20181116Application.pdf

Avista Corp.
141 1 East Mission P.O. Box3727
Spokane, Washington 99220-0500
Telephone [phone]
Toll Free 800-727-9170
-r5
ff1
=m
6t'
}]r-!,
r-O
#tD
November 15,2018
Diane Hanian, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Statehouse Mail
W . 472 Washington Street
Boise, Idaho 83720
Re Avista Corporation Application for Determination of 2016-2017 Electric Energy Efficiency
Expenses as Prudently Incurred
Dear Ms. Hanian:
Enclosed for filing with the Commission is an original and seven (7) copies of Avista
Corporation's, dba Avista Utilities ("Avista or "the Company"), Application requesting
determination of the Company's electric energy efficiency expenditures from January l, 2016
through December 31,2017 as prudently incurred. Also included in this filing are Exhibit Nos. 1-
4 in support of the Application, containing Avista's 2016 Annual Conservation Report,20l7
Annual Conservation Report,20l8ldaho Research and Development Report, and the Company's
third-party Impact Evaluation Report of its electric energy efficiency programs for 2016-2017 .
If you have any questions regarding this filing, please contact Dan Johnson, Director of Energy
Effi ciency, at (5 09) 49 5 -2807 or dan j ohnson@avi stacorp.com.
Sincerely,
/y{LiAd"q"Ge-na,Ly{
Linda Gervais
Senior Manager, Regulatory Policy
Avista Utilities
509-495-4975
linda. eervai [e-mail]
Enclosures
AHvtsrn .#ry'
l-lEt':lr/tr11i!;L/.4 1'i;L)
I;li: Ilir l5 fiLl g: S0I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
DAVID J. MEYER
VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF" COUNSEL FOR
REGULATORY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
AVISTA CORPORATION
1411 E. MISSION AVENUE
P.O. BOX 3127
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99224
PHONE: [phone]L6
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
AVISTA CORPORAT]ON FOR A
DETERM]NATION OF 2016_2017 ELECTRIC
ENERGY EFFICIENCY EXPENSES AS
PRUDENTLY INCURRED
' i',.1:^!t, ritJ,-r,'J
l0
1l
12
l3
t4
t5
t6
17
18
BEFORE THE IDAIIO PT'BLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. AVU-E-18-l&
APPLICATION OF
AVISTA CORPORATION
19 I. INTRODUCTION
20 Avista Corporation, doing business as Avista Utilities
21 (hereinafter Avista or Company), dt 7417 East Mission
22 Avenue, Spokane, Washington, respectfully requests that the
23 Commi-ssion issue a finding that Avista's electric energy
24 ef f iciency expenditures f rom .Tanuary l, 2076 through
25 December 31, 2Ol7 in the amount of 922,779,204 were prudently
26 incurred.
27 The Company requests that this fi-Iing be processed
28 under the Commissj-on's Modified Procedure rules through the
29 use of written comments.
1
Application of Avista Corporation
Communications in reference to this Application
2 should be addressed to:
David J. Meyer, Esq.
Vice Presldent and Chief Counsel for
Regulatory & Governmental Affairs
Avista Corporation
P.O. Box 3727
MSC-2 7
1411 E. Mission Ave
Spokane, WA 99220-3121
Phone: [phone]
David .,YSyerG ari stacorp . com
Linda M. Gervais
Senior Manager, Regulatory PoIicy
Avista Utilities
P . O. Box 312'7
MSC-2 7
l4]-l E. Mission Ave
Spokane, WA 99220-3721
Phone: [phone]'75
Linda . Gervais G avistacorp . com
The Company has included the following attachments in
support of this filing, which are also referenced below
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
t1
l2
l3
t4
15
16
T7
t8
19
2A
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
30
3l
28
29
a) Exhibit No. 1
Evaluation
Idaho 20L6-201'7 Electric Impact
b) Exhibit No. 2 - Avista 2071 Idaho Annual
Conservation Report
c) Exhibit No. 3 - Avista 2076 Idaho Annual
Conservation Report
32
JJ
34
d) Exhibit No.
Development
4 - 2018 ldaho Research and
Report
)
Application of Avista Corporation
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
II. BACKGROUIID
Avista has conti-nuously offered energy efficiency
services since 7918. This is the twenty-fourth year of the
Energy Efficiency tarj-ff rider which is funded through the
Electric and Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Rider Adjustments
("schedule 91" and "Schedule 791," respectively).
The Company's Energy Effj-clency Programs (Programs)
consist of options for residential, non-residential and low-
income customer segments. These Programs are offered through
traditional prescriptive channei-s along with site-specific
projects and upstream buy down programs. Each Program in the
Company's electric Energy Efficiency portfolio (Portfolio)
is designed to meet cost-effectlveness requirements and is
evaluated by a third-party evaluator.
10
12
11
13
14
15
16 ITI. ELECTRIC PROGRA}{ EXPENDITURES
17 The Company requests Commissj-on determination that the
l8 Energy Efficiency expenditures totaling $22,779,2A4 for
19 Idaho's electric Energy Efficiency programs were prudent and
20 in the public interest. Of the total amount spent,
2L $ 15, I 35 ,'71,6 , or 7 4% of total expenditures were paid out to
Application of Avista Corporation
3
1 customers in direct incentives.l This percentage does not
2 include additional benefits such as technical analyses
3 provided to customers by the Company's Energy Efficiency
4 engineering staff or regional market transformation efforts
5 through the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA).
6 fhe Company reports the Schedule 91 balance on a monthly
7 basis to its stakeholder group which includes members from
8 the ldaho Public Utilities Commission. At December 31, 2075,
9 Avista's Electric Energy Efficiency program in Idaho had an
10 underfunded balance of $431,784. At December 31, 2011, the
1l Program had an underfunded balance of $9,574,630. The increase
12 in the underfunded balance reflects costs incurred by the
13 Program of $22,71-9,204 and tariff schedule 97 collections of
14 913,576r358. This underfunding was addressed in the Company's
15 August 1, 207'7 Application to increase its Schedule 91 rates,
16 which was approved by the Commission in Order No. 33897 in
17 Case No. AVU-E-17-06. Though sti1l underfunded, the new rates
18 approved effective October 1, 2077 are projected to cover aI1
19 Energy Efficiency program costs incurred, as well as amortize
20 the underfunded tariff rider balance over a 36 month period.
1 $8,625,764 tn incentives were paid to customers in 2016 and
$8,209, 952 in 2017 .
4
Application of Avista Corporation
1 fhe following Table No. 1 illustrates the balances on a
2 monthly basis.
3 rabte tlo. 1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
lt
12
l3
14
15
T6
17
18
Accounting
Period
Jan.20l6
Feb.2016
Mar.2016
Apr.2Aft
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
Aug.2016
Sep.2016
Oct.20l6
Nov.2016
Dec.2016
Jan.2017
Feb.2Al7
Mar.2017
Apr.2A17
.Il{ay 2017
June2A17
luJy 2017
Aug.2017
Sep.2017
Oct.2077
Nov.2017
Dec.2017
Beginning
Balance
Program
Expenditures
751,337
454,050
896,493
537,102
480,962
874,181
790,869
971,748
1,227,615
7,243,391
1,315,619
2,206,368
2,773,692
2,039,956
885,250
520,075
659,2gg
291,566
854,255
537,241
640,967
608,898
522,094
702,189
Tariff
Collections
(663,818)
(570,492)
(442,055)
(533,952)
(479,89r)
(463,010)
(494,636)
(531,439)
(494,789)
(460,507)
(483,292)
(611,477)
(729,423)
(623,804)
(580,799)
(5 I 1 ,191)
(485,600)
(420,717)
(493,865)
(622,320)
(504,465)
(662,655)
(868,098)
(844,063)
Ending
Balance
519,303
402,861
857,289
854,439
855,51 1
1,266,692
1,562,913
2,003,223
2,736,050
3,518,934
4,351,260
5,946,151
7,930,420
9,346,573
9,651,023
9,659,907
9,933,605
9,704,454
10,064,844
9,979,764
10,116,266
1A,062,509
519,303
402,861
857,289
854,439
855,51 I
7,266,682
1,562,913
2,003,223
2,736,054
3,518,934
4,351,260
5,946,751
7,934,420
9,346,573
9,651,023
9,659,907
9,833,605
9,704,454
10,064,844
9,979,764
10,116,266
10,062,509
9,716,504
9,,71
19 The largest contributor to the underfunded balance was
2A due to the success of the Company's non-residential-
21 prescriptive lighting program with the majority of those
22 expenses occurring in late 2A76 and early 2A17. As provided
5
431 784
Application of Avj-sta Corporation
I in further detail in Exhlbit No. I,2 the Company's Non-
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
t6
l7
l8
t9
Residential Prescriptive Lighting program provided 2076
Gross Verif ied Savings of 15,283 MWh (12e" of the non-
residential portfolio) with expenditures totaling
$4,623,677.3 201,7 resulted in Gross Verified Savings of
23,1"20 MWh from Non-Resi-dential Prescriptive Lighting l63Z
of the non-residential portfolio) with expenditures totaling
$4,866,003.4 The unanticipated uptake and the expenditures
associated with the non-residential lighting program makes
up a large portion of the spending during the 2076 and 2017
program years.
IV.ENERGY EFFICIENCY SAVINGS AI{D COST EEEECTI\ZENESS
From January L, 2076 through
MWh of
pqs. 3-4 and Section 4ps. 52ps. 42
December 31, 2071, the
savings, excluding NEEACompany
savi-ngs
achieved 84,312
of 9,356 MI/ih, on a
the electric savings by
Iow-income sectors, which
Energy Efficiency portfolio.
gross basis. Tab1e No. 2 detaj-fs
residential, non-residential and
make up the Company's electric
2 See Exhlbit No. 1.3 See Exhibit No. 3,
a See Exhibit No. 2,
6
Applicati-on of Avista Corporation
2
J
4
5
I Talo]'e No. 2
2016-'L'7 GrossVerified Savings
(luwfr;s
Res idential 21,9A2
Non-Residential 51,842
Low-Income 628
Total Portfolio BA ,31 2
Avista judges the effectiveness of the electric Energy
7 EffLciency portfolio based upon a number of metrics. Two of
6
8
9
l0
11
t2
l3
l4
15
1,6
l7
18
l9
20
the most commonly applied metrics are
(UCT) 6 and the Total Resource Cost
benefit-to-cost test from the utility
the Utility Cost Test
UCT is a
lncluding
benefits
(TRC) . The
perspective
incentives and excluding net
of participants related to
costs and non-energy
electric efficiency services
The TRC test is a benefit-to-cost test from the customer
perspective including all measure costs and non-energy
benefits, excluding incentives. Both tests provide insight
as to the net value to al-l- customers.
For 20L6, the overall Program portfolio achieved a UCT
ratio of 2.8 and a TRC ratio of 2.17 based on gross reported
savings. For 2071 , the overall Program portfolio achieved a
UCT ratio of 4.33 and a TRC ratio of 2.69 based on gross
s See Exhibit No. I, Tables 1-1 and 1-2
6 Also known as the Program Administer Cost (PAC) test.
1
Application of Avista Corporation
Program
Sector
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
l7
l8
l9
20
verified savings. The cost-effectiveness metrics are
included in Table No. 3 bel-ow:
Tab1e No. 3
V.ENERGY EEFICIENCY TARGETS
The Company's energy efficiency targets are established
in the process of developing the Electric Integrated
Resource Plan (IRP). The targets deri-ved through the
resource planning efforts provide a starting point for
program planning which is accomplished through the annual
business planning process where program offerings a"re
optimized for the Company's service territory based on
current economic and market conditions.
The results of Avista's Energy Efficiency
2011 IRP targets established
programs
exceeded the 2016 and as part
Idahoof this IRP process, as shown in Table No. 4 below.
Energy
savlngs
Efficiency savings for 2016 were 38,749 MWh and
for 2071 were 42,223 MWh. This represents 359? of
1 2076 cost effectiveness was based on Company reported savings values
and not on evaluated savings as tn 2071. Pfease see Exhibit No. 2 for
the 2017 Annual Report and Exhlbit No. 3 for the 201-6 Annual- Report.
B
Cost-Effectiveness Test 20L61 20L7
Utility Cost Test (UCT)2.80 4.33
Total Resource Cost (TRC)2.L'7 2.69
Appllcation of Avista Corporatj-on
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
the Company's two-year IRP target of 22,399 MWh for this
peri-od, not including 9,356 first-year MWh acquired through
NEEA.
Tab1e No. 4
Time Period of
Reported Savi-ngs
Local Evaluated
MWh Savings
IRP Target Percent
Achieved
2016 38 , L49 77,2L3 340c6
20L7 A a .)a')AL, LLJ 11, 1B 6 317 Z
2016-2071 BA ,31 2 22,399 35 9U
Avista's fdaho 20L6-2017 Electric Impact Evaluation has
been included in Exhibit No. 1 to support these figures.
VI . PROGRATI EVAIUATION
Nexant performed an independent, or "third-party"
impact and process evaluation on Avista's efectric Energy
Efficiency programs for the 201,6-77 period. The primary
goal of the impact evaluation is to provide an accurate
summary of t.he gross electric and demand savj-ngs
attributable to Avi-sta's Energy Efficiency portfolio. The
8
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
t7
18 main purpose of a process evafuation is to
19 improvements needed at the portfolio leveI
20 program effectiveness and efficiency.
identify any
to i-ncrease
21 Nexant concluded that Avista's Idaho electric Programs
22 achieved 80,372 MWh in 2076-11 cost-effectively and that
9
Application of Avista Corporation
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1l
t2
l3
14
15
t6
Avista's 2076-2017 programs addressed all impact and process
evaluation needs in accordance wlth industry and regulatory
standards. s
VII. RESE.ARCH AI{D DE\IELOPMENT PRO.'ECTS
On August 30, 20L3 Avista applied for an Order
authorizinq the Company to accumulate and account for
customer revenues that would provide funding for selected
electric energy efficiency research and development (R&D)
state of Tdaho'sprojects, proposed and implemented by
four-year Universities. On October 31,
was granted to Avista in this matter,
2013, Order No. 3291-8
the
Case No. AVU-E-13-08.
Avj-sta now recovers up
the Company's Schedule
fund R&D. Please see
to $300,000 per year of revenue from
97 Energy Efficiency Rider tariff to
Exhibit No. 4 for a copy of the
Company's R&D report dated March 30, 2018.
17
l8 VIII. CONCLUSION
19 WHEREFORE, Avista respectfully requests the
20 Commj-ssion issue its Order designating Avista's 2016 and
21 2017 total electric Energy Efficiency expenditures of
8 See Exhibit No. 7, Nexant's Impact Evafuation of Idaho Electric 20!6-
2017 Energy Efflciency Programs
Application of Avista Corporation
10
I
)
3
$22,7L9,204 as prudently incurred, with thls Application
being processed under Modified Procedure through the use
of written comments.
Dated at Spokane, Washington this lftaV * {,-,Jrr.
AV]STA CORPORATION
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1t
12
2018.
By
Dav76 {tteu{rVice p'resid6nt and Chief CounseL for
Regulatory and Governmental- Affairs
Application of Avista Corporati-on
11
Exhibit No. 1:
2016-201 7 Electric !mpact Evaluation
Exhibit No. 1: 2015-2017 Electric lmpact Evaluation Report
oNgfinT
Reimagine tomorrow
fi
t1
t
lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric
201 6-2017 Energy Efficiency
Programs
Submitted to Avista Uti ES
Principa! authors:
Lynn Roy, Mary-Hall Johnson, W
Potter, Alexandra Wein, Aimee S
ley Hodgson, Patrick Burns,
vage, Cherlyn Seruto, Greg
Eric
Sido
Candice
ov Nexant
lnc
3
ll'
tl
I Y
t -:
. :.,
\
o.s
'l
,
\\i .'t'*L
l(,/a
a
a
{
(
I
a
a
a
t- i\
l.-
1of,,'t .ii/i
r'"i'l i,I
.t
p
"t"!7
r-'.F'.,
"'t
7
a
a
I
iII
June 15,2018
REPORT
Gontents
1 Executive Summary
1.1 Evaluation Methodology and Activities
1.2 Summary of lmpact Evaluation Results
1.3 Conclusions and Recommendations
1.3.1 Nonresidential Programs ...........
1.3.2 Residential Programs - lncluding Low lncome
2 lntroduction
2.1 Purpose of Evaluation...........
2.2 Program Summary
2.2.1 Nonresidential.......
2.2.1.7 Sife Specific
2.2.1.2 Prescriptive Lighting...........
2.2.1.3 EnergySmart Grocer
2.2.1.4 Food Service Equipment....
2.2.1.5 Green Motors......
2.2.1.6 Motor Controls HVAC.........
2.2.1.7 Commercial lnsulation........
2.2. 1 . 8 Air Guardian .......................
2.2.1.9 Fleet Heat Program..........
2.2. 1 . 1 0 Small Busrness
2.2.2 Residential................
2.2.2.1 HVAC Program
2.2.2.2 Water Heat.........
2.2.2.3 ENERGY SIAR@ Homes..
2.2.2.4 Fuel Efficiency Program...
2.2.2.5 Residential Lighting..........
2.2.2.6 Shell Program
2.2.2.7 Home Energy Reports......
2.2.2.8 Low lncome.....
Program Participation Summary...........
Evaluation Goals and Objectives........
lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs
1
1
2
7
7
8
2.3
2.4
a No@nr
11
11
11
11
11
13
15
15
17
17
17
18
18
18
19
20
21
21
22
22
22
23
23
25
26
3 lmpact Evaluation Methodology.....
3.1 Understanding the Program Context...
3.2 Designing the Samp|e.............
3.3 Database Review
3.4 Verifying the Sample - Gross Verified Savings
3.4.1 Document Audit
3.4.2 Telephone Survey......
3.4.3 Onsite Measurement and Verification
3.4.4 Billing Analysis
3.4.4.1 Comparison Group Selection
3.4.4.2 Ex Post Estimation Method....
3.4.4.3 Low lncome Pre/Post Billing Ex Post Estimation Method.
4.1 Overview
27
27
27
30
31
31
31
32
33
33
35
36
39
39
4 Nonresidential lmpact Evaluation
4.2.1 Overview..
4.2.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
4.2.3 Methodology ............
4.2.3. 1 Sampling ..............
4.2.3.2 Document Audits.......
4.2.3.3 Field lnspections.......
4.2.3.4 lmpact Analysis Methods
4.2.4 Findings and Recommendations ......
4.3 Prescriptive Other Programs
4.3.1 Overview..
4.3.2 Program Achievements and Participation Study
4.3.3 Methodology .
4.3.3.1 Sampling
4.3.3.2 Document Audits.............
4.3.3.3 Field lnspections
4.3.3.4 lmpact Analysis Methods
4.3.4 Findings and Recommendations
4.4 Site Specific........... ...............54
4.4.1 Overview.. ....................54
4.4.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary .......54
A NeXAnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs ii
41
41
42
42
42
42
43
45
46
46
47
47
47
48
49
51
53
4.5
4.6
4.4.3 Methodology............ ....55
4.4.3.1 5amp1in9.............. ..............55
4.4.3.2 Document Audits....... .........56
4.4.3.3 Field lnspections ................56
4.4.3.4 Project-Specific Billing Analysis ..........57
4.4.3.5 Project-Specific Trend Data Analysis.............. .....57
4.4.3.6 Algorithm-Based lmpact Analysis Methods... .......58
4.4.4 Findings and Recommendations .............. .....58
Small Business ....60
4.5.1 Overview.. ......60
4.5.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary ..........60
4.5.3 Methodology............ . ......61
4.5.3.1 5amp1in9.............. ..............62
4.5.3.2 Document Audits....... .........62
4.5.3.3 Onsite lnspections............... ................62
4.5.3.4 lmpact Analysis Methods ....................63
4.5.4 Findings and Recommendations .............. ..........63
4.5.4.1 lnstallation Persistence............. ..........64
Nonresidentia! Sector Results Summary .............65
5 Residential lmpact Evaluation........
5.1 Overview
5.2 HVAC Program..
5.2.1 Overview..
5.2.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
5.2.3 Methodology .. ..... .
5.2.3.1 Regional Technical Forum Review.....
5.2.4 Findings and Recommendations ..............
5.3 Water Heat Program
5.3.1 Overview........
5.3.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary.....
5.3.3 Methodology.... ..
5.3.4 Findings and Recommendations ...........
5.4 ENERGY STAR@ Homes
5.4.1 Overview..
5.4.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary.....
66
66
68
68
68
69
69
69
71
71
71
71
72
.............. I Z
..,....,.,.,.,72
..............73
0 Noanf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs
5.4.3 Methodology ....
5.4.4 Findings and Recommendations ..............
5.5 Fuel Efficiency
5.5.1 Overview..
5.5.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
5.5.3 Methodology. .. .
5.5.4 Program billing analysis
5.5.5 Findings and Recommendations ......
5.6 Residential Lighting Program..
5.6.1 Overview..
5.6.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
5.6.3 Methodology. .
5.6.4 Findings and Recommendations ......
5.7 Shel! Program
5.7.1 Overview..
5.7.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary.
5.7.3 Methodology ............
5.7.3.1 Program billing analysis
5.7.4 Findings and Recommendations ..............
5.8 Home Energy Reports Program
5.8.1 Overview..
5.8.2 Methodology ............
5.8.2.1 Data Sources and Management ........
5.8.2.2 Equivalence Testing..
5.8.2.3 Regression Analysis
5.8.2.4 Overlap Analysis
5.8.3 Findings and Recommendations ..................
5.8.3.1 Per-Home kWh and Percent lmpacts.
5.8.3.2 Aggregate lmpacts....
5.8.3.3 Precision of Findings
5.8.3.4 Savrngs Pafterns...
5.9 Low lncome
5.9.1 Overview..
5.9.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
5.9.3 Methodology .
5.9.4 Findings and Recommendations ..........
5.9.4.1 Non-Lighting Conseruation and Fuel Conversion Homes
73
75
75
75
76
76
77
77
78
78
78
79
80
80
80
80
81
81
82
83
83
84
84
85
89
91
91
91
92
94
95
96
96
96
98
99
99
Ll Neronf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs lv
5.9.4.2 Lighting Conservation ......
5.10 Residential Sector Results Summary
6 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Summary
6.2 lmpact Findings
6.3 Conclusions and Recommendations..
6.3.1 Nonresidential Programs .......
6.3.1.7 Sife Specific Program...
6.3.1.2 Prescriptive Lighting Program ....
6.3.1.3 Prescriptive Other Programs......
6.3.1.4 Small Busrness Program...
6.3.2 Residential Programs
6.3.2.1 HVAC Program
6.3.2.2 Water Heat.........
6.3.2.3 Fuel Efficiency...........
6.3.2.4 Residential Lighting..
6.3.2.5 Shell Program ..........
6.3.2.6 Home Energy Repods Program.
6.3.2.7 Low lncome Program
Appendix A Net to Gross Methodology and Findings
Appendix B Sampling and Estimation
Appendix C Billing Analysis Regression Outputs
100
101
102
,102
,102
,'104
104
.105
.105
.106
.106
.106
.106
.106
.107
.107
.107
.108
.108
A-1
B-1
c-1
etNgonf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs v
List of Figures
Figure 1-1:2017 ldaho Electric Nonresidential Sector Gross Verified Saving Shares ................4
Figure 1-2:2016ldaho Electric Nonresidential Sector Gross Verified Saving Shares ................ 5
Figure 1-3: 2017 ldaho Electric Residential Sector Program Gross Verified Saving Shares....... 6
Figure 1-4 2016ldaho Electric Residential Sector Program Gross Verified Saving Shares ........7
Figure 2-1: Site Specific Program Process..... .....................13
Figure 3-1: Electric Shell Matched Control Group vs Participants ............ ...............34
Figure 3-2: Gas Shell Matched Control Group vs Participants............. ....................35
Figure 4-1: Nonresidential Program Reported Energy Savings Shares ..... .. . ..40
Figure 4-2: Prescriptive Lighting Reported Energy Savings Shares ......41
Figure 4-3: Prescriptive Other Reported Energy Savings Shares ..........47
Figure 4-4: Site Specific Reported Participation Energy Savings Shares ................55
Table 4-20: Site Specific Program Gross Verified Savings ....................59
Figure 4-5: Small Business Program Reported Energy Savings Shares .................61
Figure 5-1 2017 lD Residential Program Reported Energy Savings Shares.............................67
Figure 5-2:2017 HVAC Program Reported Energy Saving Shares....... ..................68
Table 5-4: RTF Deemed Savings for HVAC Program..... .....69
Figure 5-3: 2017 Water Heat Program Reported Participation Energy Saving Shares ..............71
Figure 5-4:2017 ENERGY STAR@ Homes Program Reported Energy Saving Shares.............73
Figure 5-5: 2017 Fuel Efficiency Program Reported Energy Saving Shares....... .....76
Figure 5-6: Fuel Efficiency Post-treatment Consumption.......... .............77
Figure 5-7: Distribution of Lighting Energy Savings by Technology Type and Program.............79
Figure 5-8: Process of the Simple Steps Database Review...... .............80
Figure 5-9:2017 Shell Program Reported Energy Saving Shares....... ....................81
Figure 5-10: Shell Post-Treatment lmpacts .......82
Figure 5-1 1: Participation and Cumulative Opt-outs by Month ...............84
Figure 5-12:Treatment and Control Energy Usage in the Pretreatment Period -2013 CohortST
Figure 5-13: Treatment and ControlConsumption in the Pre-treatment Period -2013 Cohort..87
Figure 5-14: Treatment and Control Energy Usage in the Pre-Period for the 2016 Wave..........89
Figure 5-15: Treatment and Control Consumption in the Pre-Period for the 2016 Wave...........89
Equation 5-2: Lagged Dependent Variable Model Specification................ ..............90
Table 5-23: Aggregate Oracle Behavioral Program lmpact Estimates with EE Adjustments......93
Table 5-25: Confidence lntervals Associated with Behavioral Program lmpact Estimates.........94
Figure 5-16: Average Monthly Savings per Household with Relative Precision Bounds............95
Figure 5-17:Average Percent Savings and Control Daily Usage by Month .............96
Figure 5-18:2017 Low lncome Program Reported Energy Saving Shares: Measure Category.97
Figure 5-19.2017 Low-lncome Program Reported Energy Saving Shares: Non-LightingConservation............,... ...................98
Figure 5-20: Distribution of Reported kWh Values by Home Type.......... .................99
Figure B- 1: Comparison of Mean-Per-Unit and Ratio Estimation.......... ................ B-2
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Summary of lmpact Evaluation Activities....
Table 1-2:2017 ldaho Electric Portfolio Evaluation Results
A NO@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs
2
2
iii
Table 1-3:2016ldaho Electric Portfolio Evaluation Results ................... 3
Table 1-4:2017 ldaho Electric Nonresidential Sector Evaluation Results...... ........... 3
Table 1-5:2016ldaho Electric Nonresidential Sector Evaluation Results...... ........... 4
Table 1-6:2017 ldaho Electric Residential Program Evaluation Results .................. 5
Table 1-7: 20'16ldaho Electric Residential Program Evaluation Results .................. 6
Table 2-1: Prescriptive Lighting Program Measures.. ..........14
Table 2-2: Food Service Equipment Program Measures . ...15
Table 2-3: Green Motor Rewinds Program Measures .........17
Table 2-4: Motor Controls HVAC Program Measures.. ........17
Table 2-5: Commercial lnsulation Measures............. . .. ....18
Table 2-6: Small Business Program Measure Overview... .....................19
Table 2-7: Residential Program Type and Description ........... ...............20
Table 2-8 HVAC Measure Overview .................21
Table 2-9 Water Heat Program Measure Overview... ..........21
Table 2-10 ENERGY STAR@ Homes Measure Overview ......................22
Table 2-11 Fuel Efficiency Measure Overview ....................22
Table 2-12 Shell Measure Overview .................23
Table 2-13 Low lncome CAP A9encie............... ..................24
Table 2-14|D Low lncome Approved Measure List (100% of costs offset by Avista) ................24
Table 2-15 Low lncome Rebate List (lD, all rebate list measures are electric end-use).............25
Table 2-16 Avista Nonresidential Reported Participation and Savings ....................25
Table 2-17 Avista Residential Reported Participation and Savings............... ..........26
Table 3-1: Planned Sampling and Evaluation Rigor for WA/lD Electric Residential Programs...29
Table 3-2: Planned Sampling and Evaluation Rigor for WA/lD Electric Nonresidential Programs
...................29
Table 3-3: Achieved Sampling and Evaluation Rigor for WA/lD Electric Residential Programs .30
Table 3-4: Achieved Sampling and Evaluation Rigor for WA/lD Electric Nonresidential Programs
Table 3-5: Description of Energy Savings Model Regression Variables
Table 3-6: Fixed Effects Regression Model Definition of Terms
Table 4-1: Nonresidential Program Reported Savings.....
Table 4-2: Nonresidential Program Achieved Evaluation Sample.........
Table 4-3: Prescriptive Lighting Reported Energy Savings by Measure
Table 4-4: Prescriptive Lighting Achieved Sample...
Table 4-5: Prescriptive Lighting Onsite Data Collection............
Table 4-6: Prescriptive Lighting Realization Rate Results
Table 4-7: Prescriptive Lighting Gross Verified Savings
Table 4-8: Prescriptive Other Program Summaries
Table 4-9: Prescriptive Other Reported Energy Savings by Program...
Table 4-10: Prescriptive Other Achieved Sample
Table 4-11: Prescriptive Other Achieved Sample by Program
Table 4-12: Prescriptive Other Onsite Data Collection ............
Table 4-13: Prescriptive Non-Lighting Other Realization Rate Results.
Table 4-14: Prescriptive Other Gross Verified Savings.....
Table 4-15: Site Specific Reported Energy Savings by Measure
Table 4-16: Site Specific Achieved Sample......
Table 4-17: Site Specific Onsite Data Collection............
..30
..36
..38
..39
..40
..41
..42
..43
..45
.46
..46
,,47
..48
..48
..49
..53
..54
..55
..56
..57
oNeYanr lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs tv
Table 4-18: Site Specific Program Realization Rate Resu|ts............... ....................59
Table 4-19: Site Specific Measure-Level Gross Verified Savings ..........59
Table 4-21.2017 Small Business Program Reported Energy Savings by Measure...................61
Table 4-22: Small Business Program lmpact Evaluation Achieved Sample...... .......62
Table 4-23: Small Business Program Onsite Data Collection............ ......................63
Table 4-24: Small Business Program Realization Rate Summary............ ...............64
Table 4-25: Small Business lnstallation Persistence .........64
Table 4-26: Small Business Program Gross lmpact Evaluation Results ..................65
Table 4-27: Nonresidential Program Gross lmpact Evaluation Results ...................65
Table 5-1: Residential Program Reported Savings..... .........66
Table 5-2: Residential Program Achieved Evaluation Sample...... .........67
Table 5-3: HVAC Program Reported Participation and Savings.............. ................68
Table 5-5 2017 lD HVAC Program Gross Verified Savings ..................70
Table 5-6:2017 Water Heat Reported Participation and Savings..... .......................71
Table 5-7: Water Heat Program Gross Verified Savings .....72
Table 5-8:2016-2017 ENERGY STAR@ Homes Reported Participation and Savings..............73
Table 5-9: Calculation of Consumption Absent Program Definition of Terms ..........74
Table 5-10: ENERGY STAR Home: Results for Stick Built homes in ldaho from2014-2015
Evaluation .....................74
Table 5-1 1: ENERGY STAR Home: Results for Furnaces in Manufactured Homes from 2014-
2015 Evaluation.......... ..... ... .. ... ..75
Table 5-12: ENERGY STAR@ Homes Program Gross Verified Savings ..................75
Table 5-13:2017 Fuel Efficiency Reported Participation and Savings..... . . .... .. ...76
Table 5-14: Fuel Efficiency Program Gross Verified Savings ................78
Table 5-15:2017 Residential Lighting Reported Participation and Savin9s...............................79
Table 5-16: Residential Lighting Realization Rates and Gross Verified Savings........................80
Table 5-17:2017 Shell Program Reported Participation and Savings .....................81
Table 5-18:2017 Shell Program Gross Verified Savings..... ..................83
Table 5-19: Difference in Means ttest Values for the 2013 Wave .........86
Table 5-20: Difference in Means t-test Values - 2016 Cohort ...............88
Table 5-21: Lagged Dependent Variable Model Definition of Terms.... ....................90
Table 5-22: Per Customer and Per Treated Home Oracle Behavioral Program lmpact Estimates
with EE Adjustments................ .......92
Table 5-24:2016-2017 Oracle Program lncremental Annual MWh Savings................. . ........94
Table 5-26:2017 Low-lncome Program Reported Participation and Savings.............. ..............97
Table 5-27: Low lncome Billing Analysis Findings.... .........100
Table 5-28: Low-lncome Lighting Conservation Measures Gross Verified Savings.................101
Table 5-29: Low-lncome Program Gross Verified Savings ..................101
Table 5-30: Residential Program Gross lmpact Evaluation Results...... .................101
Table 6-1:2017 ldaho Electric Portfolio Evaluation Results ................102
Table 6-2: 2016ldaho Electric Portfolio Evaluation Results ...............102
Table 6-3: 2016 ldaho Electric Nonresidential Program Evaluation Results ..........103
Table 6-4:2017ldaho Electric Nonresidential Program Evaluation Results ..........103
Table 6-5: 2016 ldaho Electric Residential Program Evaluation Results ...............104
Table 6-6: 2017 ldaho Electric Residential Program Evaluation Results ...............104
Table A-1: Free Ridership Change Values ......A-2
Table A-2: Free Ridership lnfluence Values ....A-3
LrNoonf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs v
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
A-3:
A-3:
A-4:
B-1
B-2
Participant Spillover Program lnfluence Values
Avista Territory Residential Program Net-To-Gross Results .....
Avista Tenitory Nonresidential Program Net-To-Gross Results
Case Weights Example
Relative Precision Example
A-4
A-5
A-5
B-2
B-6
..31
..35
..37
..37
..44
..44
..44
..52
..52
..53
.63
..74
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-4
B-4
B-5
B-5
B-5
B-6
Equations
Equation 3-1: Gross Verified Savings Equation....
Equation 3-2: Monthly Energy Savings Model Specification ................
Equation 3-3: Regression Model Specification for Electric Measures
Equation 3-4: Regression Model Specification for Gas Measures
Equation 4-1: Prescriptive Lighting Energy Savings Calculation
Equation 4-2: Prescriptive Lighting Base Case Demand Savings Calculation
Equation 4-3: Prescriptive Retrofit Case Demand Savings Calculation
Equation 4-4: HVAC Motor Controls Energy Savings Calculation
Equation 4-5: Commercial lnsulation Cooling Savings Calculation
Equation 4-6: Commercial Insulation Heating Savings Calculation.
Equation 4-7: Small Business Program Energy Savings Calculation
Equation 5-1: Calculation of Consumption Absent Program
Equation B- 1: Coefficient of Variation....
Equation B- 2: Coefficient of Variation....
Equation B- 3: Error Ratio.........
Equation B- 4: Required Sample Si2e...........
Equation B- 5: Finite Population Correction Factor........
Equation B- 6: Application of the Finite Population Correction Factor.............
Equation B- 7: Error Bound of the Savings Estimate
Equation B- 8: Relative Precision of the Savings Estimate....
Equation B- 9: Combining Error Bounds across Strata........
o Noronr lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs vl
1 Executive Summary
Nexant lnc. and Research into Action (collectively the evaluation team) conducted an impact
and process evaluation of Avista's 2016 and 2017 residentialand nonresidentialenergy
efficiency programs. This report documents findings from the impact evaluation activities for
Avista's ldaho electric programs. The primary goal of this evaluation was to provide an accurate
summary of the gross energy and demand savings attributable to the following Avista programs
offered in 2016 andlor2017:
Nonresidential Prescriptive
Nonresidential Site Specific
Small Business
Residential Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC)
ResidentialWater Heat
Residential ENERGY STAR@ Homes
Residential Fuel Efficiency
Residential Lighting
Residential Shell
Residential Behavioral
Low lncome
1.1 Evaluation Methodology and Activities
The evaluation team performed the impact evaluation through a combination of document
audits, customer surveys, engineering analysis and onsite measurement and verification (fvl&V)
of completed program projects. Because it is not cost-effective to complete analysis and onsite
inspection on a census of the implemented projects, the evaluation team verified energy savings
for a representative sample of projects to draw statistically-measurable results. The gross
verified program savings were adjusted by a realization rate (RR), which is the ratio of
evaluation verified savings to the program-reported savings within the sample.
The evaluation team conducted 717 document audits, 215 customer surveys, and more than
125 onsite inspections across the residential and nonresidential programs being evaluated
(Table 1-1). ln addition, the evaluation team conducted billing regression analysis to estimate
the impacts of five residential programs and on a case-by-case basis for the nonresidential
projects. The samples were designed to meet a 90% confidence and 10% precision level at the
portfolio and sector level and were based upon the expected and actual significance (or
magnitude) of program participation, the level of certainty of savings, and the variety of
measures.
o Nerianf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs
I
1
SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 1-1: Summary of lmpact Evaluation Activities
Residential
HVAC Program {
Water Heat Program
ENERGY STAR Homes
Fuel Efficiency
Residential Lighting Program
Shell Program
Home Energy Reports
./
Nonresidential
Prescriptive Lighting
Prescriptive Other
Site Specific as applicable
Small Business
Total
1.2 Summary of lmpact Evaluation Results
Avista's ldaho electric programs achieved more than 42 GWh of savings in 2017 and more than
37 GWh of savings in 2016 across all sectors (Table 1-2 and Table 1-3). Table 1-4 through
Table 1-7 summarize Avista's 2016 and 2017 impact evaluation results by year, sector and
program.
Table 1-2:2017 ldaho Electric Portfolio Evaluation Results
Residential
Nonresidential
Low lncome
Portfolio
Document
Audit Surveys : Onsite M&V Billing
AnalysisProgram
1 '13
59
68
76 45
83 43
127
47 38 38
37 13 13
39 18 18
68 58 58
717 215 127
7,919,356 67o/o 5,306,098
43,067,665 36,536,737
402,400 94%380, 1 69
51,389,420 82%42,223,004
2017 Reported
Savings (kWh)
2017 Gross Verified
Savings (kWh)Realization Rate (%)Sector
a No/onf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 20'16-20'17 Energy Efficiency Programs 2
Low lncome
85%
SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 1-3: 2015 ldaho Electric Portfolio Evaluation Results
Residential
Nonresidential
Low lncome
Portfolio
Table 1 -4: 2017 ldaho Electric Nonresidential Sector Evaluation Results
Energy Smart Grocer 1 ,128,530
Food Service Equipment 52,534
Green Motors 36,743
74,241
Prescriptive Lighting 23,1 19,693
Commercial lnsulation 20,409
Air Guardian 381,527
Small Business 1,550,762
Site Specific 10,172,297
Total Nonresidential 36,536,737
3
82%16,596,'t3220,216,014
25,244,254 84%21,305,147
282,745 88%248,105
45,743,012 83%38,149,383
2016 Repo(ed
Savings (kWh)
2016 Gross Verified
Savings (kWh)Sector Realization Rate (%)
97Yo1,166,822
54,317 97Yo
37,990 97o/o
76,760 97o/o
28,738,773 80%
21,102 97%
394,473 97%
'1,498,583 103%
11,078,845 92o/o
43,067,665 85o/o
2017 Reported Savings
(kwh)
2017 Verified Gross
Savings (kWh)Program Realization Rate
a Noronr lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs
Motor Controls HVAC
SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure 1-1:20'17 ldaho Electric Nonresidential Sector Gross Verified Saving Shares
640k r Energysmart Grocer
r Food Service Equipment
r Green Motors
Motor Controls HVAC
I Prescriptive Lighting
Commercial lnsulation
I AirGuardian
I Small Business
I Site Specific
4%
Table 1-5: 2016 ldaho Electric Nonresidential Sector Evaluation Results
EnergySmart Grocer 1 ,155,793
Food Service Equipment 47,399
Green Motors 18,878
Motor Controls HVAC 462,740
Prescriptive Lighting 15,282,478
Commercial lnsulation 7,568
AirGuardian 43,775
Small Business 1,760,360
Site Specific 2,526,156
Total Nonresidential 21,305,147
97o/o1,195,010
49,007 97Yo
19,5'19 97o/o
478,441 97o/o
18,996,779 8oo/o
7,825 97%
45,260 97o/o
1,701,128 1O3o/o
2,751,285 92Yo
25,2M,254 84To
2016 Reported Savings
(kwh)
2016 Verified Gross
Savings (kWh)Program
0 Noonf fmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 4
Realization Rate
SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure 1-2: 2016ldaho Electric Nonresidential Sector Gross Verified Saving Shares
t2%
I EnergySmart Grocer
r Food Service Equipment
I Green Motors
K Motor Controls HVAC
r Prescriptive Lighting
r Prescriptive Shell
I Air Guardian
r Small Business
r Site Specific
72%
Table 1-6:2017 ldaho Electric Residential Program Evaluation Results
HVAC
Water Heat
ENERGY STAR Homes
Fuel Efficiency
Lighting
Shell
Home Energy Reports
Low lncome
Total Residential
565,325574,073 98%
74,788 105%78,294
'154,383 126%193,781
2,739,765 62%1,709,229
3,452,6923,452,626 100o/o
't71,392 27%45,870
752,330 -98%-739,094
402,400 94Yo 380,169
8,321,755 68%5,686,267
2017 Reported
Savings (kWh)
20'17 Gross
Verified Savings
(kwh)
Program Realization Rate
0 Noronf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 5
6%
o%
SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure 1-3:2017 ldaho Electric Residential Sector Program Gross Verified Saving Shares
6%
6%
r HVAC
Water Heat
I ENERGY STAR Homes
r Fuel Efficiency
r Lighting
r Shell
I Low lncome
s4%
Table 1 -7 : 2016 ldaho Electric Residentia! Program Evaluation Results
HVAC
Water Heat
ENERGY STAR Homes
Fuel Efficiency
Lighting
Shell
Home Energy Reports
Low lncome
Total Residentia!
459,453 85%392,657
73,065 104o/o 76,081
172,441 118%202,957
7,926,481 62%4,945,013
3,316,601 100%3,316,601
517,257 27%138,436
7,750,716 97%7,524,386
282,745 88%248,105
20,498,759 82Yo
2016 Reported
Savings (kWh)
2016 Gross
Verified Savings
(kwh)
Program Realization Rate
a Nexonf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 20'16-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 6
7%
7o/o
'16,844,236
SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure 1-4 2016ldaho Electric Residential Sector Program Gross Verified Saving Shares
45Yo I HVAC
Water Heat
I ENERGY STAR Homes
r Fuel Efficiency
r Lighting
r Shell
I Home Energy Reports
I Low lncome
1.3 Conclusions and Recommendations
The following outlines the key conclusions and recommendations as a result of the evaluation
activities. Specific details regarding the conclusions and recommendations outlined here.
1.3.1 Nonresidential Programs
The overall realization rate for the nonresidential portfolio is 85% in 2017 . The realization rates
ranged from 103% for the Small Business program down to 80% for the "Prescriptive Lighting"
strata. Prescriptive Lighting was also the largest program in the nonresidential portfolio, with
approximately 640/o of the total gross verified savings for the 2017 porlfolio. As early project
applications were submitted through the Prescriptive Lighting program, Avista became aware
that TLED lamps were labeled under a lower wattage than their Design Lights Consortium
(DLC) product specifications. TLED lamps were found in the market with a labeled wattage of
14-15W, while the DLC testing indicated that these lamps consume 17-18W. The evaluation
team believes that this discrepancy is because TLED lamp power consumption is subject to
different ballast and driver configurations. Avista discovered the inaccuracies in reported
savings for many of the 2016 TLED lighting projects and acted quickly to fix the issue. However,
the projects impacted by the error composed a large portion of the overall reported savings for
the biennium, therefore being a large driver in the portfolio-level realization rate. Looking beyond
the TLED measure error, the evaluation team found that the processes Avista is utilizing for
estimating and reporting energy savings for the nonresidential programs are predominantly
sound and reasonable.
C1 Ne,(onf lmpact Evatuation of ldaho Etectric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 7
2%
o%t%
SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following outlines key conclusions and recommendations for several of the nonresidential
programs. Additional conclusions and recommendations can be found in the program-specific
sections of this report and in the Conclusions and Recommendations section (Section 6.3).
Conclusion: The Site Specific program constitutes more than 28% of the 2017 program energy
shares (gross verified). Within the last 4 years, Avista has increased their level of quality
assurance and review on projects that participate through the program. The evaluation team's
analysis resulted in a 92% realization rate for the Site Specific program. The majority of the
measure categories evaluated had realization rates close to or greater than 100%, with the
exception of shell measures (63%) and interior lighting (88%). The overall program-level
realization rate indicates that Avista's internal process for project review, savings estimation,
and installation verification are working to produce high quality estimates of project impacts.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that Avista continue to operate
this program with the current level of rigor.
Recommendation: lt is recommended that Avista provide a greater level of review of
reported hours of use for large lighting projects.
Conclusion: The evaluation team's analysis resulted in an 80% realization rate for the
Prescriptive Lighting program, predominately due to the inaccuracies in reported savings for
many of the incented TLED measures in the 2016 program year, as noted above. Avista
discovered the inaccuracies at the end of 2016 and acted quickly to fix the issue. Two other
contributing factors that impacted the realization rate for the Prescriptive Lighting program is the
reporting of operating hours for participating nonresidential facilities and the interactive factors
applied by Avista. The evaluation team did find several large projects reporting an incorrect
hours of use value. ln addition, in several evaluated projects, the evaluation team determined
that a lower interactive factor be applied compared to the value utilized by Avista, based on both
business type and building heating type.
Recommendation: lt is recommended that for large projects and for projects with
multiple different space types, that additional verification be conducted on the reported
hours of use value. Avista could set a threshold based on the number of fixtures
installed, facilityibuilding type, and/or reported savings that triggers an additional level of
verification.
Recommendation: lt is recommended that Avista review the interactive factors applied
by their team through its lighting savings estimation tool to ensure more accurate
alignment with both business type and building heating type.
Conclusion: The Small Business program implementer has improved their tracking of
decommissioned measures in the 2016-2017 biennium, in comparison to lhe 2014-2015
biennium, as shown by the evaluation team's calculated persistence rate of 98% for the
measures included in the sample in the 2016-2017 biennium.
1.3.2 Residential Programs - lncluding Low Income
The overall realization rate for the residential electric portfolio is 68%. The realization rates for
most programs approached or surpassed 100% with the exception of the Shell and Fuel
LrNe,Ionr lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 8
SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Efficiency programs having the lowest realization rates (27%o and 620/o respectively). The
evaluation team believes the cause for underachieving realization rates reflects a combination
of over-stated reported savings and variation in customer consumption among programs.
Several specific conclusions and recommendations for the residential programs are noted
below. A complete list of conclusions and recommendations is provided in Section 6.
Conclusion: The evaluation team found a low realization rate for the Fuel Efficiency program
(62%). We believe this unchanged realization rate from the previous biennium is primarily the
result of two factors:
Reported savings for the 2016-2017 program cycle were on-average high as the
program savings value was initially reduced in mid-Q2 2016 and then further reduced
mid-Q1 of 2017 to be in alignment with evaluation results provided from the previous
program cycle.
Annual average household consumption was on average 18% lower for participants in
the 2016-2017 program cycle relative to participants in the prior program cycle. lf
participant consumption had been similar to the previous biennium, the program
realization rate would have been approximately 74%.
Recommendation: For future program cycles, the evaluation team recommends Avista
reduce their reported savings for the Fuel Efficiency program. Avista should look to the
Low lncome conversion deemed savings assumptions and consider better aligning
assumptions used to estimate reported savings for Fuel Efficiency and the Low lncome
programs. Additionally, customer profiling will help gauge anticipated savings by
understanding customers' annual consumption profile and the expected percent savings
that can occur through implementation of the Fuel Efficiency program measures.
Conclusion: The evaluation team found no incremental savings were realized during the
second year (2017) forthe Home Energy Report behavioral program. The finding reflects
Avista's decision to not re-fill drop-outs from the program treatment group during the 2016-2017
biennium.
Recommendation: lf the Home Energy Reports program is revived within the Avista
portfolio in future program cycles, the evaluation team recommends Avista continue to
service the treatment group by enrolling new customers to replace drop-outs.
Conclusion: The evaluation team found a 98o/o realization rate for the 2017 HVAC program.
Profiling of program participants revealed high annual consumption during the pre-treatment
period indicating a strong likelihood that these customers had electric resistance heating prior to
their retrofit. This consumption profile supports application of RTF deemed savings for
resistance heat conversion
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends Avista continue to update
reported savings based on the most recent iterations of relevant RTF workbooks.
Conclusion: The Low lncome program saw the fuel switching homes save significantly more
electricity on average than homes that did not have a primary mechanical system converted
from electricity to natural gas. The realization rate for the conversion measures was 110%, with
crNe,Ionf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs I
SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
homes saving an average of 7,600 kWh annually. The conservation measures achieved a much
lower realization rate of 67%. Taken as a whole, the program achieved a 94o/o realization rate in
2017.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends re-evaluating the current reported
savings assumption to attempt to better align the savings given the program's measure
mix and customer profile for conservation measures. We also recommend comparing
and attempting to align the fuel conversion savings assumptions between the Low
lncome and Fuel Efficiency programs to achieve more consistent evaluated impacts.
Conclusion: For showerheads distributed through the Simple Steps program, Avista allocates
50% of its reported savings to electric savings and 50% to natural gas savings to account for
homes that have different water heating fuel types.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends Avista update this allocation
assumption to be based on representative water heater fuel type saturation. These data
are available through the Regional Building Stock Assessment study; however, we
recommend Avista base the allocation on data specific to its territory.
Conclusion: The evaluation team found Avista's reported savings estimates for the Simple
Steps lighting measures aligned with the Simple Steps deemed savings which in turn reflect
values that align with the specific product types by lumen bins in accordance with the most
current BPA UES measure list.
Ll NeXAnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 10
2 lntroduction
2.1 Purpose of Evaluation
The purpose of the impact evaluation was to verify the savings attributed to Avista's 2016-2017
rebate programs and to identify areas for future program opportunities. The evaluation team
estimated gross program energy impacts through a combination of documentation audits, and
telephone surveys, as well as engineering analysis and site inspections of completed program
projects.
2.2 Program Summary
The following section provides a description of each program that was evaluated in ldaho.
Although the program descriptions outline electric and gas measures, as applicable, the
remainder of this report provides the methodology and findings for the electric-only measures
and programs.
2.2.1 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. The
following subsections provide a summary of Avista's Site Specific and Prescriptive programs,
including a description of program offerings, measures, and incentive amounts.
2.2.'1.1 Site Specific
Avista's Site Specific program offers nonresidential customers the oppoftunity to propose any energy
efficiency project outside the realm of Avista's other programs. Any project with documentable
energy savings (kilowatt-hours and/or therms) and a minimum ten year measure life can be
submitted for a technical review and potential incentive through the Site Specific program. The
majority of projects that participate in this program are appliance upgrades, compressed air,
HVAC, industrial process, motors, shell improvements, custom lighting, and fuel conversion.
Multi-family residential developments may also be treated through the Site Specific program when
the majority of the units and common areas are receiving the efficiency improvement. The
determination of incentive etigibility is based upon the project's individual characteristics as they
apply to the Company's electric Schedule 90 or natural gas Schedule 190 tariffs.
Customers or their representative are required to contact Avista for a Site Specific analysis prior
to any equipment being purchased or installed. Based on the post-verification process,
incentives may not be offered after the installation of energy efficiency equipment or process
under this program design. Electric incentives are offered up to 20 cents per kWh for projects
with a simple payback less than 15 years. lncentives are capped at7lo/o of incremental project
costs. Natural gas incentives are offered up to $3.00 per therm for projects with a simple
payback of less than 15 years. lncentives are capped at7lo/o of incremental project costs.
a Noronf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 11
SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION
Simple payback is calculated as the incremental cost of a measure divided by the annual
energy savings of the measure, calculated using the customer's Avista electric and/or gas rate.
lncremental costs are only those projects costs necessary for the energy efficiency
improvement. Fuel-conversion incentives are available only for conversion to natural gas with
an end-use efficiency of 44% or greater.
Avista internally implements the Site Specific program following a multi-stage internal
process outlined in Figure 2-1.To be considered for incentives, Avista must receive
notification of a potential project during the planning stage. Avista engineers generate energy
analyses and savings estimates for each project.
These energy savings estimates are subjected to a rigorous internal review process, with the
level of review dependent on the potential incentive level for the project. Avista's current
internal review guidelines are as follows:
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.
Avista employs the use of a "Technical Review Top Sheet" at each stage of the review
process. The Top Sheet is a checklist intended to ensure that all program processes and
policies have been followed and that project documentation is complete.
An "Energy Efficiency Evaluation Report" is generated for each project that includes a
summary of the project's scope of work, estimated energy savings and incentives. Following
project installation, Avista program staff members perform installation verification on nearly
100% of projects with limited exceptions. Program staff follows a "Payment Top Sheet" prior
to incentive payment, which is another checklist to ensure that the project has been
appropriately documented, tracked, and finalized.
Lr Noronf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 12
!
I
SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION
Figure 2-1: Site Specific Program Processl
lnstallation
verified
Payment
made to
customer
or designee
AE delivers report
Provides potential
incentive opportunity to
customer
Contract
administrative review
Program cr:ordhalor
completes "Top Sheet *
energy ef f iciency agreemenl"
prior to contracting
Engineerpeer revlew
"Top Sheet -
technical review"
completed, report
sent io AE
Engineering
analysrs
Audit, prepaft
pro.iect report
AE submits
tracker for
engineering
analysis
AE contacts customer
Discusses opporturrity,
determine sitespeafic
eligibility, schedule audit,
coordinate with DSM engineers
2.2.1.2 Prescriptive Lighting
The Prescriptive Lighting program is designed to make lighting improvement projects more
accessible for Avista's nonresidential customers. This program is implemented internally by
Avista, and existing commercial or industrial facilities with electric service provided by Avista
with rate schedules 11 or above are eligible to participate. The program provides a pre-
determined incentive amount for many common lighting retrofits, as shown in Table 2-1.
lnstalled LED lighting must comply with nationally recognized specifications set forth by
ENERGY STAR and Design Lights Consortium (DLC) and the Seattle Lighting Design Lab.
Avista's regionally-based Account Executives (AEs) are a key part of delivering the Prescriptive
Lighting program along with area vendors and contractors.
1 Washington and ldaho Demand Side Management Standard Operation Procedures. Avista Utilities. 2017.
O NeXAnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 13
Opportunity
identified by
customer or by
Engineer or customer
representative
AE
Customer
notifies Avista
Decisir.:n to proceed
Contract
(AE deliveB contract to
customer for signature and
works with program coordinator
to receive approvals and
finalize contract)
Project completed
lnvoices submrtted by
customer/vendor then
received by AE, program
coordinator and engineer
Program coordinator completes
"Top Sheet - incentive
payment"
Pavment
ad'ministrative revtew
SECTION 2
Table 2-1: Prescriptive Lighting Program Measures
Exterior 70-89 watt HID to 15-25 watt DLC approved LED Fixture or Retroflt Kit
Exterior 90-100 watt HID to 20-30 watt DLC approved LED Fixture or Retrofit Kit
Exterior '150 watt HID to 25-50 watt DLC approved LED Fixture or Retrofit Kit
Exterior 175 watt HID to 30-79 watt DLC approved LED Fixture or Retrofit Kit
Exterior 250 watt HID to 80-'140 watt DLC approved LED Fixture or Retrofit Kit
Exterior 320 watt HID to 100-160 watt DLC approved LED Fixture or Retrofit Kit
Exterior 400 watt HID to 't00-175 watt DLC approved LED Fixture or Retrofit Kit
Exterior 1000 watt HID to 300-400 watt DLC approved LED Fixture or Retrofit Kit
Exterior -New Construction-175 watt HID to 30-79 watt DLC approved LED Fixture
Exterior-New Construction-250 watt HID to 80-100 watt DLC approved LED Fixture
Exterior-New Construction- 320- 400 watt HID to '100-'175 watt DLC LED Fixture
Exterior-Sign Retrofit-T'l 2's to LED
lnterior 250 watt HID to 80-140 watt DLC approved LED Fixture
lnterior 400 watt HID to 100-175 watt DLC approved LED Fixture
lnterior 1000 watt HID to 300-400 watt DLC approved LED Fixture
lnterior 250 HID to 4-Lamp HP T8 or 2-Lamp T5 Fixture
lnterior 250 HID to 4-Lamp HP T8 or 2-Lamp T5 Fixture plus OC Sensors
lnterior 400 HID to 4-Lamp T5 Fixture
lnterior 400 HID to 6-Lamp T8 Fixture
lnterior 400 HID to 8-Lamp T8 Fixture
lnterior 40-100 watt lncandescent to 6-20 watt Energy Star Rated LED Lamp
lnterior Over 150 watt lncandescent to 50-60 watt DLC approved LED Fixture
lnterior 20-50 watt MR16 to 2-9 watt Energy Star Rated LED MR16 Lamp
lnterior 75-100 watt lncandescent Can Light to 12-20 watt Energy Star LED Can Light Fixture
lnterior 32 watt CFL Can Light lo 12-20 watt Energy Star LED Can Light Kit
lnterior No Occupancy Sensor to Occupancy Sensor that controls greater than '170 watts
lnterior 4-Foot 4-Lamp T12lT8 Fixture to 50-75 watt DLC Qualified 2x4 Fixture
lnterior 4-Foot 4-Lamp T12ff8 Fixture to 4-Lamp HP T8 Fixture or Retrofit Kit
lnterior 4-Foot 4-Lamp T12ff8 Fixture to 3-Lamp HP T8 Fixture or Retrofit Kit
lnterior 4-Foot 4-Lamp T12ff8 Fixture to 2-Lamp HP T8 Fixture or Retrofit Kit
lnlerior 4-Foot 3-Lamp T12ff8 Fixture to 40-60 watt DLC Qualified LED 2x4 Fixture
lnterior 4-Foot 3-Lamp T12lT8 Fixture to 2-Lamp HP T8 Fixture or Retrofit Kit
lnterior 4-Foot 2-Lamp T12lT8 Fixture to 1 -Lamp HP T8 Fixture or Retrofit Kit
lnterior 4-Foot z-Lamp Tl 2ff8 Fixture to 'l Jamp HP T8 fixture/retrofit kit
lnterior 4-Foot T12lT8 Lamps to TLED's- DLC Qualified 8-23 watt TLED Lamps only
lnterior 8-Foot 2-Lamp T12ff8 Fixture to DLC Qualified 50-75 watt LED 2x4Firtwe
lnterior 8-Foot 1-Lamp T12lTB Fixture to DLC Qualified 30W or less LED 1x4 Fixture
$60
$80
$125
$1 30
$140
$180
$255
$61 0
$1 30
$140
$1 75
$17 tFt',
$120
$1 85
$460
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10
$20
$0
$40
$35
$0
$18
$6.50
$35
$8
$55
$0
$0
$35
$29
$25
$s5
$75
s1 30
$135
$145
$1 80
$255
$61 5
$125
$145
$1 80
$17tFt'.
$165
s265
$61 5
$175
$205
$1 55
$1 75
$145
$10 - $25
$85
$13 - $15
$45
$1s
$45
$40
$15
$30
$50
$30
$30
$20
$20
$10 - $15
$50
$20
2016
lncentive
2017
lncentiveLighting
LrNo@nr lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs
$0
14
INTRODUCTION
SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION
2.2.1.3 EnergySmart Grocer
The EnergySmart Grocer program offers a range of proven energy-saving solutions for grocery
stores and other customers with commercial refrigeration. The program was designed to offer
personalized facility assessments to identify efficiency opportunities and incentives to offset the
upfront costs of efficiency projects, making it easy and affordable for participating businesses to
achieve significant savings on their utility bills. lncentives varied between 2016 and 2017
program years and were offered for the following measure categories:
. Refrigerated Cases
. Case Lighting
. Anti-Sweat Heater Controls
. Evaporated Fan - Walk-in ECM Controller
. Strip Curtains
. Gaskets for Walk-in Coolers, Walk-in Freezers, and Reach-in Glass Doors
. Evaporator Motors
. Floating Head Pressure
Energy Smart Grocer is administered by CLEAResult with Avista oversight. The program is
available to electric (Schedule 11 , 12, 21 , 25) or natural gas (Schedule 101 , 111, 121)
customers.
2.2.1.4 Food Service Equipment
The Food Service Equipment Program provides incentives for the purchase and installation of
energy efficient commercial food service equipment to Avista's electric (Schedule 11, 12,21,
25) and natural gas (Schedule 10'l , 111, 121) customers. Equipment must be commercial grade
and must meet Energy Star or Fishnick specifications. Certified equipment is 10-70% more
efficient than standard equipment, depending on product type. Types of rebated equipment
include fryers, steam cookers, hot food holding cabinets, commercial convection ovens, dish
washers, commercial ice machines, pre-rinse sprayers, and commercial rack ovens. Table2-2
summarizes the incentives available under the Food Service Equipment program. Avista
implements this program in a prescriptive manner, and incentives are issued to the participating
customer after the measure is installed.
Table 2-2: Food Service Equipment Program Measures
Commercial Convection Ovens
Commercial Convection Oven, Natural Gas $700/ Each
Commercial Convection Oven, Electric $2251 Each
Commercial Combination Oven, Natural Gas $1,000/ Each
Commercial Combination Oven, Electric $1,000/ Each
Dish Washers
Commercial Low Temp Electric Hot Water $600/ Each
Commercial High Temp Electric Hot Water $650/ Each
Equipment lncentive
LtNe,ronr !mpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 15
SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION
Commercial Low Temp Natural Gas Hot Water
Commercial High Temp Natural Gas Hot Water
$300/ Each
$350/ Each
$40/Each
$60/Each
$80/Each
$1 00/Each
$ 1 2OlEach
$140/Each
$1 60iEach
$1 80/Each
$200/Each
Under 200 LBS/Day Capacity
200-399 LBS/Day Capaci$
400-599 LBS/Day Capacity
600-799 LBS/Day Capacity
800-999 LBS/Day Capacity
1 000-1 1 99 LBS/Day Capacity
1 200-1 399 LBS/Day Capacity
'1400-1 599 LBS/Day Capacity
1600-> LBS/Day Capacity
1 to 1.00 GPM Electric
.61 to .80 GPM Electric
.81 to 1.00 GPM Natural Gas
61 to .80 GPM Natural Gas
Commercial lce Machines
Pre Rinse Sprayers
Commercial Rack Ovens
$2s
$25
$25
$25
Equipment lncentive
Commercial Rack Ovens, Natural Gas
Hot Food Holding Carts
Hot Food Holding Carts, >15 cubic feet
Commercial Fryer, Natural Gas
Commercial Fryer, Electric
Commercial Steam Cooker Natural Gas
Commercial Steam Cooker Natural Gas
Commercial Steam Cooker Natural Gas
Commercial Steam Cooker Natural Gas
Commercial Steam Cooker, Electric
Commercial Steam Cooker, Electric
Commercial Steam Cooker, Electric
Commercial Steam Cooker, Electric
Commercial Steam Cooker, Electric
Fryers
Steam Cookers
Commercial Griddles
$1 65/each
$1,00O/each
$300/each
$1,300/ 3 pan
$'1,700/ 4 pan
$2,200/ 5 pan
$2,600/ 6 pan
$3,200i 10 pan or >
$70/ 3 pan
$1 00/ 4 pan
$135/ 5 pan
$1 60/ 6 pan
$180/ 10 pan or >
LtNg@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 16
$23s
Commercial Steam Cooker Natural Gas
SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION
Commercial Griddle, Electric $505/each
Commercial Griddle, Natural Gas $88/each
2.2.1.5 Green Motors
The Green Motors program is implemented by the Green Motors Practice Group with Avista
oversight. This program is available to electric (Schedule 11 , 12, 21 , 25,31) customers who
receive a green motor rewind at a participating service center. To participate, customers must
take an existing motor to a participating service center to have a green rewind done. Customers
receive an automatic rebate applied at the service center of $1 per hp based on the size of the
motor. Motors ranging from 15 to 5,000 hp are eligible to participate. Motor service centers must
meet specific criteria to be qualified for the program.
Table 2-3: Green Motor Rewinds Program Measures
Green Motor Rewind $1 /hp
2.2.1.6 Motor Controls HVAC
This program encourages customers to increase HVAC pump and fan system efficiency through
the installation of variable frequency drives (VFDs). lncentives are issued after measure
installation. To be eligible for an incentive, a VFD must be installed on commercial heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning equipment that is served by an Avista electric non-residential
rate schedule (Schedule 11, 12,21,25). New construction projects are not eligible to
participate. Additionally, only VFDs installed on primary pumps and fans are qualified.
Secondary or spare pumps and fans do not qualify. lncentives are paid per VFD retrofit, as
shown in Table 2-4. Avista implements this program in a prescriptive manner, and incentives
are issued to the participating customer after the measure is installed.
fable 2-4: Motor Controls HVAC Program Measures
HVAC variable frequency drive retrofit $1 30
2.2.'|'.7 Commercial Insulation
The Commercial lnsulation program offers incentives to Avista's nonresidential electric
(Schedule 11, 12,21,25) or natural gas (Schedule 101 , 111 , 121) customers for improvements
to building envelopes through adding insulation. To participate in this prescriptive rebate
program, customers must submit documentation of the project that includes post-installation R-
values and affected square footage for insulation installation. The incentive levels for insulation
project are dependent on the pre-and post-retrofit level of insulation. Avista implements this
program in a prescriptive manner, and incentives are issued to the participating customer after
the measure is installed.
lncentiveEquipment
15 - 5,000 hp
Eligible Motor Size RebateMeasure
Incentive eachMeasure
LrNexonr lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 17
SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION
Table 2-5: Commercial lnsulation Measures
Less than R4 Wall lnsulation to R-1 1-R18 Retrofit $0.40
Less than R4 Wall lnsulation to R19 or above Retrofit $0.45
Less than R11 Attic lnsulation to R30-R44 Retrofit $0.20
Less than R11 Attic lnsulation to R45 or above Retrofit $0.25
Less than R11 Roof lnsulation to R30 or above Retrofit $0.25
2.2.1.8 Air Guardian
The AirGuardian program is a third party delivered turnkey program (delivered by 4Sight Energy
Group LLC) for direct install compressed air and facility efficiency. The program targets
compressed air users in Avista's Washington and ldaho service territory. The direct install is a
compressed air leak reduction device which generates energy savings by reducing the impact of
compressed air leaks during off hour periods. While on site, a leak detection audit is also
conducted. Any commercial (Schedule 11 ,21,25) Avista electric customer installing qualified
equipment is eligible for this program. The target market for the direct installation of AirGuardian
devices are small and medium sized businesses using rotary screw compressors of at least 15
horsepower.
2.2.1.9 Fleet Heat Program
This program offers incentives to Avista's nonresidential electric customers (Schedule 11,12,
21, 25) for the installation of technology that reduces standby losses of vehicle engine blocks by
fleet operators by adding the ability to energize block heaters only when Outside Air
Temperature drops below a temperature set-point and the engine mounted thermostat is calling
for heat. Traditional block heating technology employs a thermosiphon to drive circulation in an
engine block. A more efficient option uses pump driven circulation and results in less wasted
heat flow between the engine block and the ambient environment.
2.2.1.10 Small Business
The Small Business program is administered by SBW consulting and is a direct installation/audit
program providing customer energy-efficiency opportunities by: (1) directly installing appropriate
energy-saving measures at each target site, (2) conducting a brief onsite audit to identify
customer opportunities and interest in existing Avista programs, and (3) providing materials and
contact information so that customers are able to follow up with additional energy efficiency
measures under existing programs. This program is only available to customers who receive
electric service under Rate Schedule 1 1 and gas service under Rate Schedule 101 in
Washington and ldaho. Schedule 11 customers typically use less than 250,000 kwh per year.
Directinstall measures include faucet aerators, showerheads, pre-rinse spray valves, screw-in
LEDs, smart strips, CoolerMisers, and VendingMisers (Table 2-6).
Measure lncentive ($ / sf)
LtN€Jronr lmpact Evaluation of Idaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 18
SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION
Measure DescriptionCategory
Table 2-5: Small Business Program Measure Overview
Screw in LED Lamp (40W Equivalent)
Screw in LED Lamp (60W Equivalent)
Screw in LED Lamp (100W Equivalent)
Lighting Screw in LED BR30
Screw in LED BR40
Screw in LED PAR30
Screw in LEDPAR3S
Low-flow faucet aerator (0.5 gpm) Electric Water Heat
Low-flow faucet aerator (1.0 gpm) Electric Water Heat
Low-flow faucet aerator (0.5 gpm) Gas Water Heat
Low-flow faucet aerator (1.0 gpm) Gas Water Heat
Hot Water Pre-Rinse Spray Valve Electric Heat
Pre-Rinse Spray Valve Gas Heat
Shower Head Fitness Electric
Shower Head Fitness Gas
Shower Head Electric
Shower Head Gas
Cooler Miser
Control for glass-front cooler that uses passive
infrared (PlR) sensor to power down machine when
surrounding area is vacant
Vending Miser
Control for refrigerated beverage machine that uses
passive infrared (PlR) sensor to power down machine
when surrounding area is vacant
Tier 1 Smart Power Strip Eliminate standby power draw of peripheral devices
while continuing to power devices in "hot" outlets
2.2.2 Residential
Avista's residential portfolio is comprised of several approaches to engage and encourage
customers to consider energy-efficiency improvements in their homes. Prescriptive rebate
programs are the main component of the portfolio together with 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; and a multi-faceted, multichannel
outreach and customer engagement effort.
Throughout 20't6 and 2017, Avista provided incentives and services for its residential electric
and gas customers in its Washington and ldaho service territory. The evaluation team examined
eight core programs in ldaho that constituted the bulk of Avista's residential energy-efficiency
offerings in 2016 and 2017 . Table 2-7 provides a summary of those programs, and the sections
below detail each program.
0 Noronf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 19
SECTION 2
Rebates
Midstream
Behavior
Low-income
Table 2-7: Residential Program Type and Description
Rebate for purchase of ENERGY STAR@ home
Rebate for conversion of electric to natural gas
furnace and/or water heater
Rebate for purchase of energy efficient and high
efficiency HVAC equipment, including variable
speed motors, air source heat pump, natural gas
furnace and boiler, and smart thermostat
Rebate for adding insulation to attic, walls, and
floor, as well as adding energy efficient windows
Rebate for installation of high efficiency gas or
electric water heater, natural gas water heater, and
Smart Savings showerhead.
Direct manufacture discount for purchase of
approved CFLs, LEDs (bulbs and fixtures), low-flow
showerheads, and clothes washers.
The Oracle program generates behavioral savings
from a treatment group, which receives Home
Energy Reports, which compares the custome/s
energy usage to similar homes in Avista's service
territory.
CAPs within Avista's Washington and ldaho service
territories implement the projects. CAPs determine
energy-efficiency measure installations based on
the results of a home energy audit.
2.2.2.1 HVAC Program
Avista internally manages the HVAC program which encourages the implementation of high
efficiency HVAC equipment and smart thermostats through direct incentives issued to the
customer after the measure has been installed (Table 2-8). This program is available to all
residential electric (Schedule 1) or natural gas (Schedule 101) customers who heat their homes
with Avista electricity or natural gas. To qualify for the air source heat pump conversion or the
smart thermostat, the home must demonstrate a winter heating season electricity usage of
8,000 or more kilowatt hours of electric space heat. Natural gas customers must demonstrate a
winter heating season gas usage of 340 therms to be eligible for participation. Existing or new
construction homes are eligible.
ENERGY STAR@
Homes Avista
Fuel Efficiency Avista
HVAC Program Avista
Shell Avista
Water Heater Avista
Residential Lighting:
Simple Steps, Smart
Savings
CLEAResult
Home Energy Reports Oracle
Low-income Programs Community Action
Partners (CAPs)
Programs lmplementer DescriptionType
L"' Ne,,rdinf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 20'16-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 20
INTRODUCTION
SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION
Table 2-8 HVAC Measure Overview
Variable speed motor $80
Electric to air source heat pump $700
Electric to ductless heat pump $450
High efficiency natural gas furnace $300
High efficiency natural gas boiler $300
Smart thermostat - self install $75
Smart thermostat - contractor install $1 00
2.2.2.2 Water Heat
Customers replacing their existing electric or natural gas water heater are eligible to receive a
rebate for selecting a high efficiency option. This program also includes discounted
showerheads available at participating retailers throughout Avista's WA and lD service territory
under the Simple Steps, Smart Savings program. Table 2-9 outlines the measures offered and
rebate per unit.
Table 2-9 Water Heat Program Measure Overview
Heat Pump Water Heater $200
Electric; 35-55 gallon with 0.94 EF or higher
Natural Gas: Tankless with 0.82 EF or higher $200
Simple Steps, Smart Savings Low-flow Showerheads: 1.5-2
GPM buydown
Simple Steps, Smart Savings Clothes Washers buydown
2,2.2.3 ENERGY STAR@ Homes
ENERGY STAR@certified home construction is administered by a Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance (NEEA) regional program. Avista provides a rebate for homes within their service
territory that successfully complete the ENERGY STARo certification process. ln addition to
NEEA's program, the manufactured homes industry has established a labeling program for
ENERGY STAR certified manufactured homes, which Avista also incentivizes. New home
buyers can apply for an $800 rebate for an ENERGY STAR ECO-rated new manufactured
home or $1,000 for an ENERGY STAR stick-built home. The purchaser must submit the
application and certiflcation paperwork to Avista within 90 days of occupying the residence. The
ENERGY STAR home rebate may not be combined with other Avista individual measure
rebates (e.9. high efficiency water heaters).
$1 00
$900
$300
$300
$3s
$70
HVAC Measures 2016 Rebate 2017 Rebate
$20
$1 80
buydown
buydown
2016 Rebate | 2017 Rebate
LI NryONT lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 21
Water Heat Measure
SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION
Table 2-10 ENERGY STAR@ Homes Measure Overview
Stick built - electric $1,000
Stick built or manufactured w/ gas only $650
Manufactured M furnace $800
Manufactured w/ heat pump $800
2.2.2.4 Fuel Efficiency Program
The fuel efficiency program offers a rebate for the conversion of electric straight resistance heat
to natural gas, as well as the conversion of electric hot water heaters to natural gas models. The
home must have used 8,000 or more kWh of electric space heat during the previous winter
season to be eligible for flat-rate rebates. lf natural gas is not available or is not suitable for the
home, the installation of an air source heat pump as a replacement unit is accepted (see electric
to air source heat pump measure under Section 2.2.2.1).
Table 2-11 Fuel Efficiency Measure Overview
Electric to natural gas conversion - space heat $1,500
Electric to natural gas conversion - water heat $7s0
Electric to natural furnace and water heat - combo $2,250
Electric to natural gas wall heaters - space heat $1,300
2.2.2.5 Residential Lighting
The Simple Steps, Smart Savings program provides discounts to manufacturers to lower the
price of efficient light bulbs, light fixtures, showerheads, and appliances. This program, launched
by Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and administered by CLEAResult, operates across
the Pacific Northwest. Utilities are able to select which reduced price items to include in their
territory. Avista's offerings include a selection of general and special CFLs, LED light fixtures,
and LED bulbs. Retailers such a big box stores and regional and national chains are the primary
recipient of the product and typically select from Avista's approved options what they will carry
at their store location. These products are clearly identified with a sticker indicating they are part
of the Simple Steps, Smart Savings program.
2.2.2.6 Shell Program
Avista's internally managed shell program incentivizes measures that improve the integrity of
the home's envelope (Table 2-12). For insulation and windows: rebates are issued to the
customer after measure has been installed. Eligibility guidelines for participation include but may
not be limited to: confirmation of electric or natural gas heating usage, itemized invoices
including insulation levels or window values and square footage. Pre and/or post-inspection of
insulation and windows may occur as necessary throughout the year. Customers must
demonstrate a winter heating season electricity usage of 8,000 kilowatt hours or 340 therms to
be eligible for insulation and window program participation. Addition of insulation that increases
Energy Star Home Measure Rebate
$2,300
$600
$3,200
$1,300
Fuel Efficiency Measures 2016
Rebate
2017
Rebate
0 Nexanf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-20'17 Energy Efficiency Programs 22
SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION
the R-value by R-10 or greater for both fitted/batt type and blow-in products are eligible.
Windows with a U-factor of 0.30 or less that replace single or double pane windows are eligible.
Table 2-12 Shell Measure Overview
Attic insulation
Wall insulation
Floor insulation
Window insulation $1.s0
Storm Windows $1.00
2.2.2.7 Home Energy Reports
Avista provides peer comparison reports of home energy consumption, termed Home Energy
Reports (HER), through Oracle. This is an opt-out program aimed to encourage customers to
save energy. 73,500 customers were initially mailed HERs in June of 2013: 48,300 to WA
customers and 25,200 to lD customers. The cadence of reports began by sending out a report
every month for the first three months followed by a bi-monthly mailing of reports thereafter. At
the start of the 2016-2017 biennium, attrition due to opt outs and account closures reduced the
original population of 25,200 treatment customers in ldaho to about 17,500 customers. At the
beginning of the 2016-2017 biennium, Avista 'refilled'the program back to a count of close to
25,600 treatment customers in ldaho, who received their first report in April, 2016. Customers
must be a recipient of Avista electricity to qualify.
2.2.2.8 Low lncome
Avista leverages Community Action Program (CAP) agencies to deliver energy efficiency
programs to low-income customers. CAP agencies have resources to income qualify, prioritize
and treat homes based upon a number of characteristics. ln addition to the Company's annual
funding, the Agencies have other monetary resources that they can usually leverage when
treating a home with weatherization and other energy efficiency measures. The Agencies either
have in-house or contractor crews to install many of the efficiency measures of the program.
ln ldaho, a single network agency serves Avista's ldaho territory and received $700,000 for
efficiency improvements with an additional $50,000 for conservation education outreach.
0 No@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 23
R-19 or less $0.1 5
R-5 or less $0.25
R-5 or less $0.20
0.30 u-factor or lower $3.54
Existing Equipment
Efficiency
2016 Rebate
($rs11
2017 Rebate
($/sf;Shell Measures
SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION
Serving CountiesCAP Agency
Table 2-13 Low lncome CAP Agencies
Community Action Partnership - Lewiston Benewah, Bonner, Boundary, Clearwater, ldaho,
Kootenai, Latah, Lewis, Nez, Perce, Shoshone
Avista provides CAP agencies with an "approved measure list", the items on this list are
reimbursed 100% for ldaho (Table 2-14). Avista also provides a "rebate list" of additional energy
saving measures the CAP agencies are able to utilize (Table 2-15).
Table 2-14\D Low lncome Approved Measure List (100% of costs offset by Avista)
Electric to Gas Furnace Conversion Fuel Conversion
Electric to Gas Water Heater
Conversion
Fuel Conversion
Electric to Ductless Heat pump Electric
lnsulation (duct) / Duct sealing Electric and Natural Gas
Air lnfiltration Electric
Measures End Use
LtN€,ianf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 24
Measures End Use
SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION
Table 2-15 Low lncome Rebate List (lD, all rebate list measures are electric end-use)
Electric to air source heat pump (when natural gas not
viable)
Fuel Conversion
Electric to heat pump water heater Fuel Conversion
Electric to Ductless Heat Pump Electric
High Efficiency Furnace Natural Gas
High Efficiency Water Heater Natural Gas
Energy Star@ Doors Electric and Natural Gas
Energy Star@ Windows Electric and Natural Gas
Energy Star@ Refrigerators Electric
Attic lnsulation Electric and Natural Gas
Floor lnsulation Electric and Natural Gas
Wall lnsulation Electric and Natural Gas
Duct lnsulation Electric and Natural Gas
2.3 Program Participation Summary
Reported participation and savings forAvista's 2017 programs is outlined in Table 2-16 and
f able 2-17.
Table 2-16 Avista Nonresidential Reported Participation and Savings
Energy Smart Grocer 1,166,822
Food Service Equipment 54,317
Green Motors 37,990
Motor Controls HVAC 76,760
Prescriptive Lighting 28,738,773
Commercial lnsulation 21,102
Air Guardian 394,473
Small Business '1,498,583
Site Specific 11,078,845
Nonresidential Total 43,067,665
of unique premises, not unique measures
115
12
11
3
1,237
4
1
1,382*
68
2,833
ldaho Electric Program 2017 Reported Project
Count
2017 Reported Savings
(kwh)
0 Neronf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 25
SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION
Table 2-17 Avista Residential Reported Participation and Savings
HVAC
Water Heat*
ENERGY STAR Homes
Fuel Efficiency
Lighting**
Shell
Home Energy Reportst*"
Low lncome****
Residential Total
*lncludes counts for both projects and Simple Steps showerheads**Denotes bulb count and includes Simple Steps and Giveaway***Number of participants in the Treatment in April, 2016****lncludes both projects and counts of bulbs
2.4 Evaluation Goals and Objectives
"Model Energy-Efficiency Program lmpact Evaluation Guide - A Resource of the National Action
Plan for Energy Efficiency," published in November 2007 . The report states:
Evaluation is the process of determining and documenting the results, benefits, and /essons
learned from an energy-efficiency program. Evaluation results can be used in planning future
programs and determining the value and potential of a portfolio of energy-efficiency programs in
an integrated resource planning process. lt can also be used in retrospectively determining the
pertormance (and resulting payments, incentives, or penalties) of contractors and administrators
re spon si bl e fo r i m ple m e nti n g effi cie n cy p rog ram s.
Evaluation has two key objectives:
1. To document and measure the effects of a program and determine whether it met its
goals with respect to being a reliable energy resource.
2. To help understand why those effects occurred and identify ways to improve
Avista and evaluation team has identified the following objectives for the evaluation
. lndependently verify, measure and document energy savings impacts from Avista's
electric and natural gas energy efficiency programs in 2016 and 2017 ,
. Calculate the cost effectiveness of the portfolio and component programs,
. ldentify program improvements, if any, and
. ldentify possible future opportunities.
LtNelionf
547 574,073
760 74,788
40 '154,383
318 2,739,765
164,194 3,452,626
96 171,392
21,338 752,330
3,986 402,400
191,279 8,321,755
ldaho Electric Program 2017 Reported
Participation Count
2017 Reported Savings
(kwh)
lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 20'16-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 26
3 lmpact Evaluation Methodology
The impact evaluation assessed the gross savings attributable to Avista's 2016 and 2017
energy-efficiency programs. lmpact evaluations generally seek to quantify the energy and, when
possible, the non-energy savings that have resulted from DSM program operations. These
savings may be expressed as all of the changes resulting from the program (gross savings), or
only those changes that would not have occurred absent the program (net savings).
The evaluation team verified the gross energy savings of Avista's 2016 and 2017 programs by:
I
I
I
I
3.1
Understanding the program context
Designing the impact evaluation sample
Verifying the project and program savings through document audits, telephone surveys,
onsite measurement and verification, and billing analysis
Comparing Avista-reported savings to savings verified during project-level evaluations to
determine verified gross savings.
Understanding the Program Context
The first significant step of the evaluation activities was to gain a comprehensive understanding
of the programs and measures being evaluated. Specifically, the team explored the following
documents and data records:
Avista's 2016 Demand Side [Management (DSIV) Business Plans which detail processes
and energy savings justifications
Project documents from external sources, such as documents from customers, program
consultants, or implementation contractors.
Based on the initial review, the evaluation team outlined the distribution of program contributions
to the overall portfolio of programs. ln addition, the review allowed the evaluation team to
understand the sources for unit energy savings for each measure offered in the programs, along
with the sources for energy-savings algorithms and the internal quality assurance and quality
control (OfuOC) processes for large nonresidential projects. Following this review, the
evaluation team designed the sample strategy for the impact evaluation activities, as discussed
in the following section.
3.2 Designing the Sample
Sample development was an important step that enabled the evaluation team to deliver
meaningful, defensible results to Avista. The evaluation team used stratified random sampling
approaches for much of our data collection activities. Our sampling methodology was guided by
a "value of information" (VOl) framework which allowed us to target activities and respondents
with expected high impact and yield, while representing the entire population of interest. VOI
focuses budgets and rigor towards the programs/projects with high uncertainty and high impact.
LrNexonf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 27
I
SECTION 3 IMPACT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
For the sample design, the evaluation team organized the programs into 'bins', segmenting the
programs based on two metrics:
Program Uncertainty: The risks associated with a program's reported savings (i.e.,
custom vs. deemed vs. RegionalTechnical Forum status), delivery mechanism, and
performance goals, etc., broken into three categories: high, medium, and low.
Program Size: Either large, or small; based on projected energy savings, and planned
budget allocations.
Bins were created for residential and nonresidential programs separately and for electric
(WA/lD) and natural gas (WA) programs separately.
ln parallel, we calculate a 'level of rigor' value for each program, and based on assumed
measure complexity and RTF influence, we identify an appropriate level of sampling and
evaluation rigor.
Level of Sampling: Defined as confidence/precision for calculating sample sizes, the
evaluation team is using four levels: 90/10, 80/10, 85/15, or 80/20.
Evatuation Rigor: Defined as the level of detail used for the evaluation activities,
including four levels: document audit, surveys, onsite inspections, and billing analysis.
The evaluation bin identified for each program was one factor in determining the sample size
and level of rigor for the evaluation activities. Additional factors that influence the sample size
and level of rigor include evaluation costs, Regional Technical Forum (RTF) influence, and
findings and recommendations from prior evaluations.
The approaches (i.e. level of rigor) for estimating the gross energy savings for the programs
evaluated included: document audit, surveys, site inspections, and statistical billing analysis. ln
many cases, a combination of approaches were used to both validate savings and provide
insights into any identified discrepancies between reported and verified savings values. The
sampling strategy for the impact evaluation also overlapped, as applicable, with the sample
approach used for the process evaluation activities in order to obtain information for both the
impact and process evaluations during one single onsite inspection and/or survey. This nested
sampling approach helped to minimize costs while still maintaining adequate sample sizes.
Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 show the planned sample sizes and level of rigor for WA/ID Electric
residential and nonresidential programs. The samples were drawn to meet the specified
confidence/precision for each program and to meet g0% confidence and 10o/o precision at the
portfolio levell. Because programs do not differ between the Washington and ldaho service
territories, the sample approach was combined for both territories, and the findings from the
impact evaluation (i.e. realization rates) were applied across both states.
1 See Appendix A for detailed information on the presentation of uncerlainty.
O N?,|(onf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs
I
28
SECTION 3 IMPACT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Table 3-1: Planned Sampling and Evaluation Rigor for WA/lD Electric Residential
Programs
HVAC Program
Water Heat Program
ENERGY STAR Homes
Fuel Efficiency
Residential Lighting Program
Shell Program
Home Energy Reports
Low lncome
Total
census
census
census
CCNSUS
census
CCNSUS
to meet taryet and are based on actual 20 participation values through July, 2016
Table 3-2: Planned Sampling and Evaluation Rigor for WA/lD Electric Nonresidential
Programs
Prescriptive Lighting
Prescriptive Other2
Small Business
Site Specific based on
IPMVP
Total
s12es document audit designed to meet C/P target and arc based on actual 20 participation values
2For purposes of the evaluation sampling, the evaluation team bundled the fotlowing Nonresidentiat Etectric Programs into one
program titled'Prescriptive athel: Energy Smart Grocer, Food Sevice Equipment, Grcen Motors, Commercial Motor Controls
HVAC, Appliance, Shell, Fleet Heat, and Aircuardian
Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 present the achieved sample size and confidence/precision level for
each program evaluated.
census 68
80t20 68
census 68
census 68 42
NA NA
CENSUS 68 42
census
census 68
90/'10 408 84
WA/ID Electric Residential
Program Billing
AnalysisTarget C/Pl Surveys
Target Sample Sizes for each Level of Rigor
Document
Audit
80/1 0 42 11 11
85/1 5 24 11 11
90/1 5 34 16 16
90/1 0 68 68 68
90/10 158 106 106
WA/lD Electric Nonresidential
Program
Target Sample Sizes for each Level of Rigor
Document - OnsiteAudit SurveYS lnspectionsTarget C/P1
0 Noonf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 29
i:, Onsite
.: lnspections ,
Billing
Analysis
SECTION 3 I MPACT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Table 3-3: Achieved Sampling and Evaluation Rigor for WA/lD Electric Residential
Programs
HVAC Program census
Water Heat Program
ENERGY STAR Homes
Fuel Efficiency census
Residential Lighting Program
Shell Program census
Home Energy Reports census
Low lncome census
Tota!
Table 3'4: Achieved Sampling and Evaluation Rigor for WA/lD Electric Nonresidential
Programs
Prescriptive Lighting 38
Prescriptive Othe12 13
Small Business 18
Site Specific 58
Total 127
pu4poses evaluation sampling, the evaluation team bundled the following one
program titled'Presciptive Othef: Eneryy Smaft Grccer, Food Seruice Equipment, Green Motors, Commercial Motor Contrcls
HVAC, Appliance, Sheil, Fleet Heat, and AirGuardian.
3.3 Database Review
For all evaluated programs, the evaluation team conducted a review of the program databases
as provided by Avista and its third-party implementers. The purpose of the review was to look
for large outliers in program-reported data and to remove any duplicate entries found in the
databases. lf any large discrepancies were found, the evaluation team confirmed with Avista or
its third-party implementers that the discrepancies was or was not an error and if it was noted as
an error, the discrepancies were fixed and reported savings values were updated accordingly.
census 113
census 59
14.4%68
7.1o/o 76 45
census
44.9%83 43
5.8%
12.8o/o 127
43%526 88
Achieved
Precision at
90%
Confidence
Achieved Sample Sizes for each Level of Rigor
Surveys
WA/lD Electric Residential
Program Document
Audit
Onsite
lnspections
Billing
Analysis
16%47 38
23%37 '13
12%39 18
8%68 58
12Yo 191 127
WA/ID Electric Nonresidential
Program Name
Achieved
Precision at
90o/o
Confidence
Surveys
Achieved Sample Sizes for each Leve! of Rigor
Document
Audit
Onsite
lnspections
o Noronf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 30
3.4 Verifying the Sample - Gross Verified Savings
The next step in the impact evaluation process was to determine the gross impacts, which are
the energy savings that are found at a customer site as the direct result of a program's
operation; net impacts are the result of customer and market behavior that can add to or
subtract from a program's direct results.
The impact evaluation activities resulted in realization rates, which were applied to the adjusted/
reported savings. The ratio of the savings determined from the site inspections, measurement
and verification (M&V) activities, or engineering calculations to the program-reported savings
was the project realization rate; the program realization rate was the weighted average for all
projects in the sample. The savings obtained by multiplying the program realization rates by the
program-adjusted/reported savings were termed the gross verified savings. These gross verified
savings reflect the direct energy and demand impact of the program's operations.
Total program gross savings were adjusted using Equation 3-1:
Equation 3-1: Gross Verified Savings Equation
kwh,di = kVl/h,"o' Realization Rote
Where:
kWhudt kWh calculated by the evaluation team for the program, the gross
impact
kwh,ep kWh reported/adjusted for the program
Realization rate weighted average kWhral / kWh,"p for the research sample
The estimate of gross verified energy savings occurred through one or more levels of evaluation
rigor, as detailed in the following sections.
3.4.1 Document Audit
The first level of rigor that the evaluation team used was a document audit of all sampled
projects for which documentation existed. Document audits were also a critical precursor for
conducting telephone surveys and onsite inspections and, more specifically, for determining
project-specific variables to be collected during these activities. The document audit for each
sampled project sought to answer three questions:
. Were the data files of the sampled projects complete, well documented, and adequate
for calculating and reporting the savings?
. Were the calculation methods correctly applied, appropriate, and accurate?
. Were allthe necessary fields properly populated?
3.4.2 Telephone Survey
A second level of evaluation rigor was through stand-alone telephone surveys with program
participants. Telephone surveys were conducted in conjunction with the process evaluation
O N€2/onf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 20116-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 31
SECTION 3 IMPACT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
SECTION 3 IMPACT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
activities and were used to gather information on the energy-efficiency measure implemented,
information needed to estimate net-to-gross values, the key parameters needed to verify the
assumptions used by RTF for approved values or to estimate verified energy savings, and any
baseline data that may be available from the participant.
3.4.3 Onsite Measurement and Verification
A sample of projects in the nonresidential sector was selected for onsite measurement and
verification activities. Before conducting site inspections, it was important for field engineers to
understand the project that they were verifying. This understanding was built from the
document-audit task discussed earlier. For all onsite inspections, a telephone survey served as
an introduction to the evaluation activities and was used to confirm that the customer
participated in the program, to confirm the appropriate contact, and to verify basic information
such as building type and building size. All onsite activities were conducted by evaluation team
field engineers.
The evaluation team conducted two levels of rigor associated with the onsite inspections -
measurement and verification (M&V) and verification-only (V). Upon review of the project
documents, the evaluation team decided which level of rigor was appropriate for each sampled
projecUmeasure. ln cases where the measure had an approved RTF UES value, the evaluation
team's effort focused on verifying the quality and quantity of installation to apply the RTF UES
values to.
M&V methods were developed with adherence to the IPMVP. As defined by IMPVP, the general
equation for energy savings is defined as:2
Normalized Savings =
(Baseline Energy ! Routine Adjustments to fixed conditions * Non-Routine Adjustmenfs fo
fixed conditions ) - ( Repofting Period Energy ! Routine Adjustments to fixed conditions !
Non-Routine Adjustments to fixed conditions )
The broad categories of the lPtvlVP are as follows:
. Option A, Retrofit lsolation: Key Parameter Measurement - This method uses
engineering calculations, along with partial site measurements, to verify the savings
resulting from specific measures.
. Option B, Retrofit lsolation: All Parameter Measurement - This method uses engineering
calculations, along with ongoing site measurements, to verify the savings resulting from
specific measures.
. Option C, Whole Facility: This method uses whole-facility energy usage information,
most often focusing on a utility bill analysis, to evaluate savings.
. Option D, Calibrated Simulation: Computer energy models are employed to calculate
savings as a function of the important independent variables. The models must include
verified inputs that accurately characterize the project and must be calibrated to match
actual energy usage.
2 Efficiency Valuation Organization (EVO) "lnternational Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IMPVP) Concepts
and Options for Determining Energy and Water Savings Volume 1", April 2OO7 , page 19.
oNexonr lmpact Evaluation of Idaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 32
SECTION 3
ln addition, the evaluation team conducted metering tasks on a subset of the onsite inspection
sample chosen for the M&V level of rigor. Projects were selected for metering activities based
on the measure type, project complexity, and the level of information needed to estimate gross
savings for the project.
3.4.4 Billing Analysis
Participants received an assortment of efficiency measures through Avista's residential rebate
programs. Billing analyses are generally considered a best practice for calculating energy
savings resultlng from "whole-house" efficiency retrofits. Thus, because of the diverse and
interactive savings profiles associated with the improvements, the evaluation team determined
that a utility bill regression analysis was the best method for quantifying energy savings resulting
from these programs' treatment measures.
The utility billing analysis used data from participating customers who had sufficient utility-billed
consumption records before and after the measure installation. Specifically, the evaluation team
used a billing analysis approach for estimating gross verified savings for all measures in the
following residential programs: Shell, Fuel Efficiency, HVAC, Home Energy Reports, and Low
lncome.
The evaluation team requested program tracking data and complete billing histories for Avista's
residential rebate program participants as well as non-participants to develop a matched
comparison group (see Section 3.4.4.1 below). We aimed to use participant data that contained
at least one full year of utility billing data before and after measure installation to ensure that
seasonal effects of the improvements are captured in the savings estimates. However, because
of the timing of measure installations and the nature of certain programs, some participants may
have had up to nine months of post-installation data available.
Before performing the analysis, utility billing records were assessed for quality and
completeness. Duplicate observations were removed from the billing data. Billing periods of
more than 35 days or less than 26 days were also excluded from the dataset because these
observations are not representative of a typical billing cycle.
3.4.4.1 Comparison Group Selection
Nexant selected the comparison groups using propensity score matching to find residential
Avista customers who are non-participants with monthly consumption most similar to those of
participants. ln this procedure, a probit model is used to estimate a score for each customer
based on a set of observable variables that are assumed to affect the decision to participate in a
rebate program. A probit model is a regression model designed to estimate probabilities-in this
case, the probability that a customer would participate. The score can be interpreted two
different ways. First, the propensity score can be thought of as a summary variable that includes
all the relevant information in the observable variables about whether a customer would choose
to participate in a rebate program. Each participant was matched with a customer in the non-
participant population that has the closest propensity score. The second way to think of the
propensity score is as the probability that a customer will participate in a rebate program based
on the included independent variables. Thinking of it this way, each customer in the comparison
group was matched to a treated customer with a similar probability of participating given the
observed variables.
o Nexonf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 33
IMPACT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
SECTION 3 IMPACT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Nexant performed the match within each program and state. ln other words, the match was
conducted separately for customers in Washington and ldaho and for each rebate program. The
match was based on a set of variables that characterize energy consumption during the full
calendar year prior to treatment (2015). Twenty matches based on various combinations of
monthly, seasonal, and annual energy consumption were tested and the final probit model
which resulted in the closest match between participant and comparison customer average
usage each month of 2015 was selected. One match was found for each participant and the
same comparison customer could not be matched to multiple participants.
Figure 3-1 displays the average daily kWh consumption in 2015 for participants in the Electric
Shell program and for the matched comparison group. Over the year prior to treatment,
consumption was very similar between the two groups, with a difference of approximately 0.5%
on average. These differences are taken into account by the difference-in-differences estimation
methodology described in the following section.
Figure 3-2 displays the average daily therms consumption for each month in 2015 for the Gas
Shell group and the corresponding comparison group. Once again, consumption throughout the
pretreatment year is very similar between the two groups, indicating that the matched
comparison group behaves similarly to participants in the absence of treatment.
Figure 3-1: Electric Shell Matched Control Group vs Participants
-Matched
Control
-Participanb
^p
$E'
80
70
!360j
2.50
Go40o
Fgo
9zo
10
0
)"(
'9 ^9(.v
\b ^P
v.a* sg{
^9 .9 \b \b \b \6 \6
t"" )$* r$6 g"{ Oov go{ ged
LrNexonf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 34
t_
-t_
SECTION 3 IMPACT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Figure 3-2: Gas Shell Matched Control Group vs Participants
-Matched
control
-ParticipantsEN
@
E
!,
F
->G(1
{,
ED(E
€,
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0 +
.lE
1.0
o.s I_0,0+_--_ __--_
^9$"9\b\6^9.9\6^pg{ t"s {9t' y-a* *9{ r"" 5} *sS uo{
\b \b \6
6iF *o{ Ood
3.4.4.2 Ex Post Estimation Method
After the comparison groups for treatment customers were selected and validated, energy
impacts were estimated using a difference-in-differences (DiD) methodology for the Shell,
HVAC, Fuel Efficiency, and Home Energy Reports3 programs (the Low lncome program used a
participant pre/post billing analysis, see Section 3.4.4.3 below). lmpacts are estimated as the
difference in average consumption between treatment and comparison customers in each
month, with the slight difference between the two groups on the pre-treatment year removed.
This calculation controls for residual differences in load between the groups that are not
eliminated through the matching process, thus reducing bias.
The DiD analysis can be done by hand using simple averages or by using panel regression
analysis. Customer fixed effects regression analysis allows each customer's mean consumption
to be modeled separately, which reduces the standard error of the impact estimates without
changing their magnitude. Additionally, panel regression easily facilitates calculation of standard
errors, confidence intervals, and significance tests for load impact estimates that correctly
account for the correlation in customer loads over time.
The model specification for estimating load impacts is shown in Equation 3-2 and Table 3-5
provides detailfor each model variable. The modelwas estimated separately for each hour and
event day.
Equation 3-2: Monthly Energy Savings Model Specification
daily-consumpttoni= a* fevent* ptreatXevent; * vi* e
3 The Oracle Home Energy Report program is designed as a randomized control trial and therefore a matched comparison group
was not selected for the billing analysis.
A N€X0nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 35
SECTION 3 IMPACT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Table 3-5: Description of Energy Savings Model Regression Variables
dai.ly-consumpttoni Per customer consumption (kWh or therms)
for customer i
Mean consumption for all customers
v The coefficient on the post-treatment
indicator variable
post Equal to 1 for the post-treatment period and
0 for the same month in 2015
p DiD estimator of the treatment effect (the
impact in kWh or therms)
treatXpost lnteraction of treatment and post variables,
equal to 1 for the post-treatment period for
participants and 0 otherwise
The customer fixed effects variable for
customer i
The error term
ln Equation 3-2 the variable daily_consumptioni equals electricity or gas consumption during
the time period of interest, which would be each month of the post-treatment period. The index i
refers to each individual customer. The estimating database contained electricity and gas
consumption data during the pre- and post-treatment periods for both treatment and matched
comparison group customers. The variable posf is equal to 1 for months after installation and a
value of 0 for the same month in 2015. The treaXpost term is the interaction of treat and post
and its coefficient p is a differences-in-differences estimator of the treatment effect that makes
use of the pre-treatment data. The primary parameter of interest is p, which provides the
estimated energy impact of the rebate programs during the relevant period. The parameter a is
equal to mean daily consumption for each customer for the relevant time period (e.9., monthly).
The vi term is the customer fixed effects variable that controls for unobserved factors that are
time-invariant and unique to each customer.
This was estimated for each month of 2016 and 2017 separately. lmpacts are estimated on a
per-customer basis. Reference consumption is equalto observed treatment consumption plus
the estimated impact.
3.4.4.3 Low lncome Pre/Post Billing Ex Post Estimation Method
For the Low lncome program, the evaluation team was unable to select a matched comparison
group as Avista does not provide information in its billing records to identify low income
customers. Therefore, the evaluation team used a pre/post billing analysis based on participant
billing data.
The evaluation team reviewed the participant data in the same method used for the other
programs by accessing data quality and completeness. ln addition to program participation
records and customer billing histories, the evaluation team also collected daily temperature
records and normalweather conditions (TMY3) from three weather stations located in Avista's
service territory. Observed temperature records were used to calculate the number of heating
O Nf,l(onf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 20'16-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 35
a
,Di
t
Variable Description
SECTION 3 IMPACT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
degree days (HDD) and cooling degree days (CDD) in each customer's monthly billing period.
Weather stations used by the evaluation team include Coeur d'Alene, ldaho; Lewiston, ldaho,
and Spokane, Washington. Each participant was matched to the nearest weather station based
on service address.
Gross verified energy savings were calculated by comparing billed consumption in months prior
to the measure installations to the billed consumption in months after the measure installations.
For most programs the evaluation team required homes to have 12 months of pre-retrofit
consumption and 12-months of post-retrofit consumption for inclusion in the billing analysis. ln
cases in which participation was limited, this requirement was relaxed to increase sample sizes,
provided that the participating homes had data from the key seasons. For example, switching
from electric heat to a natural gas furnace will produce the largest savings during winter months.
Because the evaluation team received data through February of 2018, homes who implemented
the fuel conversion measure in the summer of 2017 might have afull 12 months of pre-retrofit
data but only 6 to 8 months of post-retrofit data. However, the post-retrofit period included the
heating season and gave the regression model sufficient data upon which to establish a
mathematical relationship between weather and consumption.
Table 3-6 defines the terms and coefficients shown in the two equations that follow. Equation
3-3 shows the general regression model specification used for electric measures, Equation 3-4
shows the general model specification used for gas measures. The key difference between
them is the absence of cooling degree day (CDD) terms in the gas model. Because residential
gas consumption is predominantly associated with heating, the evaluation team opted to
exclude the CDD terms from the gas model, resulting in more robust impact estimates.
Equation 3-3: Regression Model Specification for Electric Measures
kwhit=Fi*BrxPostll*FzxCDDir+p3@ostxCDD);,tg+xHDDit*85(PostxHDD)1,*e;.
Equation 3-4: Regression Model Specification for Gas Measures
Therms;1 = Fi * B, x Post11 * Bz xHDDit * p3@ost x HDD)1 * e1,
LrNoonf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 37
Variable Definition
SECTION 3 IMPACT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Table 3-6: Fixed Effects Regression Model Definition of Terms
kWhit/ Thermsit Estimated consumption in home i during period t (dependent variable)
Postit lndicator variable denoting pre-installation period vs. post-installation period
CDDit Average cooling degree days during period t at home i
HDDit Average heating degree days during period t at home i
Br Customer specific model intercept representing baseline consumption
Fr-s
Coefficients determined via regression describing impacts associated with
independent variables
€it Customer-level random error
LtNo@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 38
4 Nonresidential Impact Evaluation
This section outlines the impact evaluation methodology and findings for each of the evaluated
nonresidential programs.
4.1 Overview
Avista offered 11 nonresidential programs in their ldaho service territory in2017. The reported
savings for the 11 nonresidential programs are summarized in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1: Nonresidential Program Reported Savings
Energy Smart Grocer 1,166,822
Food Service Equipment 54,317
Green Motors 37,990
Motor Controls HVAC 76,760
Prescriptive Lighting 28,738,773
Commercial lnsulation 21102
Air Guardian 394,473
Small Business 1,498,583
Site Specific 11,078,845
Nonresidential Total 43,067,665
*Count of unique measures
The Prescriptive Lighting program contributes the largest share of the reported savings, 67oh as
shown in Figure 4-1. Site Specific is the next largest contributor al26%.
115
12
11
3
1,237
4
1
3,885.
68
5,336
2017 Reported Project
Count
2017 Reported Savings
(kwh)Program
1,Nexonf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 39
SECTION 4 NONRESI DENTIAL I MPACT EVALUATION
Figure 4-1: Nonresidential Program Reported Energy Savings Shares
3%
67%
r EnergySmart Grocer
r Food Service Equipment
r Green Motors
Motor Controls HVAC
r Prescriptive Lighting
r Commercial lnsulation
r AirGuardian
I Small Business
r Site Specific
The evaluation team designed a sampling strategy for these programs placing the most
emphasis on the Site Specific program because of its large share of savings in the 2014-2015
biennium and because the Prescriptive Lighting program was found to have a strong realization
rate in the prior evaluation. Mid-way through the evaluation cycle, the evaluation team shifted
samples from the Site Specific strata to the Prescriptive Lighting strata due to the large amount
of savings that had been reported through that program in 2016. As part of the evaluation
activities, a total of 191 document audits were conducted, and onsite inspections were
conducted on a sub-sample of 127 projects, as shown in Table 4-2. Engineering activities
included review of savings calculation methodology and assumptions, verification of operating
hours through participant surveys and included use of data loggers in some cases, utility bill
analysis, review of energy management system trend data, and energy savings analysis.
Table 4-2: Nonresidential Program Achieved Evaluation Sample
Prescriptive Lighting
Prescriptive Othe12
Small Business
Site Specific
Total
purposes sampling, the evaluation team bundled the following into one
program titled'Presciptive Othel: Energy Smaft Grocer, Food Seruice Equipment, Green Motors, Commercial Motor Contrcls
HVAC, Appliance, Shell, Fleet Heat, and AirGuadian
L6%47 38 38
23o/o 37 '13 13
t2%39 18 18
8%68 58 58
12%191 127 127
Program
On-Site lnspectionsAchieved Precision
at 90% Confidence
o NeYanf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 40
Oo/o
Sample Sizes for Each Level of Rigor
Document Audit Survey
SECTION 4 NONRESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
4.2 Prescriptive Lighting
4.2.1 Overview
The Prescriptive Lighting program encourages commercial customers and vendors to make
lighting improvements to their businesses. The program provides many common retrofits to
receive a pre-determined incentive based on baseline and replacement lamp wattages. The
program is internally implemented by Avista.
4.2.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
A total of 1,237 prescriptive lighting projects at approximately 984 unique premises were
installed in ldaho across 2017 program years. Table 4-3 and Figure 4-2 summarize Avista's
2017 Prescriptive Lighting Program energy impacts by measure category as defined in the
Avista tracking database.
Table 4-3: Prescriptive Lighting Reported Energy Savings by Measure
Lighting (Exterior)11%
Lighting (lnterior)89%
Total 100Yo
Figure 4-2: Prescriptive Lighting Reported Energy Savings Shares
89o/o
r Lighting (Exterior)
r Lighting (lnterior)
t7%
226 3,049,864
1011 25,688,909
1,237 28,738,773
2017 Reported
Project Count
2017 Reported
Savings (kWh)% Electric SavingsMeasure Type
o NeYam lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 41
SECTION 4 NONRESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
4.2.3 Methodology
The impact evaluation for this program followed the RTF's Nonresidential Lighting Retrofit
Standard Protocol, IPMVP Option A (Retrofit lsolation: Key Parameter Measurement), and DOE
Uniform Methods Commercial and lndustrial Lighting Evaluation Protocoll. Engineering activities
included installation verification, determination of operational hours including spot-metering in
for a sub-sample of projects, and engineering savings calculations.
4.2.3.1 Sampling
The evaluation team conducted document audits for 47 projects. Customer surveys and onsite
inspections were completed on a sub-sample of 38 of these projects (Table 4-4). The original
sample targets were designed based on the prescriptive lighting share of overall savings from
the 2014-20'15 biennium and based on the near 100% realization rates of the prescriptive
lighting measures from the prior evaluation. However, at end of the 2016 program year,
prescriptive lighting measures were the predominant measure of the overall nonresidential
portfolio and there were some inconsistencies found in the reporting of energy savings values
for tubular light-emitting diode (TLED) measures in 2016. Therefore, the evaluation team shifted
samples from the Site Specific strata to the Prescriptive Lighting strata. As such, achieved
sample sizes for onsite inspections and surveys is higher than the original sample design of 42
document audits and 11 surveys and onsite inspections as noted in Table 3-2.
Table 4-4: Prescriptive Lighting Achieved Sample
Prescriptive Lighting
4.2.3.2 Document Audits
Project documentation was requested for each sampled project, including invoices, savings
calculations, work order forms, equipment specification sheets, and any other project records
that may exist. Thorough review of this documentation was the first crucial step in evaluation of
each project.
4.2.3.3 Field lnspections
Participants were recruited for onsite inspection via telephone calls. These onsite inspections
provide a more rigorous way to verify energy savings, and allowed the evaluation team to note
any discrepancies between onsite findings regarding actual measure and equipment
performance and the information gathered through the telephone surveys and project
documentation. A survey instrument specific to this program was created in advance of the site
inspections to ensure that the correct information was gathered.
Table 4-5 summarizes the information that was collected for each project during the onsite
inspection. All parameters needed to support the savings analysis of a project were collected,
including fixture counts, baseline and post-retrofit wattages, hours of operation, and HVAC
system information (to inform calculation of interactive effects).
t htto://enerqv.oov/sites/prod/fi les/201 3/1 1/f5/53827-2.pdf
O N?,XOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Etectric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs
384738
Program SurveyDocument
Audit
OnSite
lnspections
42
NONRESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Table 4-5: Prescriptive Lighting Onsite Data Collection
All Facilities
Year facility was built
Number of occupants
Number of stories
Business Type
Operating Hours, posted or othenruise
Total conditioned square footage
Heating system type/age/efficiency/size/cond ition
Cooling system type/age/efficiency/size/cond ition
Lighting
Lamp Type
Confirm Electronic Ballast and Factor
Lamp Size
Quantity of Lamps per Fixture
Wattage per Lamp
Fixture Quantity
Operating Hours
Control Type
Confirm ENERGY STAR@ rating
Where feasible and appropriate, the evaluation team also used standalone data loggers to
minimize uncertainty in the estimation of lighting operating hours. Evaluation team engineers
installed HOBO@ U9-002 light on/off loggers for a minimum of four months. This collected
measured data was supplemented by lighting operating characterization as determined through
onsite interviews and surveys of control strategies (dimmers, timers, etc.) to inform the balance
of the yearly operating hours.
The data collected over the logging duration was tabulated per hour per week to create an
average weekly operation schedule for each measured space with energy efficiency measures.
The weekly hourly profile includes 24 hours of each of eight distinct day types (Sunday,
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and holiday). Annual operating
hours were created by extrapolating measured values to a calendar year, adjusted as needed
per the interviews with onsite personnel.
4.2.3.4 lm pact Analysis Methods
To calculate the gross verified energy savings of a lighting retrofit, the evaluation utilized the
calculation outlined in Equation 4-1.
o Noronf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 43
Lamp Type (e.9., T8, T12)
Ballast Type (mag. or elec.)
Lamp Size (4 ft. or 8 ft.)
Quantity of Lamps per Fixture
Wattage per Lamp
Fixture Quantity
Operating Hours
Control Type
End Use Category Baseline Retrofit
SECTION 4
SECTION 4 NONRESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Equation 4-1: Prescriptive Lighting Energy Savings Calculation
LkWh : (* 7 txrur €s base * kWbor" - # f txtur e sretrof it * kWretrof it) * H our s * I F
Where:
# fixtufeSor"e or retrofit
Hours
= Quantity of fixtures installed in baseline or retrofit of a project
= Annual hours of fixture operation
IF = the ratio of heating and cooling electricity reduction per unit of
lighting energy reduction resulting from the reduction in lighting waste
heat removed by an electric HVAC system
Equation 4-1 is based on per fixture energy savings as calculated in Equation 4-2 and Equation
4-3:
Equation 4-2: Prescriptive Lighting Base Case Demand Savings Calculation
,-tt, _# lamps6ase * Wattsbor" * BFbor"LYvbase - 1000
Equation 4-3: Prescriptive Retrofit Case Demand Savings Calculation
kWretroftt =
# lampsr"Tofi.t * Watts.retrofit * BFretrofit
1000
Where:
# lampsu""orretrcnt = Quantity of lamps installed in a baseline or retrofit fixture
Wdttsoaseorretrcnt = Wattage of baseline or retrofit lamp
BFb"""o,nt,ont = Ballast factor of baseline or retrofit light fixture
The analysis utilized a T8 baseline for linear fluorescent replacements, since T12 lamps are no
longer compliant under federal regulations (EISA 2007 and EPact 2005).
lnteractive Equipment Energy Changes for Lighting Retrofits
The energy consumption of lighting equipment within an enclosed space is not viewed in
isolation. Building systems interact with one another and a change in one system will often
affect the energy consumption of another. This interaction is important to consider when
calculating the benefits provided by lighting equipment because it adopts a comprehensive view
of premise-level energy changes rather than limiting the analysis to the energy change directly
related to the modified equipment. The evaluation team utilized the interactive factors
designated in the RTF's Non-residential Lighting Retrofits protocol2. Engineers gathered heating
and cooling system types serving each space affected by a lighting retrofit project during the site
visit in order to appropriately apply the RTF's factors. For desk reviews without an
accompanying site visit, the evaluation team assumed electric cooling with gas heating in
absence of better information.
2 http,//rtf. n*council.org/measures/measure.as p?id=213
a No(onf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 44
SECTION 4 NONRESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
4.2.4 Findings and Recommendations
The data collected as a result of the desk reviews and onsite data measurement and verification
activities were utilized to estimate the gross verified savings. The evaluation team's gross
verified savings values for the sample of reviewed projects was almost equal to the reported
values for exterior lighting projects and less than Avista's reported values for interior lighting
measures, resulting in an overall Prescriptive Lighting realization rate of 80% (Table 4-6).
Table 4-5: Prescriptive Lighting Realization Rate Results
Lighting (Exterior)
N/ALighting (lnterior)
Total 12%
By the end of the 2016 program year, the evaluation team had conducted document reviews
and onsite verification activities on a sample of 2016 nonresidential projects. Based on these
activities, the evaluation team calculated an interim realization rate of 71o/ofor the prescriptive
lighting measures. One of the factors behind this realization rate was based on the evaluation
team's review of Tubular LED (TLED) measures incented in the 2016 program year.
Specifically, in the 2016 program year and into the first month of 2017, Avista offered two
prescriptive lighting measures for TLEDs:
1-Lamp T12|IB Fixture to 1-Lamp LED 8W to 15W, incentivized at $15 per lamp
1-Lamp T12lTA Fixture to 1-Lamp LED 16W to 23W, incentivized at $10 per lamp
As early project applications were submitted, Avista became aware that TLED lamps were
labeled under a lower wattage than their Design Lights Consortium (DLC) product
specifications. TLED lamps were found in the market with a labeled wattage of 14-15W, while
the DLC testing indicated that these lamps consume 17-'18W. The evaluation team believes that
this discrepancy is because TLED lamp power consumption is subject to different ballast and
driver configurations. Thus, a TLED in a low ballast factor (LBF) ballast may only consume 14W,
but in a normal ballast factor (NBF) ballast, the same lamp uses 17W. The DLC maintains
performance data for its certified lamps as tested with a 0.89 ballast factor.
Because this issue was identified in the middle of the biennium, Avista adjusted the savings
associated with this measure for the 2017 program year. However, the issue did impact the
overall realization rate for the Prescriptive Lighting measure category (predominately for interior
lighting) for the 2016-2017 biennium. Because Avista already corrected this issue, no further
recommendations related to this matter are suggested.
Another contributing factor that impacted the realization rate for this program is the reporting of
operating hours for participating nonresidential facilities. The evaluation team did find several
large projects reporting an incorrect hours of use value. ln future program implementation
6 lOOo/o
41 75o/o
47 80%
Sample Unique
Projects
Relative Precision
(90% Confidence)Measure Realization Rate
o No@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 45
SECTION 4 NONRESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
activities it is recommended that for large projects and for projects with multiple different space
types, that additional verification be conducted on the reported hours of use value. Avista could
set a threshold based on the number of fixtures installed, facility/building type, and/or reported
savings that triggers an additional level of verification. ln addition, Avista should review the
interactive factors employed by its lighting savings estimation tool. ln several evaluated projects,
the evaluation team determined that a lower interactive factor be applied compared to the value
utilized by Avista, based on both business type and building heating type. Table 4-7 shows the
total gross verified savings for the Prescriptive Lighting program.
Table 4-7: Prescriptive Lighting Gross Verified Savings
hting 23,119,693
4.3 Prescriptive Other Programs
4.3.1 Overview
The evaluation team analyzed all of Avista's non-lighting prescriptive electric programs together
under a "Prescriptive Other" category. Table 4-8 lists brief summaries of the programs included
in this group.
Table 4-8: Prescriptive Other Program Summaries
Energy Smart Grocer
This program, implemented by CLEAResult, offers a range of proven energy-saving
solutions for grocery stores and other customers with commercial refrigeration.
Energy savings are primarily achieved through installation of high efficiency case
lighting and other refrigeration system efficiency improvements.
Food Service Equipment This program offers incentives for commercial customers who purchase or replace
food service equipment with Energy Star or higher equipment (prescriptive).
Green Motors
The Green Motors lnitiative is to organize, identify, educate, and promote member
motor service centers to commit to energy saving shop rewind practices, continuous
energy improvement and motor driven system efficiency.
Motor Controls HVAC
Commercial lnsulation
Prescriptive Water Heat
Air Guardian
This program is intended to prompt the customer to increase the energy efficiency of
their fan or pump applications with variable frequency drives through direct financial
incentives.
This program encourages nonresidential customers to improve the envelope of their
building by adding insulation and replacing windows.
This program encourages nonresidential customers to improve the efficiency of their
water heating equipment.
The AiGuardian program is a third party delivered turnkey program (delivered by
45ight Energy Group LLC) for direct install compressed air and facility efficiency.
The target market for the direct installation of AirGuardian devices are small and
medium businesses.
lnstallation of technology that reduces standby losses of vehicle engine blocks by
fleet operators by adding the ability to energize block heaters only when Outside Air
Temperature drops below a temperature set-point and the engine mounted
thermostat is calling for heat.
Fleet Heat
28,738,773 80%
2017 Reported
Savings (kWh)
Energy
Realization Rate
2017 Gross Verified
Savings (kWh)Program
Descriptions
a No@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-20'17 Energy Efficiency Programs 46
Electric Programs
SECTION 4 NONRESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
4.3.2 Program Achievements and Participation Study
A total of 146 unique measures were installed in ldaho through these "Prescriptive Other"
programs in 2017 . Table 4-9 and Figure 4-3 summarize Avista's 2017 reported project count
and energy impacts by measure for these programs in ldaho.
Table 4-9: Prescriptive Other Reported Energy Savings by Program
Energy Smart Grocer 67%
Food Service Equipment 3%o
Green Motors 2o/o
Motor Controls HVAC 4%
Commercial lnsulation 1%
Air Guardian 23o/o
Total 100%
Figure 4-3: Prescriptive Other Reported Energy Savings Shares
23o/o r Energy Smart Grocer
r Food Service Equipment
t%r Green Motors
670/o Motor Controls HVAC
Commercial lnsulation
I Air Guardian
4.3.3 Methodology
Engineering activities for the evaluation of these projects varied by measure and included
review of project documentation, review of relevant RTF deemed savings values and
workbooks, installation verification, determination of operational hours, and savings calculations.
4.3.3.1 Sampling
The evaluation team conducted document audits for 37 projects that were grouped under the
"Prescriptive Other" category. Surveys and onsite inspections were conducted for a sub-sample
115 1,166,822
12 54,317
11 37,990
3 76,760
4 21j02
1 394,473
146 1,751,464
2017
Reported
Project
Count
% Electric
SavingsProgram
0 Noronf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 47
2017 Reported
Savings (kWh)
4%
SECTION 4 NONRESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
of these projects (Table 4-10). Because of the installation of multiple projects at some sites, the
achieved sample size for onsite inspections and surveys was slightly higher than the original
sample design of 24 document audits and 11 surveys and onsite inspections as noted in Table
3-2. The breakdown by program for the document audits is provided in Table 4-1 1. Note that not
all programs were included in the sample due to small participation and/or small overall reported
savings.
Table 4-10: Prescriptive Other Achieved Sample
Prescriptive Other
Table 4-11: Prescriptive Other Achieved Sample by Program
Energy Smart Grocer
Food Service Equipment
Green Motors
Motor Controls HVAC
Commercial lnsulation
Air Guardian
Total
4.3.3.2 DocumentAudits
Project documentation was requested for each sampled project, including invoices, savings
calculations, work order forms, equipment specification sheets, and any other project records
that may exist. Thorough review of this documentation was the first crucial step in evaluation of
each project.
37 13
SurveyDocument
Audit
OnSite
lnspections
27
5
0
2
3
0
37
Program Document Audit
Sample Size
LtNo(dnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 48
13
SECTION 4 NON RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
4.3.3.3 Fieldlnspections
Participants were recruited for onsite inspection via telephone calls. These onsite inspections
provide a more rigorous way to verify energy savings, and allowed the evaluation team to note
any discrepancies between onsite findings regarding actual measure and equipment
performance and the information gathered through the telephone surveys and project
documentation review. Because of the wide variety of measures included in this evaluation, site-
specific survey instruments were generated in advance of each site inspections to ensure that
sufficient information was gathered to support the analysis of each measure.
Table 4-12 summarizes the types of information that were collected for project categories during
the onsite inspection.
Table 4-12: Prescriptive Other Onsite Data Collection
All Facilities
HVAC
Motors
Year of construction
Business Type
Number of occupants
Number of floors
Operating Hours, posted or otherwise
Total conditioned
Type
Age
Capacity
Efficiency
Operating Hours
Operating Temperatures
Control Capability / Strategy
Features
Motor size (hp)
Motor Efficiency
Age
Condition
Operating Hours
VFD Speed (current settings and load
profile)
lnsulation Type
lnsulation Thickness
Affected Wall / Attic Area (sq ft)lnsulation
o No@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 49
Type (e.9., DX, heat pump)
Age
Heating & Cooling Capacity
Efficiency
Operating Hours
Operating Tem peratures (space,
supply, return, including info on
setbacks)
Control Capability / Strategy
Other Features (e.9. economizer)
Motor size (hp)
Motor Efficiency
Age
Condition
Operating Hours
lnsulation Type
lnsulation Thickness
Window Type (no. of panes, type of
glass)
End Use Category Baseline Retrofit
SECTION 4 NONRESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Case Temperature
Lamp Type (e.9., T8, T12)
Ballast Type (mag. or elec.)
Lamp Size (linear ft.)
Quantity of Lamps per Fixture
Wattage per Lamp
Fixture Quantity
Operating Hours
ControlType
Type of Equipment (e.9., open reach-
in refrigerated case, closed freezer)
Operating Temperatures
Capacity
Efficiency
Operating Hours
Other Parameters (e.9., motor kW or
hp, linear feet of gaskets, thickness
of suction line insulation)
End Use Category Baseline Retrofit
Energy Smart Grocer
Lighting
Energy Smart Grocer
Cases/Controls/Motors
Case Temperature
Lamp Type
Confirm Electronic Ballast and Factor
Lamp Size (linear ft.)
Quantity of Lamps per Fixture
Wattage per Lamp
Fixture Quantity
Operating Hours
ControlType
Confirm ENERGY STARo rating
Type of Equipment
Operating Temperatures
Capacity
Efficiency
Operating Hours
Other Parameters
Onsite data collection for Motor Control HVAC (Variable Frequency Drive or VFD) measures
included equipment inspection, interviews with site personnel, and collection of energy
management system (EMS) trend data if available. Topics covered in the interview included:
. Fan operation prior to the installation of the VFD including baseline fan control capability:
. On/Off
. lnlet Guide Vanes
. Discharge Damper
. Control programming associated with the VFD such as (1) facility operations schedule,
(2) temperature setpoints, (3) differential pressure control
. Minimum and maximum observed operating speeds and associated facility and weather
conditions
. Typical operating speed
. Annual equipment operation schedule and variation on a daily, weekly, and annual basis
. After-hours usage in evenings
. Weekend usage
. Summer shut down
' Night setback
' Availability of trended VFD operating data via building EMS or other control system.
oNeYanf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 50
SECTION 4 NONRESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Field engineers gathered the following information from equipment nameplates or as-built
drawings:
. Motor make and model . Motor type
. Motor size (hp) . Fan type
. Motor efficiency , VFD make and model
. Motor speed (RPM)
Field engineers also collected operating parameters from the VFD drive's user interface control
panel (if present). To facilitate this data collection, the field engineers were provided with model-
specific guidance for accessing relevant parameters from the control panel. Although the
availability of these operating parameters varies between different VFDs, common operating
parameters collected include:
. lnstantaneousoperating parameters:
. Frequency (Hz)
. % speed
. Motor power (W)
. Motor amperage (A)
. Cumulative kWh and associated time interval
4.3.3.4 lmpact Analysis Methods
Energy Smart Grocer
For the evaluation of the Energy Smart Grocer program, evaluation team applied deemed
energy savings values as published by the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) where appropriate.
Custom analyses were generated for measures not listed with the RTF.
A majority of the measures installed under the EnergySmart Grocer program are active
measures with deemed energy savings values published by the RTF. For these measures, the
evaluation team reviewed the relevant RTF workbooks3 and the reported measure savings,
verifying eligibility and appropriate application of RTF savings values for each project in the
sample. For measures not listed with the RTF, the evaluation team analyzed the energy savings
using custom project-specific methods.
Food Service Equipment
The Food Service Equipment projects included in the evaluation sample were for various types
of ENERGY STAR-rated kitchen equipment including ice makers and convection ovens. The
evaluation team evaluated the energy savings of each type of equipment using the Commercial
Kitchen Equipment calculator published by ENERGY STAR4
3 Gro""ry - Display Case LEDs (Open Cases) vl .0, 'l .1 , I .2, and 1 .3. Grocery - Display Case LEDs (Reach-ln Cases) v2.0, 2.2,3.0,
3. 1, and 3.2. Grocery - ECMS for Display Cases v2.0, 2.1 ,2.2,3.0, and 3.1. Grocery - ECMS for Walk-ins. Vl.1, 1.2,2.0, and 2.1.
Grocery - Floating Heat Pressure Controls for Single Compressor Systems v1 .0, 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3. Available from
http ://rtf . m^,council.oro/measures/Default.asp.
4 Found on the following website: https://www.enerovstar.oov/oroducts/commercial food service equipment
oNeYonf !mpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-20'17 Energy Efficiency Programs 51
NONRESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Motor Controls
The evaluation team assessed the HVAC Motor Control projects by modeling each affected
motor's input power based on motor size, efficiency, and performance curves published by
ASHRAE for various baseline motor control techniques (e.9. inlet guide vanes) as well as VFD
control. The general form of the algorithm used presented in Equation 4-4.
Equation 4-4: HVAC Motor Controls Energy Savings Calculation
LOOo/o
AkWh = t lkWaaseune,cao - kW"yrrri"nt,rrpl x hoursro,/-t I
cap-5o/o
Where
cap = operating capacity of the motor, ranging from 5% of full capacity to
100%
kWbasetine,cap = Baseline motor power consumption at a specific capacity, based on
ASHRAE performance curves for baseline motor control capability
kWencient,cap = Post-retrofit motor power consumption at a specific capacity, based on
ASHRAE pertormance curue for VFDs
Commercial lnsulation
For measures affecting building envelope (attic insulation and wall insulation), an industry-
standard relationship for insulation improvements was applied. Energy savings during the
cooling season were calculated using the algorithm in Equation 4-5:
Equation 4-5: Commercial lnsulation Cooling Savings Calculation
LkWhg66ling =
lt 1\(u; - Fr"" ) x Area x24 xcDD
1000 " %-
Where:
Rpre and post = Pre- and Post-imprcvement R-values of insulation
Aamc = Affected area (sq ft).
CDD = Annual cooling degree days
Qcoor = Cooling system efficiency, EER or SEER
For buildings with electric heat sources, including both electric resistance furnaces and heat
pumps, the calculated savings during the heating season using the following algorithm
(Equation 4-6):
O N€l|onf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 52
SECTION 4
hours""p = Number of annual hours operating at each o/o capacity
SECTION 4 NONRESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Equation 4-6: Commercial lnsulation Heating Savings Calculation
/1 1\t- _
-t
\Rpre Rpost)x Area x24 xHDD
LkWhhsssing =tlheil x 34L2
Where:
HDD = Annualcooling degree days
Qrreat = Heating system efficiency
4.3.4 Findings and Recommendations
Table 4-13 presents the realization rate based on the gross verified savings values for the
sample of reviewed projects in the Prescriptive Other category. The following subsections
present the findings and any recommendations for each 'Prescriptive Other' program. The
evaluation team did not conduct impact activities for projects in the Green Motors and Air
Guardian, programs because of the small number and size of these programs in the biennium.
As such, findings are not included for these programs.
Table 4-13: Prescriptive Non-Lighting Other Realization Rate Results
Prescriptive Other
Energy Smart Grocer Findings
Application of RTF Deemed Savinos Values
The RTF's deemed savings values for specific measures are periodically reviewed and updated
based on further research and input from RTF members. For each revision, the RTF publishes a
new workbook, and the current workbook as well as all prior versions are available on the RTF
website. The program implementer updates its internal measure savings assumptions based on
RTF publications, which can result in multiple deemed savings values being used for the same
measure within the same biennium.
Site Specific Proiect Findinqs
Site specific projects incentivized under the Energy Smart Grocer program had significantly
larger reported savings on average than the prescriptive projects, except for one Prescriptive
Case measure which had a large reported savings values. The reported energy savings for site
specific projects were generally determined using eQuest energy simulation modeling. The
evaluation team used utility billing analysis to calculate verified energy savings values for the
majority of the evaluated projects. Lower than reported savings were found for a few sampled
projects, but the majority of the evaluated savings were in-line with the reported savings value.
Because Energy Smart Grocer was included in the 'Prescriptive Other' measure category for
37 97%23o/o
Sample Unique
Projects
Energy
Realization Rate
Relative Precision
(90% Confidence)Program
o No@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 53
SECTION 4 NON RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
sampling, the realization rate utilized this program is based on the Prescriptive Other realization
rate. lt should be noted that Energy Smart grocer measures constituted nearly 75%o of the
'Prescriptive Other' category, therefore being a large driver in the overall realization rate for the
category.
Food Service Equipment, Motor Control HVAC, and Shell Findings
The evaluation team did not find any significant discrepancies in the evaluated sample of Food
Service Equipment findings. Avista's reported energy savings are similar to what the evaluation
team calculated using the ENERGY STAR calculator. The evaluation team found that Avista is
appropriately estimating savings for the Motor Control HVAC and Shell projects. No significant
discrepancies were found.
Table 4-14 shows the total gross verified savings for the programs evaluated under the
"Prescriptive Other" stratum.
Table 4-14: Prescriptive Other Gross Verified Savings
Energy Smart Grocer 1 ,1 28,530
Food Service Equipment 52,534
Green Motors 36,743
Motor Controls HVAC 74,241
Shell (Commercial lnsulation)20,409
Air Guardian 381,527
Total 1,693,985
4.4 Site Specific
4.4.1 Overview
Avista's Site Specific program offers commercial customers the opportunity to propose any
energy efficiency project with documentable energy savings (kilowatt-hours and/or therms) for
an incentive. The majority of projects in this program are appliance upgrades, compressed air,
HVAC, Industrial process, motors, shell measures, custom lighting projects, and naturalgas
multifamily market transformation. The Site Specific program is implemented internally by
Avista, and program staff develops custom energy savings estimates for each project with input
from the customer. Any project with documentable energy savings (kilowatt-hours and/or therms)
and a minimum ten year measure life can be submitted for a technical review and potential incentive
through the Site Specific program.
4.4.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
A total of 68 projects were installed through the Site Specific program in ldaho throughout 2017.
Table 4-15 and Figure 44 summarize Avista's reported energy impacts by measure for the Site
Specific program.
1,166,822
54,317
37,990
76,760
2',t,102
394,473
97o/o
1,751,464 97o/o
20'17 Reported Energy
Savings (kWh)
Realization
Rate
2017 Gross Verified
Energy Savings
(kwh)
Program
o NeYonf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 20'16-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 54
SECTION 4 NONRESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Table 4-15: Site Specific Reported Energy Savings by Measure
Compressed Air 39Yo
lndustrial Process 8o/o
Lighting (Exterior)12o/o
Lighting (lnterior)38%
Motors 1%
Multifamily Fuel Conversion 3%
Shell (Commercial lnsulation)0%
Total 100%
Figure 4-4: Site Specific Reported Participation Energy Savings Shares
r Compressed Air
r lndustrial Process
r Lighting (Exterior)
r Lighting (lnterior)
r Motors
Multifamily Fuel Conversion
r Shell
4.4.3 Methodology
The impact evaluation for this program followed IPMVP guidance as well as the DOE Uniform
Method Protocol(s). The RTF's Non-Residential Lighting Retrofit Standard Protocolwas
followed for lighting projects and IPMVP Option C was used to guide billing analysis for select
projects. Engineering activities included thorough review of the program savings methodology
for each project, installation verification, determination of operational hours including spot-
metering in some cases, collection of energy management system (EMS) trend data, and
associated energy savings calculations.
4.4.3.1 Sampling
The evaluation team conducted 68 document audits on participating projects through the Site
Specific program. Customer surveys and onsite inspections were conducted on a subset of
these projects. Table 4-16 outlines the achieved sample for the Site Specific Program.
A N9(oinl lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 20'16-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs
2 4,319,693
1 908,423
30 1,295,954
32 4,164,464
1 8s,203
1 299,574
I 5,534
58 11,078,845
2017 Reported Energy
Savings (kWh)Measure Type % Electric Savings
55
7 3%o%
' 2017 Reported Project
, Count
SECTION 4 NONRESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Table 4-16: Site Specific Achieved Sample
Site Specific
4.4.3.2 DocumentAudits
Project documentation was requested for each sampled project, including Avista's 'Top Sheets',
invoices, savings calculations, work order forms, equipment specification sheets, and any other
project records that may exist. The evaluation team's desk review process for Site Specific
projects included tracking the history of each project through the various stages of the program
as documented in the "Top Sheets". Thorough review of this documentation was the first crucial
step in evaluation of each project.
For projects where Avista estimated savings using energy modeling software such as eQuest,
the evaluation team requested and reviewed the energy models, when provided.
4.4.3.3 Field lnspections
Participants were recruited for onsite inspection via telephone calls. The onsite inspections
provide a more rigorous way to verify energy savings, and allowed the evaluation team to note
any discrepancies between onsite findings regarding actual measure and equipment
performance and the information gathered through the telephone surveys and project
documentation review. Because of the wide varie$ of measures included in this evaluation,
project-specific survey instruments were generated in advance of each onsite inspection to
ensure that sufficient information was gathered to support the analysis of each measure.
Table 4-17 summarizes the types of information that were collected for each project during the
onsite inspection. All parameters needed to support the savings analysis of a project were
collected.
586858
Program SurveyDocument
Audit
Onsite
lnspections
Lt No@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 56
SECTION 4 NONRESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Table 4-17: Site Specific Onsite Data Collection
Year of construction
Business Type
Number of occupants
Number of floors
Operating Hours, posted or otherwise
Total conditioned square footage
All Facilities
HVAC
Motors
Shell (Commercial
lnsulation)
Type
Age
Capacity
Efficiency
Operating Hours
Operating Temperatures
Control Capability / Strategy
Features
Motor size (hp)
Motor Efficiency
Age
Condition
Operating Hours
VFD Speed (current settings and load
profile)
lnsulation Type
lnsulation Thickness
Affected Wall / Attic Area (sq ft)
4.4.3.4 Project-Specific Billing Analysis
The evaluation team reviewed utility bill histories for several projects where appropriate. To be a
good candidate for savings estimation using utility bill analysis approach, a project must provide
energy savings equal to at least 10% of the facility's annual consumption. Secondly, at least 9
months but preferably 12 months of post-project utility bill data must be available at the time of
the analysis. Thirdly, conditions at the facility should be relatively static, except for the project of
interest. The installation of other energy efficiency measures or other major changes at the
facility makes billing analysis inappropriate for project-specific savings estimation. lf a project
was deemed to be a good candidate for utility bill analysis, then the evaluation team employed
IPMVP Option C to estimate energy savings, normalizing for monthly variation in weather
conditions.
4.4.3.5 Project-Specific Trend Data Analysis
The evaluation team incorporated projectspecific trend data for some projects in the evaluation
sample in accordance with IPMVP Option B. Trend data was collected from building energy
management systems or other on-site data collection systems whenever available. The period
0 Neronf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 57
Type (e.9., DX, heat pump)
Age
Heating & Cooling Capacity
Efficiency
Operating Hours
Operating Temperatures (space, supply,
return, including info on setbacks)
Control Capability / Strategy
Other Features (e.9. economizer)
Motor size (hp)
Motor Efficiency
Age
Condition
Operating Hours
lnsulation Type
lnsulation Thickness
End Use Category Baseline Retrofit
SECTION 4 NONRESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
of data collection varied depending on the type of project being evaluated and ranged from a
few weeks to several months as available.
4.4.3.6Algorithm-Based !mpact Analysis Methods
Because of the custom nature of the projects that participated in the Site Specific program, a
wide array of custom analysis methods were utilized and tailored to each individual project. ln
many cases, if the evaluation team agreed with the program team's savings methodology, then
the evaluation team used the same methodology for the project evaluation, updating only the
input values and assumptions based on the results of onsite inspections or other data collection
ln some cases, the evaluation team used a different methodology, especially where billing data
or trend data allowed for savings to be calculated from measured data.
The evaluation team applied key algorithms for multiple projects, as described in the following
sections.
Lighting Projects
The evaluation team utilized the same approach for the lighting projects as described in the
methodology section for the Prescriptive Lighting Program (Section 4.2.3.4)
Shell (Commercial lnsulation)
The evaluation team utilized the same approach for the commercial insulation projects as
described in the methodology section for the Prescriptive Other Programs (Section 4.3.3.4)
4.4.4 Findings and Recommendations
The evaluation team found that the 2016-2017 Site Specific program achieved energy savings
relatively close to its reported performance, with a program-level realization rate of 92o/o (Table
4-18)- Lighting measures accounted for half of the Site Specific program savings and therefore
the lighting realization rate of 88% is the primary driver for the overall program-level realization
rate. Overall, the evaluation team recommends that Avista continue to use performance-based
incentives for projects with large savings.
LrNo(onf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 58
SECTION 4 NONRESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Table 4-18: Site Specific Program Realization Rate Results
Site Specific 8%
Measure-level realization rates for measures where more than one project was included in the
evaluation sample are presented in Table 4-19.
Table 4-19: Site Specific Measure-Level Gross Verified Savings
Appliances 100%
HVAC Combined lOOo/o
lndustrial Process 93%
Lighting (Exterior)107%
Lighting (lnterior)88%
Shell 63%
Lighti ng Project Findings
The review of lighting projects in the evaluation sample for the Site Specific program showed
that Avista is generating high quality savings estimates for exterior lighting projects, with
measure-level realization rate of 107o/o. The evaluation team found a realization rate of 88o/otor
interior lighting projects, predominately driven by inconsistencies in reported hours of use
values. lt is recommended that Avista provide a greater level of review of reported hours of use
for large lighting projects.
Shell (Commercial lnsulation) Findings
The algorithm the evaluation team applied for cooling season savings is more conservative than
what Avista is using. The program utilizes an algorithm that estimates savings based on
reduced solar radiation loads. The evaluation team reviewed the SEEM model outputs included
in the RTF's workbook for Small CommercialWeatherization for Avista's service territory and
determined the program's radiation-based algorithm may be overstating savings. We opted to
apply only a conduction-based algorithm, similar to the heating savings algorithm, because the
results aligned more closely with the SEEM values. This difference of approach is the primary
driver in the 63% realization rate for Shell measures. However, since this measure makes up
only 2o/o of the total program savings, the impact on the program realization rate is minimal.
Table 4-20 shows the total gross verified savings for the Site Specific program.
Table 4-20: Site Specific Program Gross Verified Savings
Site Specific 10,172,297
68 92o/o
Sample Unique
Projects
Energy Realization
Rate
Relative Precision
(90% Confidence)Program
2
5
7
13
26
11
Measure Sample Unique
Projects
Energy Realization
Rate
11,078,845 92Yo
2017 Reported Savings
(kwh)Energy Realization Rate 2017 Gross Verified
Savings (kWh)Program
o Nerlanr lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 59
SECTION 4 NONRESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
4.5 Small Business
4.5.1 Overview
The Small Business (SB) program is a third-party-administered (SBW Consulting), direct
installation/audit program, providing customer energy efficiency opportunities by:
1) Directly installing appropriate energy-saving measures at each target site
2) Conducting a brief onsite audit to identlfy customer opportunities and interest in existing
Avista programs
3) Providing materials and contact information so that customers are able to follow up with
additional energy efficiency measures under existing programs.
Direct-install measures include:
. Faucet aerators
. Showerheads
. Pre-rinse spray valves
. Screw-in LEDs
. Smart power strips
. CoolerMisers
. VendingMisers
The evaluation team conducted onsite verification, documentation audits, and engineering
analysis to determine verified gross savings for each measure in the program.
4.5.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
A total of 3,885 unique measures were installed at approximately 1,382 unique premises
through the Small Business program in ldaho during 2017. Table 4-21 and Figure 4-5
summarize Avista's 2017 Small Business Program reported electric energy impacts by measure
type.
o Noonr lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 60
SECTION 4 NONRESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Table 4-21:2017 Small Business Program Reported Energy Savings by Measure
Faucet Aerator 20%
Showerheads 3%
Spray Valve 4%
Smart Power Strip 6%
Lighting 55%
Vending Miser 12%
Total 100%
Figure 4-5: Small Business Program Reported Energy Savings Shares
4%
I Faucet Aerator
r Showerheads
r Spray Valve
Smart Power Strip
r Lighting
r Vending Miser
4.5.3 Methodology
The gross program energy impacts for the Small Business program were evaluated through a
combination of documentation audits and onsite inspections of a representative sample of
completed program projects.
20o/o
1 ,105 306,366
66 41,276
43 54,590
515 84,121
2,053 825,237
'103 '186,992
3,885 l,4gg,5g3
2017 Reported
Unique Measure
Count
2017 Reported
Energy Savings
(kwh)
% Electric
SavingsMeasure
arNonnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 61
--6o/o
SECTION 4 NON RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
4.5.3.1 Sampling
The evaluation team selected a simple random sample of 39 project sites for the impact
evaluation of the Small Business program. Onsite verification was performed on a sub-sample
of 18 sites. The 39 sampled project sites collectively accounted for a total of 679 unique electric
measures and 187 unique natural gas saving measures, as reported by the program
implementer. Table 4-22 summarizes the achieved sample size.
Table 4-22: Smal! Business Program lmpact Evaluation Achieved Sample
Small Business 18
4.5.3.2 DocumentAudits
The evaluation team conducted a review of the project documentation for each sampled project,
including invoices, savings calculations, work order forms, equipment specification sheets, and
any other project records that may exist. Thorough review of this documentation was the first
crucial step in evaluation of each project.
4.5.3.3 Onsite lnspections
The impact evaluation activities included telephone surveys, documentation audits, and onsite
inspections for the entire sample. A telephone survey served as an introduction to the
evaluation activities and was used to confirm that the customer participated in the program,
confirm the appropriate contact, and to verify basic information such as building type and
building size. Arrangements for onsite inspections were then made during the telephone survey
The onsite inspections were used to determine whether:
. The measure tracking database correctly represented the work that was done at each
site
. The measures remained installed and were operational
. There were any opportunities for measure installation that were missed
Field engineers were equipped with a custom field data collection tool designed to capture the
relevant data points for each measure included in the program. Table 4-23 summarizes the
information that was collected for each measure type during the onsite inspection. All
parameters needed to support the savings analysis of a project were collected, including, but
not limited to, fixture counts, hours of operation, and water heater fuel type.
a No(.onr lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 62
Program Document Audit On-Site
Verification
39
SECTION 4 NONRESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Table 4-23: Small Business Program Onsite Data Collection
All Facilities
Number of occupants
Business Type
Operating Hours, posted or otherwise
Water Heater Type (Tank or Tankless)
Water Heater Fuel Type (Natural Gas or Electric)
Lighting
Quantity of Lamps lnstalled
Quantity of Lamps Decommissioned
Lighting Hours of Use
Pre- and Post-retrofit Lamp Wattage
Quantity of Efficient Fixtu res/Aerators I nstalled
Quantity of Efficient Fixtu res/Aerators Decommissioned
Device Flow Rate
Water Heater Type
Facility Hot Water Load
Tier 1 Smart Power Strips
Quantity lnstalled
Quantity Decommissioned
Connected Plug Loads
Baseline Conditions
4.5.3.4 lmpact Analysis Methods
The evaluation team estimated gross verified savings using the field verified quantities and the
program-specified deemed savings value for each measure. The deemed savings values used
by the program originate from a variety of sources including (UES) measures from the Regional
Technical Forum (RTF), California DEER databases, and the findings of the 2014-2015 lmpact
Evaluation. Verified energy savings were generally calculated for each measure using Equation
4-7:
Equation 4-7: Small Business Program Energy Savings Calculation
LkWh - Quantit! Verif ted x kWh Saued/Untt
Where
Quantity Verified = Quantity of devices/fixtures/lamps verified onsite
kWh Saved = Program-stipulated electric energy (kwh) saved per unit installed
4.5.4 Findings and Recommendations
The gross verified electric energy savings for the sample of reviewed projects resulted in an
overall program realization rate of 103%. Realization rates for any measure wherein more than
5 quantities were reviewed are presented in Table 4-24.
5 http,//***.d"eresources.com/
Faucet Aerators
Pre-rinse Sprayers
Showerheads
Measure Type Key Parameters
o Noronf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 63
SECTION 4 NON RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Table 4-24: Small Business Program Realization Rate Summary
Faucet Aerators
Smart Power Strip 12%
Total Program 12o/o
*Also includes 5 measures
and Showerheads
Spray Valves,
The evaluation team found a greater than 1O0o/o realization rate for the majority of electric
measures assessed. The evaluation team understands that the Small Business program
implementer applied the realization rates and decommissioned rates from the 2014-2015
evaluation to the deemed savings values noted in Avista's Technical Reference manual. The
evaluation team utilized the deemed savings value per measure and applied the persistence
rate found during the current evaluation to the TRM value, therefore resulting in a gross verified
savings values greater than the reported values. ln summary, the Small Business program
implementer improved their tracking of decommissioned measures in the 2016-2017 biennium.
The following subsection outlines the persistence rates found for the current evaluation.
4.5.4.1 lnstallation Persistence
The program implementer keeps track of measures that are decommissioned by program
participants, when program participants inform the implementer that they have removed
measures. The evaluation team evaluated the persistence of measures installed for program
participants, or the percent of measures that were removed by participants wherein the
implementer was not informed of the removal. Table 4-25 provides a summary of the reported
installation quantities, the verified installation quantities, and the persistence rate for all
measures where greater than 10 measure quantities were evaluated. Overall, the program had
a high persistence rate with 98% of the total quantity of measures still installed at the time of the
evaluation activities.
Table 4-25: Small Business lnstallation Persistence
Faucet Aerator (0.5 GPM)100%
Faucet Aerator (1.0 GPM)92%
Showerhead 95%
Lighting 99%
Overal!
*lncludes measures savings
Table 4-26 shows the total gross verified savings for the Small Business Program in total.
98%
gas
69 101%
10 112%
595 107%
679*103o/o
Electric
Energy
Realization
Rate
Relative
Precision (90%
Confidence)
Measure Sampled
Quantities
120 120
37 34
22 21
595 588
774 761
Sample
Reported
Quantity*
Sample Verified
Quantity
Persistence
RateMeasure
o Nor(,inr lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 64
SECTION 4 NONRESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Table 4-26: Small Business Program Gross lmpact Evaluation Results
Small Business 1,550,762
4.6 Nonresidential Sector Results Summary
Table 4-27 lists the gross verified savings for each of Avista's nonresidential programs in ldaho
in 2017 . The ldaho electric nonresidential sector achieved an 85% realization rate and the
relative precision of the program-level electric realization rate was t12o/o at the 90% confidence
level
Table 4-27: Nonresidential Program Gross lmpact Evaluation Results
Energy Smart Grocer 1,128,530
Food Service Equipment 52,534
Green Motors 36,743
Motor Controls HVAC 74,241
Prescriptive Lighting 23, 1 19,693
Commercial lnsulation 20,409
Air Guardian 381,527
Small Business 1,550,762
Site Specific 10,172,297
Total Nonresidential 36,536,737
1,498,583 103%
2017 Reported
Savings (kWh)
2017 Gross Verified
Savings (kWh)Program Realization Rate
1,166,822 97%
54,317 97%
37,990 97%
76,760 97%
28,738,773 80%
21j02 97%
394,473 97%
1,498,583 103o/o
11,078,845 92%
43,067,665 85%
Idaho Electric
Nonresidential Program
2017 Reported Savings
(kwh)
2017 Verified Gross
Savings (kWh)Realization Rate
oNe@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 65
5 Residential lmpact Evaluation
The following sections outline the impact evaluation methodology and findings for each of the
evaluated residential programs and the low income program.
5.1 Overuiew
Avista offered six electric incentive-based residential programs, one residential behavioral
program (Home Energy Reports), and the low income program in their ldaho service territory in
2017. The reported savings for these residential programs are summarized in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1: Residential Program Reported Savings
HVAC
Water Heat*
ENERGY STAR Homes
Fuel Efficiency
Lighting**
Shell
Home Energy Reports***
Low lncome****
Residential Total
*lncludes counts for both projects and Simple Steps showerheads**Denotes bulb count and includes Simple Steps and Giveaway***Number of participants in the Treatment in April, 2016****lncludes both projects and counts of bulbs
The Lighting program contributes the largest share of the reported savings, 46Yo as shown in
Figure 5-1. Fuel Efficiency is the next largest contributor at 36%.
547 574,073
760 74,788
40 154,383
318 2,739,765
164,194 3,452,626
96 171,392
21,338 752,330
3,986 402,400
191,279 9,321,755
ldaho Electric Program 2017 Participation
Count
2017 Reported Savings
(kwh)
crNoonf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 66
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Figure 5-1:2017 lD Residential Program Reported Energy Savings Shares
5.3o/o 7.6yo
O.7o/o LAYo2.3o/o 2.O%
36.2o/o
I HVAC
I Water Heat
r ENERGY STAR Homes
r Fuel Efficiency
I Lighting
Shell
r Behavioral
I Low lncome
45.60/o
The evaluation team designed a sampling strategy for these programs placing the most
emphasis on the programs with the highest projected savings and the highest level of
uncertainty. As part of the evaluation activities, document audits and telephone surveys were
conducted, as shown in Table 5-2. Engineering activities included review of savings calculation
methodology and assumptions, utility bill analysis, and energy savings analysis.
Table 5-2: Residential Program Achieved Evaluation Sample
HVAC Program
Water Heat Program
ENERGY STAR Homes
Fuel Efficiency
Residential Lighting Program
Shell Program
Home Energy Reports
Low lncome
27.6%113
census 59
14.4%68
11 .5o/o 76 45
CENSUS
44.9o/o 83 43
6.1%
12.8o/o 127
889.4o/o 526
Electric Residential Program Achieved
c/P
Document
Audit Surveys
o Nofinf
Total
lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 67
SECTION 5 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
5.2 HVAC Program
5.2.1 Overview
Avista internally manages the HVAC program which encourages the implementation of high
efficiency HVAC equipment and smart thermostats through direct incentives issued to the
customer after the measure has been installed. The evaluation team used a combination of
desk reviews and billing analysis to estimate the gross-verified savings for the program.
5.2.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
Participation in the 2017 HVAC program, and resulting energy impacts, are summarized in
Table 5-3 Figure 5-2
Table 5-3: HVAC Program Reported Participation and Savings
E Smart Thermostat 34,800
Electric to Air Source Heat Pump 247,233
Electric to Ductless Heat Pump 137,799
Variable Speed Motor 154,241
Total
Figure 5-2:2017 HVAC Program Reported Energy Saving Shares
6.1%
26.9%
43.!%
r E Smart Thermostat
r Electric to Air Source Heat Pump
r Electric to Ductless Heat Pump
I Variable Speed Motor
24.O%
52
67
61
367
547 574,073
2017 Reported
Measure Gount
2017 Reported Savings
(kwh)Measure
oNexanf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 68
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
5.2.3 Methodology
The evaluation team investigated measures under the residential HVAC program separately but
utilized similar methods across multiple measures. The following four measure categories were
analyzed:
Air Source Heat Pump (ASHP)
NaturalGas Furnace
Electric Variable Speed Motor
Smart Thermostat
We conducted 1 13 document audits as part of our evaluation activities. As discussed in Section
3.4.1, these document audits were conducted to confirm participation in the program, confirm
efficiency levels of installed equipment as applicable, check that Avista reported data matched
project files and that Avista is reporting the savings value for each applicable measure as noted
in their Technical Reference Manual (TRM). The evaluation team also conducted a review of
Avista's complete 2016 and 2A17 program databases to check for errors in measure-level
reporting.
5.2.3.1 RegionalTechnical Forum Review
With the exception of variable speed motors, each measure rebated in the HVAC program has a
stipulated deemed savings value provided in the Regional Technical Forum (RTF). As Avista
programs may claim RTF savings for applicable measures, the evaluation team reviewed RTF
measure workbooks for air source heat pumps, ductless heat pumps, and smart thermostats.
The evaluation team referenced RTF workbooks that corresponded to the 2016-2017 biennium.
Based on the review, the evaluation team cited the following per unit savings to verify the HVAC
program impacts presented in Error! Reference source not found..
Table 5-4: RTF Deemed Savings for HVAC Program
E Smart Thermostat '1.0
Electric to Air Source
Heat Pump 4.1
Electric to Ductless Heat
Pump 4.1
The variable speed motor savings were deemed based on the program reported savings as no
RTF value was available.
5.2.4 Findings and Recommendations
The findings from the document audits and database review found that all records matched
between the Avista reported database and the project documentation. Additionally, we reviewed
participant consumption data and found participants averaged approximately 20,945 kWh
2549Electric forced air furnace or heat pump;
retail or direct install
23,605
Electric forced air furnace with central
air conditioner - house with good
insulation
2,259 Zonal heating/cooling 2
Per Unit
Saving (kWh)
Heating/
Cooling
Zone
Workbook
VersionMeasureBaseline
a Nor(,inr lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 69
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
annual consumption during the pretreatment period. This level of annual consumption indicates
a likely high saturation of electric resistance heating in customer homes.
Table 5-5 outlines the program reported and gross verified savings value for each measure in
the HVAC program. For the 2017 program year, the evaluation team found a 98o/o realization
rate across the entire HVAC program. Air source heat pumps achieved a realization rate of g8%
while smart thermostats achieved an 82Yo realization rate. Ductless heat pumps and variable
speed motors both achieved nearly a 100o/o realization rate. The realization rates for air source
heat pumps and smart thermostats are due primarily to the fact that reported savings were
adjusted midstream during the 2016-2017 biennium.
Table 5-5:2017 lD HVAC Program Gross Verified Savings
E Smart Thermostat 28,548
Electric to Air Source Heat Pump 241,535
Electric to Ductless Heat Pump 137,799
Variable Speed Motor 157,443
TOTAL 565,325
34,800 82%
247,233 98%
137,799 100%
154,241 102o/o
574,073 98%
2017 Reported
Savings (kWh)
2017 Gross
Verified
Savings (kWh)
Measure
o No@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 70
Realization
Rate
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
5.3 Water Heat Program
5.3.1 Overvlew
The evaluation team's assessment of the Water Heat program included analysis and verification
of electric water heating-related measures offered by Avista including clothes washers, electric
water heaters, and low flow showerheads. lncentives for both clothes washers and showerhead
measures were offered through the Simple Steps upstream program.
5.3.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
Participation in the 2017 Waler Heat program included distinct showerhead and clothes washer
counts from Simple Steps, and rebated water heaters offered directly through Avista. Table 5-6
and Figure 5-3 summarizes Avista's 2017 Water Heat program participation and energy
impacts.
Table 5-6:2017 Water Heat Reported Participation and Savings
Heat Pump Water Heater '1,306
Simple Steps Showerheads*50,925
Simple Steps Clothes Washers 22,557
Total
'lnclusive of 1.5, 1.75, and 2.0 gpm low flow
Figure 5-3:2017 Water Heat Program Reported Participation Energy Saving Shares
1..7%
30.2%
r Heat Pump Water Heater
r Simple Steps Showerheads
r Simple Steps Clothes washers
68.t%
5.3.3 Methodology
The evaluation team performed verification of the program measures through two distinct
methods based on whether the measure was rebated by Avista or purchased through the
Simple Steps retail program.
Verification of Avista rebated measures is designed to confirm the program tracking database is
aligned with project documentation. This verification included a review of sampled project
2
449
309
760 74,788
2017 Reported Measure
Count
2017 Reported Savings
(kwh)Measure
oNexonr lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-20'17 Energy Efficiency Programs 71
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
documentation (project application materials and supporting invoices), survey resultsl, and a
participation database review. These sources were used to compare reported energy savings
and unit efflciency to assess if the data recorded in the program tracking database was
accurate.
Simple Steps showerheads and clothes washers were verified using deemed savings values
from the Simple Steps database as reported to Avista. This database review included a cross-
reference with the RTF-sourced BPA database from which Simple Steps sourced savings
values (as diagrammed in Figure 5-8 in Section 5.6.3).
5.3.4 Findings and Recommendations
Based on the database reviews for both Simple Steps and Avista rebated Water Heat
measures, the evaluation team did not identify any errors. The evaluation team assessed and
agreed with the savings value being reported for the Simple Steps clothes washer and electric
water heater measures. Therefore, these measures have been assigned a 100% realization
rate.
The evaluation team also assessed and agreed with the savings value being reported at each
measure level for Simple Steps showerheads. However, Avista assumes that 50% of Simple
Steps showerheads are tied to an electric Water Heater. The evaluation team assumes 53.44%
of showerheads are tied to an electric water heater per the RBSA2, which results in a 107o/o
realization rate for this measure. The total program realization rate and savings are presented in
Table 5-7.
Table 5-7: Water Heat Program Gross Verified Savings
Heat Pump Water Heater 1,306
Simple Steps Showerheads 54,431
Simple Steps Clothes Washers 22,557
Total 78,294
5.4 ENERGY STAR@ Homes
5.4.1 Overview
The ENERGY STAR@ Homes program provided new home buyers with an $800 rebate for an
ENERGY STAR ECO-rated new manufactured home or $1,000 for an ENERGY STAR stick-
built home. Reported energy saving assumptions did not change for the ENERGY STAR Homes
program between the 2014-2015 and 2016-2017 program years. As the program parameters
1 The 2Ot6-Z0t7 evaluation's iaeighted sampling approach did not specifically target water heat participants; horrr,ever, 27
participants targeted for the sample also reported having installed a water heat related measure during the evaluation timeframe.
2 hltps://neea.org/docs/reports/residentlal-building-stock-assessment-single-family-characteristics-and-energy-use.pdf?sfursn=8
1,306 100%
107%50,925
100%22,557
74,788 105%
2017 Reported
Savings (kWh)
Realization
Rate (%)
2017 Gross
Verified
Savings (kWh)
Measure
o NorunT lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 72
SECTION 5 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
did not change, the evaluation team conducted a document review and database review for
2016-2017 participants and used the realization rate from the 2014-2015 evaluation cycle to
calculate verified savings.
5.4.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
Participation and energy impacts in the 2017 ENERGY STAR Homes program are summarized
in Table 5-8 and Figure 5-4 below.
Table 5-8:2016-2017 ENERGY STAR@ Homes Reported Participation and Savings
E Energy Star Home - Manufactured, Fumace 130,093
E Energy Star Home - Manufactured, Heat Pump 4,390
E Energy Star Home - Stick Built, lD 19,900
TOTAL 154,383
Figure 5-4:2017 ENERGY STAR@ Homes Program Reported Energy Saving Shares
72-9Yo
2.8o/o
r E Energy Star Home - Manufactured, Furnace
I E Energy Star Home - Manufactured, Heat Pump
I E Energy Star Home - Stick Built, lD
84.3o/o
5.4.3 Methodology
The evaluation team conducted a document audit of 683 ENERGY STAR Homes application
materials along with a participation database review to ensure accurate program savings values
were recorded. The document audit and database review did not find any errors in reporting of
savings values for ldaho Electric 2016-2017 ENERGY STAR Homes participants. As the
ENERGY STAR Homes program qualification and savings parameters did not change between
3 lncluded projects in both WA and lD
O NeYOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 73
'19
1
20
40
2017 Reported
Participation Count
2017 Reported Savings
(kwh)Measure
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
the 2014-2015 and 2016-2017 biennium, the evaluation team utilized the realization rate for
ENERGY STAR Homes from the 2014-2015 evaluation cycle to calculate verified savings for
the 2016-2017 biennium. For the analysis method used in the prior evaluation, the evaluation
team collected Home Energy Rating System (HERS) lndex scores for participating ENERGY
STAR Homes. A baseline HERS lndex score of 80 was assumed as standard for non-program
new meter hookups. The evaluation team estimated weather normalized annual consumption
for ENERGY STAR Homes using the same basic model specification shown in Equation 3-3
and Equation 3-4. Because these newly built homes do not have a pre-retrofit period, only "post-
retrofit" consumption was estimated by the modela.
Equation 5-1 shows the calculation of estimated consumption absent the program.
Equation 5-1: Calculation of Consumption Absent Program
kwh*o=kwhot HERSnase
' HERSHems
Table 5-9 provides additional information about the terms in Equation 5-1
Table 5'9: Calculation of Consumption Absent Program Definition of Terms
kWhrup Estimated electric energy consumption in home absent the program
kWhp Weather normalized annual consumption of the home
HERSease 2012IECC HERS lndex Score for climate zone 5 = 80
H ERSnome HERS lndex Score for the home
Table 5-10 shows the 2014-2015 evaluation calculations for electric savings and realization rate
for ENERGY STAR Stick Built homes in ldaho.
Table 5-10: ENERGY STAR Home: Results for Stick Built homes in ldaho lrom 2014-2015
Evaluation
102%
Annual consumption and realization rate for ENERGY STAR - Manufactured, Furnace homes
from the 2014-2015 program evaluation are summarized in Table 5-1 1. Because of the small
participation for the ENERGY STAR Manufactured, Heat Pump homes (three homes
4 To determine verified energy savings, a recommendation from lhe 2014-2015 evaluation was that Avista track more detailed
characteristics of the ENERGY STAR@ program homes and non-program homes to allow for a reliable non-participant comparison
group billing analysis approach, which is preferred compared to the HERS index score approach utilized in that evaluation. Avista's
response to the recommendation was that the regional program effort leverages regional savings estimates and Avista does not
have access to additional data points.
2
Variable Definition
6,8614,734 11,694 4,833 't.7
n Homes Ex Ante kWh Annual kwh l Base kWh : Delta kWh Weight Realization
Rate
L'NOroNT lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 74
SECTION 5 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
participated from 2014-2017), the evaluation team applied the same realization to the two
participants in 2016-2017 .
Table 5-11: ENERGY STAR Home: Results for Furnaces in Manufactured Homes from
2014-2015 Evaluation
17 129%
5.4.4 Findings and Recommendations
Table 5-12 outlines the program reported and gross verified savings value for each measure in
the ENERGY STAR homes program.
Table 5-12: ENERGY STAR@ Homes Program Gross Verified Savings
E Energy Star
Home: Manufactured, Furnace 167,820
Energy Star Home:
Manufactured, Heat Pump 5,663
Energy Star Home: Stick Built 20,298
TOTAL 193,781
Similar to recommendations in the 2014-2015 evaluation, a billing analysis would be the
preferred method to assess savings as a result of ENERGY STAR Homes measures. ln order to
conduct a reliable billing analysis, a non-program comparison group is needed to allow for a
reliable non-participant comparison group billing analysis approach. This data could be made
available via the Avista billing database should Avista track the following for new service point
lD's: identifying new construction accounts with a flag, and collecting basic home information
such as square footage and number of stories.
5.5 Fue! Efficiency
5.5.1 Overview
The fuel efficiency program offers a rebate for the conversion of electric resistance heat to
natural gas as well as the conversion of electric hot water heaters to natural gas models. The
evaluation team conducted a document review, database review, telephone surveys, and a
billing analysis on a sample of the population in order to estimate the gross verified savings for
the program.
6,847 14,173 23,016 8,843 't.6
n Homes : Ex Ante kWh Annual kWh i Base kWh Delta kWh Weight Realization
Rate
130,093 129%
4,390 129%
19,900 102%
154,383 1260/o
2017
Reported
Savings
(kwh)
2017 Gross
Verified
Savings
(kwh)
Measure Realization
Rate
o No/onr lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 75
SECTION 5 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
5.5.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
Participation in the 2017 Fuel Efficiency program, and resulting energy impacts, is summarized
in Table 5-13 and Figure 5-5.
Table 5-13:2017 Fuel Efficiency Reported Participation and Savings
Electric to Natural Gas Furnace 752,635
Electric to Natural Gas Fumace & Water Heater 1,552,745
Electric to Natural Gas Wall Heater 114,294
Electric to Natural Gas Water Heater 320,091
Tota!
Figure 5-5:2017 Fuel Efficiency Program Reported Energy Saving Shares
17.7o/o
.5%r E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace
r E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace & Water Heat
r E Electric To Natural Gas Wall Heater
I E Electric To Natural Gas Water Heater
5.5.3 Methodology
The Fuel Efficiency program is a dynamic offering because participants modify the fuel source
used for space heating and/or water heating within their residences. These measures produce a
large reduction in electric consumption, which is offset by increased consumption of natural gas.
The evaluation team examined the electric savings regression analysis of billing data provided
by Avista.
95
126
't3
84
318 2,739,765
2017 Reported
Measure Count
2017 Reported
Savings (kWh)Measure
a Noronf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 76
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
5.5.4 Program billing analysis
The evaluation team requested monthly consumption records for each account that received a
Fuel Efficiency rebate (both Washington and ldaho) from Avista in 2016 and 2017. Billing
records were requested for January 2015 through February 2018 to maximize the quantity of
pre- and post-retrofit data available. We filtered customers who participated in other Avista
programs in order to capture effects of only the Fuel Efficiency program. This resulted in the
removal of several participants in the analysis as the Fuel Efficiency program and HVAC
program incent measures that are easily coupled. For example, while the Fuel Efficiency
program provides a customer with an incentive to switch from electric heating to a natural gas
furnace, the HVAC program provides an incentive to upgrade to a high efficient natural gas
furnace as well as a variable speed motor fan. However, the evaluation team did include Fuel
Efficiency participants who only upgraded to a high efficiency gas furnace through the HVAC
program. The evaluation team estimated impacts using the general form of the electric
regression model as shown in Section 3.4.4 of this report and the detailed regression outputs
are presented in Appendix C.
5.5.5 Findings and Recommendations
Error! Reference source not found. below illustrates program impacts observed in the 2017
program year. The figure depicts significant impacts during the heating season as customers
replaced their electric-fueled space heating with gas-fueled furnaces. Also of note is the evident
baseline savings observed during the summer months reflecting the conversion from electric
water heating to gas water heating.
Figure 5-6: Fuel Efficiency Post-treatment Consumption
Fuel Efficiency lmpacts
-Qsp11el -Treatment -lmpact
Table 5-14 outlines the program reported and gross verified savings value for each measure in
the Fuel Efficiency program. The electric realization rate for the program is estimated at620/o
with a relative precision of t7.1o/o at the 90% confidence level.
The program realization rate remained the same relative to the prior evaluation findings. We
believe this outcome is primarily the result of two issues:
O NeYOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
s00
0
-c
=--
->sco
=oaol!
o
""${-.i".t".iri$"..-sl5s
77
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Reported savings for the 2016-2017 program cycle were on-average high as the
program savings value was initially reduced in mid-Q2 2016 and then further reduced
mid-Ql of 2017 to be in alignment with evaluation results provided from the previous
program cycle.
Annual average household consumption was on average 18% lower for participants in
the 2016-2017 program cycle relative to participants in the prior program cycle. lf
participant consumption had been similar to the previous biennium, the program
realization rate would have been approximately 74o/o.
These two issues ultimately suppress the program realization rate. While the program reported
savings per participant were estimated at 9,865 kWh on average, the evaluation team ultimately
estimated average impacts per customer at 6,527 kWh.
For future program cycles, the evaluation team recommends Avista reduce their reported
savings for the Fuel Efficiency program. Moreover, customer profiling will help gauge anticipated
savings by understanding customers' annual consumption profile and the expected percent
savings that can occur through implementation of the Fuel Efficiency program measures.
Table 5-14: Fuel Efficiency Program Gross Verified Savings
2,739,765 1,709,229
5.6 Residential Lighting Program
5.6.1 Overview
ln 2017, the Avista residential lighting program was comprised the Simple Steps, Smart
SavingsrM (Simple Steps) program. The Simple Steps program provides discounts to
manufacturers to lower the price of efficient light bulbs, light fixtures, showerheads, and
appliances. This program, launched by Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and
administered by CLEAResult, operates across the Pacific Northwest. Utilities may select which
reduced-price items to include in their territory. Avista's offerings included a selection of general
and special CFLs, LED light fixtures, and LED bulbs that are clearly identified with a sticker
indicating they are part of the Simple Steps, Smart Savings program. Retailers-big-box stores,
regional chains, and national chains-are the primary recipients of the products.
5.6.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
Table 5-15 and Figure 5-5 summarize Avista's 2017 residential lighting program participation
and energy impacts.
at Nor(,,nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 78
62%
20't7 Reported
Savings (kWh)
2017 Gross
Verified Savings
(kwh)
Realization Rate
I
SECTION 5 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Table 5-15:2017 Residential Lighting Reported Participation and Savings
Simple Steps Bulbs - CFL
Simple Steps Bulbs - LED
Simple Steps Fixtures - LED
Total 164,194 3,452,626
Figure 5-7: Distribution of Lighting Energy Savings by Technology Type and Program
7.70/o
16.60/o
r Simple Steps Bulbs - CFL
r Simple Steps Bulbs - LED
r Simple Steps Fixtures - LED
81.1%
Reported energy savings are based on a per-lamp or fixture basis, using a deemed value for
each lamp product type (i.e. bulb type and wattage) based on legacy regional technical forum
values.
5.6.3 Methodology
The Residential Lighting program consisted of the Simple Steps program in 2017. The
evaluation team conducted a database review (as diagrammed in Figure 5-8) in two steps. First
the Simple Steps participation database as reported to Avista was reviewed for accuracy and
consistency with reported energy savings values per bulb (step 1). Then the Simple Steps
savings values per bulb and unique lighting type identifier were compared to the RTF-sourced
BPA UES Database to ensure Simple Steps is importing correct values into the Avista
participation database (step 2).
57,1934,298
140,472 2,820,854
574,57919,424
Delivery Stream - Measure 2016-2017 Reported
Measure Count (Bulbs)
2016-2017 Reported
Savings (kWh)
o No@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 79
SECTION 5 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Figure 5-8: Process of the Simple Steps Database Review
5.6.4 Findings and Recommendations
The evaluation team found accurate reporting of lighting sales quantities and their associated
savings values between the BPA UES Database and the Simple Steps Participation Database
submitted to Avista. The verified Simple Steps savings values result in an overall electric
realization rate of 100o/ofor the Residential Lighting program, as shown in Table 5-16.
Table 5-16: Residential Lighting Realization Rates and Gross Verified Savings
Simple Steps Bulbs - CFL 57,1 93
Simple Steps Bulbs - LED 2,820,854
Simple Steps Fixtures - LED 574,579
Total 3,452,626
5.7 Shell Program
5.7.1 Overview
Avista's internally managed shell program incentivizes measures that improve the integrity of
the home's envelope such as insulation (attic, floor and wall), and window replacements. The
evaluation team conducted a database review, document audits, customer telephone surveys,
and a billing analysis to estimate the gross verified savings for the program.
5.7.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
Participation and resulting energy impacts from the 2017 Shell program is presented below in
Table 5-17 and Figure 5-9.
.Step 2 - Do reported savings match
RTF-sourced BPA values?BPA UES Database
.Step 1 - Review for accuracySimple Steps Pa rticipation Data base
57,1 93 lOOo/o
2,820,854 100%
574,579 100%
3,452,626 r00%
2017 Reported
Savings (kWh)
2017 Gross
Verified Savings
(kwh)
Delivery Stream - Measure Realization Rate
L'NE)QN|lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 80
Table 5-17:2017 Shell Program Reported Participation and Savings
E Attic lnsulation
E Window Replacement from Double Pane w/ Electric Heat
E Window Replacement from Single Pane w/ Electric Heat
TOTAL
Figure 5-9:2017 Shell Program Reported Energy Saving Shares
3.O%
1,1,.70/o
r E Attic lnsulation
r E Window Replc from Double Pane w/ Electric Heat
r E Window Replc from Single Pane w/ Electric Heat
85.3%
5.7.3 Methodology
The evaluation team conducted 68 document audits as part of our evaluation activities. As
discussed in Section 3.4.1, these document audits were conducted to confirm participation in
the program, confirm efficiency levels of installed equipment as applicable, check that Avista
reported data matched project files and that Avista is reporting the savings value for each
applicable measure as noted in their Technical Reference Manual (TRM). The evaluation team
also conducted a review of Avista's complete 2016 and 2017 program databases to check for
errors in measure-level reporting.
5.7.3.1 Program billing analysis
Following the same method used to estimate impacts for the HVAC and Fuel Efficiency
programs, the evaluation team requested monthly consumption records for each account that
received a Shell rebate (both Washington and ldaho) from Avista in 2016 and2017. Billing
records were requested for January 2015 through February 2018 to maximize the quantity of
pre- and post-retrofit data available. We filtered customers who participated in other Avista
programs in order to capture effects of only the Shell program. The evaluation team estimated
impacts by selecting a matched comparison group of non-participants to conduct a difference in
LrNoonf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 81
5 5,209
20,046I
83 '146,136
96 171,392
2017 Reported
Measure Count
2017 Reported
Savings (kWh)Measure
SECTION 5 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
SECTION 5 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
differences regression model as discussed in Section 3.4.4 of this report and the detailed
regression outputs are presented in Appendix C.
5.7.4 Findings and Recommendations
Figure 5-10 below illustrates program impacts observed in the 2017 program year. The figure
denotes modest savings during the winter months and minimal savings across the summer
season.
Figure 5-10: Shell Post-Treatment lmpacts
Shell lmpacts
3000.0
2500.0
2000.0
-c
= 1s00.0.Y
1000,0
500.0
0.0
-fe61p31i56n -Participant -lmpact
The electric realization rate for the Shell program was estimated at 27o/o (see Table 5-18). The
relative precision of the program level electric realization rate was t44.9% at the 90%
confidence level. The precision for the analysis suffered largely due to a very low sample of
participants. While the program included 487 customers over 2016 and 2017 between
Washington and ldaho, the analysis was constrained to using just 287 customers who had
sufficient posttreatment data and did not participate in other programs.
The Shell program's realization rate decreased significantly from the prior evaluation, which
found a 62% realization rate. However, the prior evaluation included the UCONS Manufactured
Homes program which helped offset the program's other measures' lower realization rates.
Without the UCONS Manufactured Homes program, the prior evaluation's realization rate for the
Shell program would have been 38%. Additionally, the average reported savings per participant
increased 640/o for the 2016-2017 program cycle; therefore, it is not unexpected that the
realization rate decreased to 27o/o.
Savings from shell improvements should be realized almost exclusively through reductions in
heating and cooling usage within participating homes. The evaluation team recommends Avista
examine planning assumptions about per-home consumption and percent reductions in heating
and cooling loads from shell improvements. lt may be that the percent reduction assumptions
are sound, but they are being applied to an overstated assumption of the average electric HVAC
consumption per home.
oNeYonr lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 20'16-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 82
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Table 5-18:2017 Shell Program Gross Verified Savings
171,392 45,870
5.8 Home Energy Reports Program
5.8.1 Overview
Home Energy Report (HER) programs have been widely shown to obtain savings through
reduced energy consumption among households that receive them. Avista's behavioral program
relies on normative comparisons of energy usage to similar homes to increase awareness of
energy consumption levels and to stimulate recipients to alter their behavior and consume less
energy. The evaluation approach relies on a combination of large sample sizes and random
assignment to enable straightforward quantification of associated energy savings.
HERs provide residential customers with detailed information about how their home uses
energy and includes charts that compare their energy use to that of similar homes. Participants
receive up to seven, but in most cases five or six, home energy reports annually.
The program launched in June 2013. Because of a change in the Avista billing system, reports
were suspended and none were sent out from February to August of 2015. Reports were
reinstated in September 2015 and continued normal mailings through 2017.
Avista added a new cohort of program participants in January 2016. Unless these customers
opt out of the program or move, they will have received reports throughout the duration of the
2016-2017 biennium, beginning in April 2016. This analysis will estimate combined savings from
both the customers that started receiving reports in 2013 and those who started receiving
reports in 2016 for the 2016-2017 biennium. Accordingly, the energy savings from January 2016
through March 2016 are attributed to the customers that started receiving reports in 2013.
Energy savings from April 2016 through December 2017 are comprised of savings from both the
2013 and 2016 cohorts.
ln ldaho, approximately 25,200 treatment and 13,000 control participants were randomly
enrolled in the Behavioral Program in the original 2013 wave. By the start of the 2016-2017
biennium, attrition due to opt outs and account closures reduced the original ldaho treatment
population of 25,200 treatment customers to about 17,500 customers. An additional 8,500
treatment and 8,500 control participants were randomly added to the program in 2016. ln total
33,700 treatment and21,500 control participants have been enrolled in Avista's behavioral
program.
The Oracle program is set up as an "opt out" program, not an "opt in" program, meaning that
while households are randomly selected to receive a HER, they can also choose to opt out. As
with many behavioral programs, some attrition due to both account closure and opting out of the
program is to be expected in the course of program operations. As mentioned above at the start
of the 2016-2017 biennium, attrition due to opt outs and account closures reduced the original
.rNoonf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 83
27%
2017 Reported
Savings (kWh)
2017 Gross
Verified Savings
(kwh)
Realization Rate
SECTION 5 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
population of 25,200 treatment customers to about 17,500 customers. Figure 5-1 1 presents the
number of treatment participants and opt outs as a cumulative percentage of total program
enrollment by month in the post-period. As of December 2017, approximately 2.41% of the
33,696 customers assigned to treatment since program inception in 2013 opted out of the
program.
Figure 5-11: Participation and Cumulative Opt-outs by Month
5.8.2 Methodology
5.8.2.'l Data Sources and Management
To develop estimates of the electric savings attributable to Avista's Behavioral Program, the
evaluation team requested data covering two core components:
1) Participation records: A list of all billing accounts that are part of the initiative,
treatment\control designation, date assigned, service zip code, and any
demographic or rate code status information available in Avista's customer
information system.
2) Consumption History: Monthly electric and gas billing records for each account in
the treatment and control group including the meter read date and number of days
in the billing period. Billing history was requested back to January 2015 for the
2016 wave and back to February 2012for the 2013 wave to ensure adequate pre-
treatment data for both waves.
ln preparation for the impact analysis, the evaluation team combined and cleaned the billing
data provided by Avista. The dataset included 38,192 distinct accounts from the original 2013
wave, 25,1 96 of which were assigned to the treatment group and 12,996 of which were
assigned to the controlgroup. The dataset also included 17,000 distinct accounts from the 2016
wave of participants, with 8,500 assigned to both the treatment and control groups. ln total, the
A NO@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Etectric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 84
n Cumulative Opt-outs (%)
-Customers
J ".n".."f J sd oof ,J ,J ".fMonth
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
.a" ocot'
6.OO%
5.OO%
4.00o/o
3.00%
2.00%
t.00%
0.00%
P
o!,!,q,ox
Ptr(!
CL
I.E
Lt!o-
SECTION 5 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
dataset contained 55,192 unique accounts to be evaluated, which is comprised of 33,696
treatment participants and 21,496 control customers.
The participation numbers used to calculate the aggregate impacts for each program month is
the number of unique treatment accounts with billing data that month. Treatment group homes
that opted out of the program were not removed from the impact analysis or the participation
counts. Although this may seem counterintuitive, it is necessary to preserve the integrity of the
RCT design because control group homes do not have the option to opt out and there is no way
to determine which control group homes would opt out if they were assigned to treatment. This
approach dilutes the per-home impacts to some extent because only - 99% of the participants
were actively receiving HERs at a given time, but this is negated by including all active accounts
in the estimation of aggregate impacts.
Like most utilities, Avista does not bill its customers for usage within a standard calendar month
interval. lnstead, billing cycles are a function of meter read dates and vary across accounts.
Since the interval between meter reads vary by customer and by month, the evaluation team
"calendarized" the usage data to reflect each calendar month, so that all accounts represent
usage on a uniform basis. The calendarization process includes expanding usage data to daily
usage, splitting the billing month's usage uniformly among the days between reads. The
average daily usage for each calendar month is then calculated, by taking the average of daily
usage within the calendar month. A similar calendarization process was performed on the gas
billing data.
5.8.2.2 Equivalence Testing
The next step in the evaluation team's analysis approach was to perform a detailed review of
the assignment randomization by comparing consumption patterns for the treatment and control
group for a year prior to exposure to treatment. This pre-treatment period differs by wave: the
pre-period for the 2013 wave is June 20121o May 2013 while the pre-treatment period for the
2016 wave is April 2015 to March 2016. The purpose of this analysis is to determine if structural
differences in electricity consumption existed between the treatment and control group before
HER exposure. Pre-treatment differences can take the form of total annual consumption or
variation in the seasonality of consumption. The findings of this step are of critical importance
because they will determine the appropriate model specification to estimate savings. The results
of the pre-treatment equivalence tests are presented separately by cohort (2013 and 2016)
since the pretreatment timeframe differs due to the difference in timing of when participants
began receiving reports. Table 5-19 displays the results of a difference in means two-sided t-
test by month for the 2013 cohort to validate the randomization and confirms that there is no
significant difference in usage between the treatment and control groups in the pre-treatment
period June 2012 through May 2013. The results confirm that the randomization is robust and
that there is no real difference in the energy consumption of the two groups.
CINexanr lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 85
35.48 35.46 -0.1 1
38.36 38.32 -0.19
37.59 37.5 -0.44
29.47 29.37 -0.47
33.64 33.5 -0.82
50.17 50.03 -0.63
62.84 62.67 -0.49
63.32 63.28 -0.14
57.12 57.07 -0.18
49.69 49.71 0.08
43.05 43.08 0.13
36.66 36.69 0.16
Treatment
Average
Daily Usage
Pre period
Gontrol
Average
Daily Usage
Pre period
T-stat P-ValueMonth-
Year
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Table 5-19: Difference in Means t-test Values for the 2013 Wave
I 2.Jun 0.91
124u1 0.85
12-Aug 0.66
12-Sep 0.64
l2-Oct 0.41
0.53
12-Dec 0.62
l3Jan 0.89
13-Feb 0.86
13-Mar 0.94
13-Apr 0.90
{3-May 0.87
Figure 5-12 and Figure 5-13 present usage in the pre-treatment period visually for the 2013
cohort and echoes the results of the statistical test. Figure 5-12 displays the pretreatment
equivalence through a box-plot by displaying a comparison of the control group's mean
consumption and the treatment group's mean consumption broken out by month. The box and
whiskers show that the treatment and control groups not only have indistinguishable mean
consumption, but the variation in consumption is also comparable.
Figure 5-13 further illustrates pre-treatment equivalence by showing nearly identical
consumption patterns for the treatment and control groups in the pre{reatment period
o Nomnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-20'17 Energy Efficiency Programs 86
12-Nov
SECTION 5 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Figure 5-12: Treatment and Control Energy Usage in the Pre-treatment Period - 2013
Cohort
6t2012
7t2012
8t2012
9t2012
10t2012
11t2012
12t2012
1t2013
2t2013
312013
4t2013
512013
030
excludes outside values
60
Daily Usage (kwh)90 120
Control Treatment
Figure 5-13: Treatment and Control Consumption in the Pre-treatment Period -2013Cohort
- Treatmen Control
coo
Efo
oo
6o
0)o)G
o
70
60
50
40
30
20
2012m7 2012m10 2013m1 2013m4
Year-Month
Table 5-20 presents the results of a difference in means two-sided t-test by month for the 2016
cohort to validate the randomization and confirms that there is no significant difference in usage
between the treatment and control groups in the pre-treatment period April 2015 through March
2016. The results confirm that the randomization is also robust for the new cohort and that there
is no real difference in the energy consumption of the treatment and control groups.
o Norunr lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 20'|.6-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 87
SECTION 5 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Table 5-20: Difference in Means t-test Values - 20'16 Cohort
l5-Apr 0.99
15-May
l5-Jun
15Jul
15-Aug
1S-Sep
1S-Oct
15-Nov
1S-Dec
16Jan
1 6-Feb
16-Mar
Figure 5-14 and Figure 5-15 examine usage in the pre-treatment period visually for the 2016
cohort and echoes the results of the statistical tests. Figure 5-14 displays the pre-treatment
equivalence through a box-plot by displaying a comparison of the control group's mean
consumption and the treatment group's mean consumption broken out by month. The box and
whiskers show that the treatment and control groups not only have indistinguishable mean
consumption, but the variation in consumption is also comparable. Figure 5-15 also
demonstrates pre-treatment period equivalence by showing nearly identical consumption
patterns for the treatment and control groups in the pre-treatment period.
0.67
0.42
0.43
0.9s
0.40
0.44
0.83
0.38
0.79
0.57
32.03 32.03 -0.01
30.09 30.01 -0.42
34.43 34.23 -0.81
37.25 37.04 -0.78
33.12 33.1 1 -0.06
29.25 29.40 0.83
31.57 31.73 0.78
40.90 40.97 0.22
48.1 6 48.26 0.26
47.13 47.35 0.57
41.65 41.89 0.72
36.46 36.71 0.88
Treatment
Average
Daily Usage
Pre period
Control
Average
Daily Usage
Pre period
T-stat P-ValueMonth-
Year
L'.' Ner.onf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 88
0.47
SECTION 5 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Figure 5-14: Treatment and Control Energy Usage in the Pre-Period for the 2016 Wave
4t2015
5t2015
6t2015
7t2015
8t2015
9t2015
10t2015
11t2015
12t2015
1t2016
212416
3t2016
0 30 60
Daily Usage (kwh)90 120
f-----l Control Treatment
Figure 5-15: Treatment and Control Consumption in the Pre-Period for the 2016 Wave
- Treatment - Control
70
E
=lz
co
o-
EfU'c
60
50
40
30
'6ooo)(U
o
2015m4 2015m7 2015m10
Year-Month
20'16m1 201
5.8.2.3 RegressionAnalysis
The evaluation team used a lagged dependent variable (LDV) model to estimate savings. The
LDV model is the preferred analysis approach to use when the randomization of homes to
treatment and control is sound and results in groups with equivalent usage prior to HER
exposure, as presented in the section above. lf pre-assignment differences in electric
L'NOroNr lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 89
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
consumption are present, a linear fixed effects regression model (LFER) would have been the
more appropriate model.
The LDV model is a category of specifications in which the dependent variable in the equation is
restricted to the post-test period. The customers' usage prior to the onset of treatment for the
same period (i.e., usage in the same monthly period in the prior year) is entered into the
regression model as an independent variable - thus the name lagged dependent variable model
- and the coefficient for the treatment variable is interpreted as the change in consumption due
to treatment. The specification used is shown in Equation 5-2, and the corresponding variables
are defined in Table 5-21.
Equation 5-2: Lagged Dependent Variable Model Specification
L2n
kWhisy -- Fo * I I lty * Fty * kWhi,1,y-n* Ft,y-n + r * treatmenti * Ir, a s.,
t=7 y=L
Table 5-21: Lagged Dependent Variable Model Definition of Terms
The intercept, or the coefficient on the billing month t, postperiod year indicator variable that is left
out due to collinearity
kwhity Customer i's average daily energy usage in billing month t of the post-period y
Fo
Ity
F,,The coefficient on the billing month t, post-period year indicator variable
kWllii,y-n The lagged usage of customer i in the corresponding billing month t, in the pre-period y-n
Ft,v-n The coefficient for the corresponding billing month t, in the pre-period y-n
treatmenti Treatment variable, equal to one if customer i is in the treatment group and zero if control
lndicator variable that equals one for each monthly billing period t, post-period y and zero
otherwise.
Estimated average daily energy reduction of the treatment group in bill month t for the post-period
v
tit
T
Error term for customer i for bill month t
The average daily treatment effect (z) for each month of the study is multiplied by the number of
active customers in the treatment group times the number of days in that month to estimate the
monthly aggregate savings (MWh). The monthly savings impacts are summed over the study
horizon to produce the total change in energy consumption in treated homes over the period
under study. The results of an overlap analysis discussed below are then subtracted from this
total change in consumption to arrive at the net ex post energy savings attributable to the
behavioral program.
Variable Definition
90A NO(0nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs
SECTION 5 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
5.8.2.4 Overlap Analysis
The ability to serve as a marketing toolfor other energy efficiency initiatives is an important part
of what makes normative comparison reports so attractive to utilities and agencies. The billing
analysis methodology captures all savings at the meter, even those claimed by other programs.
To the extent that the treatment and control groups participate in other Avista programs at a
different rate, the difference in kWh needs to be netted off of the behavioral program impact to
prevent any double-counting or under-statement of savings. For measures promoted by Avista
and tracked at the customer level, the amount of savings overlap is estimated by matching the
treatment and control group customers to the energy efficiency program participation data. Next,
the difference between treatment and controlgroups in rebated savings per home is calculated
and the difference multiplied by the number of treatment group homes.
5.8.3 Findings and Recommendations
5.8.3.1 Per-Home kWh and Percent lmpacts
The evaluation team estimates the average home in the Oracle Behavioral Program saved
approximately 660 kWh of electricity from January 2016 through December 2017. This
represents a2.11% reduction in total electric consumption compared to the control group over
the same period. The 660 kWh and 2.11% impact estimates include HER savings net of savings
from incremental participation in other Avista Energy Efficiency (EE) programs. As explained in
Section 5.8.2.4, an overlap analysis was performed to prevent double-counting of savings that
have already been attributed to another energy-saving program. The overlap analysis found that
treatment group homes participated in energy efficiency programs at a greater rate than the
control group, necessitating a downward adjustment of the impacts. This means a net decrease
in usage for the Oracle Behavioral Program when comparing the treatment to the control.
Therefore, a downward adjustment was applied to each monthly savings estimate based on
differential energy efficiency participation and the greater per-home EE savings for the
treatment group. The dual participation adjustment totaled 743 MWh for all customers over the
24-month period of analysis.
Table 5-22 shows the impact estimates in each month for the average treatment household.
The table also shows the subsequent adjustment for savings attributed the energy efficiency
overlap, totaling 32.76 kWh per household over the biennium.
o Ne,(,(,lnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 91
SECTION 5 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Table 5-22: Per Customer and Per Treated Home Oracle Behavioral Program !mpact
Estimates with EE Adjustments
Jan-1 6 3.11%
Feb-16 2.99o/o
Mar-16 2.85%
Apr-16 2.27o/o
May-'16 2.14%
Jun-1 6 2.22o/o
Jul-16 2.05%
Aug-'16 1.69%
Sep-16 1.77%
Oct-l6 1.89o/o
Nov- 1 6 1 98%
Dec-16
2016 Total 2.260/o
Jan-17 2.10%
Feb-17 2.05%
Mar-l7 1.89%
Apr-17 2.11o/o
May-17 1.9Qo/o
Jun-1 7 1.690/o
Jul-'17 1.57%
Aug-17 1.58%
Sep-'17 1.83%
Oct-17 2.09%
Nov-1 7 2.15%
Dec-1 7 2.610/o
2017 Total 1.96
Biennium Total 2.11%
5.8.3.2 Aggregate lmpacts
The total impact of the Oracle Behavioral Program is calculated by multiplying the per-home
impacts (adjusted for incremental EE participation) for each calendar month by the number of
treatment group homes in that month. Over the twenty-four month period examined by the
evaluation team in this evaluation, participants saved a total of 14,537 MWh of electricity. The
monthly and annualized aggregate savings are shown in Table 5-23.
A NO(olfiT lmpact Evatuation of ldaho Electric 2016-20'17 Energy Efficiency Programs
17,598 55.12 0.00 55.12 1,774
17,522 43.97 0.28 43.69 '1,460
17,439 38.76 0.08 38.68 1,357
25,620 23.92 0.32 23.60 1,040
25,373 21.45 0.39 21.07 982
25,089 22.08 0.48 21.61 975
24,747 22.77 0.57 22.20 1,081
24,450 18.80 0.86 17.94 1,061
24,150 18.'15 1.19 16.96 957
23,912 21.66 '1.'15 20.51 '1,083
23,695 27.94 1.26 26.68 1,346
23,520 40.21 1.35 38.86 1,817
354.83 7.93 346.92 14,993
23,364 41.44 1.21 40.24 1,914
23,238 32.64 1.68 30.96 1,509
23,120 28.51 1 .71 26.80 1,416
22,945 26.14 1.73 24.41 I ,159
22,770 21.91 1.87 20.04 1,054
22,543 19.66 2.22 17.44 1,031
22,307 21.11 2.33 18.78 1,193
22,094 20.39 2.23 18.16 1,148
21,874 20.85 2.18 18.67 1,018
21,690 26.64 2.34 24.30 1,164
21,498 32.67 2.58 30.09 1,397
21,338 45.89 2.74 43.15 1,651
337.85 24.82 313.04 15,654
692.70 32.76 659.95 30,586
kwh
lmpact
per
Customer
kwh
lmpact
from EE
Overlap
Baseline
Usage
per
Customer
(kwh)
% lmpactMonth-
Year
Treatment
Participants
92
kwh
Savings
per
Treated
Home
2.14%
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Table 5-23: Aggregate Oracle Behavioral Program lmpact Estimates with EE Adjustments
Jan-'18 3.1 10/o
Feb-1 8 2.99%
Mar-'18 2.85Yo
Apr-18 2.27o/o
May-18 2.14%
Jun-1 8 2.22%
Jul-18 2.05%
Aug-18 1.690/o
Sep- 1 8 1.77%
Oct-18 1.89%
Nov-1 8 1.98Yo
Dec-1 8 2.14o/o
2016 Total 2.260/o
Jan- 1 8 2.1lYo
Feb-1 8 2.05o/o
Mar-18 1.89%
Apr-18 2.11%
May-18 1.90o/o
Jun-1 8 1.69%
Jul-'18 1.57o/o
Aug-18 1.58%
Sep-1 8 1.83o/o
Oct-18 2.09%
Nov-1 I 2.15%
Dec-1 8 2.61o/o
2017 Total 2.610/o
Biennium Total 2.11%
Because some of the savings observed in the 2016-2017 biennium were already claimed in the
previous biennium because of the assumed measure life of 3 years, these previous
achievements must be netted out to calculate incremental achievements and prevent double-
counting. Ihe 2017 incremental impacts were the calculated net of the 2016 results and actually
produced a small reduction in the biennium savings total. Table 5-24 displays the aggregate
savings in 2016 and 2017 , respectively, net of savings counted in the previous year.
17,598 970 0.00 970 31,2',t6
17,522 770 4.86 766 25,584
17,439 676 1.38 675 23,659
25,620 613 8.32 605 26,636
25,373 544 9.83 535 24,926
25,089 554 1 1.95 542 24,471
24,747 563 14.14 549 26,760
24,450 460 20.99 439 25,935
24,150 438 28.74 410 23,113
23,912 518 27.55 490 25,886
23,695 662 29.92 632 31,895
23,520 946 31.78 914 42,734
7,714 189.46 7,527 332,815
23,364 968 28.16 940 44,709
23,238 759 39.09 719 35,065
23J20 659 39.55 620 32,744
22,945 600 39.80 560 26,594
22,770 499 42.59 456 24,004
22,543 443 50.09 393 23,240
22,307 471 51.87 419 26,607
22,094 451 49.23 401 25,370
21,874 456 47.70 408 22,275
21,690 578 50.82 25,246
21,498 702 55.53 647 30,025
21,338 979 58.49 921 35,225
7,565 552.92 7,012 351,104
15,280 742.38 14,537 683,920
Aggregate
MWh lmpact
for All
Customerc
Aggregate
MWh lmpact
from EE
Overlap
Aggregate
MWh
Savings
for All
Treated
Homes
Aggregate
Baseline
Usage for
At!
Customerc
(MWh)
% lmpactMonth-
Year
Treatment
Participants
o Noronr lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 93
527
SECTION 5 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Table 5-24:2016-2017 Oracle Program lncrementalAnnual MWh Savings
2016
2017
Biennium lmpact 82Yo
5.8.3.3 Precision of Findings
The margin of error of the impact estimates are also important to consider. lf margin of error is
wide, the true savings value could actually differ from the point estimates by a large amount.
The margin of error for the per-home biennium impact estimate is t 40 kWh at the 90%
confidence level. Table 5-25 presents the upper and lower bounds of the 90% confidence
intervalfor biennium per-home kWh savings, percent reduction, and aggregate impact
estimates.
Table 5-25: Confidence lntervals Associated with Behavioral Program lmpact Estimates
Biennium Savings per Home 700 kwh
Percent Reduction 2.29%
15,562 MWh
The impact estimate has an absolute precision of t 0.1 3o/o and a relative precision of t 6.1% at
the 90% confidence interval. The estimates are statistically significant, as the confidence
interval does not include zero. Figure 5-16 shows the monthly savings estimates with relative
precision upper and lower bounds.
7,750 7,525
8,503 753 7,012 0
8,503 753 7,012 0
Reported MWh
impact
(cumulative)
Reported
lncremental
MWh
Verified MWh
impact
(cumulative)
Verified
lncremental
MWh
Realization
RateYear
620 kwh 660 kwh
2.03%2.1.6%
13,656 MWh 14,537 MWh
Parameter Lower Bound (90%) Point Estimate Upper Bound {90%}
o Nor(,inf impact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 94
t Household Mean Monthly Savings - Upper Bound (90%) - Lower Bound (90%)
I
(O (O (o (o @ (o (o (O (o r.o (O (.o t\ r\ N F\ f\ N N N N N N r\Fl d d !'{ e{ Fl Fl Fl Fl Fl Fl Fl Fi Fl !.1 d Fl Fl Fl Fi Fl Fl Fl Flq I S o=S : : A 36 2t s e S ftg : : e 36 2E
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
I
I EI
T II
RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Figure 5-16: Average Monthly Savings per Household with Relative Precision Bounds
5.8.3.4 SavingsPatterns
Avista currently mails out reports to the treatment group on a varying cycle, with participants
receiving up to 7 reports annually. The blue series in Figure 5-17 depicts the estimated percent
reduction for each month of the treatment period, January 2016 through December 2017. Figure
5-17 also shows the average daily kWh usage of the control group with a green line. The control
group's average daily usage shows highest electricity usage in the winter months.
L' NOroNT lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 95
SECTION 5
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Figure 5-17: Average Percent Savings and Control Daily Usage by Month
The evaluation team found that program savings in the 2016-2017 biennium matured lo 2.16%.
Prior to netting out savings claimed by other EE programs, the average Oracle program
participant saved 693 kWh; after netting out savings claimed by other EE programs the per-
participant savings is found to be 660 kWh. Overall, the Oracle program delivered 14,537 MWh
of savings to the Avista electric system.
5.9 Low lncome
5.9.1 Overview
Avista's electric Low lncome program offers a variety of conservation and fuel efficiency
measures to low income households. Avista leverages Community Action Program (CAP)
agencies to deliver energy efficiency programs to the Company's low income customer group.
CAP agencies have resources to income qualify, prioritize and treat homes based upon a
number of characteristics. ln addition to the Company's annual funding, the Agencies have
other monetary resources that they can usually leverage when treating a home with
weatherization and other energy efficiency measures. The Agencies either have in-house or
contractor crews to install many of the efficiency measures of the program. Avista provides CAP
agencies with an "Approved Measure List" of energy efficiency measures. Any measure
installed on this list by the Agency in an income qualified home will receive 1O0o/o
reimbursement for the cost for the work. ln addition to the "Approved Measures", there is a
"Rebate Measure List" with associated rebates specific to the low-income program.
5.9.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
Participation and associated energy savings from the 2017 Low lncome program is summarized
in Table 5-26 below. Figure 5-18 presents the energy savings for non-lighting conservation
rTreatment Savings (%) *-**Qsntpel Daily Usage (kWh/household)
(O (O (O (O (O (O r.D r.O lO (O (O (O f\ N N N f\ N f\ f\ I\ f\ f\ I\H d Fl Fl Fl Fl Fl Fl Fl Fl Fl Fl Fi Fl Fl Fl d F{ Fl Fi Fl d Fi Fl
E fi s "igE E fl ,s"E g g i E s EgE E s,g"E g E
Month
3.so%
3.OO%
2.50%
2.OO%
7.50%
7.O0%
0.50o/o
0.oo%
70
60
s0e
EJ40 -,!0(!3053208
10
0
x
0,0tr't
Gt^
bootrt!
L,r\,
/-\-/
o Noonf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 96
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
measures, lighting conservation measures, and the fuel conversion measures. The non-lighting
conservation measure breakout is detailed in Figure 5-19.
Table 5-26:2017 Low-lncome Program Reported Participation and Savings
Lighting Conservation 5,172
Lighting Conservation 40,866
Non-Lighting Conservation 19,538
Non-Lighting Conservation 3,722
Non-Lighting Conservation 2,047
Non-Lighting Conservation 456
Non-Lighting Conservation 12,091
Non-Lighting Conservatlon 57,926
Fuel Conversion 147,870
Fuel Conversion 112,712
Total 402,400
Figure 5-18:2017 Low lncome Program Reported Energy Saving Shares: Measure
Category
24o/o
1.1Yo
r Conservation Non-Lighting
r Conservation Lighting
r Fuel Conversion
650/o
CFL Bulbs 62
Ll Giveaway LED bulbs
E Air lnfiltration 35
E Duct Sealing 12
16E ENERGY STAR Doors
29E Energy Star Windows
E lnsulation 45
E To Heat Pump Conversion 18
26E To G Furnace Conversion
E To G H20 Conversion 38
3,986
2017 Reported
Measure/ Participant
Count
2017 Reported
Savings (kWh)MeasureMeasure Category
LrNoonf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 97
3,705
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Figure 5-19:2017 Low-lncome Program Reported Energy Saving Shares: Non-Lighting
Conservation
2oo/o
4Yo
2%
Oo/o
r E Air lnfiltration
r E Duct Sealing
I E ENERGY STAR DooTs
E Energy Star Windows
r E lnsulation
r E To Heat Pump Conversion
61o/o
5.9.3 Methodology
The evaluation team organized the analysis for the Low lncome Program based on conversion
and conservation measures. For the non-lighting conservation and fuel conversion measures,
the evaluation team employed a regression analysis. For the lighting conservation measures,
the evaluation team followed the same methodology as outlined in the Residential Lighting
Section (Section 5.6.3). The remainder of this section outlines the methodology for the non-
lighting conservation and fuel conversion measures.
The Low lncome program operates as a dualfuel program in ldaho with CAP Agencies
targeting both electric and naturalgas savings opportunities. Participating homes generally
received multiple improvements so the electric and gas savings values from all measures
installed within a given home were aggregated to arrive at the total reported savings for each
home. For the electric savings analysis, the evaluation team first filtered the program population
to include only those homes with claimed electric savings in the program tracking data. We then
relied on a regression analysis of Avista billing data to estimate per-home impacts for homes
claiming electric savings.
Next, homes were assigned to one of two groups for analysis:
1) Conservation Participants - these customers participated only in conservation-related
measures in the program.
2) Conversion Participants - these customers were unique participants only partaking in
conversion measures through the program.
Figure 5-20 shows the distribution of per-home reported electric savings for the two groups
Reported electric impacts for the fuel switching homes were generally larger.
oNo@nr lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 98
13o/o
SECTION 5 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Figure 5-20: Distribution of Reported kwh Values by Home Type
Electric Conversion Homes
30
20
10
0 2,000 4,000 6,000
Reported kWh per Account
8,000 10,
30
(J
(l)
JcroLlJ-
oC(I)
Jcro
LL
Electric Conservation Homes
2,000 4,000 6,000
Reported kWh per Account
As described in Section 3.4.4, each home was matched to the nearest weather station and
historical weather records were merged with historical consumption. Homes were required to
have at least 12 months of pre-retrofit and 12 months of post-retrofit billing data for inclusion in
the analysis. The evaluation team used a fixed effects panel regression model to establish the
average relationship between electric consumption and weather before and after service.
Separate models were estimated for fuel conversion customers and electric conservation
customers and both ldaho and Washington participants were used in the analysis to boost the
precision of the results. Regression coefficients were then applied to normal weather conditions
(TMY3) for the region to estimate weather-normalized annual electric savings. The regression
coefficients and relevant goodness of fit statistics are presented in Appendix C.
5.9.4 Findings and Recommendations
5.9.4.1 Non-Lighting Conservation and Fuel Conversion Homes
Table 5-27 summarizes the key inputs and outputs of the regression analysis. As expected the
fuel switching homes saved significantly more electricity on average than homes that did not
1"1 N9(oinf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 99
40
20
10
0
SECTION 5 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
have a primary mechanical system converted from electricity to natural gas. The average
percent reduction in electric consumption for the 78 fuel switching homes analyzed was 46.9%,
meaning the post-retrofit electric consumption was nearly half of what it was pre-retrofit.
Conservation participants used approximately the same on average pre-retrofit as fuel switching
homes (16,197 kWh vs. 16,279 kwh). However, this group saved less on both an absolute and
percent basis and ultimately achieved a 54o/o realization rate.
Table 5-27: Low lncome Billing Analysis Findings
Number of Homes Analyzed 101
Average Reported kWh per Home 2,333
Weather Normalized Annual kWh Pre-
Retrofit 1 6,1 97
Weather Normalized Annual kWh Post-
Retrofit 14,934
Average kWh Savings per Home 1,263
Realization Rate 54.1o/o
Relative Precision
(90% confidence level)
Average Percent Reduction in Annual
Electric Consumption
56.2%
7.8%
The realization rate for the conversion measures was 1 10%, with homes saving an average of
7,600 kWh annually. The evaluation team noted that the reported savings assumptions for
electric to gas conversion of heating and water heating in Low lncome program were more
conservative than the Fuel Efficiency program, which assumed an average savings of 9,865 per
participant in Washington and 11,950 kWh in ldaho. Evaluation results actually found a higher
per home impact from fuel switching in the Low lncome program than in Fuel Efficiency
program. For future program cycles, the evaluation team recommends that Avista review
reported savings for each program and attempt to better align assumptions for fuel switching
savings.
5.9.4.2 Lighting Conservation
The 2016 and2017 Low lncome programs CAP agencies conducted multiple "giveaway" events
throughout the program cycle and reported bulb type (CFULED) and bulb count for each of the
events and the location of the event so that Avista could allocate the savings attributable to their
Washington and ldaho service territories. Based on the program reported data, the average
kWh savings attributed to the bulbs was 12.1 kwh. Based on the methodology outlined in
Section 5.6.3 above, the evaluation team estimates the average savings for the giveaway CFLs
to be 11.8 kwh. Table 5-28 presents the realization rate and per-unit gross verified savings.
78
6,966
16,279
8,646
7,633
109.6%
11.60/o
46.9%
Fuel Conversion Participants Conservation ParticipantsStratum
LrNo@nf !mpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 20'16-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 100
RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Table 5-28: Low-lncome Lighting Conservation Measures Gross Verified Savings
CFL and LED Giveway 11.2
The overall electric realization rate for the Low lncome program was 94%. This program level
realization rate was developed by taking a weighted average of the realization rates of the
measure types shown in Table 5-29. The relative precision of the program level electric
realization rate was !12.6% at the 90% confidence level.
Table 5-29: Low-lncome Program Gross Verified Savings
Conservation Non-Lighting
Conservation Lighting
Fuel Conversion
Total
5.10 Residential Sector Results Summary
Table 5-30 lists the gross verified savings for each of Avista's residential programs in ldaho in
2017 . The ldaho electric residential sector achieved a 68% realization rate and the relative
precision of the program-level electric realization rate was t4.3o/o at the 90% confidence level.
Table 5-30: Residential Program Gross lmpact Evaluation Results
HVAC
Water Heat
ENERGY STAR Homes
Fuel Efficiency
Lighting
Shell
Home Energy Reports
Low lncome
Total Residential
12.1 93%
Average Reported
Savings (kWh/bulb)
Gross Verified
Savings (kWh/bulb)Bulb Type Realization Rate
155 95,780 54o/o 51,85'1
42,8143,tot 46,038 93%
64 260,582 110%285,504
94%380,'t693,986 402,400
2017 Reported
Participation
Count
2017 Reported
Savings (kWh)
Gross Verified
Savings (kWh)Measure Category Realization Rate
565,325574,073 98%
74,788 105%78,294
154,383 126%'193,781
1,709,2292,739,765 62%
3,452,626 100Yo 3,452,692
171,392 27o/o 45,870
-739,094752,330 -98%
402,400 94o/o 380,169
8,321,755 68Yo 5,686,267
2017 Reported
Savings (kWh)
2017 Gross
Verified Savings
(kwh)
Program Realization Rate
o Noonf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 101
SECTION 5
6 Gonclusions and Recommendations
6.1 Summary
The following outlines the evaluation team's conclusions and recommendations for Avista to
consider for future program implementation and reporting. Additional details regarding the
conclusions and recommendations outlined here can be found in the program-specific sections
of this report.
6.2 Impact Findings
The evaluation team performed the impact evaluation for Avista's 2016 and 2017 ldaho electric
programs through a combination of document audits, customer surveys, engineering analysis
and onsite measurement and verification (M&V) on a sample of participating projects. The
impact evaluation activities resulted in an 82Yo realization rate across Avista's 2017 portfolio of
conservation and fuel conversion programs (Table 6-1) and an 83% realization rate across the
2016 portfolio of programs (Table 6-2). Table 6-3 through Table 6-6 summarize Avista's 2016
and 2017 impact evaluation results by year, sector and program.
Table 6-1:2017 ldaho Electric Portfolio Evaluation Results
Residential
Nonresidential
Low lncome
Portfolio
Table 6-2: 2016 ldaho Electric Portfolio Evaluation Results
Residential
Nonresidential
Low lncome
Portfolio
7,9'19,356 67%5,306,098
43,067,665 85%36,536,737
402,400 94o/o 380, 1 69
5'1,399,420 82Yo 42,223,004
2017 Reported
Savings (kWh)
2017 Gross Verified
Savings (kWh)Sector Realization Rate (%)
20,216,014 82%16,596,'132
25,244,254 84o/o 21,305,147
282,745 88%248,105
45,743,012 83%38,149,383
2016 Reported
Savings (kWh)
2016 Gross Verified
Savings (kWh)Sector Realization Rate (%)
o NeYanf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 102
SECTION 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Table 6-3: 2016 ldaho Electric Nonresidential Program Evaluation Results
EnergySmart Grocer 't ,'t 55,793
Food Service Equipment 47,399
Green Motors 18,878
Motor Controls HVAC 462,740
Prescriptive Lighting 15,282,478
Commercial lnsulation 7,568
AirGuardian 43,775
Small Business 1,760,360
Site Specific 2,526,156
Total Nonresidential 21,305,',147
Table 6-4:2017 ldaho Electric Nonresidential Program Evaluation Results
Energy Smart Grocer 1,128,530
Food Service Equipment 52,534
Green Motors 36,743
Motor Controls HVAC 74,241
Prescriptive Lighting 23,'1 19,693
Commercial lnsulation 20,409
Air Guardian 381,527
Small Business 1,550,762
Site Specific 10,172,297
Total Nonresidential 36,536,737
1,'t95,010 97Yo
49,007 97o/o
19,519 97o/o
478,441 97%
18,996,779 80%
7,825 97o/o
45,260 97o/o
1,701,128 103Yo
2,751,285 92%
25,244,254 84Yo
2016 Verified Gross
Savings (kWh)Program
1,166,822 97Yo
54,317 97o/o
37,990 97o/o
76,760 97Yo
28,738,773 8Oo/o
21,102 97o/o
394,473 97o/o
't,498,583 103Yo
11,078,845 92o/o
43,067,665 8iYo
ldaho Electric
Nonresidential Program
2017 Reported Savings
(kwh)
2017 Verified Gross
Savings (kWh)Realization Rate
O Nf-X0nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 20'16-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 103
2016 Reported Savings
,(kwh)Realization Rate
SECTION 6
Table 6-5: 2016 ldaho Electric Residential Program Evaluation Results
HVAC
Water Heat
ENERGY STAR Homes
Fuel Efficiency
Lighting
Shell
Home Energy Reports
Low lncome
Total Residential
Table 6-6:2017 ldaho Electric Residential Program Evaluation Results
HVAC
Water Heat
ENERGY STAR Homes
Fuel Efficiency
Lighting
Shell
Home Energy Reports
Low lncome
Total Residential
6.3 Gonclusions and Recommendations
The following outlines the key conclusions and recommendations as a result of the evaluation
activities. Specific details regarding the conclusions and recommendations outlined here, along
with additional conclusions and recommendations can be found in the program-specific sections
of this report.
6.3.1 Nonresidential Programs
The overall realization rate for the nonresidential portfolio is 85% for the 2017 program year.
The realization rates ranged from 103% for the Small Business program down to 80% for the
Prescriptive Lighting was also the largest program in the nonresidential portfolio, with
459,453 85%392,657
73,065 104o/o 76,081
172,441 118%202,957
7,926,481 62%4,945,013
3,316,601 100%3,316,601
517,257 27%138,436
7 ,750,716 97%7,524,386
282,745 88%248,10s
20,498,759 82%'16,844,236
20'16 Reported Savings
(kwh)
2016 Gross Verified
Savings (kWh)Program Realization Rate
574,073 98%565,325
74.788 105%78,294
154,383 126%'193,78'1
2,739,765 62%1,709,229
3,452,626 100%3,452,692
171,392 27%45,870
752,330 -98%-739,094
402,400 380,1 6994%
8,321,755 680/o 5,685,267
2017 Reported Savings
(kwh)
2017 Gross Verified
Savings (kWh)Program Realization Rate
o Noronr lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 20'16-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 104
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION 6 CONCLUSIONS AN D RECOMMENDATIONS
approximately 640/o of the total gross verified savings for the 2017 portfolio. Avista discovered
the inaccuracies in reported savings for many of the 2016 TLED lighting projects and acted
quickly to fix the issue. Unfortunately, the projects impacted by the error composed a large
portion of the overall reported savings for the biennium, therefore being a large driver in the
portfolio-level realization rate. Looking past the TLED measure error, the evaluation team found
that the processes Avista is utilizing for estimating and reporting energy savings for the
nonresidential programs are predominantly sound and reasonable. The following subsections
outline specific conclusions and recommendations for several of the nonresidential programs.
6.3.1.1 Site Specific Program
Conclusion: The Site Specific program constitutes more than 28o/o of the program energy
shares (gross verified) for 2017. Within the last 4 years, Avista has increased their level of
quality assurance and review on projects that participate through the program. The evaluation
team's analysis resulted in a 92oh realization rate for the Site Specific program. The majority of
the measure categories evaluated had realization rates close to or greater than 100%, with the
exception of shell measures (63%) and interior lighting. The 88% realization rate found for
interior lighting projects was predominately driven by inconsistencies in reported hours of use
values. The overall program-level realization rate indicates that Avista's internal process for
project review, savings estimation, and installation verification are working to produce high
quality estimates of project impacts.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that Avista continue to operate
this program with the current level of rigor.
Recommendation: lt is recommended that Avista provide a greater level of review of
reported hours of use for large lighting projects.
Recommendation: While the impact from the shell measures under the Site Specific
program are minimal, Avista should further review its algorithm for cooling season
savings achieved by insulation measures. The algorithm that Avista currently uses may
be overstating the impacts of these replacements on air condition energy consumption.
6.3.1.2 Prescriptive Lighting Program
Conclusion: The Prescriptive Lighting program is the largest program in Avista's nonresidential
portfolio, constituting 64% o'f the energy savings in ldaho in 2017. The evaluation team's
analysis resulted in an 80% realization rate for the Prescriptive Lighting program, predominately
due to the inaccuracies in reported savings for many of the incented TLED measures in the
20'16 program year. Avista discovered the inaccuracies at the end of 2016 and acted quickly to
fix the issue. Unfortunately, the projects impacted by the error composed a large portion of the
overall reported savings for the biennium, therefore being a large driver in the portfolio-level
realization rate.
Two other contributing factors that impacted the realization rate for the Prescriptive Lighting
program is the reporting of operating hours for pa(icipating nonresidential facilities and the
interactive factors applied by Avista. The evaluation team did find several large projects
reporting an incorrect hours of use value. ln addition, in several evaluated projects, the
evaluation team determined that a lower interactive factor be applied compared to the value
utilized by Avista, based on both business type and building heating type.
A NP,)(oinf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 105
SECTION 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation: lt is recommended that for large projects and for projects with
multiple different space types, that additional verification be conducted on the reported
hours of use value. Avista could set a threshold based on the number of fixtures
installed, facility/building type, and/or reported savings that triggers an additional level of
verification.
Recommendation: lt is recommended that Avista review the interactive factors applied
by their team through its lighting savings estimation tool to ensure more accurate
alignment with both business type and building heating type.
6.3.1.3 Prescriptive Other Programs
Conclusion: Avista's 'Prescriptive Other' Programs constitutes 5o/o of the overall savings for the
nonresidential portfolio in 2017 , with the Energy Smart Grocer program accounting for the
majority of these savings. Lower than reported savings were found for a few sampled projects,
but the majority of the evaluated savings were in-line with the reported savings value.
6.3.1.4 Small Business Program
Conclusion: The Small Business program in lD constituted approximately 4o/o of the total
savings for the nonresidential portfolio. The evaluation team found a 103% realization for the
program.
Conclusion: The Small Business program implementer has improved their tracking of
decommissioned measures in the 2016-2017 biennium, in comparison to the2014-2015
biennium, as shown by the evaluation team's calculated persistence rate of 98% for the
measures included in the sample in the 2016-2017 biennium.
6.3.2 Residential Programs
The overall realization rate for the residential electric portfolio is 68%. The realization rates for
most programs approached or surpassed 100% with the exception of the Shell and Fuel
Efficiency programs having the lowest realization rales (27o/o and 62%o respectively). The
evaluation team believes the cause for underachieving realization rates reflects a combination
of over-stated reported savings and variation in customer consumption among programs. The
following outlines specific conclusions and recommendations for the residential programs.
6.3.2.1 HVAC Program
Conclusion: The evaluation team found a 98o/o realization rate for the HVAC program in 2017.
Profiling of program participants revealed high annual consumption during the pretreatment
period indicating a strong likelihood that these customers had electric resistance heating prior to
their retrofit. This consumption profile supports application of RTF deemed savings for
resistance heat conversion.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends Avista continue to update reported
savings based on the most recent iterations of relevant RTF workbooks.
6.3.2.2 Water Heat
Conclusion: For showerheads distributed through the Simple Steps program, Avista allocates
50% of its reported savings to electric savings and 50% to natural gas savings to account for
homes that have different water heating fueltypes.
O NP.!(olnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 106
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends Avista update this allocation
assumption to be based on representative water heater fueltype saturation. These data
are available through the Regional Building Stock Assessment study; however, we
recommend Avista base the allocation on data specific to its territory.
6.3.2.3 Fuel Efficiency
Conclusion: The evaluation team found a low realization rate for the Fuel Efficiency program
(62%). We believe this unchanged realization rate from the previous biennium is primarily the
result of two issues:
Reported savings for the 2016-2017 program cycle were on-average high as the
program savings value was initially reduced in mid-Q2 2016 and then further reduced
mid-Q1 of 2017 to be in alignment with evaluation results provided from the previous
program cycle.
Annual average household consumption was on average 18% lower for participants in
the 2016-20'17 program cycle relative to participants in the prior program cycle. lf
participant consumption had been similar to the previous biennium, the program
realization rate would have been approximately 74%.
Recommendation: For future program cycles, we recommend Avista reduce their
reported savings forthe Fuel Efficiency program. Avista should look to the Low lncome
conversion deemed savings assumptions and consider better aligning assumptions used
to estimate reported savings for Fuel Efficiency and the Low lncome programs.
Additionally, customer profiling will help gauge anticipated savings by understanding
customers' annual consumption profile and the expected percent savings that can occur
through implementation of the Fuel Efficiency program measures.
6.3.2.4 Residential Lighting
Conclusion: The evaluation team found Avista's reported savings estimates for the Simple
Steps lighting measures aligned with the Simple Steps deemed savings which in turn reflect
values that align with the specific product types by lumen bins in accordance with the most
current BPA UES measure list.
6.3.2.5 Shell Program
Conclusion: The evaluation team found a low realization rate (27%) for shell rebate measures
(windows and insulation). This finding is similar to the previous evaluation and indicates that
reported savings values were too aggressive on average.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends Avista examine planning
assumptions about per-home consumption, and percent reductions in heating and
cooling loads from shell improvements. lt may be that the percent reduction assumptions
are sound, but they are being applied to an overstated assumption of the average
electric HVAC consumption per home. Conversely, the assumed end-use shares may be
accurate, but the end-use reduction percentage is inflated. This investigation should be
conducted separately for electrically heated homes and dual fuel homes as the heating
electric end-use share will be different.
a No(.(,lnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 107
SECTION 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.3.2.6 Home Energy Reports Program
Conclusion: The evaluation team found no incremental savings were realized during the
second year (2017) for the Home Energy Report behavioral program. The finding reflects
Avista's decision to not re-fill drop-outs from the program treatment group.
Recommendation: lf the Home Energy Reports Program is included within the Avista
portfolio in future program cycles, the evaluation team recommends Avista continue to
service the treatment group by enrolling new customers to replace drop-outs.
6.3.2.7 Low lncome Program
Conclusion: The Low lncome program saw the fuel switching homes save significantly more
electricity on average than homes that did not have a primary mechanical system converted
from electricity to natural gas. The realization rate for the conversion measures was 110%, with
homes saving an average of 7,600 kWh annually. The conservation measures achieved a much
lower realization rate of 67%. The program overall achieved a 94o/o realization rale in 2017 .
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends re-evaluating the current reported
savings assumption to attempt to better align the savings given the program's measure mix
and customer profile for conservation measures. We also recommend comparing and
attempting to align the fuel conversation savings assumptions between the Low lncome and
Fuel Efficiency programs to achieve more consistent evaluated impacts.
o Noronf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 108
Appendix A Net to Gross Methodology and Findings
The evaluation team calculated net-to-gross (NTG) ratios for each program, using data collected
from participant surveys. NTG takes into consideration the levels of both free ridership (FR) and
spillover (SO). Free ridership refers to the portion of energy savings that participants would have
achieved in the absence of the program through their own initiatives and expenditures (EPA,
2007).l Spillover refers to the program-induced adoption of measures by non-participants and
participants who did not receive financial incentives or technical assistance for installations of
measures supported by the program (EPA, 2007). The evaluation team used the following
formula to calculate a NTG ratio for each program:
NTG=1-FR+.SO
A.1 Free Ridership
Subtracting free ridership from gross savings produces an estimate of how much the program
influenced participants to make the energy saving improvements that the program incents. Free
ridership ranges from 0 to 1, with 0 being no free ridership (the program induced allof the
reported gross savings), 1 being totalfree ridership (the program induced none of the savings)
and values in between represent varying degrees of partial free ridership. The evaluation team
used participant survey data to inform free ridership estimates.
Free ridership consists of two components - change (FRC) and influence (FRl) - which both
range from 0 to .5.
FR=FRC+FRI
Free Ridership Change (FRC)
Free ridership change is the participant's self-report of what they likely would have done if the
program had not provided an incentive for their energy upgrade. To determine this, the
evaluation team asked participant survey respondents FRC questions specific to the measures
they installed. The question below exemplifies how the evaluation team collected FRC data.
I'd like fo ask a few questions about what you most likely would have done had you not received
assisfance from Avista for the [Measure Type].
Q1. Which of the following three alternatives is most likely: Would you have:
ISINGLE RESPONSE]
1. Put off buying a new [Measure Typel for at least one year flncludes repairing old or
buying a used one.l
2. Bought a new [Measure Typel that was less expensive or less energy efficient.
3. Bought the exact same [Measure Type] anyway, and paid the full cost yourself.
1 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2007). Model Energy Efficiency Program lmpact Evaluation Guide. Retrieved June 8,
2015 from http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/suca/evaluation_guide.pdf.
o Neronf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs A-1
APPENDIX A NET TO GROSS METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS
lDo not read:l-96. 96. Other, please specify: IOPEN-ENDED RESPONSE]-97. 98. Don't know-98. 99. Refused
The evaluation team then assigned the following FRC values to each respondent, based on
their response to the question above, as shown in the Table A-1.
Table A-1: Free Ridership Change Values
Put off buying a new [Measure Type] for at least one year lncludes
repairing old or buying a used one.l
Bought a new [Measure Type] that was less expensive or less
energy efficient.
Bought the exact same [Measure Type] anyway, and paid the full
cost yourself.
Other
FRC values assigned on a case by case
basis, depending on which pre-coded
response item they most resemble
Don't know / Refused 0.25
Free Ridership lnfluence (FRl)
Free ridership influence represents how much influence the program had on a participant's
decision to perform the incented energy upgrade. To determine this, the evaluation team asked
participant survey respondents the following question:
Q2. Now I would like to ask about the influence that the program played in your decision to
purchase the energy efficient [Measure Type]. l'm going to read a list of things that
may have influenced your decision to buy the [Measure Typel. For each one, please
indicate how much of an influence it played in your decision, where'1' means it was "not
at all influential" and "5" means it was "extremely influential." Let me know if an item
doesn't apply to you. flnteruiewer: do not read 97-991
TRIx TION:
0.00
0.25
0.50
Ql Response FRC Value
[LOGIC]ltem 1 2 3 4 5 97
NA
98
DK
99
RF
The rebate you received
lnformation on Avista's
website
Advertising and other
information from Avista
A salesperson or
contractor
Anything else, please
a Ne@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-20'17 Energy Efficiency Programs A-2
APPENDIX A NET TO GROSS METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS
The evaluation team then selected the highest rated program-attributable item for each
respondent and assigned the following FRI scores, depending on their high score value (Table
A-2).
Table A-2: Free Ridership lnfluence Values
0.500
0.375
0.250
4 0.125
5 0.000
Don't know / Refused Sector-level measure average
Program-Level Free Ridership
The evaluation team summed FRC and FRI scores for each respondent, yielding participant-
levelfree ridership (FR) scores. The evaluation team used the participant-level FR scores to
calculate a savings-weighted average FR score for each program, which serves as the
program-level FR score.
A.2 Spillover
Spillover estimates the energy savings from non-rebated energy improvements made outside of
the program that are influenced by the program, and can be used to adjust gross savings by the
additional energy savings garnered and the level of attribution the program is able to claim for
these non-rebated measures. A spillover value of 0 equates to no spillover and values greater
than 0 demonstrate the existence and magnitude of spillover.2 The evaluation team used
participant survey data to estimate spillover.
The evaluation team asked participant survey respondents to indicate what energy saving
measures they had implemented since participating in the program to identify potential spillover
The evaluation team then asked participants to use a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 means "not at all
influential" and 5 means "extremely influential," to indicate how much influence the Avista
program had on their decision to purchase these additional energy saving measures. Table A-3
exhibits how much program influence, ranging from 0% to 100%, is associated with each scale
response to the spillover influence question.
2 Spillover values can be interpreted as percentages, where 1=1000/0. Thus, a spillover value of .5 would mean that spillover savings
were 50% of program gross savings.
LtNPXAnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs A-3
2
3
lnfluence Rating FRI Value
APPENDIX A NET TO GROSS METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS
Table A-3: Participant Spillover Program !nfluence Values
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
The evaluation team used the influence value to calculate the participant measure spillover
(PMSO) for each spillover measure that each participant reported. Participant measure spillover
is calculated as follows, with the deemed measure savings values based on the evaluation
teams estimate of the savings for the implemented measure:
PMSO : Deemed Measure Savings * Inf luence Value
The evaluation team then summed all PMSO values associated with each program and divided
them by the sample's gross program savings to calculate the spillover estimates for each
program:
2
3
4
5
Proaramro = ,\P'og'*'PMfr' '-o'-"--- \Sarnple's Gross Programsavtngs
A.3 Net to Gross Findings
Residential
The table below outlines the free ridership, spillover, and NTG values estimated for each
residential program (WA and lD combined) using data collected in the 2016-17 participant
surveys. NTG data for residential programs not evaluated in 2016-17 use the NTG values
calculated in the 2014-15 report.
lnfluence ValueReporGd Avista Program
Influence
o Noronf !mpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-20'17 Energy Efficiency Programs A-4
1
APPENDIX A NET TO GROSS METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS
Table A-3: Avista Territory Residentia! Program Net-To-Gross Results
Fuel Efficiency (Electric)
Shell (Electric)3 2016-17 Evaluation
Shell(Gas)a
HVAC (Gas)
HVAC (Electric)
Water Heat (Electric)
Energy Star Homes (Electric)2014-15 Evaluation
Energy Star Homes (Gas)
Water Heat (Gas)
Lighting(Electric)
Opower (Electric)
Low lncome (Electric)
Low lncome conservation (Gas)
N/A
Fuel Efficiency (Gas)
Nonresidential
Due to a programming error in the skip patterns governing the free ridership questions, the
nonresidential participant survey did not collect valid free ridership data. The error did not affect
the spillover questions, which generated valid data. To calculate net savings for the 2016-2017
biennium, we applied the 2014-20'15 measure-based free ridership values to the 2016-2017
measure-based savings estimates and added the estimated 2016-2017 spillover (Table A-4).
Table A-4: Avista Territory Nonresidential Program Net-To-Gross Results
E Smart Grocer E 760/o
E 65o/o
Other E 760/o
Site 58%
Small Business 101%
Site 7lYo
Smart Grocer 100%
Food Service 49o/o
Small Business 100%
3 There is a slight difference in reported freeridership values for shell-electric in the process report filed on June '1, 2018. The
process report accidentally showed the unweighted f.eeridership value of 55%. The savings \ /eighted value shown here, 560/0, is the
conect freeridership value for shellelectric measures.
4 There is a slight difference in reported freeridership values for shell-gas in the process report filed on June 1 , 2O18. The
freeridership value presented in the process report, 560/0, was calculated using incorrect savings weights for lD shell-gas measures.
Using the correct lD shell-gas weights results in a freeridership value of 54%.
N/A
23o/o 0o/o 77%
560/o 4o/o 49%
54o/o 0%46%
39o/o Oo/o 61%
54o/o 0%46%
74%0o/o 26%
67%0o/o 33%
53o/o o%47%
460/o lYo 54%
100%
100%
100%
100o/o
100%
Program SourceFRSpillover : NTG
25%2Yo
37%2%
24%1o/o
42%lYo
0%1o/o
30o/o Oo/o
00h Oo/o
51%o%
o%0o/o
50%Oo/o
Program NTGFR
a No@nr lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs A-5
Spillover
Appendix B Sampling and Estimation
The gross verified energy savings estimates presented in this report from Avista's electric
energy efficiency programs were generally determined through the observation of key measure
parameters among a sample of program participants. A census evaluation would involve
surveying, measuring, or otherwise evaluating the entire population of projects within a
population. Although a census approach would eliminate the sampling uncertainty for an entire
program, the reality is that M&V takes many resources both on the part of the evaluation team
and the program participants who agree to be surveyed or have on-site inspections conducted
in their home or business. When a sample of projects is selected and analyzed, the sample
statistics can be extrapolated to provide a reasonable estimate of the population parameters.
Therefore, when used effectively, sampling can improve the overall quality of an evaluation
study. By limiting resource-intensive data collection and analysis to a random sample of all
projects, more attention can be devoted to each project surveyed.
The nuances and tradeoffs considered by the evaluation team when developing sampling
approaches varied across the portfolio and are discussed in more detail in Section 3.2.
However, several common objectives were shared across sectors and programs. The most
important sampling objective was representativeness - that is the projects selected in the
evaluation were representative of the population they were selected from and will produce
unbiased estimates of population parameters. A second key sampling objective was to consider
the value of information being collected and align sample allocations accordingly. This effort
generally involves considering the size (contribution to program savings) and uncertainty
associated with the area being studied and making a determination about the appropriate level
of evaluation resources to allocate.
The evaluation team used two broad classes of probability estimation techniques to make
inferences about program or stratum performance based on the observations and
measurements collected from the evaluation sample. Auxiliary information refers to the reported
savings estimates stored in the program tracking system.
1) Mean-Per-Unit (or estimation in the absence of auxiliary information): This technique
was used to analyze samples drawn from populations that are similar in size and scope.
This approach was used primarily for residential programs that include a large number of
rebates for similar equipment types where the evaluation objective is to determine an
average kWh savings per rebated piece of equipment. With mean-per-unit estimation the
average kWh savings observed within the sample is applied to all projects in the
population.
2) Ratio Estimation (or estimation using auxiliary information): This technique was used
for nonresidential programs and residential programs with varying savings across
projects. This technique assumes that the ratio of the sum of the verified savings
estimates to the sum of the reported savings estimates within the sample is
representative of the program as a whole. This ratio is referred to as the realization rate,
or ratio estimator, and is calculated as follows:
o Noonf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs B-1
APPENDIX B SAMPLING AND ESTIMATION
Equation B- 1: Coefficient of Variation
RealizattonRate= WL! RePorted Sauings
Where n is the number of projects in the evaluation sample. The realization rate is then applied
to the claimed savings of each project in the population to calculate gross verified savings.
Figure B- 1 shows the reduction in error that can be achieved through ratio estimation when the
sizes of projects within a program population vary considerably. The ratio estimator provides a
better estimate of individual project savings than a mean savings value by leveraging the
reported savings estimate.
Figure B- 1: Comparison of Mean-Per-Unit and Ratio Estimation
,(Iq(m
@(m
5Oq,(m
{0q,(m
4(m
xrq,(m
x)q(m
o
+
70q,(m
@(m
5Oq(m
4oq(m
!Brm
alqffi
loq(m
o
+
RR = O.97
Error
Iq'(m 2E'(xx) S(m .q(m 90qU) €oq(m
nrertrdS*-mfr
8.1 Stratification
ln a few cases, the evaluation team used sample stratification with both classes of estimation
techniques. Stratification is a departure from simple random sampling (SRS), where each
sampling unit (customer/projecUrebate/measure) has an identical likelihood of being selected in
the sample. Stratified random sampling refers to the designation of two or more sub-groups
(strata) from within a program population prior to the selection process. Whenever stratification
was employed the evaluation team took great care to ensure that each sampling unit within the
population belonged to one (and only one) stratum. ln each program sample design where
stratification was used, the probability of selection is different between strata and this difference
must be accounted for when calculating results. The inverse of the selection probability is
referred to as the case weighf and is used in estimation of impacts when stratified random
samples are utilized. Consider the following simplified example in Table B- 1 based on a
fictional program with two measures; refrigerators and clothes washers.
Table B- 1: Case Weights Example
Clothes Washer
Refrigerator
+
++
+
g
fl!eEo
p
il!o
=o
500
+
+
t
15,000 30
6,000 30
Population Size Sample Size Case WeightMeasure
a Ng@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-20'17 Energy Efficiency Programs
200
B-2
APPENDIX B SAMPLING AND ESTIMATION
Because refrigerators are sampled at a higher rate (1-in-200) than clothes washers (1-in-500),
each sample point carries less weight in the program results than an individual clothes washer
sample point. ln general, the evaluation team designed samples so that strata with high case
weights had low per-unit impacts or were well-understood measures. Low case weights were
reserved for large and complex measures.
The evaluation team felt that stratification was advantageous and utilized it in the sample design
for a variety of reasons across the portfolio:
1) lncreased precision if the within-stratum variability was expected to be small compared
to the variability of the population as a whole. Stratification in this case allows for
increased precision or smaller total sample sizes, which lowered evaluation costs.
2) To ensure that a minimum number of units within a particular stratum will be verified.
Although a program's contribution to portfolio savings may be small, the evaluation team
felt it was important to sample enough projects to independently estimate program
performance.
3) lt is easy to implement a value-of-information approach through which the largest
projects are sampled at a much higher rate than smaller projects by creating size-based
strata.
4) Sampling independently within each stratum allows for comparisons among groups.
Avista and the evaluation team find value in comparing results between strata; e.9.,
comparing the realization rates between measures within a program.
8.2 Presentation of Uncertainty
There is an inherent risk, or uncertainty, that accompanies sampling, because the projects
selected in the evaluation sample may not be representative of the program population as a
whole with respect to the parameters of interest. As the proportion of projects in the program
population that are sampled increases, the amount of sampling uncertainty in the findings
decreases. The amount of variability in the sample also affects the amount of uncertaing
introduced by sampling. A small sample drawn from a homogeneous population will provide a
more reliable estimate of the true population characteristics than a small sample drawn from a
heterogeneous population. Variability is expressed using the coefficient of variation (Cf for
programs that use simple random sampling, and an error ratio for programs that use ratio
estimation. The C,of a population is equal to the standard deviation (o) divided by the mean (p)
as shown in Equation B- 2.
Equation B- 2: Coefficient of Variation
c, -op
When ratio estimation is utilized, standard deviations will vary for each project in the population
The error ratio is an expression of this variability and is analogous to the C,for simple random
sampling.
Equation B- 3 provides the formula for estimating error ratio
a No@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs B-3
APPENDIX B SAMPLING AND ESTIMATION
Equation B- 4 shows the formula used to calculate the required sample size for each evaluation
sample, based on the desired level of confidence and precision. Notice that the C,term is in the
numerator, so required sample size will increase as the level of variability increases. For
programs that rely on ratio estimation, error ratio replaces the C, term in Equation B- 4. Results
of the 2014-2015 portfolio evaluation were the primary source of error ratio and C, assumptions
for the evaluation.
Equation B- 3: Error Ratio
sI=t diError Ratio = ffi
Equation B- 4: Required Sample Size
2 * Cvrzno = (i).
Where
oo=
Z_
The required sample size before adjusting for the size of the population
A constant based on the desired level of confidence (equal to 1.645 for 90%
confidence twotailed test)
Coefficient of variation (error ratio for ratio estimation)
Desired relative precision
Size of the population
The required sample size before adjusting for the size of the population
Q=
The sample size formula shown in Equation B- 4 assumes that the population of the program is
infinite and that the sample being drawn is reasonably large. ln practice, this assumption is not
always met. For sampling purposes, any population greater than approximately 7,000 may be
considered infinite for the purposes of sampling. For smaller, or finite, populations, the use of a
finite population correction factor (FPC) is warranted. This adjustment accounts for the extra
precision that is gained when the sampled projects make up more than about 5% of the
program savings. Multiplying the results of Equation B- 4 by the FPC formula shown in Equation
B- 5 will produce the required sample size for a finite population.
Equation B- 5: Finite Population Correction Factor
fpc =
N-no
N-1
Where:
[rl =
Ilo =
The required sample size (n) after adjusting for the size of the population is given by Equation
B- 6.
o Noronf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs B-4
APPENDIX B SAMPLI NG AND ESTIMATION
Equation B- 6: Application of the Finite Population Correction Factor
n- noxfpc
The margin of error can be introduced by sampling or via estimation error from a billing analysis,
or both. Billing analyses rely on consumption data that often contains variability not explained by
weather or other independent variables. This inherent variability in the data introduces
uncertainty because program savings effects must be separated from underlying noise. The
standard errors of coefficients in the regression model quantify this uncertainty and allow a
margin of error to be calculated. Verified savings estimates always represent the point estimate
of total savings, or the midpoint of the confidence interval around the verified savings estimate
for the program. Equation B- 7 shows the formula used to calculate the margin of error for a
parameter estimate.
Equation B- 7: Error Bound of the Savings Estimate
Errar Bound = se * (z _ stottstic)
Where
se The standard error of the population parameter of interest (proportion of
customers installing a measure, realization rate, total energy savings,
etc.) This formula will differ according to the sampling technique utilized.
z - stattstic =Calculated based on the desired confidence level and the standard
normal distribution.
The 90% confidence level is a widely accepted industry standard for reporting uncertainty in
evaluation findings. Unless othenruise noted, the confidence levels and precision values
presented in this report are at the 90% confidence level. The z-statistic associated with 90%
confidence is 1.645.
The evaluation team also reports the relative precision value associated with verified savings
estimates. When evaluators or regulators use the term "90/10", the 10 refers to the relative
precision of the estimate. The formula for relative precision shown in Equation B- B:
Equation B- 8: Relative Precision of the Savings Estimate
Relative Precisiony" Error Boundgwnotkw)
rifiedSauings-@
An important attribute of relative precision to consider when reviewing achieved precision values
is that it is "relative" to the impact estimate. Therefore programs with low realization rates are
likely to have larger relative precision values because the error bound (in kWh) is being divided
by a smaller number. This means two programs with exactly the same reported savings and
sampling error in absolute terms, with have very different relative precision values (example in
Table B- 2).
CINeYonf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs B-5
APPENDIX B SAMPLING AND ESTIMATION
Table B- 2: Relative Precision Example
Program #1 t20%
Program#2 r.10%
ln many cases a program-level savings estimate requires summation of the verified savings
estimates from several strata. ln order to calculate the relative precision for these program-level
savings estimates, the evaluation team used Equation B- 9 to estimate the error bound for the
program as a whole from the stratum-level error bounds.
Equation B- 9: Combining Error Bounds across Strata
Error Boundpronrn =Error BotLndzrrrorr*, * Error Boundlrrorurn, * Error Boundlrroru ,
Using this methodology, the evaluation team developed verified savings estimates for the
program and an error bound for that estimate. The relative precision of the verified savings for
the program is then calculated by dividing the error bound by the verified savings estimate.
4,000,000 0.5 400,000 2,000,000
4,000,000 1.0 400,000 4,000,000
Error Bound
(kwh)
Verified
kwh
Relative
Precision
(s0%)
Program Reported kWh , Realization Rate
a Noonr lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs B-6
Appendix C Billing Analysis Regression Outputs
Low lncome - Electric:
Fi:ied-effects (within) regress.ion
Group variable: account
R-sq: within :0.3890
between : 0.0004
overall : 0.2319
corr(u_i, xb) : -0.0066
Number of obs
Number of groups
Obs per group: min =
avg:
ma:: =
F(5,186)
Prob > F
6625
187
26
35.4
31
L2't .52
0.0000
(Std. Err. adjusted for 187 clusters in account)
Robust
Std. Errdaily_kwh
1 . post
avg_cdd
post#c. avg_cdd
1
avg_hdd
post # c. avg_hdd
1
cons
slgma u
t P>ltlCoe f [95t conf. Interval-]
994'7 702
1 .4 4 691,
.775555?
. r.086268
t.28
1,3 .32
0.201
0.000
-.5353062
7.2326L1,
2.524121
1,.66t209
-.1118466
1.422568
-.1058314
).1 .67232
-.3?95018
r .301,1 25
-.8337416
15.61433
.0358087
r .543472
- .51 1 9L52
19.61031
0.104
0.000
0.000
0.000
15.420524
1,5 .24 61 4
. s0565657
1052591
a6t25A8
0648399
1, . 01,211
-1.63
23.22
-10.89
17.39
sigma e
rho (fraction of variance due to u i)
otNexonr lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs c-1
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
Shell - Electric:
Program: elec-she'll
Month: 1
rixed-effects (within) regression
Group variable: acct-id
R-sq: rithin = 0.1097between = 0.0056overall = 0.0146
Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg =llliD( =
F(2,623)Prob>F =
1201
624
1
1.9
2
)4.45
0- 0000corr(u-i, xb) = 0.0049
(std. Err. adjusted for 624 clusters in acct-id)
dai 1y-usage Coef
Robuststd. Err t P>ltl [95% conf. Interval]-+----------treatxpost | -5-OO877 2.554588 -1.96 0.050 -10.02542 -0078765post I 13.00716 1.895503 6.86 0.000 9.284814 L6.7295L
-cons I 67.56785 .6120901 110.39 0.000 66.36584 68.76986
-f----------
sigma_u Isigma-e Irho I
44.395449
2t-642079
.80798887 (fraction of variance due to u-'i)
Program: elec-shellMonth: 2
Fixed-effects (w'ithin) regression
Group variable: acct-id
R-sq : ui th'i n
between
corr(u-i, xb) = 0.0090
Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg =max =
F(2,623)Prob > F
1194
624
ral Iove
11.9
2
2305
0054
0081-
0
0
0
r_6.260.0000
(Std. Err. adjusted for 624 clusters in acct-id)
I Robustdaily-usage I coef. std. Err. t P>ltl [95X conf- Interval]--+--------treatxpostpost
_con5
-1-180386 2.302272 -0.5r_ 0.608 -5.70154 3.3407677.058505 1.560284 4.52 0.000 3.994452 10.1225659-6276 .5516691 108.09 0.000 58.54424 60-71095
sigma-u Isigma-e Irho I
37.5L8)75
19- 511075
.787L2755 (fraction of variance due to u-i)
LtNo@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs c-2
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
PrograrnMonth:: elec-she'|1
3
Fixed-effects (within) regression
Group variable: acct-id
R-sq: within -- O-0237
Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg =max =
1191
624
between = 0.0023overa'll = 0.0018
corr(u-i, Xb) = 0.0027
1.
1I
2
F (2,62))
Prob > F
8. 12
0.0003
(std. Err. adjusted for 624 clusters in acct_id)
dai 1 y-usage
treatXpostpost
_cons
si gma*u
sr gma_e
rho
Robuststd. ErrCoef a ,rlal [95% conf. Interval]
-2.8853594.6L82L
50.20L37
\.842293
1.204811
.4419764
-L.57
3. 83
113.58
0.1180.000
0.000
-6.503216
2.252227
49.33342
.73249EL
6.984193
51.06911
29.509391
15. 632198
.78087138 (fraction of variance due to u_i)
Program: elec-shellMonth: 4
Fixed-effects (within) regress'ion
Group variable: acct-id
R-sq: within = 0.0189between = 0.0002overa'll = 0.0022
corr(u-i, Xb) = -0.0103
Nurter of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg =lllilX =
F (2,623)
Prob > F
1189
624
6.37
0- 001_8
1.
1
9
2
(Std. Err. adjusted for 624 clusters in acct-id)
dai 1y-usage Coef
Robuststd. Err.t P>ltl [95X conf. Interval]
treatxpost I -2-748522 1.562093 -L.76post I 1.6047 1.031312 3. 50
_cons I 41.00187 -3727415 110.00
si
s'I
0.079
0_ 001
0.000
-5.8L6L27
t_57943
40.26989
. 3190838
5.62997
41. 73386
gma_u 24.487 488
L3.L85794
.77522346
gma_e
rho (fraction of variance due to u-i)
LtNo@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs c-3
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
Program: elec-shellMonth: 5l
Fixed-effects (within) regress.ionGroup variable: acct-id Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg =lllax =
1182
624
R-sq: within
between =0.=0.=0-
0115
0003
o015
11.9
2overa't 't
corr(u_'i, xb) = -0.0069
F(2,62r)
Prob > F
3.13
0.0442
(std. Err. adjusted for 624 clusters in acct-id)
dai ly-usage Coef
Robuststd. Err t P>ltl [95% conf. Interval]
-t----------treatxpost | -2.126619 L.26L942 -1.69 0.092 -4.604793 .3515554post | 2.297088 .9204464 2.50 0.013 .4895348 4.LO4642
-cons | 31.16191 .297)769 111.51 0.000 32.57795 11.74591
-?----------
s1
s'l
gma_u 19. 907084
10.523398.78158876
gma_e
rho (fraction of variance due to u-i)
Program: elec-shell
M,onth: 6
Fixed-effects (within) regressionGroup variable: acct-id
R-sq: within = 0.0786
betvueen = 0.0012overall = 0-0073
Nur$er of obs
Number of groups 1l-78
624
obs per group: min
avg
max
11.9
2
corr(u-i, xb) = -0.0121-
F(2,623)Prob > F
22-97
0.0000
(std. Err. adjusted for 624 clusters in acct_id)
da'i 1y_usage Coef
RobustStd. Err.t P>ltl [95% conf. Interval]-+----------treatxpost | -1.33377 1.240188 -1.08 0.281 -3.769225 1.101685post | -3.534736 .8178893 -4.12 0.0O0 -5.14089 -1-928582
-cons I 36.8614 .2933552 125.65 0.0O0 36.28532 )7.41749
-i----------
si gma-u
s1 gma_e
rho
21.034881
10.381336
.80407488 (fraction of variance due to u-i)
LlNe(onf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 20'16-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs c4
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
Program: elec-she'l'lMonth: 7
Fixed-effects (within) regression
Group variab'le: acct-id
R-sg: within = o.o2L2between = 0.0002overa'l'l = 0.0011
Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg =lllilX =
7L76
624
11.9
2
corr(u-i, xb) = -0.0064 F(2,623)Prob > F
5-96
0- 0027
(Std. Err. adjusted for 624 clusters in acct_id)
dai 1y_usage coef Robuststd. Err.t P>ltl [95% conf. tnterval]-+----------treatxpost I -1.2EE134 1.112025 -1.16 O.247 -3.472105 -8954375post I -1.118161 .8015586 -1.42 0.156 -2.7L2246 -4J59226_cons I ,9.6'J-449 .2607856 151-90 O-O00 39.LO237 40-L2662-+----------sigma-u Isigma-e Irho I
24.264604
9.2)L587 3.87)55629 (fraction of variance due to u_i)
Prografi: elec--shellMonth: 8
Fixed-effects (within) regressionGroup variable: acct-id
R-sq: within = o.oo77between = 0.0002overall = 0.0006
Number of obs
Number of groups LLTO
624
obs per group min
avg
max
11.9
2
corr(u_'i, xb) = -o.oo74
F(2,62r)Prob > F
2-05
0- 1291
(std. Err. adjusted for 624 clusters in acct-id)
dai 1y-usage Coef Robuststd. Err t P>ltl [95% Conf. Interva'l]
-?----------treatxpost | -2.L67L52 1.098664 -1.97 0.049 -4.324686 -.0096175post I 1.440018 .8130181 1.77 0-077 -.1565698 3.036606_cons I 16.08826 .2555784 L4L.20 0-000 35-58636 36-59016
-l----------
s
5
'i
igma_u
gma_e
rho
23.396L47
9.0505605
.86983371 (fraction of variance due to u-i)
LrNo@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 20'16-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs c-5
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
Program: elec-shellMonth: I
Fixed-effects (within) regressionGroup variab1e: acct-id
R-sq: within = 0.0187
between = 0.0025overall = 0.0025
Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg =max =
F(2,623)Prob>F =
1165
624
11.9
2
corr(u-i, xb) = 0.0067
5.34
0.0050
(std. Err. adjusted for 624 clusters in acct_id)
I nobustda'i1y_usage I coef. std. Err. t P>ltl [95s conf. rnterval]
-i----------treatxpost I -1.841232 1.004814 -1.83 O.067 -3.814465 .1320016post | 2.283671- .7L2O69 J.2L 0.001 .8853252 3.682018
-cons I 32.55819 .2334739 139.45 0.000 32.0997 33.01669-+--- ----- - -
si gma-u
sl gma_e
rho
20.3269698.2705278
.85796629 (fraction of variance due to u-i)
Program: elec-shel'ltr4onth: 10
Fixed-effects (within) regressionGroup variable: acct-id
R-sq: within = 0.0712between = 0.0118overa]l = 0.0101
Nurber of obsNurber of groups
obs per group: min =avg =lllilX =
1163
624
1.1
9
2
corr(u_i, Xb) = 0.0157
F(2,623)Prob > F
2L.23
0.0000
(std. Err. adjusted for 624 clusters in acct-id)
da'i'ly-usage coef Robuststd. Err.t bltl [95% conf. rnterval]-+----------treatxpost | -.4929128 I--278391 -0.39 0.700 -3.00119 2-017564post I 4.410543 .9228946 4.78 0.OO0 2.598182 6.222904
-cons I 37.08521 .2959737 125.30 0.0O0 36.504 37.66645-+----------sigma-u I 2?.77L895sigma-e I 10.485964rho | .82505509 (fraction of varjance due to u-i)
o Ne(,inf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs c-6
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
Program: elec-shellMonth: 11
Fixed-effects (within) regression
Group variable: acct-id
R-sq: within = 0.0133between = o.oo71overa]l = 0.0OO3
corr(u_i, xb) = -0.0212
Number of obsNumber of groups
obs per group: min =avg =fiAX =
F(2,623)Prob>F =
1155
624
3-69
0.0255
1.
1
9
2
(Std. Err. adjusted for 624 clusters in acct_id)
I Robustdaily-usage I coef. std. Err---+---------t P> lt | [95% conf . rnterva'l ]
treatXpostpost
_cons
si gma-u
5'r gma_e
rho
32. 928465
l-6. 018797
.80863256
- -7LO527-2.23)28
56.17518
1- 935789
1 . 1 38671
.45L8723 1,24.76
o-744
0_050
0.000
-4.51-1988-4.469f7955.4878
3. 090934
.0028182
57.26256
-o-17
-1- 96
(fraction of variance due to u-i)
ProgramMonth: .
: elec-shell
L2
Fixed-effects (within) regressionGroup variable: acct-id
corr(u-i, )O) = -o.O272
Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg =max =
F(2,62r)Prob>F =
(std. Err. adjusted for 624 clusters 'in acct_id)
I Robustdaily-usage I coef. Std. Err. t P>ltl [95I conf. Interval]--+---------
115 3
624
3.75
0.0241
R-sq: withinbetween =overall =
0.01120.0134
0.0002
1.
1
8
2
treatxpostpost
_cons
-.LO22447 2.539772 -0- 04 0.968 -5.089797 4.885307-3.363647 L.6042L7 -2.LO 0- 036 -6. 513975 - . 213318769.92706 .5893567 r-18.65 0.000 68.76969 7L-08443
s'lsi
gma_u
gma_e
rho
4L.9L46
20.895926
.80093685 (fraction of variance due to u_i)
LtNgonf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs c-7
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
Fuel Efficiency - Electric:
Program: elec-fel.lonth: !
Fixed-effects (within) regressionGroup variable: acct-id
R-sq: within = 0.2925between = O.0777overa'l'l = 0.1231
corr(u-i, xb) = 0.0208
Number
Number
ofof obs 7L9
408
62-690.0000
groups
obs per group
F(2,407)Prob > F
min
avg
max
11.8
2
(Std. Err- adjusted for 408 c'lusters in acct-'id)
da'i 1y-usage coef Robuststd. Err t P>ltl [95s conf. rnterval]
treatxpost I -42.96135 3.911408 -10.93 0.0O0post I 18.22598 2.221866 8.20 0.000
-cons | 64.99321 .8105605 80.18 O.OO0
-50.6897513.85428
61.3998
-35. 23295
22.59768
66.58662-+----------sigma-u | 35")43942
s'igma-e I 21.381992rho I .69557661 (fraction of variance due to u-i)
Program: elec-feMonth: 2
Fixed-effects (within) regressionGroup variab'le: acct-id
R-sq: rithin
betweenoveral I
corr(u-i, xb)
(std. Err. adjusted for 408 clusters in acct-id)
=0=0=0 1.0662
1005
2538
Number of obsNunber of groups
obs per group: nin =avg =llliX =
F (2,4O7)Prob>F =
692
408
1
7
2
= 0.0403
44-6L
0.0000
dai 1y-usage Coef RobustStd. Err.t P>ltl [95% conf, Interval]-+----------treatxpost I -32.54358 3.449848 -9.41 0-000 -39.32533 -25.76L84post I L0.7522 1.909632 5.6t 0-000 6.998225 1-4.506L7
-cons | 58.10737 .6581673 88.29 0-000 56.81354 59.4012-+----------
10.827284L9.L2672).72204483 (fraction of variance due to u-i)
sigma-u Isigma-e Irho I
oNexanr lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs c-8
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
Program
Month:
: elec-fe
3
Fixed-effects (within) regression
Group variable: acct-id
R-sq: with'in = O.2427
between = 0.0475overall = 0.0820
corr(u-i , xb) -- o.o222
Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg =llliD( =
F (2,4O7)Prob>F =
691
408
37.44
0.0000
1L.7
2
(Std. Err- adjusted for 408 c'lusters in acct-id)
dai 1y-usage Coef
RobustStd. Err.t P>ltl [95S conf. Interval]
treatxpostpost
_cons
-23.80843
6.539788
48.06465
24.566718
14.606008
.73883443
2.760896
1. 349265
.5024408
-8. 62
4.85
95.70
0.000
0.000
0.000
-29.21581
3.88739
47 .09695
-18.381039.19218749.07235
sigma-u Isigma-e Irho I (fraction of variance due to u-i)
Program: elec-feMonth: 4
Fixed-effects (within) regressionGroup variable: acct-id
R-sq: with.i n
betweenoveral I
corr(u-i, Xb) = 0-0181
Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg =ilAX =
F (2,407)Prob>F =
= 0.1849
= 0.0182
= 0.0638
688
408
29.81
0_ 0000
1L-7
2
(Std. Err. adjusted for 408 clusters in acct_id)
dai'ly-usage Coef
Robuststd. Err"a otlal [95% Conf. Interval]
treatxpostpost
cons
-16- 85183
5. 855657
38. 0876
2.189117t-2215t7
.4154903
-7.704-799t.67
-2L.L57223.450455
37.27083
-12.550458. 260859
38.90438
0.000
0- 000
0.000
si gma-u
s'r gma_e
rho
-+
I
I
I (fraction of variance due to u_i)
a Noronf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs c-9
19. 11651
12.090549
.7L4705)7
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
Program
il,onth:
: elec-fe
5
Fixed-effects (with'in) regressionGroup variab1e: acct-id
R-sq: within = 0.1057
between = 0.0184overall = 0.0286
Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg =milX =
686
408
1L.7
2
corr(u-i, xb) = 0.0179
F (2,4O7)
Prob > F
16. 31
0.0000
(Std. Err. adjusted for 408 clusters in acct-id)
dai 1y-usage Coef
Robuststd. Err t P>ltl [95% conf. Interval]
treatxpostpost
_cons
-9.8376973.909773
31.5448
L.726432
1.042991
. 316822
-5. 70
3.7593.65
0.000
0.0000.000
-13.23153
1. 859451
30.88267
-6.443865.96009532.20692
si gma-u
s'r gma_e
rho
L7 -742839.8081526
.76594158 (fraction of variance due to u-i)
Progran: e'lec-fei4onth: 6
rixed-effects (within) regression
Group variable: acct-id
R-sq: rithin = O.O974
between = 0.0001overall = 0.0088
Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg =max =
68q
408
1.
1
7
2
corr(u-'i, xb) = -0.0340
F (2,4O7)
Prob > F
11.81
0.0000
(std. Err. adjusted for 408 clusters in acct-id)
dai 1y-usage Coef
Robuststd. Err t P>ltl [95% conf. Interva'l]
treatxpostpost
_cons
-6.321508-2 -20L27216. 11282
2.220504
L.LL7978
. 4045 309
-2. 85
-a.9789.27
0.005
0. 050
0.000
-10.6866
-4.399004
35. 11759
-1.956419
-. 00354
16.90805
si gma-u
s I gma_e
rho
2L.33072
aa_7798t5
.76629753 (fraction of variance due to u-i)
o Ne@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs C-10
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
Program: elec-feMonth: 7
rixed-effects (within) regression
Group variable: acct-id
R-sq: within = 0.0448
between = 0.0005overall = 0.0029
corr(u-i, Xb) = -0.0264
Number of obs
Number of groups
Obs per group: m'in =avg =lllilX =
F (2,4A7)
Prob > F
685
408
3.97
0.0196
1
L.7
2
(Std. Err. adjusted for 408 clusters in acct-id)
Idaily-usage I coef.
treatxpostpost
_con5
si gma-u
s'r gma_e
rho
-5.542756
-. 6010498
40.05542
RobustStd. Err.
2.454r_06
1.027488
.4247579
-2.26-0.5894.30
o.024
0.559
0.000
-10.36706
-2.62089539.22042
-.77845
1.418795
40.8904L
t P>ltl [95% conf. rnterval]
24.857L76
L2.373L96
.80142553 (fraction of variance due to u-i)
Program: elec-feMonth: 8
Fixed-effects (within) regress'ion
Group variable: acct-id
R-sq: within
betweenoveral I
corr(u-i, xb) = -0.0165
Number of obs
Number of groups
Obs per group: m'in =avg =max =
683
408
1t.7
2
0240
0000
0020
=0=0=0
F(2,407)
Prob > F
2.40
o.0922
(Std. Err- adjusted for 408 clusters in acct-id)
Idaily-usage I--+------Coef
RobustStd- Err.t P>ltl [95% conf. rnterval]
treatxpost | -4.239495post I .422LVA6
-cons | 35.9529
2. 033625
.9880815
. 3648281
-2.08
0.4398.55
-8.2372L6
-1.520209
35 _2157L
-.24L77442.364552
36.67008
0
0
0
038
669
000
sigma-u Isigma_e Irho I
21.486861
10.615112
.80122301 (fraction of variance due to u-i)
o Noronf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs c-11
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
Program: elec-felMonth: I
Fixed-effects (within) regression
Group variab1e: acct-id Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg =llliD( =
F (2,4O7)Prob>F =
682
408
R-sq: within = 0.0284
between = 0.0071overall = 0.0114
1t.7
2
corr(u-i, Xb) = O-0272
5.O2
o. 0070
(std. Err. adjusted for 408 clusters in acct-id)
dai 1y-usage Coef
Robuststd. Err.t P>ltl [95X conf. Interval]
treatxpostpost
_cons
-5 - 122613
1.2965653L.72176
L.77L62
L-222787
. 3631289
-2.89
1_ 06
87.36
0" 004
0.290
0.000
-8.60528
-1.107201
31. 00992
-1.639946
3.700111
32.4376
si gma-u
s'r gma*e
rho
17.660119
r_0.589468
.73554113 (fraction of variance due to u-i)
Program: elec*fei4onth: 10
IFixed-effects (within) regression
Group variable: acct-id Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg =lll0X =
681
408
R-sq: within
between =0=0=0
2001
0168
0614
1t.7
2overail
corr(u-i, b) = 0.0280
F (2,4O7)
Prob > F
(std. Err. adjusted for 408 clusters in acct-id)
dai 1y-usage Coef
Robuststd. Err.t P>ltl [95% Conf. Interval]
treatxpostpost
_cons
-L4.7L0294.755652
36- 06541_
1.730813
L.L5L644
-3479607
-8.504.L3
103- 65
0.000
0.000
0.000
-L8.LL274
2.49L738
35. 3E139
-11.30784
7.019566
36.7 4944
si gma--u
s'l gmar_e
rho
18.088502
10.150915
.76050049 (fraction of variance due to u-i)
0 Norunf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs c-12
38.21
0. ooo0
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
Program: elec-fe
It onth: 11
Fixed-effects (within) regression
Group variable: acct-'id
R-sq: within = 0.2980
between = 0.0372overall = 0.0882
corr(u_i, xb) = 0.0146
Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: m'in =avg =max =
680
408
1.1
7
2
>F 47.76
0.0000
(Std- Err. adjusted for 408 clusters in acct_id)
4O7)(2,
robF
P
dai 1y-usage Coef
RobustStd. Err t P>ltl [95][ Conf. rnterval]
treatxpostpost
_cons
si gma-u
sr gma_e
rho
-22.81156-1.40625655.81253
2. 9815 19
L.643874
.5550751
-7.65-0.86
L00- 55
0.000
0. l9l
0- 000
-2E.6727-4.6378
54-72L36
-16.95041
L.825289
56. 9037
26_7232L7
16. 19908.73t28582 (fraction of variance due to u_i)
Program: e'lec-feMonth: 12
Fixed-effects (hrithin) regressionGroup variable: acct-'id
R-sq: within
betweenoveral I
corr(u-i, xb) = O.O2L7
Number of obsNumber of groups
obs per group: min =avg =lnilX =
677
408
=0=o=0
2994
0406
0851_
1L-7
2
F (2 ,4O7)Prob > F
46.740.0000
(std. Err. adjusted for 408 clusters in acct_id)
dai ly-usage Coef Robuststd. Err.t P>ltl [95% conf. rnterval]-+-treatxpost | -10.58403post I .2291066
-cons I 68.8572L
sigma-u I 16-L272O3sigma-e I 2O-O9467Lrho | .76]7L986 (fraction of variance due to u_i)
3 -741369
2 -034197.6877635
-8-LV
0_ 11100.12
-37.93885-3.770131
67.5052
-23.2292L
4.22834470.20923
000
910
000
0
0
0
Home Energy Reports:
o Noro,nr lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs C-13
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
Program: opower Behaviorial erogram (xome energy neports)
washington Electric: 2O13 cohort
source I ss df Ms---+------uodel I 260532602 112 2126183.95nesidual | 1.1496e+O92451929 549.989594---+------rotal | 1.6102er092454041 656.129224
Number of obs - 2454042
F(112,2453929) : 4229. 51Prob>F = o.ooooR-squared = 0.1618Adj R-squared = 0.1618Root MSE 23.452
avg-da'i1y--e I coef. std. Err.t P>ltl [95% conf. tnterval]
)m#treatment641 1
642 154:l 1u4L645 1
646 1il7L
648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1651 1654 1
655 1656 1
657 L658 1
659 1660 1
661 1662 1661 1
664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 L671 1674 L
675 1676 1
677 t678 1
679 1680 1681 1682 16El 16M1685 1
686 1687 1688 1589 1
690 1691 1
692 1691 1
694 1695 1696 1
.oL78747
-.3064995-.42.42t7L
-.6148696
-.785797V-L.A47487-L.274207
-L-249/,47-1.19674
-1.101261-.9612266-.8248401-.6991551-.7276476-.8182715-.848509-.8228029
-L.L29947
-1.441191-1.358612-1.169726-1.055156-.9774023
-.8835826
-.834851-. 8528995
-.7528365-.799V389-.8541115-1.257182
-1.742369
-1.697641-L.516142
-1.40965 5
-t-21V447-1.031526-.96L8727-.9777276-1. O51989
-1.167849
-1.448069-1.829975
-2.4161.05-2.399604
-1.923696-1.615395-1. 382218
-1.131575-.9639195
-1-. O59212
-1.191671
-1.11741-1.38837
-1.621054-1.916115
-1.91476
.2516025
.2486151
. ?47 587 5.2479961.247U68
. z4v78V7
.24V6LA
. z.4vv9t8
.2485454
.2516105.2550351
.2665658.2665809
.266751
.2669136
.2670152.267L294
.26V283
.2669211.2630667
.2625514
.2637872
.2668282
.2738616
.2737464.2V395]4
. 2740896
.274666.2745321
.2.v46L82.2t46291
.2750057.2752V39
- 2761815
.2V945L9
.285401
.2855048
.285674L
.2858088
. 28624 56
. 28611.2861928
.2862527.2866382
.2866498
-287514.2901175
. 2956014
.2956417
.29647?7.2961279
.2966915.2965593.2966il3.2968901
.4413948
-.47 52574
-.79377@-
-.9094999-1.100933-L.27L5U-1.533143-1.75953
-1.735112-1.68388-1. 600329
-1.461087
-1. 147l
-1.221644-L.25047-1.141415-1.371849-1.346367
-1.653813-1.966553-L.8742L3
-1.684117-L.572L7-1. 500376
-t.420342-1. 371.184-1. 389839
-1.290042
-1.138075-1. 392187
-L.795424-2.280633-2.236641-2. 05 567
-1.951151-1.785161-1.590906-1.521452-1.537639-1.612164-1. 72888
-2. 00881 5
-2.390903
-2.977L5-2.9614@
-2.48552-2.L74913
-1.950878-L.712943-1.543387-1.619501-L.77707L
-1.71893S-1.969616
-2.202506-2. s18029
-2.783798
.5110068
.t807774
. 06102 57
-.128806-.3000216-. 5618321
-.7888848-.7637818-.7095996-. 6061937
-. 4611667
-. loal804
-.1766659-.204825
-.2951122-.1251687-.2992386
-.6060821-.9202312-. 84301
-.6551342-.5381426-.4544284-. 3468235
-.2983176-. 1159605
-.2156106-- 2614012
-. 3160397
-.7189399-1. 204105
-1.15864-.97661s1
-.8679567-.6897309-.4721461-.4022912-.4178163-.4916142
-.6068176-.8871033-1.269@7-1.85506-1.837803
-1.361871-1. O51878
-.81355S2-.5542069
-.1844922-.478921-.6112707-.5559214-.8071245
-1. 019602
-1.15424
-1. 045722
0. 07
-L.23-L.VL
-7.48-3.47-4.23-5.15-5. 04
-4. 81
-4.35-1-77-1. 09
-2.62-2-73-].07-3.18
-3. 08
-4.23-5.41-5.16
-5.46-6.52-4.32
o. 943
0. 2180.087o.0130.002o.000
o. o00
0.0000.000
o. oooo.000
o.002
o. oo9
o. 006
o. oo2
o. oo10.002
o. ooo
0.000
o. ooo
o- ooo
o. ooo
o. ooo
o. oo1
o. oo2
o. oo2
o. 006
o- oo4o.002
o. ooo
0. ooo
o. ooo
o. oooo.000
o. ooo
0. oo0
o. oo1
o. oo1
o. ooo
o. ooo
o. oo0
o. ooo
o. oooo. ooo
o. ooo
o. ooo
o. ooo
o. ooo
o. oo1
o. ooo
o. ooo
CI.000
0. ooo
o. oo0
o. ooo
o. ooo
-4.46-4. OO
-3.66
-3-23-3. O5-3.11-7.7 5
-2.91-1.11-4.58-6- 34
-6.17-5.51-5.10-4.4?-3.61-).37-3.42-1.68-4. 08
-5. 06
-6- 39
-8.44-4.37-6.7L-5.62-4.76-3.83-3.26-3.58-4. 02
-1.83-4. 68
a Ne@nr lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs c-14
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
ymfl2
643
644
645
646
647
548
649
650
651
652
651
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
6V7
671
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
681
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
691
694
69s
696
1ag-lcutud
_cons
4. 069202
3.270451
.7118614
s. 04066
18.16667
2.6.87L32
27.44L923.94496
11.45028
2.867824
-2.206878
-1.6715694.2865782.977757
-7.2@957L.L773Zt
14. 08796
22..f2V73
20.3r817
13.33007
6. 685413
.L66/.78
-2.3011942.8989296.7034t
z. o861M
-2.92295
-.31218879.66406220.16821
21. 05129
13.46648
5.7429L1
-1.84759
-4.365085-2. 599196
.vLLOL74
. 5956879
-2.859384-.55427889.35442L
26. 0084530.50718
21.25091to.9797
2.207602
-2.33V253-- 8455458
4.7774443.54611
-L.256443L.606767
10.4152418.52706
26.26003
.31t7401.3110871
.1114467
.1133118
.3L32773
.3131526
.3A32735
. 3137 561
.3L69772
.3178209
.3251835
.325L747
.1252886
.3254029
.3255002
.3255977
.32570L2.1254688
.1230219
.3227085
.1235041
.325492
. floo198
.3298853
.3300101.f300778.33M847
.3301494
.3303946
. 3303917.3106511
.1108894
.3115996.3336685
.1375368
.3375923
. 117681
.337781-2
.3180832
.3379647
. r380116
.3380421
.3383LO1
. ll8l215
.3188545
.3406006.344234
.34422L6
.3445088
.3445465
.3449V49.3448)67
.1448806
.1450165
.4517991
LZ.
10.
2.
16.57.
2V
o9
99
81
87 .47
76.32
42.44
9. 02
-6.79-5.141r.189.15
000
o00
o00
000
o00
o00
000
000
000
000
ooo
000
000
000
000
o00
o00
000
609
000
o00
000
000
000
3450.000
0. o000.0000.000
0.000
0. o000.000
0.000o.035
0. o78
0. oo0
0.1010.0000.000
0.000
o. ooo
0.000
0. ooo
0. o00
0.014
0.0000.0000.000
0. oooo.000
0.0000.000
3.454281
2.656811
. o975168
4.426541
17.55266
26.25755
26.V879
23.13001
12.82912
2.244906
-2.8/4226-2.30893.6490232.339978
-2.90297.L.5391615
11.4496
21.68982
19.70506
12.697586.051357
-.47L4749-2.9480212.252166
6. O56602
L.439243
-3. 570689
-.959662
9. 0165
19. 52066
20.40523
12.81795
5.092988
-2. 501569
-5.026645
-3.260865.@9w45
-.0661514
-3.522015-L.2t6678.6919125.3459
29.8441120. 58781
10.11556
1. 540037
-3. 01194
-1. 520108
4.102219
2.870811
-1. 932582
.9108996
9.739287
17.85084
25.37452
4.684L22
3.884091
1.126206
5.65477918.78068
27.48509
28. 01591
24.5599t
14. 0714 5
3.490742
-1.56953
-1. Ol42l84.924L32
1.615535
-1.6269831. E15481
L4,726)3
22.96563
20.97L28
13.962.57
7 .31,947
.8044309
-L.6543673.545493
v . ]50719
2.733L25
-2.2752LL.3352846
10.11162
70.8Ls77
?.l..70L36
14.11502
6.392815
-1.193612
-3.703524
-L.937527L.37286t.257727
-2.L96751.108112310.0169126.67t
31.170262L.9L4
11.64384
2.875168
-L.662567
-.1709836
5. 4 52669
4.22L409-. 5803042
2.282635
11. 09119
19.20128
27.L4554
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
o.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
0.o.
0.
9V
45
-6.961.62
43.2568.6062.96
41.3120.67o.51
-6.978.79
20.31
6. 12
-8. E4
-o.9529.25
61. 04
63.6740.70
L7.32
-8.46-1.6427.67
76.94
90.18
62. 81
12.40
6.48
-6.79-2.4613.8710.29
-3.644. 6630.20
51.70
58.12
000
00002l
85.
. ol44 56
18.38211
. oo01485.2232373
-5.54-12.93-7.702.11L.76
232.09
L71,.94
0.0000.000 .03416537.94477
. 034747
:I8.81984
o Noronr lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs c-l5
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
Progriiln: opou,er eehaviorial erogram (nome EnerEf neports)
washington Plectric: 2016 cohort
source I ss df Ms
---?------rqodel
nesi dual
182288650 44
100150141569390
4142921.87
175.890216
Number of obs = 569415F( 44' 569390) =23554. O3Prob>F - o.ooooR-squared = O.6454ndj n-squared = 0.6.454
Root MSE = 13.262Total I 282418791569414 495.99917
avg-dai]y--e I coef. std. Err. t P>ltl [95tr conf. tnterval]---+------
lm#treatment675 t676 L
677 L
678 1679 L680 1681 1682 1583 168rt 1685 1686 1687 L
688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1691 1
694 1
695 1696 1
ym
676
677
678679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
-.2571161-.1545021
-.4841118-.6822016-.681753-.6648847-.8426944
-.9712203
-1. 026605-. 956116
-.7580758
-.6470171
-.7t14455-.6794118-.5519291-.5898725-.640121
-.6125718
-.5312587-.6791351-.840854-.5719597
-.7661914-3.888617
-3.759047.023015
.4552551
. 2958182
1.28779V
6.7452769.662788
7.932101
5.2214592.52470t
.422991
-2.277665.1471093
2.904191.8914721.605066
1.918711
1.100457
5.401497
.1524184
.1535506
.1548165
.1561576.tsv4758
.1588538
.1599129
.L60V97V.1616t78
.1623662
.162929
.1634213
.1642253
.1651139.t662972
.1676166
.1687934
.1699885
.1709177
.1719146
.L72767V
.2553915
.1530163.1s36962
.1545168
.1550191
.1556458
.1561588
- 1 56814 5
.L5V7764.15819
.1580121
.1579817
.158382
.1588396
.1595245
.1601987
.1608662
. 161 5261
.1620376
.1627831
.163725
.2098334
-1.69-2.31-1.13-4.37-4.ll-4.19-5.27
-5. 04
-6. l5
-5. E9
-4.65-3.96
-4.45-4.11-r. ll
-1. 52
-3.79-3.72-1.11-1.95
-5. 01
-25-;tO-24. llo.152.921.89
8. 2142.75
61. 08
50.19
13. os
15.94
923.67
)7 .44
-. 5558514
-.6554564-.747 547)
-.9882654-.9904005-.976213
-1.156119-L.786379-1.14141-1.274169-1.077411
-.9671218
-1. 05ll22
-1- OOIOI
-.8798666-.918f957-.9709528
-.9657438
-.866252-1. 016122
-1.1794.71-1. O72519
-1.066138-4.189857-4. 061895
-.2808174.1501944
-. 0102281
_ 9799454
6.4160399.35274L7.62736)
4.911816
2.?.L4278
.1116725
-2.590128
-.L672672.5890971.574886L.2874V8
1.599681
.7795615
4.990231
.0416191
-.0535479
-.1806763-.3761377-.1731054-.1535364-.529270]
-.6560619
-.7098005-.6379035-.4387447
-.3267L29
-.409s692-.3557939-.227992L-.26L3494-.3092931
-.2993997
-.1962654-.1423489-.5022348-.0714005
-.4662452
-3.587377-3.456199.3268475
.7603161
.6019044
1. 594648
7. O54513
9. 972835
8.241839
5.511102
2.81s125.7343L36
-1.965002.4614856
1.2196812.2080s81.922655
2.23778L
1.421353
5.812764
-4. 87
-?.,74
0.
0.
0.
o.
o.
0.
o.
0.0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
o.
0.
0.
o.
0.0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
092
021
o02
o00
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
oo0
000
oo0
001
000
000
000
o02
oo0
000
025
000
oo0
000
882o0l
o58
000
oo0
000
o00
000
ooo
008
000
2.6614.28o.92
18. 0511.719.9111.796.72
25.74
359
o00
000
000
o00
oo0
000
1ag-kuh-d
_cons
.84s61164.217188 .0009155
.1126515
o. oo0
0. oo0
.84181921.99619 .8474079
4. 4 3798 5
oNexonf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs c-l6
LrNexanf fmpact Evaluation of ldaho Electric 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs c-l
"d
oNg@nf
Headquarters
101 2nd Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco CA 94105-3651
Tel: (4'15) 369-1000
Fax: [phone]
www.nexant.com
.:If.w I
I\J7
r-1
Exhibit No. 2:
Avista 2017 ldaho Annual Conservation Report
Exhibit No. 2: Avista 2017 ldaho Annual Conservation Report
ldaho 2017 DSIV Annual
Conservation Report & Cost-
Effective ness Analys is
June 29,2018
.#utsra tr
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary......
1.1 Cost-Effectiveness
1.2 Tariff Rider Balances..
1.3 Third-Party Evaluation
1.4 2017 Program Highlights, Challenges and Changes.
1.5 2017 Portfolio Trends............
2 Gost-Effectiveness
2.1 Electric Cost Effectiveness Results
1
2
3
4
4
6
I
2.3 Natura! Gas Cost Effectiveness Results
2.4 Combined Fuel Cost Effectiveness Resu|ts.............
11
13
15
17
17
17
18
18
18
18
19
19
19
19
19
27
27
28
29
30
31
33
3 Programs
3.1 Residential
3.1.1 Program Changes..
3.1.1.1 Residential Program Discontinuations
3.1.1.2 Residential Program Adjustmenfs.......
3.1.2 HVAC Program
3.1.3 Water Heat Pro9ram...........
3.1.4 ENERGY STAR HOMES
3.1 .5 Fuel Efficiency ..........
3.1 .6 Residential Lighting
3.1.7 Shell
3.1.8 Opower/Oracle Home Energy Reports
3.1 .9 Residential Trend Analysis
3.1.9.1 Residential Lighting
3.1.9.2 Residential Fuel Efficiency Program ......
3.1.9.3 Residential Shell Programs.
3.1.9.4 Opower/Oracle Home Energy Reporls...
3.2 Low 1ncome...............
3.2.1 Program Changes..
aD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
3.2.2 2017 Program Details
3.3 Nonresidential
3.3.1 Program Changes..
3.3.2 Prescriptive Path....
3.3.3 Site Specific Path....
3.3.4 Small Business Program...
3.3.5 Non-Residential Trend Analysis...
3.4 Customer Outreach
3.4.1 Residential Customer Outreach
3.4.2 Low-lncome Customer Outreach
3.4.3 Nonresidential Customer Outreach.............
4 Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification (EM&V)
5 Generation and Distribution Efficiency ............53
5.1 Generation and Distribution.............. ............53
6 Regional Market Transformation
6.1 Avista Electric Energy Savings Share
6.2 Avista Natural Gas Energy Savings Share......
6.3 2017 Costs
7 Energy Efficiency Expenditures
8 Tariff Rider Balances...
I Actual to Annual Conservation Plan Gomparison........
10 Net Gost Effectiveness Results.
10.1 Electric Cost Effectiveness Results.63
10.2 Natural Gas Cost Effectiveness Results 65
10.3 Combined Fuel Cost Effectiveness Results.... ..............67
33
39
39
39
40
41
47
49
49
49
50
52
56
56
57
57
58
60
61
1l
^#ursta,
lD 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Appendices:
Appendix A: ldaho 2016-2017 Electric lmpact Evaluation
Appendix B: ldaho 2016-2017 NaturalGas lmpact Evaluation
Appendix C: 2016-2017 Process Evaluation Report
1 Executive Summary
The 2017 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Annual Report summarizes Avista Utilities'
(Avista) annual energy efficiency achievements for its ldaho electric and natural gas customers.
These programs are intended to deliver all cost-effective conservation with the funding provided
through Avista's Schedules 91 and 191, also known as the "Tariff Rider" which is a system
benefit charge applied to all electric and natural gas retail sales.
Avista's 2017 targel as reported in the 2017 lntegrated Resource Plan (lRP) is 1 1 ,186 lvlWh. ln
2017, Avista acquired 42,373 MWh (gross verified savings) in ldaho, or 379o/o of its target.
Primary drivers for electric savings included the nonresidential Prescriptive Lighting and Site
Specific projects. Residential HVAC, residentialfuel efficiency, residential lighting efforts and
small business projects also contributed a fair amount to the overall savings contribution. ln
2017, Avista's ldaho naturalgas efficiency portfolio delivered 305,508 therms in savings (gross
verified savings), achieving 155o/o of the Company's 2017 natural gas target of 197,640 therms
as noted in the 2017 lRP. Primary drivers for the natural gas savings include residential
prescriptive HVAC and water heat measures, small business projects, and nonresidential
prescriptive measures.
ln 2017, over $1.4 million in rebates were provided directly to ldaho residential customers to
offset the cost of implementing these energy efficiency measures. All programs within the
residential portfolio contributed over 5,300 MWh and over 232,000 therms to the annual energy
savings. ln addition, more than 1,500 prescriptive and site specific nonresidential projects were
incented. Additionally, the Small Business program installed over 23,000 individual measures.
Avista's tariff riders funded more than $6.8 million for energy efficiency incentives in
nonresidential and small business applications. Nonresidential programs realized over 36,500
MWh and over 71,000 therms in annual first-year energy savings. A summary of acquired
savings in 2017 by sector is provided for both fuels in Tables ES-1 and ES-2 below.
Table ES-l: 2017ldaho Electric Energy Savings (Gross Verified)
Residential 5,306,098
Low lncome 380,170
Nonresidential 36,536,737
Subtotal 42,223,004
Distribution 150,000
Total 42,373,004
1
Segment kwh
lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Table ES-2: 2017 ldaho Natural Gas Savings (Gross Verified)
Residential 232,899
Low lncome 1,427
Nonresidential 71,182
Total 305,508
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 the evaluation of the programs.
1.1 Cost-Effectiveness
Avista judges the effectiveness of the energy efficiency portfolio based upon a number of
metrics. Two of the most commonly applied metrics are the UCT (utility cost test)l and the TRC
(total resource cost). The UCT is a benefit-to-cost test from the utility perspective including
incentives and excluding net costs and non-energy benefits of participants related to energy
efficiency services. The TRC test is a benefit-to-cost test from the customer perspective
including all measure costs and non-energy benefits and excluding incentives. Both tests
provide insight as to the net value to all customers.
Benefitto-cost ratios in excess of 1.00 indicate that the benefits exceed the costs. |n2017,
electric and naturalgas gross TRC was 2.69 and 0.62, respectively. Electric and naturalgas
UCT test benefit-cost ratios were 4.33 and 2.35, respectively. Tables ES-3 and ES-4 present
the UCT cost-effectiveness results for the electric and gas portfolios.
I Also knorarn as the PAC (program administrator cost) test.
2
Segment
lD 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Therms
Table ES-3: 2017 lD Electric Utility Gost Test (UCT) (Gross)
Electric Avoided Costs $40,736,366
Natural Gas Avoided Costs -$759,633
UCT Benefits $39,976,734
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $1,028,765
lncentive Costs $8,209,952
UCT Costs $9,238,716
UCT Ratio 4.33
Net UCT Benefits $30,738,017
Table ES-4: 2017 lD Natural Gas Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Gross)
Natural Gas Avoided Costs $2,105,243
Electric Avoided Costs $0
UCT Benefits $2,105,243
Non-l ncentive Utility Costs $134,673
lncentive Costs $763,057
UCT Costs $897,729
UCT Ratio 2.35
Net UCT Benefits $1,207 ,514
1.2 Tariff Rider Balances
Beginning in 2017, the ldaho electric tariff rider balances were underfunded by $ S.g million.
During 2017, $7.3 million in tariff rider revenue was collected to fund electric energy efficiency
while $11.0 million was expended to operate energy efficiency programs. The $3.6 million
3
$40,339,290 $397,077
-$688,086 -$71,546
$39,651,203 $325,530
$963,894 $64,871
$7,665,243 $544,709
$8,629,137 $609,s80
4.60 0.53
$31,022,067 -$284,049
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$2,094,132 $'11,'111
$0 $0
$2,094,132 $11,111
$130,451 $4,222
$608,137 $154,920
$738,587 $1 59,142
2.84 0.07
$1,355,s4s -$148,031
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
AEvtsra
lD 2017 DSM Annual Gonservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
under-collection of tariff rider funding resulted in a year-end underfunded balance of $9.6
million. The primary driver for the underfunded balance was the unanticipated high participation
in the nonresidential lighting program in 2017. On September 291h,2017, the ldaho Commission
approved the Company's application to increase its Energy Efficiency Rider's funds to recover
those costs over 36 months. That application was approved and made effective October '1,
20172.
The ldaho gas tariff rider balance was underfunded by $76,913 as of the start of 2017 . During
2017, $1.4 million in tariff rider revenue was collected to fund natural gas energy efficiency while
$1.1 million was expended to operate natural gas energy efficiency programs, resulting in an
ending balance of $180,889 (overfunded).
1.3 Third-Party Evaluation
Nexant, lnc., in partnership with Research lnto Action, (the evaluation team) was retained as the
Company's external evaluator to independently measure and verify the portfolio energy savings
for the 2016-2017 biennium period. The energy efficiency savings and associated cost-
effectiveness results presented in this 2017 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 the Appendix.
1.4 2017 Program Highlights, Ghallenges and Changes
Avista practices active management and continuous process improvement when delivering
energy efficiency programs. Through the evaluation team's on-going evaluation activities and
through internal active management, Avista recognizes program successes and challenges
throughout the year and practices continuous process improvement to strive for the delivery of
successful and cost-effective energy efficiency programs. Some of Avista's 2017 program
highlights as well as some challenges are described below.
2 Case No. AVU-E-I7-06, Order No. 33897
4 lD 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Hard to Reach Markets: A highlight for 2017 is Avista's participation in the Small-Medium
Business Program that started in mid-2015 with an initial contract period of 2 years with
SBW Consulting. This program was well received by our hard to reach small business
customers and the contract was extended to the end of 2017 which resulted in a
successful year. As the program was coming to a close, Avista chose to leverage the
industry knowledge and capabilities of its existing conservation vendor, SBW by hiring
them to perform the Company's [Vlultifamily Direct lnstall Pilot Program. This pilot
program is designed to target a hard-to-reach segment of rental customers living in
complexes of 4 or more units. Traditionally, this demographic has been identified as
underserved in Avista's region and the efforts of SBW help to serve these customers.
Liohtinq Proorams: The Company's Residential and Non-Residential Lighting Programs
experienced an unprecedented level of conservation achievement throughout the year.
The Company's lighting offerings maintained a high level of cost effectiveness while
providing customers with access to affordable LED lighting. As the market transforms,
the Company adapts its offerings, incentives, and savings values. During 2017,the
Company discontinued incentives for CFL product buy-downs to align with the current
market conditions and transitioned its efforts to LED lamps and fixtures only.
Residential Prescriptive: Fuel Conversions and Lighting programs accounted for the
majority of rebate requests. Fuel conversions continue to drive the residential rebates
program and Avista attributes some of the groMh to partnering with our local HVAC
contractors to better market the savings to the customer. This effort materialized
through the integration of a preferred HVAC contractor list that would be provided on the
website to customers that expressed an interest in fuel conversions or furnace efficiency
upgrades.
Home Enerqv Reports: The OPower/Oracle Home Energy Report program ended in
2017 with the last report sent in December of that year. Avista's Home Energy Report
has been a successful avenue to achieve conservation for our customers. As the report
program comes to an end, Avista looks to incorporate new behavior programs by
leveraging new technologies such as Advanced Metering lnfrastructure (AMI) and an
alternative customer energy use comparison system.
Low-lncome Measures: The Company is pleased that, through work with our advisory
group, it was successful in identifying and adding new measures for Washington and
ldaho customers in 2017. By working with our advocates and advisors, the Company
saw a substantial increase in the number of Approved Measures available for the 2017
program year. While it is understood that cost-effective energy efficiency programs are
a main requirement, the ability to serve the low income customer cost effectively is a
constant challenge. Avista has taken steps to pay for the value of the energy saved
which in some cases becomes an amount that is not meaningful to the agency to install.
Continuing the integrated resource planning and conservation potential assessment processes,
Avista reviews existing and potential programs as part of the DSM business planning process.
ln 2017, through adaptive management, programs were modified to reflect updated savings and
cost information that affected incentive levels.
|n2017, the Company began implementation of iEnergy/DSM Centralwhich is an enterprise
DSM software intended to manage data across multiple internal software programs and allow
lD 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Gost-Effectiveness Analysis5
I
the DSM team to utilize the information in one place. This software will also be a benefit to
external stakeholders including regulators, advisors, and trade allies. The Company is on pace
to functionalize the software in 2018 with the bulk of its programs managed in the program by
2020.
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.
1.5 2017 Portfolio Trends
Avista experienced increased savings in 2017 compared to its previous years and much of the
change is attributed to the increasing popularity of LED lighting, TLED lighting and Fuel
Conversions. Avista's 42,223,004 kWh of energy savings from 2017 is slightly higher than its
2016 acquisition of 38,149,383 kwh3. Nonresidential programs increased their conservation
acquisition from21,305,147 kWh in 2016 to 36,536,737 kWh in 2017, a71o/oincrease. Savings
acquired through the Company's residential program decreased from 9,071,745 kwh in 2016 to
6,045,19't kWh in 20174, a33o/o decrease.
3 Gross verified savings from lhe 2016-2017 ldaho Eleckic lmpact Evaluation Report. All 2016 values contained within this report
are verified gross savings and will not match the values in the 2016 Annual Report (which are adjusted reported gross) unless
otherwise noted.
4 Amounts exclude the Opower/Oracle Home Energy Reports. (5,306,098 kwh less -739,094 impact of Opower = 6,045,191 k\r'Uh)
lO 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis6
Figure ES-1: ldaho Electric Energy Savings 2014-20175
ldaho Electric Energy Savings 2OL4-2O17
*Low-lncome is included in the overall total
20t7,42,223,00445,000,000
40,000,000
35,000,000
30,000,000
2s,000,000
20,000,000
1s,000,000
1.0,000,000
5,000,000
0
2016, 38,149,383
2014,
2015,17,660,188
2015, 15,666,200 2077, 1,7),86,000
2016,17,2L3,O00
2014,1'3,460,637
20L4 20L5 20L6 20L7
-5,000,000
I Residential r Nonresidential lOpowep
-fsf3l -lRP
Target
Of Avista's overall Electric savings portfolio, Non-Residential Prescriptive programs produced
58% of the overall savings, while Non-Residential Site Specific programs accounted for 25o/o of
the overall savings. Residential Lighting, which achieved slightly more savings than in 2016,
accounted for 8o/o of the overall savings. See Figure ES-2 for an illustration of these metrics.
5 Savings numbers tot 2014 are unverified gross wtlile 2015-2017 are verified gross savings.
7 lD 2017 DSM Annual Conseryation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
F_-]
^*vrsta
Figure ES-2: 2017 ldaho Electric Savings Portfolio
2Ol7 lD Electric Gross Verified Savings Portfolio
8
Non-Residential Site
9%
Specific
25%
Everything
. Else
Non-Residential
Perscriptive
s8%
lD 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Lighting
4vtsta
2 Cost-Effectiveness
The 2017 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 Utility Cost Test (UCT)6, Total Resource Cost (TRC), Participant Cost Test (PCT),
and Rate lmpact Measure (Rll\I) tests. For this annual report, cost-effectiveness of DSM
programs is based on unverified adjusted gross savings using methods consistent with those
laid out in the California Standard Practice Manualfor Economic Analysis of Demand-Side
Programs and Projects as modified by the Council. Table 2-'t summarizes the allocation of cost-
effectiveness components as a cost or benefit to each cost-effectiveness test.
Table 2-l : Cost-Effectiveness Component lnputs
Utility
Cost Test(ucr)
Total
Resource
Cost (TRC)
Participant
Cost Test
(Pcr)
Rate
lmpact
MeasureComponent
(RrM
Utility Energy & Capacity Avoided
Costs Benefit Benefit
Benefit Benefit
Benefit
Non-Utility Energy
Costs
Energy
Non-Energy Benefit lmpacts Benefit Benefit
lncremental Equipment and
lnstallation Costs Cost Cost
Program Non-incentive (admin) Costs Cost Cost Cost
lncentive 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 safe$ non-energy benefits (dollar for dollar) for the low-income
programs. Non-energy benefits that are 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.
6 Also known as the PAC (program administrator cost) test.
9
A,Vwsr:a
lD 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Low-lncome conservation items have been separately identified from the Regular lncome
portfolio in the following tables. For those items, the costs associated with low-income also
lncludes amounts funded to the Community Action Partnership (CAP) agencies.
Cost effectiveness results within this report are based on adjusted reported savings. Energy
savings reported by Avista's implementation team (both external and internal to Avista) were
reviewed by the Company's external evaluator and adjusted for any major discrepancies in
reporting. The savings estimates, and therefore the cost effectiveness results, represent gross
energy acquisition.
The "ResidualTRC" is used to denote the difference between TRC benefits and costs. 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.
Avoided costs used for the cost-effectiveness valuation of the 2017 electric and natural gas
programs are the avoided costs from the most recently filed electric and natural gas lRPs.
ln summary, electric and natural gas UCT benefit-cost ratios are 4.33 and 2.35, respectively.
Electric and naturalgas gross TRC is 2.69 and 0.62, respectively. Table 2-2 through Table 2-'13
illustrate electric, natural gas, and combined fuel cost-effectiveness, respectively. 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.
^#vrsta
10 lD 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
2.1 Electric Cost Effectiveness Results
fable 2-2:2017 lD Electric Utility Gost Test (UCT) (Gross)
Electric Avoided Costs
Natural Gas Avoided Costs
UCT Benefits
lncentive Gosts
UGT Costs
UCT Ratio
Net UCT Benefits
Table 2-3: 2017 lD Electric Total Resource Cost (TRC) (Gross)
Electric Avoided Costs
Natural Gas Avoided Costs
Non-Energy Benefits
TRC Benefits
Non-lncentive Utility Costs
Customer Costs
TRC Costs
TRC Ratio
Residual TRC Benefits
$40,736,366
-$759,633
$39,976,734
$1,028,765
$8,209,952
$9,238,716
4.33
$30,738,017
$40,736,366
-$759,633
$144,492
$40,121,226
$1,028,765
$13,876,629
$14,905,393
2.69
$25,215,832
$40,339,290 $397,077
-$688,086 -$71,546
$39,651,203 $325,530
$963,894 $64,871
$7,665,243 $544,709
$8,629,137 $609,580
4.60 0.53
$31,022,067 -$284,049
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$40,339,290 $397,077
-$688,086 -$71,s46
$9,896 $134,596
$39,661,100 $460,126
$963,894 $64,871
$13,384,660 $491,969
$14,348,554 $556,840
2.76 0.83
$25,312,546 -$96,714
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
^#:rrttsrra
11 lD 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Non-l ncentive Utility Costs
Table 2-4: 2017 lD Electric Participant Cost (PCT) (Gross)
Electric Bill Reduction $51 ,61 5,518
Gas Bill Reduction -$52,444
Non-Energy Benefits $144,492
Participant Benefits $51,707,566
Customer Costs $13,876,629
lncentive Received -$8,209,952
Participant Costs $5,666,677
Participant Ratio 9.12
Net Participant Benefits $46,040,889
Table 2-5: 2017 lD Electric Rate lmpact Measure (RlM) (Gross)
Electric Avoided Cost Savings $40,736,366
Non-Participant Benefits $40,736,366
Electric Revenue Loss $51 ,615,518
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $1,028,765
Customer lncentives $8,209,952
Non-Participant Costs $59,741,294 $60,854,23s
RIM Ratio 0.67
Net RIM Benefits -$20,1 I 7,868
$51,112,158 $503,361
-$48,418 -$4,027
$9,896 $134,596
$51,073,637 $633,929
$13,384,660 $491,969
-$7,665,243 -$544,709
$5,719,417 -$52,740
8.93 N/A
$45,354,220 $686,669
Regular lncome
Portfolio
Low lncome
Portfolio Overall Portfolio
$40,339,290 $397,077
$40,339,290 $397,077
$51,112,1s8 $503,361
$963,894 $64,871
$7,665,243 $544,709
$1 , 1 '12,940
0.68 0.36
-$19,402,005 -$715,864
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
^#-lrttsta
12 lD 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
2.3 Natural Gas Gost Effectiveness Results
Table 2-6: 2017 lO Natural Gas Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Gross)
Natural Gas Avoided Costs
Electric Avoided Costs
UCT Benefits
Non-l ncentive Utility Costs
lncentive Costs
UGT Costs
UCT Ratio
Net UCT Benefits
Table 2-7:2017 lD Natural Gas Total Resource Cost (TRC) (Gross)
$2,105,243
$0
$2,105,243
$134,673
$763,057
$897,729
2.35
$1,207,514
$2,105,243
$0
$91,144
$2,196,387
$134,673
$3,419,197
$3,553,869
0.62
-$1,357,482
Natural Gas Avoided Costs
Electric Avoided Costs
Non-Energy Benefits
TRC Benefits
Non-l ncentive Utility Costs
Customer Costs
TRG Costs
TRC Ratio
Residual TRC Benefits
$2,094,132 $11,11 1
$0 $0
$2,094,132 $11,11 1
$130,4s1 $4,222
$154,920$608,1 37
$738,587 $159,142
2.84 007
$1,355,545 -$148,031
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$2,094,132 $11,111
$0 $0
-$347 $91,491
$2,093,785 $102,602
$4,222$130,451
$3,282,758 $136,439
$3,413,208 $140,661
0.61
-$1,319,424 -$38,059
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome .
Portfolio
lErtsra
13 lD 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
0.73
Table 2-8: 2017 lD Natural Gas Participant Cost (PCT) (Gross)
Gas Bill Reduction $4,227,226
Electric Bill Reduction $0
Non-Energy Benefits $91,144
Participant Benefits $4,318,369
Customer Costs $3,419,197
lncentive Received -$763,057
Participant Costs $2,656,140
Participant Ratio 1.63
Net Participant Benefits $1,662,230
Table 2-9: 2017 lD Natural Gas Rate lmpact Measure (RlM) (Gross)
Gas Avoided Cost Savings $2,105,243
Non-Participant Benefits $2,105,243
Gas Revenue Loss $4,227,226
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $134,673
Customer lncentives $763,057
Non-Participant Costs $5,124,955
RIM Ratio 0.41
Net RIM Benefits -$3,019,712
$4,204,157 $23,069
$0 $0
-$347 $91,491
$4,203,810 $114,560
$3,282,758 $136,439
-$608,1 37 -$154,920
$2,674,621 -$18,481
1.57 N/A
$1,529,188 $133,041
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$2,094,132 $1 1,111
$2,094,132 $1 1,11 1
$4,204,157 $23,069
$130,451 $4,222
$608,137 $154,920
$4,942,744 $182,211
0.42 0.06
-$2,848,612
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
14 lO 20'17 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
-$1 71 ,1 00
AFwsrn
Electric Avoided Costs $40,736,366
Natural Gas Avoided Costs $1,345,611
UCT Benefits $42,081,977
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $1,163,437
lncentive Costs $8,973,008
UCT Gosts $10,136,446
UCT Ratio 4.15
Net UCT Benefits $31,945,531
Table 2-11: 2017 lO Combined Fuel Total Resource Gost (TRC) (Gross)
Electric Avoided Costs $40,736,366
Natural Gas Avoided Costs $1,34s,61 1
Non-Energy Benefits $235,636
TRC Benefits $42,317,613
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $1 , 163,437
Customer Costs $17,295,825
TRC Costs $18,459,263
TRC Ratio 2.29
Residual TRC Benefits $23,858,350
$40,339,290 $397,077
$1,406,046 -$60,435
$41,745,336 $336,641
$1,094,344 $69,093
$8,273,379 $699,629
$9,367,724 $768,722
4.46 0.44
$32,377,612 -$432,081
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$40,339,290 $397,077
$1,406,046 -$60,435
$9,s49 $226,087
$41,754,885 $562,728
$ 1 ,094,344 $69,093
$16,667,418 $628,408
$17,761,762 $697,501
2.35 0.81
$23,993,123 -$134,772
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
AHttsra
15 lD 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
2.4 Combined Fuel Gost Effectiveness Results
Table 2-10: 2017[D Combined Fuel Utility Gost Test (UGT) (Gross)
Table 2-12:2017 lD Gombined Fuel Participant Cost (PCT) (Gross)
Electric Bill Reduction $51,615,518
Gas Bill Reduction -$52,444
Non-Energy Benefits $235,636
Participant Benefits $s6,025,935
Customer Costs $17,295,825
lncentive Received -$8,973,008
Participant Costs $8,322,817
Participant Ratio 6.73
Net Participant Benefits $47,703,1 19
Table 2-13: 2017 lO Combined Fuel Rate lmpact Measure (RIM) (Gross)
Electric Avoided Cost Savings $42,841,610
Non-Participant Benefits $42,841 ,610
Electric Revenue Loss $55,842,744
Non-l ncentive Utility Costs $1,163,437
Customer lncentives $8,973,008
Non-Participant Costs $65,979,190
RIM Ratio 0.65
Net RIM Benefits -$23,1 37,580
$51,112,158 $503,361
-$4,027-$48,418
$9,549 $226,087
$ss,277,446 $748,489
$16,667,418 $628,408
-$8,273,379 -$699,629
$8,394,038 -$71,221
N/A
$46,883,408 $819,710
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$42,433,422 $408,1 88
$408,1 88$42,433,422
$5s,316,315 $526,429
$ 1 ,094,344 $69,093
$8,273,379 $699,629
$1 ,295,I 51$64,684,039
0.66 0.32
-$22,250,617 -$886,963
: Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
AF-rtsra
16 lO 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
6.59
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, direct-
install programs and a multi-faceted, multichannel outreach and customer engagement effort.
Nearly $1.5 million in rebates were provided directly to ldaho residential customers to offset the
cost of implementing these energy efficiency measures. All programs within the residential
portfolio contributed over 5,300 MWh and over 230,000 therms to the 2017 annual energy
savings.
3.1.1 Program Changes
Program changes made at the beginning of 2017 to the residential programs include the
addition of new program offerings, discontinuation of programs, and changes to eligibility or
incentive levels. Avista communicates program changes once the Annual Conservation Plan is
finalized and those changes become effective at the beginning of the year. ln 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 1,2017 and Avista accepted rebate applications through lilarch 31,2017 for 2016
measures and amounts. This 90-day grace period is designed to allow for a smooth transition
when incentive levels change. This provides a timely and balanced approach that gives
adequate time for customers close out their "in process" projects in a fair and non-disruptive
way.
The following outlines additions, adjustments and discontinuations of residential programs and
incentive levels that took place during the 2017 program year.
17 lD 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
^#-ttsta
3.1.1.1 Residential Program Discontinuations
The following measures and/or programs were discontinued from the residential portfolio:
Effective August 1,2017 we no longer pay on CFL product buy-downs through the
Simple Steps (CLEAResult) Program. We moved to only paying on LED lamps and
fixtures.
3.1.1.2 Residential Program Adjustments
Existing rebate amounts were increased, and savings values adjusted for the following
measures:
Effective October 1,2017 the Table of Eligible Measures and Annual Generator Busbar
Savings and the Product lncentive Ranges were amended in our CLEAResult contract.
The remaining sub-sections outline each residential program offered in 2017 and the verified
participation, incentives, and energy savings, among other program achievements.
3.1.2 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). Natural gas
customers are eligible for a rebate for the installation of a high efficiency furnace or boiler
($3001. Both electric and natural gas customers are also eligible for the installation of a smart
thermostat. See Table 3-1 and Table 3-2for 2017 first-year program participation, incentives
received, and savings achieved.
3.1.3 Water Heat Program
The Water Heat Program offers a $180 incentive for a high efficiency natural gas tankless water
heater, $200 incentive for heat pump water heaters, $7 buydown for Simple Steps, Smart
Savings showerheads and $35 buydown for Simple Steps, Smart Savings clothes washers
(reflected in point of purchase price). See Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 for 2017 firsl-year program
participation, incentives received, and savings achieved.
18 lD 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
a
3.1.4 ENERGY STAR HOMES
Avista customers with a certified ENERGY STAR Home or ENERGY STAR / ECORated
ltlanufactured 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. See Table 3-5 and
Table 3-6 for 2017 fusl-year program participation, incentives received, and savings achieved.
3.1.5 Fuel Efficiency
The Fuel Efficiency Program offers incentives for converting existing straight resistance electric
space heat to a natural gas furnace ($1,500 rebate); and/or converting their existing electric
water heater to a natural gas water heater ($ZSO rebate). Homes that implement both the
furnace and water heat conversions receive a $2,250 rebate. The program also offers an
incentive for the conversion of electric to natural wall heaters ($1,300 rebate). See Table 3-7 for
2017 ttst-year program participation, incentives received, and savings achieved.
3.1.6 Residential Lighting
Avista continues to participate in the regional manufacturer buy-down of energy efficient lighting,
through Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), its contactors and self-directed
giveaways. The bulbs resulted in 3,452 MWh in annual first-year savings during 2017 (see
Table 3-6). The Company contributed over $169,000 in incentives toward this buy-down effort
with the overall average incentive of $1.00 for a LED bulb and $0.40 for a CFL bulb.
3.1.7 Shell
The primary measures included in the Shell Program are wall, attic, floor insulation, duct
sealing, and window replacements. lncentives are offered per square foot and vary from
$0.1S/sf for insulation measures to $3.54/sf for windows. See Table 3-9 and Table 3-10 for 2017
first-year program participation, incentives received, and savings achieved.
3.1.8 Opower/Oracle Home Energy Reports
Avista launched a Home Energy Reports (HER) program in June 2013, targeting 25,201 ldaho
and high use electric customers. As of December, 2015, Avista had 17,598 customers still
participating in the HER program. ln January of 2O16, Avista 'refilled'their existing Home
Energy Reports Program by 8,022 customers bringing total distribution to approximately 25,620
^#-rrttsr,a
19 lO 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
electric customers in ldaho that received home energy reports throughout the duration of the
2016-2017 program years unless they opted-out or moved (Table 3-1 1). At the beginning of the
2017 , approximately 23,364 treatment customers remained in the program. 2017 was the final
year of the issuance of Opower/Oracle home energy reports to the high electric usage
customers in Washington and ldaho. ln the future, Avista hopes to initiate a new behavior
program using the newly installed Advanced Metering lnfrastructure (AMl) system.
See Table 3-12for 2017 program participation, incentives received, and gross verified savings.
The majority of the two-year (2016 - 2017) Home Energy Report program savings are
recognized in the first year of the program.
20 lO 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
4vtsta
Table 3-1: 2017 lO Electric HVAC Program SummaryT
E Smart Thermostal DIY with Elec{ric
Heat
E Smart Thermostat Paid lnstall with
Electric Heal
E Variable Speed Motor
E Electric To Air Source Heat Pump
E Eleclric to Duclless Heat Pump
Total
7 All kwh and thom values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of applicable NTG ratios.
21 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$31 9
$1,362
$7,8ss
$1 5,046
$10,1 't 2
$34,692
$s,ss2 $0 $0 $6,09811s8006,499
41 $4,790 27,770 $23,721 $0 $0 $1 8,317
$31,291 151,891 $1 36,846 $0 $0 $367,222367
243.466 $262,133 $0 $o $452,941A7$49,229
$346,81 261$27,978 I 35,699 $176,169 $o $0
547 $114,088 565,325 $604,420 $0 $o $1,1 91,390
Therms
Savings
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Non-Energy
Benefits
Cuslomer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
lncenlivelncentiveskwhProrectMeasureCountSavingsCosts
.*vtsta
Table 3-2: 2017 lD Natural Gas HVAC Program Summarys
G Natural Gas Boiler $683
G Natural Gas Furnace $42,148
G Smart Thermostat DIY with
Natural Gas Heat $ 1,828
G Smart Thermostat Paid
lnstall with Natural Gas Heat $4,896
Total $49,555
Table 3-3: 2017 lD Electric Water Heat Program Summarys
Simple Steps Showerheads $1,768
Simple Steps Clothes Washers $904
E Heat Pump Water Heater $84
Total $2,756
I All kwh and them values reported in this table are gross. excluding the effect of applicable NTG ratios.
22 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Efrectiveness Analysis
't3 $3,886 1,777 $0 $19,212 $0 $82,295
1,243 $372,488 170,431 $0 $1,1 85,273 $0 $807,950
154 $1 1,413 7,390 $0 $s1,393 $0 $28,719
309 $30,428 14,649 $0 91 37,693 $0 $202.914
1,719 $4'18,215 194,247 $o $1,393,s71 s0 $1,1 21,878
Projecl
Count
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms Avoided
Costs
Non-
energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-incentive
Utility CostsMeasurelncentives kwh : Therms
449 $30,800 $0 $0 $4,904
309 $20,676 $15,744 $0 $0 $28,329
2 $408 1,306 $1,466 $0 $0 $1,499
$23,323760 78,294 $,18,011 $0 $o $34,732
POect
Count
kwh Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Costs
Non-
energy
Benefits
Cuslomer
lncremental CostsMeasurelncentives Utility Costs
Non-incentivekwh : Therms
.*vtsra
$2,239 54,431
22,557
Table 34: 2017 lD Natural Gas Water Heat Program Summarys
Simple Steps Showerheads
G Tankless Water Heater
Total
Table 3-5: 2017 lD ENERGY STAR Homes Electric Program Summary6
E Energy Star Home - Manufaclured,
Furnace
E Energy Star Home - Manufaciured, Heal
Pump
E Energy Star Home - Stick Buitt, lD
Total
Table 3-6: 2017 lD ENERGY STAR Homes Natural Gas Program Summary6
G ENERGY STAR HOME. NATURAL GAS ONLY
Total
9 All kwh and them values reported in this table are grcss, excluding the etfect of appliGble NTG ratios.
23 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$41 0
$8,921
t9,331
sl 0,178
$452
$1,142
$11,771
$149
$149
449 2,727 $0 $1 1 ,5'r 8 $0 $4,904
255 $51,040 23,205 $0 $250,886 $0 $388,025
704 $54,098 0 25,932 $0 i262,404 $o $392,929
Project
Counl
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided Costs
Non-
energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental Costs
Non-incentive
Utility CostsMeasurelncentives . kwh Therms
19 $15,492 167,820 $177,323 $0 $3,1 33 $57,000
1 $81 5 5,663 $7,874 $0 $0 $3,000
20 $6,022 20,298 1,620 $1 9,888 $12,44s $0 $17,724
40 $22,329 193,781 1,620 $205,085 112,45 $3,133 i77,724
Projecl
Counl
kwh
Savings
kwh Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Non-Energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
lncentivelncentivesMeasure
util Costs
2 $1,295 863 $0 $4,1 86 -$347 $6.000
2 $1,295 863 $0 $4,186 -$347 $6,000
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Costs
Non-
energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
incentiveMeasureCount
Project lncentives kwh Therms
urili Costs
$3,057
Therms I
Savings I
rtvtsra
Table 3-7: 2O17 lD Electric Fuel Conversion Program Summary1o
E Eleclric To Natural Gas Furnace $34,988
E Eleclric To Natural Gas Fumac€ & Water
Heat $47,493
E Electric To Natural Gas Wall Heater $3,496
E Electric To Natural Gas Waler Heater $8,380
Total $94,357
Table 3-8: 2017 lD Electric Residential Lighting Program SummaryT
Simple Steps LED $140,242
Simple Steps CFL $1,461
Total $141,703
10All kwh and therm values reported in this table are gross, excluding the eflect of applrcable NTG ratios.
24 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
95 $161,549 469,539 (31,570)$609,571 -$243,300 $0 $429.774
968,695 (68,264)$827,438 -$352,300 $0 $745,063126$341,240
13 $17,225 71,303 (4,867)$60,906 -$25,1 18 $0 $s7,1 1 0
84 $63,651 1 99,692 (14,1 04)$145,991 -$72,789 $0 $253,828
318 $s83,666 1,709,229 (r 18,905)$r,alil,906 -i693,s06 $o $1,485,774
kwh
Avoided
Cosls
Therms
Avoided
Costs
Non-
energy
Benefits
Cuslomer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
incentive
Utility
Costs
Measure lncenlives kwh Therms
$0 $327,3071 59,896 $ 167,902 3,395,498 $2,443,334 $0
4,298 s1,769 57,194 $25,456 $0 $0 $6,480
164,194 $169,571 3,452,592 $2,468,790 $o $o $333,787
Projecl
Count
kwh Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Costs
Non-
energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremenlal Costs
Non-incentiveMeasureUtility Costslncentives kwh Therms
Aiiwsra
Project
Count
E Attic lnsulation With Electric Heat
E Wndow Replc from Double Pane W Elec{ric
Heat
E Window Replc from Single Pane W Electric
Heat
Total
G Attic lnsulation with Natural Gas Heat
G Floor lnsulation with Natural Gas Heat
G Wall lnsulation with Natural Gas Heat
G Windor,\, Replc with Natural Gas Heat
Total
Table 3-9: 2017 lD Electric Shell Program Summary11
Table 3-'10: 2017 lD Natural Gas Shell Program Summarys
lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$1 04
$400
$2,914
$3,418
$149
$11
$20
$2,770
2,950
1 lAll kwh and them values reported in this table are 9,oss, excluding the effect of appliGble NTG ratios.
25
5 $1.008 1,394 $1,810 $0 $177 $7,810
$3,742 5,365 $6,96s $o $0 $58,0448
83 $17,996 39,1 't 1 $50,775 $0 $0 $435,495
96 $22,7&45,870 t59,550 t0 $177 $501,349
Projecl
Counl
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Costs
Non-
enefgy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-incentiveMeasureUtility Costslncentives kwh Therms
7 $1,398 513 $0 $4,1 96 $0 $7,066
$0 $9751$230 63 $0 $307
$0 $1,52s1$362 80 $0 $ss4
$52,'t25 1',1,201 $0 $77,897 $0 $1 ,418,295205
1,427,86121454,115 11,857 82,954
Project
Count
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Costs
Non-energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-incentive
Ulility CostslncentivesThermsMeasurekwh
.*vtsta
i
Table 3-11 : Opower/Oracle Participation Summary
ID
Table 3-12: 2017 lD Electric Residential Opower/Oracle Program Summary12
Opower/Oracle
Reports $1 15,467
when there is a 2-year measure life.
26 lD 201 7 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
?3,364
State lnitial 2017 Participating
Customers
1 $0 -739,094 -$68,314 $0 $o $0
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Costs
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
incentive
Utility Costs
Non-energyMeasurelncentivesThermskwhBenefils
Projecl
Count
.*vtsrl
3.1.9 Residential Trend Analysis
During 2017 ,lhe Company saw a decrease in savings from the previous year with the total
savings decreasing by 2,628,077 kwh from 9,071,745 kwh in 2016 to 6,045,191 kwh in201713.
The largest contributor to the change in savings for residential programs is attributed to the Fuel
Efficiency program decreasing from 4,945,013 in 2016 to 1,709,229in2017.
3.1.9.1 ResidentialLighting
The residential lighting program obtained 56% of the overall residential savings (3,452,692
kWh) in 2017 . The Company continues to see a strong desire for LED measures in its ldaho
service territory.
Please see Figure 3-1 below to illustrate the trend in savings from this program
Figure 3-1: ldaho Electric Lighting Trend Analysisla
lD Electric Lighting - Residential Program Totals
Savings 2Ot4-2At7 (kwh )
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
L,000,000
0
Lighting
20L4
4,760,480
20L5
5,15 1,365
20L6
3,3L6,601_
2017
3,452,692
13 Amounts exclude the Opower/Oracle Home Energy Reports. (5,306,098 kwh less -739,094 impact of Opower = 6,045,191 kwh)
14 Savings numbers lor 2014 are unverified gross, 201 5-20'17 is verifled gross.
Aivtsra
27 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Gost-Effectiveness Analysis
While the overall savings from residential lighting saw a slight increase in 2017, the overall
number of units decreased from the prior year. This is due to CFL lamps no longer being
incentivized by our DSM program. However, the number of LED units increased in number each
year since 2015 going from 36,298 in 2015, 96,21 1 in 2016, and 159,896 units in 2017 .
See figure 3-2for an illustration of the CFL and LED trends tor 2014-2017.
Figure 3-2: ldaho Electric Savings and Unit Gount - Resldential Lightingls
ldaho Residential Lighting
4,500,000 250,000
4,000,000
3,s00,000 200,000
3,000,000
150,000
2,s00,000
2,000,000
100,000
1,s00,000
1.000.000 50,000
500,000
ICFLSavings
I LED Savings
-
cFL Units
-LED
Units
2014
3,636,394
7,7L9,394
206,422
53,015
2075
4,779,278
923,288
789,226
36,298
2016
1,382,065
1,934,536
109,93s
96,217
2017
57,194
3,395,498
4,298
159,896
3.1.9.2 Residential Fue! Efficiency Program
The Fuel Efficiency Program obtained 1,709,229 kWh of savings in 2017 which is a decrease
from the 4,945,013 achieved in2016. ln total, the Company served 1,866 customers in 2017
with the majority choosing to convert both their furnace and water heater (utilizing the "combo
1s Savings numbers for2014 are unverified gross, 2015-20t7 is verilied gross.
Ai'tttsra
28 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
\
measure"). ln the prior year, Avista served 811 customers with a similar share pursuing the
combo measure. Avista's fuel efficiency tariff was revised in 2014 and increased incentives for
electric to natural gas conversions. The electric to natural gas furnace conversion incentive has
been revised over the years ranging from $900 in 2014 and increasing to $2,300 in 2016.
During 2016, Avista revised the incentive to $1,500 and the program has maintained this
incentive level throughout 2017. The below graph illustrates the trend in savings for the 2014-
2017 periods.
Figure 3-3: ldaho Electric Fuel Conversion Trend Analysislo
lD Electric FuelConversion - Residential Program Totals
Savings 2OL4-2OL7 ( kwh)
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
L,000,000 r020L4
533,503
2015
2,786,477
2075
4,945,4L3
2017
1,,709,229Fuel Conversion
3.1.9.3 Residential Shell Programs
The residential shell program obtained residential savings of 45,870 kWh in 2017 which
represents 1Yo of the overall savings in 2017. The savings derived from the residential shell
program are primarily attributed to low u-factor window replacements. Of the 45,870 kWh in
losavings numbers lot 2014 are unverifled gross, 2015-2017 is verified gross.
29 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
savings in 2017 , 44,476 kWh was attributed to window projects. The below graph illustrates the
changes to the shell program between 2014 and 2017.
Please see Figure 3-4 below to illustrate the trend in savings from this program.
Figure 3-4: ldaho Electric Shell Trend AnalysislT
lD Electric Shell- Residential Program Totals
Savings 20L4-2OL7 ( kwh )
500,000
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
L50,000
100,000
50,000
0 I
Shell
2014
446,778
2015
174,453
2016
138,436
2017
45,870
3.1.9.4 Opower/Oracle Home Energy Reports
Energy efficiency savings derived from Avista's behavior program continue to contribute a large
percentage to the company's overall portfolio of savings. For the 2016-2017 program year, the
Opower/Oracle Home Energy Reports captured savings of 6,785,292 kwh. While this savings
amount recorded in 2016 was7,750,716 kwh originally, the program received a realization rate
of 97o/o, making the gross verified savings for 2016 7,524,386. Because the evaluation team
estimated the overall two year program to be 6,785,292 kwh in total, there was an adjustment
made to the 2017 savings of -739,094 kwh.
17 Savings numbers lor 2014 are unverifled gross, 2015-2017 is verified gross
30 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Prior to lhe 2016-2017 program year, the Home Energy Reports were conducted over a two and
a half year span rather than its current two year span. The below graph illustrates the
comparison of the prior two and a half year program with the current two year program.
Figure 3-5: ldaho Electric Opower/Oracle Trend Analysisls
lD Electric OPower - Residentia! Program Totals
Savi ngs 2OL3-2OL7 (kwh)
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
O-Power
201.3-20L5
5,685,205
2076-2017
6,785,292
3.2 Low lncome
The Company leverages the infrastructure of a single Community Action Partnership (CAP)
agency to deliver energy efficiency programs for the Company's low income residential
customers in the ldaho service territory. The program is designed to serve Avista residential
customers in ldaho whose income falls between 175 percent and 250 percent of the most
current federal poverty level.
A CAP agency has the resources to income qualify, prioritize and treat client's homes based
upon a number of characteristics. ln addition to the Company's annualfunding, the agency has
other monetary resources they can leverage when treating a home with weatherization or other
18 Savings numbers lor 2014 are unverified gross, 2015-2017 is ve.ified gross.
I
31 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Gost-Effectiveness Analysis
^#vtsta
energy efficiency measures. CAP agencies either have in-house and/or contract crews to install
many of the efficiency measures of the program.
During the 2017 program year, the Low-lncome program captured energy savings of more than
380,000 kWh. Table 3-13 below provides a recap of the 2014,2015,2016 and 2017 program
year results for the Electric program.
Table 3-13: 2014-2017 Electric Program Overviewls
Project Count 3,640
Energy Savings (kWh)430,356
Program Benefits
UCT Benefits $340,991
$930,418
Program Costs
UCT Costs $839,024
TRC Costs $766,545
BenefiUCost Ratios
Utility Cost Test (UCT)0.41
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)1.21
The following table recaps lhe 2014-2017 Natural Gas Program for Low-lncome. During 2017,
the company achieved 1,427 therms of savings.
19 Savings numbers Iot 2014 are unverified gross, 2O15 is verified gross, 2016 is adjusted reported gross, and 2017 is verified
gross
Participation and Savings
4,3't5 3,603 3,762
380,1 70 284,326 426,815
$325,s30 $288,035 $467,447
$460,126 $436,916 $773,781
$609,580 $608,253 $775,927
$s56,840 $516,775 $775,927
0.53 0.47 0.60
0.83 0.8s 1.00
2017 2016 2015 2014
^*ttsta
32 lO 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
TRC Benefits
Table 3-14:2014-2017 Natural Gas Program Overview
Participation and Savings
Project Count
Energy Savings (Therms)
Program Benefits
UCT Benefits
TRC Benefits
Program Costs
UCT Costs
TRC Costs
BenefiUCost Ratios
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
3.2.1 Program Changes
ln 2017, the Company continued to reimburse Community Action Agencies for 100% of the cost
of installation for most energy efficiency measures defined on the "Approved List". The
Company also continued to offer a "Rebate List" of additional energy efficiency measures that
allows the agency to receive partial reimbursement for improvements that are not as cost-
effective as those on the Approved List but may still be necessary for the homes overall energy
efficiency and functionality. The reimbursement amount is only equalto the avoided cost
energy value of the improvement. 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 2O17 Program Details
Eligible efficiency improvements are similar to those offered under the traditional residential
rebate programs. An Avista approved measure list is provided to the agencies in an attempt to
218 202 NA NA
1,427 3,116 NA NA
$11,111 $25,476 NA NA
$102,602 $95,445 NA NA
$159,142 $208,636 NA NA
$140,661 $187,270 NA NA
0_120.07 NA NA
0.73 0.51 NA NA
2017 2016 20't5 2014
Aivrsta
33 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
manage the cost-effectiveness of the low income program from a utility perspective (see Table
3-1 s).
The agencies are given discretion to spend their allotted funds on either electric or natural gas
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
Table 3-15:2017 Low lncome Program Approved Measure List
a
a
a
a
Air infiltration
Duct sealing
lnsulation for attic, walls, floors,
and ducts
LED lighting
Electric to natural gas furnace
Electric to natural gas water heat
Electric to ductless heat pump
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 3-16.
34 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
a
a
Electric Measures Natural Gas Measures
Fuel Conversion Measures
. Air infiltration
. Duct sealing
. ENERGY STAR doors
. ENERGY STAR windows
. High efficiency furnace (90% AFUE)
. High efficiency gas water heater
. lnsulation for attic, walls, floors, and ducts
4t-srsTA
Electric Measures NaturalGas Measures
Table 3-'16: 2017 Low lncome Program Rebate Measure List
Heat pump water heaters
ENERGY STAR refrigerators
ENERGY STAR doors
ENERGY STAR windows
Electric to air source heat pump
lndividually, 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. ln 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. lt 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. Refer to Table 3-17, Table
3-18, and Table 3-19 for low income program participation and savings details for the 2017
program year.
a
a
a
a
35 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
.#vtstl
Table 3-17: 2017 lD Electric Low-lncome Measures Summary2o
CFL Bulbs 62 $3,300 4,810 $1,573 $0 $257
E Air lnfiltration 35 $40,005 10,577 $11,388 $0 $34,661 $1,860
E Ducl Sealing 12 $5,512 2,O15 $2,1 96 $0 $0 $4,776 $359
E Energy Star Doors 16 $3,646 1,108 $2,503 $409
E Energy Star Wndows 29 $1,422 247 $533 $0 $87
E Health And Safety 24 $51,641 U $0 $0 $44,742 $0
E INS - Attic '15 $9,329 1,663 $3,232 $0 $528
E INS - Ducl 11 $3,874 158 $1 s4 $0 $25
E INS - Floor 18 $26,466 4,664 $10,535 $0 $0 $22,930 $1,721
E INS - Wall $ 163 61 $'138 $0 $141 $23
E To G Furnace Conversion 26 $179,547 162,012 (5,839)$21 0,330 -$44,857 s39,000 $155,562 $34,362
E To G H20 Conversion 38 s150,18s 123,492 (5,857) $93,640 -$26,689 $19,000 $130,123 $15,298
E To Heat Pump Conversion '18 $69,619 3'r ,359 $33,s06 $0 $0 $60,31 9 $5,474
Total 305 $544,709 342,165 (11,6961 $491,969 $54,871
*Customer are measure cost any not zeto program.
incremental values are used in cosl-effectiveness calculations.
20 All kwh and them values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of appli€ble NTG ratios
36 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$0 $2,860
$0 $1 1,5s2
$0
$3,1 s9
$6,812 $1,232
$58,231
$0 $8,083
$0
$0
$3,356
Project
Count
kwh
Savings
Therm
Savings
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Non-
Energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental
Costs*
Non-lncentive
Utility CoslsMeasurelncentives
$397,077 -$71,546 $0
}Hvrsra
Customer
lncome)
G Air lnfiltration
G Duct Sealing
G Energy Star Doors
G Energy Star Windows
G HE Furnace
G HE WH sOG
G Health And Safety
G INS - Attic
G INS - Duct
G INS - Floor
G INS - Wall
Table 3-18: 2017 lD Electric Low-lncome Customer Outreach Summary2l
Table 3-19: 2017 lD Natural Gas Low-lncome Measures Summary17
lD 201 7 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$4,468
s650
$428
$1 26
$260
$1,280
$60
$723
$376
$236
$4,222
$0
$83
Total
37
$0 38,0M $27,347 $0 $0 $20,02s3,705
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Customer
lncremental
Costs*
EnergyCount Utility Costs
Non-Non-lncentiveMeasure
Benefits
kwh I ThermProiect' lncentrves Savings i Savings
45 $43,093 246 $0 $1,712 $0 $37,952
$9,979 162 $0 $1,1 28 $0 $8,78819
to $2,471 31 $0 $332 $1 1,552 $2,176
21 $1,264 63 $0 $684 $4,933 $1,113
31 $23,381 485 $0 $3,370 $21,627 $20,592
$1,1 12 32 $0 $1 57 $0 $9798
0 $0 $0 $53,379 $43,69422$49,613
23 $1 3,939 176 $0 $1,902 $0 $12,276
$4,332 154 $0 s988 $0 $3,81616
$4,433 57 $0 $621 $0 $3,90414
20 s03$1,304 $21 8 $0 $1,149
218 $154,920 1,427 $o $11,111 $91,491 $'t36,439
Project
Count
kwh Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided Costs
Non-energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremenlel Costs'
Non-incentive
Utility CoslsMeasurelncentives : kwh i Therms
.*vtsrt
*Customer incremenlal 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-effecliveness calculations.
21 All kwh values reporied in this table are gross, excluding the effect of applicable NTG ratros.
38 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
frvtsta
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.
ln 2017, more than 1,500 prescriptive and site specific nonresidential projects were incented.
Additionally, the Small Business program installed over 23,000 individual measures. Avista's
tariff rider funded more than $6.8 million for energy efficiency incentives in nonresidential and
small business applications. Nonresidential programs realized over 36,500 MWh and over
71,000 therms in annual first-year energy savings. Table 3-20 through Table 3-25 provide detail
on the electric, naturalgas, and dualfuel nonresidential programs.
3.3.1 Program Changes
Program changes made at the beginning of 2017 to the nonresidential programs include the
addition of new program offerings, discontinuation of programs, and changes to eligibility or
incentive levels. Avista communicates program changes once the Annual Conservation Plan is
finalized and those changes become effective at the beginning of the year. ln 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 1,2017 and Avista accepted rebate applications through March 31,2017 'for 2016
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 remaining sub-sections outline each nonresidential program offered in 2017 and the verified
participation, incentives, and energy savings, among other program achievements.
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. lncentives 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. See Table 3-20 and Table 3-21 tor 2017 first-year
program participation, incentives received, and savings achieved.
39 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
3.3.3 Site Specific Path
Site specific is the most comprehensive offering of the nonresidential segment. 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 are capped at seventy percent of the incremental project cost for all projects with
simple paybacks of less than 15 years. All projects must have a measure life of 10 years or
more. Site specific projects include appliances, compressed air, HVAC, industrial process,
motors (non-prescriptive), shell and lighting, with the majority being HVAC, lighting and shell.
See Table 3-22 and Table 3-23 for 2017 first-year program participation, incentives received,
and savings achieved.
40 lO 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
3.3.4 Small Business Program
The Small Business (SB) program is administered by SBW consulting and is a direct
installation/audit program providing customer energy-efficiency opportunities by: (1) directly
installing appropriate energy-saving measures at each target site, (2) conducting a brief on-site
audit to identify customer opportunities and interest in existing Avista programs, and (3)
providing materials and contact information so that customers are able to follow up with
additional energy efficiency measures under existing programs. This program is only available
to customers who receive electric and/or natural gas service under Rate Schedule 11 in ldaho
and Washington. Schedule 11 customers typically use less than 250,000 kwh per year. See
Table 3-24 and Table 3-25for 2017 fusl-year program participation, incentives received, and
savings achieved.
Direct-install measures include:
. Faucet aerators
. Showerheads
. Pre-rinse spray valves
. Screw-in LED's
. Smart power strips
. CoolerMisers
. VendingMisers
41 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Table 3-20: 2017 lD Electric Nonresidential Prescriptive Measures Summary22
PSC Lighting Exterior $12,438
PSC Lighting lnterior $144,591
Air Guardian $1,862
ESG PSC Case Lighting $1,182
ESG PSC Controls $288
ESG PSC Motors $1,799
PSC Food Service Equipment $294
PSC Green Motors Rewind $1 78
PSC lnsulation $202
PSC Motor Controls HVAC $544
Total $163,378
22 All kwh and them values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of applicable NTG ratios
42 lD 201 7 OSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
226 $490,293 2,453,547 $1,128,250 $0 $o 91,022,839
1,01 1 $4,218,681 20,666,146 (27e)$'t 3,115,968 -$1,1 84 $6,587 $5,368,144
1 $89,001 381,527 $168,945 $0 $0 $94,674
53 $42,055 270,959 $107,237 $0 $0 $67,383
'13 $9,703 64,901 $26,1 14 $1 8,084$0 $0
41 $26,454 $163,202 $0 $0 $28,140
12 $5,542 $26,706 $0 $0 $81,801
1'l $3,365 36,743 $16,120 $0 $0 $91,642
4 $2,545 20,409 $18,31 9 $0 $0 $4,924
3 $5,805 74,241 $49,336 $0 $0 $11,779
1,375 $4,893,443 24,280,159 12791 $14,820,197 -$1,1 84 $6,587 $6,789,410
Proiect
Count
kwh
Savings
Therms
Savings
kwh Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Customer
lncremental
Cosls
Non-
lncentive
Utility Costs
Non-EnergylncentivesBenefitsMeasure
.*vtsra,
259,151
52,534
PSC Food SeMce Equipmeril
PSC lnsulation
PSC Commercial HVAC
Total
43
Table 3-21: 2017 lD Natural Gas Nonresidential Prescriptive Measures Summary23
lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$12,746
$17,100
$13,235
$43,08r
$0 $124,98920$21,322 14,30'l $0 $55,347
6 $9,202 11,735 $0 $87,672 $0 $5s,440
23 $12,348 11,752 $0 $67,853 s0 $122,352
i42,872 $o $220,872 $0 i302,7814937,788
kwh
Avoided
Cosls
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
lncentive
Utility
Costs
Measure
Benefits
Non-kwh Therms EnergySaMngs ; Savings
Project
Count lncentives
frvtstl
Table 3-22: 2017 lD Electric Nonresidential Site Specific Measures Summaryls
ESG SS Cases
SS lndustrial Process
SS Lighting Enerior
SS Lighting lnterior
SS Multifamily Fuel Conversion
SS Shell
ESG SS Controls
SS Compressed Air
SS Motors
Total
23 All kwh and them values reporled in this table are gross, excluding the efred of applicbte NTG ratios.
44 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$s,432
$22,262
$21,796
$88,453
$140
$s0
$1,946
$77,703
$2,091
s219,873
$37.197 267,496 $492,709 $0 $o $54.202
1 $170,799 834,089 $2,019,453 $0 $0 $315,749
30 $208,1 85 1,1 89,9 10 $1,977 ,126 $0 $0 $513,226
32 s61 6,746 $8,023,684 $0 $1 ,105,433$0
I $ 1 67,804 275.061 (1 3,974)$12,669 -$s,841 $0 $423,708
I $1,117 5,081 $4,561 $0 $0 $1,s03
J $49,671 266,024 $176,537 $0 $0 $75,482
2 $1 86,033 3,966,226 $7,048,534 $0 $0 $327,502
1 $12,613 78,231 $1 89,638 $0 $0 $1 9,167
76 11,450,165 10,705,816 (13,974)$19,944,910 Ss,841 $o t2,835,972
Therms
Savings
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Non-
Energy
Benefits
Cuslomer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
lncentive
Utility
Costs
Measure lncentives r kWh SavingsProject
Count
3,823,699
.*vtsrl
Table 3-23: 2017 lD Gas Nonresidential Site Specific Measures Summary2{
SS Appliances
SS Shell
ESG SS Cases
ESG SS HVAC
Total
Table 3-24: 2017 lD Electric Nonresidential Small Business Summary2o
SB Appliances
SB Lighting
SB Water Heat
SB Audit
Total
24 All kwn and them values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of applicable NTG ratios.
lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$4s1
$748
$1,871
$2,1 05
$s,174
$17,509
$1 09,644
$49,325
$0
$176,478
45
1 $761 398 $0 $2,310 $0 $3,798
513 $0 $3,835 $0 $3,67s
$4,368 1,651 $0 $9,592 $0 $17,177
1 $3,369 1,858 $0 $10,790 $0 $6,658
7 $9,422 4,420 $o s26,527 $0 $31,308
kwh
Savings
Therms
Savings
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Non-
Energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
lncentive
Utility
Costs
lncentivesMeasureProject
Count
917 $51,320 280,553 $60,792 $0 $0 $0
$1 96,970 853,97110.444 $380,687 $0 $0 $0
3,619 $17,122 416,238 $171,256 $0 $0 $0
5,310 $1 20,399 $0 $0 $0 $1 34,520
20,290 $385,811 1,550,762 $134,520$612,735 $0 $o
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
lncentive
Utility
Costs
Non-
Measure EnergySavings
Therms
Benefits
lncentives kWh SavingsProjec{
Count
.frvtsta
2 $924
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Table 3-25: 2017 lD Gas Nonresidential Small Business Measures Summary2s
SB Water Heat
Total
25 All kwh and them values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of appli€ble NTG ratios.
lD 2017 DSi, Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$20,2't1
$20,211
46
3,619 $28,120 28,975 $0 $103,617 $0 $o
3,619 $28,120 28,975 $o $103,617 t0 t0
Proiect
Count
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
Incentive
Utility Costs
ThermsMeasurelncentiveskwh Energy
BenefitsSavings Savrngs
Aiursta
Non-
3.3.5 Non-Residential Trend Analysis
During 2017, total non-residential savings significantly increased from the previous year with the
total savings increasing from 21 ,305,147 kWh in 2016 to 36,536,737 kWh in 2017 (a 15,231 ,590
kWh change). The largest contributors to the overall savings 'for 2017 was a result of the
company's prescriptive interior lighting program which obtained 20,666,146 kWh or 57o/o of
overall non-residential savings. ln Figure 3-5, the Non-residential Prescriptive Lighting - lnterior
programs have been identified by the yellow bars for 2014,2015,2016 and 2017.
Other Non-Residential Measures, which are identified by the orange bars, continued to increase
goingfrom2,203,859 kWhin2015to7,278,505 kWhin2017. fhe individual programsand
measures included in this category for 2017 include Small Business (1 ,550,762 kwh), Energy
Smart Grocer (1 ,128,531 kWh) and Site Specific (5,158,688 kwh). ln 2016, the largest
contributors to this category included Prescriptive Energy Smart Case Lighting (918,377 kwh),
Site Specific lndustrial Process (707 ,012 kWh) and Prescriptive Motor Controls HVAC (464,088
kwh) ln 2015, the largest contributors to this category included Prescriptive Energy Smart
Case Lighting (719,497 kwh), Prescriptive Energy Smart lndustrial Process (390,989 kWh) and
Site Specific Multifamily measures (272,581kwh). For 2014, the largest contributors were Site
Specific HVAC Combined (636,815 kwh), Prescriptive Energy Smart - Case Lighting (518,839
kWh) and Site Specific lndustrial Process (437,212 kwh).
All other lighting measures, identified by the grey, blue, and green bars in Figure 3-5 remained
relatively level as compared to the Non-residential Prescriptive Lighting - lnterior program.
Figure 3-5 below summarizes these savings for the 2014-2017 annual periods.
47 aD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Figure 3-5: Idaho Electric Non-Residential Trend Analysis26
lD Electric Non-Residential Program Summary
Savi ngs 2Ot4-2017 (kwh )
40,000,000
35,000,000
30,000,000
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
36,536,737
21,305,747
5,350,823
I- r :n--
2074 2015 2016
r Other NR Measures : PSC Lighting - Exterior n PSC Lighting - lnterior
-
SS Lighting - Exterior r 5S Lighting - lnterior +All NR Measures
2017
6 Savings numbers for 2014 are unverified gross, 2015-20'17 are verified gross.
48 lD 2017 oSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
.*vrsra
3.4 Customer Outreach
Energy efficiency outreach strategies incorporate both broad-reach and targeted communication
as well as attendance at local community events. Energy Efficiency is also featured throughout
the year in Avista's "Connections" monthly newsletter, which is distributed with the bill and
posted online.
3.4.1 Residentia! Customer Outreach
Avista's residential outreach included the popular, "Efficiency Matters" promotion (April-
June). During the seven-week contest, TV viewers could watch any KREM newscast for Avista's
energy-efficiency word of the day and enter it on krem.com for a chance to win a new RAV4
Hybrid. Television commercials featured energy-efficiency tips and Avista rebates. The fina16
event was also covered by KREM and included eight minutes of live news coverage.
For the summer of 2017, Avista ran the "Way to Save" broad-reach advertising campaign to
increase awareness ofldrive participation in our energy-efficiency programs for residential
customers. The campaign was updated from the year prior with new voice-over for the thirty-
second TV commercials, and 12 fifteen-second TV spots were created to reinforce messaging
(six spots promoted our rebates and six commercials highlighted energy-saving tips). Print and
online advertising, as well as social media, were also utilized throughout the campaign to extend
reach.
Avista also leveraged local sponsorships for "Energy Efficiency Night" at a Spokane Chiefs
hockey game.
Although available to all customers, Avista conducts targeted outreach for low income and
seniors. This outreach included several Energy Fairs, one of which was part of a broader event,
the Avista LIRAP Appointment Day which promoted efficiency and assistance like other energy
fairs but partnered with the local CAP agency, SNAP, to offer actual energy assistance
appointments. Communications tactics used to increase awareness of the Energy Fairs
included a direct mail, posters, emails, news releases, and prinU radio/ online advertising. ln-
person outreach efforts also included mobile outreach such as numerous partnerships with local
food banks as well as other venues and workshops at senior centers. Additional details around
these efforts can be found in the low-income section of the report.
3.4.2 Low-lncome Customer Outreach
ln partnership with the Company's DSM 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
49 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Avista Low lncome Rate Assistance Program (LIRAP), the Low lncome Home Energy
Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and Project Share.
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. ln 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.
ln 2017, Avista participated in 174 events including workshops, energy fairs, mobile outreach
events, and general outreach partnerships and events reaching approximately 14,518
customers in Washington and ldaho. Table 3-26 is an overview of different activities by type in
tD.
Table 3-26:2017 lD Low lncome Outreach Event and Bulb Giveaway Summary
Energy
Fairs 448
Outreach 1,269
Mobile 1,941 2,257
Workshops 12 305 457
Total 62 3,430 4,431
3.4.3 Nonresidential Customer Outreach
To complement our residential outreach, two advertorials were placed to increase awareness of
Avista's energy efficiency programs for Commercial and lndustrial customers. The first
advertorial featured Wear-Tek, a metal casting production foundry and machine facility, and was
placed in 11 publications in February and March. The customer highlighted in the second
2 224
16 960
32
Description Contacts , LEDsNumber of
Events/Activities
50 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
advertorialwas Cenex/ Zipf rip, and ran in 12 publications in July and August. Both
advertorials are also posted on myavista.com.
We also continued our effort of building awareness of energy efficiency and programs through
our electronic newsletter to commercial customers.
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.
One earned media highlight was Avista being included in the cover story for the
AugusUSeptember issue of American Gas Magazine. The article focused on energy efficiency
programs for small and midsize businesses and featured three national utilities-Avista, Con
Edison, and PSE&G.
51 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
4 Evaluation, Measurement, and
Verification (EM&V)
Nexant, lnc., in partnership with Research lnto Action, (the evaluation team) was retained as the
Company's external evaluator to independently measure and verify the portfolio energy savings
for the 2016-2017 biennium period. The energy efficiency savings and associated cost-
effectiveness results presented in this 20'17 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 the Appendix
52 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
5 Generation and Distribution Efficiency
5.1 Generation and Distribution
Avista did not complete any efficiency projects at its generation facilities in 20't7
During 2017, Avista's Grid Modernization Programs completed an upgrade of two Washington
feeders with annual savings of 375 MWh and one ldaho feeder with annual savings of 112
MWh.
The Grid Modernization Program was created to provide a thorough examination of Avista's
electric distribution circuits for programmatically addressing the upgrading and modernization of
the facilities. The Program focuses on selecting and improving the worst performing feeders
that have been assessed to provide the most opportunity for improvement in the areas of
reliability and energy efficiency. This includes the identification, prioritization, selection, and
engineering analysis of the distribution circuits. Grid ltlodernization performs a comprehensive
inventory of each of the electric feeders on the system in order to appropriately prioritize and
select the candidate feeders for the Program. The feeder criteria information is then used to
rank the potential benefits for each circuit compared with all of the other distribution feeders
Avista's system.
Grid Modernization was initially optimized at a cycle Interval of 60 years, meaning that over that
period of time the program would rebuild every feeder in the distribution system. Selection of
this interval related to the average life span of our distribution infrastructure as well as the 20
year interval cycle time for the Wood Pole Management (WPtvl) program. These two programs
are integrated in several important ways. Grid Modernization relies on the inspection data from
Wood Pole Management (WPM) for its asset condition assessment, and targets the timing of
feeder rebuilds to optimize the value of wood pole inspections and follow-up already
performed. Wood Pole Management (WPM) relies on the poles inspected for the Grid
Modernization program as contributing to the total number of poles that WPM has to inspect
annually to remain on the 20 year inspection cycle. Further, the Grid Modernization program
also integrates activities of other operational programs beyond Wood Pole Management (WPM),
including the PCB transformer change-out program, vegetation management, various budgeted
maintenance programs, and the segment reconductor and feeder tie program.
The Grid Modernization Program aims to accomplish a comprehensive modernization approach
from both an energy efficiency and reliability perspective. The following is a list of the programs'
A,Yvtsr,a
s3 lO 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
targeted criteria: Reliability lndex Analysis, Peak Loading Study, Load Balancing, High Loss
Conductors, Feeder Reconfiguration or Relocation, Primary Trunk and Lateral Conductor
Analysis, Feeder Tie Location and Opportunities, Voltage Quality Study, Voltage Regulator
Settings, Fuse Coordination and Sizing Analysis, Distribution Line Loss Assessment,
Transformer Core Losses, Power Factor Analysis, Power Factor Correction, Distribution
Automation Deployment, Open Wire Secondary Analysis, Existing Pole Analysis, Underground
Facilities, and Vegetation Management.
With approximately 350 feeders in Avista's system and a targeted 60 year life cycle, Grid
lt/odernization should be completing almost 6 feeders each year when staffed and funded
appropriately. Grid Modernization has 17 feeders that have been worked on so far (in varying
forms of design, construction, or completion) - Grid Modernization has fully completed 6 of
approximate 350 feeders. Please see the below table that identifies the program results and
plans which extends through 2020.
Table 6-1 shows the Grid Modernization Plan by Feeder
Table 6-1: Grid Modernization Plan by Feeder
' Comdeted underthe DREE Program. Amual lrlwh EErgy savirgs roy have ben stirated ard prflired by otheE, howas they dd mt tollil the em analysas
prGe$ and dfiumntstion thst ws stsrted by GrU Modernizatbn h late 20r.3, a rd my not be able to b€ rsrBtcd
"CompletedudstheFeedsUpgradePrognm. AmualM\rhEErgygvirEsmeyhavebenEtimteda.dpBiredbyothers,ipwsstheydidrctbllotheere
analysb prms a td dmmatatbn ttEt ms started by G ri, M odemizatbn h lete 2013, ard roy not be sHe to be rereted
'" Additbnal MWh svirgs gtimated tlrough DBffiutim Anomrtbn imprcvmmts are mt hchd€d h th6e figrc
"" Additioal M wh eyirBs etiruted thro{gh the rffil of Otrn w-e Ssnda ry dstits are noa irdrd€d in ttBe fEur6
54 lO 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Feeds State ConstsrEt'Dn Start
Date
CqEtrutloo Ed
Dnte
SaEIne R€port
Date
Ba*liE R€port
vsiim
Estimted AnnulFl Reqductot
MUrh Savincs
Estimted annE I
TremftrlELN
MWt Savinps
lotal Estimted
AnrclMwh
1C-E-l3F_4-
BEA 12fI
F&C 12F2
BEA 12F5
cDA l2l
WL 12F2
_ry4_
\A'A
WA
WA
ID
WA
2i9?_ - _ _
2012
20tz
2m3
2013
2m5
2012
m12
m13
mu
m13
2015
2014
2014
20L5
m16
2015
2016
mt7
20L7
20L7
mt7
2018
2018
2018
m19
2019
TBA
2015
2015
2015
20L6
20t7
2019
2019
20t9
20L7
2018
20t7
2023
2019
2018
2420
raA
r8A
___ __ 4nn9!!,!Yr, glqy_q1lqgly_ele_,p! e_{-?!e{s._d_o9u_tr€$g_a!!iris-ta9:_
Amual Mwh EErgy SavirEs wse nd starut€d tr docmat€d attttrs timef '
Amual Mwh Erergy Savi.E5 wse not gtiruted d docm$t€d atthis time"
Amual MWh Erergy SavirEs wse not gtimated tr docmst€d at this time"
Amual Mwt EErgy Savi.gs wse not stamated or docmfft€d attt$stimef '
Amual MWh rvse nct Btiruted or docmtrt€d atthis time"
wge not ordemented at thtstkne
Version 4
Version 3
Versaon 7
Version 4
Version 2
Versbn 5
Ve6rcn 3
Versbn 1
Versbn 2
Versbn 2
Versbn 1
Version 1
Version 1
Version 1
Versaon 1
Versbn 1
412.6
0.0
/ro.3
21.0
11.6
90.3
49.9
3.5
140.1
23.5
128.8
1.8
0
8.8
0
0
163.2
148.7
135.3
164.8
83.2
381.4
55.7
108.2
92J
165.5
128.3
58.5
655
260.5
245.6
272.5
575.8
744.7
175.6
185.E
114.8
17L7
105.6
Ltt.7
232.8
189.0
E7.t
260.3
65.5
269.3
245.6
0Il
3h7l20ts
3/3/2Or5
s/1OlmTs
4/ilmL5
3/t7/?ols
th7l207s
to/19l2Ots
5/6/mL6slzi/mfi
8l22lN6
Lth6/2ot6
3bolmfl
$/r3l2ot7
4ro/2018
1BA
orH 502
M23 621
RAT 231
WA( 12F2
MIL 12F2
SPI 12F1
RAT 233
spR 761
oRo 1280
TUR 112
pDL 1201
Mts 431
F&C 12F1
HOL 1205
BEA 12F2
M15 514
slP r2Fr
WA
ID
ID
WA
WA
ID
WA
ID
WA
WA
ID
WA
to
ID
lrla
AEwsra
Also in 2017, Avista's LED Streetlight Change-Out Program successfully converted 9,439 High-
Pressure Sodium (HPS) streetlights to Light Emitting Diode (LED) technology, resulting in an
energy savings of 101 MWh in Washington and 38 MWh in ldaho.
Avista manages streetlights for many local and state government entities to provide street,
sidewalk, and/or highway illumination for their streets by installing overhead streetlights. The
primary driver for converting overhead streetlights from HPS lights to LED lights is the
significant improvement in energy savings, lighting quality to customers, and resource cost
savings. ln all, the five year program will change out over 28,000 streetlights by end of 2019
Table 6-2 shows the Distribution Efficiency Savings by Program
Table 6-2: Distribution Efficiency Savings by Program
Grid Modernization 487
LED Streetlight Change-Out 139
Total 626
375 112
101 38
476 '150
WA MWh
Savings
ID MWh
Savings
TotalMWh
SavingsProgram
A,Firttsr.a
55 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
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. lt 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.
Table 7-1 show the NEEA savings and the associated costs.
Table 7-1: NEEA Savings and Associated Costs for Avista
Electric 5.7680/o
(wA/rD)
NaturalGas 15.630/o
wA/rD)
6.1 Avista Electric Energy Savings Share
Allfigures provided represent the amounts that are allocated to Avista service territory, which is a
combination of site-based energy savings data (where available) or an allocation of savings based
on funding share. When the funding share allocation approach is applied, the funding share for
Avista is split 70o/ol30o/o between Avista Washington and Avista ldaho. The total current funding
share is noted in the table above. Funding share for Avista varies by funding cycle and within cycle
if funding composition changes.
5,291 MWh $574,037
nla $1 13,814
NEEA Energy
Savings 2017
(FinalReported
as of March 2018
Avista Current
Funding Share
(wA & rD
Combined)
Fuel Type 2017 Gosts
(Avista Financials)
55 lO 2017 DSM Annual Report & Gost-Effectiveness Analysis
^*vlsr,a
6.2 Avista Natural Gas Energy Savings Share
The Natural Gas 2015-2019 business plan does not forecast energy savings in the short-term of
this cycle (2015-2019). The business plan is focused on developing the portfolio of initiatives
that will deliver savings in future years (anticipating 2019+).
6.3 2017 Gosts
NEEA annual costs do not map directly to the annual energy savings for a given year. Due to
the Market Transformation nature of NEEA's work, the energy savings investments are heavy
up front, and the return (in the form of energy savings) lags by a few years or more.
Approximately 68% of the regional energy savings value delivered in 2017 are from initiatives
for which the investment period was 2010-2014. The current investment period has a
forecasted energy stream that extends beyond 2019.
NEEA costs include all costs of NEEA operations and value delivery, including
. Energy savings initiatives
. lnvestments in market training and infrastructure
. Stock assessments, evaluations, data collection, and other regional and program
research
. Emerging technology research and development, and
. All administrative costs
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.
57 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
7 Energy Efficiency Expenditures
During 2017, Avista incurred over $12.1 million in costs for the operation of electric and natural
gas energy efficiency programs in ldaho, with $11.0 million for electric energy efficiency and
$1 .'1 million for natural gas energy efficiency. Of this amount, $687,851 was contributed to the
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance to fund regional market transformation ventures.
Seventy four percent of expenditures were returned to ratepayers in the form of incentives or
products (e.9. CFLs). During the 2016 calendar year, $120 thousand, or 't.0 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). ln 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
2017 calendar year and often differ from the cost-effectiveness section where all benefits and
costs associated with projects completing in 2017 are evaluated in order to provide matching of
beneflts and expenditures resulting in a more accurate look at cost-effectiveness.
Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 below, provlde a summary of energy efficiency expenditures by fuel
type.
58 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Table 7-1: Avista Electricity Energy Efficiency Expenditures (lD)27
Residential $1,339,988
Low lncome $609,580
Nonresidential $7,289,149
Regional $603,707
General $832,825
Research $300,233
Total $10,975,480
Table 7-2: Avista Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Expenditures (lD)
Residential $569,062
Low lncome $161 ,997
Nonresidential $148,880
Regional $114,708
General $140,824
Total $1,135,471
27 ld"ho Case AVU-E-06 Order 33769 required a reallocation of expenses from ldaho to Washington from previous years vvhich is
reflected in the above table. Calculations for cost effectiveness tests for the current year should exclude the reallocation from
previous years and include an increase to ldaho electric residential incentives and a decrease to Washington electric residential
incentives in the amount of $102,235. Also for any calculations there should be an increase to ldaho electrical residential
implementation in the amount ot $/.5,377 and a decrease to Washington electrical residential implementation in the amount of
$44,856 (the difference of $52'l was charged to another account). ln addition for any calculations there should be an increase to
ldaho electrical general EMV and a decrease to Washington electrical general EMV in the amount of $1 30,1 85.
$935,823 $404,165 $o $0
$64,871$544,709 $0 $0
$6,729,420 $559,729 $0 $o
$o $480 $29,189 $574,037
$0 $820,388 $12,437 $0
$o $300,233 $0 $o
$2,149,866$8,209,952 $41,526 $574,037
Segment NEEA Totallncentives:lmplementationi EM&V
$541,765 $27,297 $0 $o
$4,305$157,692 $0 $o
$80,414 $68,466 $o $0
$0 $894 $0 $1 13,814
$0 $62,266 $78,558 $0
$779,871 $163,227 $78,558 $113,814
NEEA TotalSegment lncentives lmplementation i EM&V
59 lD 20'17 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
^#-gtsta
I Tariff Rider Balances
As of the start of 2017 , the ldaho electric and natural gas (aggregate) tariff rider balances were
underfunded by $O.O M. During 2017, $8.7 million in tariff rider revenue was collected to fund
energy efficiency while $12.1 million was expended to operate energy efficiency programs. The
$3.37 million under-collection of tariff rider funding resulted in a year-end balance of $9.4 million
underfunded balance.
Table 8-1 illustrates the 2017 tariff rider activity by fuel type.
Table 8-1 Tariff Rider Activity (20'l7l
Beginning Balance
(Underfunded)($76,s13)
Energy Efficiency Funding $1,393,272
Net Funding of Operations $1,316,360
Energy Efficiency Expenditures $1,13s,471
Ending Balances
(Underfunded)$180,889
($s,946,150)
$7,347,001
$1,400,850
$10,975,480
($9,574,630)
NaturalGasElectric
60 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
,*-ttsta
9 Actual to Annual Conservation Plan
Comparison
For 2017 operations, Avista exceeded budgeted electric energy efficiency expenditures by $4.1
million, or 160 percent, and naturalgas expenditures were more than budgeted by $54,166, or
105 percent. 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 ldaho electric
and natural gas programs. lt is difficult to predict customer acceptance of programs, which
affects the incentive expenditures.
While the Annual Conservation 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 Annual Conservation Plan to Actual Comparison2s
Annual Conseruation Plan
lncentives Budget $598,429
Non-incentives and Labor $482,876
Tota! Budgeted Expenditures $1,081,305
Actua! 2017 Expend itu res
lncentives $779,871
Non-incentives and Labor $355,599
Total Actua! Expend itu res $1,135,471
Variance ($54,166)
28 Budget values are trom 2077 Annual Conservation Plan
Electric Natural Gas
$3,713,774
$3,160,095
$6,873,869
$8,209,952
$2,765,529
$10,975,480
($4,101,611)
^#-trsta
61 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
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 evaluation activities.
^#vtsta
62 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
10.1 Electric Gost Effectiveness Results
Table 10-1:2017 lD Electric Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Net)
Electric Avoided Costs $26,309,939
Natural Gas Avoided Costs -$581,007
$25,728,932
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $1,028,765
lncentive Costs $8,209,952
UCT Costs $9,238,716
UCT Ratio 2.78
Net UCT Benefits $16,490,215
Table 10-2: 2017 lD Electric Total Resource Cost (TRC) (Net)
Electric Avoided Costs $26,309,939
Natural Gas Avoided Costs -$581,007
Non-Energy Benefits $144,492
TRC Benefits $25,873,424
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $1,028,765
Customer Costs $13,876,629
TRC Costs $14,905,393
TRC Ratio 1.74
Residual TRC Benefits $10,968,030
$25,912,862 $397,077
-$509,461 -$71,546
$25,403,401 $32s,530
$963,894 $64,871
$7,665,243 $544,709
$8,629,1 37 $609,580
2.94 0.53
$'t6,774,265 -$284,049
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
$25,912,862 $397,077
-$509,461 -$71,546
$9,896 $134,596
$25,413,298 $460,1 26
$963,894 $64,871
$13,384,660 $491,969
$14,348,554 $556,840
1.77 0.83
$11,064,744 -$96,714
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
AEvtsra
63 lO 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
UCT Benefits
Regular lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
Table 10-1:2017 ID Electric Participant Cost (PCT) (Net)
Electric Bill Reduction
Gas Bill Reduction
Non-Energy Benefits
Participant Benefits
Customer Costs
lncentive Received
Participant Costs
Participant Ratio
Net Participant Benefits
$51 ,615,s18
-$52,444
$144,492
$51,707,566
$13,876,629
-$8,209,952
$5,666,677
9.12
$46,040,889
$26,309,939
$26,309,939
$51 ,615,518
$1,028,765
$8,209,952
$60,854,235
0.43
-$34,544,296
Table 10-2: 2017lD Electric Rate lmpact Measure (RlM) (Net)
Electric Avoided Cost Savings
Non-Participant Benefits
Electric Revenue Loss
Non-lncentive Utility Costs
Customer lncentives
Non-Participant Costs
RIM Ratio
Net RIM Benefits
$51 ,1 '1 2, 1 s8 $503,361
-$48,418 -$4,027
$9,896 $134,596
$s1,073,637 $633,929
$13,384,660 $491,969
-$7,665,243 -$544,709
$5,719,417 -$52,740
8.93 N/A
$4s,354,220 $686,669
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$25,912,862 $397,077
$2s,912,862 $397,077
$s1,112,158 $503,361
$963,894 $64,871
$7,665,243 $544,709
$59,741,294 $1,112,940
0.43 0.36
-$33,828,433 -$71s,864
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
^#vtsta
64 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
10.2Natural Gas Gost Effectiveness Results
Table 10-5: 2017 10 Natural Gas Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Net)
Electric Avoided Costs $1,031,047
Natural Gas Avoided Costs $0
UCT Benefits $1,031,047
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $134,673
lncentive Costs $763,057
UCT Costs $897,729
UCT Ratio 't.15
Net UCT Benefits $133,318
Tabfe 10-6: 2017 lD Natural Gas Total Resource Cost (TRC) (Net)
Electric Avoided Costs $1,031,047
Natural Gas Avoided Costs $0
Non-Energy Benefits $91 ,144
TRC Benefits $1,122,191
Non-l ncentive Utility Costs $134,673
Customer Costs $3,419,197
TRG Costs $3,553,869
TRC Ratio 0.32
Residual TRC Benefits -$2,431,678
$1,019,936 $11,111
$0 $0
$1 ,019,936 $11,111
$130,451 $4,222
$608,137 $154,920
$738,587 $159,142
1.38 0.07
$281,349 -$148,031
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$1,019,936 $11,111
$0 $0
-$347 $91,491
$1,019,589 $102,602
$130,4s1 $4,222
$3,282,758 $136,439
$3,413,208 $140,661
0.30 0.73
-$2,393,620 -$38,059
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
65 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
^*-gtsr.a
Table 10-3: 2017 lO Natural Gas Participant Cost (PCT) (Net)
Electric Bill Reduction
Gas Bill Reduction
Non-Energy Benefits
Participant Benefits
Customer Costs
lncentive Received
Participant Costs
Participant Ratio
Net Participant Benefits
Non -Participant Benefits
Electric Revenue Loss
Non-l ncentive Utility Costs
Customer lncentives
Non-Participant Costs
RIM Ratio
Net RIM Benefits
Table 10-4: 2017 lD Natural Gas Rate lmpact Measure (RlM) (Net)
Electric Avoided Cost Savings
$4,227,226
$0
$91 , '1 44
$4,318,369
$3,419,197
-$763,057
$2,656,140
1.63
$1,662,230
$1,031,047
$1,031,047
$4,227,226
$134,673
$763,057
$5,124,955
0.20
-$4,093,908
$4,204,157 $23,069
$0 $0
-$347 $91,491
$4,203,810 $114,560
$3,282,758 $136,439
-$608,1 37 -$1s4,920
$2,674,621 -$18,481
1.57 N/A
$1,529,188 $133,041
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$1,019,936 $11,111
$1,019,936 $11,111
$4,204,157 $23,069
$130,451 $4,222
$608, I 37 $154,920
$4,942,744 $182,211
0.21 0.06
-$3,922,808 -$1 71 ,1 00
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
^*ttsta
66 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
10.3Combined Fuel Gost Effectiveness Results
Table 10-9: 2017 lD Combined Fuel Utility Gost Test (UCT) (Net)
Electric Avoided Costs
Natural Gas Avoided Costs
UCT Benefits
Non-lncentive Utility Costs
lncentive Costs
UCT Costs
UCT Ratio
Net UGT Benefits
$26,309,939
$450,040
$26,759,979
$1,163,437
$8,973,008
$10,136,446
2.64
$16,623,533
Table 10-10:2017 ID Combined FuelTotal Resource Cost (TRC) (Net)
Electric Avoided Costs $26,309,939
Natural Gas Avoided Costs $4s0,040
Non-Energy Benefits $23s,636
TRC Benefits $26,995,61s
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $1 , 163,437
Customer Costs $17,295,825
TRC Gosts $18,459,263
TRC Ratio 1.46
Residual TRC Benefits $8,s36,352
$25,912,862 $397,077
$510,476 -$60,435
$26,423,337 $336,641
$1,094,344 $69,093
$8,273,379 $699,629
$9,367,724 $768,722
2.82 0.44
$17,oss,614 -$432,081
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$25,912,862 $397,077
$510,476 -$60,435
$9,549 $226,087
$26,432,887 $562,728
$1,094,344 $69,093
$16,667,418 $628,408
$17,761,762 $697,501
1.49 0.81
-$134,772
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
AEvtsra
67 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$8,671,125
Table 10-5: 2017 lO Combined Fuel Participant Cost (PCT) (Net)
Electric Bill Reduction
Gas Bill Reduction
Non-Energy Benefits
Participant Benefits
Customer Costs
lncentive Received
Participant Costs
Participant Ratio
Net Participant Benefits
Non-Participant Benefits
Electric Revenue Loss
Non-lncentive Utility Costs
Customer lncentives
Non-Participant Costs
RIM Ratio
Net RIM Benefits
Table 10-6: 2017lD Combined Fuel Rate lmpact Measure (RlM) (Net)
Electric Avoided Cost Savings
$51,615,518
-$52,444
$235,636
$56,025,935
$17,295,82s
-$8,973,008
$8,322,817
6.73
$47,703,119
$27,340,986
$27,340,986
$5s,842,744
$1,163,437
$8,973,008
$65,979,190
0.41
-$38,638,204
$51 ,1 1 2,1 58 $503,361
-$48,418 -$4,027
$9,s49 $226,087
$55,277,446 $748,489
$16,667,418 $628,408
-$8,273,379 -$699,629
$8,394,038 -$71,221
6.59 N/A
$46,883,408 $819,710
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$26,932,798 $408,1 88
$26,932,798 $408,1 88
$55,316,315 $s26,429
$1,094,344 $69,093
$8,273,379 $699,629
$64,684,039 $1 ,295,1 51
0.42 0.32
-$37,751,241 -$886,963
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
68 lO 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Regular lncome
Portfolio
^frvrstll
Exhibit No. 3:
Avista 2016 ldaho Annual Conservation Report
Exhibit No. 3: Avista 2015 ldaho Annual Conservation Report
ldaho 201 6 DSM Annual
Conservation Report & Cost-
Effective n ess An a lys is
December 1, 2017
Aivtsra
Table of Gontents
Executive Summary...........
1.1 Cost-Effectiveness
1.2 Tariff Rider Balances.
1.3 Third-Party Evaluation
1.4 2016 Program Highlights, Challenges and Changes.
1.5 2016 Portfolio Trends
Cost-Effectiveness..........
1
2
3
2.1 Electric Cost Effectiveness Results....
2.3 Natural Gas Cost Effectiveness Results
2.4 Combined Fuel Gost Effectiveness Results.............
Programs
3.1 Residential
11
13
15
17
17
17
18
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
1 Program Changes.
3.1.1.1 Residential Program Discontinuations
3.1.1.2 Residential Program Adjustmenfs.......
3.1.1.3 Residential program additions..
2 HVAC Program
3 Water Heat Pro9ram...........
4 ENERGY STAR HOMES
5 Fuel Efficiency ...
6 Residential Lighting
7 Shell
8 Opower/Oracle Home Energy Reports
I Customer Outreach
3.1.9.1 Residential Customer Outreach ..........
3.1.9.2 Nonresidential Customer Outreach.....
3.1.10 Residential Trend Analysis
3. 1 .1 0. 1 Residential Lighting..
.18
.18
.18
.18
.19
.19
.19
.19
.19
.20
.20
.21
.28
.28
lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
AiEvtsra
14
3. 1.1 0.2 Residential Fuel Efficiency Program ....
3. 1.1 0.3 Residential Shell Programs.........
3. 1 . 1 0.4 Opower/Oracle Home Energy Reporfs.
3.2 Low 1ncome..............
3.2.1 Program Changes..
3.2.2 2016 Program Detai|s..............
3.3 Nonresidential
3.3.1 Program Changes..
3.3.1.1 Nonresidential Program New Offerings......
3.3.1.2 Nonresidential Program Discontinuations
3.3.1.3 Nonresidential Program Adjustments
3.3.2 Prescriptive Path......
3.3.3 Site Specific Path...
3.3.4 Small Business Program...
3.3.5 Prescriptive Lighting Adjustment to Reported Savings
3.3.6 Non-Residential Trend Analysis...
Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification (EM&V) ......
4.1 Process Evaluation Summary
4.1.1 Cross-cuttin9............
4.1.2 Nonresidential, lncluding Small Business
4.1.3 Residential.........
4.2 lmpact Evaluation Summary
4.2.1 Nonresidential Programs .....
4.2.1.7 S,fe Specific Program...
4.2.1.2 Prescriptive Lighting Program
4.2.1.3 Natural Gas Prescriptive Programs..
4.2.1.4 EnergySmart Grocer Program
4.2.1.5 Electric Prescriptive Non-Lighting Other Programs..
4.2.1.6 Small Business Program
4.2.2 Residential Programs
4.2.2.1 Appliance Recycling..........
32
34
34
41
41
41
42
42
48
48
48
49
54
56
4.2.2.2
4.2.2.3
4.2.2.4
4.2.2.5
56
56
58
60
62
62
62
63
63
64
64
65
65
65
66
67
68
69
il
HVAC Program
Water Heat.........
ENERGY SIAR@ Homes .
F uel Efficiency........
lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AEursra
4.2.2.6 Residential Lighting
4.2.2.7 Shell Program
4.2.2.8 Opower Program...
4.2.2.9 Low lncome Program
Generation and Distribution Efficiency.....
Generation
Distribution
Reg ional Market Transformation
Avista Electric Energy Savings Share
Avista Natural Gas Energy Savings Share......
2016 Costs
Energy Efficiency Expenditures
Tariff Rider Balances
Actual to Business Plan Gomparison
10 Net Cost Effectiveness Results
5
6
7
I
I
5.1
5.2
6.1
6.2
6.3
10.1
10.2
10.3
70
70
71
71
73
73
73
74
74
74
75
76
78
79
80
80
83
85
Electric Gost Effectiveness Results....
Natural Gas Cost Effectiveness Results
Com bined Fuel Cost Effectiveness Resu|ts.............
AEvtsra
ill lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Gost-Effectiveness Analysis
1 Executive Summary
The 2016 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Annual Report summarizes Avista Utilities'
(Avista) annual energy efficiency achievements for its ldaho electric and natural gas customers.
These programs are intended to deliver all cost-effective conservation 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 and natural gas retail sales.
Avista's 2016 target as reported in the 201 5 Electric lntegrated Resource Plan (lRP) is 11 ,213
MWh. ln 2016, Avista acquired 45,946 MWh (adjusted reported savings) in ldaho, or410% of its
target. Primary drivers for electric savings included the nonresidential prescriptive lighting,
residential Home Energy Reports, residentialfuel efficiency, and residential lighting efforts.
Site-specific lighting and Small Business projects also contributed a signiflcant amount to the
overall savings contribution. ln 2016, Avista's ldaho natural gas efficiency portfolio delivered
189,297 therms in savings (adjusted reported gross savings), achieving 166% of the Company's
2016 natural gas target of 114,000 therms as noted in the Natural Gas lRP. Primary drivers for
the naturalgas savings include residential prescriptive HVAC, shell, and water heat measures
and nonresidential prescriptive food service equipment.
ln 2016, nearly $2.8 million in rebates were provided directly to ldaho residential customers to
offset the cost of implementing these energy efficiency measures. All programs within the
residential portfolio contributed over 20,216 MWh and over 151,000 therms to the annual
energy savings. ln addition, more than 1 ,100 prescriptive and site specific nonresidential
projects were incented. Additionally, the Small Business program installed over 13,500
measures. Avista's tariff riders funded more than $5.8 million for energy efficiency incentives in
nonresidential and small business applications. Nonresidential programs realized over 25,000
MWh and 34,500 therms in annual first-year energy savings. A summary of acquired savings in
2016 by sector is provided for both fuels in Tables ES-1 and ES-2 below.
Table ES-1 : 2016 ldaho Electric Energy Savings (Adjusted Reported Gross)
Residential 20,216,014
Low lncome 284,326
Nonresidential
Subtotal 45,744,593
Generation 200,000
Distribution 1,990
Total
1
Segment kwh
45,946,583
lD 20'16 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
25,244,254
AErtsra
Table ES-2: 2016ldaho Natural Gas Savings (Adjusted Reported Gross)
Residential 151,599
Low lncome 3,116
Nonresidential 34,582
Total 189,297
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 adjusted gross
reported savings based on all program participants.
1.1 Cost-Effectiveness
Avista judges the effectiveness of the energy efficiency portfolio based upon a number of
metrics. Two of the most commonly applied metrics are the UCT (utility cost test)1 and the TRC
(total resource cost). The UCT is a benefitto-cost test from the utility perspective including
incentives and excluding net costs and non-energy benefits of participants related to energy
efficiency services. The TRC test is a benefit-to-cost test from the customer perspective
including all measure costs and non-energy benefits and excluding incentives. Both tests
provide insight as to the net value to all customers.
Benefit{o-cost ratios in excess of 1.00 indicate that the benefits exceed the costs. ln 2016,
electric and natural gas gross TRC is 2.17 and 0.49, respectively. Electric and natural gas UCT
test benefit-cost ratios are 2.80 and 1.45, respectively. Tables ES-3 and ES-4 present the TRC
costeffectiveness results for the electric portfolio and the UCT test results for the natural gas
portfolio.
1 Also known as the PAC (program administrator cost) test.
2
Segment Therms
A'Ettsta
lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Table ES-1: 2016 lD Electric Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Gross)
Electric Avoided Costs $31,995,226 $323,220 532,3t9,445
-$2,611,373 -s35,195 -s2,545,558
UCT Benefits $29,383,852 5288,035 529,67\,887
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $1,936,979 Ss8,s63 S1,995,543
lncentive Costs $8,049,315 s549,690 S8,599,005
UCT Costs $9,986,294 s608,253 5ro,594,547
UCT Ratio 2.94 0.47 2.80
Net UCT Benefits
Table ES4: 2016 lD Natural Gas Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Gross)
Natural Gas Avoided Costs $1,099,645 s25,476 5L,l2s,l2l
Electric Avoided Costs $10s,805 So S105,805
UCT Benefits $1,205,450 525,476 51,230,925
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $81,037 53,q16 S84,513
lncentive Costs $559,846
UGT Costs $640,883 s208,636 s849,519
UCT Ratio 1.88 o.L2 t.45
Net UCT Benefits $564,566 -S1AS,1SO S381,406
1.2 Tariff Rider Balances
Beginning in 2016, the ldaho electric tariff rider balances were underfunded by $431 ,783.
During 2016, $6.2 million in tariff rider revenue was collected to fund electric energy efficiency
while $1'1.7 million was expended to operate energy efficiency programs. The $5.5 million
3
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Natural Gas Avoided Costs
s205,160 s765,006
AFwsra
under-collection of tariff rider funding resulted in a year-end balance of $5.9 million underfunded
balance. The primary driver for the underfunding was the increase in participation in the non-
residential lighting program.
1.3 Third-Party Evaluation
Nexant, lnc., in partnership with Research lnto Action, (the evaluation team) was retained as the
Company's external evaluator to independently measure and verify the portfolio energy savings
forthe 2014-2015 and 2016-2017 biennium periods. Avista has reviewed and responded to the
conclusions and recommendations made by the evaluation team for the 20'14-2015 biennium
and the status updates can be found in Section 5. Avista appreciates and agrees with the
overall review that programs are operating effectively. A large portion of the recommendations
are around encouraging Avista to continue to deliver programs with the same level of rigor that
has delivered success in the programs to-date.
The evaluation team is conducting on-going evaluation activities for the 2016-2017 biennium
and values presented in this Annual Report and used for the cosleffectiveness analysis are
'adjusted reported values'. Realization rates have not been applied to the 2016 savings
because evaluation activities are only partway to completion and therefore current findings do
not represent a statistically significant portion of the 2016-2017 population. However,
adjustment factors, based on any discrepancies found during the evaluation team's review of
Avista's tracking database, have been applied to Avista's reported savings and are reported
herein as'adjusted reported values'.
ln addition, there is one measure category for which a realization rate has been applied to the
values in the 2016 Annual Report. Based on the measurement and verification activities for
Avista's prescriptive interior lighting measure category, the evaluation team calculated an
interim realization rate of 71o/o for the category. One of the factors behind this realization rate is
based on the evaluation team's review of Tubular LED (TLED) measures incented in the 2016
program year. Specifically, in the 2016 program year, Avista offered two prescriptive lighting
measures for TLEDs:1-Lamp T12lT8 Fixture to 1-Lamp LED 8W to 15W, incentivized at $1 5 per
lamp, and 1-Lamp T12nB Fixture to 1-Lamp LED 16Wto 23W, incentivized at $10 per
lamp. As early project applications were submitted, Avista became aware that TLED lamps
were labeled under a lower wattage than their DLC (Design Lights Consortium) product
specifications. TLED lamps were found in the market with a labeled wattage of 14-15W, while
the DLC testing indicated that these lamps consume 17-18W. The evaluation team believes that
this discrepancy is because TLED lamp power consumption is subject to different ballast
configurations. Thus, a TLED in a low ballast factor (LBF) ballast may only consume 14W, but
in a normal ballast factor (NBF) ballast, the same lamp uses 17W. The DLC maintains
performance data for its certified lamps as tested with a 0.89 ballast factor.
An issue was identified where program guidelines required DLC listed lamps and customers
4 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
were selecting lamps based on the DLC listing. Early on in 2016 some customers who installed
DLC listed lamps were paid a lower incentive based on the DLC listed wattage rather than the
lamp labeled wattage. Avista agreed that this could be confusing to customers who met the
written program requirements of installing DLC listed lamps and applied for incentives based on
the lamp's listed wattage. Avista clarified that customers should be paid based on the wattage
printed on the lamp packaging. Avista communicated clarifications to customers and vendors
regarding measure eligibility recognizing that some DLC listed TLEDs may have the same
wattage on both the TLED lamp and packaging as well as the DLC listed wattage and some
may differ. This potential delta along with other energy savings data such as hours of use would
be evaluated by the evaluation team.
After the 2016 year had ended, the evaluation team applied a realization rate to the total
savings associated with these measures. Because Avista has adjusted the savings associated
with this measure for the 2017 program year, the evaluation team believes that the final
realization rate for the 2016-2017 evaluation period will increase. ln addition, the measure
category remains cost-effective with the application of the 71 %o realizalion rate for the 2016
program year.
1.4 2016 Program Highlights, Challenges and Changes
Avista practices active management and continuous process improvement when delivering
energy efficiency programs. Through the evaluation team's on-going evaluation activities and
through internalactive management, Avista recognizes program successes and challenges
throughout the biennium and practices continuous process improvement to strive for the
delivery of successful and costeffective energy efficiency programs. Some of Avista's 2016
program highlights as well as some challenges are described below.
Programs that included the commercial lighting and residential electric to natural gas
conversion measures are worthy of highlighting because they included proactive
program management and quality assurance and were able to avoid systemic issues in
the market. Both measure categories saw tremendous growth in 2016. These programs
continued to deliver designed results due to successful, proactive and frequent
communications with industry partners to ensure concerns were addressed and program
guidelines were met.
Another highlight of Avista's adaptive management and striving for process improvement
was seen in the Company's approach to the Simple Steps, Smart Savings program.
Historically, Avista has used the allocated approach for the internal reporting of savings
and costs associated with the program by state. While the allocation method of splitting
program achievements 70/30 between states is useful to approximate each jurisdiction's
savings achieved, the Company has further refined the process to provide more
accurate savings information. While there were some additional administrative hurdles,
as a result of 2016 learnings, going fonruard in 2017 Avista will be reporting Simple Steps
based on actualsales in each state ratherthan an allocation of total program resultsfor
lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Gost-Effectiveness Analysis5
!
AlEvtsra
both internal reporting and annual reporting, energy savings and costs.
. ln 2016, Avista introduced a duct repair and duct sealing rebate in ldaho. Avista had hit
a point of saturation in Washington providing this treatment to underserved
manufactured home customers through a direct install approach that was cost-effective
by leveraging state funds. Without access to similar imported funds in ldaho, Avista
designed and implemented a rebated measure approach. This approach was challenged
early on in the implementation and discontinued when Avista was unable to cost-
effectively ensure program guidelines, anticipated savings, and customer care goals
were achieved. Several issues with the program were that the calculated rebate only
covered 30-40% of the cost (resulting in customer contributions being required).
Qualified vendors were reluctant or unsuccessful in selling jobs with the customer
contribution met. Additionally, new market players began to offer a free service,
however, quality assurance steps taken by Avista quickly identified systemic deficiencies
in these contractors meeting program guidelines. Due to implementation concerns,
program guidelines not being met, and customers being misled (allof which suggested
anticipated savings would not be realized), the program was discontinued.
Continuing the integrated resource planning and conservation potential assessment processes,
Avista reviews existing and potential programs as part of the DSM business planning process.
New to 2016, the Company reintroduced natural gas energy efficiency programs throughout the
DSM portfolio. The measures available for all sectors were mirrored for Washington programs to
create an ease of program implementation and customer messaging. This implementation
approach was also to allow the Company to have a test year of appropriate savings amounts to
claim and to verifo utility cost effectiveness in ldaho. ln 2016, through adaptive management,
programs were modified to reflect updated savings and cost information that affected incentive
levels. New non-residential offers in 2016 included several lighting incentives as well as the
expansion of AirGuardian to include rotary screw air compressors and two new food service
equipment measures (electric and natural gas griddles). Commercial power management for PC
networks, clothes washers as well as some lighting measures were discontinued as a result of
the business planning process. Finally, site-specific incentive guidelines were aligned to flat
incentive levels of $0.20 per kWh for electric, $3.00 per therm for natural gas, capped al7lo/o of
incremental project costs for projects with a less than 1S-year simple payback. For the
residential sector, the only new offer was duct sealing in ldaho described above. Two measures
were discontinued, both electric and natural gas tank type water heater incentives.
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.
6 lD 20'16 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
1.5 2016 Portfolio Trends
Avista experienced increased savings in 2016 as compared to its previous years. Much of this
is attributed to the increasing popularity of LED lighting, TLED lighting and fuel conversions.
Avista's 45,744,594 kWh of energy savings from 2016 is more than double that of its
20,012,301k\M savings from 2015 and more than triple that of the 2014 savings of 13,460,631
k\ /h.
Figure ES-1: Idaho Electric Energy Savings 2014-20162
ldaho Electric Energy Savings 2014-2016
Adjusted Reported Gross - kWh, lncluding Conversions
'Low-lncome is included in the overalltotal
50,000,000
20t6,45,7M,s94
45,000,000
40,000,000
3s,000,000
30,000,000
25,000,000
2015, 20,012,301
20,000,000
2014,16,214,C80 2015, 15.666,200
15,000,000
11,211,000
10,000,000 2014,13,460,631
5,000,000
0
2074
IResidential
2015
rNonresidential tOpon'rer/Oracle
-Total
2016
*lRP Target
Of Avista's overall Electric savings portfolio, Non-Residential Prescriptive programs produced
2 Savings numbers fot2014 are unverified gross, 20'15 is verified gross, and 2O16 is adjusted reported
7 lD 2016 DSM Annua! Report & Gost-Effectiveness Analysis
2
tr
AEvrsra
45% of the overall savings portfolio, and combined with Opower/Oracle Home Energy Reports,
Residential Lighting, and Fuel Conversions, realized 79% of the overall savings for 2016. See
Figure ES-2 for an illustration of these metrics.
Figure ES-2: 2016 Washington Electric Savings Portfolio
}OLG lD Savings Portfolio Percentages
Note: While Opower/Oracle Home Energy Reports continue to be a material part of Avista's
savings portfolio, the savings recognized in 2016 are for the 2016-2017 biennial period. ln 2017,
there will be a small incremental adjustment to the 2016 savings amount. For additional
Opower/Oracle information, see Section 3.1.8.
I
t7%
r7x
Opower/0racle
Home Enerry
Reports - Electric
Electric Non-
Residential
Perscriptive
45%Electric Fucl
Convenion Protram
hrerything Else
21%
A'i-tnsta
lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
2 Cost-Effectiveness
The 2016 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 Utility Cost Test (UCT)3, Total Resource Cost (TRC), Participant Cost Test (PCT),
and Rate lmpact Measure (RlM) tests. For this annual report, cost-effectiveness of DSM
programs is based on unverified adjusted gross savings using methods consistent with those
laid out in the California Standard Practice Manualfor Economic Analysis of Demand-Side
Programs and Projects as modified by the Council. Table 2-1 summarizes the allocation of cost-
effectiveness components as a cost or benefit to each costeffectiveness test.
Ta ble 2-1 : Cost-Effectiveness Com ponent I n puts
Avoided BenefitCosts
Non-Utility Energy
Costs
Energy
Non-Energy Benefit I mpacts
lncremental Equipment and
lnstallation Costs
Program Non-incentive (admin) Costs Cost
lncentive Payments 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.
Low-lncome conservation items have been separately identified from the Regular lncome
3 Also known as the PAC (program administrator cost) test.
Cost Cost
9
Benefit Benefit
BenefitBenefit
Benefit Benefit
Utility
Cost Test
(ucr)
Total
Resource
Cost (TRC)
Participant
Cost Test
(PCr)
Rate
lmpact
MeasureComponent
RI
Cost Cost
Cost Benefit
!D 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
' ^frvtsta
portfolio in the following tables. For those items, the costs associated with low-income also
lncludes amounts funded to the CAP agencies.
Cost effectiveness results within this report are based on adjusted reported savings. Energy
savings reported by Avista's implementation team (both external and internal to Avista) were
reviewed by the Company's external evaluator and adjusted for any major discrepancies in
reporting. The savings estimates represent gross energy acquisition.
Avoided costs used for the cost-effectiveness valuation of the 2016 electric and natural gas
programs are the avoided costs from the most recently filed electric and natural gas lRPs.
ln summary, electric and natural gas UCT benefit-cost ratios are 2.80 and 1.45, respectively.
Electric and natural gas gross TRC is 2.17 and 0.49, respectively. Table 2- through Table 2-13
illustrate electric, natural gas, and combined fuelcost-effectiveness, respectively. 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.
10 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
2.1 Electric Cost Effectiveness Results
Table 2-2:2016 lD Electric Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Gross)
Electric Avoided Costs $31,995,226 5323,220 S32,318,445
Natural Gas Avoided Costs -$2,611,373 185 5s8
UCT Benefits $29,383,852 s288,035 529,671,887
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $1,936,979 Ss8,s63 s1,995,543
lncentive Costs $8,049,315 5S+9,690 58,599,005
UcT costs $9,986,294 SGO8,253 | 5L0,5g4,547
UCT Ratio 2.94 0.47 2.80
Net UCT Benefits s79,077,340
Table 2-3: 2016 lD Electric Total Resource Cost (TRC) (Gross)
Electric Avoided Costs $31,995,226 5323,220 , $32,378,445
Natural Gas Avoided Costs -$2,611,373 -S35,t85 -s2,646,558
Non-Energy Benefits $408,795 5148,881 55s7,676
TRC Benefits $29,792,647 s436,915 ' s30,229,563
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $1,936,979 s58,553 s1,995,543
Customer Costs $11,466,759 $4sg,zr2 S]-r,gz4,97L
TRC Costs $13,403,738 Ssr 775 13 13
TRC Ratio 2.22 0.8s 2.77
Residual* TRC Benefits s15,309
*The "Residual TRC" is used to denote the difference between TRC benefits and costs. 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.**lncludes costs funded to the CAP agencies.
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$19,397,558 -S:zo,zt8
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio**
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$16,388,909 -s79,859
11 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
^&vtsr:a
Table 24: 2016 lD Electric Participant Cost (PCT)(Gross)
I Regular lncome II eortfotio I
Low lncome
Portfolio Overall Portfolio
Electric Bill Reduction $46,533,s23 S+3s,66t S4G,9G9,184
Gas Bill Reduction -$76,056 -s1,973 -577,929
Non-Energy Benefits $408,795
Participant Benefits $46,866,262 s582,568 547,448,930
Customer Costs
lncentive Received
$1 1,466,759 2 97L
-$8,049,315 -s549,690 -s8,599,005
Participant Costs $3,417,444 -S9t,+28 s3,325,966
Participant Ratio 13.71 N/A 14.27
Net Participant Benefits
Table 2-5: 2016lD Electric Rate lmpact Measure (RlM)(Gross)
Etectric Avoided Cost Savings $31,995,226 $3Z3,ZZO s32,3!8,445
$43,448,818 5G74,L46
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
Non-Participant Benefits $31,995,226 5323,220 532,3t8,44s
Electric Revenue Loss $46,s33,523 s435,551 s45,969,184
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $1,936,979 s58,553 : s1,995,543
Customer lncentives $8,049,315 s549,690 s9,599,005
Non-Participant Gosts $56,519,817 57,043,9t4 5s7,s63,73t
RIM Ratio 0.57 0.31 0.s6
Net RIM Benefits -52s,245,296-$24,524,592 -5120,69q
A'Evtsta
12 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
s148,881 5557,676
2.3 Natural Gas Gost Effectiveness Results
Table 2-6: 2016!D Natural Gas Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Gross)
Natural Gas Avoided Costs $1,099,645 525,476 5r,725,L2!
Electric Avoided Costs $105,805 So S105,805
UCT Benefits $ 1,205,450 525,475 S1,230,925
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $81,037 53,ql6 Sg+,st3
lncentive Costs $559,846 Szos,too s765,006
UCT Gosts $640,883 s208,636 s8+9,St9
UCT Ratio 1.88 0.12 L.45
Net UCT Benefits Sagt,+oo
Table2-7:20161D NaturalGas Total Resource Cost (TRC) (Gross)
Natural Gas Avoided Costs $1,099,645 52s,476 5r,].2s,Lzt
Electric Avoided Costs $105,80s So s105,805
Non-Energy Benefits -$174 Sog,gog Sog,zgo
TRC Benefits $1,205,276 595,445 5L,3o0,72L
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $81,037 53,476 Sg+,st:
Customer Costs $2,359,560 5183,794 s2,543,353
TRC Costs $2,440,597 5tB7,z7o 52,627,8G7
TRG Ratio 0.49 0.51 0.49
Residual TRC Benefits -51,,327,L4s
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome :Portfolio i
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
-$1,235,321 -s91,825
13 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AlEvtsrr
Table 2-8: 2016 lD Natural Gas Participant Cost (PCT) (Gross)
I Regular lncome II Portfolio i
Low lncome
Portfolio Overall Portfolio
Gas Bill Reduction $2,390,37s S5G,308 s2,446,693
Electric Bill Reduction $23,468 So 523,468
Non-Energy Benefits -$174 Seg,gsg s69,796
Participant Benefits $2,413,669 :i', s726,277 'i s2,539,947
Customer Costs $2,359,560 s183,794 s2,543,353
tncentive neceived -$559,846 _S205,1G0 , _S7G5,006
participant costs $1,799,714 _s21,366 st,779,347
Participant Ratio 1.34 1.43
Net Participant Benefits s761,599
Table 2-9: 2016 lD Natural Gas Rate lmpact Measure (RlM) (Gross)
$613,956 5147,643
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
Gas Avoided Cost Savings $1,099,645 52s,47G SL,Lzs,t2L
Non-Participant Benefits $1,099,645 525,476 5L,125,L2L
Gas Revenue Loss $2,390,37s Sso,gog 52,446,683
Non-lncentive Utility Costs
Customer lncentives
$81,037
$559,846 s205,150 s765,005
Non-Participant Costs $3,031,259
RIM Ratio 0.36 0.10 0.34
AlEttsra
14 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
53,476 S8+,5t3
5264,944 53,296,202
2.4 Gombined Fuel Cost Effectiveness Results
Table 2-10: 20161D Combined Fuel Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Gross)
Electric Avoided Costs $32,1 01 ,030 Szzz,zzo 532,424,250
Natural Gas Avoided Costs -$1,51 1,728 -S9,z09 -$1,s2L,437
UCT Benefits $30,589,302 s3 13,5 11 s3o,go2,g13
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $2,018,016 Soz,o+o S2,080,056
lncentive Costs $8,609,161 5754,849 59,364,011::ucr costs $10,627,178 , sg16,ggg , stt,++a,o6z
UGT Ratio 2.88 0.38 2.70
Net UCT Benefits i $1s,s62,124 L _ssog,gza ]L!s,#8,2a6
Table 2-11 : 2016 ID Combined Fuel Total Resource Cost (TRC) (Gross)
Electric Avoided Costs $32,1 01 ,030 Slzz,zzo 532,424,250
Natural Gas Avoided Costs -$1,51 1,728 -s9,709 -5L,52L,437
Non-Energy Benefits $408,621 Sztg,aso 56zl,qlt
TRC Benefits $30,997,923 SSIZ,:O1 s31,530,284
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $2,018,016 S62,o4o s2,090,056
Customer Costs $13,826,319 s642,005 51,4,468,324
rRc costs _ l!,tl ,33r SzO+,0+S _ 516,548,380
TRC Ratio 1.96 0.76 1.91
Residual* TRC Benefits $15,153,588 I -s,,,,S14,981,904*The "Residual TRC" is used to denote the difference between TRC benefits and costs. 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.
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
15 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
A)Evtsra
Table2-12:2016|D Combined Fuel Participant Cost (PCT) (Gross)
Regular lncome IPortfolio i
Low lncome
Portfolio Overall Portfolio
Electric Bill Reduction $46,5s6,991 S+3s,66t 546,992,Gs2
Gas Bill Reduction -$52,588 1
Non-Energy Benefits $408,621 s218,850 5627,47t
participant Benefits , $49,279,931 S70g,945 : S49,9gg,g77
customer costs $i 3,826,319 5642,005 514,469,324
tncentive Received -$8,609,161 _$754,949 _59,364,011
Participant Costs $5,217,158 -5tt2,844 55,104,314
Participant Ratio 9.45 N/A 9.79
Net Participant Benefits
Table 2-13: 2016 !D Combined Fuel Rate Impact Measure (RlM) (Gross)
Electric Avoided Cost Savings $33,094,870 s348,595 s33,443,566
63$44,062,774 S821,790
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
Non-Participant Benefits $33,094,870 s348,695 $33,443,566
Electric Revenue Loss
Non-lncentive Utility Costs
$48,923,898
$2,018,016 SG2,o4o S2,08o,o5G
Customer lncentives $8,609,161 57s4,849 S9,364,011
Non-Participant Costs $59,ss1,076 $1,308,857 S60,859,933
RIM Ratio 0.56 0.27 0.55
Net RIM Benefits -$26,456,205 -5960,152 -s27,476,367
16 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
-S1,873
S491,9G8 549,4L5,867
AEwsra
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, direct-
install programs and a multi-faceted, multichannel outreach and customer engagement effort.
Nearly $2.8 million in rebates were provided directly to ldaho residential customers to offset the
cost of implementing these energy efficiency measures. All programs within the residential
portfolio contributed over 20,200 MWh and over 1 51 ,000 therms to the 2016 annual energy
savings.
3.1.1 Program Changes
New to 2016, the Company reintroduced natural gas energy efficiency programs throughout the
DSM portfolio which included services to the residential segment. The measures available were
mirrored for Washington programs to create an ease of program implementation and customer
messaging. This implementation approach was also to allow the Company to have a test year
of appropriate savings amounts to claim and to verifu utility cost effectiveness in ldaho.
Other residential program changes were made for the 2016-2017 Biennium, including the
discontinuation of programs and changes to eligibility or incentive levels of existing programs.
Avista communicates the majority of program changes once the Annual Conservation Plan is
finalized and then become effective at the beginning of the year. Program changes may also be
made throughout the year as necessary.
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 ,2016, Avista continued to accept rebate applications and honored
incentive amounts through March 31 , 2016 for 2015 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 2016:
17 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
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.
. Electric 35-55 gallon water heater with 0.94EF or higher
?.1.1.2 Residential Program Adjustments
Existing rebate amounts were decreased beginning January 2016 for the following measures
. \Mndows decreased to $3.50per sqft from $4.00 per sqft
. Smart thermostat contractor install decreased to $70.00 from $100.00
. Smart Thermostat self-installdecreased to $35.00 from $50.00
3.1.1.3 Residential program additions
Along with the reintroduction of natural gas programs, the following measure iterations were
also added to the residential portfolio in 2016:
. Electric to Natural Gas Direct Vent Wall Heater was added to the Fuel Efficiency
Program at an incentive of $1,300
The remaining sub-sections outline each residential program offered in 2016 and the verified
participation, incentives, energy savings, among other program achievements.
3.1.2 HVAG Program
Electric customers with electric home heat are eligible for a rebate for the installation of a
variable speed motor on their forced air heating equipment ($tOO rebate), or a conversion of
electric straight resistance space heat to an air source heat pump ($gOO rebate). Natural gas
customers are eligible for a rebate for the installation of a high efficiency furnace or boiler
($3001. Both electric and natural gas customers are also eligible for the installation of a smart
thermostat. See Table 3-1 and Table 3-2for 2016 firslyear program participation, incentives
received, and savings achieved.
3.1.3 Water Heat Program
The Water Heat Program offers a $180 incentive for a high efficiency natural gas tankless water
heater, $7 buydown for Simple Steps, Smart Savings showerheads and $35 buydown for
Simple Steps, Smart Savings clothes washers (reflected in point of purchase price). See Table
3-3 and Table 3-4for 2016 first-year program participation, incentives received, and savings
achieved.
18 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AiEvtsra
3.1.4 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. See Table 3-5 and
Table 3-6 for 20'16 first-year program participation, incentives received, and savings achieved.
3.1.5 Fue! 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). Homes that implement both the
furnace and water heat conversions receive a $3,200 rebate. The program also offers an
incentive for the conversion of electric to natural wall heaters ($1,300 rebate). See Table 3-7 'for
2016 first-year program participation, incentives received, and savings achieved.
3.1.6 Residential Lighting
Avista continues to participate in the regional manufacturer buy-down of energy efficient lighting,
through Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), its contactors and self-directed
giveaways. The bulbs resulted in 3,317 MWh in annualfirst-yearsavingsduring 2016 (see
Table 3-6). The Company contributed over $305,448 in incentives toward this buy-down effort
with the overall average incentive of $2.16 for a LED bulb and $0.89 for a CFL bulb.
3.1.7 Shell
The primary measures included in the Shell Program are wall, attic, floor insulation, duct
sealing, and window replacements. lncentives are offered per square foot and vary from
$0.1 S/sf for insulation measures to $3.54/sf for windows. See Table 3-9 and Table 3-1 0 for 2016
first-year program participation, incentives received, and savings achieved.
3.1.8 Opower/Oracle Home Energy Reports
Avista launched a Home Energy Reports (HER) program in June 2013, targeting 25,201 ldaho
and high use electric customers. As of December, 2015, Avista had 16,864 customers still
participating in the HER program. ln January of 2016, Avista 'refilled'their existing Home
Energy Reports Program by 8,337 customers bringing total distribution to approximately 25,201
electric customers in ldaho that will receive home energy reports throughout the duration of the
2016-2017 biennium, unless they opt-out or move (Table 3-1 1). No one is allowed to opt-in.
Eligibility for treatment included several criteria such as sufficient (2 year) billing history, enough
19 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AFvrsra
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. ln 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 goalon the Reports. ln 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.
See Table 3-11 for 2016 first-year program participation, incentives received, and reported
savings.
3.1.9 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 billand posted online.
3.1.9.1 Residential CustomerOutreach
Avista's residential outreach included the repeat of the popular broad reach media promotions
"Efficiency Matters" (April-June). Bill inserts offered tips to manage energy use and a link to
rebate offerings.
Although available to allcustomers, Avista conducts targeted outreach for low income and
seniors. This outreach included five Energy Fairs in September and October - one was held in
Cottonwood, lD, two were held in Spokane, and one each in Colville, WA and Spokane Valley,
WA. While these events may occur in one jurisdiction, the Company anticipates a degree of
spillover where a Washington energy fair located close to the ldaho border will also serve ldaho
customers (and vice versa). One of the Spokane Energy Fairs was part of a broader event, the
Avista Low lncome Rate Assistance Program (LIRAP) Appointment Day which was a new event
that promoted efficiency and assistance like other energy fairs but partnered with the local CAP
agency, SNAP, to offer actual energy assistance appointments. Communications tactics used
to increase awareness of the Energy Fairs included a direct mail, posters, emails, news
releases, and prinU radio/ online advertising. ln person outreach efforts also included mobile
outreach such as numerous partnerships with local food banks as well as other venues and
workshops at senior centers. Efforts included nearly 150 events in 2016 with over 13,000
customers reached.
ln the summer and fall of 2016, Avista ran a new broad-reach campaign to increase awareness
of and participation in energy efficiency programs for residential customers. The "Way to Save"
20 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AFvtsta
campaign utilized TV, radio and online advertising to communicate low-cosV no-cost energy
savings tips and to promote the rebates we offer. Social media was utilized throughout the
campaign to extend reach.
Avista 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
local sponsorships to highlight "Energy Efficiency Night" at Spokane Chiefs hockey and
Gonzaga University basketball games.
3.1.9.2 Nonresidential Customer Outreach
ln 2016 Avista 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.
We also continued our effort of building awareness of energy efficiency and programs through
our electronic newsletter to commercial customers.
Avista tried more frequent updates in 2014 but transitioned to the current approach in 2016 that
offers 1-2 in-person updates to contractors, typically during the beginning of the year if major
program changes occur. Typically these outreach efforts are targeted in two groups; 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.
21 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Table 3-1 : 2016 lD Electric HVAC Program Summarya
Prqecl
Counl
kwh
Savings
Therms
Savings
kvvh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cosl
Non-Energy
Benerits
Customer
Incremental
Costs
Non-
lncentiveMeasurelncentives
Costs
E Smart Thermostat DIY I , $505 5,409 $3,280 $o $0 $1,8s7 $201
E Electric to Air Source Heat Pump 47 $48,527 231,475 $178,904 $0 $0 $262,40s $'r0,938
E Variable Speed Motor 278 $32,007 122,042 $80,1 99 $0 s0 $253,012 $4,903
E Smart Thermostat Paid lnslall 29 $2,776 17,429 $10,s68 $0 $0 $19,563 $646
E Dud Sealing 2 $U4 3,716 $2,872 $0 $0 $300 $176
E Ducl Sealing (Manufactured)51 $8,776 54,162 $41,861 $0 $0 $7,650 $2,s59
E Ducl Sealing + CO2 $1,032 9,290 $7,1 80 $0 $0 $1,31 1 $439
15 $0 $0 $2,9s0 $753E Ducl Sealing + CO2 (Manufaclured)$3,384 '15,930
Total
4 All kwh and therm values reported in this table are gross, exciuding the effect of appliGble NTG ratios.
22
$12,312
lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$20,615$97,352436 t159,453 $337,177 $0 i0 $549,048
,frvtsta
Table 3-2: 2016 lD Natural Gas HVAC Program Summarys
G Natural Gas Boiler 9 $2,680 918 $0 $5,927 $0 $73,958 $1 82
G Natural Gas Furnace $531,700 $1 6,717
Natural Gas Heat
DIY with 34 $1 ,1 96 884 $0 $4,475 $0 $6,919 $1 38
G Smart Thermostat Paad 180 $12,s99 4,680 $23,690 $o $77,563 $728
Total 1041 $261,266 90,736 $0 $s78,050 $0 $690,110 $17,764
Table 3-3: 2016 lD Electric Water Heat Program Summary3
Simple Steps Clothes Washers 397 $41,75s 28,98'l $'r 9,641 $0 $0 $36,397 $1,201
Simple Steps Showerheads 873 $3,505 43,806 $2s,1 89 $0 $0 $5,257 $2.226
E Electric Waler Heater 2 $46 278 $1 97 $0 $0 s4,002 $12
Total $s,438
5 All kwh and therm values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of appli€ble NTG ratios
23 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
POecl
Count
kvvh
Avoided
Costs
Non-
energy
Benetits
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-incenlive
Utility CostsMeasurelncentives I kwh i Therms
818 $244,791 84,254 $0 $543,958 $0
Project
Count
kwh Avoided
Cosis
Therms
Avoided
Costs
Non-
energy
Benefils
Non-incentivelncenlivesUtility CostsMeasurekVVh I Therms
1,272 $45,306 73,065 $.15,027 $0 $0 $4s,656
A)ivtsra
I Therms AvoidedI co"r"
Customer
lncremental Costs
Table 34: 2016 lD Natural Gas Water Heat Program Summary6
Projec{
Count
kvr/h
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided Costs
Non-
energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental Costs
Non-incenlive
Utility CostsMeasurelncentives I kvvh I Therms
Simple Steps Showerheads 873 $3,033 1,495 $0 $6,092 $0 $s,2s7 $400
G 50 G Natural Gas Water Heater t $176 21 $0 $94 $148 $13
G Tankless Water Heater 451 $80,763 to,z to $0 $92,'152 $0 $41 5,869 $2,832
Total
E Energy Star Home - Stick Built, lD
E Energy Star Home - Manuf, Fumace
1,327 $83,972 0 27,7t2
$o so
$3,245
$9,748 $4,466
$421,274
Table 3-5: 2016 lD ENERGY STAR Homes Electric Program Summarya
1'l $3,728 72,193
14 $12,849 95,858
$73,048
$96,993 $0 $2,308 $42,000 $5,930
s0 $0$98,337
Pfojed
Count
kwh
Savings
Therms
Savings
kvvh Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Customer
lncremenlal
Costs
Non-
lncenliveNon-EnergyMeasurelncentivesBenefits Costs
E Energy Star Home - Manuf, Heat Pump $918 4,390 $4.442 $0 $0 $3,000 $272
Total
Table 3-6: 2016 lD ENERGY STAR Homes Natural Gas Program Summarya
G Energy Star Home - Natural Gas Only $645
Total
6 All kwh and therm values repo.ted in this table are gross, excluding the effect of applieble NTG ratios
lD 2016 DSll, Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
203 s0
s0
91,803
$1,803
-$1 74
-$'t74 $3,000
$3,000
$r0,668
$s5
$55203
24
26 $17,494 172,41 $174,483 $0 $2,308 $54,748
$645
klvh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cosls
Non-
energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
incenliveMeasureCouot
Project lncentives i kwh i Therms
Costs
$0
1
1
Table 3-7: 2016 lD Electric Fuel Conversion Program SummaryT
E Eleclric To Nalural Gas Water Heater 41 $28,221 165,271 (8,8s6) $117,320 -$44,616 $0 $80,'142 $7,173
E Eleclric To Natural Gas Wall Heater 9 $13,422 98,388 (4,194) ' $69,842 -$21,129 $0 $34,860 $4,270
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace 85 $224,280 1,021,020 (42,330)$960,087 -$318,001 $0 $338,995 $58,699
E Electric To Nalural Gas Furnace and
WH 414 $1,519,826 6,641,802 (29s,s96) $6,24s,429 -$2,220,642 $0 $1,899,517 $381,843
Total $451,985
Table 3€: 2016 lD Electric Residential Lighting Program Summarys
Simple Steps LED 96.211 $207.428 1,934.536 $1,3s3,707 $0 $0 $232,144 $82,76s
Simple Steps CFL 1 09,935 $98,020 1,382,065 $682,593 $0 $0 $1 65,848 $41,733
Total
TAll kvvh and therm values reported in this table ar€ gross, excluding the effect of appli€ble NTG ratios.
25
kvl/h
Avoided
Costs
Therms
A\/oided
Cosls
Non-
energy
Benefits
customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
incenlive
Utility
Costs
Measure lnenlives kwhProject
Count
549 $1,785,749 7,926,481 (3s0,976)$7,392,678 .$2,604,389 $o $2,353,515
Projeci
Count
kvvh Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Costs
Non-
energy
Benefrts
Customer
lncremenlal Cosls
Non-incentive
Utility Cos{sMeasurelncentives I tun lTherms
206,146 $305,,148 3,316,601 $2,035,300 So $o $397,992 $1 24,499
lD 2016 OSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Therms
.#utsr,a
Table 3-9: 2016 lD Electric Shell Program Summary
Projec{
Count
k!t/h
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Costs
Non-
energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-incenliveMeasureUtility Costslncentives kwh I Therms
17E Attic lnsulation with Eleciric Heat
E Floor lnsulation with Electric Heat
$3,076 14,124
$1,593 6,937
$17,741 $0 $601 $1s,882 $1,085
$6,523 $0 $212 $7,1 70 $3996
E Wall lnsulation With Electric Heat 6 $1,888 15,302 $14,389 $0 $170 $6,001 $880
E Window Replc from Double Pane W Electric 58 $28,329 132,222 $124,331 $0 $0 $263,223 $7,602Heat
E Window Replc from Single Pane W Electric 80 $39,379 348,672Heat $327,854 $0 $0 $306,656 $20,045
Total
$8,839
$30,010
$476
$1 31
G Attic lnsulation with Natural Gas Heat
G Floor lnsulation with Natural Gas Heat
Table 3-10: 20'16 lD Natural Gas Shell Program Summary
$937 413 $0 $4.267t $0
,t67 $74,266 517,257 $490,848 i598,932
21 $3,1 84 1,497 $0 $ls,474 $0 $20,636
Projecl
Count
kwtl
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Costs
Non-energy
Benefits
Cuslomer
lncremental
Costs
Non-incentive
Utility CostslncentivesThems
G Wall lnsulation with Natural Gas Heat
G Window Replc with Natural Gas Heal
$1,224
180 $70,032
319
16,115 $0
$0 $3,300 $0 $8,462 $101
$166,549 $0 $834,070 $5,1 18
5 373G Duci Sealing
G Ducl Sealing (Manufaclured)39
$744
$s,807 1,66'r
$0 $2,408
$0 $10,726
$0 $1,000
$0 $s,900
$74
$330
G Ducl Sealang + CO2 70 $13,848 5,222 $0 $33,714 $0 $1 7,350 $1,036
G Ducl Sealing + CO2 (Manufactured)172 $34,048 7,327 $0 s47,306 $0 $41,12s $1,454
Total 497 $1 29,826 32,928 $o $283,745 $o $937,382
26 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$0 $983
Measure
I
III
I
kwh
$8,720
Aivtsra
Table 3-1'l : Opower/Oracle Participation Summary
ID
Table 3-12: 2016 lD Electric Residential OpowerlOracle Program Summary
Reports $0 $197,012
27 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
25,201
State lnitial 2016 Participating
Customers
1 $o 7,750,716 $683,539 $0 $0
Projecl
Count
kwh
Avoided
Cosls
Therms
Avoided
Costs
Non-energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
incnlive
Utility Costs
Measure I ncentives kwh Therms
AE-rsra
3.1.10 Residential Trend Analysis
During 2016, the Company realized increased savings from the previous year with the total
savings increasing by 3,669,517 KWh from 8,795,781 KWh in2015 to 12,465,298 KWh in
20168. The largest contributors to the overall savings for 2016 were Avista's residential lighting
and fuel efficiency programs.
3.1.10.1 Residential Lighting
The residential lighting program obtained 27o/o of the overall residential savings (3,316,601
kWh) in 2016. ln the previousyears, forcomparison, residential lighting obtained 5,151,365
kWh in 2015 and 4,760,480 kWh in 2014.
Please see Figure 3-1 below to illustrate the trend in savings from this program
Figure 3-1: ldaho Electric Lighting Trend Analysise
lD Electric Lighting - Residential Program Totals
Savings 2OL4-2O16 (kwh)
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
2014
4,760,480
2015
5,151,365
2016
3,316,601Lighting
LED lighting continues to gain popularity in the residential lighting market. ln 2016, Avista saw
an increase in number of overall units going from 53,01 5 in 2014 and 36,298 units in 2015 to
96,211 units in 2016. CFL lamps continue to decline in number of units purchased by
customers as it gives way to the LED emerging technology. ln 2016, Simple Steps reported
109,935 units which is lower than the 189,226 in 2015 and 206,422 units in 2014.
I Amounts exclude the Opower/Oracle Home Energy Reports of 5,685,205 KWh in 2015 and 7,750,716 in 2016
amounts are based on biennial savings.
9 Savings numbers tot 2014 are unverified gross, 2015 is verified gross, and 2016 is adjusted reported
28 lD 20'16 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effect3veness Analysis
AFwsra
See figure 3-2 for an illustration of the CFL and LED trends for 2014,2015 and 2016.
Figure 3-2: ldaho Electric Savings and Unit Count - Residential Lightinglo
Residential Lighting
4'5oo'o8o 4,flg,278 250'ooo
4,000,000
3,500,00{,
3,@0r00
2,500,000
2,000,o00
1,500,000
l,(x}0o0o
500,o00
3,636,394
200,000
150.000
.cB 1,934,536
'-
:)
100,c00
50,000
ICFL Savings
I LED Savings
-
cFL Units
-
LED Unils
2014
3,636,394
1,119,394
206,422
53,015
2015
4,179,278
923,248
189,226
36,298
2016
1,382,06s
1,934,536
109,935
96,211
3.1.10.2 Residential Fuel Efficiency Program
ln September 2014, the fuel efficiency tariff was revised which resulted in increased incentives
for electric to natural gas conversions. The electric to natural gas furnace conversions incentive
increased from $900 to $2,300, the Electric to Natural Gas Water Heater Conversion increased
from $300 to $600 and the Electric to Natural Gas Space and Water Heat Conversion increased
from $1,200 to $3,200. These changes helped to increase the number of conversion projects
from 64 in2014 to 341 in2015 and 549 in 201611. The fuel efficiency program obtained 64% of
the overall residentialsavings (7,926,481KWh) in 2016 and also experienced a significant
savings growth from the previous year (2,786,477 KWh in 2015).
Please see Figure 3-3 below to illustrate the trend in savings from this program
10 Savings numbers for 2014 are unverified gross, 20"15 is verified gross, and 2016 is adjusted reported gross.
11 lncludes furnace, furnace and water heater, and waler heater programs
1,382.065
923,288
29 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
-+_-.___
\
l\vrsrn
Figure 3-3: ldaho Electric Fue! Conversion Trend Analysisl2
lD Electric Fuel Conversion - Residential Program Totals
Savings 2AL4-2O15 (kwh)
9,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0 Itir
20L4
633,503
20L5
2,786,477
2076
7,926,48LFuel Conversion
3.1.10.3 Residential Shell Programs
The residential shell program obtained residential savings of 517 ,257 kWh in 2016 which
represents 4%ot theoverallsavings in 2016. Although this isa large increasefrom 2015, in
which the program obtained savings o'f 174,473 kwh, it approximates the level of savings from
2014 which obtained 446,778 kWh.
ln each year, the major contributor to of savings in the Shell program was attributed to single
and double pane window replacements. Window replacements accounted for 389,455 kwh
savings in 2014, 157 ,072 k\M of savings in 2015 and 480,894 kwh of savings in 2016. The
reason for the lower 2015 savings numbers are due to a lower realization rate from the 2015
lmpact Memorandum. ln that year, ldaho shell measures received a 39o/o realization rate which
had an impact on the overall savings reported. For 2016, the realization rate for these
measures approximated 100%. Please see table 4 of the 2016 Electric lmpact Memorandum
(Appendix A) for further details.
Please see Figure 3-4 below to illustrate the trend in savings from this program
l2savings numbers tot2014 are unverified gross,2015 is verified gross, and 2016 is adjusted reported g
30 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Gost-Effectiveness Analysis
AFwsrr
Figure 3-4: ldaho Electric Shel! Trend Analysisl3
lD Electric Shell - Residential Program Totals
Savings 2OL4-20L6 ( kwh)
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
Shell
201,4
446,778
2015
L74,453
2At6
517,257
3.1.10.4 Opower/Oracle Home Energy Reports
Energy efficiency savings derived from Avista's behavior program continue to contribute a large
percentage to the company's overall portfolio of savings. For 2016, the Opower/Oracle Home
Energy Reports captured savings o'f 7,750,716 kWh. While this savings amount is recorded in
2016, it should be noted that the level of savings represents the amount that is estimated to be
captured over the two year biennia of 2016-2017 . While the 2017 savings may approximate the
2016 savings number, the incrementalsavings in 2017 is expected to be marginalas compared
to the amount recorded in 2016.
Prior to the 2016-2017 biennium, the Home Energy Reports were conducted over a two and a
half year span rather than its current two year span. The below graph illustrates the comparison
of the prior two and a half year program with the current two year program.
13 Savings numbers lot 20'14 are unverified gross, 2015 is verified gross, and 2016 is adjusted reported
31 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost'Effectiveness Analysis
Figure 3-5: ldaho Electric Opower/Oracle Trend Analysisla
!D Electric Opower/Oracle - Residential Program Totals
Savi ngs 2AL3-20L7 ( kwh)
9,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0 20L3-2015
5,685,205
201,6-2017
7,750,7L6
3.2 Low Income
The Company leverages the infrastructure of a single Community Action Program (CAP) agency
to deliver energy efficiency programs for the Company's low income residential customers in the
ldaho service territory. The program is designed to serve Avista residential customers in ldaho
whose income falls between 175 percent and 250 percent of the most current federal poverty
level.
A CAP agency has the resources to income qualifo, prioritize and treat client's homes based
upon a number of characteristics. ln addition to the Company's annual funding, the agency has
other monetary resources they can leverage when treating a home with weatherization or other
energy efficiency measures. CAP agencies either have in-house and/or contract crews to install
many of the efficiency measures of the program.
During the 2016 program year, the Low-lncome program captured energy savings of 284,326
k\M. Please see table 3-13 below for a recap of the 2014,2015, and 2016 program year
results for the Electric program.
14 Savings numbers 1or2014 are unverified gross,2015 is verified gross, and 2016 is adjusted reported g
32 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
.#vtsrl,
Table 3-13: 2014-201 6 Electric Program Overview
Participation and Savings
Project Count 3,640
Energy Savings (kWh)430,356
Program Benefits
UCT Benefits $340,991
TRC Benefits S436,91G $773,781 $930,418
Program Costs
$
UCT Costs Soog,zsg $71s,927 $839,024
TRC Costs
$
55t6,lls $775,927 $766,545
BenefiUCost Ratios
Utility Cost Test (UCT)0.47 0.60 0.41
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)1.21
The following table recaps lhe 2014-2016 Natural Gas Program for Low-lncome. During 2016,
the company achieved 3,1164 therms of savings.
Table 3-14:2014-2016 Natural Gas Program Overview
Participation and Savings
Project Count 202 NA NA
Energy Savings (Therms)3,116 NA NA
Program Benefits
UCT Benefits s25,475 NA NA
TRC Benefits Sg5,++s NA NA
Program Costs
UCT Costs Szog,ogs NA NA
TRC Costs 5tB7,2to NA
BenefiVCost Ratios
3,603 3,762
284,326 426,815
$
Szgg,o3s $467,447
0.85 1.00
AYitrsta
33 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
NA
2016 2015 , 2014
2016 2015 2014
Utility Cost Test (UCT)0.12
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)0.51
3.2.1 Program Changes
New to 2016, the Company reintroduced natural gas energy efficiency programs throughout the
DSM portfolio which also included services to the low income segment. The measures available
mirrored the Washington agencies in order to create an ease of program implementation
especially since the lone ldaho agency serves Asotin County, Washington in addition to the
Company's entire north ldaho service territory. This implementation approach was also to allow
the Company to have a test year of appropriate therm savings amounts to claim and to verify
utility cost effectiveness in ldaho.
On the electric side, the Company continues to reimburse Community Action Agencies'for 100%
of the cost of installation for most electric energy efficiency measures defined on the "Approved
Measure List". The Company also continued to offer a "Rebate List" of additional energy
efficiency measures that allows the agency to receive partial reimbursement for improvements
that are not as cost-effective as those on the Approved List but may still be necessary for the
homes overall energy efficiency and functionality. The reimbursement amount is equal to the
Company's avoided cost energy value of the improvement. 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 choose to utilize their Health and Safety dollars to fully fund
the cost of the measures on the Rebate list.
3.2.2 2016 Program Details
Eligible efficiency improvements are similar to those offered under the traditional residential
rebate programs. An Avista approved measure list is provided to the agencies in an attempt to
manage the cost-effectiveness of the low income program from a utility perspective (see Table
3-155). The agency was given discretion to spend their allotted funds on either electric or
natural gas 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.
NA
NA
NA
NA
34 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Table 3-15: 2016 Low lncome Program Approved Measure List
Natural Gas MeasuresElectric Measures
. Air infiltration
. Duct sealing
r ENERGY STAR doors
. ENERGY STAR windowso High efficiency air source heat pump
(8 HSPF)
. Electric to air source heat pump
. Attic insulation
. Duct insulation
. Floor lnsulation
. Wall lnsulation . Electric to natural gas furnace
r Electric to natural gas furnace and water heat
Along with the Approved Measure List, the Company has available 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 is still a necessary energy efficiency
improvement. This measure list is outlined in Table 3-16.
Table 3-16: 2016 Low Income Program Rebate Measure List
. High efficiency water heaters (0.93 EF). ENERGY STAR refrigerators
. Electric to ductless heat pump
a High efficiency water heaters (0.62 EF)
Electric to natural gas water heater
lndividually, the contract for the 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. The agency may choose to use up to 15
percent of their annual funding allocation towards Health and Safety improvements in support of
energy efficiency measures installed in the home. lt is at the agency's discretion whether or not
to utilize their funds for health and safety and other home repairs to preserve the integrity of the
energy efficiency improvements that were installed. Refer to Table 3-18 through Table 3-20 for
ldaho low income program participation and savings details for the 2016 program year.
Potential program participants are primarily identified through the Agency's energy assistance
services. They are screened for eligibility and sent over to the Agency's weatherization
department for assistance with energy efficiency. The Company's Contact Center, CARES
35 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
. Air infiltration
. Duct sealing
. ENERGY STAR doors
. ENERGY STAR windows. High efficiency furnace (90% AFUE)
. Attic insulation
. Duct insulation
. Floor insulation
. Wallinsulation
a
Fuel Conversion Measures
Electric Measures NaturalGas Measures
Fuel Conversion Measures
A)Fvrsra
representatives, Consumer Affairs, Community Affairs, DSM and other field personnel also
provide the agency with various leads throughout the year as they come in to contact with
customers who may benefit from the Agency's weatherization program and other services.
ln addition to the contract for energy efficiency services, the Company provides the ldaho
agency with a $50,000 conservation education (Con/Ed) grant funded through the DSM tariff
rider. The grant supports the cost of outreach personnel and materials to reach individuals
seeking energy assistance at the CAP office and in Avista's ldaho service area. The objectives
of CAP's low income consumer energy conservation education program include:
. lncrease Con/Ed knowledge and awareness of low income individuals
' Build capacity for Con/Ed in local communities, and
. Decrease energy consumption
The purpose for Con/Ed activity is to equip Avista's low income individuals and families, seniors,
disabled and vulnerable customers with information and resources to effectively manage their
energy use.
Con/Ed funding may be used to undenarrite Agency personnel dedicated to conducting low-
income outreach and education related activities and materials (e.9. collateral and low-cost
energy saving items) for distribution to the Company's ldaho customers that receive education
and outreach.
Agency personnel implement a variety of activities that seek to heighten awareness about
efficient energy use management and methods for conserving energy. These activities are
achieved through low, medium and high impact strategies. These strategies start with basic
awareness building (low impact) activities through print materials that are available to individuals
as they wait for their energy assistance appointment in CAP offlces; through this strategy 4,190
individuals were reached in 2016. Medium impact activities include workshops and participation
in community events to increase individual knowledge of energy conservation; through this
strategy 1,530 individuals were reached. Finally, high impact activities include one-on-one
education with customers during their energy assistance intake appointmenl, 452 individuals
received this form of education.
ln partnership with Demand Side Management, the Company's Consumer Affairs department
hosts additional conservation education and outreach for our low income, senior and vulnerable
customers. The company reaches the target population through workshops, energy fairs, mobile
and generaloutreach. 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 Low lncome Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and Project Share in all
36 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
jurisdictions.
The Company has recognized the following educational strategies as efflcient 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 cosVno cost methods
to weatherize their home; this information is provided in demonstrations and limited
samples. ln addition, fair attendees can learn about billing assistance and
demonstrations of the online account and energy management tools. Community
partners that provide services support to increase personal self-sufficiency for this
population are invited, at no cost, to host a booth to offer 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. ln ldaho, ERV visited over 16 senior centers, 28
food bank distribution centers, 10 general outreach events and supported 1 energy fair.
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. ln 2016, Avista participated in over 50 events that included workshops,
energy fairs, along with mobile and general outreach that touched over 3,500 individuals. Table
3-177 is an overview of different activities by type in lD.
Table 3-17: 2016!D Low Income Outreach Event and Bulb Giveaway Summary
Energy Fairs 45 45
Outreach 10 613 663
Mobile 28 2,051 2,094
823
3,625
Workshops
ldaho Total
Number of
Events/Activities Contacts CFLs LEDsDescription
16 813
55 3,522
^AEvtsta
37 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
1
Table 3-18: 2016 lD Electric Low-lncome Measures Summary15
CFL Bulbs 24 ssrr so
I
I
ISo s296
Project
Count
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Customer
lncremental
Costs'
Therms Non-lncentiveEnergyMeasureUtility Costs
Non-kwh
BenefitsSavings Savings
E HE Air Heat 2
1
107
533EStar
E INS - Attic
E INS. DUCT
5 ,723
1
E INS. FLOOR 10
E INS - WALL
E HE Water Heater 1 s10s 87 - s73 s0 s0 s83 s9
E ENERGY STAR WTNpOWS 16 s18,490 12,327 - s26,740 sO s3,758 s14,684 s3,324
E ENERGY STAR pOORS 7 s4,331 2,022 . - s4,386 s0 ss,0s4 s3,439 s545
E ro G FURNACE CONVERSTON 29 s176,748 92,2ss (3,s12) s117,24s s2s;3s9 s43,sOO s140,352 s14,s7s
E TO G H2O CONVERSTON 33 iLO2,7LO 47,s7O (2,2941 sZS,StZ -sS,aZ6 s16,500 s81,566 $4,422
E To Heat Pump Conversion 15 s118,090 50,300 Ss3,339 SO SO S93,780 S6,631
3,6383 s2,2ss
15 All kvl,/h and them values reported in this table are gro$, excluding the efiesl of appli€ble NTG mtios.
38 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Aiivtsra
lncentives
s368 r,873 S101
s4,3ss so so s10,923 ss41
S649 ss+s so so ssrs S68
s3,e87 so so s1,368 s4e6
s:oz 346 s::s so so szqz 542
Sz6,6t2 So So 512,679 53,308
s7,8s2 so so 5r,79L Se81
E AIR INFILTRATION 12 5L4,2O2 2,987 it,rct So so stl,278 s:g+
E HEALTH & HUMAN SAFETY 32 s77,569
FEDERAL H&HS
E DUCTSEALING LI
Total excluding Customer
Outreach LEDs s292,,955 S148,881
measure zero program.
incremental values are used in cost-effectiveness calculations.
Table 3-19: 2016 lD Electric Low-lncome Customer Outreach Summaryl6
Customer Outreach LEDs (Low
lncome)3,401 5o 43,251 S3o,2Gs So So 518,382 5z2,L4s
Table 3-20: 2016 lD Natural Gas Low-lncome Measures Summary17
Agency Admin Fee 3 s3,s48 0 5o So so S:,s+s So
G AIR INFILTRATION 20 526,6t7 209 So s1,34e so 524,O73 s184
16 All kwh values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect ot applicable NTG ratios.
17 All kwh and therm values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of appli€ble NTG ratios.
39 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
lncentive
s
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoide
d Cost
Non-
Energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental
Costs*
Non-
lncentive
Utility Costs
Project kwh SavingCount
Therms
Measure Savings s
Projecl
Count
Non-energy
Benefits
Cuslomer
lncremenlal Costs"
Non-incentive
Utility CostsMeasurelncentives I tvvtr I therms
s101 sO 577,642 562,042 S13
1 0
10 s2.863 7.343 57.187 So s0 s2.274
k\r'r'h Avoided I Therms
costs Avoided costs
G HE FURNACE 15 S6o,s2o 961 so $o,zo+ S1o,46s Sss,rso SB47
G DUCTSEALING LI 13 Ss,s+g 402 SO s2,s9s So Ss,3ss $rsq
G 50 GALLON
NATURAL GAS WATER
HEATER 3 $1a8 - 2L sO Ss+s0 s12s S13
G Energy Star Doors 10 5a,tgq t40 so s1,466 57,220 Ss,964 s2oo
G ENERGY STAR
WINDOWS 16 s60 758
G INS.TTIC S183L2810s6,880 SO S1,341 so 56,t23
G INS. DUCT
G INS - FLOOR
4 153 5o Ssos So 5124
Ss2675s,480 368 So SE,ss+so S8,303
G INS. WALL
G HEALTH & HUMAN
SAFETY
Health & Safety Admin
Fee
5 t72
So
SO
so1
SO
SO Ss39
5246
SO
3 Ssss SO
20 S33,620 1 SO SO S48,s26 S31,014
Total r29 s20s,160 3,116 So 52s,476 569,969 5183,794 5z,qto
'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 cosl-effectiveness calculdions.
40 lO 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
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.
ln 2016, more than 1 ,100 prescriptive and site specific nonresidential projects were incented.
Additionally, the Small Business program installed over 13,500 measures. Avista's tariff rider
funded more than $5.8 million for energy efficiency incentives in nonresidential and small
business applications. Nonresidential programs realized over 25,200 M\M and 34,500 therms
in annual first-year energy savings. Table 3-221 lhrough Table 3-276 provide detail on the
electric, natural gas, and dualfuel nonresidential programs.
3.3.1 Program Changes
New to 2016, the Company reintroduced natural gas energy efficiency programs throughout the
DSM portfolio which included services to the nonresidential segment. The measures available
were mirrored for Washington programs to create an ease of program implementation and
customer messaging. This implementation approach was also to allow the Company to have a
test year of appropriate savings amounts to claim and to verify utility cost effectiveness in ldaho.
Other program changes made at the beginning of 2016 to the nonresidential programs include
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. ln 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 1,2016 and Avista accepted rebate applications through March 31,2016'for 2015
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 2016.
41 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Gost-Effectiveness Analysis
AEvtsra
3.3.1.1 Nonresidential Program New Offerings
Along with the reintroduction of natural gas programs in 2016, Avista added the following:
. AirGuardian Program is being offered for rotary screw air compressors 15 HP or higher
. Food Service Equipment Program
. Electric Griddles $505
. Refer to the Table 3-2021 below for lighting changes
3.3.1.2 Nonresidential Program Discontinuations
The following programs/measures were discontinued during the 2016 program year:
. Power Management for PC Networks
. Commercial Clothes Washers
. Refer to Table 3-2021 below for lighting measure changes
3.3.1.3 Nonresidential Program Adjustments
The following adjustments in program requirements or incentive levels were made to the
nonresidential programs beginning January 201 6.
lncreases to existing rebates were made for the following measures:
. Refer to Table 3-20 below for lighting
. Commercial lnsulation Program
. Wall lnsulation to at least Rl 1 up to R18 $0.40 per square foot
. Wall lnsulation to at least R19 or greater $0.45 per square foot
Decreases to existing rebates were made for the following measures:
. Refer to Table 3-2021 below for lighting
COM MERCIAT S'TE.SPECI FIC I N CENTIVES
For projects and measures that do not fit into one of Avista's prescriptive commercial
rebates, Avista offers site-specific (custom) incentives. Projects must be evaluated prior
to purchasing or installing the equipment, to determine if an incentive is available based
on eligibility requirements.
Electric incentives will continue to be offered in both ldaho and Washington. lf
approved, electric incentives for eligible projects will be up to 20 cents per kWh for
projects with a simple payback less than 15 years. lncentives will be capped al7loh o'f
I
42 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
incremental project costs.
Natural gas incentives will continue to be offered in Washington and will also be offered
in ldaho. Natural gas incentives for eligible projects will be up to $3.00 per therm for
projects with a simple payback of less than 15 years. lncentives will be capped at70%
of incremental project costs. As referenced above, beginning in 2016, natural gas
projects with a simple payback of over 15 years will not be eligible for incentives. lf
projects are to be considered in place prior to January 1st, 2016 they must be submitted
to Avista immediately for evaluation and contracted prior to 41112016.
Table 3-2021: 2016 Commercial Lighting Program Ghanges
Exterior 70-90 watt HID to 15-
25 watt DLC approved LED
Fixture or Retrofit Klt
Exterior 90-100 watt HID to
20-30 watt DLC approved
LED Fixture or Retrofit Kit
Exterior 150 watt HID to 25-
50 watt DLC approved LED
Fixture or Retrofit Kit
Exterior 175 watt HID to 30-
79 watt DLC approved LED
Fixture or Retrofit Kit
Exterior 250 watt HID to 80-
140 watt DLC approved LED
Fixture or Retrofit Kit
$1 30
$145 $1 45
Changed wattage requirement.
DLC qualified products only
NO screw in.
Changed wattage requirement
DLC qualified products only.
NO screw in.
Changed wattage requirement
DLC qualified products only
NO screw in.
Changed wattage requirement
DLC qualified products only.
NO screw in.
Changed wattage requirement
DLC qualified products only.
NO screw in.
Changed wattage requirement.
DLC qualified products only
NO screw in.
Changed wattage requirement.
DLC qualified products only.
NO screw in.
$55$55
$7s $75
$1 30
$1 35 351$
Exterior 320 watt HID to 100-
160 watt DLC approved LED
Fixture or Retrofit Kit
$1 B0 80$
Exterior 400 watt Hl to 100-
175 watt DLC approved LED
Fixture or Retrofit Kit
$255
43 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
2015
!ncentive
2016
lncentive Program ChangesLighting
$255
AFvrsta
2015
lncentive
2016
Incentive Program ChangesLighting
Exterior 1000 watt HID to
300-400 watt DLC approved
LED Fixture or Retrofit Kit
Site Specific $61 s
Added to the incentives form
DLC qualified products only
NO screw in.
Changed wattage requirement.
DLC qualified products only.
NO screw in. Must have > 4
and all canopy fixtures installed
for incentive.
Exterior 250 watt HID to B0-
140 watt DLC approved LED
Canopy Fixture or Retrofit Kit
$1 55 $1 60
Exterior 320 watt HID to 100-
160 watt DLC approved LED
Canopy Fixture or Retrofit Kit
$250 $250
Changed wattage requirement.
DLC qualified products only.
NO screw in. Must have > 4
and all canopy fixtures installed
for incentive.
Exterior 400 watt HID to 100-
175 watt DLC approved LED
Canopy Fixture or Retrofit Kit
$325 $325
Changed wattage requirement.
DLC qualified products only.
NO screw in. Must have > 4
and all canopy fixtures installed
for incentive.
Exterior -New Construction-
175 watt HID to 30-79 watt
DLC approved LED Fixture
Exterior -New Construction-
250 watt HID to 80-100 watt
DLC approved LED Fixture
Exterior-New Construction-
320- 4O0 watt HID to 100-175
watt DLC LED Fixture
$1 35
$145
$180 $180
Decreased lncentive. Changed
wattage requirement. DLC
qualified products only. NO
screw in.
Changed wattage requirement.
DLC qualified products only
NO screw in.
Changed wattage requirement.
DLC qualified products only.
NO screw in.
25$
$1 45
4 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AlEvtsra
20'15
lncentive
2016
lncentive Program ChangesLighting
Exterior-Sign Retrofit-T1 2's to
LED $17lFt'.$17lFt'
Required >40,000 hour LED
life and at least five year
warranty. Count only 1 side of
: Sign.
:
lnterior 400 watt HID to 100-
175 watt DLC approved LED
Fixture
Site Specific $265
lnterior 250 watt HID to 80-
140 watt DLC approved LED
Fixture
Site Specific $165
Added. Must run > 80 hours
per week. DLC qualified
products only.
Added. Must run > 80 hours
per week. DLC qualified
products only.
Added. Must run > 80 hours
per week. DLC qualified
products only.
lnterior'1000 watt HID to 300-
400 watt DLC approved LED
Fixture
Site Specific 51$6
lnterior 250 HID to 4-Lamp
HP T8 or 2-Lamp T5 Fixture
lnterior 250 HID to 4-Lamp
HP T8 or 2-Lamp T5 Fixture
plus OC Sensors
lnterior 400 HID to 4-Lamp T5
Fixture
lnterior 400 HID to 6-Lamp T8
Fixture
$e0
$1 20
$1 20
$175
$205
$1 75
lncreased lncentive. T8's must
use HP T8's and 25-28watl
Lamps. HP TB's go to
www.ceel.org for QPL.
lncreased lncentive. T8's must
use HP T8's and 25-28 watt
Lamps. HP T8's go to
www.ceel.org for QPL.
lncreased lncentive.
lncreased lncentive. T8's must
use HP T8's and 25-28watl
Lamps. HP T8's go to
www.ceel.org for QPL.
$1 20 $1 55
A)Evtsra
45 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
2015
lncentive
2016
lncentive Program ChangesLighting
lnterior 400 HID to 8-Lamp T8
Fixture
lnterior 40 watt lncandescent
to 6-10 watt Energy Star
Rated LED Lamp
1$
$
45
5
1
1
$
$
25
0
lncreased lncentive. T8's must
use HP T8's and 25-28wall
Lamps. HP T8's go to
www.ceel.ors for OPL.
lncreased lncentive. Energy
Star Rated LED Lamp only.
lnterior 60 watt lncandescent
to 9-13 watt Energy Star
Rated LED Lamp
2$1 0$
Decreased lncentive. Energy
Star Rated LED Lamp only.
lnterior 75 watt lncandescent
to 9-16 watt Energy Star
Rated LED Lamp
lnterior 100 watt
lncandescent to 12-20 walt
Energy Star Rated LED Lamp
lnterior Over 150 watt
lncandescent to 2x4 DLC
approved LED Fixture
lnterior Over'150 watt
lncandescent to HP T8
Fixture
$15
Site Specific $85
$o
Decreased lncentive. Energy
Star Rated LED Lamp only
lncreased lncentive. Energy
Star Rated LED Lamp only.
Added to lncentive form. DLC
approved LED Fixtures only.
Discontinued from the
lncentive Form. Can be
evaluated Site Specifi cally
5 0$t
$25
$40
lnterior 20 watt MR16 to 2-4
watt Energy Star Rated LED $10
MR16 Lamp
lnterior 35 watt MR16 to 4-6
watt Energy Star Rated LED
MR16 Lamp
$15 lncreased lncentive. Energy
Star Rated LED Lamp only.
lncreased lncentive. Energy
Star Rated LED Lamp only.$11 $16
46 lD 20'16 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
2015
!ncentive
2416
!ncentive Program ChangesLighting
lnterior 50 watt MR16 to 6-9
watt Energy Star Rated LED
MR16 Lamp
$1 2 $13 lncreased lncentive. Energy
Star Rated LED Lamp only.
Interior 75-100 watt
lncandescent Can Light to
12-20 watt Energy Star LED
Can Light Fixture
$45
lncreased lncentive. Energy
Star Rated LED Can Light
Fixture Retrofit only.
lnterior 32 watt CFL Can
Light to 12-20 wall Energy
Star LED Can Light Kit
Site Specific $15
Added to the lncentive Form.
Energy Star Rated LED Can
Light Fixture/ Retrofit only.
lnterior No Occupancy
Sensor to Occupancy Sensor
that controls greater than '170
watts
lncreased Incentive
lnterior 4-Foot 4-Lamp
T12ITA Fixture to DLC
Qualified 2x4 Fixture
Site Specific $40
Added to Form. DLC Qualified
Fixture Only. Must operate >
80 hrs. per week.
lnterior 4-Foot 4-Lamp
T12118 Fixture to 4-Lamp HP
T8 Fixture or Retrofit Kit
Site Specific $1 5
Added to form. T8's must use
HP T8's and 25-28 watt
Lamps. HP T8's go to
www.ceel.org for QPL. >80
hrs./week
lnterior 4-Foot 4-Lamp
T12lI8 Fixture to 3-Lamp HP $32
T8 Fixture or Retrofit Kit
$30
Decreased lncentive. T8's
must use HP T8's and25-28
watt Lamps. HP T8's go to
www.ceel,org for QPL. >80
hrs./week
47 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$30
$30 $45
AEvtsrr
2015
lncentive
2016
lncentive Program ChangesLighting
lnterior 4-Foot 4-Lamp
T12fi8 Fixture to 2-Lamp HP
T8 Fixture or Retrofit Kit
0$5$35
lncreased lncentive. T8's must
use HP T8's and 25-28 watt
Lamps. HP T8's go to
www.ceeL.ors for QPL. >80
hrs./week
lnterior 4-Foot 3-Lamp
T12fi8 Fixture to DLC
Qualified LED 2x4 Fixture
lnterior 4-Foot 3-Lamp
T12fi8 Fixture to 2-Lamp HP
T8 Fixture or Retrofit Kit
lnterior 4-Foot 2-Lamp
T12fi8 Fixture to 1-Lamp HP $13
T8 Fixture or Retrofit Kit
$60 $30
$20
Decreased lncentive. DLC
approved LED Fixtures only
>80 hrs./week
lncreased lncentive. T8's must
use HP T8's and 25-28wall
Lamps. HP T8's go to
www.ceel..ors for QPL. >80
hrs./week
lncreased lncentive. TB's must
use HP T8's and 25-28 watt
Lamps. HP T8's go to
www.ceel.org for QPL. >80
hrs./week
$15 $30
lnterior 4-Foot 2-Lamp
T12fr8 Fixture to DLC
Qualified LED 2x4 Fixture
Site Specific $20
Added to Form. DLC approved
LED Fixtures only. >80
hrs./week
lnterior 4-Foot T12lT8 Lamps
to TLED's- DLC Qualified 8-
15 watt TLED Lamps only
Site Specific 5$1
Added to Form. DLC approved
TLED Lamps only. TLED
TypesA, B, C and D.
lnterior 4-Foot T12fi8 Lamps
to TLED's- DLC Qualified 16- Site Specific
23 watt TLED Lamps only
1$0
Added to Form. DLC approved
TLED Lamps only. TLED
TypesA, B, C and D can be
used.
48 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
A)Evtsra
2015
lncentive
2016
lncentive Program ChangesLighting
lnterior 8-Foot 4-Lamp
T12fi8 Fixture to 8-Foot 4-
Lamp or 4-Foot 8-Lamp HP
T8 Fixture
$54 $o
Discontinued from the
lncentive form. Can be
evaluated Site Specifically
lnterior 8-Foot 2-Lamp
T12lI8 Fixture to DLC
Qualified LED 2x4 Fixture
$80 $50
Decreased lncentive. DLC
approved LED Fixtures only
>80 hrs./week
lnterior 8-Foot 1-Lamp
T12lT8 Fixture to DLC
Qualified LED 1x4 Fixture
$40 0$2
Decreased lncentive. DLC
approved LED Fixtures only
>80 hrs./week
The remaining sub-sections outline the nonresidential prescriptive and site specific program
paths offered in 2016 and the 2016 Small Business program. The adjusted reported
participation, incentives, energy savings, etc. for each measure offered in the programs is
outlined in Table 3-22 through Table 3-27 .
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. lncentives 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. See Table 3-22 and Table 3-23'for 2016 first-year
program participation, incentives received, and savings achieved.
3.3.3 Site Specific Path
Site specific is the most comprehensive offering of the nonresidential segment. 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 are capped at seventy percent of the incremental project cost for all projects with
simple paybacks of less than 15 years. All projects must have a measure life of 10 years or
more. Site specific projects include appliances, compressed air, HVAC, industrial process,
49 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AHvrsrr
motors (non-prescriptive), shell and lighting, with the majority being HVAC, lighting and shell.
See Table 3-24 and Table 3-25'for 2016 firslyear program participation, incentives received,
and savings achieved.
3.3.4 Small Business Program
The Small Business (SB) program is administered by SBW consulting and is a direct
installation/audit program providing customer energy-efficiency opportunities by: (1) directly
installing appropriate energy-saving measures at each target site, (2) conducting a brief on-site
audit to identify customer opportunities and interest in existing Avista programs, and (3)
providing materials and contact information so that customers are able to follow up with
additional energy efficiency measures under existing programs. This program is only available
to customers who receive electric and/or natural gas service under Rate Schedule 11 in ldaho
and Washington. Schedule 11 customers typically use less than 250,000 klvh per year. See
Table 3-26 and Table 3-276 for 2016 first-year program participation, incentives received, and
savings achieved.
Direct-install measures include
. Faucet aerators
. Showerheads
. Pre-rinse spray valves
. Screw-in LED's
. Smart power strips
. CoolerMisers
. VendingMisers
3.3.5 Prescriptive Lighting Adjustment to Reported Savings
The evaluation team conducted document reviews and onsite verification activities on a sample
of 2016 nonresidential projects. Based on these activities, the evaluation team calculated an
interim realization rate of 71% for the prescriptive lighting measures. One of the factors behind
this realization rate is based on the evaluation team's review of Tubular LED (TLED) measures
incented in the 2016 program year.
Specifically, in the 2016 program year, Avista offered two prescriptive lighting measures for
TLEDs:
. 1-Lamp T12fi8 Fixture to 1-Lamp LED SWto 15W, incentivized at $15 per lamp
. 1-Lamp fefil Fixture to 1-Lamp LED 16Wto 23W, incentivized at $10 per lamp
50 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Gost-Effectiveness Analysis
As early project applications were submitted, Avista became aware that TLED lamps were
labeled under a lower wattage than their Design Lights Consortium (DLC) product
specifications. TLED lamps were found in the market with a labeled wattage of 14-15W, while
the DLC testing indicated that these lamps consume 17-18W. The evaluation team believes that
this discrepancy is because TLED lamp power consumption is subject to different ballast
configurations. Thus, a TLED in a low ballast factor (LBF) ballast may only consume 14W, but
in a normal ballast factor (NBF) ballast, the same lamp uses 17W. The DLC maintains
performance data for its certified lamps as tested with a 0.89 ballast factor.
An issue was identified where program guidelines required DLC listed lamps and customers
were selecting lamps based on the DLC listing. Early on in 2016 some customers who installed
DLC listed lamps were paid a lower incentive based on the DLC listed wattage rather than the
lamp labeled wattage. Avista agreed that this could be confusing to customers who met the
written program requirements of installing DLC listed lamps and applied for incentives based on
the lamp's listed wattage. Avista clarified that customers should be paid based on the wattage
printed on the lamp packaging. Avista communicated clarifications to customers and vendors
regarding measure eligibility recognizing that some DLC listed TLEDs may have the same
wattage on both the TLED lamp and packaging as well as the DLC listed wattage and some
may differ. This potential delta along with other energy savings data such as hours of use would
be evaluated by the evaluation team.
After the 2016 year had ended, the evaluation team applied a realization rate to the total
savings associated with these measures. Because Avista has adjusted the savings associated
with this measure for the 2017 program year, the evaluation team believes that the final
realization rate for the 2016-2017 evaluation period will increase. ln addition, the measure
category remains cost-effective with the application of the 71 o/o realizalion rate for the 2016
program year.
51 lD 20'16 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
PSC lnsulation
Table 3-22: 2016 lD Electric Nonresidential Prescriptive Measures Summary18
$1,534 7,825 $s,534 $0 $0 $7,011 $56,789
ESG PSC Case Lighting 71 $1 37,499 946,780 $21 5,853 $0 $0 $183,127 $10,424
kwh
Savings
kwh Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Non-Energy
Benefits
Cuslomer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
lncentive
Utility Costs
lncentivesCount Savings
ThermsProjecl
ESG PSC Cases $1 25 1,365 $350 $0 $0 $625 $770
ESG PSC Controls I $4,100 24,306 $10,017 $0 $0 $6,468 $6,124
ESG PSC Motors
PSC Food Service Equipmenl
12 $14,550 155,792
14 $3,560 49,007
$72,497 $0
920,502 $o
$0
$0 $69,030 $2,882
$14,900 $2,314
PSC Green Motors Rewind 12 $1,690 19,519 $6,219 $0 $0 947,574 $610
PSC Lighting Exterior
PSC Lighting lnterior
PSC Motor Controls HVAC
124 $233,932 1,397,765
781 $4,296,904 17,599,014
$44,820 478,441
$599,8s1 $0 $21,973 $514,960 $9,879
$1 1,573,235
$235,372
$0
$0
$383,531 $4,906,338 $82,962
$0 $50,03s $22,218
AirGuardian 3 $10,862 45,260 $15,410 $0 $0 $10,862 $13,419
Total
18 All kwh and them values reported in this table are gross, excluding the efiect of appli€ble NTG ratios.
lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
1,031 $4,749,577 20,725,074 $12,754,84 $o $405,504 $5,810831
,*vtsta
Measure
$208,393
52
Table 3-23: 2016 lD Natural Gas Nonresidential Prescriptive Measures Summaryle
PSC Food Service Equipment 21 $44,242 20,483 $0 $85,099 $0 $155,ss4 $31 ,80'1
PSC Commercial HVAC $6,845 3,312 $0 $'t7,725 $0 $9s,171 $6,624
Total $38,42s
Table 3-24: 2016 lD Electric Nonresidential Site Specific Measures Summaryl6
SS HVAC Combined 6 $2,1 8s 12,331 $6,s03 $0 $0 $18,217 $220,076
SS lndustrial Process 1 $92.219 768,491 $1 ,995,567 $0 $o $153,396 $41 ,725
ESG SS Cases $479 'l,895 $987 $O $O $890 $246
ESG SS Controls $11,372 64.872 $31,989 $0 $0 $16,353 $3,347
SS Lighling E)derior 19 $71,275 381,373 $2,189,277 $0 $0 $236,381 S523,600
SS Lighting lnterior 36 $252.047 1.542.143 $3,1 96,458 $0 $0 $482,336 $31,054
SS Multifamily Fuel Conversion 2 $66,500 46,947 (2,116)$21,992 -$6,984 $o $219,040 $0
Total 68 $496,077 2,818,052 (2,116)$7,42,773 -$6,984 $0 il,126,613 $820,048
19 Atl kwh and them values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of appli€ble NTG ratios
53 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report E Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
kvvh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Non-
Energy
Benerits
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
lncentive
Utility
Costs
lncenlives k\ lh ThermsMeasureSavings i Savings
Projed
Count
29 t51,087 23,795 $0 $102,824 $o s250,724
k!ryh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
A\roided
Cost
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
lncentive
Utility
Costs
ThermsMeasureSavingslncentives I k\/vh SavingsProiec{
Count
AEvtsta
8
1
Non-
Energy
Benefils
Table 3-25: 2016 lD Gas Nonresidential Site Specific Measures Summary
SS Appliances 1 $1,879 610 $0 $3,264 $0 $4,773 $1,220
k\ /h
Savings
kvlh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Non-
Energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
lnEnlive
Ulility
Cosls
lnentivesCount Savings
ThermsProjeclMeasure
SS HVAC Combined 1 $3,212 1,043 $0 $5,s82 $0 $6,986 $2,086
ESG SS Cases $51 3 200 $0 $1,070 $0 $2,754 $400
Total 3 $5,604 1,853 $0 i9,916 $o $14,513 $3,706
SB Appliances
Table 3-26: 2016 lD Electric Nonresidential Small Business Summary
622 $108,888 382,380 $83,567 $0 $0 $108,888 $4,876
Therms
Savings
kvvh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Non-
Energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
lncentive
Utility
Costs
Measure lncenlives I kWh SavingsProject
Count
SB Audit 5,463 $138,396 $0$0 $0 $1 38,396 $4,985
SB Lighting '1o.482 $225,219 896,920 $553,993 $0 $0 $225,219 $60,451
Total 16,567 $472,503 1,279,300 $637,560 $0 $0 i472,503 i70,312
SB Water Heat
Table 3-27: 2016 lD Gas Nonresidential Small Business Measures Summary
2,478 $19,637 421,828 8,934 $105,805 $25,062 $0 $r9,130 $9,366
Projed
Count
k\irvh
Savings
Therms
Savings
kwh
Avoided
Cosls
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Non-
Energy
Benefrts
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
lncentive
Utility Costs
lncentives
Total
54
$9,366
lO 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
2,478 $19,637 421,828 8,934 s105,805 $25,062 $o $19,130
Measure
AEvtsra
3.3.6 Non-Residential TrendAnalysis
During 2016, total non-residential savings significantly increased from the previous year with the
total savings increasing from 5,360,823 KWh in 201 5 to 25,244,254 KWh in 2016 (a 19,833,431
KWh change). The largest contributors to the overall savings for 2016 was a result of the
company's prescriptive interior lighting program which obtained 17,599,014 K\lVh or 70o/o o'f
overall non-residential savings. ln Figure 3-5, the Non-residential Prescriptive Lighting - lnterior
programs have been identified by the yellow bars for 2014,2015 and 2016.
As compared to the prior years' results, the prescriptive interior lighting program obtained
twenty-five times the savings in 2016 over the 717 ,780 KWh savings in 2015 and 542,648 in
2014.
Other Non-Residential Measures, which are identified by the orange bars, continued to increase
going from 4,643,043 KWh in 20't5 to 7 ,645,240 KWh in 2016. The individual programs and
measures included in this category for 2016 include Small Business Lighting (896,960 kwh),
Energy Star Grocers Prescriptive Case Lighting (946,780 kWh) and Site Specific lndustrial
Process (768,491 kwh). ln 2015, the largest contributors to this category included Prescriptive
Energy Smart Case Lighting (719,497 kwh), Prescriptive Energy Smart lndustrial Process
(390,989 kWh) and Site Specific Multifamily measures (272,581 kwh). For 2014, the largest
contributors were Site Specific HVAC Combined (636,815 k\ /h), Prescriptive Energy Smart -
Case Lighting (518,839 kWh) and Site Specific lndustrial Process (437 ,212 kwh).
All other lighting measures, identified by the grey, blue, and green bars in Figure 3-5 remained
relatively level as compared to the Non-residential Prescriptive Lighting - lnterior program.
Figure 3-5 below summarizes these savings for the 2014-2016 annual periods.
55 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AlEvrsra
27,500,000
25,000,000
22,500,000
20,000,000
17,500,000
15,000,000
12,500,000
10,00(),000
7,500,000
5,000,000
2,500,000
Figure 3-5: ldaho Electric Non-Residential Trend Analysis20
lD flectrlc Non-Residential Protram Summary
Savlngs 201.4-2016 (kwhl
2076, 25,244,254
20t4,6,477,755
2015, 5,360,823
2014 2015
- Other No,Residential Measures r Prescriptive Lighting - Exterior r Prescriptive Lightirts . lnteriq
ISite Specifrc LigtrtirB - Exterior rSite Specific Lithting - lnterior
-All
Non-Residential Mesu.s
2016
L- r
20 Savings numbers for 2014 are unverified gross, 2015 is verified gros, and 2016 is adlusted reported gross.
lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis56
Alivtsra
4 Evaluation, Measurement, and
Verification (EM&V)
Nexant, lnc., in partnership with Research lnto Action, (the evaluation team) was retained as the
Company's external evaluator to independently measure and verify the portfolio energy savings
for the 2016-2017 biennium period.
The following sections outline the major recommendations from the impact and process
evaluation reports completed for the 2014-2015 portfolio of programs and notes what changes
were made to the 2016-2017 Avista programs as a result of these evaluations.
4.1 Process Evaluation Summary
Conclusions and recommendations from Avista's 2014-2015 process evaluation2l report and
subsequent implementation actions taken by Avista are summarized below.
4.1.1 Cross-cutting
Conclusion 1: Contractors are key program partners.
Contractors are the driving force of Avista's rebate programs, as they inform both nonresidential
and residential consumers about Avista's rebate opportunities and convince them to purchase
qualifying equipment. The nonresidential contractors also initiate a notable portion of work in
comparison to customer-initiated jobs and appear to be playing a larger role in application
preparation than in years past. Both nonresidential and residential customers report being highly
satisfied with contractors and are taking into account contractor's recommendations on what to
install. Although developing a trade ally network is not a priority, there are several things that
can be done short of an official network that could result in increased participation and savings.
Reco m me n d ati o n s : I n c rea se s u p po rt fo r c o n tracto rs.
Consider the following suggestions to continue strengthening relationships with contractors and
to improve their effectiveness in generating program savings:
1. Offer an opt-in mailino list to contractors. Contractors subscribed to this mailing list would
receive regular information on program offers, changes, trainings, and other program
supporting information. This list would be open to any interested contractor.
2. Promote outreach to contractors: Encourage program staff and account executives to
engage further with contractors via events for contractors, such as local trade association
meetings, to further educate contractors and nudge them to cross-promote the rebate
21 Avista 2012-2013 Process Evaluation Report, The Cadmus Group, Inc., May 15,2014
lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Gost-Effectiveness Analysis57
Al,Tvrsra
programs to their customers. Additionally, training can help contractors up-sell high
efficiency equipment through the program by improving their understanding of and ability to
sell high efficiency solutions. For example, Avista could support contractors attending
NEEA's recently launched comprehensive training for lighting contractors and distributors.
3. Share effective messagino or marketing collateral with contractors. Contractors could
support program and marketing staff by providing insights into how to best target certain
customer types, learn from Avista on how to better target certain customer segments, and
possibly promote cross-program referrals and participation. As findings from the evaluation
show that most contractors specialize in the nonresidential or residential sectors, even if
they serve both, developing sector-specific messaging may be particularly effective.
4. lnvestioate offering cooperative (co-op) marketing. Co-op marketing can help contractors
effectively market the program consistent with Avista's objectives and increase customer
perceptions of contractor's credibility and cross-promote other programs.
Sfatus: We have in the past offered quarterly updates to contractors and attempted to
further engage them. There was limited engagement in the additional events and we have
focused on 1-2 per year with high engagement at outreach early in the year where we
reiterate program guidelines, updates and changes. We have established a web page for
contractors where they can go for reference materials. We have broadened our
communication of program changes sending both HVAC and Electrical (Lighting) as well as
residential and non-residential in order to avoid gaps in communicating with contractors. We
have discussed co-op marketing opportunities and are evaluating such opportunities with
internal stakeholders.
Some other outreach efforts include our Questline newsletter which is available to
businesses and vendors alike. lt provides regular updates on energy related issues and
Avista programs. Our commercial and industrial outreach has centered on case studies that
provide customers and vendors a starting point for proposing energy efficiency measures.
We have also underwritten vendor training and are active in related groups like BOMA and
NEEA lighting efforts.
Gonclusion 2: Although Avista and its implementation contractors deliver rebate
programs efficiently, promoting the programs further could help maintain or even
increase participation.
Several indicators suggest program promotions could be optimized. First, participants and
nonparticipants expressed high interest in learning more about Avista's rebate programs,
indicating that although they may be aware of Avista's offers, their knowledge is limited.
Second, a majority of residential participants who indicated learning primarily about Avista's
offers through contractors were not aware of other program opportunities outside the program
58 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AEvtsra
they participated in
Recommendation: Develop more abilities to target marketing. For examplq cross-
promote programs to recent participants by acknowledging their recent participation and
informing them of other program opportunities applicable to their home or business.
Stafus: Avista continues to cross-promote additional programs in our small business effort
where we emphasize additionalopportunities and have seen additionalthroughput. Work
with marketing as they evaluate Customer Relationship Management (CRM) software
solutions that can enable us to track customer participation in different programs and cross-
promote additional offerings. We also continue to utilize our existing direct mail channels
such as the customer newsletter and bill inserts.
Recommendation: For residential customers, continue improving messaging in direct
mail promotions to better communicate program information since residential customers
prefer to receive this information via mail.
Sfafus: ln 2014 and 2015 we utilized direct mail to promote our electric to natural gas
conversion rebate. ln 2016, energy efficiency was included via direct mail in our
Connections customer newsletter as part of our, "Efficiencies Matter" and "Way to Save"
Campaigns; we also utilize bill inserts to extend our message as appropriate.
4.1.2 Nonresidential, lncluding Small Business
Conclusion 3: Although declining participation rates coutd threaten Avista's ability to
achieve long-term goals, evaluation results point to opportunities to drive additional
savings.
Developing new strategies to encourage deeper savings or increased participation will be
paramount to reversing the decline in participation and achieving longterm savings goals.
Almost one-third of nonparticipants reported they will make a building upgrade in the next two
years, indicating a continued potentialfor program participation. ln particular, evidence suggests
that much opportunity remains for converting lighting from T12s.
Recommendation: Develop a marketing approach specifically targeting replacement of
T12lamps.
The switch to a T8 baseline in 201 2 had a dramatic effect on participation because the rebates
became far less attractive to customers to upgrade from f 12s.22 While it may not be feasible for
Avista to alter the baseline forT12 change-outs, Avista should look into developing targeted
marketing strategies for convincing nonresidential customers with T12s to replace them with
more efficient lighting, focusing not only on savings but improved lighting quality and
performance. Avista could begin by targeting businesses that the Small Business Program has
22 Auery similarthing happened to another program administrator in Missouri. See Ameren Missouri
Report 2015.
59 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AEvtsra
identified as still having F12s.
Sfafus: Currently, Avista has prescriptive incentives for electric commercial customers
for replacing T12's or T8 lamps with Tubular LEDs (TLEDS). To replace T12 lamps with
TLEDs, the customer will need to replace the T12 ballast with a LED driver or a ballast
that supports the TLED lamp. This incentive is extremely popular and does not require
additional marketing, at this time. Lighting contractors have been heavily marketing
these incentives and numerous customers are changing out their lamps. Avista also has
prescriptive commercial lighting incentives for replacing T12's Fixtures with new or
retrofit High Performance T8 (using low wattage T8 lamps-25 or 28 watt) or DLC
qualified LED fixtures. lt was found to be cost effective only for lighting with run times
greater than 80 hours per week. This limits the business marketing audience-electric
commercial customer that would qualify for this incentive. Target marketing only to the
business customer that qualifies would be difficult.
Many customers with existing T12's fixtures are most likely rate Schedule 1 1's. Avista
currently has a Small Business program that is treating those customers and cross-
promoting other opportunities like lighting. Avista is also piloting additional lighting (T12
replacements) for this customer segment as an expansion of the current program.
Questline Newsletter is another avenue to let Avista electric commercial customers know
about Avista's incentives for T12 conversions and other energy efficient lighting
incentives.
Recommendation: Work with nonresidential lighting contractors to promote replacement
of T12lamps.
Contractors make their living by selling equipment. Avista should work with nonresidential
lighting contractors to make sure they are fully aware of the advantages that more efficient
lighting (including the reduced wattage tube lighting that NEEA is targeting through its Reduced
Wattage Lamp Replacement lnitiative) offer their customers.
Status: Avista currently markets to lighting vendors through Avista Commercial Lighting
update newsletters and vendor outreach workshops about the T12 lamp conversions.
The lighting vendors and contractors have been responsive and market the T12ff8 lamp
replacement to TLED lamp conversions and many customers are taking advantage of
the incentives.
Recommendation: Consider claiming Simple Sfeps savings for bulbs purchased for the
no n residenti al sector.
The evaluation found that about 12o/o of Simple Steps LED sales and somewhere from 5% to
12o/o of Simple Steps CFL sales go to nonresidential customers. The mean hours of use for
60 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AlEvtsta
such lighting is much higher in a nonresidential than residential settings, meaning that the total
Simple Steps savings is potentially higher than currently estimated, and at a minimum, Avista
should consider claiming the additional savings for these purchases.
Sfatus: This was considered, however, upon further review we chose to continue to just
use the RTF UES, even if it might be slightly conservative given some longer runtime
commercial applications.
4.1.3 Residential
Conclusion 4: Participation in the Avista rebate programs has rebounded since 2013
driven by a fivefold increase in shell program participation.
Rebate program participation reached a low point in 2013, after which participation increased
year over year by 51% from 2013 to 2014 and by 43% from 2014 to 2015. This is a positive
sign; however, maintaining or increasing program participation requires cost effective savings
opportunities for residential customers. Avista's residential programs operate in a fast-changing
market. Consumers are adopting LEDs rapidly, 23 retailers are transitioning away from CFLs to
LEDs,2a and the federal government and regulators are mandating higher efficiency standards
for bulbs and other energy efficient technologies.2s The convergence of these forces has
implications for the cost effectiveness of Avista's downstream rebate programs. Program
administrators throughout the United States are exploring and testing alternative program
designs such as upstream and midstream designs in response to the evolving market. Although
Avista is currently participating in the Simple Steps, Smart Savings program (a midstream
program), when asked about future opportunities, program staff did not mention any upcoming
pilots or programs that apply these types of designs.
Recommendation: Continue regularly reviewing the expected savings and cost-
effectiveness of the rreasures in residential portfolio and exploring the benefits and
cosfs of other program designs including upstream andlor midstream desrgns.
Consider these suggestions:
1. Continue monitorino the technoloqical advances and availabilitv of ductless heat pumps and
water heatino equipment. Surveyed contractors recommended both of these categories as
candidates for inclusion in Avista's programs. NEEA, for example, has been working to
promote the savings potential of heat pump water heaters in the Northwest via the Northern
23 1 ol20 A-line bulbs sold nationally was an LED in third quarter of 2014, whereas in the quarter prior to that, it was 1 in 30. This
statistic comes from the 2015 LED Market lntelligerce report by Bonneville Power Administration.
https://www. bpa.gov/ee/utility/research-archive/documentsimomentum-savings-resources/led_market_intelligence_report.pdf
24 Soura, Kim, 2016. Walmaft to transition lighting products away from compact fluorescent to LED. Retrieved from
http://talkbusiness.net/20'1 6/02lwalmart{o{ransition-lighting-products-away-from-compact-fluorescent-to-led/
2s The lighting standard, established by the Energy lndependence and Security Act of 2OO7 , requires that light bulbs use about
less energy by 2014. New efficiency heating and cooling standards from the U.S. Department of Energy, which have gone !q!qJan. 1,20'15,will increasetheefficiencyof heating,ventilation,andair-conditioning(HVAC)equipmentincertain
lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis61
I
AFutsra
Climate Heat Pump Water Heater Specification,26 and The Northwest Power and
Conservation Council has identified both of these measure types as promising technologies
in the recently adopted Seventh Power Plan.27
2. Explore upstream prooram opportunities outside of the liohtinq market. Upstream incentive
programs offer the potential to increase the adoption of energy efficient technologies at a
lower cost compared to downstream incentive programs. Program administrators in
California and elsewhere have successfully tested or used upstream program designs for
technologies that Avista currently incents, including HVAC equipment and water heaters.2s
Status: The business planning process includes an annual review of expected savings
and cost-effectiveness for residential measures. We ensured that ductless heat pumps
and heat pump water heating technologies received additional review as we didn't
currently have incentives. We are planning incentives for both in2017. Also we have
added upstream buydown opportunities for water heating savings in both low flow
showerheads and clothes washers.
Conclusion: Residential customers who rent their home are underserued.
Nonparticipants say living in a rental property prohibits them from making improvements. This
was the second most commonly cited barrier to making energy efficient upgrades among
nonparticipants (after the up-front cost barrier). More than a quarter (27Yo) of nonparticipant
survey respondents were renters, whereas only 3% of the participant survey respondents were
renters. Renters account for about one{hird of the population in Avista territory.2s
Currently, Avista serves renters via the low-income program. The CAP agencies reported
having difficulty serving the low-income renter population because it is difficult to convince
landlords to participate. Additionally, there appears to be no multifamily program in the Avista
portfolio that could serve this market, although Avista does offer an incentive for a natural gas
space and water heating measures to multifamily property owners.
Recommendation: lnvestigate energy savings opportunities in the rental market.
Consider the following suggestions:
1. Estimate the number and distribution of rental units in the sinqle familv. manufactured home.
and amono multifamilv buildings. Analyzing these data geographically and by vintage would
likely yield insights regarding the energy saving potential in these markets.
25 http ://neea.org/northernclimatespec/
27 http:/Aivww.nwcouncil.org/energy/powerplan t7 tplanl
28 Quaid, M. and H. Geller (2014). upstream lncentive lJtitity Programs: Expeience and Lessons Leamed.
http ://www.swenergy. org.
29 US Census Bureau. 'B25OO3 : Tenure." 2O1O - 2014 American Community Survey S-Year Estimates.
62 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AE-srsta13M
2. Conduct needs assessment research with landlords to understand their needs and concerns
and explore ways to bolster their willingness to make enerqv efficiency upgrades on their
properties. This research should consider the needs landlords serving low-income renters
as well as renters not eligible for the low income program.
Conduct needs assessment research with renters to understand their needs and the barriers
to participation thev face. For example, although some energy savings activities may not be
appropriate for renters (for example, HVAC system replacement), other activities such as
installing energy efficient lighting and/or advanced power strips could be appropriate.
Sfafus: Renters are a difficult market due to the split incentive issue where landlords are
hesitant to make capital improvements where the return is to the renter rather
themselves. Our billing system does not have the ability to break down customers by
single family, manufactured home and multifamily. There are some manual analysis that
could be done to query customers with landlord agreements, but it is a manual process
at this time. We have worked with renters who inquire about energy efficiency programs
and have had some success with certain programs, like electric to natural gas
conversions where landlords have taken advantage of rebates that currently cover a
significant portion of the retrofit and while the energy savings accrue to the renter it's an
obvious, and lower than otherwise out of pocket improvement to the property.
We also tailor our outreach efforts with our energy fairs and mobile outreach to include
low-cost improvements that most renters can do within their rental agreement such as
rope-caulk, window kits and v-seal.
4.2 lmpact Evaluation Summary
4.2.1 Nonresidentia! Programs
4.2.1.1 Site Specific Program
Conclusion: The Site Specific program constitutes more than 60% of the program electric
energy shares. Within the last 2 years, Avista has increased their level of quality assurance and
review on projects that participate through the program. The evaluation team's analysis resulted
in a 99% realization rate for the Site Specific program. The strong realization rate indicates that
Avista's internal process for project review, savings estimation, and installation verification are
working to produce high quality estimates of project impacts.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that Avista continue to operate this
program with the current level of rigor. For interior lighting projects, Avista should consider
applying the interactive factors deemed by the RTF to quantify the interactive effects between
lighting retrofits and their associated HVAC systems. More specifically, for interior lighting
63 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
projects, Avista assumes a standard interactive factor of 7 .7% for buildings with air conditioning
The RTF's values for interactive factors vary depending on heating and cooling system types
and building type. For some building types, especially those that tend to participate in the Site
Specific program, the RTF's interactive factors are higher than Avista's factor.
Sfatus: We are in the process of changing our interactive effect values for both
prescriptive lighting and site specific lighting. The RTF updated values in March 2016
and those will be reflected in our documents by November 1,2016. As of March 17,
2017,[he above described status update has been carried out.
Recommendation: While the impact from the CommercialWindows and lnsulation measures
under the Site Specific program are minimal, Avista should further review its algorithm for
cooling season savings achieved by window replacements. The algorithm that Avista currently
uses may be overstating the impacts of these replacements on air condition energy
consumption.
Stafus: We changed the cooling impact to match the evaluation team's estimates.
Conclusion: The Site Specific program constitutes more than 80% of the program naturalgas
energy shares. Within the last 2 years, Avista has increased their level of quality assurance and
review on projects that participate through the program. The evaluation team's analysis resulted
in an 86% realization rate for the Site Specific program.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that Avista incentivize more of the larger,
high impact natural gas projects under its'performance path' processes. Natural gas projects
are more often suited to performance verification via utility billing analysis than their electric
counterparts because fewer building end uses are served by natural gas. lncentivizing projects
based on proven performance would mitigate the inherent uncertainty in savings estimates
generated prior to project installation and improve Avista's realization rate for this program.
Status: While we understand that performance measurement will make for better
realization rates, we are unsure of the impact on savings making customers wait 6-15
months for payment would cause. Because of this, we will wait for the 2016 impact
reports to make a decision on performance measurement of the natural gas projects.
4.2.1.2 Prescriptive Lighting Program
Conclusion: The Prescriptive Lighting program is the second largest program in Avista's
nonresidential portfolio, constituting more than 20% of the energy savings. The evaluation
team's analysis resulted in a 99% realization rate for the Prescriptive Lighting program,
indicating that Avista's reported energy savings for this program are accurate.
64 lD 20'16 DSM Annua! Report & Gost-Effectiveness Analysis
l\wsta
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that Avista continue to operate this
program with the current level of rigor. Avista should consider applying the interactive factors
deemed by the RTF to quantify the interactive effects between interior lighting retrofits and their
associated HVAC systems. More specifically, for interior lighting projects, Avista assumes a
standard interactive factor of 7 .7% for buildings with air conditioning. The RTF's values for
interactive factors vary depending on heating and cooling system types and building type. For
some building types, especially those that tend to participate in the Site Specific program, the
RTF's interactive factors are higher than Avista's factor.
Sfafus: See response above in 4.2.1.1
4.2.1.3 Natural Gas Prescriptive Programs
Conclusion: Avista reported participation in four prescriptive natural gas programs in 2014-
2015: Food Service Equipment, CommercialWindows & lnsulation, Natural Gas HVAC, and
Commercial Water Heaters. Strong realizations rates for each of these programs indicate that
the Avista's deemed savings estimates for these measures are accurate and appropriate.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that Avista continue to operate these
programs with the current level of rigor.
Status: We appreciate the evaluation and we will continue the programs in the same
manner we currently operate them.
4.2.1.4 EnergySmart Grocer Program
Conclusion: Avista's EnergySmart Grocer program is successfully providing retail and
restaurant customers with an avenue to upgrade their refrigeration equipment. Participation in
the program includes both prescriptive and custom projects. The evaluation team's review of
projects in the program resulted in a realization rate of 90%. For prescriptive projects, the
evaluation team determined that RTF deemed savings values were being appropriately applied
in most cases. However, low project-level realization rates for custom projects, which tend to be
larger in size than prescriptive projects, are driving the program realization rate downward.
Recommendation: Avista should consider more internal review of energy savings estimates
submitted by vendors for custom projects under this program. Alternatively, Avista could
consider tracking custom projects under the Site Specific program with other projects of similar
size and complexity.
Sfafus: ln 2016, we began treating EnergySmart Grocer Site Specific measures the
same way we treat our own.
65 !D 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AFvtsra
4.2.1.5 Electric Prescriptive Non-Lighting Other Programs
Conclusion: Avista reported 2014-2015 participation in six other prescriptive programs. Of
these, the HVAC Motor Controls program is the largest, constituting 65% of the energy savings
for this group. The evaluation team's review of projects in these programs resulted in a 54oh
realization rate. Cases of ineligible VFD projects receiving incentives were cause of the low
realization rate for these programs.
Recommendation: Avista should revise the HVAC Motor Controls program to include more
verification of motor eligibility status. More emphasis should be placed on confirming motor
application and duty status to ensure compliance with the program's existing eligibility
requirements. More specifically, Avista should place specific emphasis on ensuring VFDs are
installed in a manner that saves energy (i.e. not just as "soft starters") and that incentivized
VFDs serve primary-duty motors.
Stafus: To address this issue the VFD incentive application now includes two additional
check boxes stating "VFD is for control and not for a soft start" and "There are not 2
VFD's on the same fluid flow system."
4.2.1.6 Small Business Program
Conclusion: Reported savings for faucet aerators were found to be conservatively low based
upon the evaluation team's secondary research. The realization rates for faucet aerators were
126% for electric savings and 204% for natural gas savings.
Recommendation: lt is recommended that the modified deemed savings values utilized by the
evaluation team be adopted by the program for future reporting purposes.
Status: The modified deemed savings values have been updated and are included in
the 2017 business plan.
Conclusion: The reported deemed savings value for pre-rinse spray valves associated with
electric water heat was found to be slightly higher than the average determined through
secondary research. The program is currently using a reported electric energy savings value of
1,338 k\ /h. The average saving values recommended by the evaluation team is approximately
1,229 k\ /h.
Recommendation: lt is recommended that the electric deemed savings value reported by the
evaluation team for the pre-rinse spray valve measure be utilized for future reporting purposes.
No modifications are recommended for the deemed therm savings value currently being used
by the program.
66 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AEvtsra
Stafus: We have adjusted our average savings values
Conclusion: Reported savings for faucet aerators were found to be conservatively low based
upon our secondary research. The realization rate for faucet aerators was 204Yo for natural gas
savings.
Recommendation: lt is recommended that the modified deemed savings values utilized by the
evaluation team in our adjusted savings analysis be adopted by the program for future reporting
purposes.
Status: See response above in 4.2.1.6
4.2.2 Residential Programs
The following subsections outline key conclusions and recommendations for several of the
residential programs.
4.2.2.1 Appliance Recycling
Conclusion: The evaluation team found that the reported deemed savings value (per recycled
unit) for the program was lower than estimated gross savings valued from prior studies. Avista
may have aligned their deemed savings values close to the RTF deemed savings values, but it
is important to understand that the RTF is reporting a value that accounts for net market effects
(i.e. free ridership).
Recommendation: lf Avista choses to offer an appliance recycling program in the future, it is
recommended that a clear distinction between gross and net savings values is noted if Avista
reports the most current RTF values.
Status: Avista discontinued its appliance recycling program in the middle of 2015 and is
not planning on offering this program due to newer refrigerator and freezer vintages
having greatly reduced savings.
Conclusion: The evaluation team found discrepancies when comparing Avista's reported
participation counts against the implementer reported values. The evaluation team believes that
one reason for the discrepancies could be due to overlapping reporting periods and the way
participants are reported and tracked.
Recommendation: Avista should consider tracking the customer account number in addition to
the name/address. lt would be easier to track account numbers back to billing database records
than the name /address fields, which are easier misspelled, and often formatted differently.
67 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
/'ivtsrra
Status: See response above in 4.2.2.1
4.2.2.2 HVAC Program
Conclusion: The evaluation team found, through billing regression analysis, a relatively low
realization rate for the Air Source Heat Pump measures (RR of 48.5o/o).
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends Avista reexamine the assumptions
relating to annual per-home consumption and savings estimates in homes receiving ASHP
installations. ln addition, to help better understand the baseline for the ASHP replacement,
Avista could consider requesting that contractors and customers provide a better description of
the replaced unit.
Stafus: Avista had been using a figure from a previous evaluation and has since
updated the value to match the RTF UES, which is more in line with the evaluated
results. As a result, high efficiency ASHPs were not cost-effective for 2016 and were
discontinued. Customers may switch from electric straight resistance to either natural
gas or an ASHP, but the stand alone new or replacement HE ASHP is no longer
available.
Conclusion: For the analysis of the Smart Thermostat measure, only five homes had sufficient
postretrofit billing data to estimate electric savings. Therefore, the evaluation team applied a
100o/o realization rate to the reported savings due to the small population.
Recommendation: Given the inconclusive analysis results for this measure driven by data
limitations, the evaluation team recommends Avista revisit the analysis of this measure in late
2016 - early 2017 when a full year of post-installation billing data is available for several
hundred rebate recipients.
Sfafus: We are revisiting this with the 2016 data
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that Avista conduct a more in-depth
study in order to better understand the baseline for the furnace replacement measure.
Sfafus: We believe that it is best to simply change our savings numbers to 100% to
match what is taking place in the field.
68 lD 2016 DSM Annua! Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Conclusion: During the desk review process, the evaluation team found that the installed
efficiency for the majority of the furnace replacements was higher than the program minimum-
required efficiency level, which resulted in a greater than '100o/o realization rate. The evaluation
team was unable to determine a conclusive value for the baseline efficiency of the replaced
furnaces based on project documentation review and the participant surveys.
Conclusion: The evaluation team found a realization of 85% for the Smart Thermostat
measure for gas savings. The findings are based on the analysis of 34 homes, which resulted
in a wide margin of error in the results.
Recommendation: Given that the realization rate relatively close to 100% with a wide margin of
error, the evaluation team does not recommend any changes to Avista's default savings
assumption of 41 therms per device. The evaluation team recommends Avista revisit the smart
thermostat analysis in 2017 once several hundred participants have a full year of post-
installation billing data available and the billing analysis is capable of producing a more precise
estimate.
Status: We will revisit this with the 2016 data.
Recommendation: Avista currently rebates smart thermostats from multiple vendors. Nest,
Honeywell, and Ecobee are the primary vendors in this space and represented the majority of
rebates in 2014-2015. One recent study in the Pacific Northwest3o have found different levels of
savings between thermostat vendors so Avista may want to consider segmenting subsequent
analyses by product or even limiting the products that qualify for rebates.
Sfafus: We willwait until additional studies are available
4.2.2.3 Water Heat
Conclusion: For showerheads distributed through the Simple Steps program, Avista allocates
50% of its reported savings to electric savings and 50% to natural gas savings to account for
homes that have different water heating fuel types.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends Avista update this allocation assumption
to be based on representative water heater fuel type saturation. These data are available
through the Regional Building Stock Assessment study; however, we recommend Avista base
the allocation on data specific to its territory.
Sfatus: Avista has decided to continue to utilize the RTF figure for any water heating
retail showerheads, which is nearly a 50/50 split.
Recommendation: lt is recommended that Avista revisit program requirements for water
heaters to ensure that incentives are based on efficiency levels that are greater than the federal
minimum.
30 http:i/assets.energytrust.org/api/assets/reports/Smart-Thermostat-Pilot-Evaluation-Final-wSR.pdf
69 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Conclusion: Currently Avista is providing incentives for both tankless and storage gas water
heaters at the federal minimum efficiency level. lt is recommended that Avista set a higher EF
as a program qualification.
Stafus: There are significant savings to tankless gas water heaters (compared to
storage models) and we have eliminated incentives for storage gas water heaters.
4.2.2.4 ENERGY STAR@ Homes
Conclusion: The evaluation team initially attempted to use a difference-in-means approach to
estimate savings for the ENERGY STAR@ Homes program. However, due to the small number
of ENERGY STAR@ Homes participants and absent any detailed characteristics of the homes
(e.9. square footage, single- vs. multi-family, etc.) a reliable non-program comparison group
could not be attained. Therefore, the evaluation team collected Home Energy Rating System
(HERS) lndex scores for participating ENERGY STAR@ Homes wherever available to conduct
the impact analysis.
Recommendation: As more participants enter the program, the evaluation team recommends
again attempting a difference-in-means approach to estimating the savings for the program, if
sufficient data is available.
Status: The ENERGY STAR Homes program leverages regional savings estimates, but
Avista agrees with Nexant's approach to change their evaluation.
Recommendation: To aid future evaluation efforts, the evaluation team recommends including
the HERS scores in the program tracking documents. ln addition, for stick-built ENERGY STAR
homes, application forms could ask for the RESNET Registry lD, which is now assigned as part
of RESNET Archival of all HERS Rated or ENERGY STAR homes. This will ensure that the
home has been certified third party and is recognized by RESNET, the certifying agency for
ENERGY STAR.
Sfafus: This is a regional program effort and there are additional data points available
that we could provide access to.
4.2.2.5 FuelEfficiency
Conclusion: The evaluation team conducted a billing regression analysis for the Fuel Efficiency
participants and found realization rates of 60-70% for rebate projects that included the
conversion of a home's heating system from electricity to natural gas. When regression
coefficients were examined in detail, the evaluation team noted that the estimated reduction in
electric heating load was being offset by an increase in estimated base load within participating
homes.
Recommendation: Because the rebate amounts and per-home savings from Fuel Efficiency
are so large and the number of participants is relatively low, the evaluation team recommends
Avista ask participating customers for details on any additional home renovations that were
70 lD 20'16 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AlEvtsrr
completed in parallelwith the fuel conversion. Home improvement projects such as an addition,
finishing a basement, or adding air conditioning can drastically change the consumption
patterns within a home and render the assumed baseline inaccurate.
Stafus: Avista concurs with the findings and has chosen to utilize the newly evaluated
fuel efficiency numbers for future program design. lnterestingly, a previous impact
analysis found higher realization rates that resulted in the lock UES used most recently
The impact analysis aligns with anecdotal feedback from customers that the higher
incentive is helping reach customers with less usage and shortening their payback to
successfully encourage them to convert.
Conclusion: The evaluation team found that over half the homes receiving Fuel Efficiency
rebates in 2014-2015 did not have a gas billing history with Avista prior to the conversion. These
homes realized savings at a higher rate than homes that did have previous gas service.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that Avista consider adding a field to the
program tracking database that indicates the gas meter installation date or service start date of
participating homes. This would more clearly delineate homes that were previously all electric
and became dual-fuel around the same time as the Fuel Efficiency project, from homes that had
been dual-fuel historically. Avista may also want to consider assuming a more conservative
electric savings estimate for homes that had prior gas service because it's possible that the
home was not 100% electrically heated prior to program participation.
Sfatus: While the database may not be able to track the additional data points, Avista
will look for opportunities to track and/or communicate greater detail for evaluation.
Avista has chosen to utilize the newly evaluated fuel efficiency number for future
program design.
Gonclusion: The evaluation team found that almost half of all (lD and WA) Fuel Efficiency
participants also received rebates for the installation of high efficiency natural gas equipment.
This trend was limited to Washington as ldaho does not have rebates for high efficiency natural
gas furnaces and water heaters.
Recommendation: Separating the upgrade of a home's heating system from electric resistance
heat to a high efficiency natural gas furnace creates some accounting challenges that Avista
way want to streamline in the future. The fuel conversion measure assumes the home installs a
standard efficiency natural gas furnace and savings are calculated accordingly. The high
efficiency furnace measure offered through Avista's HVAC program uses a standard efficiency
furnace as the baseline and the installed high efficiency furnace as the efficient case. This
creates challenges for analysis of energy savings because the standard efficiency furnace never
existed in over half of Washington homes. A possible solution would be to require that homes
install a high efficiency furnace in order to receive a Fuel Efficiency rebate and consider the
71 lD 20'16 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AFvtsta
upgrade a single transaction rather than two. Specifically, instead of claiming a 500 therm
penalty for the Fuel Efficiency measure and 100 therms of savings from the high efficiency
furnace measure, Avista could claim the electric savings and a 400 therm penalty for an electric
-> HE furnace measure.
Status: Combining these would create regulatory accounting issues as the conversion
incentive is an electric tariff and the high efficiency furnace is a natural gas tariff. The
issue is the natural gas interactive effects of the conversion is an electric portfolio cost
not a natural gas portfolio issue.
4.2.2.6 Residential Lighting
Conclusion: Avista's deemed savings estimates, which were generally the same for all similar
product types and not correlated to the bulb wattage, understated the savings found by the
evaluation team. This was especially the case for Avista's CFL giveaway program.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that Avista consider more detailed
product type deemed values in an effort to be more closely aligned with the actual participating
lamps. Simple Steps has shifted its program tracking to specific product types by lumen bins in
accordance with the most current BPA UES measure list. Avista should consider using these
higher resolution deemed value for internal reporting with the Simple Steps program and for use
with internal residential lighting programs.
Status: Avista will shift its Simple Steps tracking to align with the most recent RTF UES.
4.2.2.7 Shell Program
Conclusion: The evaluation team found a low realization rate (38%) for shell rebate measures
(windows and insulation). This findings indicates that reported savings values were too
aggressive on average. The evaluation team compared the end-use shares estimated via
regression analysis and found that only approximately 5,500 of the 13,000 kWh of average
annual consumption in residential homes in Avista's service territory was assigned to heating
and cooling load. Given this end-use share, the reported savings values claimed by Avista
equate lo a25o/o reduction in HVAC loads.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends Avista examine planning assumptions
about per-home consumption, end-use load shares, and percent reductions in heating and
cooling loads from shell improvements. lt may be that the percent reduction assumptions are
sound, but they are being applied to an overstated assumption of the average electric HVAC
consumption per home. Conversely, the assumed end-use shares may be accurate, but the
end-use reduction percentage is inflated. This investigation should be conducted separately for
electrically heated homes and dual fuel homes as the heating electric end-use share will be
72 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
different.
Stafus: Avista had been using older RTF numbers that corresponded to the time of the
Conservation PotentialAssessment. The current business plan is utilizing the most
recent RTF numbers.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends Avista look at any recent saturation
studies orend-use load research findings to see if there is a generalshift in base load gas use
that could potentially harm the savings from the Shell improvements when analyzed at the
whole house level.
Status: We will be using the RTFs SEEM values for estimating home loads
4.2.2.8 Opower Program
Conclusion: The evaluation team found that savings held fairly consistent during the 6 month
interruption in Home Energy Report delivery. The finding reinforces Avista's decision to assume
a multi-year measure life when calculating the costeffectiveness of the Opower program.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends Avista examine the program delivery
model in the 2016-2017 cycle. Given the fixed and volumetric nature of program costs, measure
life assumptions, and mechanisms by which measured savings are counted toward goal
achievement the evaluation team believes there are alternatives to the traditionaldelivery model
that optimize program achievements relative to costs.
Sfatus: Avista will continue to utilize the same design for the 2016-2017 Home Energy
Reports program, but will be looking at all options of Behavioral Program designs for
2018-2019.
4.2.2.9 Low lncome Program
Conclusion: The evaluation team found a high realization rate for the fuel conversion measures
implemented through the Low lncome program. One reason for the high RR could be due to the
fact that Avista caps the reported savings value to 20o/o of the contractor estimated savings. ln
addition, the evaluation team found that the verified savings for these fuel conversion measures
aligned closely with the verified savings found through the regular-income
Fuel Conversion program.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends re-evaluating the current savings cap for
fuel conversion projects. ln addition, we recommend that Avista align assumptions for fuel
switching savings for the Low lncome and Fuel Efficiency programs.
Stafus: Avista is re-evaluating the cap for low income savings claim. Based on past
73 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AFvtsrr
impact analysis savings were capped al20% of the home. There should be a distinction
between a cap for weatherization and conversions where savings could exceed 20o/o.
Conclusion: The verified savings for the gas conservation homes was very consistent with
Avista's reported savings with a realization rate of 101%. Similar to the electric low-income fuel
conversion findings, it appears that Avista's reported estimates of gas penalties from fuel
conversion are understated, with the realization rate for the fuel conversion participants at over
400%. Although this result led to a significant adjustment in the low-income program, it is
important to note that the verified savings results are similar to Avista's reported gas penalty in
the Fuel Efficiency program on a per-home basis.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that Avista align assumptions for fuel
switching penalty savings for the Low lncome and Fuel Efficiency programs.
Stafus: We are no longer capping conversion savings estimates.
AEvtsta
74 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
5 Generation and Distribution Efficiency
5.1 Generation
Avista completed a facility wide LED lighting retrofit at its Cabinet Gorge Hydro Electric Facility
in 2016. The electrical system overall annual savings are 584 MWh of which 200 MWh are
attributed to ldaho.
5.2 Distribution
During 2016, Avista's LED Change-Out Program successfully converted 8,096 High-Pressure
Sodium (HPS) streetlights to Light Emitting Diode (LED) technology, resulting in an energy
savings of 1.99 MWh in ldaho.
Avista manages streetlights for many local and state government entities to provide street,
sidewalk, and/or highway illumination for their streets by installing overhead streetlights. The
primary driver for converting overhead streetlights from HPS lights to LED lights is the
significant improvement in energy savings, lighting quality to customers, and resource cost
savings. ln all, the five year program will change out over 28,000 streetlights by end o'f 2019
75 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AEttsrr
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, technicalassistance, program outreach and education. lt 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.
Table 7-1 show the NEEA forecast savings vs. actual savings and the associated costs.
Table 7-1: NEEA Forecast vs Preliminary Actual Savings and Associated Costs for
Avista
Electric $593,532
NaturalGas $87,686
6.1 Avista Electric Energy Savings Share
Allfigures provided represent the amounts that are allocated to Avista service territory, either
based on site-based energy savings data available or allocation of savings or spend based on
funding share. Funding share for Avista varies by funding cycle. The funding allocation for
Avista for 2016 is 4.03%.
NEEA is in process of finalizing the 2016 energy savings for allfunders. The value provided
above for 2016 Draft Annual Report is a draft figure and may change slightly with the final report
that will be provided in May,2017 .
6.2 Avista Natural Gas Energy Savings Share
There is no forecast of Natural Gas energy savings in the short-term of NEEA's cycle (2015-
2019). NEEA's plan is focused on building the portfolio of initiatives that will deliver savings in
4,065 MWh 5,449 MWh
nla nla
Energy Savings
2016 Draft-Final
Reported (as of
03t01t20171
2016 Costs (as of
12t31t20161Fuel Type Energy Savings
2016 Forecast
AFvrsra
76 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
future years (anticipating 2019+)
6.3 2016 Costs
NEEA annual costs do not map directly to the annual energy savings for a given year. Due to
the Market Transformation nature of NEEA's work, the energy savings investments are heavy
up front, and the return (in the form of energy savings) lags by a few years or more. For
instance, approximately 75o/o of the energy savings value delivered in 2016 are from initiatives
for which the investment period was 2010-2014. This investment period has a forecasted
energy stream that extends beyond 2019.
NEEA costs include all costs of NEEA operations and value delivery, including
' Energy savings initiatives
. lnvestments in market training and infrastructure
, Stock assessments, evaluations, data collection, and other regional and program
research
. Emerging technology research and development, and
. Alladministrativecosts
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.
77 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AEvtsrs
I
7 Energy Efficiency Expenditures
During 2016, Avista incurred over $12.7 million in costs for the operation of electric and natural
gas energy efficiency programs in ldaho, with $1 1.7 million for electric energy efficiency and
$1 .0 million for natural gas energy efficiency. Of this amount, $681 ,159 was contributed to the
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance to fund regional market transformation ventures.
Seventy four percent of expenditures were returned to ratepayers in the form of incentives or
products (e.9. CFLs). During the 2016 calendar year, $258 thousand, or 2.0 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). ln 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
2016 calendar year and often differ from the cost-effectiveness section where all benefits and
costs associated with projects completing in 2016 are evaluated in orderto 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 (lD)*
NEEA TotalISegmentlncentivesllmplementationiEM&V
Residential $2,331,713 $615,504 $0 $0 $2,947,216
Low lncome $822,74231 $58,563 $0 $0
$0 $6,109,232
$881,306
Nonresidential $5,471,309 $19
Regional $622,538
31 * Year-end accrual reversals for low income incentives for Washington and ldaho electric did not occur
correctly, but the tariff rider balances for both are correct as of the end of January 2016. The expenditure
charts (above) match the financial accounting system, but for accuracy in the cost effectiveness tests, an
adjustment of $273,052.57 in low income incentive expenditures has been made resulting in an increase
in Washington electric low income expenditures and a decrease in ldaho electric low income
expenditures
$637,904
$0 $902 $28,162 $593,473
AEwsra
78 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
General $0 $731,355 $202,884 $0 $934,239
Research $0 $0 $249,193
Total $11,743,724
Table 7-2: Avista NaturalGas Energy Efficiency Expenditures (lD)
Residential $486,100 $29,540 $0 $0 $515,640
Low lncome $205,160 $3,476 $0 $0 $208,636
Nonresidential $76,358 $51,497 $0 $0 $127,825
General $0 $62,544 $22,839 $0 $8s,383
Total $1,029,227
$0 $249,193
$563,473$8,625,764 $2,293,421 $231,065
TotalNEEASegment ilncentives ilmplementationi EM&V
$147,057 $26,897 $87,686$767,588
AEvtsra
79 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Regional $O $O $4,058 $87,686 $91,743
I Tariff Rider Balances
As of the start of 2016, the ldaho electric and natural gas (aggregate) tariff rider balances were
underfunded by $492,552. During 2016, $7.2 million in tariff rider revenue was collected to fund
energy efficiency while $12.7 million was expended to operate energy efficiency programs. The
$5.5 million under-collection of tariff rider funding resulted in a year-end balance of $6 million
underfunded balance.
Table 8-1 illustrates the 2016 tariff rider activity by fuel type.
Table 8-1 Tariff Rider Activity (2016)
Beginning Balance
(Underfunded)($431,784)($60,768)
$6,229,357 $1,013,083
Net Funding of Operations $5,797,573 $952,315
Energy Efficiency Expenditures $11,743,724 $1,029,227
Ending Balances
(Underfunded)($5,946,150)($76,913)
Electric I NaturalGas
^Aivtsta
80 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Energy Efficiency Funding
I Actual to Business Plan Gomparison
For 2016 operations, Avista exceeded budgeted electric energy efficiency expenditures by $5.8
million, or 200 percent, and natural gas expenditures were less than budgeted by $214,773, or
eighty{hree percent. 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
ldaho electric programs. The ldaho Natural Gas Portfolio incentives exceeded budget, however
non-incentive costs were lower than planned resulting in excess overall.
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-i Business Plan to Actual Gomparison32
Business Plan
Electric NaturalGas
lncentives Budget $3,112,957 $690,000
Non-incentives and Labor
Total Budgeted Expend itures $5,881,389
$554,000
$1,244,000
$2,768,432
Actual 2016 Expenditures
lncentives
Non-incentives and Labor
$8,625,764
$3,117,960
$767,588
$261,640
Total Actual Expenditures $11,743,724 $'1,029,227
Variance (Unfavorable)
32 Budget values are from 2016 Business Plan
$214,773($5,862,335)
Al,ivtsra
81 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
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.
10.1 Electric Cost Effectiveness Results
Table 10-1: 2016 lD Electric Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Net)
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
Electric Avoided Costs $21,426,732 $zz3,zzo s2L,749,952
Natural Gas Avoided Costs -$1,905,283 ii -s35,185 : -s7,940,457
UCT Benefits $19,521,449 S2gg,O35 S19,gog,4g4
Non-l ncentive Utility Costs
lncentive Costs
$4,562,697
$s,422,758
563 62 60
Ss+g,ogo 55,972,447
UCT Costs
UCT Ratio
Net UCT Benefits
$9,985,454
$9,535,995 -Srz 18
Table 10-2: 2016|D Electric Total Resource Cost (TRC) (Net)
707
1..87
Sg 2t 777
1.95 0.47
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
i Regular Incomei Portfolio
Electric Avoided Costs $21,426,732 SIZ3,ZZO SZt,74g,gS2
Natural Gas Avoided Costs -$1,90s,283 -s35,185 57,940,467
TRC Benefits $19,930,244 5436,916 SZO,367,L6O
Nonlncentive Utility Costs $4,562,697 Ss8,s63 54,62t,260
Customer Costs $7,488,226 $4s8,2L2 : $7,946,437
$12,050,922 5st6,lls
82
TRC Costs
lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
512,567,697
Alfrurra
Non-Energy Benefits $408,795 S148,881 issl,6ls
TRC Ratio 1.65 0.85 1.62
Residual TRC Benefits $7,879,322
AYivrcra
83 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
i -Szs,ssg i 57,799,463
Table 10-1: 2016 lD Electric Participant Cost (PCT) (Net)
Low lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
Electric Bill Reduction $31,969,850 S435,G01 532,405,510
Gas Bill Reduction -$75,210 -$1,873 -577,083
Non-Energy Benefits $408,79s 5148,881 Sssl,olo
Participant Benefits $32,303,435 s582,669 s32,886,103
$1 1,466,7s9 5458,2L2 5L1,924,97L
Incentive Received -$8,049,315 -Ss+g,ogo -S8,599,005
Participant Costs $3,417,444 -59t,+18 S3,325,9GG
9.45 N/AParticipant Ratio
Net Participant Benefits $28,885,991
9.89
Saru,Ma Szg,sio,t37
Table'10-2: 2016 lD Electric Rate lmpact Measure (RIM)(Net)
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Por$olio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
Electric Avoided Cost Savings $21,426,732 s323,220 52r,749,952
Non-Participant Benefits $21,426,732 5323,220 52L,749,952
Electric Revenue Loss
Non-lncentive Utility Costs
$31,969,8s0
$1,936,979 S58,5G3 s1,995,543
Customer lncentives $8,049,315 s549,590 s9,599,005
Non-Participant Costs $41,956,144 s1,043,914 s43,000,058
RIM Ratio 0.51 0.31 0.51
Net RIM Benefits -$20,529,412 I| -S2L,2SO,1O6
84 lO 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Overall Portfolio
Customer Costs
s435,661 s32,405,510
-5720,694
10.2Natural Gas Gost Effectiveness Results
Table 10-5: 2016 !D Natural Gas Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Net)
Electric Avoided Costs $531,707 5z Sssz
Natural Gas Avoided Costs $105,805 so s105,805
UCT Benefits $637,512 525,476 SG62,988
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $81,037 53,476 S8+,5t3
lncentive Costs $270,217 150 77
UCT Costs $351,254 S208,636 , 5559,890
UCT Ratio 1.81 o.t2 1. L8
Net UCT Benefits S103,098
Table 10-6: 2016lD Natural Gas Total Resource Cost (TRC)(Net)
Electric Avoided Costs $531,707 s25,475 Sssz,tgg
Natural Gas Avoided Costs $105,805 So S105,805
Non-Energy Benefits -$174 969 796
TRC Benefits $637,338 sg5,++5 5732,783
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $81,037 53,q16 S8+,stg
Customer Costs $1,152,834 s183,794 S1,336,G28
TRC Costs $1,233,871 5197,270 St,qztJqt
TRC Ratio 0.52 0.51 0.52
Residual TRC Benefits -S688,358
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$286,258 -s183,150
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
85 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
-$s96,533 -S91,82s
Aliiutstn
Table 10-3: 2016 lD Natural Gas Participant Cost (PCT) (Net)
ebctric Biu Reduction $1,153,581 556,30g S1,209,gg9
Gas Bill Reduction $23,468 SO 523,469
Regular lncome IPortfolio I
Low Income
Portfolio Overall Portfolio
Customer Costs $2,359,s60 s183,794 S2,543,353
lncentive Received -$559,846 _S2O5,1GO _S7G5,OO6
Participant Costs $1,799,714 -52L,355 5t,tt'8,347
Participant Ratio
Net Participant Benefits
0.65 0.73
-s475,195
Table 104:2016|D NaturalGas Rate lmpact Measure (RlM)(Net)
-$622,839 5L47,643
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
Electric Avoided Cost Savings $531,707 525,476 Sssz,tg:
Non-Participant Benefi ts $531,707 76 SssT 183
Electric Revenue Loss
Non-lncentive Utility Costs
$2,390,375
$81,037
S 583
53,476 S8+,st3
Customer lncentives $559,846 s205,160 s765,005
Non-Participant Costs $3,031,259 202
RIM Ratio 0.'18 0.10 o.l7
Net RIM Benefits 739 9-$2,499,552 -S239,468
A)ivtsra
86 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Non-Energy Benefits -$174 SG9,969 S69,79G
participant Benefits $1,176,875 S12G,277 51,303,152
10.3 Combined Fuel Cost Effectiveness Results
Table 10-9: 2016 lD Gombined Fuel Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Net)
Electric Avoided Costs $21,532,537 5323,220 527,855,151
Natural Gas Avoided Costs -$1,373,576 -s9,709 -S1,383,285
UCT Benefits $20,158,961 sgt3,stt ' 520,472,472
Non-tncentive Utitity Costs $4,643,734 562,040 54,705,773
lncentive Costs $5,692,974 5754,949 56,447,924
UCT Costs $'t0,336,708 s815,889 r s11,153,597
UCT Ratio 1.95 0.38 1.84
Net UCT Benefits S9,318,875
Table 10-10: 2016!D Combined FuelTotal Resource Cost (TRC) (NeQ
Electric Avoided Costs $21,532,537 220 52 757
Natural Gas Avoided Costs -$1,373,576 -Sg,zo9 -s1,393,295
Non-Energy Benefits $408,621 s218,850 562l,qlt
TRC Benefits $20,567,582 s532,361 ,943
Non-lncentive Utility Costs v,643,734 s62,O4O 54,705,773
Customer Costs $8,641,060 So+z,oos s9,293,055
TRC Costs $13,284,794 5704,045 513,988,839
TRC Ratio 1.55 0.76 1.51
Residual TRC Benefits $7,282,789 7L,584 S7,111,105
I Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
87 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AEvrsrn
Table 10-5: 2016 lD Combined Fuel Participant Cost (PGT) (Net)
j Regular lncome
iI Portfolio I
Low lncome
Portfolio Overall Portfolio
Electric Bill Reduction $31,993,318 s435,561 532,428,978
Gas Bill Reduction -$51,742 -51,973 -SS:,O1S
Non-Energy Benefits $408,621 S21g,g5O $627,47t
Participant Benefits $33,480,310 945
Customer Costs $13,826,319 s642,005 s74,468,324
lncentive Received -$8,609,161 -5754,849 -S9,364,011
Participant Costs $5,217,158 -Stlz,$qq S5,104,3i.4
Participant Ratio 6.42 N/A 6.70
Net Participant Benefits s
Table 10-6: 2016 lD Combined Fuel Rate lmpact Measure (RlM) (Net)
$28,263,152 Sgzt,tgo
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
Electric Avoided Cost Savings $21,9s8,439
Non-Participant Benefits $21,958,439
696 307
s348,696 522,307,735
s
Electric Revenue Loss $34,360,225 s491,958 S34,852,193
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $2,018,016 S52,o4o S2,080,056
Customer lncentives $8,609,161 5754,849 59,364,011
Non-Participant Costs $44,987,403 s1,308,857 s45,296,250
RIM Ratio 0.49 0.27 0.48
Net RIM Benefits -s23,989,125-$23,028,964 -S950,t6z
A)i-rtsra
88 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
1
a
Exhibit No. 4:
Avista 2018 ldaho Research and Development Report
Exhibit No. 4: Avista 2018 ldaho Research and Development Report
a
AVISTA UTILITIES
SELECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
EFFICENCY PROIECTS . IDAHO
Annual Report
March 30,20t8
frststn i
Avista Research and Development Projects Annual Report
March 30, 20'18
THE FOLLOWING REPORT WAS
PREPARED IN CONFORMANCE WITH
rDAHO PUBLTC UTTLTTTES COMMTSSTON (rpUC)
CASE NO. AVU.E.13-08
oRDER NO. 32918
March 30,2018
Page | 1
Annual Report
March 30.2018
ANNUAL REPORT
SELECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EFFICENCY PROJECTS
IPUC CASE NO. 32918
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. SCOPE OF WORK 3
3A. lntroduction
B. Background ,4
,4
,4
.5
.5
.7
.8
.8
II. KEY EVENTSA. Request for lnterest
B.
c.
D.
E.
F.
Selection of Projects...
Description of Selected Projects
Project Manager and Related Communications;
Agreements
Project Milestones...III. ACCOUNTING 10
10
10
10
11
t2
72
72
13
13
13
15
A. Schedule 91 Available Funds...........
B. Funds Authorized for R&D Projects in 201612017
C. Funds Expended and Remaining Balance
D. Cost-Recovery..................IV. PROJECT BENEFITSA. Residential Static VAR Compensator (RSVC) Year 3
C. CAES: Water/Energy Conservation Analysis.
D. IDL Energy Management Phase 2
V. RESEARCH IN-PROGRESS
A. Summary of Research ln-Progress.........
B. Other Relevant Activity.....
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
APPENDIX G
APPENDIX H
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX J
APPENDIX K
APPENDIX L
Two-Page Reports
Request for lnterest
Boise State University Agreement
University of ldaho Agreements
Final Report: RSVC Year 3
Final Report: Micro Grid Phase 2
Final Report: CAES Water Energy Conservation
Final Report: IDL Energy Management Phase 2
lnterim Report: RSVC Year 4
lnterim Report: Energy Storage
lnterim Report: IDL Temperature Efficiency
lnterim Report: Aerogel
Page | 2
Avista Research and Development Projects
Avista Research and Development Projects Annual Report
March 30, 2018
I. SCOPE OF WORK
A. lntroduction
This report is prepared in conformance with ldaho Public Utilities Commission
(IPUC) order No 32918. This includes key events during the reporting period and
accounting for related expenditures.
Avista Corporation, doing business as Avista Utilities (hereinafter Avista or
Company), at 1411 East Mission Avenue, Spokane, Washington, is an energy
company involved in the production, transmission and distribution of energy as well
as other energy-related businesses. Avista Utilities is the operating division that
provides electric service to more than 600,000 electric and natural gas customers.
Their service territory covers 30,000 square miles in eastern Washington, northern
ldaho and parts of southern and eastern Oregon, with a population of 1.5 million.
Avista also provides retail electric service in Juneau, AK through a subsidiary called
Alaska Electric Light and Power Company.
sEructtEitlloiv
@ tkctrf&dlirrlrdG.t
O t{gtwrlGrs
Page | 3
Avista Service Territory
,.,'
O Roseburg
Medford
O1Xhmrth Flllr
Avista Research and Development Projects Annual Report
March 30.2018
On August 30, 2013 Avista applied for an order authorizing it to accumulate and
account for customer revenues that will provide funding for selected electric energy
efficiency research and development (R&D) projects, proposed and implemented
by the state of ldaho's four-year Universities. On October 31,2013 Order No.
32918 was granted to Avista. Avista now recovers up to $300,000 per year of
revenue to research from the Company's Schedule 91 Energy Efficiency Rider
tariff.
This program provides a stable base of research and development funding that
allows research institutions to sustain quality research programs that benefit
customers. lt is also consistent with ldaho Governor Butch Otter's ldaho Global
Entrepreneurial Mission "iGem" initiative in which industry would provide R&D
funding to supplement funding provided by the State of ldaho.
B. Background
ln the 1990s, with the prospect of electric deregulation, utilities reduced or
eliminated budgets that would increase costs not included by third-party marketers
for sales of power to end-users. Research and development was one of those
costs. This has led to the utility industry having the lowest R&D share of net sales
among all US industries.
Research and development is defined as applied R&D that could yield benefits to
customers in the next one to four years.
ln 2010, Governor Otter announced ldaho would support university research as a
policy initiative with some funding provided by the state and supplemental funding
expected from other sources. This project provides additional funding to selected
research.
II. KEY EVENTS
A. Request for lnterest
The request for interest for projects funded in 201612017 academic year was
prepared and distributed to all three ldaho Universities on March 21, 2016. A full
copy of the request for lnterest is included in Appendix B.
On April 21,2016, Avista received 9 proposals from the University of ldaho and 1
proposal from Boise State University. Following is a list of the proposals received:
Universitv of ldaho
1. Grid Defender Utility Pole lnstallation and Protection System2. Case Studies of lmpact LED Lighting Upgrades on Overall Energy Use to
Better Structure Avista lncentives
3. Developing Practical Energy Saving Recommendations for the North West
Industries and Assessing of Environmental Protection
Page | 4
Avista Research and Development Projects Annual Report
March 30,2018
4. Electric School Buses with Secondary Vehicle to Grid Energy Utilization
5. Downtown Spokane Micro Grid
6. CAES Water/Energy Conservation Analysis with Avista
7. Assessment of Potential Energy Savings Through Solar Roadways
lnstallation on Ul Campus
8. Energy Trading System
9. Using Reduced-Order-Models for Simulation-Based Commissioning of
Buildings
Boise State Universitv
1. Operation and Control of Distributed Residential Static VAR Compensator
(RSVC) Phase !V
. Research Areas Already Being Done (EPRI, WSU, AVA)
Com plemenURed undanUNew. Potential Value to Customers kwh/KW$ (1-10). COz Emission Reduction (Y/N). Market Potential (1-10). Are Results Measurable (Y/N). Aligned with Avista Business Functions (Y/N). New or Novel (Y/N). Ranking (1 -10)
C. Description of Selected Projects
Following is a brief description of each of the four selected projects. Project teams
compiled "Two Page Reports" which summarize and highlight project details. These
Two Page Reports are included in Appendix A. Additional details are included in
the final project reports in Appendix E, Appendix F, Appendix G, and Appendix
H.
RSVC Year 3: Operation and Control of Distributed Residential Static VAR
Compensators (RSVC) Phase lV
Phase I of this project was funded in Year 1 and consisted of a study model of a
Residential Static VAR Compensator (RSVC) for regulating residential voltages.
Phase ll of this project was completed without funding assistance from Avista. This
phase consisted of building an open loop control prototype of the RSVC device.
Page | 5
B. Selection of Projects
Avista prepared an evaluation matrix for the 10 proposed projects. A team of
individuals representing Distribution, Transmission Planning, Generation and
Demand Side Management, co-filled out the matrix to rank each of the projects.
The following factors in no particular order were considered in the ranking process.
Avista Research and Development Projects Annual Report
Phase lll of this project was funded in Year 2 and consisted of performing a time-
series simulation over multiple months using a model developed in OpenDSS of
downtown Spokane and a ruralfeeder near Lake Pend Oreille.
The objectives of the research during Phase lV were to develop the framework and
simulation platforms to allow for distributed control algorithm tests of the Residential
Static VAR Compensator. The research included simulation of 1) voltage control, 2)
power factor control, 3) multi-RSVC interaction, 4) RSCV interaction with voltage
regulators, battery energy storage systems, photovoltaic generation, and pre-
existing capacitor banks, 5) conservation by voltage reduction, and 6) RSVC
simulation comparison to field measurement data.
The scope of this research was to perform studies on how to establish a microgrid
under emergency conditions. The goal was to create a practical plan to investigate
and employ a master controller to establish the microgrid and to manage the
inclusion of generation, energy storage, and critical loads in a set of anticipated
scenarios. Advantage to the ratepayers was measured through maintaining critical
loads for public safety and system reliability and security and improved recovery
from emergency situations.
A unified model of the microgrid was developed in Powerworld simulation software.
This model was then used to validate a model of the system built in RSCAD. Once
this was completed the control systems for load shedding and battery control were
added. A study was then performed to ensure the control systems behaved as
expected. This is demonstrated in the analysis and key results section below. ln
addition, a study was performed to determine the feasibility of adding battery
storage, followed by determination of optimal locations, and rating of the potential
battery storage systems. The microgrid has a very good potential to improve the
resilience of the system since it is predominantly supplied by hydroelectric
generation that is very close to the critical loads.
CAES: Water/Enerqy Conservation Analvsis with Avista
The University of ldaho and ldaho National Laboratory through their partnership
with the Center for Advanced Energy Studies (CAES) worked collaboratively with
one carefully selected member of the Northwest Food Processors Association
(Litehouse Dressing in Sandpoint, lD) to do a combination of process modeling and
system-dynamic modeling of their operation. The goal was to identify and create
plans for implementation of new technologies that would significantly reduce their
energy and water consumption. Because of the nature of the energy use in food
processing, new technologies have the potential to substantially reduce the energy
and water use by some customers.
Five models were developed to simulate the Litehouse process energy balance.
Models 1 and 2 were run using HYSYS, and they represent the two refrigeration
Page | 6
ir^.^h 2n ,n4 Q
Micro Grid Phase 2: Downtown Spokane Micro-orid
Avista Research and Development Projects Annual Report
March 30,2018
cycles responsible for maintaining the walk-in refrigerator temperature at 38'F.
Models 3 and 4 were run using HYSYS, and they were used to help determine the
current cooling load on the floorplan and the energy load on the individual systems.
Model 5 was a mathematical model run using Python, and it was used to help
determine the approximate size of refrigeration equipment needed to maintain a
room at a specified temperature.
IDL Enerqv Manaqement Phase 2: Usin q Reduced-Order-Models for Simulation-
Based Commissioninq of Buildinqs
Phase 1of this project was funded in Year 1 and completed by the University of
ldaho lntegrated Design Lab (lDL). During Phase 1, the group performed a virtual
control commissioning for part of the HVAC system at a building on the University
of ldaho campus. A detailed energy model was combined with communication
pathways to the building control hardware. The research on the economizer setting
at the College of Business and Economics (COBE) building revealed areas for
optimization.
The continuation of this research in Phase 2 included moving this technology
fonryard in two important ways: 1) by performing a physical demonstration at the
site, and 2) by simplifying the modeling process. A physical implementation of
virtual commissioning would greatly add to the commercial case for this technology.
Additionally, the research aimed to simplify the fully detailed building models to
reduced-order thermal models that could be used to tune building controls.
The research focused again on the Albertson's College of Business and Economics
building (COBE) at the University of ldaho Moscow Campus. The reduced order
model was composed of sets of differential equations with system parameters
which describe the dynamic nature of heat transfer though a building. These
parameters were determined through software optimization in order for the model to
best predict the zone temperature of the building when compared to the zone
temperature as predicted by EnergyPlus. The reduced order model was coupled
with an HVAC model to predict the total annual energy consumption of the building
which was then used to determined potential energy savings measures. lt was
found that the COBE building lacked thermostat setbacks during periods of
unoccupancy, and the ROM model was used to predict the energy savings
associated with updating the controller. !t was found that approximately 104,000
kWh of potential energy savings could be realized if the thermostat had properly
programed temperature setbacks during times the building is unoccupied.
D. Project Manager and Related Communications;
Avista set out to find an independent third party project manager based in ldaho.
On September 26, 2014 Avista entered into an agreement with T-O Engineers as
this independent third party project manager. T-O Engineers is an ldaho company
based in Boise, ldaho with offices in Boise, Meridian, Coeur d'Alene, and Nampa,
ldaho, as well as Spokane, Washington.
Page | 7
Avista Research and Development Projects Annual Report
ttilarnh 3O 2OlR
T-O is tasked with providing project management, organizational structure,
milestone setup, milestone tracking, and incidental administrative services. The
project manager for T-O Engineers is JR Norvell, PE. The deputy project managers
are Natasha Jostad, PE, and Tyson Schlect, ElT. JR and Natasha are both based
out of the Spokane office, and Tyson is based out of the Boise office.
E. Agreements
On August 25, 2016 Avista entered into an agreement with Boise State University
The full agreement is included as Appendix C.
By July 18, 2016 Avista executed individual task orders which were assigned for
each of the University of ldaho research projects selected, and those agreements
are included in Appendix D.
F. Project Milestones
The following graphic identifies each project's specific tasks as well as the overall
research and development schedule and milestones. Final reports from each
Principle lnvestigatorwere submitted in the fall of 2017.ln addition to the written
report, each research team presented their findings in person to Avista. IDL and the
CAES group both presented their findings to Avista on August 15,2017, and the
RSVC group and Microgrid group presented their findings on August 29,2017.
Page | 8
Annual ReportOr'tr" *"r""r.n ,nO O"r"'or*"nr troj"",t
,"r"n aO. ,O*
Fall Semester Semester
l. Prcject Management
2. Develop Follow-on Proposal
3. Prepare Final Report
Task l: Project Kick-Off 1-I
Task 2: Data Acquisition
Task 3: RSVC Dynamic Simulation
Task 4: Effect of RSVC on Existing Caps
Task 5: RSVC aize and Voltage Ctrl Alg.I I
Task 6: HW Prototype Dev.
Prcliminary Testing
Task 7: Draft Report
Task 8: Final Reporl and Presentation
(Main Directivo)
I I I
Task 2: RTDS Model
Task 3: Small Scale Examplo Model
Task 4: Small Scale Example Model:
Trip Breaker
Task 5: Small Scale Example Model:
Trip Breaker with Relay I
Task 6: lsland Detection Settings
Task 7: Load Shedding with Vipers
I
Task 8: Protection Settings Ir
Task 1: Gathar Baseline Data
Task 2: Establi3h on Site Communication
Task 3: Simplify Detailed Energy Model
Task 4: Analyze Effectiyeness of Reduced
Order Modols
F ITask 5: Develop Workflow for Practitionors
fask l: Project Kickoff
fask 2: Meet with Lighthouse
fask 3: Receive Requested Process
lnformation
fask 4: Provide Working Simulation of
1. Prcject Kickoff
Process I II
2. Follow on Proposal to Avista
3. Final Report and Presentation to Avista
4. IPUC Deliverables
Milestones/Deliverables All
CAES Water
Page | 9
Task Description 5epll6 od,/16 Nry/16 Dac/16 Ja^/17 Feb/17 Maill7 ,a{17 M.yl17 tsnlt7 t\V17 Aaglr',
er
Elements -
Avista Research and Development Projects Annual Report
March 30, 2018
III. ACCOUNTING
A. Schedule 91 Available Funds
Effective November 1, 2013 Avista can fund up to $300,000 per year of R&D from
revenue collected through Avista's Schedule 91, Energy Efficiency Rider
Adjustment. At the end of each year, any monies not allocated toward payment on
R&D projects roll over as available resources for the next year. A summary of the
balance for Schedule 91 from the beginning of Order No. 32918 is shown in the
table below.
B. Funds Authorized for R&D Projects in 201612017
Contracts for 201612017 are as follows:
C. Funds Expended and Remaining Balance
Following is the final budget summary for 201612017 FY R&D Prolects.
Academic
Year
Balance
from
Previous
Year
Total
Funds
Available
Contracted
Amount
Actual
Expenditures Balance
2014t2015 $300,000.00 $0.00 $300,000.00 $287,941.00 $243,467.32 $56,532.68
2015t2016 $300,000.00 $56,532.68 $356,532.68 $252,493.00 $235,809.03 $120,723.65
2016t2017 $300,000.00 $120,723.65 $420,723.65 $372,665.16 $358,641.82 $62,081.83
2017t2018 $300,000.00 $62,081.83 $362,081.83 $326,755.89
Agency Description Contract
Amount Point of Contact
Boise State University RSVC Phase 3 $ 98,901.00 Dr. Said Ahmed-
Zaid
University of ldaho Microgrid Phase 2 $ 86,179.61 Dr. Herbert L. Hess
University of ldaho CAES Water Energy
Conservation $ 93,354.55 Dr. Richard N
Christensen
University of ldaho IDL Energy Management Phase
2 $ 64,230.00 Elizabeth Cooper
T-O Engineers Project Manager $ 30,000.00 James R. Norvell
Total $ 372,665.16
Page | 10
New
Funding
Avista Research and Development Projects Annual Report
March 30,2018
Description Contract
Amount Total Expended Budget
Remaining
RSVC Phase 3 $ 98,901.00 $ 95,934.99 $ 2,966.01
Microgrid Phase 2 $ 86,179.61 $ 86,179.61 $ 0.00
CAES Water Energy Conservation $ 93,354.55 $ 82,332.95 $ 1 1,021.60
IDL Energy Management Phase 2 $ 64,230.00 $ 64,230.00 $ 0.00
Project [Vlanager $ 30,000.00 $29,964.27 $ 35.73
Totals $ 372,565.16 $ 358,641.82 $ 14,023.34
D. Cost-Recovery
The costs associated with R&D are funded from revenue collected through Avista's
Schedule 91 - Energy Efficiency Rider Adjustment. The outstanding balance was
rolled over to the current year's R&D budget, as seen in the table in Section A. All
R&D projects are invoiced on a time and materials basis with an amount not to
exceed. The costs would be included in the Company's annual tariff filing in June if
the rider balance requires a true-up.
Page | 11
IV. PROJECT BENEFITS
A. Residential Static VAR Compensator (RSVC) Year 3
RSVCs offer potentially significant energy savings. The RSVC device increases
cost effectiveness by voltage regulation and is a valuable tool in energy efficiency.
RSVCs offer distinct advantages over traditional shunt capacitor solutions. RSVCs
can operate in capacitive or inductive modes without generating substantial
harmonics. This device can be used in smart applications such as:
1. Continuous voltage control at load point
2. Power factor control
3. Mitigation of power quality issues
Electrical companies use conservation by voltage reduction (CVR) as a solution for
managing power distribution networks. ln order to keep end voltages within
acceptable standards, electrical companies should be able to regulate residential
voltages. The RSVC provides this solution on a local level. The device has the
potential to overtake conventional static var compensator solutions because of its
smaller footprint, power controllability and its realization as a single-phase device.
B. Micro Grid Phase 2: Downtown Spokane Micro-grid
ln recent years the electric industry has focused on increasing reliability by
interconnecting between different network systems. This has also helped increase
range of service. The biggest drawback of the interconnected system is the
sensitivity to rolling blackouts. Microgrids were developed to isolate sections of the
system to protect customers.
Development of a microgrid will overall increase the reliability of power. Energy
banks supplied with the grid can also help supply the peak load. The current
microgrid suffers from a significant power quality problem when local generation is
insufficient to handle grid mode level loads. The microgrid will include a controller to
receive data from multiple points in the system and shed non-essential loads.
C. CAES: Water/Energy Conservation Analysis
Food production is essential to the infrastructure of the United States. As production
increases so do energy and water demands. This study addresses these needs and
suggests that production facilities work in conjunction with their utility providers to
improve plant systems and operations. Decreased energy consumption has
significant financial benefits for the plant under consideration (Litehouse). Avista will
also benefit long-term by having energy demands reduced. The study focuses on
reviewing Litehouse Foods' current system and determining the where the biggest
decrease in energy consumption can be applied.
Page | 12
Avista Research and Development Projects Annual Report
March 30.2018
Avista Research and Development Projects Annual Report
March 30,2018
D. IDL Energy Management Phase 2
Because every building and control system is unique, it can be difficult to tune these
controls for optimum efficiency on a large scale. Virtual controller commissioning
using energy models can identify errors and correct controls. This project aims to
streamline this technology by moving it from specific software to a mathematical
model that can be generated for any building based on climate, loads and
construction. This will help broaden the appeal of the virtual commissioning process
and many industry partners may market this as an energy-savings service to their
clients. Virtually commissioning the system using a thermal model holds great
promise in being able to test for missed energy savings or occupant discomfort as
compared to the design intent.
V. RESEARCH IN.PROGRESS
A. Summary of Research ln-Progress
There are currently four projects in progress for the 201712018 academic year.
lnterim Reports are included in Appendices ! through L. Milestones for each current
IPUC funded project are listed in the table below.
Page | 13
Avista Research and Development P@ects Annual Report
March 30,2018
l. Projecl Managemont
2. D.volop Follow{n Propos.l
Te3k l: RSVC Control Systom D.slgn:
Voltag. Rogulation Loop
3. Prcparo Final Roport I I I
Task 2: RSVC Control Systom Dosign: Powar
Regulation Loop I
T.sk 3: Design ot e function.l l.boretoryprototyp. ot an RSVC I
Task 4: T.sting of en RSVC prototypo ln a
laboratory or homs gnvironmont I
Task 5: Flnal dr.tt Roport
.T I
Task 8: Dolivor tinal roport and proscnt
Task 1: ldontily potBntial eppliaations tor
snorgy storag6
results at AYista I I I I I I
Tesk 2: Dctormino powcr ratlngs, ramp ratas
and storcd onorgy aapabilitirs I
Tesk 3: Cetsgorizs tho appllcations basod on
tho ancillary soruicos thoy provido
Te3k 4: Rcduco tho sot ot pot.ntl.l
rppllcatlons in consultatlon wlth Avlsta
!nqinoorS
Task 5: Dsvolop an approach lor sizing
snorgy storago
Task 6: Sonior design team: lmplemont
models and for battory energy storag.
sy3tems I
f.3k 1: Prcjoct Planning and R3porting
fask 2: Establish Curront Bas.llna Sotpoints
faak 3: Seleat . Sita
fask 4: Colloat Oporational Data
fask 5: Dovolop Enorgy irodol
faak 6: Tost Albrnative Controls
fask 7: Estimate Savings
fesk 8: Dovolop Wormow tor Prrctltioncr3
fask l: Litgratur€ Survay -l-I I
fask 2: Aorogol Charactorization end
Acquiring Commorcial Products
fask 3: Fisld Data Colloction
fask 4: Cost Analysis
fask 6: Envlronm.ntal lmpact
@
l. Projlat Kiakotl
I I I I I I I
2. Follow on Proposal to Avlsta
3. Final Roport and Pros.ntatlon to Avlst.
f. IPUC Doliverablos I
Page | 14
Task Desoiption iepl17 ac,.h7 Nov/l7 ae.lL7 Jan/18 reblre Mar/18 t{,rl,3 ?,tt VlL*Junl18 tutl7a auglla
Em€ttet et er
Avista Research and Development Projects
B. Other Relevant Activity
Project kick-off meetings were held on-site at each University of ldaho location and
at Boise State University.
A progress meeting is held bi-monthly for each project. These meetings typically
take 0.5 hours and include a review of schedule, monthly progress reporting,
invoicing, Avista comments, and action items for the next month. The meetings are
organized and led by the lndependent Program Manager, T-O Engineers.
Attendees for each meeting include the Principal lnvestigator, Co-lnvestigators,
Student Researchers, Avista personnel, and the lndependent Program Manager.
There are currently four projects in progress for the 201712018 academic year.
Funds were rolled over from previous years to fund an additional prolect. Contracts
for these projects total $326,755.89. Budget details and funds expended will be
summarized in the 2019 Annual Report.
Page | 15
Annual Reportir.r^h en ,n{Q