purpose o f my testimony is to p rese nt the findings
18 of our evaluations for the 2014 -20 15 time period .
19 Q. Are you sponsoring any exhibits to be introduced in
20 this proceeding?
Roy , Di 4
Nexant , Inc
1 A . Yes. I am sponsoring Exhibit No. 2, Schedules 1 and 2.
2 Schedule 1 is the 2014-2015 Impact Evaluation and Schedul e
3 2 is the 2014 -2015 Process Evaluation .
4 Q. Describe Nexant 's approach to conducting evaluations of
5 DSM programs .
6 A. Nexant believes that successful evaluations rely on
7 shared expectations that are clearly outlined in the
8 research objectives developed during the planning phases of
9 the evaluation . This shared understanding , which comes from
10 a clear recognition of program theory and logic, goals, key
11 p e r f o r man c e i a di ca t or a , and p roc e ss e s , is a c hi e ve d t hro u g h
12 c le a r c ommun i c a tion with s t a kehol de r s and ut i li t y DSM
13 p rogra m staff . We also strongl y b elieve in re gular
14 communication between the evaluation team and the program
15 staff to allow for near real -time feedback on evaluation
16 findings and recommendations. We also presented regularly to
17 the s takeholders represented in Avista 's Advisory Group to
18 inform them of the project status .
19 Q. Were Avi s t a ' s DSM programs cost-ef fective during the
20 2014-2015 timeframe?
21 A. Yes. Nexant conducted cost-effectiveness analyses for
22 the 2014 program year and the 2015 program year separately
23 for reporting in Avista 's Annual DSM Reports. For Avista 's
Roy , Di 5
Nexant, Inc
1 Idaho 2014 overall portfolio (including regular income and
2 low income), the electric gross Total Resource Cost (TRC)
3 test benefit cost ratio was 1. 7 6 and the electric gross
4 Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test benefit cost ratio was
5 3 .22. For Avista's Idaho 2015 overall portfolio (including
6 regular income and low income), the e l ectric gross TRC test
7 benefit cost ratio was 1.29 and the electric PAC test benefit
8 cost ratio was 2 .39 .
9 Q. Describe Avista's energy efficiency internal
10 Organization structure.
11 A. In t h e f i rs t s i x mont hs of 2014 , Av is La ' 3 e ne r gy e f f ici enc y-
12 rel ate d ac t iv itie s we re o rganized i Pto tNO te ams t hat n ad
13 different degrees of separat i on from the Company President . The
14 Planning, Policy , and Analysis (PPA) Team was led by a Director
15 of Energy Efficiency Policy who reported to the Senior Vice
16 President Energy Resources . The pr ogram Impleme ntation Team was
17 led by a Direc t or of Ene rgy Solutions who repo rted to the Company
18 President .
19 The PPA team 's main role was to conduct the technical
20 analyses in support of DSM policy and planning, including
21 evaluation as well as conservation potential assessment , measure
22 and program cost-effectiveness assessment , conservation business
23 plan development, and DSM reporting . The Implementation Team
24 comprised three groups led by three managers . The ten-person DSM
Roy, Di 6
Nexant, Inc
1 group consis ted of program managers , program coordinato r s , and an
2 e xecutive assistant , and reported to the Manager of DSM . The
3 seven-person Energy Solutions group consisted of account
4 executives reporti ng t o t he Manager of Energy Solutions . The six-
5 person EE Engineering group consisted of engineers of various
6 degrees of seniority, reporting to the Chief EE Eng i neer . The
7 three group managers repor t ed to the Director of Energy Solutions ,
8 who reported to the President.
9 In Ju l y , 20 1 4 , Avista re -organi zed and the Energy Solutions
10 gr oup (with its staff of account executives) was separated from
11 t he Implementation Team umbrella into a new stand-al one group .
12 Th e gro u.ps cont i nue unde r t ne s ame mana ger and same J.i r ec t or , but
13 t h e d ire c t or (Directo r o f Ene r gy Sol utions) no long er has the DSM
14 groups reporting to the p os i tion . The DSM groups a r e under a
15 Sen ior Manager , Energy Efficiency . Both the Director of Energy
16 Solutio ns and the Seni or Manager , Energy Efficiency report to the
17 Se nior Di r ector , Customer Solut i ons . The Senior Manager , Energy
18 Ef fic i enc y di r ec t s thre e g roups/func tions (four including Or egon
19 DSM act i v ities ). The s e a r e program management (sti l l led by the
20 Ma nager of DSM , suppo rted by the same team of program managers
21 and coordi nators) , EE engineering ( still led by the Chief EE
22 Engineer , support ed the same engineering team), and DSM analysis
23 (f ormerly t he PPA team; now conducting cost-e ffecti veness
24 analysis , EM&V planning , and re l a t ed contract managemen t). Under
25 t he new organization , the DSM analysis group included three of
Roy , Di 7
Ne x ant , I nc
1 the staff from the prior organizational structure the DSM
2 analytical manager , the EM&V engineer, and one of previously three
3 utility resource analysts . The responsibi l ities of the DSM
4 analytical manager were modified to eliminate program evaluation ,
5 with continued responsibility for the analyt i cs associated wi th
6 program planning and reporting .
7 Q. Please describe any data collection and activities
8 associated with the evaluation.
9
10
A. Full i mpact evaluat i ons were performed for the electric
port folio covering the low income , residential , and
11 nonresidential sectors . The low income impact evaluat i on
12 i ncL1de d b i ll i ng a na l y ~ i s o f e l e ctn c a n d c onv <2 r !:-io:1
13 measures using the full population of 2014 and 2015
14 participants . The nonresidential impact evaluation performed
15 172 site and/or metering visits , 268 document audi t s ,
16 i n dividual s i t e billing analyses , simulation modeling , and
17 e n g i neering calculations . Teams o f engineers s pent multiple
18 we eks in the field at different points in 2015 and 2 016 . The
19 residential i mpact evaluat ion was informed by bill i ng
20 ana l yses of the following residential programs : shell , fue l
21 efficiency , HVAC , and low i ncome . A partici pant and control
22 group billi ng analysis was performed fo r the resident i a l
23 behavior p r ogram as well. Engineering savings analys i s
Roy , Di 8
Nexant , Inc
1 included document audits, utility bill analysis and a review
2 of savings calculation methodology and assumptions,
3 utilizing the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) and Avista ' s
4 2014-2015 Technical Reference Manual (TRM). A total of 259
5 document audits and 222 telephone surveys were conducted for
6 residential measure verification, and onsi te inspections
7 were conducted on 75 homes in support of a lighting hours of
8 use study.
9
10
l 1
The process evaluation completed 339 residential
participant, 70 residential non-parti cipant , 339
non r eside ntia l parti c i pant , a nd 70 nonre s i den t i a l n o n-
12 part i cip a nt s ur ve ys. The e v a l ua ci o ns a lso in c l uded 82
13 contra ctor interviews, 27 li ghting retailer i n te rvi ews, as
14 well as interviews with several implementation contractors,
15 and Avista program staff . The process evaluation covered key
16 topics based on the source of the data. Staff and
17 implementers t opics covered program goals and processe s ,
18 communication and coordination, data tracking, future
19 program opportunities, and outreach . Contractor and utility
20 customer topics covered program awareness , satisfaction,
21 motivations to participate, sales practices, program
22 experience, net to gross, and uptake of Simple Steps
23 products. Database analysis covered participation patterns
Roy, Di 9
Nexant, Inc
1 and repeat participation. Details on each of these
2 evaluation activities and results can be found in the
3 associated Nexant reports: Impact Evaluation of Idaho 2014-
4 2015 Energy Efficiency Programs and Process Evaluation of
5 Avista's 2014-2015 Energy Efficiency Programs.
6 Q. Please summarize the Company's gross electric
7 energy efficiency-related savings for this time period.
8 A. As shown below in Table 1, 31,081 MWh of gross energy
9 savings were acquired through Avista's Idaho DSM projects
10 between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015. The electric
11 p o r t fo l i o h a d a r eali zat i o L r a t e o f 9 7%.
12
13
14
15
16
Q.
A.
Table 1. Reported and Evaluated Electric Savings
S Reported Realization Gross Verified
ector Savings (kWh) Rate (%) Savings (kWh)
Residential 18,772,837 97% 18,281,513
Nonresidential 12,379,360 94% 11,687,224
Low Income 758,955 147% 1,112,301
PORTFOLIO 31,911,152 97% 31,081,038
What are the gross electric energy savings by program?
The 2014-2015 program years' gross savings are
17 summarized in Table 2 by program.
18
Roy, Di 10
Nexant, Inc
----------------------------------------------------------
1
2
3
Table 2. Evaluated Electric Savings by Program
Sector Program 2014-2015 Verified Gross
Savings (kWh)
Low Income 1,112,301
EnergySmart Grocer 2,138,035
Food Service Equipment 70,971
Green Motors 23,823
Motor Controls HVAC 252,751
Nonresidential Commercial Water Heaters 103
Prescriptive Lighting 3,432,865
Prescriptive Shell 29,474
Fleet Heat 3,917
Site Specific 5,735,284
Appliance Recycling 416,524
HVAC 521 ,365
Water Heat 354,675
ENERGY STAR Homes 173,120
Residential Fue' Efficiency 3,198,893
Lighting 10,Ll.57,288
Shell 345,048
Opower 2,814,601
Total 31 ,081,038
Q. Did Avista achieve its filed electric goals for 2014-
4 2015?
5 A . Yes , t he I da h o Int e gr a t e d Re s o urce Plan (I RP ) goal wa s
6 sat isfi e d i n 20 1 4 -2 015 (Ta bl es 4 ).
7 Table 4. IRP Goals and Evaluated Savings
8
2014-2015 kWh
Local Evaluated Savings
2014-2015 IRP Goal (2013 IRP)
Percent of Goal
31 ,081 ,038
30,996,200
100%
Ro y, Di 11
Ne xant, Inc
1 Q. What were the key findings of the residential process
2 evaluation?
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
A. The following bullets outline the key findings:
• Simple Steps , Smart Savings, Opower Home Energy
Reports , and Low-income are running smoothly. There
were no rep orts of systemic problems with recruitment,
communicati on , and implementation. Challenges
encountered mainly revolved around customer databases .
For example , smaller retailers in the Simple Steps ,
Smart Savings program struggle with report ing sales
da t a be c au ~e ~hey l ack a s oph is t icat e d ~epor Ling sys Len ,
th a t la r ge r re t aile r s typ i c al l y ha -ve a nd Opowe .c wa s
unable to send Home Energy r ep o rt s f o r ab o ut six mo nth s
in 2015 when Avista changed its customer billing system
in January/February 2015 .
16 • Contractors were aware and familiar with Avista 's
17
18
19
programs . Mo re than three -quarters o f residential
contractors rep orted completing projects that received
Avista rebates for at leas t the past five years .
20 • Avista ' s marketing efforts are working in generating
21 customer awareness . The source of program awareness
Roy , Di 12
Nexant, Inc
1
2
a mong customers is consistent with Avista 's marketing
activities .
3 • Contractors were the main source of awareness for
4
5
6
participants . Awareness through a contractor was
greater than any other source and was by far the
greatest predictor of program participation .
7 • Awareness of other Avista programs among participants
8
9
10
11
varied . Fewer than half of surveyed participants were
familiar with other energy efficiency rebate
opportun i ties from Avista (besides the program in which
t he y had p a r t i cipat e d ) a nd t h i s v a ried by pr og~am .
12 • Pa r ti c ipant s we r e sa t i s fi e d with the r eba t e programs .
13
14
15
16
Mor e than fo ur-fi fths (8 4%) o f surveyed participants
r eported their overa ll satisfaction with their Avista
rebate program exper i e nce as be in g either "very" or
"completely" sat i sfied .
17 • Most (80 -8 5%) c on tracto rs rep o rted b e i ng satisfi ed with
18
19
20
21
the l engt h of time needed to complete the paperwor k and
r ange of qualifyi ng products . Th e major i ty (67 %) were
satisfied with Avista website and about half ( 54 %)
r eported being satisfied wi th the rebate amoun t s .
Roy , Di 1 3
Nexant, Inc
1 • Contractors provided the lowest satisfaction ratings on
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
the marketing aspects of the rebate programs. However,
in their follow-up comments, these contractors
indicated they were largely unaware of Avista's
marketing efforts or onl y saw the materials
sporadically, indicating that contractors may be more
unfamiliar with Avista's marketing o f the rebate
programs than they are dissatisfied.
9 • Nearly all rebate participants found program-related
10 information clear.
11 • Top th r ee mot i v a ti ons f or part i cipa t ing i n Av is i:a' s
12 r e ba t e programs we r e : increa se d comf ort, savi ng e nergy,
13 a nd saving money.
14 • Up-front cost was the most frequently cited barrier to
15
16
17
18
completing an energy efficiency upgrade by
nonparticipants. This indicates an importance of
offer ing an ince ntive to cust omer s for h ome imp rovement
projects.
19 • The second most frequently cited barrier was living in
20
21
22
a rental property. Nonparticipants reported that living
in a rental property prohibits them from making
improvements to their home.
Roy, Di 14
Nexant, Inc
1 Additional findings and details can be found in the
2 associated Nexant reports : Impact Evaluation of Idaho 2014 -
3 2015 Energy Efficiency Programs and Process Evaluation of
4 Avista's 2014 -2015 Energy Efficiency Programs.
5 Q. What were the key findings of the nonresidential
6 process evaluation?
7 A. The following bullets outline the key findings:
8 • Program participation declined over the last few years,
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
•
•
especially in lighting . The change to a TS baseline
lowered incentives available for Tl2 upgrades ,
negative ly e f fe ct i ng part i cip a Li on .
The Ene r gy Sma r t Gr oce r mdrket ma y ne e d co be exp a nde d
to boost part i cipation. St aff reported t hat Ene rgy
Smart Grocer has seen diminished savings over the last
few years due to the market getting saturated. Program
staff is seeking new markets, such as restaurants and
other food ser vice e s tablishments , t o boost
participation but that segment alone may not singularly
compensate for the savings decline .
Contractors play a notable role in the acquisition of
projects , the implementation of projects, and in
informing customers about rebates. Customer 's awareness
Roy , Di 15
Nexant, Inc
1
2
3
4
•of the program through contractors was associated wi th
an increased likelihood of program part i cipation , and
contractors appear to be playing a larger role in
preparing applications than in years past .
5 • Participants were large l y satisfied with Av i sta 's
6
7
8
9
programs . The large majority of participants reported
high levels of satisfaction with program elements such
as the time it took to apply , the variety of equipment
available , and the quality of the products received .
10 • Contractors and participants reported high satisfaction
11 with t heir int e r ac ~io ns wi~h pro gram staf f .
12 • Contractor s v alue Av is t a ' s re bates b ut the r e is an
13
14
15
16
opportunity to use the programs to train contractors .
Contractors reported they value Avista' s rebates to
help t h em sell jobs and push customers to instal l more
efficient equipment .
17 • The Small Business program is running smoothly . The
18
19
20
21
program is meeting its overall goals for measure
installation and savings and there were no reports of
any systemic prob l ems with interval communicat i on or
administration .
Roy , Di 16
Nexa nt, Inc
1 • There is an opportunity to improve the efficiency of
2
3
4
5
6
small businesses , particularly in the lighting area.
Program data shows and installers reported ampl e
opportunity in the market to replace T12s . More than a
third of 2015 participants had T12 fixtures.
Additional findings and details can be found in the
7 associated Nexant reports : Impact Evaluation of Idaho 2014 -
8 2015 Energy Efficiency Programs and Process Evaluation of
9 Avista 's 2014 -2015 Energy Efficiency Programs.
10 Q. What recommendations resulted from the residential
11 i mp a ct and p roc e s s av c1.lua tions ?
12 A. Se l ect imp a c t r e c ommendatio;1s in the r e s i de '.1ti al sec t o r
13 include :
14 1) For the HVAC program , a reexaminat i on of assumpt i ons
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
related to annua l per -home consumption and savi ngs
estimates in homes receiving Air Source Heat Pump
measures and utilizing a detail e d description of the
replaced unit in requi red documentation for a be t ter
understanding of the baseline .
2) For the water heat program, update the current
a l location of energy savings from 50% to electric and
natura l gas to an assumption based on the
representative water heater fuel type saturation , using
Roy , Di 1 7
Nexant , I nc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
either data specific to their territory or the Regional
Building Stock Assessment study.
3) Include HERS scores in the ENERGY STAR homes program,
and inclusion of gas meter installation or start
service date for the fuel conversion program, will help
facilitate energy savings calculations.
4) For the shell program, assumptions about per-home
consumption should be revisited to increase alignment
with savings found in billing analyses.
5) For the Simple Steps Lighting Program Avista should
c on s i der u s in g Simple ~tep s hi ghe r r e s ol u ti on de c::me d
value s for i nte r n a l report i ng wi t h th 3 Simp le Steps
program a nd for us e with internal residential lighti n g
programs.
6) In the Fuel Conversion Program, re-evaluating the
current savings cap for fuel conversion projects. In
additi o n, a lign assumptions for fuel switching savings
for the Low Inc ome and Fuel Efficiency programs. The key
residential process evaluation recommendation is to
investigate energy saving opportunities in the
residential rental market. Additional detail and
recommendations can be found in the associated Nexant
reports: Impact Evaluation of Idaho 2014 -2015 Energy
Roy, Di 18
Nexant, Inc
1
2
3 Q.
Efficiency Programs and Process Evaluation of Avista's
2014-2015 Energy Efficiency Programs.
What recommendations resulted from the nonresidential
4 impact and process evaluations?
5 A. Select impact recommendations made by program include; 1)
6 For the Site Specific program and Prescriptive Lighting
7 programs, that Avista consider applying the interactive
8 factors deemed by the RTF to quantify the interactive effects
9 between lighting retrofits and their associated HVAC
10 systems. 2) For the HVAC Motor Controls program, additional
11 ve r if icc1tLm of mot o r el i gibi ~i ty st a tus is r e comme nded .
12 Mo r e spe cifi c ally , more empha s is s t oul d 0e pl aced on c onfirming
13 motor applicat ion a nd duty status to en s ure compliance with the
14 program's existing eligibility requirements. 3) Avista should
15 consider more internal review of energy savings estimates
16 submitted by vendors for custom projects under the EnergySmart
17 Grocer pr ogram. Alternative l y , Avista could consider tracking
18 c ustom EnergySmart Gr oce r pro j ects under the Site Specific program
19 with other projects of s i milar size and complexity . 4) For the
20 Small Business program it is recommended that the modified
21 deemed savings values utilized by the evaluation team be
22 adopted by the program for future reporting purposes. Key
23 process recommendations are that Avista should continue to
Roy, Di 19
Nexant, Inc
1 work with nonresidential lighting contractors to make sure they
2 are fully aware of the advantages that more efficient lighting
3 offers their customers , and for Avista to develop a marketing
4 approach specifically targeting the replacement of T12
5 lamps . Add i tional detail and recommendati ons can be found in the
6 associated Nexant reports: Impact Eval uation of Idaho 2014-2015
7 Energy Efficiency Programs and Process Evaluation of Avista' s
8 2014-2015 Energy Efficiency Programs .
9 Q. What recommendations resulted from the low income
10 impact evaluations?
11 A . Nexant recommends that Avista align assumptions for fuel-
} 2 s ,tJi tchi ng s av i ngs bE::twP.en t he Low I ncome a n d Fue l Effic i.enc y
13 programs .
14 Q. Based on the process evaluation findi ngs, were t he
15 programs delivered efficiently?
16 A. Yes, compared to simila r undertakings by other
17 util i t i es , they were.
18 Q. Can you please summarize y our testi mony?
19 A . Yes . I believe the e v aluation of Avis t a ' s 2014-2015
20 energy efficiency programs addresses all impact and process
21 evaluation needs in accordance with industry and regulatory
22 standards. The impact evaluation on the 2014-2015 program
23 years verified electric savings exceeding Avista 's IRP
Roy , Di 20
Nexant , Inc
1 goals. The process evaluation revealed that the programs are
2 run smoothly and efficiently and some areas for improvement
3 exist.
4
5
6
Q.
A.
Does that complete your pre-filed direct testimony?
Yes , it does.
Roy, Di 21
Nexant, Inc