20201125Exhibit 2 - Avista 2018 Idaho ACR.pdf

Exhibit No. 2: Avista 2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report
Exhibit No. 2:
Avista 2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report
Date of Revision: July 31, 2020
All product and company names contained within this document are either trademarks (TM) or registered (®) trademarks of their respective holders. Use of them does
not imply any affiliation with or endorsement by them. All specifications are subject to change without notice.
All forward-looking statements contained in this document are based on underlying assumptions (many of which are based, in turn, upon further assumptions).
These statements are subject to a variety of risks, uncertainties and other factors. Most of these factors are beyond our control and may have a significant effect on
our operations, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows, which could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated in our statements.
Such risks, uncertainties and other factors include, among others, those included in our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, or Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Those reports are available on our website at avistacorp.com.
Cover: Coeur d’Alene River, Cataldo, Idaho
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................1
Tariff Rider Balances ...............................................................................................................................................2
Idaho Achievements ...............................................................................................................................................3
Highlights ...........................................................................................................................................................3
Trade Ally Outreach .............................................................................................................................................3
Portfolio Trends ...................................................................................................................................................4
Verified Savings ...................................................................................................................................................6
Expenditures .......................................................................................................................................................8
Evaluation Approach ..............................................................................................................................................9
Evaluation Methodology and Activities ..............................................................................................................10
Impact Evaluation Results, Portfolio ...................................................................................................................11
Cost-Effectiveness .................................................................................................................................................12
Commercial/Industrial Sector ...............................................................................................................................14
Overview...........................................................................................................................................................15
Marketing .........................................................................................................................................................17
Customer Satisfaction .......................................................................................................................................20
Key Findings...................................................................................................................................................... 21
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................21
Impact Evaluation: Commercial/Industrial Sector ................................................................................................22
Performance and Savings Goals ..................................................................................................................22
Impact Evaluation Methodology ..................................................................................................................22
Sample Design...................................................................................................................................... 23
Document Review ................................................................................................................................24
On-Site Verification ...............................................................................................................................24
Cost-Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................................24
Program by Program Summaries .......................................................................................................................25
Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program ................................................................................................25
Description ...........................................................................................................................................25
Program Activities .................................................................................................................................26
Customer Satisfaction ...........................................................................................................................27
Impact Evaluation .................................................................................................................................29
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................30
Plans for 2019 ......................................................................................................................................30
Commercial/Industrial Multifamily Natural Gas Market Transformation ........................................................31
Description ...........................................................................................................................................31
Program Activities .................................................................................................................................31
Marketing Activities ..............................................................................................................................32
Impact Evaluation .................................................................................................................................33
Plans for 2019 ......................................................................................................................................33
Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Program .................................................................................................34
Description ...........................................................................................................................................34
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report
Program Activities .................................................................................................................................35
Marketing Activities ..............................................................................................................................36
Customer Satisfaction ...........................................................................................................................37
Impact Evaluation .................................................................................................................................39
Plans for 2019 ......................................................................................................................................41
Residential Sector .................................................................................................................................................42
Overview...........................................................................................................................................................43
Marketing .........................................................................................................................................................43
Trade Ally Outreach ..........................................................................................................................................50
Customer Satisfaction .......................................................................................................................................51
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................53
Impact Evaluation: Residential Sector .................................................................................................................53
Performance and Savings Goals ..................................................................................................................53
Impact Evaluation Methodology ..................................................................................................................54
Database Review .................................................................................................................................54
Document Review ...............................................................................................................................54
Cost-Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................................55
Program by Program Summaries .......................................................................................................................56
Residential HVAC Program ..........................................................................................................................56
Description ...........................................................................................................................................56
Program Activities .................................................................................................................................57
Program Changes .................................................................................................................................57
Marketing Activities ..............................................................................................................................58
Trade Ally Satisfaction ...........................................................................................................................58
Impact Evaluation .................................................................................................................................59
Plans for 2019 ......................................................................................................................................59
Residential Shell Program ............................................................................................................................60
Description ...........................................................................................................................................60
Program Activities .................................................................................................................................61
Marketing Activities ..............................................................................................................................61
Impact Evaluation .................................................................................................................................61
Plans for 2019 ......................................................................................................................................62
Residential Water Heating Program .............................................................................................................62
Description ...........................................................................................................................................62
Program Activities .................................................................................................................................63
Marketing Activities ..............................................................................................................................63
Plans for 2019 ......................................................................................................................................63
Residential ENERGY STAR® Homes Program ................................................................................................64
Description ...........................................................................................................................................64
Program Activities .................................................................................................................................65
Impact Evaluation .................................................................................................................................65
Plans for 2019 ......................................................................................................................................65
Evaluations Plans ..................................................................................................................................66
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report
Residential Fuel Efficiency Program ..............................................................................................................66
Description ...........................................................................................................................................66
Program Activities .................................................................................................................................67
Marketing Activities ..............................................................................................................................67
Program Changes .................................................................................................................................67
Impact Evaluation .................................................................................................................................67
Plans for 2019 ......................................................................................................................................68
Residential Simple Steps, Smart Savings™ Program ......................................................................................68
Description ...........................................................................................................................................69
Program Activities .................................................................................................................................69
Program Changes .................................................................................................................................70
Customer Satisfaction ...........................................................................................................................70
Impact Evaluation .................................................................................................................................71
Plans for 2019 ......................................................................................................................................71
Residential Multifamily Direct Install Program and Supplemental Lighting ....................................................72
Description ...........................................................................................................................................72
Marketing Activities ..............................................................................................................................73
Impact Evaluation .................................................................................................................................74
Plans for 2019 ......................................................................................................................................75
Low-Income Sector ...............................................................................................................................................76
Program by Program Summary ..........................................................................................................................77
Low-Income Program ..................................................................................................................................77
Description ...........................................................................................................................................77
Program Activities .................................................................................................................................78
Program Changes .................................................................................................................................79
Marketing Activities ..............................................................................................................................80
Impact Evaluation .................................................................................................................................83
Performance and Savings Goals .....................................................................................................84
Impact Evaluation Methodology .....................................................................................................84
Recommendations .........................................................................................................................84
Plans for 2019 ......................................................................................................................................85
Cost-Effectiveness ................................................................................................................................85
Generation and Distribution Efficiency ...............................................................................................................86
Generation........................................................................................................................................................87
Distribution .......................................................................................................................................................87
Regional Market Transformation .........................................................................................................................92
Electric Energy Savings Share .............................................................................................................................93
Natural Gas Energy Savings Share .....................................................................................................................93
2018 Costs .......................................................................................................................................................94
Glossary of Terms ..................................................................................................................................................96
Appendices and Supplements ............................................................................................................................106
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Tariff Rider Activity ..................................................................................................................................2
Table 2 Energy Efficiency Savings by Sector – Electric ..........................................................................................7
Table 3 Energy Efficiency Savings by Sector – Natural Gas ...................................................................................7
Table 4 Annual Conservation Plan Budget to Actual Expenditures Comparison ...................................................8
Table 5 Programs with Highest Impact on Expenditure Variance ..........................................................................8
Table 6 Program Evaluation Activities – Electric .................................................................................................10
Table 7 Program Evaluation Activities – Natural Gas ..........................................................................................11
Table 8 Portfolio Cost-Effectiveness Results (Combined Electric and Natural Gas) ..............................................12
Table 9 Electric Portfolio Cost-Effectiveness Results ...........................................................................................12
Table 10 Natural Gas Portfolio Cost-Effectiveness Results ....................................................................................12
Table 11 Portfolio Benefit/Cost Ratios .................................................................................................................13
Table 12 Commercial/Industrial Verified Savings by Program ...............................................................................16
Table 13 Commercial/Industrial Evaluation Technique by Program .......................................................................20
Table 14 Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Electric Evaluation Sample ................................................................23
Table 15 Commercial/Industrial Electric Cost-Effectiveness Results .......................................................................24
Table 16 Commercial/Industrial Natural Gas Cost-Effectiveness Results................................................................ 24
Table 17 Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program Metrics .............................................................................25
Table 18 Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program Participation Challenges ....................................................28
Table 19 Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Electric Impact Findings ...................................................................29
Table 20 Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Evaluation Summary of Discrepancies ..............................................29
Table 21 Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Natural Gas Impact Findings ...........................................................30
Table 22 Commercial/Industrial Multifamily Natural Gas Program Metrics............................................................ 31
Table 23 Commercial/Industrial Multifamily Fuel Efficiency Electric Impact Findings .............................................33
Table 24 Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Lighting Program Metrics .................................................................34
Table 25 Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Non-Lighting Program Metrics ..........................................................34
Table 26 Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Lighting Program Rebate Changes ...................................................36
Table 27 Commercial/Industrial Evaluated Program Descriptions.......................................................................... 39
Table 28 Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Electric Impact Findings ....................................................................39
Table 29 Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Evaluation Summary of Discrepancies – Electric ................................40
Table 30 Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Natural Gas Impact Findings .............................................................40
Table 31 Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Evaluation Summary of Discrepancies – Natural Gas .........................41
Table 32 Residential Savings by Program .............................................................................................................43
Table 33 Residential Cost-Effectiveness – Electric ................................................................................................55
Table 34 Residential Cost-Effectiveness – Natural Gas .........................................................................................55
Table 35 Residential HVAC Program Metrics .......................................................................................................56
Table 36 Satisfaction Ratings by Residential Program Element .............................................................................58
Table 37 Residential Shell Program Metrics .........................................................................................................60
Table 38 Residential Water Heating Program Metrics ..........................................................................................62
Table 39 Residential Water Heating Program Planned Changes for 2019 .............................................................63
Table 40 Residential ENERGY STAR Homes Program Metrics ...............................................................................64
Table 41 Residential ENERGY STAR Homes Program Planned Changes for 2019 ..................................................65
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report
Table 42 Residential Fuel Conversation Metrics ...................................................................................................66
Table 43 Residential Fuel Conversation Planned Changes for 2019 .....................................................................68
Table 44 Residential Simple Steps, Smart Savings Metrics ....................................................................................68
Table 45 Residential Simple Steps, Smart Savings Outreach Activities ..................................................................70
Table 46 Residential Multifamily Direct Install Program Metrics ............................................................................72
Table 47 Low-Income Program Metrics ...............................................................................................................77
Table 48 Low-Income Program Approved Measure List .......................................................................................78
Table 49 Low-Income Program Rebate Measure List ............................................................................................78
Table 50 Low-Income Electric Impact Findings .....................................................................................................83
Table 51 Low-Income Natural Gas Impact Findings .............................................................................................83
Table 52 Low-Income Fuel-Efficiency Program Electric Impact Findings ................................................................83
Table 53 Low-Income Fuel-Efficiency Program Natural Gas Impact Findings .........................................................83
Table 54 Low-Income Electric Cost-Effectiveness Results .....................................................................................85
Table 55 Low-Income Natural Gas Cost-Effectiveness Results ..............................................................................85
Table 56 Grid Modernization Plan by Feeder .......................................................................................................89
Table 57 Distribution Efficiency Savings by Program ............................................................................................90
Table 58 Actual Savings and Associated Costs ....................................................................................................93
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Electric and Natural Gas Service Areas ....................................................................................................1
Figure 2 Electric Energy Savings (2016–2018) .......................................................................................................4
Figure 3 Natural Gas Energy Savings (2016–2018) ................................................................................................5
Figure 4 Electric Savings Portfolio .........................................................................................................................5
Figure 5 Natural Gas Savings Portfolio ..................................................................................................................6
Figure 6 Commercial/Industrial Multifamily Natural Gas Incentive Program Advertorial .......................................17
Figure 7 Commercial/Industrial Lighting Program Advertorial ..............................................................................18
Figure 8 Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency Rebates Flier and Forms ..........................................................19
Figure 9 Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Electric Incentive Dollars by Measure ...............................................26
Figure 10 Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Natural Gas Incentive Dollars by Measure ........................................26
Figure 11 Commercial/Industrial Satisfaction with Site-Specific Program Components ..........................................27
Figure 12 Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program Successes ..........................................................................28
Figure 13 Commercial/Industrial Multifamily Natural Gas Incentive Program Brochure ..........................................32
Figure 14 Commercial/Industrial Electric Prescriptive Incentive Dollars by Measure ................................................35
Figure 15 Commercial/Industrial Natural Gas Prescriptive Incentive Dollars by Measure .........................................35
Figure 16 Commercial/Industrial Participation Challenges .....................................................................................38
Figure 17 Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Program Successes ...........................................................................38
Figure 18 Residential “Efficiency Matters” Online and Mobile Display Ads ............................................................44
Figure 19 Residential “Efficiency Matters” Bill Insert .............................................................................................44
Figure 20 Residential “Efficiency Matters” Social Media .......................................................................................44
Figure 21 Residential “Efficiency Matters” Television Advertising ..........................................................................45
Figure 22 Residential Energy-Savings “Emissions” and “Homes” :30 TV Advertising .............................................46
Figure 23 Residential Energy-Savings myavista.com Home Page Feature ...............................................................46
Figure 24 Residential Energy-Savings “Way To Save” Rebates :15 TV Advertising.................................................. 47
Figure 25 Residential Energy-Savings “Way To Save” Rebates Online and Mobile Display Ads ...............................47
Figure 26 Residential Energy-Savings “Way To Save” Tips :15 TV Advertising .......................................................48
Figure 27 Residential Energy-Savings “Way To Save” Tips Online and Mobile Display Ads .....................................48
Figure 28 Residential Energy-Savings “Way To Save” Social Media .......................................................................49
Figure 29 Residential Energy-Savings Winter Tips Emails .......................................................................................49
Figure 30 Residential Energy-Savings Winter Tips Banner Ads ...............................................................................50
Figure 31 Residential Energy-Savings “Energy Efficiency Night” Social Media .......................................................50
Figure 32 Satisfaction with Residential Program Elements .....................................................................................51
Figure 33 Motivation to Participate in Residential Programs ..................................................................................52
Figure 34 Hearing About Residential Programs and Best Way to Spread Information ............................................52
Figure 35 Residential Impact Process ....................................................................................................................54
Figure 36 Residential HVAC Incentive Dollars by Measure .....................................................................................57
Figure 37 Residential Multifamily Direct Install Program Flier .................................................................................73
Figure 38 Low-Income Electric Incentive Dollars by Measure .................................................................................79
Figure 39 Low-Income Natural Gas Incentive Dollars by Measure ..........................................................................79
Figure 40 Energy Fair Marketing ...........................................................................................................................80
Figure 41 Low-Income CAP Conservation Activities by Level of Impact .................................................................82
Figure 42 Grid Modernization Program Mailer ......................................................................................................87
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report
LIST OF APPENDICES AND SUPPLEMENTS
Appendix A 2018 Idaho Electric Impact Evaluation Report
Appendix B 2018 Idaho Natural Gas Impact Evaluation Report
Appendix C 2018 Idaho Process Evaluation
Appendix D 2018 Tariff Rider Activity
Appendix E 2018 Expenditures by Program
Appendix F 2018 Program Activity
Appendix G 2018 UES Measure List
Appendix H 2018-2019 Evaluation Work Plan
INTRODUCTION
Avista Pavilion, McEuen Park, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 1
INTRODUCTION
Since 1978, Avista has remained committed to delivering responsible and cost‐effective energy-efficiency programs to
its customers. Its 2018 Annual Conservation Report summarizes the company’s annual energy-efficiency achievements
for its Idaho electric and natural gas customers. These programs are intended to deliver a cost‐effective, least‐cost
resource while also helping customers conserve energy, save money, and live more comfortably.
Although the intent of this report is to assess the previous year’s performance, successes and lessons are applied
during the business planning process and throughout the year to inform and improve program design.
Avista’s conservation program portfolio consists of a mix of programs implemented both by the utility and by third-
party contractors. The company also funds the regional market transformation effort through the Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance (NEEA); the reported electric energy savings, cost-effectiveness, and other related data, however,
are specific to local programs unless otherwise noted.
Electric and natural gas savings are gross values based on all program participants.
FIGURE 1 – ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS SERVICE AREAS
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 2
TARIFF RIDER BALANCES
At of the start of 2018, the Idaho electric and natural gas (aggregate) tariff rider balances were underfunded by
$9.4 million. The large underfunded balances were due primarily to the high level of conservation achieved during the
2016–17 program years. In 2018, $11.5 million in tariff rider revenue was collected to fund energy efficiency, with
$9 million spent to operate energy-efficiency programs. The $2.5 million overcollection of tariff rider funding resulted
in an underfunded balance of $6.9 million by year-end.
Table 1 illustrates the 2018 tariff rider activity by fuel type.
TABLE 1 – TARIFF RIDER ACTIVITY
Electric Natural Gas
Beginning Balance (Underfunded)/Overfunded $ (9,574,630)$ 180,889
Energy-Efficiency Funding $ 10,177,172 $ 1,332,964
Net Funding of Operations $ 602,542 $ 1,513,853
Energy-Efficiency Expenditures $ 7,736,789 $ 1,279,666
Ending Balances (Underfunded)/Overfunded $ (7,134,247)$ 234,187
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 3
IDAHO ACHIEVEMENTS
◆Electric Conservation: For 2018, Avista’s Energy Efficiency Program achieved 29,805,007 kWh of
conservation.
◆Natural Gas Conservation: For 2018, Avista’s Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Program archived 247,746
therms of conservation.
Highlights
Avista continued to deliver cost-effective savings in 2018 and introduced some new program offerings to better serve
Idaho customers. Several highlights include:
◆Expanded offerings for hard-to-reach markets: Avista began its multifamily direct install pilot program
during 2018, which quickly became an effective tool for reaching the company’s underserved population.
The program serves multifamily units with low-cost energy-efficient equipment. The pilot was adopted as a
full program offering and is part of Avista’s overall portfolio of offerings for 2019.
◆Changing trends in commercial/industrial lighting programs: The prescriptive lighting program
continues to be one of the largest programs in Avista’s portfolio of energy-efficiency offerings. Although
savings achieved throughout 2018 were substantial, the level of overall throughput was less than in previous
years. The company is also seeing a customer shift toward more exterior lighting projects, with throughput
increasing by 21 percent from 2017.
◆Investment in Avista’s energy efficiency program infrastructure: Avista began implementing its Nexant
iEnergy platform, an enterprise software tool for managing its energy-efficiency portfolio, helping the
company gather more detailed information about each energy-efficiency project and aiding in more detailed
analysis.
Continuing the integrated resource planning and CPA processes, Avista reviews existing and potential programs as
part of the energy-efficiency business planning process. The company discontinued the OPower home energy report
program as a result of the business planning process, as well as the ENERGY STAR homes offering for stick-built
homes (while keeping the offering for manufactured homes). On the commercial/industrial side, Avista discontinued
lighting offerings for T12 and T8 fixture replacement with high-performance T8 fixtures, and also applied a variety of
adjustments to measure incentives based on business planning and market conditions, as detailed in the
Trade Ally Outreach section below.
Trade Ally Outreach
In April 2018 Avista introduced a “Trade Ally Network” and actively promoted all of its programs via this network,
generally sharing program announcements via email blasts. The company recently upgraded the network to “Trade
Ally Connect,” a platform that will enable the continuation of communication efforts as well as the creation
of webinars, rebate tracking, “Find a Contractor,” and other tools to encourage participation and enhanced
communication.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 4
Portfolio Trends
Avista’s electric portfolio achieved savings consistent with expectations for 2018 compared to previous years, with
much of the change attributed to the downward trend in both residential and commercial/industrial interior lighting
programs, since a large portion of savings from these programs was captured over 2016 and 2017. As shown in
Figure 2, Avista’s 29,805,007 kWh of energy savings achieved in 2018 is lower than that of 2017 (48,648,365 kWh).
Savings acquired through the company’s residential program increased from 6,425,361 kWh in 2017 to 6,907,065
kWh in 2018, or 7 percent. Commercial/industrial programs decreased in conservation savings as well, from
42,962,098 kWh in 2017 to 22,897,942 kWh in 2018 (47 percent).
FIGURE 2 – ELECTRIC ENERGY SAVINGS (2016–2018)
2016 2017 2018
Residential 12,749,624 6,425,361 6,907,065
Commercial/Industrial 25,244,254 42,962,098 22,897,942
OPower 7,524,386 (739,094)–
Total 45,518,264 48,648,365 29,805,007
Note: For the purpose of comparing the 2016-18 trend analysis data, all savings are verified gross.
As shown in Figure 3, Avista’s natural gas portfolio achieved conservation savings consistent with expectations for
2018 compared to the previous year. Much of that change is attributed to commercial/industrial prescriptive programs
and to residential HVAC and water heater programs, both of which declined in savings in 2018. Avista’s 247,756
therms of energy savings from 2018 is lower than that of 2017 (305,508). Savings acquired through the company’s
residential programs decreased from 234,325 therms in 2017 to 212,764 in 2018, or 9 percent. Commercial/industrial
programs decreased in conservation savings from 71,183 therms in 2017 to 34,992 in 2018, or 51 percent.
El
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y

S
a
v
i
n
g
s

(
k
W
h
)
Residential Commercial/Industrial OPower Total
45,518,264
48,648,365
29,805,007
50,000,000
2016 2017 2018
40,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
10,000,000
0
-10,000,000
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 5
FIGURE 3 – NATURAL GAS ENERGY SAVINGS (2016–2018)
2016 2017 2018
Residential 192,870 234,325 212,764
Commercial/Industrial 37,072 71,183 34,992
Total 229,942 305,508 247,756
Note: For the purpose of comparing the 2016–18 trend analysis data, all savings are verified gross.
Of Avista’s overall electric portfolio in 2018, the commercial/industrial prescriptive and site-specific programs obtained
77 percent of the savings. The residential HVAC program and all other programs combined achieved the remaining
23 percent of savings (see Figure 4).
FIGURE 4 – ELECTRIC SAVINGS PORTFOLIO
Na
t
u
r
a
l

G
a
s

S
a
v
i
n
g
s

(
t
h
e
r
m
s
)
Residential Commercial/Industrial Total
229,942
305,508
247,756
500,000
2016 2017 2018
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
-100,000
41% Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Lighting
26% Commercial/Industrial Site-Specic Nonlighting
20% everything else
9% Commercial/Industrial Site-Specic Lighting
3% Residential HVAC
1% Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Nonlighting
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 6
Of Avista’s overall natural gas savings portfolio, residential HVAC programs obtained 61 percent of the savings in
2018. Residential water heater, shell, commercial/industrial prescriptive, and site-specific programs combined achieved
36 percent of the overall savings for 2018. Everything else obtained 3 percent (see Figure 5).
FIGURE 5 – NATURAL GAS SAVINGS PORTFOLIO
Verified Savings
Avista’s Idaho targets are set through the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) process; targets for 2018 were 18,594 MWh
and 246,440 therms.
For its 2018 electric target, the company chose to use the 2017 Electric IRP centered on its Conservation Potential
Assessment (CPA) as the basis for its Annual Conservation Plan (ACP) savings goals and targets. Avista’s 2018
conservation acquisition target identified in its IRP was 12,008 MWh of qualifying energy efficiency in Idaho.
In addition to the IRP-identified conservation target, the company further adjusted this number to an overall 2018
target of 18,594 MWh, which accounts for a 28 percent increase from a Total Resource Cost (TRC)-based CPA and
IRP-informed goal to a Utility Cost Test (UCT)-informed goal. It also includes an additional 3,224 MWh, which is the
amount planned from behavioral programs.1
The 2018 natural gas target of 246,440 therms was identified in the 2016 Natural Gas IRP and adopted in the
2018 Natural Gas Conservation Plan.
1) Savings amount is from Avista’s former Home Energy Report (HER) program. Although the company will not be continuing the HER program, Avista has committed
the estimated savings to its target.
61% Residential HVAC
16% Residential Shell Program
8% Commercial/Industrial Site-Specic
6% Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive
6% Residential Water Heater
3% everything else
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 7
In 2018, the electric energy-efficiency portfolio achieved first-year annual energy savings of 29,805 MWh and natural
gas savings of 247,756 therms. Based on the target established in the Electric and Natural Gas IRPs, Avista achieved
160 percent of the electric savings target and 101 percent of the natural gas savings target. Tables 2 and 3 show
2018 savings by fuel and sector.
TABLE 2 – ENERGY EFFICIENCY SAVINGS BY SECTOR – ELECTRIC
Sector Reported Savings
(kWh)
Verified Savings
(kWh)Realization Rate
Commercial/Industrial 22,832,307 22,630,556 99%
Residential 5,400,520 5,108,673 95%
Low-Income 228,498 252,699 111%
Fuel Efficiency 1,824,345 1,813,079 99%
Total 30,285,670 29,805,007 98%
TABLE 3 – ENERGY EFFICIENCY SAVINGS BY SECTOR – NATURAL GAS
Sector Reported Savings
(Therms)
Verified Savings
(Therms)Realization Rate
Commercial/Industrial 38,613 34,992 91%
Residential 205,001 207,992 101%
Low-Income 5,185 4,772 92%
Total 248,800 247,756 98%
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 8
Expenditures
For 2018 operations, Avista exceeded budgeted electric energy-efficiency expenditures by approximately $1.5 million,
or 23 percent, and exceeded budgeted natural gas expenditures by $142,000, or 12 percent. The primary cause of
these over-expenditures was due to increased levels of incentives – the demand for which was slightly higher than
anticipated – resulting in underfunding for both electric and natural gas programs.
While the 2018 Annual Conservation Plan provides an expectation for operational planning, Avista is required to
pursue all cost-effective measures under Schedules 90 and 190. Since customer incentives are the largest component
of expenditures, customer demand can easily affect the funding level of the tariff riders. Table 4 below provides a
detailed comparison of budgeted to actual energy-efficiency expenditures by fuel type.
TABLE 4 – ANNUAL CONSERVATION PLAN BUDGET TO ACTUAL EXPENDITURES COMPARISON
Electric Natural Gas
2018 Annual Conservation Plan
Incentives Budget $ 3,413,515 $ 732,909
Non-Incentives and Labor a)$ 2,874,600 $ 404,798
Total Budgeted Expenditures $ 6,288,115 $ 1,137,707
Actual 2018 Expenditures
Incentives $ 4,878,494 $ 941,827
Non-Incentives and Labor a)$ 2,858,495 $ 337,839
Total Actual Expenditures $ 7,736,789 $ 1,279,666
Variance $ 1,448,674 $ 141,959
Note: Budget values are from the 2018 Annual Conservation Plan.
a) Non-Incentives and Labor includes all non-incentive implementation costs of the energy-efficiency program as well as NEEA market transformation expenditures.
The expenditure variance is mainly attributed to Avista’s 2018 site-specific program, which had a budgeted
expenditure of $640,000 and an actual incentive expenditure of $1,458,134. The company’s commercial/industrial
lighting programs also contributed to its incentive expenditures of $1,573,232, exceeding the planned expenditures
of $1,291,524 by $296,598. Table 5 illustrates the top five programs with the highest impact on the expenditure
variance.
TABLE 5 – PROGRAMS WITH HIGHEST IMPACT ON EXPENDITURE VARIANCE
Program Planned a)Actual Variance Variance Percentage
Site-Specific $ 640,000 $ 1,458,134 $ 818,134 128%
Exterior Prescriptive Lighting $ 250,860 $ 759,662 $ 508,802 203%
Interior Prescriptive Lighting $ 1,040,664 $ 813,570 $ (227,094)(22)%
Residential Fuel Conversions $ 526,800 $ 291,437 $ (235,363)(45)%
Multifamily Market Transformation $ 178,500 $ 301,000 $ 122,500 69%
a) Planned values are estimated incentive costs from the 2018 Annual Conservation Plan.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 9
EVALUATION APPROACH
Avista considers evaluation a critical element of a successful energy conservation program. The company incorporates
Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification (EM&V) activities to validate and report verified energy savings related to its
energy-efficiency measures and programs. Avista relies on EM&V recommendations to improve program performance,
enact changes to programs, and decide whether and when to phase out measures. Avista EM&V protocols represent
comprehensive analyses and assessments necessary to supply useful information to management and stakeholders.
Third-party EM&V firms generally conduct evaluations for Avista programs. They are selected on a two-year basis,
using a competitive bidding process managed by Avista’s supply chain management group. Once a contract has
been awarded, the third-party evaluator’s scope of work is managed by Avista’s planning and analytics team.
Recommendations pertaining to specific programs and related processes are provided to the company by the third-
party evaluator in impact and process evaluation report outputs. Avista tracks these recommendations and uses them
as inputs for the annual business planning process.
For 2018, Cadmus was retained to conduct impact and process evaluations of electric and natural gas programs
in Avista’s Idaho program portfolio. The 2018 EM&V budget provides for third-party EM&V services that deliver an
evaluation of the 2018 program year portfolio, along with consolidating these findings with results obtained for 2017.
As in past reporting periods, Avista continued to use a portfolio-wide evaluation approach to provide a comprehensive
benchmark to compare against future years. Impact and process evaluations for most programs were also completed
at the program level, so that each program’s customer experience could be better informed and realization rates at
the program level could be understood.
To support planning and reporting requirements, several guiding EM&V documents are maintained and published.
This includes the Avista EM&V framework, an annual EM&V plan, and EM&V contributions within other DSM and
Avista corporate publications. Program-specific EM&V plans are created as required to inform and benefit the DSM
activities. These documents are reviewed and updated as necessary, serving to improve the processes and protocols
for energy-efficiency measurement, evaluation, and verification.
EM&V efforts will also be applied to evaluating emerging technologies and applications in consideration of potential
inclusion in the company’s energy-efficiency portfolio. In the electric portfolio, Avista may spend up to 10 percent
of its conservation budget on programs whose savings impacts have not yet been measured if the overall portfolio
of conservation passes the applicable cost-effectiveness test. These programs may include educational, behavioral
change, and other types of investigatory projects. Specific activities can include product and application document
reviews, development of formal evaluation plans, field studies, data collection, statistical analysis, and solicitation of
user feedback.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 10
Avista and its customers benefit from regional activities and resources in the energy-efficiency and conservation
domain. To engage with and contribute to regional efforts, one Avista staff member has a voting role and a second
has a corresponding member role on the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) that serves as an advisory committee to
the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). The RTF is a primary source of information relating to the
standardization of energy savings and measurement processes for electric applications in the Pacific Northwest.
This knowledge base provides energy efficiency data, metrics, non-energy benefits, and references that are suitable
for inclusion in Avista’s Technical Reference Manual (TRM) relating to acquisition planning and reporting. In addition,
the company engages with other Northwest utilities and the NEEA in various pilot projects or subcommittee
evaluations. Portions of the energy-efficiency savings acquired through the NEEA’s programs within the region are
attributable to Avista’s portfolio.
Avista’s commitment to the critical role of EM&V is supported by the company’s continued focus on the development
of best practices for its processes and reporting. Application of the principles of the International Performance
Measurement and Verification Protocol serves to guide measurement and verification plans applied to Avista
programs. In addition, the recent compilation of EM&V protocols released under the U.S. Department of Energy’s
Uniform Methods Project will be considered and applied where possible to support consistency and credibility of the
reported results. The verification of a statistically significant number of projects is often extrapolated to verify and
perform impact analysis on complete programs within reasonable standards of rigor and degree of conservatism.
This process serves to ensure that Avista will manage its DSM portfolio in a manner consistent with both utility and
public interests.
Evaluation Methodology and Activities
Cadmus conducted the Idaho portfolio impact evaluation using a variety of methods and activities. Table 6 below lays
out evaluation activities for each program in the electric portfolio. Process evaluation activities are described in more
detail in the “Customer Satisfaction” sections on page 20 for commercial/industrial and page 53 for residential.
TABLE 6 – PROGRAM EVALUATION ACTIVITIES – ELECTRIC
Sector Program Document/Database
Review
Verification/Metering
Site Visits
Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive (Multiple)✔✔
Site-Specific ✔✔
Residential
Simple Steps, Smart Savings ✔--
HVAC ✔--
Shell ✔--
ENERGY STAR Homes ✔--
Multifamily Direct Install ✔--
Low-Income Low-Income ✔--
Fuel Efficiency
Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific ✔--
Residential Prescriptive ✔--
Low-Income ✔--
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 11
Cadmus took a tailored approach to sample design for each of the three sectors previously. More details about sample
design are included in program-specific sections later in this report. Table 7 below lays out evaluation activities for
each program in the natural gas portfolio.
TABLE 7 – PROGRAM EVALUATION ACTIVITIES – NATURAL GAS
Sector Program Document/Database
Review
Verification/Metering
Site Visits
Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive (Multiple)✔✔
Site-Specific ✔✔
Residential
Simple Steps, Smart Savings ✔--
HVAC ✔--
Shell ✔--
ENERGY STAR Homes ✔--
Multifamily Direct Install ✔--
Low-Income Low-Income ✔--
Fuel Efficiency
Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific ✔--
Residential Prescriptive ✔--
Low-Income ✔--
Impact Evaluation Results, Portfolio
Cadmus found the following realization rates in the Idaho program portfolios:
◆Electric: 98 percent realization rate and 29,805,007 kWh in annual verified savings (Table 2 on page 7).
◆Natural Gas: 100 percent realization rate and 247,756 therms in annual gross savings (Table 3 on page 7).
Cadmus collected the Avista-reported savings through database extracts from Avista’s customer care and billing
(residential) and InforCRM (commercial/industrial) databases and from data provided by third-party implementers to
determine the verified savings that represent the company’s findings. In the second year of the two-year evaluation
cycle (2019), Cadmus will conduct utility billing regression analyses to evaluate the most accurate energy savings for
most residential programs.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 12
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Before implementing any new program, Avista conducts analyses to determine whether that program is cost-effective
both from the company’s and from customers’ perspectives. Avista uses four metrics to evaluate cost-effectiveness:
the Utility Cost Test (UCT), the Total Resource Cost (TRC), the Participant Cost Test (PCT), and the Ratepayer Impact
Test (RIM). For Idaho programs, the UCT is the most important. Avista’s cost effectiveness goal is for all – except low-
income – programs to have a UCT above 1.00, which indicates that the benefits to the utility exceed the costs of
implementing the program. In 2018, the UCT benefit/cost ratios were 1.99 for electric and 2.15 for natural gas.
TABLE 8 – PORTFOLIO COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS (COMBINED ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS)
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit-Cost Ratio
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 21,196,887 $ 8,182,178 2.59
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 23,098,758 $ 12,310,887 1.88
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 38,086,627 $ 10,623,313 3.59
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 21,196,887 $ 31,405,373 0.67
Tables 9 and 10 show cost-effectiveness by fuel type. The UCT benefit/cost ratios for the electric and natural gas
portfolios are 1.99 and 2.15, respectively.
TABLE 9 – ELECTRIC PORTFOLIO COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit-Cost Ratio
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 19,018,718 $ 7,156,781 2.66
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 20,920,589 $ 10,099,612 2.07
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 34,407,265 $ 8,510,017 4.04
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 19,018,718 $ 29,867,430 0.64
TABLE 10 – NATURAL GAS PORTFOLIO COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit-Cost Ratio
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 2,178,169 $ 1,025,397 2.12
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 2,178,169 $ 2,211,275 0.99
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 3,679,362 $ 2,113,295 1.74
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 2,178,169 $ 1,537,943 1.42
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 13
Table 11 contains cost-effectiveness results for 2018 programs by sector.
TABLE 11 – PORTFOLIO BENEFIT/COST RATIOS
Benefit Cost Ratios Residential Low Income Commercial/Industrial
Electric Gas Total Electric Gas Total Electric Gas Total
Utility Cost Test (UCT)2.25 3.35 2.46 0.59 0.15 0.44 3.22 1.84 3.18
Total Resource Cost (TRC)2.17 1.18 1.81 1.05 0.17 0.67 2.09 0.74 2.03
Participant Cost Test (PCT)5.03 1.94 3.66 3.05 1.37 2.32 3.79 0.96 3.67
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)1.11 2.25 1.28 0.48 0.13 0.36 0.54 0.77 0.55
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SECTOR
Downtown Coeur d’Alene, Idaho
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 15
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SECTOR
Overview
The commercial/industrial energy-efficiency market is served through a combination of prescriptive and site-specific
programs. Any savings measure not offered through the prescriptive program – and/or that does not meet its
parameters – is automatically eligible for treatment through the site-specific program, subject to the criteria for
participation in that program.
The prescriptive program path is selected for smaller, straightforward equipment installations that generally have
similar operating characteristics (such as lighting, simple HVAC systems, food service equipment, and variable
frequency drives).
The site-specific program path is reserved for more unique or complex projects that require custom savings
calculations and technical assistance from Avista’s energy engineers (such as compressed air, process equipment and
controls, and comprehensive lighting retrofits). In certain instances, a performance basis approach is used.
◆690 commercial/industrial electric measures in 2018: total savings of 22,897,942 kWh, a decrease of
47 percent from the previous year (42,962,098 kWh). Most of this decrease was due to a year-over-year
reduction in LED lighting measures.
◆40 commercial/industrial natural gas measures in Idaho in 2018: total savings of 34,992 therms, a
decrease of 51 percent from the previous year (71,183 therms). Prescriptive food service equipment achieved
savings of 8,871 therms, followed by site-specific EnergySmart Grocer case door savings of 8,402 therms
(25 percent and 24 percent of total commercial/industrial savings, respectively). Prescriptive HVAC and
insulation and site-specific HVAC combined measures provided the remaining 18 percent of commercial/
industrial natural gas savings.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 16
TABLE 12 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL VERIFIED SAVINGS BY PROGRAM
Commercial/Industrial Program Type Electric Program Natural Gas Program
EnergySmart Grocer Prescriptive Cases Prescriptive 3,402 kWh 0 Therms
Prescriptive Commercial HVAC Prescriptive 0 kWh 3,956 Therms
Prescriptive Food Service Equipment Prescriptive 8,527 kWh 8,871 Therms
Prescriptive Green Motors Rewind Prescriptive 42,870 kWh 0 Therms
Prescriptive Insulation Prescriptive 929 kWh 1,149 Therms
Prescriptive Exterior Lighting Prescriptive 4,243,826 kWh 0 Therms
Prescriptive Interior Lighting Prescriptive 8,012,238 kWh 0 Therms
Prescriptive Motor Controls HVAC Prescriptive 113,171 kWh 0 Therms
Site-Specific EnergySmart Grocer Case Doors Site-Specific 198,157 kWh 8,402 Therms
Site-Specific EnergySmart Grocer Cases Site-Specific 27,026 kWh 0 Therms
Site-Specific EnergySmart Grocer Controls Site-Specific 37,295 kWh 0 Therms
Site-Specific Compressed Air Site-Specific 1,882,520 kWh 0 Therms
Site-Specific HVAC Combined Site-Specific 99,058 kWh 1,266 Therms
Site-Specific HVAC Heating Site-Specific 2,168 kWh 0 Therms
Site-Specific Industrial Process Site-Specific 5,229,153 kWh 11,348 Therms
Site-Specific Exterior Lighting Site-Specific 1,375,335 kWh 0 Therms
Site-Specific Interior Lighting Site-Specific 1,302,913 kWh 0 Therms
Site-Specific Shell Site-Specific 117,028 kWh 0 Therms
Site-Specific Multifamily Fuel Conv.202,324 kWh 0 Therms
Total Commercial/Industrial 22,897,942 kWh 34,992 Therms
Interactive Effects (Therm Offsets)0 kWh (10,441) Therms
Total Commercial/Industrial after Interactive Effects 22,897,942 kWh 24,552 Therms
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 17
Marketing
Avista published two advertorials in 2018 to increase awareness of its energy-efficiency programs for commercial
and industrial customers. The first advertorial (Figure 6) showcased three developers who endorsed the company’s
Multifamily Natural Gas Incentive Program, and included a feature of an apartment building in downtown
Coeur d’Alene. The article highlighted participating developers who installed nearly 2,000 natural gas-heated
multifamily units, leading to more than 7,000,000 kilowatt-hours of energy savings. The piece was placed in multiple
local, regional, and trade publications in March and April, and again from June through October, resulting in more
than 700,000 total impressions.
FIGURE 6 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL MULTIFAMILY NATURAL GAS INCENTIVE PROGRAM ADVERTORIAL
Developers can
get up to $3,500
per unit to install
natural gas.
Local developers are installing natural gas in their multifamily projects, as this clean, economical fuel adds value to their buildings. The cost for them to do so is also making financial sense now that one regional energy provider, Avista, is providing builders and developers with cash incentives. Avista generates approximately half of its electricity
from hydropower. And while the company embraces
renewables such as wind and solar, these are considered
intermittent energy resources (i.e., the wind does not
always blow, especially in extreme cold temperatures when demand for electricity is at its peak). About 35% of the utility’s diverse resource mix comes from natural gas, which provides reliable and affordable energy for many of its customers. “As demand for energy grows, we’re always looking for ways to increase energy efficiency,” explains Avista Account Executive Sue Baldwin. “To help meet this demand, we burn natural gas in combustion turbines to generate electricity. However, when gas is converted to
electricity and sent over power lines to our customers,
nearly half of that energy produced is lost. That’s why
delivering it directly to a home for heating is much more efficient than using electricity.” And that’s also why Avista is offering incentives to assist developers in bringing this plentiful and versatile fuel to multifamily projects. Avista’s program provides up to $3,500 per unit for installation of either space heating, hot water, or a combination of both (capped at 100% of
“We recognize there is a greater cost and additional effort to install natural gas, but the quality of the building is so much better,” says Gervais. “And with Avista’s help to offset some of those costs, it’s definitely worth it.” Another development company that has partnered with Avista is Diamond Rock Construction in Spokane Valley. Diamond Rock has been building quality
Spokane-area homes for over 20 years. The company
also develops unique multifamily dwellings, one of its
latest being Bella Tess, an upper-end apartment complex in the Valley, near the scenic Spokane River and Centennial Trail. According to Baldwin, Diamond Rock is the area’s first developer to successfully determine how to make three-story buildings pencil out using Avista’s incentive. “We had to feel good about bridging the financial gap ourselves,” says Diamond Rock President Dennis Crapo. “Avista’s incentive program certainly helped with that.”
Diamond Rock chose natural gas heating for
Bella Tess because it fits the company’s environmentally-
conscious vision for the property (even the center of
the club house has a 15-foot tree growing under a skylight). According to Crapo, the Bella Tess property is Green Globe certified—a nationally recognized, green-rating assessment program that promotes adopting sustainability goals with construction projects. Crapo listed several things that contribute to Green Globe status, including quality of the windows, thickness of the walls, amount of insulation and other improvements. A high-efficiency natural gas furnace also contributes, as does its integral central air.
“In addition to the energy-efficiency benefits,
natural gas is also a plus for our tenants,” said Crapo.
“Once people experience the comfort that natural gas provides—especially during our cold winter months—they’ll begin to expect it in other apartment buildings.” Natural gas space heating is just one of the ways developers are taking advantage of Avista’s incentive. Baker Construction & Development, Inc. of Spokane found natural gas hot water to be a perfect solution for its latest 61-unit/214-bedroom apartment building, 940 North.
the incremental cost to install natural gas). Available in Avista’s Washington and Idaho service territory through
2018, the incentive is for construction projects with five
or more units per building.
One of the developers to take advantage of Avista’s
program is Greg Gervais, co-founder of Copper Basin Construction. The Hayden Lake, Idaho-based company specializes in commercial and residential land development and is today one of the Inland Northwest’s largest multifamily builders.
According to Gervais, installing gas heat requires
additional framing (such as soffits for ductwork), along
with multiple stages of sheetrocking and added fire prevention between floors. Gervais installed natural gas in his latest project, the sophisticated 728 apartments in downtown Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Gervais explained that he is after high-caliber tenants who want some of the amenities they would enjoy with a house. A natural gas furnace lets him provide space heating and central air without unsightly wall heaters and window cooling units. Natural gas also supplies faster and more even heat throughout
the apartment.
The company has been an industry leader in the western U.S. for seven decades. Their new 940 North building in Spokane serves as premier student housing primarily for Gonzaga University. According to V.P. of Construction Lucas Holmquist, the luxurious 3- and 4-bedroom floor plans are designed much like a traditional college dorm, where student tenants
share the apartment’s main living spaces.
“For that reason alone, it made sense to install a central
natural gas water heater system instead of individual
electric water heaters,” says Holmquist. Most students take showers early in the morning before classes, he explained. The endless supply of hot water keeps roommates happy because the last one out of bed doesn’t end up with a cold shower. “The building’s owner also benefits,” he says. “This natural gas solution means fewer maintenance costs and a longer life cycle for the system. It’s better for the environment, too.”
Developers interested in the incentive program should
contact Avista early in the process. “We want to help as
much as we can,” says Baldwin, “and avoid engineers and architects having to redesign their plans to accommodate a different system.” To date, participating developers have installed nearly 2,000 gas-heated multifamily units. “That converts to more than 7,000,000 kilowatt-hours of energy savings,” said Baldwin.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
LUCAS HOLMQUIST, V.P. OF CONSTRUCTION, BAKER CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, INC.
DENNIS CRAPO, DIAMOND ROCK PRESIDENT
GREG GERVAIS, CO-FOUNDER OF COPPER BASIN CONSTRUCTION, WITH SUE BALDWIN, AVISTA ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE
Natural gas benefits builders and tenants.
To learn more about Avista’s Multifamily Natural Gas Incentive Program, contact Sue Baldwin at 208-769-1340, or [e-mail]
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 18
The second advertorial (Figure 7) was focused on lighting, and featured a small business, a medium-sized company,
and a large industrial customer. Its purpose was to illustrate how Avista can help customers of all sizes become
more energy-efficient with lighting improvements. The advertorial ran in local, regional, trade, and nationally zoned
publications from July through December, delivering more than 320,000 impressions.
FIGURE 7 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING PROGRAM ADVERTORIAL
Avista also continued to build awareness of energy-efficiency and related programs through an electronic newsletter
sent to commercial customers. As opportunities arose, the company also provided energy-efficiency tips – related to
winter weather and summer heat – to local media outlets. Avista updates area vendors about program information
through mailings and webinars; they in turn pass that information on to customers.
Outreach efforts included refreshing commercial program collateral and forms as well as launching additional trade
ally tools in Avista’s iEnergy DSM Central software.
Interior lighting can be a signifi cant portion of a building’s electric usage. On average, lighting accounts for 30% of the annual electricity use in
commercial buildings. The numbers climb even higher in healthcare environments (43%) and warehouses (80%).
Without a doubt, outdated and ineffi cient lighting can hurt the bottom line of companies big and small. That’s why Avista is helping businesses
upgrade to newer, more energy-effi cient lighting and technologies by offering valuable incentives and rebates.
Large companies like Clearwater Paper Corporation have seen the light. The national pulp
and paper product manufacturer upgraded lighting inside its Consumer Products Division building at its Lewiston, Idaho facility.
which now stays lit four times longer than the previous system.
This was the third time Clearwater Paper has partnered with Avista to upgrade their lighting. “So far, they’ve received more than $1,000,000
in energy-effi ciency rebates and reduced their electric usage by over 7,000,000 kilowatt-hours annually,” said Avista Account Executive
Ed Arnhold. Mid-sized companies like Parkwood Business Properties are also saving big with Avista’s
incentives. The Coeur d’Alene, Idaho-based commercial real estate development and property management fi rm leases a variety of
offi ce, retail, and fl ex-tech space throughout Northern Idaho. Parkwood partnered with Avista to retrofi t
interior lighting in its commercial buildings. One building alone—their 700 Ironwood/1919 Lincoln medical building complex, which houses
the Cancer Center in Coeur d’Alene—is now saving the company nearly $78,000 in annual energy costs.
“We’re always looking for opportunities to lower operating costs and keep rents as low as possible for our tenants,” said Steve Meyer, one
of four partners at the fi rm. In total, the company has completed 33 interior lighting projects and received more than
$300,000 in rebates from Avista. “They’ve done a great job,” said Avista Account Executive Sharmon Schmitt.
“Altogether, the lighting upgrades reduced their electric usage by 2.6 million kilowatt-hours annually, saving them approximately $180,000
a year.” Parkwood is also saving over $50,000 in annual maintenance costs.
They swapped out 900 outdated metal halides with higher-effi ciency LEDs, saving as much as 325 watts per fi xture.
They also installed a control system to optimize lighting for their facility’s mix of humans and automation. It consists of a grid of
light fi xtures, each with separate identifi cation numbers. Using a laptop, employees can program lighting parameters via WiFi.
Lighting can be automatically increased in areas such as their warehouse, where employees work or manned vehicles are detected, or
lighting can be reduced where unmanned laser-guided forklifts operate. “We want to be good stewards of the
environment,” said Plant Manager Donnie Ely. “So it’s great to have Avista’s help with energy projects that fi t our corporate sustainability goals
as well as save money.” The company is saving on maintenance and replacement costs, too, since LEDs have a life
expectancy of ten years. Plus, 90% of the fi xtures have battery power for emergency lighting,
“We used to receive up to 20 calls a month to change bulbs,” said Parkwood Facilities Manager
Jeff Mallett. “Thanks to longer-lasting LEDs, calls have nearly gone to zero.” Avista helps small businesses, too, like the Tin
Roof, Spokane’s local and national award-winning home furnishings store. The family-owned and -operated company has always been
energy-conscious. “Earlier, we paid to replace our store’s older halogen lights with CFLs,” said co-owner Jim
Hanley. “So when we were approached about Avista’s program to retrofi t our lighting for free, we jumped at the chance.”
ADVERTISEMENTCLEARWATER PAPER CORPORATION, (LEFT TO RIGHT) Levi Westra, Engineer, Avista; Ed Arnhold, Account Executive, Avista; Todd Mooers, Senior Process Control Engineer, Clearwater Paper; and Mike Lohman, Maintenance Supervisor,
Clearwater Paper
How Avista is lowering lighting costs
for companies of every size.
PARKWOOD BUSINESS PROPERTIES, (LEFT TO RIGHT) Jeff Mallett, Facilities Manager, Parkwood; Ryan Nipp, Partner, Parkwood; Sharmon Schmitt, Account Executive, Avista; and Chris Meyer, Partner, Parkwood
As part of the program, the Tin Roof was able to upgrade 20 T-12 lamps to LEDs. They also received a supplemental lighting rebate to do an additional
ten lamps. According to Avista Program Manager Greta Zink, the Tin Roof has reduced its annual electric usage by more than 10,000 kilowatt-hours a year. “Like many small retail businesses, we operate on slim margins,” said Hanley, “so the savings we’ve obtained with Avista’s help makes a real difference.”
To learn more about Avista’s energy effi ciency programs, visit myavista.com/bizrebates or email [e-mail]. All Avista customers may be eligible for energy effi ciency rebates.
Lighting accounts for 30% of the
average annual electricity use in
commercial buildings.
THE TIN ROOF, (LEFT TO RIGHT) Jim Hanley, Business Co-Owner, the Tin Roof, and Greta Zink, Program Manager, Avista
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 19
FIGURE 8 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY REBATES FLIER AND FORMS
Commercial Lighting
The benefits of upgrading to more efficient lights include: enhanced lighting
quality, energy savings, cost savings and reduced maintenance.
Commercial Insulation
Adding insulation can make your business more energy efficient
and comfortable.
Food Service Equipment
Replacing inefficient equipment in your commercial kitchen will save
you money.
EnergySmart Grocer
For customers with commercial refrigeration (grocery stores, supermarkets,
convenience stores), this program helps to upgrade equipment and streamline
operations for the highest possible energy savings.
Green Motors Rewind
Even the best new motors lose efficiency. A bad repair/rewind can adversely
affect all motor characteristics. This incentive program ensures quality
rewinding (commonly called a “green rewind”) that results in the motor
maintaining its original efficiency.
Variable Frequency Drive (VFD)
If you are using single-speed motors to drive fans or pumps, you may be able
to save energy through the use of a VFD. This can be an efficient way to
convert, for example, constant-volume air systems into variable volume.
Commercial Natural Gas HVAC Program
Are you thinking about replacing your natural gas furnace or boiler? Installing
energy-efficient heating equipment will reduce your operating costs and save
your business energy if the new model meets certain efficiency specifications.
Air Guardian Program
Avista customers with rotary screw compressors of at least 15 horsepower
may save energy with this program.
Rebates are available for lighting retrofits and
installation of occupancy sensors.
Rebates are available for the installation of
energy-efficient wall, attic and roof insulation.
Rebates are available and vary depending
on project.
Rebates are available and vary depending
on the horsepower of the motor.
Rebates are available and vary depending
on project.
Rebates are available and vary depending
on project.
Rebates are available and vary depending
on project.
Rebates are available for a variety of
equipment including: fryers, steam cookers,
ovens and ice makers.
For full details and forms, go to avistautilities.com/bizrebates or call our Business Service Line at 800-936-6629.2017
Valuable Energy Solutions for Commercial and Industrial Customers
Energy Saving Opportunities Available Rebates
Fleet Heat
Looking to save money while keeping your fleet heated and ready to start?
The Twinstart™ heater cord by HOTSTART may be your answer.
Rebates are available.
We want to make your
operation
more efficient.
Let Avista show you ways to operate more
efficiently and save on energy costs—not
to mention improve your comfort and air
quality while lessening your environmental
impact. We also offer rebates and incentives
to help get you there.
Standard rebates
Get rebates on smaller projects, such as switching to LED lighting, upgrading
food service equipment or installing a natural gas furnace. See our entire list
of standard rebates online, where you’ll find downloadable forms to mail in.
Custom or site-specific incentives
Whether you’re planning a new building or upgrading an existing one,
let Avista help identify opportunities where you can receive energy
efficiency incentives and save. Just make sure to get Avista involved
before you start your project. To learn more, contact your Avista account
executive or call 800-936-6629.
Reduce your growing energy
demands through efficiency.
Take advantage of ourexpertise along with rebates and incentives.
Fleet Heat Program
Looking to save money while keeping your fleet heated and ready to start? The TwinStat™ heater cord is the answer to your fleet readiness needs.  
The TwinStat™ cord combines an engine-mounted remote thermostat with an ambient temperature thermostat to maximize energy efficiency. When the weather is warm, the heater will remain off, saving energy. When the temperature drops, the heater will automatically begin heating your engine – without any timers or guesswork.Available with push-on or threaded connection adaptors in a variety of cord lengths, the TwinStat™ cord easily installs with your existing in-block heater.
Avista is offering this Fleet Heat program for Avista electric customers on a nonresidential rate schedule who are currently using uncontrolled block heaters to keep engines warm when the vehicles are not running during the winter months. This program provides the customer with a smart block heating system which monitors through thermostatic controls both the water temperature in the block and the air temperature outside the block. It will be the customer’s responsibility to install the cord on their fleet within 30 days of receipt of the cords. Technical help is available from HOTSTART® to make sure the installation goes smoothly. These heater cords will keep electricity costs lower for plugged-in fleets and make engine starts easier.
Instructions for participating in this program:Complete this agreement in its entirety. One form per Avista meter number please. For projects done at multiple locations, a separate form must be completed for each Avista meter number. After completing this form and mailing it to Avista, your Fleet Heat eligibility will be verified and your order will be placed. When the cords are available, they will be shipped directly to you. You will have 30 days to install the cords on your fleet. Technical help will be available if needed to ensure your install is correct. At the end of 30 days, Avista will do an installation verification. Your cords must be installed at this time.
For more information please contact your Avista Account Executive or Greta Zink at 509.495.4793 or [e-mail].
CONTACT NAME AND TITLE CONTACT PHONE CONTACT EMAIL
BUSINESS NAME AVISTA ACCOUNT NUMBER AVISTA PREMISE NUMBER APPLICATION DATE
MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP
PROJECT SITE ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP
I certify that I meet the eligibility requirements of this program and that all statements made on this Agreement, including invoices and/or receipts, are correct to the best of my knowledge. I agree to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.
SIGNATURE DATE
FEDERAL TAX ID NUMBER
Mail completed, signed application and all corresponding documents to: Avista Utilities, Fleet Heat Program, PO Box 3727, MSC-15, Spokane, WA 99220-3727
INCENTIVE LEVELS ARE CHANGINGThis form is valid until January 31, 2017. Installation of measures and all required paperwork, must be submitted (postmarked) to Avista no later than January 31, 2017. New forms and information will be made available prior to January 1, 2017 www.avistautilities.com/savings/rebates/.
Continued on next page 01/18
Commercial Insulation Program
If the scope of your project does not fit into the parameters of this program, please contact your Avista Account Executive PRIOR to beginning your project. You may be eligible for a site specific or custom incentive. Visit avistautilities.com for more information.
BUSINESS NAME AVISTA ACCOUNT NUMBER BUSINESS PHONE
CONTACT NAME EMAIL INSTALLATION DATE
MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP
PROJECT SITE ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP
Fill out all applicable spaces on this form, sign, attach invoices and mail to:
Avista Utilities, Commercial Shell Program, MSC-15, P.O. Box 3727, Spokane, WA 99220-3727
For more information contact your Avista Account Executive or Greta Zink at 509-495-4793 or [e-mail]
Terms & Conditions
Additional Terms & Conditions listed on last page.
Rebate Offer: Rebates are available for the installation of qualifying insulation in existing buildings with a current heating footprint, whose primary heat source is provided by Avista Utilities on a non-residential retail rate schedule. Details of this program, including rebate levels, are subject to change without prior notice.
Proof of Purchase: Copies of invoice(s) itemizing the materials purchased and labor charges, if applicable, with verification of R-Value and square feet for insulation must accompany this Agreement. Forms without verification cannot be processed. Rebate Agreement must be returned within 90 days of installation. Insulation must be contractor installed. Contractor must certify cost, square footage, existing and new levels of insulation. Invoices must be itemized.
Payment: Insulation must be purchased and installed before payment can be issued. Rebate payments will not exceed invoiced cost. Rebates are not valid in combination with any other Avista incentives/rebates. Allow 4–6 weeks for processing and payment of rebate.
Verification: Avista reserves the right to verify installations anytime before or after payment is issued.
PRIMARY HEAT SOURCE: Avista Electric Avista Natural Gas Other
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF FACILITY:
TYPE OF FACILITY COOLING SYSTEM: ThruWall AC Window AC Central air cooled Window cooled Heat Pump None
TYPE OF FACILITY HEATING SYSTEM: Electric resistive Heat Pump Natural gas furnace Natural gas boiler
ARE YOU PLANNING ANY MAJOR CHANGES TO THE FACILITY OCCUPANCY OR SPACE IN THE FUTURE? Yes No
INCENTIVE LEVELS ARE CHANGINGThis form is valid until January 31, 2017. Installation of measures and all required paperwork, must be submitted (postmarked) to Avista no later than January 31, 2017. New forms and information will be made available prior to January 1, 2017 www.avistautilities.com/savings/rebates/.
Continued on next page 01/18
Commercial Natural Gas HVAC Program
If the scope of your project does not fit into the parameters of this program, please contact your Avista Account Executive PRIOR to beginning your project. You may be eligible for a site specific or custom incentive. Visit avistautilities.com for more information.
BUSINESS NAME AVISTA ACCOUNT NUMBER BUSINESS PHONE
CONTACT NAME EMAIL INSTALLATION DATE
MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP
PROJECT SITE ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP
Fill out all applicable spaces on this form, sign, attach invoices and mail to: Avista Utilities, Commercial Natural Gas HVAC Program, MSC-15, P.O. Box 3727, Spokane, WA 99220-3727 For more information contact your Avista Account Executive or Greta Zink at 509-495-4793 or [e-mail]
Terms & Conditions
Additional Terms & Conditions listed on back.
Rebate Offer: Rebates are available for the installation of qualifying new equipment listed in the table below. Rebates are available for commercial facilities with retail natural gas service provided by Avista Utilities on a non-residential rate schedule. Details of this program, including rebate levels, are subject to change without prior notice.
Proof of Purchase: Copies of invoice(s) itemizing the new equipment purchased and labor charges, if applicable, must accompany this Agreement. Manufacturer and model number of purchased equipment must be included on the invoice and an AHRI Certificate is required to verify the Btu input. Rebate Agreement must be returned within 90 days of installation.
Payment: Equipment must be purchased and installed before payment can be issued. Rebate payments will not exceed invoiced cost. Rebates are not valid in combination with any other Avista incentives/rebates. Allow 4–6 weeks for processing and payment of rebate.
Verification: Avista reserves the right to verify installations anytime before or after payment is issued.
New Equipment Purchased and Installed (New Construction or Retrofit)
Square footage of total facility: _____________ Square footage of area being heated by this equipment: _____________
Heating System Incentive per Input kBtu
90%–94.9% AFUE NG Single Stage Furnace <225 kBtu/hr $4.50
95% AFUE or greater NG Single Stage Furnace <225 kBtu/hr $6.00 90%–94.9%AFUE or greater NG Multi Stage Furnace <225 kBtu/hr $6.00 95% AFUE or greater NG Multi Stage Furnace <225 kBtu/hr $7.50
85%–89.9% AFUE NG Boiler <300 kBtu/hr $5.00
90% AFUE or greater NG Boiler <300 kBtu/hr $8.00
X =$$
MANUFACTURER MODEL KBTU/HR REBATE/UNIT REBATE TOTAL PROJECT COST
I certify that I meet the eligibility requirements of this program and that all statements made on this Agreement, including invoices and/or receipts, are correct to the best of my knowledge. I agree to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.
SIGNATURE DATE FEDERAL TAX ID NUMBER
INCENTIVE LEVELS ARE CHANGINGThis form is valid until January 31, 2017. Installation of measures and all required paperwork, must be submitted (postmarked) to Avista no laterthan January 31, 2017. New forms and information will be made available prior to January 1, 2017 www.avistautilities.com/savings/rebates/.
Continued on next page 01/18
Compressed Air & Facility Efficiency ProgramEligibility & Installation Form
01/18
Business Information - (To Be Completed by an Avista AE or 4Sight Energy Group during Phone Call/Site Visit)
BUSINESS NAME AVISTA ACCOUNT NUMBER
MAIN CONTACT AVISTA PREMISE NUMBER
PHONE NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS POSITION
PHYSICAL ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP

Best available time for installation:
DAYS OF THE WEEK: MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN
AVAILABLE TIME(S):

Eligibility Information - (To Be Completed by 4Sight Energy Group during Phone Call/Site Visit)
Facility Operations:
DAYS OF THE WEEK: MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN
NUMBER OF SHIFTS NORMAL HOURS OF OPERATION AIR SYSTEM USE BEGINS AIR SYSTEM USE ENDS
DO ANY PARTS OF THE SYSTEM OPERATE ON DIFFERENT BUT PREDICTABLE SCHEDULES?
LOCATION OF CLOSEST POWER OUTLET
Compressed Air System:
NUMBER OF COMPRESSSORS PIPE DIAMETER CLOSEST POWER OUTLET (FT)
TYPE OF PIPING TENTATIVE LOCATION OF DEVICE
www.myavista.com© 2018 AVISTA CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Commercial Food ServiceEquipment Rebate Agreement
For more information contact your Avista account executive or Greta Zink, 509-495-4793, [e-mail].
BUSINESS NAME AVISTA ACCOUNT NUMBER BUSINESS PHONE
CONTACT NAME EMAIL INSTALLATION DATE
MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP
PROJECT SITE ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP
Did you buy the equipment to replace existing equipment? Yes No
If yes, was the equipment functioning properly? Yes No
Please fill out if you’re requesting a dishwasher rebate:
Type of Hot Water Heat: Electric Natural Gas
Type of Booster Heater: Electric Natural Gas
Terms & Conditions
Additional Terms & Conditions listed on last page.
Rebate Offer: Rebates are available for the installation of equipment listed on the Commercial Food Service Equipment Table. Electric rebates are available for non-residential facilities with electric service provided by Avista Utilities. Natural gas rebates are available for commercial facilities that receive retail gas from Avista Utilities. Details of this program, including rebate levels, are subject to change without prior notice.
Proof of Purchase: Copies of invoice(s) itemizing the new equipment purchased and labor charges, if applicable, must accompany this Agreement. Invoices
must correspond with the project being submitted with this Agreement and include the date of purchase. Manufacturer and model number of purchased equipment must be included on the invoice or a separate manufacturer specification sheet can be included. Rebate agreement must be returned within 90 days of installation.
Payment: Equipment must be purchased and installed before payment can be issued. Rebate payments will not exceed invoiced cost. Rebates are not valid in combination with any other Avista incentives/rebates. Allow 4–6 weeks for processing and payment of rebate.
Equipment Eligibility: See Commercial Food Service Equipment Table for equipment eligibility specifications. Eligibility for equipment improvements not listed in the Food Service Equipment Table must be handled on a site-specific basis. Contact your Avista representative before purchasing the equipment.
Verification: Avista reserves the right to verify installations anytime before or after payment is issued.
INCENTIVE LEVELS ARE CHANGINGThis form is valid until January 31, 2017. Installation of measures and all required paperwork, must be submitted (postmarked) to Avista no laterthan January 31, 2017. New forms and information will be made available prior to January 1, 2017 www.avistautilities.com/savings/rebates/.
Continued on next page 01/18
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 20
Customer Satisfaction
Cadmus was contracted in 2018 to conduct process evaluations on multiple commercial/industrial programs.
The methodology consisted of a mix of three approaches: interviews with Avista staff, interviews with implementer
staff, and an online participant survey. Programs were evaluated according to Table 13 below.
TABLE 13 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL EVALUATION TECHNIQUE BY PROGRAM
Program Avista Staff Interview Implementer Staff
Interview Participant Survey
Lighting ✔N/A ✔
HVAC, Shell, VFD, Food Service Equipment ✔N/A ✔
Green Motors ✔*✔
AirGuardian ✔✔N/A
Fleet Heat ✔N/A **
Site-Specific ✔N/A ✔
* Cadmus was unable to reach the Green Motors implementer in Q1 despite support from Avista.
** A small sample of Fleet Heat customers were included in the survey target but did not respond to online survey invitations.
Interviews with Avista and implementer staff focused on the following program topics:
◆Program roles and responsibilities
◆Program goals and objectives
◆Program design and implementation
◆Data tracking
◆Program participation
◆Marketing and outreach
◆Program successes
◆Market barriers
◆Program impact on the market
◆Future program changes including redesign
The online participant survey focused on a number of insights:
◆Program awareness
◆How respondents learned about the program
◆General program participation
◆Reasons for participation
◆Program benefits
◆Program delivery experience
◆Overall program satisfaction
◆Satisfaction with Avista
◆Current energy-efficient behaviors and
purchases
◆Suggestions for program improvements
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 21
Cadmus completed 65 online commercial/industrial participant surveys May–August 2018 and February–March 2019.
Cadmus sent email invitations to all eligible participants and one reminder email to any participants who did not
respond to the initial invitation. Cadmus field engineers also encouraged participants to complete the survey following
site visits. Overall, a response rate of 47 percent was realized (65 of 138 invited participants). Cadmus will review the
2019 evaluation plan with Avista to determine whether the 2018 response rate is adequate, or if efforts to increase
response rates within individual commercial/industrial programs should be considered.
Key Findings
Generally, participants were highly satisfied with commercial/industrial programs. All site-specific survey
respondents (n=19) and 91 percent of prescriptive survey respondents (n=46) were satisfied with the program.
Prescriptive survey respondents were highly satisfied with the pre-project inspection, the rebate amount, and the
process of completing and submitting their applications. Site-specific participants were very happy with Avista staff’s
help navigating the process.
Cadmus found that participants are motivated by saving energy and money, and that Avista’s rebate is
important in the decision to complete the energy-efficiency project. All site-specific and all but one of the
prescriptive survey respondents said the rebate provided by Avista was important in their decisions to complete the
project. Site-specific respondents indicated that the two most important criteria were return on investment and
initial cost of equipment, while prescriptive survey respondents chose maintenance costs and energy/operating costs.
Participants of both programs said that saving money and using less energy were the top benefits of participation.
Cadmus also found that participants most often learn about the program from Avista or a contractor, vendor,
or retailer, and that customers often participate in repeat conservation projects with Avista. In fact, two-thirds of
commercial/industrial survey respondents had participated in past business energy-efficiency programs.
Finally, Cadmus found that most survey respondents elected to receive a check directly from Avista rather than an
instant discount from their contractor. Only 6 of 56 respondents had opted for the instant discount, although many
may not have known about it. At least two respondents indicated that an instant rebate would be easier.
Recommendations
A small number of survey respondents said they received an instant discount from their contractor because it was
easier to have their contractor apply the discount to the total cost of the project. Cadmus recommended that Avista
should consider customer education around the ease of use for the instant discount option.
Other recommendations from Cadmus are summarized in the program by program summaries (see pages 25-43).
Avista has some interest in expanding the instant discount program and will consider approaches to increasing
customer uptake for 2019. Efficiency engineers already discuss this option with customers for site-specific projects,
but there may be an opportunity to better educate trade allies. Such an opportunity would need to take into account
perspectives of multiple contractors; for example, smaller contractors may be more averse to taking on the risk of the
final incentive amount differing from the estimated amount. If Avista decides to implement an instant rebate, the
company would also make efforts to educate its customers on its ease of use.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 22
Impact Evaluation: Commercial/Industrial Sector
While some individual project results varied, the overall commercial/industrial sector performed strongly in 2018.
Most of the projects Cadmus sampled for evaluation were well-documented and matched what was found during site
visit verification. Savings realization rates were as follows:
◆Electric: total verified savings of 22,898 MWh in 2018 with a combined realization rate of 99 percent
◆Natural Gas: total verified savings of 34,992 therms in 2018 with a combined realization rate of 91 percent
Performance and Savings Goals
The commercial/industrial sector also exceeded the combined prescriptive and site-specific program paths’ electric
savings goal of 13,007 MWh by 74 percent. The commercial/industrial sector fell short of the combined prescriptive
and site-specific program paths’ natural gas savings goal of 79,605 therms by 56 percent.
Impact Evaluation Methodology
To verify impact evaluation savings for the 2018 commercial/industrial sector, Cadmus performed several activities in
two waves:
◆Selected an evaluation sample and requested project documentation from Avista
◆Performed project documentation review
◆Prepared on-site M&V plans
◆Performed site visits and collected on-site data (such as trends, photos, and operating schedules)
◆Used site-visit findings to calculate verified savings by measure
◆Applied realization rates to total reported savings population to determine overall verified savings
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 23
Sample Design
For the first wave, Cadmus formed the evaluation sample January–April 2018 program data. The second-wave
evaluation sample was based on program data from May–December 2018. As a guideline, Cadmus used the
proposed overall 2018 and 2019 commercial/industrial sample sizes by subprogram in the M&V plan, seeking to
complete approximately one quarter of the sample during the first wave and another quarter during the second wave.
For each activity wave, submitted program applications were broken down by path and measure (such as site-specific
shell measure, prescriptive lighting, or prescriptive motor controls), allowing for the selection of highest-savings
applications in each category with certainty. For applications with reported savings greater than 1 percent of total
savings by category, Cadmus assigned arbitrary numbers and sampled randomly. Applications with less than 1 percent
of total savings by category were removed from the sample consideration, except where another application at the
same location or facility was previously selected.
Cadmus sampled randomly selected sites across both Idaho and Washington since Avista’s programs are implemented
similarly in both states. Results were pooled to calculate a realization rate by stratum, which was then applied to
projects in both states. Verified savings were applied for sites selected with certainty only to the state in which they
had been implemented.
Across both states, Cadmus sampled 40 prescriptive applications at 34 unique sites. Of the sampled applications, 21
were selected for certainty review based on the scale of savings, measure type, or location, with the remaining 19
selected randomly. There was no participation in the AirGuardian and Fleet Heat programs in Idaho in 2018.
For the Idaho service territory, 16 applications were sampled. See Table 14 below for details.
TABLE 14 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE ELECTRIC EVALUATION SAMPLE
Program Type Applications Sampled Sampled Savings
(kWh)
Percentage of Reported
Savings
Interior Lighting 6 2,311,797 29%
Exterior Lighting 2 110,360 3%
Shell Measure 1 198 21%
Green Motors 4 18,678 44%
Motor Control (VFD)2 104,755 93%
Fleet Heat 0 0 N/A
Food Service Equipment 0 0 0%
AirGuardian 0 0 N/A
EnergySmart Grocer 1 3,402 100%
Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive 16 2,549,190 20%
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 24
Document Review
Cadmus requested and reviewed project documentation for each sampled application and prepared M&V plans to
guide site visits. Project documentation typically included incentive applications, calculation tools, invoices, equipment
specification sheets, and post-inspection reports.
On-Site Verification
Cadmus performed site visits at 46 unique commercial/industrial locations to assess electric savings for 58 unique
prescriptive and site-specific measures (not including fuel efficiency measures). Site visits involved verifying the
installed equipment type, make and model numbers, operating schedules, and setpoints, as applicable. Cadmus
collected two weeks of trend data for two of the site-specific industrial process measures at one industrial site.
Project documentation review and on-site findings were used to adjust the reported savings calculations
where necessary.
Cost-Effectiveness
Tables 15 and 16 show the commercial/industrial sector cost-effectiveness results by fuel type.
TABLE 15 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
UCT $ 13,144,689 $ 4,087,552 3.22
TRC $ 14,459,158 $ 6,916,874 2.09
PCT $ 23,417,691 $ 6,181,653 3.79
RIM $ 13,144,689 $ 24,152,913 0.55
TABLE 16 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NATURAL GAS COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
UCT $ 225,802 $ 122,997 1.84
TRC $ 225,802 $ 303,805 0.74
PCT $ 256,647 $ 268,334 0.96
RIM $ 225,802 $ 292,118 0.77
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 25
Program by Program Summaries
Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program
TABLE 17 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE-SPECIFIC PROGRAM METRICS
Site-Specific Program Summary – Electric 2018
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 77
Overall kWh Savings a)10,205,592
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 1,717,120
Site-Specific Program Summary – Natural Gas 2018
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 5
Overall Therm Savings 21,016
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend
a) Metrics do not include non-residential fuel conversion projects; fuel conversion project metrics are on page 32 under Multifamily Market Transformation.
Description
The site-specific program path is the most comprehensive offering for the commercial/industrial sector. Avista’s
account executives work with commercial/industrial customers to assist with identifying energy-efficiency
opportunities. Customers receive technical support in determining potential energy and cost savings, as well as for
identifying and estimating incentives for participation. Site-specific program path incentives are capped at 70 percent
of the incremental cost for all projects with simple paybacks of less than 15 years. All projects must have a measured
life of 10 years or more. Avista’s program approach strives for a flexible response to energy-efficiency projects that
have demonstrable kWh/therm savings within program criteria. The majority of site-specific kWh/therm savings are
composed of custom lighting projects that don’t fit the prescriptive path: appliances, compressed air, HVAC, industrial
process, motors, shell measures, and natural gas multifamily market transformation. This program is available to all
commercial/industrial retail electric and natural gas customers in Idaho.1 The site-specific program typically brings in
the largest portion of savings to the overall energy-efficiency portfolio.
Key to delivering on the objectives of the program are the direct incentives to encourage customer interest, the
marketing efforts and account executives to drive customers to the program, and the ongoing work with trade allies
to ensure that customer demand can be met. The Avista website is also used to communicate program requirements,
incentives, and provide forms.
1) Transport natural gas customers are excluded from conservation programs, because they do not pay into the Energy Efficiency Tariff.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 26
Fuel efficiency measures are part of the site-specific program path and involve a combination of electric savings and
natural gas penalties. These measures typically involve replacing electric space heating or water heating systems
with natural gas equipment. They are included in the metrics summary below. Please refer to the Fuel Efficiency
Impact Evaluation section for Cadmus’ evaluation methodology and findings for commercial/industrial fuel efficiency
measures.
Program Activities
◆Electric: savings of 10,205,592 kWh, or 45 percent of the overall electric savings – a slight decrease
(approximately 5 percent) from the 10,705,817 kWh savings achieved in 2017. The largest percentage
of incentives went to process load reduction measures (29 percent) followed by compressed air savings
measures (22 percent).
◆Natural Gas: savings of 21,016 therms in 2018, or 54 percent of the overall natural gas savings. This is a
nearly fivefold increase in savings relative to the 4,420 therms achieved in 2017. However, 2017’s numbers
do not include 28,975 therms in small business savings, a program that was ended in 2017. 55 percent of
incentive dollars were distributed for heating savings. 39 percent of incentives went to the EnergySmart
Grocer case doors program, with the remaining 6 percent going to combined HVAC savings.
FIGURE 9 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE-SPECIFIC ELECTRIC INCENTIVE DOLLARS BY MEASURE
FIGURE 10 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE-SPECIFIC NATURAL GAS INCENTIVE DOLLARS BY MEASURE
$ 484,602 Site-Specic Industrial Process
$ 381,413 Site-Specic Compressed Air
$ 225,383 Site-Specic Lighting Exterior
$ 210,218 Site-Specic Lighting Interior
$ 94,971 all other Site-Specic Measures
$ 23,705 ESG Site-Specic Case Doors
$ 3,798 Site-Specic HVAC Combined
$ 34,044 Site-Specic HVAC Heating
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 27
Customer Satisfaction
Cadmus included site-specific customers in its 2018 process evaluation and analyzed results for the program
separately from the prescriptive program. Site-specific results are as follows:
◆Site-specific survey respondents said the program was successful because of Avista staff (7 of 12
respondents).
◆Site-specific program participants also cited the rebate (2 of 12); rebate delivery time (2 of 12); and overall
process, communication, and energy savings (one response each) as working well.
◆Site-specific respondents were satisfied with all components of the program except for the time it took to
process the application; 2 of 19 were not too satisfied with this component because of delays caused by
incorrect rebate calculations and the time it took to complete site inspections.
◆The top challenge for participating in the site-specific program was determining whether a project was
eligible for a rebate.
◆Site-specific survey respondents said the program was successful because of Avista staff (7 of 12).
◆All site-specific survey respondents (n=19) were satisfied with the program overall.
FIGURE 11 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SATISFACTION WITH SITE-SPECIFIC PROGRAM COMPONENTS
Source: Site-specific survey question E1: “In terms of the site-specific program, how satisfied were you with the following aspects? Please think about each item
individually as you select your answer.”
Program Overall (n=19)
Equipment that was Installed (n=19)
Post-project Inspection (n=18)
Communication with Program
Contractors and Vendors (n=19)
Project Contract Process (n=18)
Rebate Amount (n=18)
Time it Took to
Process Application (n=18)
Communication with
Account Executive (n=17)
Technical Assistance you
Received from Avista Staff (n=17)
Pre-project Inspection (n=12)
Submitting the Rebate Application
and all Required Materials (n=9)
Number of Respondents
Very Satised
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1910
Somewhat Satised Not too Satised Not at all Satised
16 3
16
14
13
13
13
13
13
12
8
6
3
4
6
5
5
4
3
5
4
3
2
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 28
◆All survey respondents reported being either very or somewhat satisfied (n=19) with the rebate amount and
all respondents (n=19) said the rebate was very or somewhat important in their decision to complete the
project as it was implemented. In addition, the program manager said the program was more attractive to
customers because Avista is using a flat rebate structure rather than a tiered rebate structure.
◆12 respondents reported a variety of program participation challenges (Table 18). 2 respondents said they did
not encounter challenges with the program, and the remaining 5 did not provide a response to this question.
TABLE 18 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE-SPECIFIC PARTICIPATION CHALLENGES
Challenge Number of Responses
(n=12)
Determining Program Eligibility 3
Determining the Correct Rebate Amount 1
Deciding when to Engage Avista Engineers and Vendors 1
Cost of the Project 1
Getting Internal Buy-in 1
Reminding Installers about Taking Pre- and Post-installation Photos 1
Vendor Availability 1
Working with Multiple Internal and External Staff to Complete the Project 1
Time Needed to Complete the Project 1
Rebate Availability for Large, Multi-year Projects in Apartment Complexes 1
Source: Site-specific survey question E3. “What do you see as the biggest challenges to participating in Avista’s site-specific program?”
◆Despite these issues, 12 respondents called out several program areas that they viewed as working well
(Figure 12).
FIGURE 12 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE-SPECIFIC PROGRAM SUCCESSES
Source: Site-specific survey question E5: “What would you say is working particularly well with Avista’s site-specific program?” Multiple responses allowed.
Rebate Delivery Time
Overall Process
Communication
Avista Staff
Rebate
Energy Savings
Number of Responses
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
3
5
1
1
1
2
2
7
(n=12)
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 29
Impact Evaluation
Table 19 shows reported and verified electric energy savings for Avista’s 2018 commercial/industrial sector site-specific
program path, as well as a comparison between verified and reported savings for 2018. The overall site-specific
program path electric realization rate was 98 percent. Note that the table does not include reported and verified
electric savings for measures in the fuel efficiency path.
TABLE 19 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE-SPECIFIC ELECTRIC IMPACT FINDINGS
Program Path Reported Savings
(kWh)
Verified Savings
(kWh)Realization Rate
Site-Specific 10,381,411 10,205,592 98%
Of the evaluated applications, Cadmus identified discrepancies in 5 based on the site visit and project documentation
review. Table 20 summarizes the reasons for discrepancies between reported and verified savings.
TABLE 20 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE-SPECIFIC EVALUATION SUMMARY OF DISCREPANCIES
Project Type Number of
Occurrences Savings Impact Reason(s) for Discrepancy
Exterior Lighting
1 The site installed a higher quantity of exterior LED fixtures. The reported savings
in database did not match the implementer’s submitted calculation workbook.
1 The site installed fewer LED pole lighting fixtures and more LED wall pack fixtures
than reported.
Industrial Process 1 
The site converted two pressure roll vacuum units from double zone to single
zone units, eliminating the need for one of the four 500-horsepower vacuum
pumps. Reported savings calculations assumed the pump motor to be 100%
efficient. Cadmus adjusted the savings calculations to incorporate losses for a
conservative, high-efficiency 500-horsepower motor (95.8%).
Compressed Air 1 
The site replaced two fixed-speed air compressors with two 350-horsepower
variable speed rotary-screw air compressors. Project documentation included
post-installation power and airflow metered data. Cadmus updated the reported
savings calculations by breaking out pre- and post-period airflow and baseline
system performance on a weekday basis, rather than an overall metered period
basis. Although the difference in average overall airflow was minimal between
the verified and reported methodology, there were days (such as Wednesdays and
Fridays) that differed by 175 CFM to 230 CFM from reported. This difference had
a significant impact on the performance of the baseline air compressors.
Interior Lighting 1 
Cadmus included the calculated cooling load electric energy savings in the interim
verified savings. These savings were calculated in the project documentation but
not included in the reported savings.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 30
Table 21 shows reported and verified natural gas energy savings for Avista’s 2018 commercial/industrial sector
site-specific program path, as well as a comparison between verified and reported savings for 2018. The overall
site-specific program path natural gas realization rate was 100 percent. Note that the table does not include reported
and verified natural gas penalties for measures in the fuel efficiency path. Cadmus did not identify discrepancies in
any of the 3 evaluated applications.
TABLE 21 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE-SPECIFIC NATURAL GAS IMPACT FINDINGS
Program Reported Savings
(therms)
Verified Savings
(therms)Realization Rate
Site-Specific 21,016 21,016 100%
Recommendations
Cadmus made the following recommendations for the site-specific program:
◆For compressed air projects, ensure that power metered data and pressure and airflow trend data collected
are analyzed on a day-type approach (instead of taking the overall averages for the metered period) to
improve the accuracy of the energy-savings calculations. The day-type analysis method is recommended by
the U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Manufacturing Office and Compressed Air Challenge® and is used
in the AIRMaster+ free online software tool. This method provides a more detailed estimation of the baseline
and installed system flow rates, performance, and energy use.
◆Ensure that the final reported savings calculations reflect the most up-to-date project details, including
post-installation verification photos, equipment submittals, and invoices. During two project verifications,
Cadmus found different installed equipment sizes, quantities, or performance ratings than those used in the
reported savings calculations.
Plans for 2019
Avista plans to continue to offer the site-specific program in Idaho for both electric and natural gas customers in
2019. For compressed air projects, Avista will review the methodology offered by Cadmus with relevant customers
and their mechanical contractors to align the analysis with the recommended DOE tools and methods where
appropriate.
Avista will also continue to work with customers to ensure that final reported savings calculations reflect the most
up-to-date project details. In 2018, the majority of accuracy issues were with site-specific multifamily HVAC projects
where 80 percent-efficiency furnaces were modeled when 95 percent-efficiency was actually what was installed.
This did not affect the kWh savings, only the therm penalty, where the therm penalty was actually less of an impact
than modeled. Avista recognizes that customers sometimes make last-minute changes to scopes; the company will,
however, continue to coordinate closely to ensure that project documentation most accurately reflects the project’s
characteristics.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 31
Commercial/Industrial Multifamily Natural Gas Market Transformation
TABLE 22 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL MULTIFAMILY NATURAL GAS MARKET TRANSFORMATION PROGRAM METRICS
Multifamily Natural Gas Market Transformation Program Summary 2018
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 3
Overall kWh Savings 267,385
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend
Description
The site-specific program path also includes a market transformation initiative intended to increase the availability
of natural gas space and water heating in multifamily residential developments. The focus is on new-construction
multifamily residential rentals larger than a five-plex. The goal of the program is to address (1) the split incentive issue
where developers are focused on first costs that drive poor, lost-opportunity heating choices and (2) tenants who
have to pay those heating costs without sufficient options in the rental market to demonstrate. Natural gas presents a
preferred option with less expense and a societal benefit. The program intends to create developer confidence in the
natural gas heating design for multifamily construction as well as understanding the added long-term value. Similarly,
the program assists potential tenants who otherwise have no control and limited options in the market to influence
their heating fuel and better manage their heating costs. Avista offers program incentives of $3,500 per unit for
converting to natural gas by installing standard-efficiency space heat and water heaters.
Program Activities
The program had three projects in 2018 for 267,385 kWh savings, roughly 1 percent of total savings in the
commercial/industrial electric program portfolio. The savings declined approximately 3 percent from the 275,016 kWh
achieved in 2017.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 32
Marketing Activities
Avista’s account executive team focused on creating relationships with regional builders, including one-on-one
conversations with contractors and developers and regular informal check-ins to educate them about offered
programs, benefits, savings, and payoffs in installing natural gas – from environmental, comfort, and cost-saving
standpoints.
Account executives also reached out to area HVAC dealers. Engagements included a regional road show as well as
multiple informational meetings in which all area HVAC dealers were invited to attend. In addition to educational
content – such as Figures 13 (below) and 6 (page 17) – dealers also had opportunities to ask questions and connect
with Avista representatives for further discussion. The success of the program also had a lot to do with relationships
with trade allies and developers, which existed prior to its launch. Often, account executives would hear of new
multifamily developments through informal channels, which allowed them to reach out to customers and sell the
program at the right time in the development and construction process.
FIGURE 13 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL MULTIFAMILY NATURAL GAS INCENTIVE PROGRAM BROCHURE
Natural gas too costly to install?Think again.
So. If we take cost out of the
equation, why wouldn’t you
install natural gas? It’s clean,
efficient, and reliable. It’s the preferred
choice for heating and cooking among
homeowners – which means it adds
value to your property. And when
we’re helping with the installation
costs, natural gas makes even more
sense for builders and developers.
To help bring natural gas to your
multifamily projects, Avista is offering
incentives that pay the incremental
cost of a natural gas installation – up
to $3,500 per unit.
Sue Baldwin
account executive, development specialist
1735 North 15th Street, Coeur d’Alene, ID 83814
208.769.1340
[e-mail]
This brochure is printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper produced by renewable energy.
Multifamily Natural Gas
Incentive Program Overview

As we continue to look for ways to increase
energy efficiency, natural gas has emerged
as not only efficient, but also one of
the cleanest energy resources available.
And while natural gas can be burned in
combustion turbines to generate electricity
for our region, using it directly in homes
for heating and cooking is the most
efficient use of this natural resource.
That’s why direct use of natural gas is the
best use, and Avista is offering incentives
to assist you in bringing this convenient,
plentiful, and versatile fuel into
multifamily projects.
Eligibility
This program is available for new
construction in Avista’s electric and natural
gas service territory (five or more units per
building). Participants must sign a contract
by December 31, 2018 and complete their
project within two years.
Funding – Avista incentives pay up
to $3,500 per unit for installation of
either space heating, hot water, or a
combination of both.*
*Capped at 100% of the incremental cost to
install natural gas.
This Multifamily Natural Gas Incentive Program is available for new construction projects only (five or more
units per building). Participants must sign a contract by December 31, 2018 and complete their project within two years.
Program subject to change.
For more information or to apply, contact Sue Baldwin at Avista, 208.769.1340 or [e-mail]
Avista helped offset some of
the costs to install forced-air
gas furnaces in our multifamily
complex, which in turn helped
us provide a more comfortable
living environment for our
tenants.”
With rebates that offset most
of the cost, we were able to
install an efficient natural gas
central boiler system. This is a
great program, with benefits
that include lower energy bills,
a smaller electrical service,
and less maintenance down
the road.”
Greg Gervais
Owner - Vice President
Copper Basin Construction
The Residences at MillCoeur d’Alene, ID
Lucas HolmquistV.P. of Construction Services Baker Construction
940 North
Spokane, WA
”
”
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 33
Impact Evaluation
Cadmus followed the same impact evaluation methodology for fuel efficiency measures as outlined in the Impact
Evaluation Methodology section. 6 multifamily market transformation program projects were selected for evaluation
of the commercial/industrial sector fuel efficiency measures. Of the sampled applications, 5 were selected for certainty
review based on the scale of savings, measure type, or location. The remaining application was selected randomly.
Cadmus performed site visits at 5 unique commercial/industrial locations to assess electric savings for the 6 unique
multifamily market transformation program measures. Site visits involved verifying installed equipment type, make and
model numbers, operating schedules, and set points, as applicable.
TABLE 23 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL FUEL EFFICIENCY ELECTRIC IMPACT FINDINGS
Fuel Efficiency Measure Reported Savings
(kWh)
Verified Savings
(kWh)Realization Rate
Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific 65,061 65,061 100%
Multifamily Market Transformation 207,408 202,324 98%
Total 272,469 267,385 98%
Of the evaluated applications, Cadmus identified discrepancies in the randomly sampled multifamily market
transformation program measure based on the evaluation site visit and project documentation review. The site
installed more efficient furnaces than reported, which resulted in lower natural gas energy consumption of the
installed units versus baseline efficiency units, meaning that less electricity was offset for this measure than reported.
Plans for 2019
The program will continue in the Idaho service area with a reduced incentive of $3,000 per unit.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 34
Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Programs
TABLE 24 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE LIGHTING PROGRAM METRICS
Prescriptive Lighting Program Summary 2018
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 588
Overall kWh Savings 12,256,065
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend
TABLE 25 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE NON-LIGHTING PROGRAM METRICS
Prescriptive Non-lighting Program Summary – Electric 2018
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 22
Overall kWh Savings 168,899
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend
Prescriptive Non-lighting Program Summary – Natural Gas 2018
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 35
Overall Therm Savings 13,976
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend
Description
Avista determines incentive amounts for the prescriptive program path by applying the incentive formula contained
within Schedules 90 and 190 to a prototypical installation. Avista tracks the actual costs and savings and reports these
to the third-party impact evaluator. When applicable, Avista uses Regional Technical Forum unit energy savings for the
prescriptive program path measures.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 35
Program Activities
◆Electric: 12,424,964 kWh, or 54 percent of overall savings, a significant decrease from 2017
(24,280,158 kWh). This decrease can be attributed to the significant amount of interior lighting savings
that was already captured over the 2016–17 biennium.
◆Natural Gas: 13,976 therms (36 percent of overall savings), which is also a significant decrease from the
37,788 therms in 2017.
FIGURE 14 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC PRESCRIPTIVE INCENTIVE DOLLARS BY MEASURE
Lighting still comprised the vast majority of prescriptive electric program activities, with interior and exterior measures
together accounting for 98 percent of commercial/industrial incentives.
FIGURE 15 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NATURAL GAS PRESCRIPTIVE INCENTIVE DOLLARS BY MEASURE
PSC food service equipment accounted for 75 percent of commercial/industrial natural gas prescriptive incentives.
$ 813,570 PSC Lighting Interior
$ 759,662 Lighting Exterior
$ 21,213 all other measures
$ 28,185 PSC Food Service Equipment
$ 6,985 PSC Commercial HVAC
$ 2,444 PSC Insulation
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 36
Avista made several changes to commercial lighting program rebates in 2018, as summarized in Table 26. In addition
to the changes to the rebate amounts, Avista modified the wattage range on most interior and exterior lighting
products.2
TABLE 26 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE LIGHTING PROGRAM REBATE CHANGES
Change 2017 2018
Interior 4-Foot 4-Lamp T12/T8 Fixture to 2-Lamp HP T8 Fixture or Retrofit Kit $ 35 $ 0*
Interior 4-Foot 3-Lamp T12/T8 Fixture to 2-Lamp HP T8 Fixture or Retrofit Kit $ 25 $ 0*
Interior 4-Foot 2-Lamp T12/T8 Fixture to 1-Lamp HP T8 Fixture/Retrofit Kit $ 18 $ 0*
Interior 250-Watt HID to ≤ 140-watt DLC Approved LED Fixture $ 180 $ 155
Exterior New Construction 320 & 400-Watt HID to ≤ 175-Watt DLC LED Fixture $ 175 $ 250
Source: 2017 Avista DSM Standard Operating Procedures Manual and 2018 Avista DSM Standard Operating Procedures Manual.
When rebates or other program changes occur, Avista holds webinars or other events to explain the changes.
In addition, program staff for the lighting program attend trade ally meetings to discuss program changes with
contractors and vendors.
While outreach remained the same for most 2018 commercial/industrial programs, a slight change was made to
outreach for the green motors initiative in 2018. In the past, the program implementer, Green Motors Practice Group
(GMPG), placed cold calls to Avista customers to find and recruit participants. In 2018, GMPG focused outreach
efforts on customers who had been identified as interested and eligible by account executives.
Marketing Activities
The program used a direct, customer-centered approach for outreach: marketing the program through established
relationships with account executives (AE). AEs most commonly reach out to customers through email blasts.
In addition, the Avista website provided preliminary information about the program and encouraged customers to
contact their account executive or a trade ally when they had questions. AEs and trade allies cross-promoted all
commercial/industrial programs when discussing energy-efficiency improvement projects with customers. To answer
questions and promote the commercial/industrial programs to trade allies, Avista also hosted informational breakfasts
throughout the year.
2) A comparison of 2017 and 2018 Prescriptive Lighting rebates is found in the 2018 Avista DSM Standard Operating Procedures Manual, p. 36–37.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 37
Customer Satisfaction
Cadmus included prescriptive program offerings in the 2018 process evaluation study. Key findings:
◆Prescriptive survey respondents (n=46) cited quick turnaround (28 percent) and customer service (24 percent)
as program elements that were working particularly well.
◆Prescriptive survey respondents said their top challenges were knowing about the program and its offerings,
completing application paperwork, and finding the time needed to apply and complete the project.
The application paperwork was of particular concern among lighting participants.
◆Prescriptive survey respondents were highly satisfied with the pre-project inspection, the rebate amount,
and the process of completing and submitting their applications. Several survey respondents provided
reasons for their dissatisfaction with the program and some of its components (4 said there was not enough
communication with an AE and their trade ally), 1 expressed dissatisfaction because the rebate check had not
yet arrived at the time of the survey, and 1 felt the equipment was not as effective as expected, which led to
low energy savings. Another respondent reported concerns about their contractor that Avista did not address.
◆Almost all respondents (98 percent; n=45) were satisfied with Avista and 91 percent (n=34) were satisfied
with the program. All respondents were very or somewhat satisfied with the pre-project inspection and the
rebate amount. Program staff said that if rebate levels were reduced, participation would decrease, especially
in the lighting and insulation programs. The lighting program manager said current rebates for exterior
lighting motivated customers to participate while current interior lighting rebates were less motivating.
◆Over half of respondents (52 percent; n=46) reported program participation challenges. The most common
challenge, as shown in Figure 16, was being aware of the program and what it offers. Other responses
included contractor availability, receiving rebates, getting buy-in, prioritizing projects, getting a quality result,
and no more improvements to make.
◆5 of the 8 respondents who said program awareness was a challenge were interior or exterior lighting
participants. 3 lighting participants said the rebate paperwork was challenging. They said the form was
confusing and did not provide precise directions. In addition, they said identifying fixtures that qualified
for the program was challenging. These were reinforced by the program manager, who said the biggest
challenge for lighting participants was understanding the terminology, especially around Design Lights
Consortium certification. The program manager also said that there have been fewer application rejections in
the past year or two because of an improved rebate application form. The AirGuardian implementer said the
biggest challenge for this program is assuring participants that there is no cost to them to participate.
When customers are skeptical, the implementer refers them to Avista for confirmation.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 38
FIGURE 16 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PARTICIPATION CHALLENGES
Source: Prescriptive survey question H9: “What do you see as the biggest challenges to participating in Avista’s [PROGRAM NAME]?”
◆Despite these issues, 29 respondents called out several program areas that they viewed as working well
(Figure 17).
FIGURE 17 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE PROGRAM SUCCESSES
Source: Prescriptive survey question H11: “What would you say is working particularly well with Avista’s program?” Multiple responses allowed.
33% Awareness of Program and what it Offers
25% Other
21% Application Paperwork
13% Application and Project Time
8% Project Cost
Contractor, Vendor, or Retailer
Energy Savings
Rebate Amount
Customer Service
Offering Rebate Programs
Website
Percentage of Respondents
5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
3
5
3%
7%
10%
10%
14%
24%
(n=29)
Program Ease
Quick Turnaround 28%
31%
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 39
Impact Evaluation
Avista’s third-party 2018 impact evaluation included some, but not all, current commercial/industrial prescriptive
measures. Table 27 below lists the prescriptive programs and measures included in this impact evaluation.
TABLE 27 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL EVALUATED PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS
Program Measure(s)Implementer Program Summary
Prescriptive Lighting, HVAC, VFDs, Food
Service Equipment, and Shell Avista
Customers identify potential energy efficiency projects,
submit paperwork and receive prescriptive rebates for
projects.
Fleet Heat Smart Block Heating System Avista
Electric customers are provided with a smart block
heating system to install on vehicles. The device
controls both the water temperature in the block and
the air temperature outside the block. Installation help
is available from HOTSTART.
Green Motor Rewind Repair/Rewind of Motors
The Green Motors
Practices Group
(GMPG)
Electric customers who receive a green motor rewind
at a participating service will receive a rebate. The
rebate applies to 15 HP to 5,000 HP industrial motors.
AirGuardian Compressed Air Compressed Air Leak
Reduction Device 4Sight Energy Group
Direct installation of compressed air leak reduction
device to electric customers following a compressed
air audit
Electric: Table 28 shows reported and verified electric energy savings for Avista’s commercial/industrial sector
prescriptive program path and the realization rates between verified and reported savings for 2018. The overall
commercial/industrial sector prescriptive program path electric realization rate was 100 percent.
TABLE 28 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE ELECTRIC IMPACT FINDINGS
Program Type Reported Savings
(kWh)
Verified Savings
(kWh)Realization Rate
Interior Lighting 8,038,814 8,012,238 100%
Exterior Lighting 4,243,826 4,243,826 100%
Shell Measure 929 929 100%
Green Motors 42,466 42,870 101%
Motor Control (VFD)112,931 113,171 100%
Fleet Heat 0 0 100%
Food Service Equipment 8,527 8,527 100%
AirGuardian 0 0 100%
EnergySmart Grocer 3,402 3,402 100%
Total Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive 12,450,896 12,424,964 100%
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 40
Of the evaluated applications, Cadmus identified discrepancies for seven based on the site visit and project
documentation review. Table 29 summarizes the reasons for discrepancies between reported and verified savings.
TABLE 29 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE EVALUATION SUMMARY OF DISCREPANCIES – ELECTRIC
Program Type Number of
Occurrences Savings Impact Reason(s) for Discrepancy
Interior Lighting
2 Cadmus reduced the lighting fixture in-service rate for two projects to
account for incented fixtures that were on the site but in storage.
1 Savings in project documentation were slightly lower than reported savings
in program database.
1 
Cadmus accounted for additional savings from delamping for reported
4-lamp LED fixtures that only had two lamps. The participant had removed
two lamps per fixture due to brightness.
Green Motor Rewind 2 Reported savings for two projects referenced the 2017 RTF. Cadmus applied
deemed motor savings from the 2018 TRM workbook.
Motor Control (VFD)1 
Cadmus reduced the reported quantity of 2.5 horsepower return air fans
with VFDs from three to one and added two 3 horsepower return air fans
with VFDs.
Natural Gas: Table 30 shows reported and verified natural gas energy savings for Avista’s commercial/industrial sector
prescriptive program path and the realization rates between verified and reported savings for 2018.
TABLE 30 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE NATURAL GAS IMPACT FINDINGS
Program Type Reported Savings
(therms)
Verified Savings
(therms)Realization Rate
HVAC 3,956 3,956 100%
Shell 1,149 1,149 100%
Food Service Equipment 12,492 8,871 71%
Total Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive 17,597 13,976 79%
Of the evaluated applications, Cadmus identified discrepancies for 4 based on the site visit and project documentation
review (with 1 application having 2 discrepancies). Table 31 summarizes the reasons for discrepancies between
reported and verified savings.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 41
TABLE 31 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE EVALUATION SUMMARY OF DISCREPANCIES – NATURAL GAS
Project Type Number of
Occurrences Savings Impact Reason(s) for Discrepancy
Food Service
Equipment
3 
Cadmus reduced the pounds of food cooked per day for three fryer
measures from the value in the savings calculator based on the site manager
interview.
1 Cadmus decreased operating hours for a fryer measure from the value in
the savings calculator based on the site manager interview.
1 
Cadmus reduced the pounds of food cooked per day and operating hours
for a steam cooker measure from the value in the savings calculator based
on the site manager interview.
Cadmus made the following recommendations for improving the commercial/industrial sector prescriptive energy-
savings program:
◆For natural gas measures, revisit the prescriptive ENERGY STAR food service equipment calculator workbook
and review the default assumptions for hours of use and pounds of food cooked per day. During three
food service project verifications, the feedback provided by site contacts for these calculator inputs differed
significantly from the calculator default values. Cadmus also recommended that Avista adjust future rebate
application forms to ask for site-specific hours of use and load estimates. Cadmus will review the RTF
calculation methods to determine whether the deemed RTF values are more appropriate for these measures.
RTF savings values will be more consistent with regional savings estimates.
◆According to some survey respondents, the lighting application paperwork was challenging because it
was confusing and did not provide precise instructions for completing the application. Although the Avista
website provides several ways for customers to contact the company for additional information, Avista should
create and post a document on its website with answers to frequently asked questions about the application
to decrease customer challenges. The FAQ document could focus on ways to avoid the application being
rejected.
Plans for 2019
Avista plans to make multiple changes to programs, measures, and processes based on recommendations in the
2018 Impact and Process evaluations:
◆For natural gas measures, Avista will seek advisory group input in considering whether to ask for site-specific
hours of use and load estimates and, for food equipment, pounds of food cooked per day. We will also
review default assumptions for hours of use.
◆Regarding lighting data enhancement for the new iEnergy tracking database, Avista has decided to collect
measure type, default base-value wattage by measure, actual installed wattages, total units by measure,
average run hours and customer-provided hours of operation. iEnergy went live in September of 2018.
Data will be monitored over 2019 and will be analyzed to determine whether it is sufficient for 2020 planning
purposes.
◆Avista also plans to draft a “Lighting FAQ” document to aid customers in filling out lighting paperwork.
RESIDENTIAL SECTOR
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 43
RESIDENTIAL SECTOR
Overview
Avista’s residential sector portfolio is composed of several approaches that encourage customers to consider energy-
efficiency improvements within their homes. Prescriptive rebate programs are the main component of the portfolio
and are augmented by a variety of additional interventions: upstream buy-down of low-cost lighting and water-saving
measures, select distribution of low-cost lighting and weatherization materials, direct-installation programs, and a
multifaceted, multichannel outreach and customer engagement effort.
More than $1.6 million in rebates and direct customer benefits were provided to Idaho residential customers to
offset the cost of implementing these energy-efficiency measures in 2018. All programs within the residential sector
portfolio combined contributed 6,551 MWh and 207,992 therms to the annual energy savings.
TABLE 32 – RESIDENTIAL SAVINGS BY PROGRAM
Program By Sector Energy Efficiency Savings
Residential Electric Program Natural Gas Program
ENERGY STAR Homes 83,738 kWh 406 Therms
Multifamily Direct Install 729,920 kWh 2,014 Therms
Fuel Conversions 1,442,640 kWh 0 Therms
HVAC 750,709 kWh 150,936 Therms
Water Heat 47,398 kWh 14,622 Therms
Shell 85,608 kWh 40,014 Therms
Simple Steps, Smart Savings 3,411,298 kWh 0 Therms
Total Residential 6,551,312 kWh 207,992 Therms
Interactive Effects (Therm Offsets)0 kWh (71,853) Therms
Total Residential after Interactive Effects 6,551,312 kWh 136,140 Therms
Marketing
Avista’s residential outreach included the popular “Efficiency Matters” promotion from April through June. During the
seven-week contest, television 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 Toyota Camry hybrid. Promotional vehicles emphasized energy
efficiency tips and rebates, and included television advertising, online and mobile display ads, video pre-roll, social
media, email, and direct mail (Connections newsletter article and bill insert). In addition to Avista’s outreach,
krem.com promoted the contest with a home-page news story as well as targeted extended-reach banner ads.
The campaign was a success in driving customer engagement, resulting in more than 90,000 entries for the contest.
The finale at Avista Stadium included interviews with Avista’s Energy Efficiency Manager talking about the importance
of energy efficiency on the 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. news broadcasts, as well as coverage of the car giveaway.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 44
FIGURE 18 – RESIDENTIAL “EFFICIENCY MATTERS” ONLINE AND MOBILE DISPLAY ADS
FIGURE 19 – RESIDENTIAL “EFFICIENCY MATTERS” BILL INSERT
FIGURE 20 – RESIDENTIAL “EFFICIENCY MATTERS” SOCIAL MEDIA
AVA295i
Increase your chances of winning by entering bonus keywords. To learn more, visit krem.com.
Bonus entries:
KREM 2, Toyota and Avista have once again teamed up in support of energy efficiency.
To help raise awareness, we’re giving you a chance to win a new
energy-efficient 2018 Camry Hybrid SE.
Energy conservation is good for all of us. Using energy wisely can
help reduce costs and conserve our natural resources.
For your chance to win a Camry Hybrid SE, watch any KREM 2
Newscast from April 16 to June 3, 2018. Look for Avista’s
“Word(s) of the Day” and enter to win on krem.com.
See official rules on krem.com
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 45
FIGURE 21 – RESIDENTIAL “EFFICIENCY MATTERS” TELEVISION ADVERTISING
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 46
In late summer/early fall, a second wave of energy efficiency outreach ran with the “Way to Save” advertising
campaign. The television and digital ads were designed to increase awareness of Avista’s rebate programs and
educate customers about energy-saving tips. Two 30-second TV commercials were created – one highlighting all-
up kilowatt-hour savings and the other focused on emissions reductions. Accompanying these TV spots, a series of
15-second commercials also ran in rotation: six promoted rebates, while another six provided energy-saving tips. The
timing of the television advertising took advantage of new season premieres and football to deliver high viewership.
Digital ads were also incorporated, including online banner ads for desktop, tablet, and mobile. Placement included
local, regional, and national sites (geo-targeted to Avista’s Idaho and Washington service territory). Search-engine
marketing and social media were also used to reinforce messaging and drive customer engagement.
With a call-to-action to visit myavista.com for more information, the advertising successfully worked to help increase
awareness as evidenced by the spike in traffic to our website: Visits to the “Rebates Overview” page increased
716 percent, and hits to the “Energy Saving Advice” page increased by 894 percent.
FIGURE 22 – RESIDENTIAL ENERGY-SAVINGS “EMISSIONS” AND “HOMES” :30 TV ADVERTISING
FIGURE 23 – RESIDENTIAL ENERGY-SAVINGS MYAVISTA.COM HOME PAGE FEATURE
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 47
FIGURE 24 – RESIDENTIAL ENERGY-SAVINGS “WAY TO SAVE” REBATES :15 TV ADVERTISING
FIGURE 25 – RESIDENTIAL ENERGY-SAVINGS “WAY TO SAVE” REBATES ONLINE AND MOBILE DISPLAY ADS
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 48
FIGURE 26 – RESIDENTIAL ENERGY-SAVINGS “WAY TO SAVE” TIPS :15 TV ADVERTISING
FIGURE 27 – RESIDENTIAL ENERGY-SAVINGS “WAY TO SAVE” TIPS ONLINE AND MOBILE DISPLAY ADS
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 49
FIGURE 28 – RESIDENTIAL ENERGY-SAVINGS “WAY TO SAVE” SOCIAL MEDIA
As cold weather moved in, a “Winter Bill” campaign was implemented to remind customers of energy-saving tips for
the season.
FIGURE 29 – RESIDENTIAL ENERGY-SAVINGS WINTER TIPS EMAILS
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 50
FIGURE 30 – RESIDENTIAL ENERGY-SAVINGS WINTER TIPS BANNER ADS
Avista also made the most of local sponsorships for an “Energy Efficiency Night” at a Spokane Chiefs hockey game.
FIGURE 31 – RESIDENTIAL ENERGY-SAVINGS “ENERGY EFFICIENCY NIGHT” SOCIAL MEDIA
Trade Ally Outreach
In April 2018 Avista introduced a “Trade Ally Network.” The company actively promoted all of its programs via this
network, including email blasts with program announcements. Avista recently upgraded the network to “Trade Ally
Connect,” a platform that will enable the continuation of communication efforts as well as the creation of webinars,
rebate tracking, “Find a Contractor,” and other tools to encourage participation and enhanced communication.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 51
Customer Satisfaction
Avista retained Cadmus to conduct a variety of process evaluation activities for 2018 related to residential programs.
The evaluation effort focused on four fundamental objectives:
◆Assess program delivery channels and marketing methods
◆Assess participant and market actor experience with the program, including barriers to participation,
satisfaction with the program, and effectiveness of rebate levels
◆Assess Avista and implementer staff experiences including organizational structure, communication, and
program processes
◆Document areas of success, challenge, and changes to the program
To evaluate program processes in the residential sector, Cadmus conducted stakeholder interviews with Avista and
implementer staff, phone interviews with HVAC contractors, and phone surveys with residential program participants.
Each data collection task informed its own set of research objectives and covered the HVAC, shell, and fuel efficiency
programs together. Findings that pertain to all three programs are summarized in this section. Program-specific
findings and recommendations are included in program-specific sections of the report.
Generally, residential program delivery was smooth per both Avista and implementer staff, and, except for small
changes to the rebate levels outlined in the 2018 Annual Conservation Plan, the HVAC, shell, and fuel efficiency
programs were delivered and performed as expected. Customers were, by and large, very satisfied with residential
programs, as were HVAC contractors.
At least 93 percent of residential survey respondents were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with every element of
the program in which they participated as well as with Avista overall.
FIGURE 32 – SATISFACTION WITH RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM ELEMENTS
Source: Cadmus Residential Programs Participant Survey, Question C2: “How would you rate your overall experience with...”
the Contractor who madethe Installation (n=76)
Your new Energy-saving
Equipment (n=73)
the Time it took to Receiveyour Rebate (n=62)
the Rebate Application Process (n=60)
the Rebate Amount (n=69)
Percentage of Respondents
Very Satisfied
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Somewhat Satisfied Not too Satisfied Not at all Satisfied
89%
85%
84%
85%
42%
10%
14%
15%
10%
51%6%
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 52
FIGURE 33 – MOTIVATION TO PARTICIPATE IN RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS
Source: Cadmus Residential Programs Participant Survey, Question B3: “What motivated you to participate in the [PROGRAM NAME] Program?”
More than half of residential program participants heard about the program in which they participated through
their contractor, installer, or trade ally (53 percent, n=73). Although a significant portion of respondents (n=60) said
contractors are the best way to spread information about Avista programs (27 percent), more respondents said bill
inserts are the best way to spread information (32 percent).
FIGURE 34 – HEARING ABOUT RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS AND BEST WAY TO SPREAD INFORMATION
Source: Cadmus Residential Programs Participant Survey, Question B1: “How did you first hear about the [PROGRAM NAME] Program?”; Question B2: “What is the
best way for Avista to inform residential customers like you about their energy efficiency improvement rebates?”
Save Energy
Increase Comfort
Help Protect the Environment
Save Money
Upgrade was Necessary
Other
Percentage of Respondents
10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
3
5
11%
1%
9%
11%
12%
56%
(n=75)
Bill Insert
Avista Website
TV Advertisement
Avista Email
Other
Percentage of Respondents
First heard about Program (n=73)
10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Best way to spread Information (n=60)
11%
8%
4%
1%
8%
3%
32%
10%
10%
10%
Friend, Family, Neighbor, Colleague
Contractor, Installer, or Trade Ally 53%
14%
27%
3%
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 53
Because so many customers heard of incentive programs through contractors and other trade allies, trade ally
engagement will continue to be developed as a central marketing strategy for Avista residential programs.
Recommendations
Cadmus recommends that Avista consider adjusting the constraints used to verify mailing addresses for customers
trying to submit their rebate application forms online, because the system occasionally created frustration for
customers with non-typical address formats.
Avista plans to develop and launch a new online rebate web portal that will improve the customer experience and
resolve this particular issue with a Google address autofill feature.
The complete process evaluation of commercial/industrial and residential programs can be found in Appendix C.
Impact Evaluation: Residential Sector
◆Electric: realization rate of 94 percent on savings of 4,378,753 kWh1.
◆Natural Gas: realization rate of 101 percent on savings of 205,978 therms2, which is 124 percent of the
savings goal for the year. Reported savings for the Multifamily Direct Install program added 2,014 therms of
savings, for a total of 207,992 therms in acquired savings.
Lighting measures account for a high percentage of residential sector program path savings: Simple Steps, Smart
Savings provided 68 percent of residential savings, mostly through lighting measures, and Multifamily Direct Install
provided 14 percent of savings, also mostly through lighting measures. The HVAC program accounted for 15 percent
of savings, with shell and ENERGY STAR homes accounting for a combined 3 percent of residential sector savings.
The HVAC program accounts for most verified residential natural gas savings – 79 percent – followed by the shell
program with 19 percent of natural gas savings. Simple Steps, Smart Savings; Multifamily Direct Install; and
ENERGY STAR homes account for a combined 2 percent of savings, primarily through water-saving measures.
Performance and Savings Goals
The residential sector exceeded its electric savings goal of 1,164 MWh by 202 percent, due largely to program
participation that was 265 percent of the goal. Reported savings for the Multifamily Direct Install program added
729,920 kWh for a total acquired savings of 5,108,673 kWh.
Natural gas savings for the year were 124 percent of the savings goal of 165,271 therms.
1) Excludes 729,920 kWh attributable to the Multifamily Direct Install program and 1,442,640 attributable to the Residential Fuel Efficiency Program.
2) Excludes 2,014 therms attributable to the Residential Fuel Efficiency Program.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 54
Impact Evaluation Methodology
To determine the residential sector verified savings for 2018, Cadmus employed two impact evaluation methods for
most residential programs:3
◆Database review
◆Document review
Similar to previous practice, Cadmus calculated adjusted savings based on results of the database review and
applied realization rates from Avista’s document reviews, as shown in Figure 35. Verified savings are adjusted savings
multiplied by document review realization rates.
FIGURE 35 – RESIDENTIAL IMPACT PROCESS
Database Review
For the impact evaluation database review, Cadmus used UES values, as provided in the TRM, to calculate savings for
measures reported in the measure tracking database. This impact activity may help identify incorrect UES values used
to calculate reported savings. Savings calculated during the database review are defined as adjusted savings.
Document Review
For the document review, Cadmus compared information from rebate forms and other supporting documents to
measure tracking data for a random sample of projects. This impact activity may identify installed measures that
did not meet eligibility requirements, quantities that did not match the measure tracking database, and other
discrepancies. Following our review of all projects, we calculated a realization rate for the document review by
dividing savings calculated for the sample (using the revised information) by reported savings for the sample.
We then multiplied this realization rate by adjusted savings for the entire program to determine verified savings.
Cadmus conducted 34 document reviews for the HVAC and shell programs, drawing roughly equal samples from
participants in each quarter.
Complete impact evaluations for electric and natural gas are included in Appendices A and B.
3) With approval from Avista, Cadmus ceased performing a third impact activity – verification surveys – in the third quarter of 2018 to eliminate redundancy between
verification surveys and document review.
Adjusted
Savings
Document
Review
Interim
Verified
Savings
Reported
Savings
Database
Review
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 55
Cost-Effectiveness
Tables 33 and 34 show the residential sector cost-effectiveness results by fuel type.
TABLE 33 – RESIDENTIAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS – ELECTRIC
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit-Cost Ratio
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 5,506,504 $ 2,446,528 2.25
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 6,057,155 $ 2,787,962 2.17
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 9,891,003 $ 1,968,131 5.03
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 5,506,504 $ 4,956,536 1.11
TABLE 34 – RESIDENTIAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS – NATURAL GAS
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit-Cost Ratio
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 1,902,484 $ 568,340 3.35
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 1,902,484 $ 1,612,158 1.18
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 3,044,342 $ 1,569,729 1.94
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 1,902,484 $ 847,367 2.25
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 56
Program by Program Summaries
Residential HVAC Program
TABLE 35 – RESIDENTIAL HVAC PROGRAM METRICS
HVAC Program Summary – Electric 2018
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 458
Overall kWh Savings 750,709
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend
HVAC Program Summary – Natural Gas 2018
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 1,900
Overall Therm Savings 150,936
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend
Description
Through the HVAC program, Avista encourages residential customers to select a high-efficiency solution when making
energy upgrades to their homes.
Idaho electric customers (Schedule 1) who heat their homes with Avista electricity may be eligible for a rebate for
installing a variable speed motor on their forced-air heating equipment or for converting their electric straight-
resistance space heating to an air-source heat pump. Any Idaho residential natural gas customers (Schedule 101)
who heat their homes with natural gas may be eligible for a rebate for installing a high-efficiency natural gas furnace
or boiler. Avista reviews energy usage as part of the program eligibility requirements: Customers must demonstrate
a heating season electricity usage of 8,000 kWh and natural gas usage of less than 340 therms for replacement of
electric straight-resistance to air-source heat pump and ductless heat pump. High-efficiency natural gas furnaces and
boilers must have 90 percent AFUE or greater, while tankless water heaters must have an efficiency of 0.82 EF or
higher, ductless heat pumps must be 9.0 HSPF or greater, and heat pump water heaters must have an efficiency of
180 percent or higher. The supporting documentation required for participation includes, but may not be limited to,
copies of project invoices and an Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute certification.
This prescriptive rebate approach issues payment to the customer after the measure has been installed. Energy-
efficiency marketing efforts build considerable awareness of opportunities in the home and drive customers to the
website for rebate information. Vendors generate participation using the rebate as a sales tool for their services. Utility
website promotion, vendor training, retail location visits, and presentations at various customer events throughout the
year are some additional communication methods that encourage program participation.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 57
Program Activities
◆Electric: savings of 750,709 kWh in 2018, 12 percent of the overall savings achieved in Avista’s residential
portfolio. The program had a 33 percent increase over the 565,325 kWh achieved in 2017.
◆Natural Gas: savings of 150,936 therms in 2018 – 61 percent of the overall savings – a 23 percent decrease
relative to the 194,247 therms achieved in 2017. For 2018, Avista revised its unit energy savings value for
residential high-efficiency furnaces, which resulted in a decrease of approximately 35 therms per unit.
The revised per-unit savings resulted in lower overall energy achievement of approximately 46,270 therms for
this measure alone.
FIGURE 36 – RESIDENTIAL HVAC INCENTIVE DOLLARS BY MEASURE
Overall, residential customers continue to respond well to the program. High-efficiency natural gas furnaces provide
the largest portion of natural gas savings in the residential sector portfolio, comprising approximately 75 percent
of Avista’s 2018 residential HVAC incentives. Electric air-source heat pumps also accounted for a significant portion
of 2018 residential HVAC incentives. Thermostat incentives also continued to be popular with customers, with 621
installed in the service area in 2018.
Program Changes
Staff reduced rebates for smart thermostats to $60 if self-installed (originally $75) and $75 if contractor-installed
(originally $100) to stay within budget. Despite lower rebate levels, rebate applications increased from those in 2017.
Staff increased rebates to $500 for ductless heat pumps (originally $450). Avista discontinued conversion rebates for
natural gas water heaters because of a lack of interest in the measure, but still provided incentives as part of a $2,250
combined rebate for converting to natural gas for both space and water heating.
$ 396,600 NG Furnace
$ 46,200 Electric to Air-Source Heat Pump
$ 30,848 ST Paid Install w/ NG Heat
$ 24,000 Electric to Ductless Heat Pump
$ 22,880 Variable Speed Motor
$ 10,170 ST DIY w/ NG Heat
$ 4,200 NG Boiler
$ 2,975 ST Paid Install w/ Electric Heat
$ 1,185 ST DIY w/ Electric Heat
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 58
Marketing Activities
The HVAC program was part of the broad-reach “Way to Save” advertising campaign, which promoted rebates for
conversions from electric to natural gas and high-efficiency equipment. See pages 48-51.
In addition to the marketing campaigns, Avista program managers kept in regular contact with trade allies via
topical, focused email blasts. These blasts notified trade allies of upcoming program changes and deadlines. Avista
program managers also held 6 trade ally engagement events – in person and via email – to review program changes,
encourage program participation, and answer trade ally questions. Trade ally engagement continues to be a core
marketing strategy for this program.
Trade Ally Satisfaction
HVAC contractors interviewed by Cadmus rated all program elements shown in Table 36 with high satisfaction marks,
ranging from 4.4 to 4.9 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 meant not at all satisfied and 5 meant very satisfied.
TABLE 36 – SATISFACTION RATINGS BY RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM ELEMENT
Program Element
Satisfaction Ratings
Average1 – Not at all
Satisfied 2 3 4 5 – Very Satisfied
Interaction with Avista 0 0 0 1 7 4.9
Rebate Application Process 0 0 1 1 6 4.6
Rebate Levels 0 0 0 4 4 4.5
Equipment Covered by Rebates 0 0 2 1 5 4.4
Program Overall 0 0 0 2 6 4.8
Additional details related to contractors’ ratings for each program element above include the following:
◆Interaction with Avista: Contractors rated their interactions with Avista the highest of the five discussed
program elements (4.9), although some said they did not contact Avista very often. The one contractor who
did not give a 5 rating still praised Avista’s customer service team but said it seemed understaffed at times.
◆Rebate application: All contractors said the application process was simple, straightforward, and user-
friendly. Three contractors experienced problems submitting applications online, primarily because the
website could not verify a customer’s mailing address, so they submitted application forms by mail instead.
◆Rebate levels: Contractors were generally satisfied with the rebate levels, although 4 said they could be
higher to provide further benefits to customers.4
◆Equipment: Contractors were mostly satisfied with equipment covered by the program’s rebates but
suggested other types of high-efficiency equipment (such as air conditioners, water heaters, and side-arm
heat exchangers for boilers and furnaces) that could benefit customers.
4) This feedback is commonly provided regarding prescriptive rebate programs like Avista’s HVAC program.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 59
Contractors rated the HVAC program’s influence on a customer’s decision to purchase new equipment as a 4.6 on
average, using a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 meant not at all influential and 5 meant very influential. Contractors
who gave a 5 rating said the program provided incentives to offset job costs and educated customers about energy
efficiency.5 Contractors who provided a 4 rating said Avista branding increased the program’s effectiveness, and the
rebates sold customers on the program. HVAC contractors interviewed by Cadmus said the HVAC program plays an
important role in “leveling the playing field” because it enabled them to install more costly high-efficiency equipment
in the homes of customers who might otherwise not be able to afford them.
Impact Evaluation
The Cadmus impact evaluation team found a 99 percent realization rate for the electric HVAC program and a 100
percent realization rate for the natural gas HVAC program in 2018. The HVAC program accounted for 15 percent of
savings in the electric portfolio and 79 percent of savings for the natural gas portfolio.
Profiling of electric program participants revealed high annual consumption during the pre-treatment period,
indicating a strong likelihood that these customers had electric resistance heating before their retrofit. This
consumption profile supports application of RTF-deemed savings for resistance-heat conversion.
Avista confirmed during evaluation that both electric and natural gas UES values for several HVAC measures
mistakenly had not been updated to 2018 TRM values. This resulted in a number of measures with under-represented
savings, especially for heat pump measures. Under Avista direction, Cadmus adjusted reported savings for these
measures to use 2018 TRM UES values.
For the natural gas HVAC program, the 2018 impact evaluation recommends that Avista continue to encourage
installations of high-efficiency natural gas equipment through the HVAC program, which provides nearly three-
quarters of natural gas savings for residential programs. The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance’s Residential
Building Stock Analysis II estimates that roughly 50 percent in Idaho single-family homes have an AFUE under
90 percent, indicating plenty of remaining opportunity for savings.
Plans for 2019
Based on 2018 impact evaluation results, Avista plans to continue to update reported savings based on the most
recent iterations of relevant RTF workbooks. Avista will continue to use RTF values for this program, and monitor its
realization rates related to this and all measures so the most accurate unit energy savings values can be used.
There is another impact evaluation planned for this program for 2019. The impact evaluator, Cadmus, will conduct 70
document reviews to assess the quality of HVAC program tracking data and will verify that values of key metrics are
within expected limits. Avista’s reported gross ex ante savings estimates and assumptions – particularly for increasingly
significant equipment such as air-source heat pump measures – will also be reviewed and benchmarked against similar
programs in the Northwest.
5) One contractor made a distinction that the program was a 5 when influencing customers to install new equipment, but only a 2 or 3 when influencing customers to
upgrade.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 60
Verified net savings will be determined through a billing analysis of participant and comparison groups where practical.
This program will also undergo a process evaluation in 2019. The evaluation of the program’s design, delivery, and
performance will include a review of program documents and databases to assess participation and savings trends.
The evaluator will also interview Avista staff to document the inclusion of the energy-use component of program
eligibility. Finally, participating contractors will be interviewed to assess program understanding, experience and
satisfaction, how contractors identify customers, how rebates are used as a sales factor, and customer awareness
of the program.
Residential Shell Program
TABLE 37 – RESIDENTIAL SHELL PROGRAM METRICS
Shell Program Summary – Electric 2018
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 64
Overall kWh Savings 85,608
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend
Shell Program Summary – Natural Gas 2018
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 156
Overall Therm Savings 40,014
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend
Description
Through the shell program, Avista encourages residential customers to improve their home’s shell or exterior by
upgrading windows and storm windows. This prescriptive rebate approach issues payment to the customer after the
measure has been installed. Energy-efficiency marketing efforts build considerable awareness of opportunities in the
home and drive customers to the website for rebate information; vendors generate participation using the rebate as a
sales tool for their services. Additional participation encouragement comes through utility website promotion, vendor
training, retail location visits, and presentations at various customer events throughout the year.
Idaho residential electric customers (Schedule 1) who heat their homes with Avista electric are eligible to apply, as are
Idaho residential natural gas customers (Schedule 101) who heat their homes with natural gas.
Storm windows (interior/exterior) must be new, the same size as the existing window, and not be in direct contact
with the existing window, and exterior window low-e coating must be facing the interior of the home. Glazing
material emissivity must be less than 0.22 with a solar transmittance greater than 0.55. Windows must have a
U-factor rating of 0.30 or lower.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 61
Avista will review energy usage as part of the program eligibility requirements. Customers in Idaho with electric
heated homes must demonstrate a heating season usage of 8,000 kWh; those with natural gas heated homes must
demonstrate a heating season usage of 340 therms.
Program Activities
◆Electric: savings of 85,608 kWh in 2018 (1 percent of the overall savings), an 87 percent increase over the
45,870 kWh achieved in 2017.
◆Natural Gas: savings of 40,014 therms in 2018, or 19 percent of the overall savings. The program had a
237 percent increase in savings over the 11,857 therms achieved in 2017.
The savings derived from the residential shell program for both natural gas and electric homes are primarily attributed
to single-pane window replacements.
Shell program participants had been inclined to replace existing windows with regular windows rather than storm
windows. Avista has considered retiring rebates for storm windows, but has not decided at this time to make that
change.
Marketing Activities
The shell program was part of the broad-reach “Way to Save” advertising campaign, which promoted rebates for
energy-efficient windows and provided tips for stopping drafts. See pages 48-51.
Impact Evaluation
The Cadmus impact evaluation team found an 89 percent realization rate of savings for prescriptive shell rebate
measures in electric homes and a realization rate of 107 percent in rebate measures in natural gas homes.
Natural gas shell prescriptive incentives accounted for 19 percent of natural gas savings, while electric shell measures
accounted for less than 3 percent of electric savings of the residential sector program portfolio.
Avista confirmed during evaluation that natural gas unit energy savings (UES) values for several measures throughout
the portfolio mistakenly had not been updated to 2018 TRM values. Initially, the shell natural gas program grossly un-
reported savings, which were based on 2017 TRM values. Under Avista direction, Cadmus adjusted reported savings
for the shell windows measures to use 2018 TRM values.
In summary, Cadmus recommended that prescriptive measures be updated in accordance with updates to the TRM
UES values or RTF methods. Cadmus also recommended that Avista continue to emphasize windows measures
through the shell program, given their contribution of 19 percent of residential program path natural gas savings.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 62
Plans for 2019
Avista will continue to pursue and encourage this program and will base values on RTF data, continuing to update
these values as they change. For 2019, Avista will implement the “most favorable fuel” methodology when the least
penalized fuel dictates the incentive.
There is another impact evaluation planned for this program for 2019. The evaluator will conduct 70 document
reviews to assess the quality of program tracking data, and will also review Avista’s reported gross ex ante savings
estimates and assumptions about per-home consumption and benchmark these against similar programs in the
Northwest. Verified net savings will be determined through a billing analysis of participant and nonparticipant
groups. Savings estimates will be achieved through the use of two modeling approaches: monthly fixed effects panel
modeling and customer-specific regression. Results will be summarized by measure.
This program will also undergo a process evaluation in 2019. The evaluation of the program’s design, delivery, and
performance will include a review of program documents and databases to document tactics used to drive the
customer to the website, changes in rebates, and contractor engagement strategies. The evaluator will also interview
Avista staff to discuss and document the energy-usage component of program eligibility. Vendor training, rebate
changes, and techniques to build market awareness will also be examined. Finally, participating customers will be
interviewed to explore customer experience around the application process, satisfaction with the program, the
influence of the contractor on the process, and customer marketing preferences.
Residential Water Heating Program
TABLE 38 – RESIDENTIAL WATER HEATING PROGRAM METRICS
Water Heating Program Summary – Electric 2018
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 1,011
Overall kWh Savings 47,398
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend
Water Heating Program Summary – Natural Gas 2018
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 1,077
Overall Therm Savings 14,622
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend
Description
Idaho customers who heat their homes with Avista electric or natural gas may be eligible for a rebate for the
installation of a high-efficiency heat pump water heater, tankless water heater, or natural gas high-efficiency water
heater. Efficiencies for space- and water-heating equipment are verified according to the contractor invoice or the Air-
Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI).
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 63
Program Activities
The residential electric water heating program obtained savings of 47,398 kWh in 2018, which included 4,345 kWh
of savings attributed to high-efficiency water heaters and 43,053 kWh attributed to electric non-lighting measures
from the Simple Steps, Smart Savings program. These savings represent approximately 1 percent of savings in the
residential electric program portfolio.
The residential natural gas water heating program obtained savings of 14,622 therms in 2018, which represents
7 percent of the overall savings achieved in Avista’s residential portfolio. The program had a 44 percent decrease in
savings over the 25,932 therms achieved in 2017, despite rebate amounts for high-efficiency natural gas tankless
water heaters and high-efficiency heat pump water heaters remaining unchanged. Therm savings for 2018 also
included gas water heating measures from the Simple Steps, Smart Savings program.
Marketing Activities
The water heating program was included in the broad-reach “Way to Save” advertising campaign, which promoted
rebates for energy-efficient equipment. See pages 48-51.
Plans for 2019
Avista plans to revise the following 2019 incentives:
TABLE 39 – RESIDENTIAL WATER HEATING PROGRAM PLANNED CHANGES FOR 2019
Measure Description 2018 2019
Heat Pump Water Heater (any size Ave Tier 2/3)$ 200
Natural Gas Tankless Water Heater (0.82+)$ 200
Natural Gas High-Efficiency Water Heater (<= 55)NA
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 64
Residential ENERGY STAR Homes Program
TABLE 40 – RESIDENTIAL ENERGY STAR HOMES PROGRAM METRICS
ENERGY STAR Homes Program Summary – Electric 2018
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 26
Overall kWh Savings 83,738
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend
ENERGY STAR Homes Program Summary – Natural Gas 2018
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 2
Overall Therm Savings 406
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend
Note: The TRC and UCT values for the gas program was based on two projects that were combination electric and natural gas. The majority of costs were allocated
to electric causing a high cost-effectiveness result for the natural gas program.
Description
The ENERGY STAR homes program takes advantage of the regional and national effort surrounding the U.S.
Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ENERGY STAR label. Avista and partnering member
utilities of NEEA have committed significant resources to develop and implement this program to set standards, train
contractors, and provide third-party verification of qualifying homes. NEEA, in effect, administers the program and
Avista pays the rebates for homes that successfully complete the process and are labeled ENERGY STAR. In addition,
after the launch of NEEA’s regional effort, the manufactured homes industry established manufacturing standards and
a labeling program to obtain ENERGY STAR-certified manufactured homes. While the two approaches are unique,
they both offer 15-25 percent savings versus the baseline.
The ENERGY STAR homes program promotes to builders and homeowners a sustainable, low-operating-cost,
environmentally friendly structure as an alternative to traditional home construction. In Idaho, Avista offers both
electric and natural gas energy-efficiency programs, and, as a result, has structured the program to account for homes
where either a single fuel or both fuels are used for space and water heating needs. Avista continues to support the
regional program to encourage sustainable building practices.
Any Idaho residential electric customer (Schedule 1) with a certified ENERGY STAR home or ENERGY STAR/ECO-rated
all-electric manufactured home is eligible. Any Idaho residential electric customer (Schedule 1) with a certified ENERGY
STAR home that has Avista electric for lights and appliances and Avista residential natural gas (Schedule 101) for
space and water heating is eligible. For 2018, stick-built ENERGY STAR homes with electric heating did not pass the
TRC cost-effectiveness test and were removed.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 65
A certified ENERGY STAR home with Avista electric or both Avista electric and natural gas service provides energy
savings beyond code requirements for space heating, water heating, shell measures, lighting, and appliances.
Space-heating equipment can be either electric forced air or electric heat pump, or a natural gas furnace. This rebate
may not be combined with other Avista individual measure rebate offers (such as high-efficiency water heaters).
Program Activities
For 2018, Avista discontinued ENERGY STAR incentives for stick-built new construction homes; however, the incentive
for ENERGY STAR manufactured homes was raised from $800 to $1,000 per unit. The program saw a 60 percent
reduction in kWh savings and a 46 percent reduction in therm savings.
The ENERGY STAR for homes natural gas program accounted for less than 2 percent of residential natural gas
program savings; its electric program accounted for less than 3 percent of residential electric program savings.
Impact Evaluation
The 2018 natural gas impact evaluation found that the realization rate for the two natural gas ENERGY STAR for
homes projects was 50 percent; it was 72 percent for the 26 electric projects. In both cases, the evaluator could
not confirm reported savings calculations which depended on inputs not included in tracking data (for example air
infiltration and duct sealing).
Based on reported savings, the ENERGY STAR for homes program achieved 253 percent of the goal, but reported
participation and verified savings both showed that the program achieved approximately 72 percent of the goal,
which indicates that reported savings values are well over the 2018 TRM UES values.
Cadmus recommended that reported savings for all prescriptive measures, including ENERGY STAR homes programs,
be calculated using current TRM or RTF UES values.
Plans for 2019
Revised Rebates for 2019:
TABLE 41 – RESIDENTIAL ENERGY STAR HOMES PROGRAM PLANNED CHANGES FOR 2019
Measure Description 2018 2019
ENERGY STAR Home – Natural Gas Only $ 600 $ 200
ENERGY STAR Home – Manufactured Home, Electric/Dual Fuel $ 1,000 $ 650
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 66
Evaluation Plans
There is another impact evaluation planned for 2019. The evaluator will review program records and simulation model
inputs for a sample of homes. Program tracking records will be compared to Home Energy Rating System’s (HERS)
home characterizations in the simulation models to verify participation and appropriate incentive levels. Simulation
model-predicted savings will be used to compute the gross program electricity and natural gas energy savings.
Average program savings by HERS level will be applied to the program population to estimate overall program savings.
The net-to-gross ratio for Idaho will be ascertained through participant builder surveys to gather information about
participant builder practices when incentives aren’t provided by the program (that is, building practices used for non-
program homes represent the baseline for that particular builder). The goal will be to understand how and if the
ENERGY STAR homes program drives different building practices than non-participating homes. If there is evidence
that participating builders construct homes above the baseline for non-participating homes, the net-to-gross for those
builders will be based on the difference in energy consumption between a non-program home and a program home.
If the data suggests that non-program homes were built to the same standards as the simulation model baseline
home, net savings would be equal to gross savings.
This program will also undergo a process evaluation in 2019. The evaluation of the program’s design, delivery, and
performance will include a review of program documents and databases to assess marketing and outreach efforts as
well as participation trends. The evaluator will also interview Avista staff to document regional communication and
coordination with NEEA and other partnering utilities that offer contractor training and third-party verification of
qualifying projects.
Residential Fuel Efficiency Program
TABLE 42 – RESIDENTIAL FUEL CONVERSION METRICS
Fuel Conversion Program Summary – Fuel Efficiency 2018
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 170
Overall kWh Savings 1,442,640
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend
Description
The fuel efficiency program rebate encourages customers to consider converting their resistive electric space and
water heating to natural gas. The direct use of natural gas continues to be the most efficient fuel choice when
available, and, over time, offers the most economic value in terms of the operating costs of the equipment. Since the
early 1990s, Avista has offered a conversion rebate. While natural gas prices have fallen in recent years, the cost of
infrastructure continues to rise, both for the utility and for customers’ installation costs for this particular measure.
For 2018, conversions to natural gas water heater-only rebates are no longer available. However, Avista provides a
combination conversion rebate for water heater and natural gas furnaces.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 67
Avista pays this prescriptive rebate upon the measure installation and receipt of all relevant documentation.
A customer’s minimum qualifications include using Avista electricity for electric straight-resistance heating or water
heating, which is verified by evaluating their energy use. Energy-efficiency marketing efforts build considerable
awareness of opportunities in the home and drive customers to the website for rebate information. Vendors generate
participation using the rebate as a sales tool for their services. Utility website promotion, vendor training, retail
location visits, and presentations at various customer events throughout the year are some additional communication
methods that encourage program participation.
Residential electric customers (Schedule 1) in Idaho who heat their homes or water with Avista electricity may be
eligible for a rebate for converting to natural gas. The home’s electric baseboard or furnace heat consumption must
indicate a use of 8,000 kWh or more during the previous heating season (and less than 340 therms).
Program Activities
The fuel-efficiency program obtained 1,442,640 kWh of savings in 2018, which is a decrease of 10 percent from
the 1,709,299 kWh achieved in 2017. Avista served a total of 170 customers in 2018, with the majority choosing
to convert both their furnace and water heater (using the “combo measure”). These customers installed either
residential or low-income fuel efficiency measures. In 2017, Avista served 318 customers, with a similar share pursuing
the combo measure as in 2018.
Marketing Activities
The fuel efficiency program was part of the broad-reach “Way to Save” advertising campaign, which promoted
rebates for conversions from electric to natural gas. See pages 48-51.
Program Changes
The 2017 impact evaluation recommended that Avista reduce reported savings and consider using the low-income
conversion-deemed savings assumptions for all fuel efficiency programs. Avista updated this program’s savings values
for 2018 based on relevant UES values.
Impact Evaluation
In the 2018 natural gas impact evaluation study, Cadmus conducted database and document review for 34 fuel
efficiency projects in 2018. The study found an overall realization rate of 116 percent for the program, and a
document audit realization rate of 100 percent. Furthermore, residential prescriptive natural gas measures more than
offset the natural gas penalty of residential prescriptive fuel efficiency measures.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 68
Plans For 2019
Avista plans to offer the following revised rebates for 2019, in accordance with most current UES values:
TABLE 43 – RESIDENTIAL FUEL CONVERSION PLANNED CHANGES FOR 2019
Measure Description 2018 2019
Electric to Natural Gas Furnace $ 1,500
Electric to Natural Gas Combo $ 2,250 $ 1,700
Electric to Natural Gas Wall Heater $ 1,300 discontinued
This program is scheduled for another impact evaluation in 2019. Quality of program tracking data will be assessed
and Avista’s reported gross ex ante savings estimates and assumptions will be reviewed. The most recent data from
the NEEA Residential Building Stock Assessment (RBSA) will be used to analyze the saturation of the water heater
fuel type in the territory and update the allocation of energy savings to electric and natural gas accordingly. Cadmus
will work with Avista to determine the most appropriate programs to which the new regional residential data can be
applied and will benchmark these programs against similar programs in the Northwest.
Verified net savings will be determined through a billing analysis of participant and nonparticipant groups. Savings for
each participant group will be estimated using two modeling approaches – monthly fixed-effects panel modeling and
customer-specific regression – and results will be summarized by measure type. We will also perform a natural gas
billing analysis to better estimate the increase in the natural gas usage from fuel conversion.
This program will also undergo a process evaluation in 2019. The evaluation of the program’s design, delivery, and
performance will include a review of program documents and databases to identify changes in eligibility requirements,
rebate changes, and documentation of contractor support. The evaluator will also interview Avista staff to document
successes and challenges of recent changes to program measures. Vendor training and other market awareness
building efforts will also be examined. Finally, participating customers will be surveyed to explore awareness of fuel
switching as an efficiency opportunity, motivation to participate, and customer experience around the application
process, customer marketing preferences, and the influence of contractors for customer choices.
Residential Simple Steps, Smart Savings Program
TABLE 44 – RESIDENTIAL SIMPLE STEPS, SMART SAVINGS METRICS
Simple Steps, Smart Savings Lighting Program Summary – Electric 2018
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 239,430
Overall kWh Savings 3,411,299
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend
Note: Simple Steps natural gas water heating savings were included in the Residential Prescriptive program as part of water heat related savings.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 69
Description
Simple Steps, Smart Savings is a regional program designed to increase the adoption of energy-efficient residential
products. To achieve energy savings, residential consumers are encouraged to purchase and install high-quality LED
bulbs, light fixtures, energy-saving showerheads, and ENERGY STAR appliances.
Simple Steps, Smart Savings continues to provide the region’s best opportunity to collectively influence both retail
stocking practices and consumer purchasing. There continue to be opportunities for efficient lighting improvements
in customer residences, as many residential lighting sockets are still occupied by inefficient bulbs. Incentives also
encourage customers to increase efficiency before the existing, less-efficient lighting burns out. Energy savings
claimed are based on RTF-deemed savings.
Key to delivering on the objectives of this program are the incentives that encourage customer interest and the
marketing efforts that drive customers to use the program. The upstream model for lighting and showerheads uses a
manufacturer partnership to reduce the cost of products and allow for greater flexibility in how money is used (such
as for markdowns or marketing).
Avista contracted with CLEAResult to provide the manufacturer and retail coordination. CLEAResult is responsible for
coordinating program marketing efforts, performing outreach to retailers, ensuring that the proper program tracking
is in place, and coordinating all implementation aspects of the program. Big-box retailers and select regional and
national mass-market chains are the primary recipients of program measures and typically offer a variety of Simple
Steps, Smart Savings products. These products include LED bulbs such as general purpose, dimmable, decorative,
mini-base, globe, reflectors, and outdoor lights, as well as three-way ENERGY STAR LED fixtures and showerheads
with 2.0 gallons per minute (GPM), 1.75 GPM, and 1.5 GPM ratings. These products are clearly identified with point-
of-purchase tags indicating they are part of the program.
Simple Steps, Smart Savings is available at retail locations with allocations among participating utilities based on an
estimated percentage of customers shopping at specific locations.
Program Activities
Avista witnessed a regional drop in Q1 2018 sales compared to 2017. One big impact has been a change of SKUs and
multi-packs at Costco. In February, Feit/Costco decided to phase out certain SKUs; there’s now a different product mix
at the retailer, affecting stocking practices and availability as new products were sold and replaced by either rolling or
replacement SKUs. Feit/Costco also eliminated a 10-pack which sold in high volume in 2017, leading to a percentage
decrease due to phasing in new SKU products and also eliminating higher volume multi-packs.
Avista has also experienced a series of regional resets at retailers – including Home Depot and Lowes – which has
meant that certain products have been made available to consumers at reduced rates. The reduced end-price means
that the price is too low to qualify for an incentive; Avista therefore cannot report them as incentive-eligible products
through the program.
Also, when BPA lowered its UES savings rates in late 2017, Simple Steps, Smart Savings had to reduce its available
incentives on several products, including A-lamps and reflectors. With the reduced incentive, fewer products were
sold as the cost difference narrowed between ENERGY STAR and non-ENERGY STAR products.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 70
In its April 2018 Regional Building Stock Assessment, the NEEA also confirmed the significant increase in market
penetration of LED lamps, though there is still an opportunity, specifically for LED products, to continue to transform
the market.
Program Changes
On October 1, 2017, changes came into effect to the annual generator busbar (kWh/yr) savings for Simple Steps,
Smart Savings-eligible products on the lighting and showerhead promotion that are set forth in the BPA-UES Measure
List Version 6.0. The updated measure list in turn discontinued buy-down of all compact fluorescent lighting (CFL)
products.
For 2018, the pricing structure changed slightly from the previous year. The kWh rate was increased from $0.11 cents
per kWh to $0.12 cents per kWh with a discounted rate of $0.105 cents per kWh once Avista hit 10,000,000 kWh in
total savings.
On January 1, 2018 an updated version of the Retail Sales Allocation Tool (RSAT) was implemented. The new RSAT
reflected changes to Avista’s allocations at participating retailers on the Simple Steps, Smart Savings program.
Customer Satisfaction
The following calendar describes the outreach activities conducted in 2018:
TABLE 45 – RESIDENTIAL SIMPLE STEPS, SMART SAVINGS OUTREACH ACTIVITIES
Deliverable JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Program-Driven Activities
Online Utility Stakeholder Surveys ✔ ✔✔ ✔
Retail Collateral (by promo)✔✔✔✔ ✔ ✔
Digital Assets (place by promo)✔✔✔ ✔ ✔
Peer Interface with Utility Marcomm ✔ ✔✔ ✔✔ ✔
Utility-Driven Activities
Paid Online Search (by promo)✔✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔
Promoted Facebook Posts ✔✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔
Direct E-mail Messages (by promo)✔✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔
Traditional Customer Communication ✔✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔
Market Partner Driven Activities
Stand-alone Brand Communications ✔ ✔✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔
Co-marketing with Market Partners ✔✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔
Sales Holiday Planning – Stacked Offers ✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 71
Appliance promotions were held on the following dates:
◆Presidents’ Day: February 15–28, 2018
◆Memorial Day: May 15–31, 2018
◆Independence Day: June 26–July 11, 2018
◆Labor Day: August 21–September 18, 2018
◆Black Friday: November 4–December 3, 2018
Shelf survey periods were the months of April and November.
In late Q1 of 2018, there was a consumer website refresh completed: www.simplestepsnw.com.
Impact Evaluation
The 2018 electric impact evaluation by Cadmus found a realization rate of 94 percent for the Simple Steps, Smart
Savings electric program and a 495 percent realization rate for the Simple Steps, Smart Savings natural gas program.
Even with this adjustment, however, the program accounts for less than 2 percent of residential sector natural
gas savings – yet the lighting measures in the electric program account for 68 percent of residential sector electric
program savings.
The impact evaluator recommends that Avista continue to encourage adoption of efficient lighting through the
Simple Steps, Smart Savings program. The NEEA’s Residential Building Stock Assessment II shows that roughly
40 percent of installed lamps in single-family homes in Washington and Idaho are based either on incandescent or
halogen technology.
Plans for 2019
Avista will continue to operate, pursue, and promote lighting measures through Simple Steps, Smart Savings.
For showerheads distributed through the Simple Steps, Smart Savings program, Avista will continue to allocate
61 percent of its reported savings to electric savings and 39 percent to natural gas. This change was made in August
of 2018 and accounts for homes that have different water-heating fuel types. This is proportional to customer meters
specific to each fuel source within the company’s territory.
For the Simple Steps, Smart Savings program, Cadmus will evaluate its impact for 2019 by calculating ex post savings
using RTF UES and primary data gathered by Avista’s vendors regarding units sold. Savings calculated using RTF UES
can be considered net savings values because the RTF uses a market average baseline, which effectively accounts for
free-ridership.
For any lighting measures without RTF UES, Cadmus will calculate savings using an annual savings algorithm with
these variables – lamp wattage, delta watt multiplier, hours of use, days per year, waste heat factor, and in-service rate
– and apply RTF assumptions where practical. This algorithm is derived from industry-standard engineering practices
and is consistent with the methodology used by the RTF for calculating energy use and savings for residential lighting.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 72
This program will also undergo an extensive process evaluation in 2019. The evaluation of the program’s design,
delivery, and performance will include a review of program documents and databases to assess roles and
responsibilities of the implementer, manufacturer, and retailer, as well as coordination activities with the Bonneville
Power Administration. The evaluator will also interview Avista staff to document program understanding, including
coordination of program marketing, outreach to retailers, product tracking, development of measure costs and
savings, and overall program experience, including satisfaction and suggestions for improvement.
Participating manufacturers will be interviewed to assess and document program understanding, participant
motivation and experience, perceived impact of the program on the market, and suggestions for improvement. Finally,
participating retailers will be interviewed to document program understanding, participant motivation and experience,
impact of program on customer uptake of eligible products, and suggestions for improvement.
There is a very slight chance that Avista’s pricing may be adjusted to $0.13 per kWh for 2019 as it has been in
the past. This is largely due to the fact that the cost of running the program remains the same, but that the kWh
associated with each product was reduced on October 1, 2018. Avista’s contract does not allow the company to move
to new pricing until April 1, 2019. It is more likely that Avista will stay with $0.12 per kWh for the entire year, but
will be unable to receive the price discount as in 2018 when the company paid the reduced price of $0.105 cents per
kWh after 10,000,000 kWh in savings.
Residential Multifamily Direct Install Program and Supplemental Lighting
TABLE 46 – RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY DIRECT INSTALL PROGRAM METRICS
Multifamily Direct Install Program Summary – Electric 2018
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 1,330
Overall kWh Savings 729,920
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend
Multifamily Direct Install Program Summary – Natural Gas 2018
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 1,330
Overall Therm Savings 2,014
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend
Description
Multifamily Direct Install (MFDI), administered by SBW Consulting, Inc., is a direct-installation and audit program
that provides 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. Direct installation measures include faucet aerators,
showerheads, screw-in LEDs, smart power strips, and VendingMisers in common areas.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 73
This program is available only to customers who receive electric service from Avista and own or manage five-unit (or
more) multifamily properties. This program ran as a pilot for several months before Avista decided to scale it to a full
program in late 2018. The company also ran a pilot for common-area supplemental lighting that was scaled to a full
program for properties that had been audited and treated through the direct installation program.
Marketing Activities
FIGURE 37 – RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY DIRECT INSTALL PROGRAM FLIER
FREE Energy Conservation Devices for Multifamily Units
For a limited time, Avista is providing energy-saving equipment that can help lower multifamily
housing utility bills. Be sure to get your free LEDs, faucet aerators, low-flow showerheads, smart
power strips, water heater temperature assessments, and other items before the program ends.*
> LED LAMPS provide better lighting and have a longer life while using less energy.
> FAUCET AERATORS can save both water and energy in bathroom and kitchen sinks.
> ENERGY-EFFICIENT SHOWERHEADS reduce energy and water costs while maintaining
excellent water pressure.
> SMART POWER STRIPS can keep home entertainment centers from wasting energy.
> VENDINGMISERS can significantly reduce energy consumption for each cold beverage
vending machine.
Warranty Information
LOW-FLOW SHOWERHEADS come with a 10-year warranty. Call customer service at AM
Conservation regarding the Earth Chrome 1.5 gpm showerhead at 888-513-3005.
SMART POWER STRIPS include a lifetime product warranty against defective manufacturing and
components. Call customer service at AM Conservation regarding the Tricklestar Smart Power Strip
at 888-513-3005.
VENDINGMISERS are covered by a 5-year warranty. Email USA Technologies at
[e-mail] with the model number and a short explanation
regarding the unit problem.
*Free installation based on existing equipment that is eligible for replacement. If not satisfied,
any items can be removed free of charge within 30 days of installation.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 74
Impact Evaluation
The 2018 Impact Evaluation report found that the MFDI program has proven to be an efficient, effective mechanism
for installing high-efficiency lighting and aerators in multifamily units throughout the Avista service territory.
The NEEA’s Residential Building Stock Assessment II “Multifamily Buildings Report” estimated that 44 percent of
lighting in multifamily units uses incandescent or halogen technology. Cadmus recommends focusing on replacement
of high-use, low-efficiency lamps where practical, to maximize program cost effectiveness while keeping savings high.
Cadmus also evaluated the MFDI pilot process. Per Avista and implementer staff, the pilot, like Avista’s residential
programs, had a smooth delivery and ran as expected. Pilot participants were generally highly satisfied with the pilot
and with the direct-installation measures provided to their tenants. Participating property managers did express some
confusion with the timing of rolling out the supplemental lighting phase of the pilot.
◆Avista facilitated the MFDI pilot delivery by mimicking the design of the Small Business Direct
Install (SBDI) program and recruiting its implementer to assume the same role for the pilot. Per
Avista and implementer staff, the pilot, like Avista’s residential program, was delivered smoothly and as
expected. Avista overcame barriers to participation by engaging in a highly targeted marketing campaign.
◆Pilot participants were generally highly satisfied with the pilot and direct-installation measures
provided to their tenants, per Avista reports and direct feedback from multifamily residence property
managers. Although some property managers reported that tenants had problems with certain measures
installed through the pilot, these issues occurred infrequently, and were all resolved by the implementer.
◆Participating property managers were unclear about the timing of the supplemental lighting phase
of the pilot at the time of interviews with Cadmus. Interviewees were not dissatisfied with the supplemental
phase but expressed confusion about the timing of its rollout.
◆Pre- and post-pilot per-unit energy savings differed significantly because of substantial differences
in algorithm inputs such as hours of use (HOU). Avista originally calculated energy-savings estimates
using broad characterizations of building stock in its service territory and intended to use the pilot to collect
more refined information about its customers’ households. Differences between estimated and finalized
energy savings were therefore not an unexpected outcome for Avista.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 75
Plans for 2019
Avista plans to continue to offer the program for 2019, including the supplemental common-area lighting program
offerings.
There is an impact evaluation planned for this program for 2019. Cadmus will conduct document reviews on the
census of projects installed through the pilot program through May 1, 2018. Quality of program tracking data will
be assessed (noting missing, duplicate, and out-of-range values) and the evaluator will verify whether values of
key metrics are within expected limits. Measure installation will be verified through an online survey with building
managers and tenants.
Ex post measure savings for each project will be compared against the most recent 12 months of energy consumption
to confirm that the magnitude of savings is reasonable. The portion of consumption that direct-installation measures
are expected to offset will be calculated and benchmarked against similar measures and expected savings for other
regional utilities. Ex post savings values will be provided by measure.
This program will also undergo an extensive process evaluation in 2019. The evaluation of the program’s design,
delivery, and performance will include a review of program documents and databases to record the program
processes, marketing efforts, and data tracking. The evaluator will also interview Avista staff to document pilot design
including goal setting, delivery process, customer eligibility, incentive structure, and data tracking, as well as roles
and responsibilities, areas of success, and challenges. Participating customers will be interviewed to explore customer
experience, including pilot awareness, satisfaction, energy efficiency actions, barriers to energy efficiency programs,
and marketing preferences.
LOW-INCOME SECTOR
In 2018, Avista put on nearly 70 low-income-specific events for its Idaho customers
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 77
LOW-INCOME SECTOR
Program by Program Summary
Low-Income Program
TABLE 47 – LOW-INCOME PROGRAM METRICS
Low-Income Program Summary – Electric 2018
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 9,405
Overall kWh Savings 355,753
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend
Low-Income Program Summary – Natural Gas 2018
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 127
Overall Therm Savings 4,772
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend
Note: Low-income conservation projects are counted in a combination of units and square footage of units installed; this is not a number of homes or customers
served.
Description
Avista uses the infrastructure of its Idaho program implementation partner, the Community Action Partnership (CAP),
to deliver energy-efficiency programs to its low-income residential electric and natural gas customers in the Idaho
service territory. The low-income program was designed to serve Avista’s residential customers in Idaho whose income
falls between 150 and 250 percent of the most current federal poverty level.
The community action agency qualifies (based on income), prioritizes, and treats customers’ homes based on a
number of characteristics. The agency is allowed to spend its annual allocated funds on either electric or natural gas
efficiency measures. The home must demonstrate a minimum level of electric or natural gas energy use for space
heating to be eligible for the Avista funds. The agency is authorized to use 15 percent of its funds for administration
cost reimbursement. The company also permits the agency to use up to 15 percent of its contract to fund health and
safety improvements. Health and safety spending is at the agency’s discretion and provides the flexibility that may be
needed to preserve the integrity of the improvements that have been installed in the home. In addition to Avista’s
annual funding, the agency has other monetary resources they can use when treating a home with weatherization or
other energy-efficiency measures. The agency uses a combination of in‐house or contract crews to install many of the
program efficiency measures.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 78
Program Activities
Avista continued to reimburse the agencies for 100 percent of the cost for installing most energy-efficiency measures
defined on the approved measure list (see chart below). Avista deemed these measures as cost-effective during the
Annual Conservation Plan development.
TABLE 48 – LOW-INCOME PROGRAM APPROVED MEASURE LIST
Electric Measures Natural Gas Measures
Air Infiltration
Attic Insulation
Duct Sealing
ENERGY STAR doors
ENERGY STAR windows
Floor Insulation
LED Lighting
Wall Insulation
ENERGY STAR doors
High-efficiency Furnace (90% AFUE)
High-efficiency Natural Gas Water Heater (0.67 for storage; 0.82 for
tankless)
Fuel Conversion Measures
Electric to Natural Gas Furnace
Electric to Natural Gas Furnace and Water Heat
Electric to Air-source Heat Pump
Measures that did not meet the cost-effectiveness test were listed on the qualified rebate list and the agency received
partial reimbursement for its installation. The reimbursement amount was equal to the avoided cost energy value
of the improvement. This approach focused the agency toward installing measures that had the greatest cost-
effectiveness from the utility’s perspective. To allow for additional flexibility, the agency may also choose to use its
health and safety dollars to fully fund the cost of the measures on the qualified rebate list.
TABLE 49 – LOW-INCOME PROGRAM REBATE MEASURE LIST
Electric Measures Natural Gas Measures
Duct Insulation
Electric to Ductless Heat Pump (9.0 HSPF)
Electric to Natural Gas Water Heater
ENERGY STAR Refrigerator
Air-source Heat Pump (8.5 HSPF)
Heat Pump Water Heater
Air Infiltration
Attic Insulation
Duct Insulation
Duct Sealing
ENERGY STAR Windows
Floor Insulation
Wall Insulation
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 79
The below charts show how incentives broke by measure for 2018:
FIGURE 38 – LOW-INCOME ELECTRIC INCENTIVE DOLLARS BY MEASURE
This chart does not include the LED giveaway, which distributed 9,162 lamps to customers in the service territory.
FIGURE 39 – LOW-INCOME NATURAL GAS INCENTIVE DOLLARS BY MEASURE
Program Changes
In May and June 2018, Avista amended the agency contract to include an additional $125,000 for weatherization
improvements and an additional $25,000 for conservation education personnel.1 This brought the total
weatherization contract to $825,000 and the conservation education component to $75,000.
1) Order No. 34067 in Docket Nos. AVU-E-18-02 and AVU-G-18-01 issued 05/30/18.
$ 183,836 E to E Heat Pump Conversion
$ 86,517 E to NG Furnace/Water Conversion
$ 75,790 Health & Safety Measure
$ 58,109 Floor Insulation
$ 33,784 ENERGY STAR Window
$ 24,464 Air Infiltration
$ 21,780 Attic Insulation
$ 12,642 Ductless Heat Pump
$ 7,589 E to NG Water Conversion
$ 6,043 ENERGY STAR Door
$ 12,903 all other measures
$ 156,084 High-Efficiency Furnace
$ 67,268 High-Efficiency Water (50 Gallon)
$ 19,784 ENERGY STAR Window
$ 8,909 ENERGY STAR Door
$ 3,551 Floor Insulation
$ 3,450 Tankless Water Heater
$ 2,801 Air Filtration
$ 2,626 Duct Sealing
$ 2,357 Attic Insulation
$ 1,735 Duct Insulation
$ 1,506 Wall Insulation
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 80
Marketing Activities
In partnership with Avista’s energy-efficiency marketing, its consumer affairs department conducts conservation
education and outreach for low-income customers, seniors, individuals living with disabilities, and veterans.
The company reaches this target population through bill inserts, fliers, emails, and news releases, as well as print,
radio, and online advertising. In-person efforts also included mobile outreach at local food banks and other venues,
general outreach through partnerships, and workshops at senior centers. Each method includes demonstrations
and distribution of low‐ and no‐cost materials with a focus on energy efficiency, conservation tips and measures,
and information regarding energy assistance that may be available through various agencies. One low-income and
senior outreach goal is to increase awareness of energy assistance programs such as the Low Income Home Energy
Assistance (LIHEAP) program and Project Share. In 2018, energy-efficiency expenditures related to residential outreach
totaled approximately $123,378 in Idaho.
FIGURE 40 – ENERGY FAIR MARKETING
We make every effort to provide reasonable accommodations
requested for individuals with disabilities. If accommodations
are needed, please contact Lisa Lee in advance of the event:
[phone] or email [e-mail].
Learn tips and see product demos to save energy at home.
Get help with payment options, energy assistance and more.
Plus, enjoy free parking, food and energy saving items!
FREE ADMISSION
JOIN US FOR A FREE AVISTA ENERGY FAIR
Wednesday, October 23
3:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.
Silver Lake Mall
200 W. Hanley Ave.
Coeur d’Alene, ID 83815
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 81
The company recognizes several educational strategies as being efficient and effective activities for delivering energy
efficiency and conservation outreach:
◆Energy conservation workshops for groups of Avista customers where the primary target audience is
composed of senior and low-income participants.
◆Energy fairs where attendees can receive information about low- and no-cost methods to weatherize their
homes through demonstrations and limited samples. In addition, fair attendees can learn about bill assistance
and watch 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 and provide information about their services and accessibility.
◆Mobile outreach is conducted through the Avista energy resource van, where visitors can learn about
effective tips to manage their energy use, bill payment options, and community assistance resources. Through
general outreach, Avista provides energy management information and resources at events (such as resource
fairs) and through partnerships that reach the target populations. General outreach also includes outlining bill
payment options and assistance resources in senior and low-income publications.
In 2018, Avista conducted and participated in 67 events that included workshops, energy fairs, mobile outreach, and
general outreach (via partnerships and events) that reached 5,279 customers in Idaho; 9,162 lamps were given away
at these events.
In addition to the company’s outreach and education activities, Avista partners with CAP in the employment of a
full-time conservation education specialist. CAP uses the funds to enable energy assistance intake specialist in their
10 offices to conduct conservation education activities with clients and in communities. The conservation education
specialist conducts activities similar to and in parallel with Avista, and also provides one-on-one education to
individuals seeking energy assistance while weatherization projects are underway. Furthermore, the specialist supports
each CAP office’s energy staff in their local conservation efforts.
In some situations, the specialist partners with Avista outreach. These collaborations provide an opportunity for the
specialist to learn Avista outreach practices and messaging. During the events where both the company and agency
staff are present, the specialist focuses on promoting CAP services and programs.
We make every effort to provide reasonable accommodations requested
for individuals with disabilities. If accommodations are needed, please
contact Lisa Lee in advance of the event: [phone] or email
[e-mail].
Learn tips and see product demos to save energy at home. Get help with
payment options, energy assistance and more. Plus, enjoy free parking, food
and energy saving items! FREE ADMISSION
Wednesday
September 26, 2018
3:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.
Lewiston Center Mall
1810 19th Ave., Lewiston, ID 83501
JOIN US FOR A FREE AVISTA ENERGY FAIR
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 82
CAP categorizes their activities in three different approaches: low-, medium-, and high-impact. Low-impact activities
are designed to heighten awareness but have the least probability of resulting in behavior change. They include
available brochures or fliers on the wall in the office waiting room. Medium-impact activities help to heighten
awareness, are educational in nature, and have a moderate probability of resulting in behavior changes. They include
workshops and/or informational booths at community events. Finally, high-impact activities are conducted one-on-one
with individuals and have the highest probability of inspiring behavior change. High-impact activities are conducted
during energy assistance intake appointments and/or while weatherization projects are underway.
In 2018, CAP’s conservation activities reached 6,449 individuals. Below is a breakdown per approach:
FIGURE 41 – LOW-INCOME CAP CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES BY LEVEL OF IMPACT
4,594 low-impact
1,297 medium-impact
198 high-impact
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 83
Impact Evaluation
TABLE 50 – LOW-INCOME ELECTRIC IMPACT FINDINGS
Program Reported Electric
Savings (kWh)
Adjusted Electric
Savings (kWh)
Verified Electric
Savings (kWh)Realization Rate
Low-Income 228,498 252,699 252,699 111%
TABLE 51 – LOW-INCOME NATURAL GAS IMPACT FINDINGS
Program Reported Savings
(therms)
Adjusted Savings
(therms)
Verified Savings
(therms)Realization Rate
Low-Income 5,185 4,772 4,772 92%
TABLE 52 – LOW-INCOME FUEL-EFFICIENCY PROGRAM ELECTRIC IMPACT FINDINGS
Fuel-Efficiency Measure Reported Electric
Savings (kWh)
Adjusted Electric
Savings (kWh)
Verified Electric
Savings (kWh)Realization Rate
Low-Income Fuel-Efficiency 101,882 103,054 103,054 101%
TABLE 53 – LOW-INCOME FUEL-EFFICIENCY PROGRAM NATURAL GAS IMPACT FINDINGS
Fuel-Efficiency Measure Reported Savings
(therms)
Adjusted Savings
(therms)
Verified Savings
(therms)Realization Rate
Low-Income Fuel-Efficiency (4,042)(4,668)(4,668)115%
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 84
Performance Savings Goals
Low-income electric programs achieved savings of 252,699 kWh in 2018, or about 159 percent of the goal. Reported
program participation reached 386 percent of the expected value.
Roughly one third of verified low-income electric program savings resulted from LED bulbs given out at events.
Low-income natural gas programs achieved savings of 4,772 therms in 2018, or about 61 percent of the goal.
Cadmus determined that the 39 percent gap between verified savings and the goal results largely from relatively low
program participation (22 percent). Another factor, however, is that the UES values in the Avista TRM often exceed
20 percent of low-income annual usage. The low-income program caps savings at 20 percent of a home’s annual
usage, and therefore doesn’t always match the UES values in the Avista TRM.
Fuel-efficiency programs achieved savings of 103,054 kWh in 2018, achieving 30 percent of the goal.
Impact Evaluation Methodology
Cadmus’ impact evaluation of low-income program measures encompassed a database review. Cadmus used unit
energy savings provided in the Avista Technical Reference Manual to calculate savings for measures reported in the
measure-tracking database. Cadmus labeled savings calculated during the database review as adjusted savings.
Cadmus collected the Avista reported savings through database extracts from Avista’s customer care and billing
(residential) and InforCRM (commercial/industrial) databases and from data provided by third-party implementers.
For low-income fuel-efficiency measures, Cadmus used a database review to conduct an impact evaluation.
Unit savings values provided in the TRM were used to calculate savings for measures reported in the measure tracking
database. Savings calculated during the database review are adjusted savings. For low-income programs’ measures in
general (including low-income fuel efficiency measures), these savings are also considered verified savings.
Recommendations
Cadmus recommends that Avista adjust its participation goal to better align with 2018 findings – and also adjust
savings per participant – as the participation goal was exceeded by a much larger margin than the total savings goal.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 85
Plans for 2019
Avista will review program participation rates from 2018 and adjust participation goals for 2019 accordingly. Avista
will also consider adjusting savings per participant.
For the 2019 Impact Evaluation, Cadmus will determine verified savings for the low-income programs through
database review of data obtained in quarterly and semiannual reports. This approach will provide a strong estimate of
achieved savings until Cadmus can perform billing analysis at the end of the two-year evaluation cycle.
A process evaluation for low-income programs is also planned for 2019. This evaluation will engage third-party
implementers as well as Avista staff, and may help identify further opportunities to improve program performance.
Cost-Effectiveness
Tables 54 and 55 show the low-income sector cost-effectiveness results by fuel type.
TABLE 54 – LOW INCOME ELECTRIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit-Cost Ratio
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 367,524 $ 622,702 0.59
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 404,277 $ 386,685 1.04
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 1,098,570 $ 360,234 3.05
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 367,524 $ 757,981 0.49
TABLE 55 – LOW INCOME NATURAL GAS COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit-Cost Ratio
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 49,883 $ 334,060 0.15
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 49,883 $ 295,312 0.17
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 378,372 $ 275,233 1.37
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 49,883 $ 398,458 0.13
GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION EFFICIENCY
An Avista lineman upgrades pole components to support Avista’s grid modernization program
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 87
GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION EFFICIENCY
Generation
Avista did not complete any efficiency projects at its generation facilities in 2018.
Distribution
During 2018, Avista’s grid modernization program led to a completed upgrade of one Washington feeder with annual
savings of 233 MWh and one Idaho feeder with annual savings of 66 MWh.
Avista created the grid modernization program, which officially started in 2013, to provide a thorough examination
of its electric distribution circuits and programmatically address its facilities’ upgrading and modernization. Avista
is focused on selecting and improving the worst-performing feeders that have been assessed to provide the most
opportunity for improvement in reliability and energy efficiency. This includes the identification, prioritization,
selection, and engineering analysis of the distribution circuits. For grid modernization, Avista performs a
comprehensive inventory of each electric feeder on the system in order to appropriately prioritize and select candidate
feeders for the program. Then Avista uses the feeder criteria information to rank the potential benefits for each circuit
compared with all the system distribution feeders.
FIGURE 42 – GRID MODERNIZATION PROGRAM MAILER
For more information visit myavista.com.
There are a lot of benefits to upgrading the
distribution system.
 public and employee safety
 increased reliability
 improved efficiency
 early detection of system problems, resulting in
faster response times and fewer unplanned outages
 better able to meet growing energy needs
We’ll contact you as construction begins in
your area.
During construction, crews will work as quickly
and as safely as possible to minimize the impact
to both customers and the public. Large projects
can take months to complete over multiple
construction seasons.
 You’ll be notified 24 hours prior to any planned
temporary power outages needed to complete
the work. Please make sure your Avista account
contact information is up to date at myavista.com
or by calling 800.227.9187.
 We’ll work directly with you if we need access
to your property or an easement.
 Please be aware of crews working in your area
to help ensure your safety – and theirs.
 Flaggers may be directing traffic on nearby streets.
We are upgrading our electric distribution system
to ensure the safe and reliable energy you count on.
Here’s what we’ll be doing:
replacing power
poles and installing
new energy-efficient
power lines
installing automated
equipment that improves
line performance, detectssystem problems, and
reduces outages
reconfiguring sections
of line to improve safety
and accessibility for
future maintenance
reducing safety risks
around power lines by
maintaining clearances
and trimming or removing
nearby trees
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 88
Avista initially optimized grid modernization at a cycle interval of rebuilding every distribution feeder over 60 years,
since it both reflects the average lifespan of the company’s distribution infrastructure and relates to the 20-year
interval cycle time for the Wood Pole Management (WPM) program.
Grid modernization and WPM are integrated in several important ways. Avista relies on the inspection data from
WPM for its grid modernization asset condition assessment and to target the timing of feeder rebuilds to optimize
the value of wood pole inspections and follow-up that is already performed. WPM relies on the poles inspected for
grid modernization as contributions to the total number that must be inspected annually to remain on the 20-year
inspection cycle. Further, the grid modernization program integrates activities of other operational programs beyond
WPM, including the transformer change-out, vegetation management, and various budgeted maintenance programs,
as well as the segment reconductor and feeder tie programs.
Through the grid modernization program, Avista aims to accomplish a comprehensive modernization approach from
both an energy efficiency and a reliability perspective. The program has several targeted criteria:
◆Reliability index 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
◆Vegetation management
With approximately 350 feeders in Avista’s system and a targeted 60-year life cycle, Avista needs to complete
almost 6 grid modernization feeders each year when staffed and funded appropriately and has worked on 19 grid
modernization feeders so far (which were in varying forms of design, construction, or completion). Table 56 shows the
grid modernization plan by feeder and identifies the program results and plans that extends through 2023.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 89
TABLE 56 – GRID MODERNIZATION PLAN BY FEEDER
Feeder State Construction
Start Date
Construction
End Date
Baseline
Report Date
Baseline
Report
Version
Estimated
Annual Pri.
Reconductor
MWh Savings
Estimated
Annual
Transformer
Loss MWh
Savings
Total
Estimated
Annual MWh
Savings3,4,5
9CE 12F4 WA –2009 Annual MWh Energy Savings were not Estimated or Documented as this time1
BEA 12F1 WA 2012 2012 Annual MWh Energy Savings were not Estimated or Documented as this time2
F&C 12F2 WA 2012 2012 Annual MWh Energy Savings were not Estimated or Documented as this time2
BEA 12F5 WA 2013 2013 Annual MWh Energy Savings were not Estimated or Documented as this time2
CDA 121 ID 2012 2013 Annual MWh Energy Savings were not Estimated or Documented as this time2
WIL 12F2 WA 2013 2015 Annual MWh Energy Savings were not Estimated or Documented as this time2
OTH 502 WA 2015 2015 Annual MWh Energy Savings were not Estimated or Documented as this time2
M23 621 ID 2014 2015 3/20/2015 Version 4 412.6 163.2 575.8
RAT 231 ID 2014 2015 3/17/2015 Version 3 0.0 148.7 148.7
WAK 12F2 WA 2015 2016 3/3/2015 Version 7 40.3 135.3 175.6
MIL 12F2 WA 2016 2017 3/10/2015 Version 4 21.0 164.8 185.8
SPI 12F1 WA 2015 2019 4/1/2015 Version 2 31.6 83.2 114.8
RAT 233 ID 2016 2019 3/17/2015 Version 5 90.3 381.4 471.7
SPR 761 WA 2017 2019 9/17/2015 Version 3 49.9 55.7 105.6
ORO 1280 ID 2017 2017 10/19/2015 Version 1 3.5 108.2 111.7
TUR 112 WA 2017 2018 5/6/2016 Version 2 140.1 92.7 232.8
PDL 1201 WA 2017 2017 5/27/2016 Version 2 23.5 165.5 189.0
MIS 431 ID 2018 2023 8/22/2016 Version 1 128.8 128.3 257.1
F&C 12F1 WA 2018 2019 11/16/2016 Version 1 1.8 258.5 260.3
HOL 1205 ID 2018 2018 3/30/2017 Version 1 0 65.5 65.5
BEA 12F2 WA 2019 2020 10/13/2017 Version 1 8.8 260.5 269.3
M15 514 ID 2020 2023 4/30/2018 Version 1 0 245.6 245.6
SIP 12F4 WA 2020 2022 12/14/2018 Version 1 10.5 272.8 283.3
ROS 12F5 WA TBA TBA TBA Version 1 –––
1) Completed under the DREE Program. Annual MWh Energy Savings may have been estimated and provided by others, however they did not follow the same analysis
process and documentation that was started by Grid Modernization in late 2013, and may note be able to be recreated.
2) Competed under the Feeder Upgrade Program. Annual MWh Energy Savings may have been estimated and provided by others, however they did not follow the
same analysis process and documentation that was started by Grid Modernization in late 2013 and may not be able to be recreated.
3) Additional MWh savings estimated through Distribution Automation improvements are not included in these figures.
4) Additional MWh savings estimated through the removal of Open Wire Secondary districts are not included in these figures.
5) Additional MWh savings estimated through power factor correction initiatives with capacitors, IVVC, or CVR are not included in these figures.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 90
Also in 2018, through its LED streetlight change-out program, Avista successfully converted 2,742 high-pressure
sodium streetlights to LED technology, resulting in energy savings of 738 MWh in Idaho and 139 MWh in
Washington.
Avista manages streetlights for many local and state government entities to provide street, sidewalk, and highway
illumination by installing overhead streetlights. The primary reason for converting overhead streetlights from high-
pressure sodium to LED is the significant improvements in energy savings, lighting quality, and resource cost savings.
In all, over the five-year program, Avista will change out over 28,000 streetlights by the end of 2019. Table 57 shows
the distribution efficiency savings by program.
TABLE 57 – DISTRIBUTION EFFICIENCY SAVINGS BY PROGRAM
Program Idaho Savings
(MWh)
Washington Savings
(MWh)
Total Savings
(MWh)
Grid Modernization 66 233 299
LED Streetlight Change-Out 738 139 877
Total 804 372 1,176
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 91
(This page intentionally left blank.)
REGIONAL MARKET TRANSFORMATION
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 93
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 throughout its service territory through a combination of
financial incentives, technical assistance, program outreach, and education.
It is not feasible for Avista to independently have a meaningful impact on regional or national markets. Consequently,
utilities within the Northwest have worked together through Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) to address
opportunities beyond the ability or reach of individual utilities. Avista has been participating in and funding NEEA
since it was founded in 1997.
Table 58 shows the 2018 NEEA forecast savings versus actual savings and the associated costs for Idaho.
TABLE 58 – ACTUAL SAVINGS AND ASSOCIATED COSTS
Fuel Type
2018 NEEA Final Reported
Energy Savings as of
March 2019
2018 Costs (Avista
Financials)
Avista Current Funding
Share (Washington and
Idaho Combined)
Electric 5,028 MWh
(0.574 aMW)$ 422,241 5.77%
Natural Gas N/A $ 49,712 15.63%
Electric Energy Savings Share
All the values provided in this report represent the amounts that are allocated to Avista’s service territory, which is
a combination of site-based energy savings data (where available) or is an allocation of savings based on funding
share. Using the funding share allocation approach, Avista is split: 70 percent for Avista Washington and 30 percent
for Avista Idaho (shown in the table above). The company’s share varies by funding cycle and within each cycle if the
funding composition changes.
Natural Gas Energy Savings Share
The natural gas 2015-19 business plan does not forecast energy savings in the short term within this cycle. Avista
focused the business plan on developing the portfolio of initiatives that will deliver savings anticipated in 2019 or
later.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 94
2018 Costs
NEEA’s annual costs do not relate 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 costly at the start then return (in the form
of energy savings) after a few years. Approximately 68 percent of the regional energy savings value delivered in 2018
was from initiatives with an investment period of 2010–14. The current investment period has a forecasted energy
stream that extends beyond 2019.
NEEA’s costs include all expenditures for operations and value delivery:
◆Energy savings initiatives
◆Investments in market training and infrastructure
◆Stock assessments, evaluations, data collection, and other regional and program research
◆Emerging technology research and development
◆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 the
Avista service territory. Avista believes that NEEA will continue to offer cost‐effective electric market transformation in
the foreseeable future, and will continue to be active in the organizational oversight of NEEA. This will be critical to
ensuring that geographic equity, cost‐effectiveness, and resource acquisition goals are met.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 95
(This page intentionally left blank.)
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Rooftop solar panels atop Avista’s corporate headquarters, Spokane, Washington
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 97
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
advisory group: Avista’s group of external stakeholders who comment about the company’s energy efficiency
activities.
adjusted market baseline: Based on the RTF guidelines, represents a measurement between the energy efficient
measure and the standard efficiency case that is characterized by current market practice or the minimum
requirements of applicable codes or standards, whichever is more efficient. When applying an Adjust Market
Baseline, no net-to-gross factor would be applied since the resultant unit energy savings amount would represent the
applicable savings to the grid.
Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI): Systems that measure, collect and analyze energy usage, from advanced
devices such as electricity meters, natural gas meters and/or water meters through various communication media on
request or on a predetermined schedule.
aMW: The amount of energy that would be generated by one megawatt of capacity operating continuously for one
full year. Equals 8,760 MWhs of energy.
American National Standards Institute (ANSI): A source for information on national, regional, international
standards and conformity assessment issues.
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE): Devoted to the
advancement of indoor-environment-control technology in the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
industry, ASHRAE’s mission is “to advance technology to serve humanity and promote a sustainable world.
Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (AFUE): A measurement on how efficiently a furnace or boiler uses its fuel.
Applied Energy Group (AEG): A consulting service that provides a wide range of energy efficiency and demand
response related management services to assist clients in designing and implementing programs for their customers.
avoided cost: An investment guideline, describing the value of conservation and generation resource investments in
terms of the cost of more expensive resources that would otherwise have to be acquired.
baseline: Conditions, including energy consumption, which would have occurred without implementation of the
subject energy efficiency activity. Baseline conditions are sometimes referred to as “business-as-usual” conditions.
baseline efficiency: The energy use of the baseline equipment, process, or practice that is being replaced by a more
efficient approach to providing the same energy service. It is used to determine the energy savings obtained by the
more efficient approach.
baseline period: The period of time selected as representative of facility operations before the energy efficiency
activity takes place.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 98
British Thermal Unit (Btu): The amount of heat energy necessary to raise the temperature of one pound of water
one degree Fahrenheit (3,413 BTUs are equal to one kilowatt-hour).
busbar: The physical electrical connection between the generator and transmission system. Typically load on the
system is measured at busbar.
capacity: The maximum power that a machine or system can produce or carry under specified conditions. The
capacity of generating equipment is generally expressed in kilowatts or megawatts. In terms of transmission lines,
capacity refers to the maximum load a line is capable of carrying under specified conditions.
Community Action Partnership (CAP): General term for Community Action Programs, Community Action
Agencies, and Community Action Centers that provide services such as low-income weatherization through federal
and state and other funding sources (e.g. utility constitutions).
conservation: According to the Northwest Power Act, any reduction in electric power consumption as a result of
increases in the efficiency of energy use, production or distribution.
Conservation Potential Assessment (CPA): An analysis of the amount of conservation available in a defined area.
Provides savings amounts associated with energy efficiency measures to input into the Company’s Integrated Resource
Planning (IRP) process.
cost-effective: According to the Northwest Power Act, a cost-effective measure or resource must be forecast to be
reliable and available within the time it is needed, and to meet or reduce electrical power demand of consumers at an
estimated incremental system cost no greater than that of the least-costly, similarly reliable and available alternative or
combination of alternatives.
curtailment: An externally imposed reduction of energy consumption due to a shortage of resources.
customer/customer classes: A category(ies) of customer(s) defined by provisions found in tariff(s) published by the
entity providing service, approved by the PUC. Examples of customer classes are residential, commercial, industrial,
agricultural, local distribution company, core and non-core.
decoupling: In conventional utility regulation, utilities make money based on how much energy they sell. A utility’s
rates are set based largely on an estimation of costs of providing service over a certain set time period, with an
allowed profit margin, divided by a forecasted amount of unit sales over the same time period. If the actual sales turn
out to be as forecasted, the utility will recover all of its fixed costs and its set profit margin. If the actual sales exceed
the forecast, the utility will earn extra profit.
deemed savings: Primarily referenced as unit energy savings, an estimate of an energy savings for a single unit of
an installed energy efficiency measure that (a) has been developed from data sources and analytical methods that are
widely considered acceptable for the measure and purpose, and (b) is applicable to the situation being evaluated.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 99
demand: The load that is drawn from the source of supply over a specified interval of time (in kilowatts, kilovolt-
amperes, or amperes). Also, the rate at which natural gas is delivered to or by a system, part of a system or piece of
equipment, expressed in cubic feet, therms, BTUs or multiples thereof, for a designated period of time such as during
a 24-hour day.
Demand Response (DR): A voluntary and temporary change in consumers’ use of electricity when the power system
is stressed.
Demand Side Management (DSM): The process of helping customers use energy more efficiently. Used
interchangeably with Energy Efficiency and Conservation although conservation technically means using less while
DSM and energy efficiency means using less while still having the same useful output of function.
discount rate: The rate used in a formula to convert future costs or benefits to their present value.
distribution: The transfer of electricity from the transmission network to the consumer. Distribution systems generally
include the equipment to transfer power from the substation to the customer’s meter.
Distributed Generation (DG): An approach that employs a variety of small-scale technologies to both produce and
store electricity close to the end users of power.
Effective Useful Life (EUL): Sometimes referred to as measure life and often used to describe persistence. EUL is an
estimate of the duration of savings from a measure.
end-use: A term referring to the final use of energy; it often refers to the specific energy services (for example, space
heating), or the type of energy-consuming equipment (for example, motors).
energy assistance advisory group: An ongoing energy assistance program advisory group to monitor and explore
ways to improve Avista’s Low-Income Rate Assistance Program (LIRAP).
energy-efficiency measure: Refers to either an individual project conducted or technology implemented to reduce
the consumption of energy at the same or an improved level of service. Often referred to as simply a “measure”.
evaluation: The performance of a wide range of assessment studies and activities aimed at determining the effects
of a program (and/or portfolio) and understanding or documenting program performance, program or program-
related markets and market operations, program-induced changes in energy efficiency markets, levels of demand or
energy savings, or program cost-effectiveness. Market assessment, monitoring and evaluation, and verification are
aspects of evaluation.
Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification (EM&V): Catch-all term for evaluation activities at the measure,
project, program and/or portfolio level; can include impact, process, market and/or planning activities. EM&V is
distinguishable from Measurement and Verification (M&V) defined below.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 100
ex-ante savings estimate: Forecasted savings value used for program planning or savings estimates for a measure;
Latin for “beforehand.”
ex-post evaluated estimated savings: Savings estimates reported by an independent, third-party evaluator after
the energy impact evaluation has been completed. If only the term “ex-post savings” is used, it will be assumed that
it is referring to the ex-post evaluation estimate, the most common usage; from Latin for “from something done
afterward.”
external evaluators (AKA third-party evaluators): Independent professional efficiency person or entity retained
to conduct EM&V activities. Consideration will be made for those that are Certified Measurement and Verification
Professionals (CMVPs) through the Association of Energy Engineers (AEE) and the Efficiency Evaluation Organization
(EVO).
free rider: A common term in the energy efficiency industry meaning a program participant who would have
installed the efficient product or changed a behavior regardless of any program incentive or education received. Free-
riders can be total, partial, or deferred.
generation: The act or process of producing electricity from other forms of energy.
gross savings: The change in energy consumption and/or demand that results from energy efficiency programs,
codes and standards, and naturally-occurring adoption which have a long-lasting savings effect, regardless of why
they participated.
heating degree days: A measure of the amount of heat needed in a building over a fixed period of time, usually a
year. Heating degree days per day are calculated by subtracting from a fixed temperature the average temperature
over the day. Historically, the fixed temperature has been set at 65 degrees Fahrenheit, the outdoor temperature
below which heat was typically needed. As an example, a day with an average temperature of 45 degrees Fahrenheit
would have 20 heating degree days, assuming a base of 65 degrees Fahrenheit.
Heating Seasonal Performance Factor (HSPF): Defined as the ratio of heat output over the heating season to the
amount of electricity used in air source or ductless heat pump equipment.
Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC): Sometimes referred to as climate control, the HVAC
is particularly important in the design of medium to large industrial and office buildings where humidity and
temperature must all be closely regulated whilst maintaining safe and healthy conditions within.
Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC): Regulators of investor-owned or privatively owned utilities that provide
gas, water, electricity, or some telephone services for profit.
impact evaluation: Determination of the program-specific, directly or indirectly induced changes (e.g., energy and/or
demand usage) attributable to an energy efficiency program.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 101
implementer: Avista employees whose responsibilities are directly related to operations and administration of energy
efficiency programs and activities, and who may have energy savings targets as part of their employee goals or
incentives.
incremental cost: The difference between the cost of baseline equipment or service and the cost of alternative
energy- efficient equipment or service.
Integrated Resource Plan (IRP): An IRP is a comprehensive evaluation of future electric or natural gas resource
plans. The IRP must evaluate the full range of resource alternatives to provide adequate and reliable service to a
customer’s needs at the lowest possible risk-adjusted system cost. These plans are filed with the state public utility
commissions on a periodic basis.
Integrated Resource Plan Technical Advisory Committee (IRP TAC): Advisory committee for the IRP process that
includes internal and external stakeholders.
International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP): A guidance document with a
framework and definitions describing the four M&V approaches; a product of the Energy Valuation Organization
(www.evo-world.org).
Investor-Owned Utility (IOU): A utility that is organized under state law as a corporation to provide electric power
service and earn a profit for its stockholders.
Kilowatt (kW): The electrical unit of power that equals 1,000 watts.
Kilowatt-hour (kWh): A basic unit of electrical energy that equals one kilowatt of power applied for one hour.
Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE): The present value of a resource’s cost (including capital, financing, and operating
costs) converted into a stream of equal annual payments. This stream of payments can be converted to a unit cost of
energy by dividing them by the number of kilowatt-hours produced or saved by the resource in associated years. By
levelizing costs, resources with different lifetimes and generating capabilities can be compared.
line losses: The amount of electricity lost or assumed lost when transmitting over transmission or distribution lines.
This is the difference between the quantity of electricity generated and the quantity delivered at some point in the
electric system.
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Federal energy assistance program, available to
qualifying households based on income, usually distributed by community action agencies or partnerships.
Low-Income Rate Assistance Program (LIRAP): LIRAP provides funding (collected from Avista’s tariff rider) to CAP
agencies for distribution to Avista customers who are least able to afford their utility bill.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 102
market effect evaluation: An evaluation of the change in the structure or functioning of a market, or the behavior
of participants in a market, that results from one or more program efforts. Typically, the resultant market or behavior
change leads to an increase in the adoption of energy-efficient products, services, or practices.
measure (also Energy Efficiency Measure or “EEM”): Installation of a single piece of equipment, subsystem or
system, or single modification of equipment, subsystem, system, or operation at an end-use energy consumer facility,
for the purpose of reducing energy and/or demand (and, hence, energy and/or demand costs) at a comparable level
of service.
measure life: See Effective Useful Life (EUL)
Measurement and Verification (M&V): A subset of program impact evaluation that is associated with the
documentation of energy savings at individual sites or project, using one or more methods that can involve
measurements, engineering calculations, statistical analyses, and/or computer simulation modeling. M&V approaches
are defined in the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol
(IPMVP available at www.evo-world.org).
Megawatt (MW): The electrical unit of power that equals one million watts or one thousand kilowatts.
Megawatt-hour (MWh): A basic unit of electrical energy that equals one megawatt of power applied for one hour.
net savings: The change in energy consumption and/or demand that is attributable to an energy efficiency program.
This change in energy use and/or demand may include, implicitly or explicitly, consideration of factors such as free
drivers, non-net participants (free riders), participant and non-participant spillover, and induced market effects. These
factors may be considered in how a baseline is defined and/or in adjustments to gross savings values.
Non-Energy Benefit/Non-Energy Impact (NEB/NEI): The quantifiable non-energy impacts associated with program
implementation or participation; also referred to as non-energy benefits (NEBs) or co-benefits. Examples of NEIs
include water savings, non-energy consumables and other quantifiable effects. The value is most often positive, but
may also be negative (e.g., the cost of additional maintenance associated with a sophisticated, energy-efficient control
system).
portfolio: Collection of all programs conducted by an organization. In the case of Avista, portfolio includes electric
and natural gas programs in all customer segments. Portfolio can also be used to refer to a collection of similar
programs addressing the market. In this sense of the definition, Avista has an electric portfolio and a natural gas
portfolio with programs addressing the various customer segments.
prescriptive: A prescriptive program is a standard offer for incentives for the installation of an energy efficiency
measure. Prescriptive programs are generally applied when the measures are employed in relatively similar
applications.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 103
process evaluation: A systematic assessment of an energy efficiency program or program component for
the purposes of documenting operations at the time of the examination, and identifying and recommending
improvements to increase the program’s efficiency or effectiveness for acquiring energy resources while maintaining
high levels of participant satisfaction.
program: An activity, strategy or course of action undertaken by an implementer. Each program is defined by a
unique combination of program strategy, market segment, marketing approach and energy efficiency measure(s)
included. Examples are a program to install energy-efficient lighting in commercial buildings and residential
weatherization program.
project: An activity or course of action involving one or multiple energy efficiency measures at a single facility or site.
Regional Technical Forum of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (RTF): A technical advisory
committee to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council established in 1999 to develop standards to verify and
evaluate energy efficiency savings.
Realization Rate (RR): Ratio of ex-ante reported savings to ex-post evaluated estimated savings. When realization
rates are reported, they are labeled to indicate whether they refer to comparisons of 1) ex-ante gross reported savings
to ex-post gross evaluated savings, or 2) ex-ante net reported savings to ex-post net evaluated savings.
reliability: When used in energy efficiency evaluation, the quality of a measurement process that would produce
similar results on (a) repeated observations of the same condition or event, or (b) multiple observations of the same
condition or event by different observers. Reliability refers to the likelihood that the observations can be replicated.
reported savings: Savings estimates reported by Avista for an annual (calendar) period. These savings will be based
on best available information.
Request for Proposal (RFP): Business document that announces and provides details about a project, as well as
solicits bids from potential contractors.
retrofit: To modify an existing generating plant, structure, or process. The modifications are done to improve energy
efficiency, reduce environmental impacts, or to otherwise improve the facility.
rigor: The level of expected confidence and precision. The higher the level of rigor, the more confident one is that the
results of the evaluation are both accurate and precise, i.e., reliable.
R-value or R-factor (resistance transfer factor): Measures how well a barrier, such as insulation, resists the
conductive flow of heat.
schedules 90 and 190: Rate schedules that show energy efficiency programs.
schedules 91 and 191: Rate schedules that are used to fund energy efficiency programs.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 104
sector(s): The economy is divided into four sectors for energy planning. These are the residential, commercial (e.g.,
retail stores, office and institutional buildings), industrial, and agriculture (e.g. dairy farms, irrigation) sectors.
site-specific (SS): A non-residential program offering individualized calculations for incentives upon any electric or
natural gas-efficiency measure not incorporated into a prescriptive program.
simple payback: The time required before savings from a particular investment offset costs, calculated by investment
cost divided by value of savings (in dollars). For example, an investment costing $100 and resulting in a savings of
$25 each year would be said to have a simple payback of four years. Simple paybacks do not account for future cost
escalation, nor other investment opportunities.
spillover: Reductions in energy consumption and/or demand caused by the presence of an energy efficiency
program, beyond the program-related gross savings of the participants and without direct financial or technical
assistance from the program. There can be participant and/or non participant spillover (sometimes referred to as “Free
Drivers”). Participant spillover is the additional energy savings that occur as a result of the program’s influence when a
program participant independently installs incremental energy efficiency measures or applies energy-saving practices
after having participated in the energy efficiency program. Non-participant spillover refers to energy savings that occur
when a program non-participant installs energy efficiency measures or applies energy savings practices as a result of a
program’s influence.
technical reference manual: An Avista-prepared resource document that contains Avista’s (ex-ante) savings
estimates, assumptions, sources for those assumptions, guidelines, and relevant supporting documentation for its
natural gas and electricity energy efficiency prescriptive measures which is populated and vetted by the RTF and 3rd
party evaluators.
Total Resource Cost (TRC) test: A cost-effectiveness test that assesses the impacts of a portfolio of energy-efficiency
initiatives regardless of who pays the costs or who receives the benefits. The test compares the present value of costs
of efficiency for all members of society (including all costs to participants and program administrators) compared to
the present value of all quantifiable benefits, including avoided energy supply and demand costs and non-energy
impacts.
transmission: The act or process of long-distance transport of electric energy, generally accomplished by elevating
the electric current to high voltages. In the Pacific Northwest, Bonneville operates a majority of the high-voltage, long-
distance transmission lines.
Uniform Energy Factor (UEF): A measurement on how efficiently a water heater utilizes its fuel.
Unit Estimated Savings (UES): Defines the first-year kWh savings value for an energy efficiency measure.
U-value or U-factor: The measure of a material’s ability to conduct heat, numerically equal to 1 divided by the
R-value of the material. Used to measure the rate of heat transfer in windows. The lower the u-factor, the better the
window insulates.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 105
uncertainty: The range or interval of doubt surrounding a measured or calculated value within which the true value
is expected to fall within some degree of confidence.
Utility Cost Test (UCT): One of the four standard practice tests commonly used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of
DSM programs. The UCT evaluates the cost-effectiveness based upon a program’s ability to minimize overall utility costs.
The primary benefits are the avoided cost of energy in comparison to the incentive and non-incentive utility costs.
verification: An assessment that the program or project has been implemented per the program design. For example,
the objectives of measure installation verification are to confirm (a) the installation rate, (b) that the installation meets
reasonable quality standards, and (c) that the measures are operating correctly and have the potential to generate
the predicted savings. Verification activities are generally conducted during on-site surveys of a sample of projects.
Project site inspections, participant phone and mail surveys, and/or implementer and consumer documentation
review are typical activities association with verification. Verification may include one-time or multiple activities over
the estimated life of the measures. It may include review of commissioning or retro-commissioning documentation.
Verification can also include review and confirmation of evaluation methods used, samples drawn, and calculations
used to estimate program savings. Project verification may be performed by the implementation team, but program
verification is a function of the thrid-party evaluator.
weather normalized: This is an adjustment that is made to actual energy usage, stream-flows, etc., which would
have happened if “normal” weather conditions would have taken place.
8760: Total number of hours in a year.
APPENDICES AND SUPPLEMENTS
Noxon Rapids Dam, Clark Fork River, northwest Montana
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices
APPENDIX A – 2018 IDAHO ELECTRIC IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT

PY 2018 Idaho Electric
Impact Evaluation
Report
June 1, 2019
Prepared for:
Avista Corporation
1411 East Mission Avenue
Spokane, WA 99202

Prepared by:
Jeff Cropp
Mitt Jones
Christie Amero
Rachel Fernandez
Jon Lee

i
Table of Contents
Portfolio Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 1
Evaluation Methodology and Activities ................................................................................................. 1
Summary of Impact Evaluation Results ................................................................................................. 1
Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 2
Nonresidential Impact Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 4
Program Summary ................................................................................................................................. 4
Program Participation Summary ............................................................................................................ 4
Evaluation Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................ 6
Nonresidential Impact Evaluation Methodology ................................................................................... 6
Nonresidential Impact Evaluation Results ............................................................................................. 8
Nonresidential Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... 10
Residential Impact Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 12
Program Summary ............................................................................................................................... 12
Program Participation Summary .......................................................................................................... 12
Evaluation Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................................... 13
Residential Impact Evaluation Methodology ....................................................................................... 13
Residential Impact Evaluation Results ................................................................................................. 14
Residential Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................. 16
Low Income Impact Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 18
Program Summary ............................................................................................................................... 18
Program Participation Summary .......................................................................................................... 18
Evaluation Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................................... 18
Low Income Impact Evaluation Methodology ..................................................................................... 18
Low Income Impact Evaluation Results ............................................................................................... 19
Low Income Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................ 19
Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 20
Program Summary ............................................................................................................................... 20
Program Participation Summary .......................................................................................................... 20
Evaluation Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................................... 21
Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation Methodology .................................................................................. 22

ii
Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation Results ............................................................................................ 22
Fuel Efficiency Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................ 24

Tables
Table 1. Electric Program Evaluation Activities (PY 2018) ............................................................................ 1
Table 2. Reported and Verified Electric Savings (PY 2018) ........................................................................... 2
Table 3. Nonresidential Prescriptive Electric Savings (PY 2018) ................................................................... 5
Table 4. Nonresidential Prescriptive Participation Goals by Equipment Rebated ....................................... 5
Table 5. Nonresidential Prescriptive Participation by Project (PY 2018) ...................................................... 6
Table 6. Nonresidential Site Specific Electric Savings (PY 2018) .................................................................. 6
Table 7. Idaho Nonresidential Prescriptive Electric Evaluation Sample ....................................................... 8
Table 8. Idaho Nonresidential Site Specific Electric Evaluation Sample ....................................................... 8
Table 9. Nonresidential Prescriptive Electric Impact Findings ..................................................................... 9
Table 10. Nonresidential Prescriptive Evaluation Summary of Discrepancies ............................................. 9
Table 11. Nonresidential Site Specific Electric Impact Findings (PY 2018) ................................................. 10
Table 12. Nonresidential Site Specific Evaluation Summary of Discrepancies ........................................... 10
Table 13. Residential Prescriptive Reported Electric Savings (PY 2018) ..................................................... 12
Table 14. Residential Prescriptive Participation (PY 2018) ......................................................................... 13
Table 15. Multifamily Direct Install Reported Electric Savings ................................................................... 13
Table 16. Residential Prescriptive Electric Impact Document Review ....................................................... 14
Table 17. Residential Prescriptive Database Review Electric Impact Findings ........................................... 15
Table 18. Residential Prescriptive Electric Impact Document Review Realization Rates ........................... 15
Table 19. Residential Prescriptive Electric Impact Findings ....................................................................... 16
Table 20. Low Income Reported Savings (PY 2018) .................................................................................... 18
Table 21. Low Income Participation (PY 2018) ........................................................................................... 18
Table 22. Low Income Electric Impact Findings .......................................................................................... 19
Table 23. Nonresidential Site Specific Fuel Efficiency Electric Savings (PY 2018) ....................................... 20
Table 24. Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency Reported Electric Savings (PY 2018) ............................. 21
Table 25. Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency Reported Participation (PY 2018) ................................. 21
Table 26. Low Income Fuel Efficiency Reported Electric Savings (PY 2018) ............................................... 21
Table 27. Low Income Fuel Efficiency Participation (PY 2018) ................................................................... 21
Table 28. Nonresidential Fuel Efficiency Electric Impact Findings ............................................................. 23
Table 29. Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency Electric Impact Findings ............................................... 23

iii
Table 30. Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency Electric Impact Document Review Realization Rate ..... 23
Table 31. Low Income Fuel Efficiency Program Electric Impact Findings ................................................... 23

Figure
Figure 1. Residential Impact Process .......................................................................................................... 14

1
Portfolio Executive Summary
For several decades, Avista Corporation has been administering demand-side management programs to
reduce electricity and natural gas energy use for its portfolio of customers. Most of these programs have
been implemented in-house, but a few have external implementers. Avista contracted with Cadmus to
complete process and impact evaluations of its PY 2018 and PY 2019 electric demand-side management
programs in Idaho. This report presents our electric impact evaluation findings for PY 2018. Cadmus did
not apply net-to-gross adjustments to savings values, except in cases where deemed energy savings
values already incorporate net-to-gross as a function of the market baseline.
Evaluation Methodology and Activities
Cadmus conducted the Idaho portfolio evaluation using a variety of methods and activities, shown in
Table 1.
Table 1. Electric Program Evaluation Activities (PY 2018)
Sector Program Document/Database
Review
Verification/Metering
Site Visits
Nonresidential Prescriptive (Multiple) ü ü
Site Specific ü ü
Residential
Simple Steps, Smart Savings™ ü --
HVAC ü --
Shell ü --
ENERGY STAR® Homes ü --
Multifamily Direct Install ü --
Low Income Low Income ü --
Fuel Efficiency
Site Specific (Nonresidential) ü --
Prescriptive (Residential) ü --
Low Income ü --

Summary of Impact Evaluation Results
Overall, the Idaho electric portfolio achieved a 98% realization rate and acquired 29,805,007 kWh in
annual verified savings (Table 2). Cadmus collected the Avista-reported savings through database
extracts from Avista’s Customer Care and Billing (residential) and InforCRM (nonresidential) databases
and from data provided by third-party implementers to determine the verified savings that represent
our findings. In the second year of the two-year evaluation cycle (PY 2019), Cadmus will conduct utility
billing regression analyses to evaluate the most accurate energy savings for most residential programs.

2
Table 2. Reported and Verified Electric Savings (PY 2018)
Sector Reported Savings (kWh) Verified Savings (kWh) Realization Rate
Nonresidential 22,832,307 22,630,556 99%
Residential 5,400,520 5,108,673 95%
Low Income 228,498 252,699 111%
Fuel Efficiency 1,824,345 1,813,079 99%
Total 30,285,671 29,805,007 98%

Conclusions and Recommendations
During the PY 2018 evaluation, Cadmus identified several areas for improvement, outlined below by
sector.
Nonresidential Conclusions and Recommendations
While some individual project results varied, the overall nonresidential sector performed strongly in
PY 2018. Most of the projects Cadmus sampled for evaluation were well-documented and matched
what we found during site visit verifications.
Cadmus has two recommendations for improving the nonresidential sector energy savings:
• Ensure that the final reported savings calculations reflect the most up-to-date project details,
including post-installation verification photos, equipment submittals, and invoices. During two
project verifications, Cadmus found different installed equipment sizes, quantities, or
performance ratings than used in the reported savings calculations.
• Ensure that power metered data and pressure and airflow trend data collected for compressed
air projects are analyzed on a day-type approach (instead of taking the overall averages for the
metered period) to improve the accuracy of the energy-savings calculations. The day-type
analysis method is recommended by the Department of Energy’s Advanced Manufacturing
Office and Compressed Air Challenge® and is used in the AIRMaster+ free online software tool.1
This method provides a more granular estimation of the baseline and installed system flow
rates, performance, and energy use.
Residential Conclusions and Recommendations
During the evaluation, Avista confirmed that unit energy savings (UES) values used to calculate reported
savings for numerous residential measures had not been updated to match the 2018 Avista technical
reference manual (TRM) UES values. This was especially pronounced in the residential HVAC program,
where reported savings under-represented savings for heat pump measures. Under the direction of
Avista, Cadmus adjusted reported savings for these measures to match the 2018 TRM UES values.

1 Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. April 10, 2014. “AIRMaster+ Motor Driven Systems.”
https://www.energy.gov/eere/amo/articles/airmaster

3
Based on reported savings, the ENERGY STAR Homes program achieved 253% of goal, but reported
participation and verified savings both showed that the program achieved approximately 72% of goal,
which indicates that reported savings values are well over the current TRM UES values.
Cadmus offers three recommendations regarding Avista’s residential electric programs:
• Ensure that reported savings for all prescriptive measures are calculated using the current TRM
or current 2017 Regional Technical Forum2 (RTF) UES values.
• Continue to encourage the adoption of efficient lighting through the Simple Steps, Smart Savings
program. The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Residential Building Stock Assessment II
shows that roughly 40% of installed lamps in single family homes in Washington and Idaho are
incandescents or halogens.
• The Multifamily Direct Install (MFDI) program has proven to be an efficient, effective mechanism
for installing high-efficiency lighting and aerators in multifamily units. The Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance Residential Building Stock Assessment II “Multifamily Buildings Report”
estimated that 44% of lighting in multifamily units use incandescent or halogen technology.
Cadmus recommends to focus on replacing high-use, low-efficiency lamps where practical, to
maximize program cost-effectiveness while keeping savings high.
Fuel Efficiency Recommendations
Cadmus recommends that Avista update reported residential savings for fuel efficiency measures to use
current TRM UES values, particularly for measures where the differences are especially notable, such as
conversions to natural gas water heaters and natural gas wall furnaces.

2 Regional Technical Forum. 2017. Standard Protocols. https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/standard-protocols

4
Nonresidential Impact Evaluation
Through its nonresidential portfolio of programs, Avista promotes the purchase of high-efficiency
equipment for commercial and industrial utility customers. Avista provides rebates to partially offset the
difference in cost between high-efficiency equipment and standard equipment.
Program Summary
Avista completed and incented 685 nonresidential electric measures in Idaho in PY 2018 and reported
total electric energy savings of 22,832,307 kWh. Through the nonresidential sector, Avista offers
incentives for high-efficiency equipment and controls through three program paths: Prescriptive, Site
Specific, and Fuel Efficiency.
The Prescriptive program path is selected for smaller, straightforward equipment installations that
generally have similar operating characteristics (such as lighting, simple HVAC systems, food service
equipment, and variable frequency drives).
The Site Specific program path is reserved for more unique projects that require custom savings
calculations and technical assistance from Avista’s account executives (such as compressed air, process
equipment and controls, and comprehensive lighting retrofits).
Fuel Efficiency measures are part of the Site Specific program path, but involve a combination of electric
savings and natural gas penalties. These measures typically involve replacing electric space heating or
water heating systems with natural gas equipment. Please refer to the Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation
section for Cadmus’ evaluation methodology and findings for nonresidential Fuel Efficiency measures.
Program Participation Summary
This section summarizes nonresidential sector participation and progress toward PY 2018 goals through
the Prescriptive and Site Specific program paths.
Nonresidential Prescriptive Program Path
Table 3 shows electric energy savings goals assigned to Avista’s nonresidential Prescriptive program path
for PY 2018 as well as reported savings and a comparison between reported savings and goals.

5
Table 3. Nonresidential Prescriptive Electric Savings (PY 2018)
Program Name Savings Goals (kWh) Savings Reported (kWh) Percentage of Goal
Interior Lighting 6,635,450 8,038,814 121%
Exterior Lighting 1,405,118 4,243,826 302%
Shell Measure 629 929 148%
Green Motors 45,180 42,466 94%
Motor Control (Variable Frequency
Drives [VFD]) 75,595 112,931 149%
Fleet Heat 8,000 0 0%
Food Service Equipment 94,730 8,527 9%
AirGuardian 18,000 0 0%
Energy Smart Grocera 724,348 3,402 0%
Total 9,007,050 12,450,896 138%
a The Energy Smart Grocer savings goal includes Site Specific Energy Smart Grocer measures. The Site Specific portion
constitutes approximately 10% of the overall goal.

Table 4 shows participation goals by rebated equipment quantity, as provided by Avista. The PY 2018
nonresidential tracking database extract listed individual projects, but did not include rebated
equipment quantity. For reference, Table 5 provides participation by unique application numbers.
Table 4. Nonresidential Prescriptive Participation Goals by Equipment Rebated
Program Type Planned Participation
Interior Lighting 26,904
Exterior Lighting 4,302
Shell Measure 325
Green Motors 18
Motor Control (VFD) 55
Fleet Heat 1
Food Service Equipment 18
AirGuardian 3
Energy Smart Grocera 2,097
a The Energy Smart Grocer goal includes Site Specific Energy Smart Grocer participants.

6
Table 5. Nonresidential Prescriptive Participation by Project (PY 2018)
Program Type Participation Reporteda
Interior Lighting 315
Exterior Lighting 273
Shell Measure 3
Green Motors 11
Motor Control (VFD) 3
Fleet Heat 0
Food Service Equipment 4
AirGuardian 0
Energy Smart Grocer 1
Total 610
a A participant is defined as a unique application number.

Nonresidential Site Specific Program Path
Table 6 shows electric savings goals assigned to the Site Specific program path in Avista’s nonresidential
sector for PY 2018, as well as reported savings. Note that the table does not include reported electric
savings for the Fuel Efficiency sector, such as those associated with the Multifamily Market
Transformation program.
Table 6. Nonresidential Site Specific Electric Savings (PY 2018)
Program Path Savings Goals (kWh) Savings Reported (kWh) Percentage of Goal
Site Specific 4,000,000 10,381,411 260%

Evaluation Goals and Objectives
For the PY 2018 quarterly, semiannual, and annual reports, Cadmus conducted nonresidential impact
activities to determine verified savings for most programs.
Nonresidential Impact Evaluation Methodology
To evaluate impact evaluation savings for the PY 2018 nonresidential sector, Cadmus performed several
activities in two waves:
• Selected an evaluation sample and requested project documentation from Avista
• Performed project documentation review
• Prepared on-site M&V plans
• Performed site visits and collected on-site data (such as trend data, photos, and
operating schedules)
• Used site visit findings to calculate verified savings by measure
• Applied realization rates to total reported savings population to determine overall verified savings

7
The program context, along with Cadmus’ sample design, document review, and on-site verification
activities, is described in more detail below.
Program Context
As the first step of our evaluation activities, we gained an understanding of the programs and measures
being evaluated. Specifically, Cadmus explored documents and data records:
• Avista’s annual business plans, which detail processes and energy savings justifications
• Project documents from external sources (customers, program consultants, and implementation
contractors)
Based on the initial review, Cadmus outlined the distribution of program contributions to the overall
portfolio of programs. In addition, the review allowed us to understand the sources for UES for each
measure offered through the programs, along with the sources for energy-savings algorithms and the
internal quality assurance and quality control processes for large nonresidential sector projects.
Following this review, Cadmus designed the sample strategy for the impact evaluation activities, as
discussed in the following section.
Sample Design
We based the first evaluation sample on program data from January 2018 to April 2018, and we based
the second evaluation sample on program data from May 2018 through December 2018. As a guideline,
Cadmus used the proposed, overall PY 2018 and PY 2019 nonresidential sample sizes by subprogram in
the M&V plan, seeking to complete approximately one-quarter of the sample during the first wave and
another one-quarter during the second wave.
For each activity wave, we broke down submitted program applications by path and measure (such as
Site Specific shell measure, Prescriptive lighting, or Prescriptive motor controls), allowing us to select the
highest-savings applications in each category with certainty. For applications with reported savings
greater than 1% of total savings by category, Cadmus assigned random numbers and sampled randomly.
We removed applications with less than 1% of total savings by category from the sample consideration,
except where another application at the same location or facility was previously selected (and where we
could assess both applications with one site visit, which is a cost-effective verification strategy even if
the second application represents minimal claimed savings).
Cadmus sampled randomly selected sites across both Washington and Idaho since Avista’s programs are
implemented similarly in both states. We pooled the results from the randomly selected sites to
calculate a realization rate by stratum that we applied to projects in both states. We applied verified
savings for sites selected with certainty only to the state in which they had been implemented.
Table 7 summarizes the Idaho nonresidential Prescriptive program path evaluation sample. Across both
states, Cadmus sampled 40 Prescriptive applications at 34 unique sites. Of the sampled applications, we
selected 21 for certainty review based on the scale of savings, measure type, or location, and we

8
selected the remaining 19 applications randomly. There was no participation in the AirGuardian and
Fleet Heat programs in Idaho in PY 2018.
Table 7. Idaho Nonresidential Prescriptive Electric Evaluation Sample
Program Type Applications Sampled Sampled Savings (kWh) Percentage of Reported Savings
Interior Lighting 6 2,311,797 29%
Exterior Lighting 2 110,360 3%
Shell Measure 1 198 21%
Green Motors 4 18,678 44%
Motor Control (VFD) 2 104,755 93%
Fleet Heat 0 0 N/A
Food Service Equipment 0 0 0%
AirGuardian 0 0 N/A
Energy Smart Grocer 1 3,402 100%
Nonresidential Prescriptive 16 2,549,190 20%

Table 8 summarizes the Idaho nonresidential Site Specific program path evaluation sample. Across both
states, Cadmus sampled 18 Site Specific applications at 15 unique sites. Of the sampled applications, we
selected 12 for certainty review based on the scale of savings, measure type, or location, and we
selected the remaining six applications randomly.
Table 8. Idaho Nonresidential Site Specific Electric Evaluation Sample
Program Path Applications Sampled Sampled Savings (kWh) Percentage of Reported Savings
Site Specific 7 7,648,853 74%

Document Review
We requested and reviewed project documentation for each sampled application and prepared M&V plans
to guide our site visits. Project documentation typically included incentive applications, calculation tools
(usually based on the 2017 RTF), invoices, equipment specification sheets, and post-inspection reports.
On-Site Verification
Cadmus performed site visits at 46 unique nonresidential locations to assess electric savings for
58 unique Prescriptive and Site Specific measures (not including Fuel Efficiency measures). Site visits
involved verifying the installed equipment type, make and model numbers, operating schedules, and
setpoints, as applicable. We did not consider it necessary to conduct power metering or light logging for
PY 2018 site visits. Cadmus collected two weeks of trend data for two of the Site Specific industrial
process measures at one industrial site. We used the project documentation review and on-site findings
to adjust the reported savings calculations where necessary.
Nonresidential Impact Evaluation Results
This section summarizes the nonresidential sector Prescriptive and Site Specific program paths’ electric
impact evaluation results for PY 2018.

9
Nonresidential Prescriptive Programs
Table 9 shows reported and verified electric energy savings for Avista’s Nonresidential sector
Prescriptive program path and the realization rates between verified and reported savings for PY 2018.
The overall nonresidential sector Prescriptive program path electric realization rate was 100%.
Table 9. Nonresidential Prescriptive Electric Impact Findings
Program Type Reported Savings (kWh) Verified Savings (kWh) Realization Rate
Interior Lighting 8,038,814 8,012,238 100%
Exterior Lighting 4,243,826 4,243,826 100%
Shell Measure 929 929 100%
Green Motors 42,466 42,870 101%
Motor Control (VFD) 112,931 113,171 100%
Fleet Heat 0 0 100%
Food Service Equipment 8,527 8,527 100%
AirGuardian 0 0 100%
Energy Smart Grocer 3,402 3,402 100%
Nonresidential Prescriptive 12,450,896 12,424,964 100%

Of the evaluated applications, Cadmus identified discrepancies for seven based on the site visit and
project documentation review. Table 10 summarizes the reasons for discrepancies between reported
and verified savings.
Table 10. Nonresidential Prescriptive Evaluation Summary of Discrepancies
Program Type Number of
Occurrences
Savings
Impact Reason(s) for Discrepancy
Interior Lighting
2 ê Cadmus reduced the lighting fixture in-service rate for two projects to
account for incented fixtures that were on the site but in storage.
1 ê Savings in project documentation were slightly lower than reported
savings in program database.
1 é
Cadmus accounted for additional savings from delamping for reported 4-
lamp LED fixtures that only had two lamps. The participant had removed
two lamps per fixture due to brightness.
Green Motor
Rewind 2 é Reported savings for two projects referenced the 2017 RTF. Cadmus
applied deemed motor savings from the 2018 TRM workbook.
Motor Control
(VFD) 1 ê
Cadmus reduced the reported quantity of 2.5 horsepower return air fans
with VFDs from three to one and added two 3 horsepower return air fans
with VFDs.

Nonresidential Site Specific Program
Table 11 shows reported and verified electric energy savings for Avista’s PY 2018 nonresidential sector
Site Specific program path, as well as a comparison between verified and reported savings for PY 2018.
The overall Site Specific program path electric realization rate was 98%. Note that the table does not
include reported and verified electric savings for measures in the Fuel Efficiency path.

10
Table 11. Nonresidential Site Specific Electric Impact Findings (PY 2018)
Program Path Reported Savings (kWh) Verified Savings (kWh) Realization Rate
Site Specific 10,381,411 10,205,592 98%

Of the evaluated applications, Cadmus identified discrepancies in five based on the site visit and project
documentation review. Table 12 summarizes the reasons for discrepancies between reported and
verified savings.
Table 12. Nonresidential Site Specific Evaluation Summary of Discrepancies
Project
Type
Number of
Occurrences
Savings
Impact Reason(s) for Discrepancy
Exterior
Lighting
1 ê The site installed a higher quantity of exterior LED fixtures. The reported savings
in database did not match the implementer’s submitted calculation workbook.
1 ê The site installed fewer LED pole lighting fixtures and more LED wall pack fixtures
than reported.
Industrial
Process 1 é
The site converted two pressure roll vacuum units from double zone to single
zone units, eliminating the need for one of the four 500-horsepower vacuum
pumps. Reported savings calculations assumed the pump motor to be 100%
efficient. Cadmus adjusted the savings calculations to incorporate losses for a
conservative, high-efficiency 500-horsepower motor (95.8%).
Compressed
Air 1 ê
The site replaced two fixed-speed air compressors with two 350-horsepower
variable speed rotary-screw air compressors. Project documentation included
post-installation power and airflow metered data. Cadmus updated the reported
savings calculations by breaking out pre- and post-period airflow and baseline
system performance on a weekday basis, rather than an overall metered period
basis. Although the difference in average overall airflow was minimal between the
verified and reported methodology, there were days (such as Wednesdays and
Fridays) that differed by 175 CFM to 230 CFM from reported. This difference had a
significant impact on the performance of the baseline air compressors.
Interior
Lighting 1 é
Cadmus included the calculated cooling load electric energy savings in the interim
verified savings. These savings were calculated in the project documentation but
not included in the reported savings.

Nonresidential Conclusions and Recommendations
The nonresidential sector achieved total verified electric energy savings of 22,631 MWh in PY 2018 with
a combined realization rate of 99%. The nonresidential sector also exceeded the combined Prescriptive
and Site Specific program paths’ electric savings goal of 13,007 MWh by 74%.
While some individual project results varied, the overall nonresidential sector performed strongly in
PY 2018. Most of the projects Cadmus sampled for evaluation were well-documented and matched
what we found during site visit verification.
Cadmus has two recommendations for improving the nonresidential sector energy savings:
• Ensure that the final reported savings calculations reflect the most up-to-date project details,
including post-installation verification photos, equipment submittals, and invoices. During two

11
project verifications, Cadmus found different installed equipment sizes, quantities, or
performance ratings than used in the reported savings calculations.
• Ensure that power metered data and pressure and airflow trend data collected for compressed
air projects are analyzed on a day-type approach (instead of taking the overall averages for the
metered period) to improve the accuracy of the energy-savings calculations. The day-type
analysis method is recommended by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Manufacturing
Office and Compressed Air Challenge® and is used in the AIRMaster+ free online software tool.
This method provides a more granular estimation of the baseline and installed system flow
rates, performance, and energy use.

12
Residential Impact Evaluation
Cadmus designed the residential sector impact evaluation to verify reported program participation and
energy savings. We used data collected and reported in the tracking database, online application forms,
Avista TRM and RTF savings review, and applicable updated deemed savings values.
Program Summary
Avista completed and incented 250,234 residential electric measures or units in Idaho in PY 2018 and
reported total electric energy savings of 5,400,520 kWh, not including participation and savings from
Fuel Efficiency measures, which are included below in the Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation section. The
residential programs comprise two primary paths—Prescriptive and MFDI. The Prescriptive path
includes Simple Steps, Smart Savings, which encourages consumers to purchase and install high-quality
LEDs, light fixtures, and energy-efficient showerheads; the Residential HVAC program, which incents
high-efficiency heating and cooling equipment; the Residential Shell program, which provides rebates to
encourage customers to install high-efficiency windows and storm windows; and the ENERGY STAR
Homes program, which offers 15% to 25% energy savings relative to state energy code. Through the
MFDI program, Avista provides free direct-install measures to multifamily residences (of five units or
more) and common areas.
Program Participation Summary
This section summarizes residential sector participation and progress toward PY 2018 goals for the
residential Prescriptive and residential MFDI programs.
Residential Prescriptive Programs
Table 13 shows savings goals assigned to Avista’s residential sector Prescriptive programs for PY 2018, as
well as reported savings and the goal portion achieved in PY 2018.
Table 13. Residential Prescriptive Reported Electric Savings (PY 2018)
Program Savings Goals (kWh) Savings Reported (kWh) Percentage of Goal
Simple Steps, Smart Savings 1,326,717 3,693,056 278%
HVAC 730,543 765,230 105%
Shell 60,854 95,748 157%
ENERGY STAR Homes 46,144 116,567 253%
Residential Prescriptive Total 2,164,258 4,670,601 216%

Table 14 summarizes participation goals and reported participation in Avista’s residential sector
Prescriptive programs for PY 2018, along with the percentage of goal achieved.

13
Table 14. Residential Prescriptive Participation (PY 2018)
Program Participation Goals Participation Reported Percentage of Goal
Simple Steps, Smart Savingsa 88,465 240,437 272%
HVACb 518 462 89%
Shellc 5,016 7,979 159%
ENERGY STAR Homesb 14 26 186%
Residential Prescriptive Total 94,013 248,904 265%
a Participation is defined as the number of purchased units.
b Participation is defined as the number of rebates.
c Participation is defined as square feet of installed windows or storm windows.

Multifamily Direct Install Program
Table 15 shows reported savings and participation for the MFDI program in PY 2018. Avista launched
this program as a pilot in PY 2018 and did not set annual program goals, then transitioned this from a
pilot to an ongoing study in September 2018.
Table 15. Multifamily Direct Install Reported Electric Savings
Program Path Savings Reported (kWh) Participation Reported
Multifamily Direct Install 729,920 1,330

Evaluation Goals and Objectives
For the PY 2018 quarterly, semiannual, and annual reports, Cadmus verified savings for most programs
through a combination of database review and document review, which are described below.
Residential Impact Evaluation Methodology
To determine the residential sector verified savings for PY 2018, Cadmus employed two impact
evaluation methods for most residential programs:3
• Database review
• Document review
Similar to previous practice, Cadmus calculated adjusted savings based on results of the database review
and applied realization rates from our document reviews. Verified savings represented adjusted savings
multiplied by the document review realization rates, as shown in Figure 1.

3 With approval from Avista, Cadmus ceased performing a third impact activity—verification surveys—in the
third quarter of PY 2018 to eliminate redundancy between verification surveys and document review.

14
Figure 1. Residential Impact Process

Database Review
For the impact evaluation database review, Cadmus used UES values, as provided in the TRM, to
calculate savings for measures reported in the measure tracking database. This impact activity may help
identify incorrect UES values used to calculate reported savings. Savings calculated during the database
review are defined as adjusted savings.
Document Review
For the document review, Cadmus compared information from rebate forms and other supporting
documents to measure tracking data for a random sample of projects. This impact activity may identify
installed measures that did not meet eligibility requirements, quantities that did not match the measure
tracking database, and other discrepancies. Following our review of all projects, we calculated a
realization rate for the document review by dividing savings calculated for the sample (using the revised
information) by reported savings for the sample. We then multiplied this realization rate by adjusted
savings for the entire program to determine verified savings.
Cadmus conducted document reviews for the programs shown in Table 16, drawing roughly equal
samples from participants in each quarter.
Table 16. Residential Prescriptive Electric Impact Document Review
Program Completed for PY 2018
HVAC 34
Shell 34

Residential Impact Evaluation Results
The following sections summarize findings and provide verified savings for both of Cadmus’ impact
evaluation methodologies. The database review resulted in the largest number of adjustments to
reported savings.

15
Database Review
Table 17 shows database review findings, with adjusted savings being higher than reported savings for
some programs and lower for others. Adjusted savings differed from reported savings because reported
UES values differed from TRM values for several measures. Avista determined that the reported savings
for these measures used values from an older customer database that did not align with those in the
current TRM. For measures with reported savings based on measure-specific parameters, Cadmus could
not confirm the reported savings calculations, which depended on inputs that were not included in the
tracking data (such as air infiltration and duct sealing).
Table 17. Residential Prescriptive Database Review Electric Impact Findings
Program Reported Electric Savings (kWh) Adjusted Electric Savings (kWh) Percentage Change
Simple Steps, Smart Savings 3,693,056 3,454,438 -6%
HVAC 765,230 786,170 3%
Shell 95,748 100,535 5%
ENERGY STAR Homes 116,567 83,738 -28%
Residential Prescriptive Total 4,670,601 4,424,881 -5%

Document Review
Table 18 summarizes document review findings to date. The HVAC program had a 96% electric
realization rate and the Shell program had an 85% electric realization rate.
Table 18. Residential Prescriptive Electric Impact Document Review Realization Rates
Program Document Audit
Count
Sample Reported
Savings (kWh)
Sample Verified
Savings (kWh)
Document Audit
Realization Rate
HVAC 34 32,997 31,691 96%
Shell 34 49,224 41,915 85%

Cadmus identified several discrepancies during the document review through PY 2018:
• For two window measures, documentation showed a square footage for installed windows that
differed from that reported. In both cases, the documented square footage was lower than that
reported and resulted in lower verified savings based on the corrected area.
• For four window measures reported at sites with electric heating, project documents identified
heating fuels other than electricity. Cadmus added natural gas savings and removed electricity
savings at two sites identified as using natural gas heating. Documentation for the other two
sites identified the heating fuel as liquid propane for one site and wood pellets for the other, so
Cadmus removed electricity savings for these sites.
• One heat pump water heater measure had a tank capacity of 80 gallons per the documentation.
To qualify for the measure, however, the heat pump water heater had to have a tank size below
55 gallons, so Cadmus removed savings for this measure.

16
Table 19 shows verified savings, which apply the realization rates shown in Table 18 to the adjusted
savings calculated based on the database review. The verified savings represent Cadmus’ best estimate
of savings without conducting a billing analysis.
Table 19. Residential Prescriptive Electric Impact Findings
Program Reported Electric
Savings (kWh)
Adjusted Electric
Savings (kWh)
Verified Electric
Savings (kWh)a
Realization
Rates
Simple Steps, Smart Savings 3,693,056 3,454,352 3,454,352 94%
HVACb 765,230 786,170 755,054 99%
Shell 95,748 100,535 85,608 89%
ENERGY STAR Homes 116,567 83,738 83,738 72%
Residential Prescriptive Total 4,670,601 4,424,796 4,378,753 94%
a Verified savings represents adjusted savings only for Simple Steps, Smart Savings and ENERGY STAR Homes.
b Includes heat pump water heater installations not included in Table 17 of the PY 2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report.
Table 19 of that report includes heat pump water heater savings.

Residential Conclusions and Recommendations
Verified electricity savings show a realization rate of 94% on realized savings of 4,378,753 kWh for the
residential Prescriptive programs, which is 202% of the savings goal for the year, due largely to program
participation that was 265% of goal. Reported savings for the MFDI program added 729,920 kWh, for
total acquired savings of 5,108,673 kWh.
Lighting measures account for a high percentage of residential sector program path savings: Simple
Steps, Smart Savings provided 68% of residential savings, mostly through lighting measures, and MFDI
provided 14% of savings, also mostly through lighting measures. The HVAC program accounted for 15%
of savings, with Shell and ENERGY STAR Homes accounting for a combined 3% of residential sector
savings.
During the evaluation, Avista confirmed that the UES values used to calculate reported savings for
numerous residential sector measures had not been updated to match 2018 TRM UES values. This was
especially pronounced in the Residential HVAC program, where reported savings under-represented
savings for heat pump measures. Under the direction of Avista, Cadmus adjusted reported savings for
these measures to match the 2018 TRM UES values.
Based on reported savings, the ENERGY STAR Homes program achieved 253% of goal, but reported
participation and verified savings both showed that the program achieved approximately 72% of goal,
which indicates that reported savings values are well over the 2018 TRM UES values.
Cadmus offers three recommendations regarding Avista’s residential sector electric programs:
• Ensure that reported savings for all Prescriptive measures are calculated using current TRM or
RTF UES values.
• Continue to encourage the adoption of efficient lighting through the Simple Steps, Smart Savings
program. The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Residential Building Stock Assessment II

17
shows that roughly 40% of installed lamps in single family homes in Washington and Idaho are
based either on incandescent or halogen technology.
• The MFDI program has proven to be an efficient, effective mechanism for installing high-
efficiency lighting and aerators in multifamily units. The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
Residential Building Stock Assessment II “Multifamily Buildings Report” estimated that 44% of
lighting in multifamily units use incandescent or halogen technology. Cadmus recommends to
focus on replacing high-use, low-efficiency lamps where practical, to maximize program cost-
effectiveness while keeping savings high.

18
Low Income Impact Evaluation
Cadmus designed the Low Income programs’ impact evaluation to verify reported program participation
and energy savings. We used data collected and reported in the tracking database and conducted a TRM
savings review.
Program Summary
Avista leverages the infrastructure of a single Community Action Partnership agency to deliver energy
effiicency programs for the company’s low-income residential customers in the Idaho service territory.
The program is designed to serve Avista residential customers in Idaho whose income falls between 175
percent and 250 percent of federal poverty level. For PY 2018, the program achieved 228,498 kWh of
reported electric savings in Idaho, not including savings for the Low Income Fuel Efficiency measures,
which are reported separately in the Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation section.
Program Participation Summary
Table 20 shows Avista savings goals for the Low Income sector for PY 2018, as well as reported savings
and goal portions achieved in PY 2018.
Table 20. Low Income Reported Savings (PY 2018)
Program Savings Goals (kWh) Reported Savings (kWh)a Percentage of Goal
Low Income 159,162 228,498 144%
a Reported savings do not include Low Income Fuel Efficiency savings, shown in the Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation section.

Table 21 summarizes participation goals for the Low Income programs, along with participation reported
and achieved in PY 2018.
Table 21. Low Income Participation (PY 2018)
Program Participation Goalsa Participation Reporteda Percentage of Goal
Low Income 16,419 63,436 386%
a Participation numbers do not include Low Income Fuel Efficiency participation, shown in the Fuel Efficiency Impact
Evaluation section, or recipients of LED bulbs at giveaway events. Participation is defined as the number of installed units or
square feet of installed insulation or windows.

Evaluation Goals and Objectives
For quarterly and semiannual reports in PY 2018 and PY 2019, Cadmus will determine verified savings
for the Low Income programs through a database review (described above in the Database Review
section). This approach will provide a strong estimate of achieved savings until Cadmus can perform
billing analysis at the end of the two-year evaluation cycle.
Low Income Impact Evaluation Methodology
Cadmus’ impact evaluation for the Low Income programs’ measures consisted of database review
(described above in the Database Review section). We used UES values provided in the TRM to calculate

19
savings for measures reported in the measure tracking database. Cadmus labeled savings calculated
during the database review as adjusted savings.
Low Income Impact Evaluation Results
Table 22 shows reported and adjusted electric savings for Low Income conservation measures. The table
does not include savings for Low Income programs Fuel Efficiency path measures (shown in the Low
Income Fuel Efficiency Impact Findings section below).
Table 22. Low Income Electric Impact Findings
Program Reported Electric
Savings (kWh)
Adjusted Electric
Savings (kWh)
Verified Electric
Savings (kWh) Realization Rate
Low Income 228,498 252,699 252,699 111%

Low Income Conclusions and Recommendations
With a realization rate of 111% for electricity savings, the Low Income programs achieved savings of
252,699 kWh in PY 2018, or about 159% of goal. Reported program participation reached 386% of the
expected value. Cadmus recommends that Avista adjust its participation goal to better align with PY
2018 findings, and also adjust savings per participant, as the participation goal was exceeded by a much
larger margin than the total savings goal.
Roughly one third of verified Low Income program savings resulted from LED bulbs given out at events.
Cadmus understands that Avista relies on a Community Action Partnership to deliver Low Income
savings in Idaho. Cadmus’ PY 2019 evaluation activities will include a process review of the Low Income
programs, which may help identify opportunities to improve program performance.

20
Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation
Cadmus designed the Fuel Efficiency sector impact evaluation to verify reported program participation
and energy savings. We used data collected and reported in the tracking database and details from
online application forms, as well as reviewed TRM and RTF savings and applicable updated deemed
savings values.
Program Summary
Fuel Efficiency measures replace electric space heating or water heating systems with equipment using
natural gas. These measures are offered within the Nonresidential Site Specific path, Residential
Prescriptive programs, and Low Income programs. Across these programs, the Fuel Efficiency measures
reported participation of 190 in PY 2018 and electric energy savings of 1,824,345 kWh.
Fuel Efficiency measures provide positive electricity savings and negative natural gas savings, reflecting
negative avoided costs. Cadmus incorporated these negative avoided costs in the electric cost-
effectiveness calculations. We report the negative natural gas savings in the PY 2018 Idaho Natural Gas
Impact Evaluation Report.
Program Participation Summary
This section summarizes Fuel Efficiency sector participation and progress toward PY 2018 goals for the
Nonresidential Site Specific path, Residential Prescriptive programs, and Low Income programs.
Nonresidential Site Specific Path
The Nonresidential sector Site Specific program path includes Fuel Efficiency measures that replace
electric space heating or water heating systems with natural gas equipment. Fuel Efficiency measures
provide positive electricity savings and negative natural gas savings, reflecting negative avoided costs.
Two types of measures are considered Fuel Efficiency in the PY 2018 Idaho Nonresidential sector
database:
• Site Specific HVAC combined
• Site Specific multifamily
Table 23 shows electric savings goals and reported electric savings for the Nonresidential sector Fuel
Efficiency measures. There were only five participants in PY 2018. Avista confirmed that it did not set
participation goals for Site Specific Fuel Efficiency measures outside the Multifamily Market
Transformation program.
Table 23. Nonresidential Site Specific Fuel Efficiency Electric Savings (PY 2018)
Fuel Efficiency Measure Savings Goals (kWh) Savings Reported (kWh) Percentage of Goal
Nonresidential Site Specific N/A 65,061 N/A
Multifamily Market Transformation 299,574 207,408 69%

21
Residential Prescriptive Programs
Table 24 shows Avista PY 2018 savings goals for Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency measures as well
as reported savings and percentage of goal through PY 2018.
Table 24. Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency Reported Electric Savings (PY 2018)
Fuel Efficiency Measure Savings Goals (kWh) Reported Savings (kWh) Percentage of Goal
Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency 2,727,600 1,449,994 53%

Table 25 shows the Avista PY 2018 participation goal and reported participation for Residential
Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency measures, as well as the participation percentage of goal through PY 2018.
Table 25. Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency Reported Participation (PY 2018)
Fuel Efficiency Measure Participation Goalsa Participation Reporteda Percentage of Goal
Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency 271 170 63%
a Participation is defined as the number of rebates.

Low Income Programs
Table 26 shows Avista PY 2018 savings goals for Low Income Fuel Efficiency measures, as well as
reported savings and percentage of goal through PY 2018.
Table 26. Low Income Fuel Efficiency Reported Electric Savings (PY 2018)
Fuel Efficiency Measure Savings Goals (kWh) Reported Savings (kWh) Percentage of Goal
Low Income Fuel Efficiency 344,850 101,882 30%

Table 27 summarizes participation goals for Low Income Fuel Efficiency measures, as well as
participation reported and achieved through PY 2018.
Table 27. Low Income Fuel Efficiency Participation (PY 2018)
Fuel Efficiency Measure Participation Goalsa Participation Reporteda Percentage of Goal
Low Income Fuel Efficiency 46 15 33%
a Participation is defined as the number of rebates.

Evaluation Goals and Objectives
For quarterly and semiannual reports in PY 2018 and PY 2019, Cadmus will determine verified savings
for Nonresidential Site Specific and Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency measures through database
review (described above in the Database Review section) and document review (described above in the
Document Review section). For Low Income Fuel Efficiency measures, Cadmus will determine adjusted
savings through database review. These approaches will provide strong estimates of achieved savings
until Cadmus can perform billing analysis at the end of the two-year evaluation cycle.

22
Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation Methodology
The impact methodology for Fuel Efficiency measures is outlined below for the Nonresidential Site
Specific path, Residential Prescriptive programs, and Low Income programs.
Nonresidential Site Specific Fuel Efficiency Impact Methodology
Cadmus followed the same impact evaluation methodology for Fuel Efficiency measures as outlined in
the Nonresidential Impact Evaluation Methodology section. We selected six Multifamily Market
Transformation program projects for our evaluation of the Nonresidential sector Fuel Efficiency
measures, all of which were in Washington. Of the sampled applications, we selected five for certainty
review based on the scale of savings, measure type, or location, and selected the remaining application
randomly.
Cadmus performed site visits at five unique Nonresidential locations to assess electric savings for the six
unique Multifamily Market Transformation program measures. Site visits involved verifying installed
equipment type, make and model numbers, operating schedules, and set points, as applicable.
Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency Impact Methodology
For our impact evaluation of Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency measures, we followed the
methodology described in the For the PY 2018 quarterly, semiannual, and annual reports, Cadmus
verified savings for most programs through a combination of database review and document review,
which are described below.
Residential Impact Evaluation Methodology section and conducted database review and document
review. We completed document reviews for 34 Fuel Efficiency participants in PY 2018.
Low Income Fuel Efficiency Impact Methodology
For our impact evaluation of Low Income Fuel Efficiency measures, we focused on a database review
(described above in the Database Review section). We used unit savings values provided in the TRM to
calculate savings for measures reported in the measure tracking database. Savings calculated during the
database review are adjusted savings. For Low Income programs’ measures in general (including Low
Income Fuel Efficiency measures), these savings are also considered verified savings.
Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation Results
The following sections summarize findings for the Nonresidential Site Specific path, Residential
Prescriptive programs, and Low Income programs Fuel Efficiency measures. All Fuel Efficiency measures
provide positive electricity savings and negative natural gas savings because these measures replace
electric space heating or water heating systems with equipment that uses natural gas. Negative savings,
reflecting negative avoided costs, are incorporated in the electric cost-effectiveness calculations. We
also report these negative savings in the PY 2018 Idaho Natural Gas Impact Evaluation Report.

23
Nonresidential Fuel Efficiency Impact Findings
Table 28 shows reported and verified electric energy savings for Avista’s Nonresidential sector Fuel
Efficiency measures—along with realization rates—through PY 2018.
Table 28. Nonresidential Fuel Efficiency Electric Impact Findings
Fuel Efficiency Measure Reported Savings (kWh) Verified Savings (kWh) Realization Rate
Nonresidential Site Specific 65,061 65,061 100%
Multifamily Market Transformation 207,408 202,324 98%
Total 272,469 267,385 98%

Of the evaluated applications, Cadmus identified discrepancies in the randomly-sampled Multifamily
Market Transformation program measure based on the evaluation site visit and project documentation
review. The site installed more efficient furnaces than reported, which resulted in lower natural gas
energy consumption of the installed units versus baseline efficiency units, meaning that less electricity
was offset for this measure than reported.
Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency Impact Findings
Table 29 shows reported, adjusted, and verified electric energy savings for the Residential Prescriptive
Fuel Efficiency measures. Database review yielded higher savings than reported because of
discrepancies in the UES values used.
Table 29. Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency Electric Impact Findings
Fuel Efficiency Measure Reported Electric
Savings (kWh)
Adjusted Electric
Savings (kWh)
Verified Electric
Savings (kWh)
Realization
Rate
Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency 1,449,994 1,508,360 1,442,640 100%

In reviewing documentation for 34 Residential Fuel Efficiency measures, Cadmus found an issue with
two measures. Both were natural gas furnaces installed at sites where the furnace replaced an oil-fired
heating system. We eliminated the electricity savings for the natural gas furnaces, because the replaced
system did not heat using electricity. These adjustments led to a document review realization rate of
96%, as shown in Table 30.
Table 30. Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency Electric Impact Document Review Realization Rate
Fuel Efficiency
Measure
2018-2019 Target
Document Audit
Count
Document Audit
Count Achieved
to Date
Sample
Reported
Savings (kWh)
Sample Verified
Savings (kWh)
Document Audit
Realization Rate
Residential Prescriptive
Fuel Efficiency 68 34 343,579 328,609 96%

Low Income Fuel Efficiency Impact Findings
Table 31 shows reported and adjusted electric energy savings for Low Income Fuel Efficiency measures.

24
Table 31. Low Income Fuel Efficiency Program Electric Impact Findings
Fuel Efficiency Measure Reported Electric
Savings (kWh)
Adjusted Electric
Savings (kWh)
Verified Electric
Savings (kWh) Realization Rate
Low Income Fuel Efficiency 101,882 103,054 103,054 101%

Fuel Efficiency Conclusions and Recommendations
Nonresidential Site Specific and Multifamily Market Transformation Fuel Efficiency measures achieved
verified savings of 267,385 kWh, yielding a 98% realization rate. The Multifamily Market Transformation
Fuel Efficiency measures achieved only 69% of the electric energy savings goal of 299,574 kWh.
Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency measures achieved verified savings of 1,442,640 kWh, yielding a
99% realization rate and achieving 53% of savings goal. Cadmus recommends that Avista update
reported savings to use current TRM UES values, particularly for measures where the differences are
especially notable, such as conversions to natural gas water heaters and conversions to natural gas wall
furnaces.
For Low Income Fuel Efficiency measures, verified savings fell short of Avista’s savings goals, achieving
30% of the savings target and 33% of the participation target.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices
APPENDIX B – 2018 IDAHO NATURAL GAS IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT

PY 2018 Idaho Natural
Gas Impact Evaluation
Report
June 1, 2019
Prepared for:
Avista
1411 East Mission Avenue
Spokane, WA 99202

Prepared by:
Jeff Cropp
Mitt Jones
Christie Amero
Rachel Fernandez
Jon Lee

i
Table of Contents
Portfolio Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 1
Evaluation Methodology and Activities ................................................................................................. 1
Summary of Impact Evaluation Results ................................................................................................. 1
Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 2
Nonresidential Impact Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 4
Program Summary ................................................................................................................................. 4
Program Participation Summary ............................................................................................................ 4
Evaluation Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................ 5
Nonresidential Impact Evaluation Methodology ................................................................................... 5
Nonresidential Evaluation Results ......................................................................................................... 7
Nonresidential Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................. 8
Residential Impact Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 10
Program Summary ............................................................................................................................... 10
Program Participation Summary .......................................................................................................... 10
Evaluation Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................................... 11
Residential Impact Evaluation Methodology ....................................................................................... 11
Residential Impact Evaluation Results ................................................................................................. 12
Residential Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................. 14
Low Income Impact Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 15
Program Summary ............................................................................................................................... 15
Program Participation Summary .......................................................................................................... 15
Evaluation Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................................... 15
Low Income Impact Evaluation Methodology ..................................................................................... 15
Low Income Impact Evaluation Results ............................................................................................... 16
Low Income Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................ 16
Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 17
Program Summary ............................................................................................................................... 17
Program Participation Summary .......................................................................................................... 17
Evaluation Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................................... 18
Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation Methodology .................................................................................. 18

ii
Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation Results ............................................................................................ 19
Fuel Efficiency Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................ 20

Tables
Table 1. PY 2018 Natural Gas Program Evaluation Activities ....................................................................... 1
Table 2. PY 2018 Reported and Gross Verified Natural Gas Savings ............................................................ 2
Table 3. Nonresidential Prescriptive Natural Gas Savings (PY 2018) ............................................................ 4
Table 4. Nonresidential Prescriptive Participation Goals by Equipment Rebated ....................................... 5
Table 5. Nonresidential Prescriptive Participation by Project (PY 2018) ...................................................... 5
Table 6. Nonresidential Site Specific Natural Gas Savings (PY 2018) ........................................................... 5
Table 7. Idaho Nonresidential Prescriptive Natural Gas Evaluation Sample ................................................ 7
Table 8. Idaho Nonresidential Site Specific Natural Gas Evaluation Sample ................................................ 7
Table 9. Nonresidential Prescriptive Natural Gas Impact Findings .............................................................. 8
Table 10. Nonresidential Prescriptive Evaluation Summary of Discrepancies ............................................. 8
Table 11. Nonresidential Site Specific Natural Gas Impact Findings (PY 2018) ............................................ 8
Table 12. Residential Prescriptive Reported Natural Gas Savings (PY 2018) .............................................. 10
Table 13. Residential Prescriptive Participation (PY 2018) ......................................................................... 11
Table 14. Multifamily Direct Install Program Reported Natural Gas Savings ............................................. 11
Table 15. Residential Prescriptive Database Review Natural Gas Impact Findings .................................... 13
Table 16. Residential Prescriptive Natural Gas Impact Document Review Realization Rates .................... 13
Table 17. Residential Prescriptive Natural Gas Impact Findings ................................................................ 14
Table 18. Low Income Reported Savings (PY 2018) .................................................................................... 15
Table 19. Low Income Participation (PY 2018) ........................................................................................... 15
Table 20. Low Income Natural Gas Impact Findings .................................................................................. 16
Table 21. Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency Reported Natural Gas Savings (PY 2018) ...................... 17
Table 22. Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency Reported Participation (PY 2018) ................................. 18
Table 23. Low Income Fuel Efficiency Reported Natural Gas Savings (PY 2018) ........................................ 18
Table 24. Low Income Fuel Efficiency Participation (PY 2018) ................................................................... 18
Table 25. Nonresidential Fuel Efficiency Natural Gas Impact Findings ...................................................... 19
Table 26. Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency Natural Gas Impact Findings ........................................ 20
Table 27. Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency Natural Gas Document Review Realization Rates ........ 20
Table 28. Low Income Fuel Efficiency Program Natural Gas Impact Findings ............................................ 20

1
Portfolio Executive Summary
For several decades, Avista Corporation has been administering demand-side management programs to
reduce electricity and natural gas energy use for its portfolio of customers. Most of these programs have
been implemented in-house, but a few have external implementers. Avista contracted with Cadmus to
complete process and impact evaluations of its PY 2018 and PY 2019 natural gas demand-side management
programs in Idaho. This report presents our natural gas impact evaluation findings for PY 2018. Cadmus did
not apply net-to-gross adjustments to savings values, except in cases where deemed energy savings values
already incorporate net-to-gross as a function of the market baseline.
Evaluation Methodology and Activities
Cadmus conducted the Idaho portfolio evaluation using a variety of methods and activities, shown in
Table 1.
Table 1. PY 2018 Natural Gas Program Evaluation Activities
Sector Program Document/
Database Review
Verification/
Metering Site Visit
Nonresidential Prescriptive (Multiple) ü ü
Site Specific ü ü
Residential
Simple Steps, Smart Savings™ ü --
HVAC ü --
Shell ü --
ENERGY STAR® Homes ü --
Multifamily Direct Install ü --
Low Income Low Income ü --
Fuel Efficiency
Site Specific (nonresidential) ü --
Prescriptive (Residential) ü --
Low Income ü --

Summary of Impact Evaluation Results
Overall, the Idaho portfolio achieved a 100% realization rate and acquired 247,756 therms in annual
gross savings (Table 2) Cadmus calculated the Avista reported savings through database extracts from
Avista’s Customer Care and Billing (residential) and InforCRM (nonresidential) databases and from data
provided by third-party implementers. We used the label verified savings for our findings. Following the
end of the two-year evaluation cycle, Cadmus will conduct utility billing regression analyses to evaluate
the most accurate energy savings for most residential programs.

2
Table 2. PY 2018 Reported and Gross Verified Natural Gas Savings
Sector Reported Savings (therms) Gross Verified Savings (therms) Realization Rate
Nonresidential 38,613 34,992 91%
Residential 205,001 207,992 101%
Low Income 5,185 4,772 92%
Total 248,799 247,756 100%

Conclusions and Recommendations
During the course of the PY 2018 evaluation, Cadmus identified the following areas for improvement by
sector.
Nonresidential Conclusions and Recommendations
The nonresidential sector achieved total verified natural gas energy savings of 34,992 therms in PY 2018
with a combined realization rate of 91%. The nonresidential sector fell short of the combined
Prescriptive and Site Specific program paths’ natural gas savings goal of 79,605 therms by 56%.
Cadmus has one recommendation for improving the nonresidential sector natural gas savings:
• Revisit the Prescriptive ENERGY STAR food service equipment calculator workbook and review
the default assumptions for hours of use and pounds of food cooked per day. During three food
service project verifications, the feedback provided by site contacts for these calculator inputs
differed significantly from the calculator default values. We also recommend adjusting future
rebate application forms to ask for site-specific hours of use and load estimates. Cadmus will
review the RTF calculation methods to determine whether the deemed RTF values are more
appropriate for these measures. RTF savings values will be more consistent with regional
savings estimates.
Residential Conclusions and Recommendations
Verified natural gas savings show a realization rate of 101% on savings of 205,978 therms for residential
Prescriptive programs, which is 125% of the savings goal for the year. Reported savings for the
Multifamily Direct Install (MFDI) program add 2,014 therms of savings, for a total of 207,992 therms in
acquired savings.
The HVAC program accounts for most verified residential natural gas savings—79%—followed by the
Shell program with 19% of natural gas savings. Simple Steps, Smart Savings; MFDI; and ENERGY STAR
Homes account for a combined 2% of savings, primarily through water-saving measures.
Avista confirmed during evaluation that natural gas unit energy savings (UES) values for several
measures throughout the portfolio mistakenly had not been updated to 2018 TRM values. Initially, the
Shell natural gas program grossly unreported savings, which were based on 2017 TRM values. Under
Avista direction, Cadmus adjusted reported savings for the Shell windows measures to use 2018 TRM
values.

3
Cadmus offers three recommendations regarding Avista’s residential natural gas programs:
• Ensure that reported savings on Prescriptive measures are calculated using current TRM UES
values or RTF methods. For Simple Steps, Smart Savings showerhead measures, Avista has
moved to an RTF methodology for PY 2019, which Cadmus will also adopt for its evaluation.
• Continue to encourage installations of high-efficiency natural gas equipment through the HVAC
program, which provides nearly three-quarters of natural gas savings for residential programs.
The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Residential Building Stock Analysis II estimates that
roughly 70% of natural gas furnaces in Washington single-family homes and 50% in Idaho single-
family homes have an annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE) rating under 90%, indicating
plenty of remaining opportunity for savings.
• Continue to emphasize windows measures through the Shell program, given their contribution
of 19% of residential program path natural gas savings.
Fuel Efficiency Conclusions and Recommendations
Nonresidential Site Specific and Multifamily Market Transformation Fuel Efficiency measures achieved
verified natural gas penalties of 10,441 therms, yielding an 87% realization rate.
Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency measures achieved verified natural gas penalties of
71,430 therms, yielding a 116% realization rate. Low Income Fuel Efficiency measures contributed
natural gas penalties of 4,668 therms, with a realization rate of 115%.
Residential Prescriptive natural gas measures more than offset the natural gas penalty of Residential
Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency measures, with verified natural gas savings of 205,978 therms. Similarly, Low
Income natural gas measures also more than offset the Low Income Fuel Efficiency natural gas penalties,
with verified savings of 4,772 therms.
Cadmus recommends that Avista adjust reported natural gas penalties on all residential Prescriptive and
Low Income Fuel Efficiency measures to match current TRM values.

4
Nonresidential Impact Evaluation
Through its nonresidential portfolio of programs, Avista promotes the purchase of high-efficiency
equipment for commercial and industrial utility customers. Avista provides rebates to partially offset the
difference in cost between high-efficiency equipment and standard equipment.
Program Summary
Avista completed and incented 40 nonresidential natural gas measures in Idaho in PY 2018 and reported
total natural gas energy savings of 38,613 therms. Through the nonresidential sector, Avista offers
incentives for high-efficiency equipment and controls through three program paths: Prescriptive, Site
Specific, and Fuel Efficiency.
The Prescriptive program path is selected for smaller, straightforward equipment installations that
generally have similar operating characteristics (such as simple HVAC systems, food service equipment,
and envelope upgrades).
The Site Specific program path is reserved for more unique projects that require custom savings
calculations and technical assistance from Avista’s account executives (such as compressed air, process
equipment and controls, and comprehensive HVAC retrofits).
Fuel Efficiency measures are part of the Site Specific program path, but they involve a combination of
electric savings and natural gas penalties. These measures typically involve replacing electric space
heating or water heating systems with natural gas equipment. Please refer to the Fuel Efficiency Impact
Evaluation section for evaluation methodology and results discussion of the nonresidential Fuel
Efficiency measures.
Program Participation Summary
This section summarizes nonresidential sector participation and progress toward PY 2018 goals through
the Prescriptive and Site Specific program paths.
Nonresidential Prescriptive Programs
Table 3 shows natural gas energy savings goals assigned to Avista’s nonresidential Prescriptive programs
for PY 2018 as well as reported savings and a comparison between reported savings and goals.
Table 3. Nonresidential Prescriptive Natural Gas Savings (PY 2018)
Program Type Savings Goals (therms) Savings Reported (therms) Percentage of Goal
HVAC 8,054 3,956 49%
Shell 9,400 1,149 12%
Food Service Equipment 14,903 12,492 84%
Energy Smart Grocera 6,248 0 0%
Total 38,605 17,597 46%
a The Energy Smart Grocer savings goal includes Site Specific Energy Smart Grocer measures. The Site Specific portion
constitutes approximately 10% of the overall goal.

5
Table 4 shows participation goals by rebated equipment quantity, as provided by Avista. The PY 2018
nonresidential tracking database extract listed individual projects, but it did not include rebated
equipment quantity. For reference, Table 5 provides participation by unique application numbers.
Table 4. Nonresidential Prescriptive Participation Goals by Equipment Rebated
Program Type Participation Goal
HVAC 2,700
Shell 50,000
Food Service Equipment 23
Energy Smart Grocer N/A

Table 5. Nonresidential Prescriptive Participation by Project (PY 2018)
Program Type Participation Reporteda
HVAC 11
Shell 4
Food Service Equipment 20
Energy Smart Grocer 0
Total 35
a A participant is defined as a unique application number.

Nonresidential Site Specific Program
Table 6 shows natural gas savings goals assigned to the Site Specific program path in Avista’s
nonresidential sector for PY 2018, as well as reported savings. Note that the table does not include
reported natural gas penalties for the Fuel Efficiency sector, such as those associated with the
Multifamily Market Transformation program.
Table 6. Nonresidential Site Specific Natural Gas Savings (PY 2018)
Program Savings Goals (therms) Savings Reported (therms) Percentage of Goal
Site Specific 41,000 21,016 51%

Evaluation Goals and Objectives
For the PY 2018 quarterly, semiannual, and annual reports, Cadmus conducted nonresidential impact
activities to determine verified savings for most programs.
Nonresidential Impact Evaluation Methodology
To evaluate impact evaluation savings for the PY 2018 nonresidential sector, Cadmus performed several
activities in two waves:
• Selected an evaluation sample and requested project documentation from Avista
• Performed project documentation review
• Prepared on-site M&V plans

6
• Performed site visits and on-site data collection (such as trend data, photos, and
operating schedules)
• Used site visit findings to calculate verified savings by measure
• Applied realization rates to total reported savings population to determine overall verified savings
The program context, along with Cadmus’ sample design, document review, and on-site verification
activities, is described in more detail below.
Program Context
As the first step of our evaluation activities, we gained an understanding of the programs and measures
being evaluated. Specifically, Cadmus explored documents and data records:
• Avista’s annual business plans, which detail processes and energy savings justifications
• Project documents from external sources (customers, program consultants, and implementation
contractors)
Based on the initial review, Cadmus outlined the distribution of program contributions to the overall
portfolio of programs. In addition, the review allowed us to understand the sources for UES for each
measure offered through the programs, along with the sources for energy-savings algorithms and the
internal quality assurance and quality control processes for large nonresidential program projects.
Following this review, Cadmus designed the sample strategy for the impact evaluation activities, as
discussed in the following section.
Sample Design
We based the first evaluation sample on program data from January 2018 to April 2018, and we based
the second evaluation sample on program data from May 2018 through December 2018. As a guideline,
Cadmus used the proposed, overall PY 2018 and PY 2019 nonresidential sample sizes by subprogram in
the M&V plan, seeking to complete approximately one-quarter of the sample during the first wave and
another one-quarter during the second wave.
For each activity wave, we broke down submitted program applications by path and measure (such as
Site Specific shell measure, Prescriptive HVAC), allowing us to select the highest-savings applications in
each category with certainty. For applications with reported savings greater than 1% of total savings by
category, Cadmus assigned random numbers and sampled randomly. We removed applications with less
than 1% of total savings by category from the sample consideration, except where another application
at the same location or facility was previously selected (and where we could assess both applications
with one site visit, which is a cost-effective verification strategy even if the second application
represents minimal claimed savings).
Cadmus sampled randomly selected sites across both Washington and Idaho since Avista’s programs are
implemented similarly in both states. We pooled the results from the randomly selected sites to
calculate a realization rate by stratum that we applied to projects in both states. We applied verified
savings for sites selected with certainty only to the state in which they had been implemented.

7
Table 7 summarizes the Idaho nonresidential Prescriptive program path natural gas evaluation sample.
Across both states, Cadmus sampled 21 Prescriptive applications at 19 unique sites. Of the sampled
applications, we selected five for certainty review based on the scale of savings, measure type, or
location, and selected the remaining 16 applications randomly.
Table 7. Idaho Nonresidential Prescriptive Natural Gas Evaluation Sample
Program Type Applications Sampled Sampled Savings (therms) Percentage of Reported Savings
HVAC 2 646 16%
Shell 1 198 17%
Food Service Equipment 4 3,761 30%
Nonresidential Prescriptive 7 4,605 26%

Table 8 summarizes the Idaho nonresidential Site Specific program path natural gas evaluation sample.
Across both states, Cadmus sampled five Site Specific applications at five unique sites. Of the sampled
applications, we selected four for certainty review based on scale of savings, measure type, or location,
and selected the remaining application randomly.
Table 8. Idaho Nonresidential Site Specific Natural Gas Evaluation Sample
Program Applications Sampled Sampled Savings (therms) Percentage of Reported Savings
Site Specific 3 19,750 94%

Document Review
Cadmus requested and reviewed project documentation for each sampled application and prepared
M&V plans to guide the site visits. Project documentation typically included incentive applications,
calculation tools (usually based on the 2017 Regional Technical Forum [RTF]),1 invoices, equipment
specification sheets, and post-inspection reports.
On-Site Verification
Cadmus performed site visits at 23 unique nonresidential locations to assess natural gas energy savings
for 26 unique Prescriptive and Site Specific measures (not including Fuel Efficiency measures). Site visits
involved verifying the installed equipment type, make and model numbers, operating schedules, and
setpoints, as applicable. Cadmus used the project documentation review and on-site findings to adjust
the reported savings calculations where necessary.
Nonresidential Evaluation Results
This section summarizes the nonresidential sector Prescriptive and Site Specific program paths’ natural
gas impact evaluation results for PY 2018.

1 Regional Technical Forum. 2017. Standard Protocols. https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/standard-protocols

8
Nonresidential Prescriptive Programs
Table 9 shows reported and verified natural gas energy savings for Avista’s nonresidential sector
Prescriptive program path and the realization rates between verified and reported savings for PY 2018.
The overall nonresidential sector Prescriptive program path natural gas realization rate was 79%.
Table 9. Nonresidential Prescriptive Natural Gas Impact Findings
Program Type Reported Savings (therms) Verified Savings (therms) Realization Rate
HVAC 3,956 3,956 100%
Shell 1,149 1,149 100%
Food Service Equipment 12,492 8,871 71%
Nonresidential Prescriptive 17,597 13,976 79%

Of the evaluated applications, Cadmus identified discrepancies for four based on the site visit and
project documentation review (with one application having two discrepancies). Table 10 summarizes the
reasons for discrepancies between reported and verified savings.
Table 10. Nonresidential Prescriptive Evaluation Summary of Discrepancies
Project Type Number of
Occurrences
Savings
Impact Reason(s) for Discrepancy
Food Service
Equipment
3 ê • Cadmus reduced the pounds of food cooked per day for three fryer measures
from the value in the savings calculator based on the site manager interview.
1 ê • Cadmus decreased operating hours for a fryer measure from the value in the
savings calculator based on the site manager interview.
1 ê
• Cadmus reduced the pounds of food cooked per day and operating hours for a
steam cooker measure from the value in the savings calculator based on the
site manager interview.

Nonresidential Site Specific Program
Table 11 shows reported and verified natural gas energy savings for Avista’s PY 2018 nonresidential
sector Site Specific program path, as well as a comparison between verified and reported savings for
PY 2018. The overall Site Specific program path natural gas realization rate was 100%. Note that the
table does not include reported and verified natural gas penalties for measures in the Fuel Efficiency
path. Cadmus did not identify discrepancies in any of the three evaluated applications.
Table 11. Nonresidential Site Specific Natural Gas Impact Findings (PY 2018)
Program Reported Savings (therms) Verified Savings (therms) Realization Rate
Site Specific 21,016 21,016 100%

Nonresidential Conclusions and Recommendations
The nonresidential sector achieved total verified natural gas energy savings of 34,992 therms in PY 2018
with a combined realization rate of 91%. The nonresidential sector fell short of the combined
Prescriptive and Site Specific program paths’ natural gas savings goal of 79,605 therms by 56%.

9
Cadmus has one recommendation for improving the nonresidential sector natural gas savings:
• Revisit the Prescriptive ENERGY STAR food service equipment calculator workbook and review
the default assumptions for hours of use and pounds of food cooked per day. During three food
service project verifications, the feedback provided by site contacts for these calculator inputs
differed significantly from the calculator default values. We also recommend adjusting future
rebate application forms to ask for site-specific hours of use and load estimates. Cadmus will
review the RTF calculation methods to determine whether the deemed RTF values are more
appropriate for these measures. RTF savings values will be more consistent with regional
savings estimates.

10
Residential Impact Evaluation
Cadmus designed the residential sector impact evaluation to verify reported program participation and
energy savings. We used data collected and reported in the tracking database, online application forms,
Avista TRM and RTF savings review, and applicable updated deemed savings values.
Program Summary
Avista completed and incented 23,974 residential natural gas measures in Idaho in PY 2018 and
reported total natural gas energy savings of 205,001 therms, not including participation and savings
from Fuel Efficiency measures, which are included below in the Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation
section. The residential programs comprise two primary paths—Prescriptive and MFDI. The Prescriptive
path includes Simple Steps, Smart Savings, which encourages consumers to purchase and install high-
efficiency showerheads and other equipment, such as LEDs and clothes washers; the residential HVAC
program, which incents high-efficiency heating and cooling equipment; the residential Shell program,
which provides rebates to encourage customers to install high-efficiency windows and storm windows;
and the ENERGY STAR Homes program, which offers 15% to 25% energy savings relative to state energy
code. Through the MFDI program, Avista provides free direct-install measures to multifamily residences
(of five units or more) and common areas.
Program Participation Summary
This section summarizes residential sector participation and progress toward PY 2018 goals for the
residential Prescriptive and residential MFDI programs.
Residential Prescriptive Programs
Table 12 shows savings goals assigned to Avista’s residential sector Prescriptive programs for PY 2018, as
well as reported savings and the goal portion achieved in PY 2018. Reported savings for the Simple
Steps, Smart Savings program achieved only 19% of goal, but an extremely high realization rate (see
Table 17) brought verified savings much closer to goal.
Table 12. Residential Prescriptive Reported Natural Gas Savings (PY 2018)
Program Savings Goals (therms) Savings Reported (therms) Percentage of Goal
Simple Steps, Smart Savings 2,328 445 19%
HVAC 145,850 164,165 113%
Shell 16,687 37,567 225%
ENERGY STAR Homes 406 811 200%
Residential Prescriptive Total 165,271 202,987 123%

Table 13 summarizes participation goals and reported participation in Avista’s residential sector
Prescriptive programs for PY 2018, along with the percentage of goal achieved.

11
Table 13. Residential Prescriptive Participation (PY 2018)
Program Participation Goals Participation Reported Portion Achieved
Simple Steps, Smart Savingsa 864 897 104%
HVACb 1,825 2,080 114%
Shellc 11,400 19,665 173%
ENERGY STAR Homesb 2 2 100%
Residential Prescriptive Total 14,091 22,644 161%
a Participation is defined as the number of purchased units.
b Participation is defined as the number of rebates.
c Participation is defined as square feet of installed windows or storm windows.

Multifamily Direct Install Program
Table 14 shows reported savings and participation for the MFDI program in PY 2018. Avista launched
this program as a pilot in PY 2018 and did not set annual program goals, then transitioned this from a
pilot to an ongoing study in September 2018.
Table 14. Multifamily Direct Install Reported Natural Gas Savings
Program Savings Reported (therms) Participation Reported
Multifamily Direct Install 2,014 1,330

Evaluation Goals and Objectives
For the PY 2018 quarterly, semiannual, and annual reports, Cadmus verified savings for most programs
through a combination of database review and document review, which are described below.
Residential Impact Evaluation Methodology
To determine the residential sector verified savings for PY 2018, Cadmus employed two impact
evaluation methods for most residential programs:2
• Database review
• Document review
Similar to previous practice, Cadmus calculated adjusted savings based on results of the database review
and applied realization rates for document reviews. Verified savings represented adjusted savings
multiplied by the document review realization rates, as shown in Figure 1.

2 With approval from Avista, Cadmus ceased performing a third impact activity—verification surveys—in Q3
PY 2018 to eliminate redundancy between verification surveys and document review.

12
Figure 1. Residential Impact Process

Database Review
For the impact evaluation database review, Cadmus used UES values, as provided in the TRM, to
calculate savings for measures reported in the measure tracking database. This impact activity may help
identify incorrect UES values used to calculate reported savings. Savings calculated during the database
review are defined as adjusted savings.
Document Review
For the document review, Cadmus compared information from rebate forms and other supporting
documents to measure tracking data for a random sample of projects. This impact activity may identify
installed measures that did not meet eligibility requirements, quantities that did not match the measure
tracking database, and other discrepancies. Following the review of all projects, Cadmus calculated a
realization rate for document review by dividing savings calculated for the sample (using the revised
information) by reported savings for the sample. We then multiplied this realization rate by adjusted
savings for the entire program to determine verified savings.
Cadmus conducted 34 document reviews for the HVAC and Shell programs, drawing roughly equal
samples from participants in each quarter.
Residential Impact Evaluation Results
The following sections summarize findings and provide verified savings for both of Cadmus’ impact
evaluation methodologies. The database review resulted in the largest number of adjustments to
reported savings.
Database Review
Table 15 shows database review findings, with adjusted savings being higher than reported savings for
some programs and lower for others. Adjusted savings differed from reported savings because reported
UES values differed from TRM values for several measures. In most cases, Avista determined that the
reported savings for these measures used values from an older customer database that did not align
with those in the current TRM. For measures with reported savings based on measure-specific

13
parameters, Cadmus could not confirm the reported savings calculations, which depended on inputs
that were not included in the tracking data (such as air infiltration and duct sealing).
Table 15. Residential Prescriptive Database Review Natural Gas Impact Findings
Program Reported Savings (therms) Adjusted Savings (therms) Percentage Change
Simple Steps, Smart Savings 445 2,202 395%
HVAC 164,165 163,356 0%
Shell 37,567 37,502 0%
ENERGY STAR Homes 811 406 -50%
Residential Prescriptive Total 202,987 203,466 0%

Document Review
Table 16 summarizes document review findings to date. The HVAC program had a 100% natural gas
document review realization rate and the Shell program had a 107% natural gas document review
realization rate.
Table 16. Residential Prescriptive Natural Gas Impact Document Review Realization Rates
Program PY 2018-PY 2019 Target
Document Audit Count
Document Audit Count
Achieved to Date
Sample Reported
Savings (therms)
Sample Verified
Savings (therms)
Document Audit
Realization Rate
HVAC 68 34 5,791 5,791 100%
Shell 68 34 1,928 2,057 107%

Cadmus identified several discrepancies during the document review through Q4 PY 2018:
• For two window measures, documentation showed a square footage for installed windows that
differed from that reported. In one case the documented square footage was higher than the
reported, and in the other case it was lower. Cadmus adjusted savings based on the corrected
area for both measures.
• For two window measures reported at sites with electric heating, project documents identified
the heating fuel as natural gas. Cadmus added natural gas savings and removed electricity
savings at the sites.
Table 17 shows verified savings, which apply the realization rates shown in Table 16 to the adjusted
savings calculated based on the database review. The verified savings represent Cadmus’ best estimate
of savings to date. With its high realization rate, the Simple Steps, Smart Savings program achieved 95%
of goal based on verified savings, despite achieving reported savings of only 19% of goal.

14
Table 17. Residential Prescriptive Natural Gas Impact Findings
Program Reported Savings
(therms)
Adjusted Savings
(therms)
Verified Savings
(therms)a
Realization
Rates
Simple Steps, Smart Savings 445 2,202 2,202 495%
HVAC 164,165 163,356 163,356 100%
Shell 37,567 37,502 40,014 107%
ENERGY STAR Homes 811 406 406 50%
Residential Prescriptive Total 202,987 203,466 205,978 101%
a Verified savings represents adjusted savings only for Simple Steps, Smart Savings and ENERGY STAR Homes.

Residential Conclusions and Recommendations
Verified natural gas savings show a realization rate of 101% on savings of 205,978 therms for residential
Prescriptive programs, which is 124% of the savings goal for the year. Reported savings for the MFDI
program add 2,014 therms of savings, for a total of 207,992 therms in acquired savings.
The HVAC program accounts for most verified residential natural gas savings—79%—followed by the
Shell program with 19% of natural gas savings. Simple Steps, Smart Savings; MFDI; and ENERGY STAR
Homes account for a combined 2% of savings, primarily through water-saving measures.
Avista confirmed during evaluation that natural gas UES values for several measures throughout the
portfolio mistakenly had not been updated to 2018 TRM values. Initially, the Shell natural gas program
grossly unreported savings, which were based on 2017 TRM values. Under Avista direction, Cadmus
adjusted reported savings for the Shell windows measures to use 2018 TRM UES values.
Cadmus offers three recommendations regarding Avista’s residential natural gas programs:
• Ensure that reported savings on Prescriptive measures are calculated using current TRM UES
values or RTF methods. For Simple Steps, Smart Savings showerhead measures, Avista has
moved to an RTF methodology for PY 2019, which Cadmus will also adopt for its evaluation.
• Continue to encourage installations of high-efficiency natural gas equipment through the HVAC
program, which provides nearly three-quarters of natural gas savings for residential programs.
The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Residential Building Stock Analysis II estimates that
roughly 70% of natural gas furnaces in Washington single-family homes and 50% in Idaho single-
family homes have an AFUE under 90%, indicating plenty of remaining opportunity for savings.
• Continue to emphasize windows measures through the Shell program, given their contribution
of 19% of residential program path natural gas savings.

15
Low Income Impact Evaluation
Cadmus designed the Low Income programs’ impact evaluation to verify reported program participation
and energy savings. We used data collected and reported in the tracking database and conducted a TRM
savings review.
Program Summary
Avista leverages the infrastructure of a single Community Action Partnership agency to deliver energy
effiicency programs for the company’s low-income residential customers in the Idaho service territory.
The program is designed to serve Avista residential customers in Idaho whose income falls between 175
percent and 250 percent of federal poverty level. For PY 2018, the program achieved 5,185 therms
reported natural gas savings in Idaho.
Program Participation Summary
Table 18 shows Avista savings goals for the Low Income sector for PY 2018 as well as reported savings
and goal portions achieved in PY 2018.
Table 18. Low Income Reported Savings (PY 2018)
Program Savings Goals (therms) Reported Savings (therms)a Portion Reported
Low Income 7,837 5,185 66%
a Reported savings do not include Low Income Fuel Efficiency savings, shown in the Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation section.

Table 19 summarizes participation goals for the Low Income programs, along with participation reported
and achieved in PY 2018.
Table 19. Low Income Participation (PY 2018)
Program Participation Goalsa Participation Reporteda Portion Achieved
Low Income 56,784 12,635 22%
a Participation numbers do not include Low Income Fuel Efficiency participation, shown in the Fuel Efficiency Impact
Evaluation section. Participation is defined as the number of installed units or square feet of installed insulation or windows.

Evaluation Goals and Objectives
For quarterly and semiannual reports in PY 2018 and PY 2019, Cadmus will determine verified savings
for the Low Income programs through database review (described above in the Database Review
section). This approach will provide a strong estimate of achieved savings until Cadmus can perform
billing analysis at the end of the two-year evaluation cycle.
Low Income Impact Evaluation Methodology
Cadmus’ impact evaluation for the Low Income programs’ measures included a database review
(described above in the Database Review section). We used UES values provided in the TRM to calculate
savings for measures reported in the measure tracking database. Cadmus labeled savings calculated
during the database review as adjusted savings.

16
Low Income Impact Evaluation Results
Table 20 shows reported and adjusted natural gas savings for Low Income conservation measures. The
table does not include savings for Low Income programs Fuel Efficiency path measures (shown in the
Low Income Fuel Efficiency Impact Findings section below).
Table 20. Low Income Natural Gas Impact Findings
Program Reported Savings
(therms)
Adjusted Savings
(therms)
Verified Savings
(therms) Realization Rate
Low Income 5,185 4,772 4,772 92%

Low Income Conclusions and Recommendations
With a realization rate of 92% for natural gas savings, the Low Income programs achieved savings of
4,772 therms in PY 2018, or about 61% of the goal. Verified savings were less than reported savings
because reported savings did not match the UES values listed in the Avista TRM. The 39% gap between
verified savings and the goal results largely from relatively low program participation: Reported program
participation reached 22% of the participation goal.
Cadmus understands that Avista relies on Community Action Program agencies and tribal
weatherization organization to deliver Low Income savings. Cadmus’ PY 2019 evaluation activities will
include a process review of the Low Income programs, which may help identify opportunities to improve
program performance.

17
Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation
Cadmus designed the Fuel Efficiency sector impact evaluation to verify reported program participation
and energy savings. We used data collected and reported in the tracking database and details from
online application forms, as well as reviewed TRM and RTF savings and applicable updated deemed
savings values.
Program Summary
Fuel Efficiency measures replace electric space heating or water heating systems with equipment using
natural gas. These measures are offered within the nonresidential Site Specific path, residential
Prescriptive programs, and Low Income programs. Across these programs, the Fuel Efficiency measures
achieved reported participation of 190 in PY 2018 and a natural gas energy penalty of 77,852 therms.
Fuel Efficiency measures provide positive electricity savings and negative natural gas savings, reflecting
negative avoided costs. We report the electric energy savings in the PY 2018 Idaho Electric Impact
Evaluation Report.
Program Participation Summary
This section summarizes Fuel Efficiency sector participation and progress toward PY 2018 goals for the
nonresidential Site Specific path, residential Prescriptive programs, and Low Income programs.
Nonresidential Site Specific Path
The nonresidential sector Site Specific program path includes Fuel Efficiency measures that replace
electric space heating or water heating systems with natural gas equipment. Fuel Efficiency measures
provide positive electricity savings and negative natural gas savings, reflecting negative avoided costs.
Three types of measures are considered Fuel Efficiency in the PY 2018 nonresidential sector database:
• Site Specific HVAC combined
• Energy Smart Grocer Site Specific case doors
• Site Specific multifamily
Only five Fuel Efficiency measures were incentivized in Idaho in PY 2018. Avista confirmed that it did not
set natural gas participation goals for nonresidential Fuel Efficiency measures.
Residential Prescriptive Programs
Table 21 shows Avista PY 2018 natural gas savings goals for residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency
measures as well as reported savings and percentage of goal through PY 2018.
Table 21. Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency Reported Natural Gas Savings (PY 2018)
Program Savings Goals (therms) Reported Savings (therms) Percentage to Goal
Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency N/A -61,755 N/A

18
Table 22 shows the Avista PY 2018 participation goal and reported participation for residential
Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency measures, as well as the participation percentage of goal through Q4
PY 2018.
Table 22. Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency Reported Participation (PY 2018)
Program Participation Goalsa Participation Reporteda Percentage to Goal
Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency 271 170 63%
a Participation is defined as the number of rebates.

Low Income Programs
Table 23 shows Avista PY 2018 natural gas savings goals for Low Income Fuel Efficiency measures, as
well as reported savings and percentage of goal through PY 2018.
Table 23. Low Income Fuel Efficiency Reported Natural Gas Savings (PY 2018)
Program Savings Goals (therms) Reported Savings (therms) Percentage to Goal
Low Income Fuel Efficiency N/A -4,042 N/A

Table 24 summarizes participation goals for Low Income Fuel Efficiency measures, as well as
participation reported and achieved through PY 2018.
Table 24. Low Income Fuel Efficiency Participation (PY 2018)
Program Participation Goalsa Participation Reporteda Percentage to Goal
Low Income Fuel Efficiency 46 15 33%
a Participation is defined as the number of rebates.

Evaluation Goals and Objectives
For quarterly and semiannual reports in PY 2018 and PY 2019, Cadmus will determine verified savings
for nonresidential Site Specific and residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency measures through database
review (described above in the Database Review section) and document review (described above in the
Document Review section). For Low Income Fuel Efficiency measures, Cadmus will determine adjusted
savings through database review. These approaches will provide strong estimates of achieved savings
until Cadmus can perform billing analysis at the end of the two-year evaluation cycle.
Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation Methodology
The impact methodology for Fuel Efficiency measures is outlined below for the nonresidential Site
Specific path, residential Prescriptive programs, and Low Income programs.
Nonresidential Site Specific Fuel Efficiency Impact Methodology
Cadmus followed the same impact evaluation methodology for Fuel Efficiency measures as outlined in
the For the PY 2018 quarterly, semiannual, and annual reports, Cadmus conducted nonresidential
impact activities to determine verified savings for most programs.

19
Nonresidential Impact Evaluation Methodology section. We sampled six Multifamily Market
Transformation program projects for our evaluation of the nonresidential sector Fuel Efficiency
measures, all of which were in Washington. Of the sampled applications, we selected five for certainty
review based on scale of savings, measure type, or location, and selected the remaining application
randomly.
Cadmus performed site visits at five unique nonresidential locations to assess natural gas penalties for
the six unique Multifamily Market Transformation program measures. Site visits involved verifying
installed equipment type, make and model numbers, operating schedules, and set points, as applicable.
Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency Impact Methodology
For our impact evaluation of residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency measures, we followed the
methodology described in the Residential Impact Evaluation Methodology section and conducted
database review and document review. We completed document reviews for 34 Fuel Efficiency
participants in PY 2018.
Low Income Fuel Efficiency Impact Methodology
For our impact evaluation of Low Income Fuel Efficiency measures, we focused on a database review
(described above in the Database Review section). We used unit savings values provided in the TRM to
calculate savings for measures reported in the measure tracking database. Savings calculated during the
database review are adjusted savings. For Low Income programs’ measures in general (including Low
Income Fuel Efficiency measures), these savings are also considered verified savings.
Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation Results
The following sections summarize findings for the nonresidential Site Specific path, residential
Prescriptive programs, and Low Income programs Fuel Efficiency measures. All Fuel Efficiency measures
provide positive electricity savings and negative natural gas savings because these measures replace
electric space heating or water heating systems with equipment that uses natural gas. Negative savings,
reflecting negative avoided costs, are incorporated in the electric cost-effectiveness calculations. We
report the positive electric savings in the PY 2018 Idaho Electric Impact Evaluation Report.
Nonresidential Site Specific Fuel Efficiency Impact Findings
Table 25 shows reported and verified natural gas penalties for Avista’s nonresidential sector Fuel
Efficiency measures—along with realization rates—through PY 2018.
Table 25. Nonresidential Fuel Efficiency Natural Gas Impact Findings
Fuel Efficiency Measure Reported Savings (therms) Verified Savings (therms) Realization Rate
Nonresidential Site Specific -2,701 -2,701 100%
Multifamily Market Transformation -9,354 -7,740 83%
Total -12,055 -10,441 87%

Cadmus identified discrepancies in the randomly-sampled application based on the evaluation site visit
and project documentation review. The site installed more efficient furnaces than reported, resulting in

20
lower natural gas energy consumption of the installed units versus baseline efficiency units and a
reduced natural gas energy penalty.
Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency Impact Findings
Table 26 shows reported, adjusted, and verified natural gas energy savings for the residential
Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency measures.
Table 26. Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency Natural Gas Impact Findings
Fuel Efficiency Measure Reported Savings
(therms)
Adjusted Savings
(therms)
Verified Savings
(therms) Realization Rate
Residential Prescriptive
Fuel Efficiency -61,755 -71,430 -71,430 116%

In reviewing documentation for 34 residential Fuel Efficiency measures, Cadmus found no issues that
affected natural gas savings. This led to a document review realization rate of 100% for natural gas
energy savings. Table 27 shows the natural gas results of our impact document review for residential
Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency measures.
Table 27. Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency Natural Gas Document Review Realization Rates
Fuel Efficiency
Measure
PY 2018-PY 2019
Target Document
Audit Count
Document Audit
Count Achieved
to Date
Sample Reported
Savings (therms)
Sample Verified
Savings
(therms)
Document Audit
Realization Rate
Residential Prescriptive
Fuel Efficiency 68 34 -14,630 -14,630 100%

Low Income Fuel Efficiency Impact Findings
Table 28 shows reported and adjusted natural gas energy savings for Low Income Fuel Efficiency
measures.
Table 28. Low Income Fuel Efficiency Program Natural Gas Impact Findings
Fuel Efficiency Measure Reported Savings
(therms)
Adjusted Savings
(therms)
Verified Savings
(therms) Realization Rate
Low Income Fuel Efficiency -4,042 -4,668 -4,668 115%

Fuel Efficiency Conclusions and Recommendations
Nonresidential Site Specific and Multifamily Market Transformation Fuel Efficiency measures achieved
verified natural gas penalties of 10,441 therms, yielding an 87% realization rate.
Residential Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency measures achieved verified natural gas penalties of -71,430
therms, yielding a 116% realization rate. Low Income Fuel Efficiency measures contributed natural gas
penalties of 4,668 therms, with a realization rate of 115%.

21
Residential Prescriptive natural gas measures more than offset the natural gas penalty of residential
Prescriptive Fuel Efficiency measures, with verified natural gas savings of 205,978 therms. Similarly, Low
Income natural gas measures also offset of Low Income Fuel Efficiency natural gas penalties, with
verified savings of 4,772 therms.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices
APPENDIX C – 2018 IDAHO PROCESS EVALUATION

Avista 2018 Idaho
Process Evaluation
2018 ANNUAL REPORT
April 29, 2019

Prepared for:
Avista
1411 E. Mission Avenue
Spokane, WA 99202

Prepared by:
Jeff Cropp
Bitsy Broughton
Kristie Rupper
Alex Chamberlain

i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 1
Summary of Milestones and Deliverables ............................................................................................. 1
Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 1
Nonresidential ................................................................................................................................. 1
Residential ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 4
Nonresidential ................................................................................................................................. 4
Residential ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Program Administrator and Implementer Interviews ..................................................................... 6
Residential HVAC Contractor Interviews ......................................................................................... 7
Multifamily Residence Manager Interviews .................................................................................... 7
Participant Surveys .......................................................................................................................... 8
Description of Programs ........................................................................................................................ 3
Findings .................................................................................................................................................. 3
Nonresidential Site Specific ............................................................................................................. 3
Nonresidential Prescriptive ........................................................................................................... 10
Residential Programs ..................................................................................................................... 20
Multifamily Direct Install ............................................................................................................... 32
Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 36
Nonresidential ............................................................................................................................... 36
Residential ..................................................................................................................................... 36
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 39
Nonresidential ............................................................................................................................... 39
Residential ..................................................................................................................................... 39

Tables
Table 1. 2018 Completed Milestones and Deliverables ............................................................................... 1
Table 2. Stakeholder Interviews ................................................................................................................... 7

ii
Table 3. Nonresidential Participant Survey Sample Frame, Target, and Completes by Program ................ 1
Table 4. Residential Process Evaluation Participant Survey Sample Frame, Target, and Completes by
Program ........................................................................................................................................... 2
Table 5. 2018 Evaluated Program Descriptions ............................................................................................ 3
Table 6. Participation Challenges ................................................................................................................. 8
Table 7. 2018 Prescriptive Program Rebate Changes ................................................................................. 11
Table 8. Reasons for Program Dissatisfaction ............................................................................................ 16
Table 9. Important Energy Efficiency Project Criteria by Prescriptive Program ......................................... 19
Table 10. Satisfaction Ratings by Program Element ................................................................................... 30

Figures
Figure 1. Program Awareness ...................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2. Site Specific Participation Motivation ........................................................................................... 5
Figure 3. Site Specific Participation Benefits ................................................................................................ 6
Figure 4. Satisfaction with Site Specific Program Components .................................................................... 7
Figure 5. Site Specific Program Successes .................................................................................................... 8
Figure 6. Important Criteria for Making Energy Efficiency Improvements ................................................... 9
Figure 7. Site Specific Project Type ............................................................................................................. 10
Figure 8. Prescriptive Programs ................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 9. Equipment Installed by Previous Avista Program Participants .................................................... 12
Figure 10. Program Awareness .................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 11. Prescriptive Participation Motivation ........................................................................................ 14
Figure 12. Prescriptive Participation Benefits ............................................................................................ 15
Figure 13. Satisfaction with Prescriptive Program Components ................................................................ 16
Figure 14. Participation Challenges ............................................................................................................ 17
Figure 15. Prescriptive Program Successes ................................................................................................ 18
Figure 16. Important Criteria for Making Energy Efficiency Improvements ............................................... 19
Figure 17. Awareness of Avista Energy Efficiency Programming ............................................................... 21
Figure 18. Awareness of Other Avista Residential Programs ..................................................................... 22
Figure 19. Motivation to Participate in Residential Programs ................................................................... 23
Figure 20. Benefits of Participation in Residential Programs ..................................................................... 24
Figure 21. Satisfaction with Residential Program Elements ....................................................................... 25

iii
Figure 22. Satisfaction with Avista and Residential Programs Overall ....................................................... 25
Figure 23. Residential Program Participant Education ............................................................................... 27
Figure 24. Residential Program Participant Income Ranges ....................................................................... 28
Figure 25. Satisfaction Ratings with Pilot Elements and Overall ................................................................ 34

1
Executive Summary
Cadmus conducted process evaluation activities for 2018 as part of the Avista 2018–2019 DSM portfolio
evaluation. This process evaluation focused on four fundamental objectives:
• Assess program delivery channel and marketing methods
• Assess participant and market actor program journey including barriers to participation,
satisfaction with the program, and effectiveness of rebate levels
• Assess Avista and implementer staff experiences including organizational structure,
communication, and program processes
• Document areas of success, challenge, and changes to the program
The report describes our data collection and process methods, presents analysis results, summarizes
findings, draws conclusions, and recommends possible improvements for all of Avista’s nonresidential
programs (except Energy Smart Green Grocer) and Avista’s residential HVAC, Shell, and Fuel Efficiency
programs.
Summary of Milestones and Deliverables
Cadmus conducted the evaluation by reviewing documents, interviewing program and implementation
staff and contractors, and surveying participants. Table 1 lists the process evaluation activities.
Table 1. 2018 Completed Milestones and Deliverables
Milestones and Deliverables 2018
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Process
Document and Database Review P
Avista and Implementer Interviews P
Contractor Interviews P
Participant Surveys P P P P
Multifamily Direct Install (MFDI) Pilot
Scope of Work P
Avista and Implementer Interviews P
Participant Interviews P

Key Findings
Nonresidential
• Two-thirds of nonresidential survey respondents have participated in past business energy-
efficiency programs. Most site specific (17 of 19) survey respondents have previously
participated in an Avista business energy efficiency program compared with 56% of prescriptive
respondents (23 of 41).

2
• Participants most often learn about the program from Avista or a contractor, vendor, or
retailer.
§ Most site specific survey respondents (32%; n=13) first learned about the program from
their Avista account executive or from an Avista email
§ Prescriptive survey respondents first learned about the program from a contractor, vendor,
or retailer (50%; n=44).
• Participants are motivated by saving energy and money.
§ The top two motivators both site specific and prescriptive survey respondents (n=19 and
n=46, respectively) cited for participating were to save energy (42% and 67%, respectively)
and save money (37% and 83%, respectively).
§ Participants of both programs said saving money and using less energy were the top
benefits of program participation.
• Most survey respondents (89%; n=56) received a check directly from Avista rather than an
instant discount from their contractor.
§ Six of the respondents (two of 19 site specific and four of 37 prescriptive) received an
instant discount from their contractor.
§ Two of them said this was an easier way to receive the rebate, one was not given a choice in
how to receive the rebate, and three did not provide a reason.
• Participants are highly satisfied with the program, but a small number did indicate some
dissatisfaction.
§ All site specific survey respondents (n=19) and 91% (n=46) of prescriptive survey
respondents were satisfied with the program overall.
§ Site specific respondents were satisfied with all components of the program except for the
time it took to process the application; two of 19 were not too satisfied with this component
because of delays caused by incorrect rebate calculations and the time it took to complete
site inspections.
§ Prescriptive survey respondents were highly satisfied with the pre-project inspection, the
rebate amount, and the process of completing and submitting their application. Several
survey respondents provided reasons for their dissatisfaction with the program and some of
its components. They stated they were dissatisfied with communication with an account
executive and their trade ally because there was not enough communication (4 responses).
One respondent expressed dissatisfaction because the rebate check had not yet arrived at
the time of the survey and one felt the equipment was not as effective as expected, which
led to low energy savings. One respondent reported concerns about their contractor that
Avista did not address.
• Site-specific survey respondents said the program was successful because of Avista staff (7 of
12) while prescriptive survey respondents said the program was easy to use (31%; n=29).

3
§ Site specific program participants also cited the rebate (two of 12); rebate delivery time
(two of 12); and overall process, communication, and energy savings (one response each) as
working well.
§ Prescriptive survey respondents also cited quick turnaround (28%) and customer service
(24%) as program elements that were working particularly well.
• Participation challenges differed by program.
§ The top challenge for participating in the site specific program was determining whether a
project was eligible for a rebate.
§ Prescriptive survey respondents said their top challenges were knowing about the program
and its offerings, completing application paperwork, and finding the time needed to apply
and complete the project. The application paperwork was of particular concern among
lighting participants.
• Avista’s rebate was important in the decision to complete the energy efficiency project. All
site specific and all but one prescriptive survey respondent said the rebate provided by Avista
was important in their decision to complete the project.
§ The most important criteria for making energy efficiency improvements for site specific
respondents were return on investment (14 of 19) and initial cost of equipment (14 of 19).
§ Prescriptive survey respondents said the most important criteria were maintenance costs
(77%; n=43) and energy or operating costs (74%; n=43).
Residential
• Residential program delivery went smoothly, per both Avista and implementer staff. Except
for a couple of small changes to the rebate levels outlined in the 2018 DSM Business Plan, the
HVAC, Shell, and Fuel Efficiency programs were delivered and performed as expected.
• More than half of residential program participants heard about the program in which they
participated through their contractor, installer, or trade ally (53%, n=73). Although a significant
portion of respondents (n=60) said contractors are the best way to spread information about
Avista programs (27%), more respondents said bill inserts are the best way to spread
information (32%).
• Residential program participants were motivated to participate primarily to save money (56%,
n=75). Survey respondents reported that the main benefits of Avista’s residential programming
were saving energy (83%, n=72), increasing the comfort of their homes (78%), lowering
maintenance costs (74%), and taking advantage of Avista rebates (72%).
• At least 93% of survey respondents were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with every
element of the program in which they participated as well as with Avista overall. Rebates
received the lowest satisfaction rating, specifically among survey respondents who participated
in the Shell program (n=28), who were much less satisfied with rebate levels than were survey
respondents in the HVAC (n=32) and Fuel Efficiency (n=16) programs.

4
• HVAC contractors Cadmus interviewed said the HVAC Program plays an important role in
“leveling the playing field” because it enabled them to install more-costly high-efficiency
equipment in the homes of customers who might otherwise not be able to afford them.
• HVAC contractors took varying approaches to helping customers complete their rebate
application forms. Some contractors completed forms entirely on their own, some worked with
customers to complete their forms, and some provided no help to customers. Contractors
reported occasional issues with submitting applications online because Avista’s website could
not verify customers’ mailing addresses.
• The eight HVAC contractors Cadmus interviewed rated their satisfaction with various
elements of the HVAC Program from 4.4 to 4.8 on average, on a scale of 1 to 5. They also
provided an average rating of 4.6 for the program’s ability to influence customers’ decisions to
purchase new energy-efficient equipment.
Multifamily Direct Install Pilot
• Avista facilitated the MFDI Pilot delivery by mimicking the design of the Small Business Direct
Install (SBDI) program and recruiting its implementer to assume the same role for the pilot.
Per Avista and implementer staff, the pilot, like Avista’s residential program, was delivered
smoothly and as expected. Avista overcame barriers to participation by engaging in a highly
targeted marketing campaign.
• Pilot participants were generally highly satisfied with the pilot and direct-install measures
provided to their tenants, per Avista reports and direct feedback from multifamily residence
property managers. Although some property managers relayed to Avista reports by tenants of
problems with certain measures installed through the pilot, these issues occurred very
infrequently and were all resolved by the implementer.
• Participating property managers were unclear about the timing of the supplemental lighting
phase of the pilot at the time of interviews with Cadmus. Interviewees were not dissatisfied
with the supplemental phase but expressed confusion about the timing of its rollout.
• Pre- and post-pilot per-unit energy savings differed significantly because of substantial
differences in algorithm inputs such as hours of use (HOU). Avista originally calculated energy-
savings estimates using broad characterizations of building stock in its service territory and
intended to use the pilot to collect more-refined information about its customers’ households.
Thus, differences between estimated and finalized energy savings were not an unexpected
outcome for Avista.
Recommendations
Nonresidential
Nonresidential Recommendation 1: A small number of survey respondents said they received an instant
discount from their contractor because it was easier to have their contractor apply the discount to the
total cost of the project. If Avista wants to promote the instant discount option to nonresidential
customers, it should educate customers about the ease of using this option.

5
Nonresidential Recommendation 2: While Avista is implementing a new tracking database, they should
review the data that is being recorded in the database from prescriptive lighting participants to
determine if it is sufficient for accurate planning in the future. If current data being gathered is not
sufficient, Avista should review what is needed for planning purposes and modify the database to
include these detailed measure-level data.
Nonresidential Recommendation 3: According to some survey respondents, the lighting application
paperwork was challenging because it was confusing and did not provide precise instructions for
completing the application. Although the Avista website provides several ways for customers to contact
Avista for additional information, Avista should create and post a document on its website with answers
to frequently asked questions about the application to decrease customer challenges. The FAQ
document could focus on ways to avoid the application being rejected.
Residential
Residential Recommendation 1: Consider adjusting the constraints used to verify mailing addresses for
customers trying to submit their rebate application forms online. While this system works most of the
time – per HVAC contractors interviewed by Cadmus, it was usually a non-issue – it can create
frustration for customers who ultimately can’t complete the process online and must mail in their forms.
A system that relies on something simpler, such as account number and/or mailing zip code or house
number could still validate customer eligibility without rejecting certain mailing address formats.
Multifamily Direct Install Pilot
MFDI Pilot Recommendation 1: Increase communication with participants to sustain interest in the pilot
to prepare for a possible full program rollout that includes a supplemental lighting phase as well as in
general for similar future pilots.

6
Introduction
In 2018, Avista provided rebates and services to its nonresidential and residential electric and natural
gas customers throughout its Washington and Idaho service territories. The purpose of the 2018–2019
portfolio process evaluation was to identify and document areas of success and challenge for the
programs by reviewing program materials, conducting interviews with program and implementation
staff and residential HVAC contractors, and conducting surveys with nonresidential and residential
program participants. The evaluation focused on all nonresidential programs (except Energy Smart
Green Grocer) and the residential HVAC, Shell, and Fuel Efficiency programs.1 Cadmus also evaluated the
Multifamily Direct Install (MFDI) pilot, designed to benefit hard-to-reach customers.
Methodology
This section describes the interview and survey methodology.
Program Administrator and Implementer Interviews
Cadmus conducted five telephone interviews with program staff and two with third-party implementers
as listed in Table 2. The interviews focused on these program topics:
• Program roles and responsibilities
• Program goals and objectives
• Program design and implementation
• Data tracking
• Program participation
• Marketing and outreach
• Program successes
• Market barriers
• Program impact on the market
• Future program changes including redesign

1 Cadmus did not evaluate the residential ENERGY STAR® Homes program, the third-party “Simple Steps, Smart
Savings” regional program, or the Community Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP) in 2018.

7
Table 2. Stakeholder Interviews
Program Avista Staff Implementer Staff
Nonresidential
Lighting P N/A
HVAC, Shell, VFD, Food Service Equipment
P
N/A
Green Motors *
AirGuardian P
Fleet Heat N/A
Site Specific P N/A
Residential
HVAC
P N/A Shell
Fuel Efficiency
Multifamily Direct Install P P
* Cadmus was unable to reach the Green Motors implementer in Q1 despite support
from Avista.
Residential HVAC Contractor Interviews
Cadmus conducted eight interviews with contractors who specialize in HVAC equipment and serve
residential customers.2 Avista provided to Cadmus a list of 76 contractors, eight of whom Avista had
highlighted as high-volume contractors for Cadmus to prioritize. Cadmus successfully contacted five of
the eight high-volume contractors and also spoke with three other contractors to meet the target quota
of eight interviews.
The telephone interviews focused on these HVAC program topics:
• Program awareness and motivation
• Program benefits
• Program delivery experience, including
marketing and fulfilling rebates
• Effects of program on success of business
• Interaction with Avista staff
• Perception of customer experience,
including awareness and satisfaction
• Successes and challenges
• Feedback and recommendations
• Demographic information
Multifamily Residence Manager Interviews
Cadmus conducted 10 interviews with managers of multifamily residences that participated in the MFDI
Pilot. Cadmus met its target quota of 10 interviews from a list of 36 pilot participants provided to
Cadmus by Avista. The telephone interviews focused on these pilot topics:

2 Seven of the eight contractors Cadmus interviewed also serve commercial customers.

8
• Pilot awareness
• Satisfaction with pilot elements
• Pilot benefits
• Successes and challenges
• Additional energy efficiency actions taken
because of pilot participation
• Feedback and recommendations
• Demographic information
Participant Surveys
Cadmus completed 76 phone residential participant surveys and 65 online nonresidential participant
surveys. Residential surveys were completed in May and October 2018 and nonresidential surveys were
completed from May through August 2018 and February through March 2019. Cadmus leveraged site
visits to increase nonresidential survey participation.
The participant survey guides gathered critical insights into participants’ program journey, covering the
following topics:
• Program awareness
• How respondents learned about the
program
• General program participation
• Reasons for participation
• Program benefits
• Program delivery experience
• Overall program satisfaction
• Satisfaction with Avista
• Current energy-efficient behaviors and
purchases
• Suggestions for program improvements
Sampling
To prepare the contact lists for each of the nonresidential and residential surveys, Cadmus removed
duplicate records and records with incorrect or missing email addresses. Cadmus sent an email
invitation to a census of all participants in each program except nonresidential prescriptive exterior and
interior lighting participants. Because of the larger number of participants in these two programs,
Cadmus randomly selected a sample of 20 participants and sent email invitations in batches of 20
records until the target was met. Following the initial email invitation, Cadmus sent a reminder email. To
increase the number of survey responses, the field engineers urged participants during on-site visits to
complete the survey if they had not yet done so.

1

Nonresidential Sampling
As shown in Table 3, of the 138 surveys targeted for the 2018 evaluation year, 65 were completed. Cadmus made several efforts to reach
nonresidential participants. First, Cadmus sent email invitations to all eligible participants and one reminder email to any participants who did
not respond to the initial email invitation. Cadmus field engineers also encouraged participants to complete the survey following the site visits.
Despite these efforts, we did not meet the survey target. Cadmus will review the 2019 evaluation plan with Avista to determine whether efforts
such as telephone calls or enlisting Avista’s help with outreach should be considered to increase response rates within individual nonresidential
programs.
Table 3. Nonresidential Participant Survey Sample Frame, Target, and Completes by Program
Program Wave 1 (May and June 2018) Wave 2 (Feb. and March 2019) 2018 Total
Sample* Target Completes Sample* Target Completes Sample* Target Completes
Nonresidential Site Specific
Electric 56 7 7 71 20 10 127 27 17
Gas 2 2 0 3 3 2 5 5 2
Nonresidential Prescriptive
Exterior Lighting 133 4 6 169 12 9 302 16 15
Interior Lighting 173 4 5 226 12 9 399 16 14
HVAC Motor Controls 7 3 2 3 5 0 10 8 2
Food Service Equipment (Electric) 8 5 0 4 4 1 12 9 1
Food Service Equipment (Gas) 21 6 1 38 16 3 59 22 4
Commercial HVAC 18 6 4 17 12 2 35 18 6
Green Motors Rewind 2 2 1 8 6 0 m10 8 1
Fleet Heat 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
AirGuardian Compressed Air 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Insulation 3 3 2 7 5 1 10 8 3
Total 423 42 28 547 96 37 970 138 65
*The sample population included only 2018 nonresidential participants.

2
Residential Sampling
Cadmus completed the targeted number of surveys for each program in both May and October: 16 for HVAC, 14 for Shell, and eight for Fuel
Efficiency. Overall, Cadmus collected 76 responses for process evaluation purposes, as shown in Table 4, and 114 responses for installation
verification purposes in 2018.

Table 4. Residential Process Evaluation Participant Survey Sample Frame, Target, and Completes by Program
Program Wave 1 (May 2018) Wave 2 (Oct. 2018) Total
Sample Target Completes Sample Target Completes Sample Target Completes
Residential
HVAC 2,094 16 16 2,097 16 16 4,191 32 32
Shell 277 14 14 335 14 14 612 28 28
Fuel Efficiency 459 8 8 323 8 8 782 16 16
Total 2,830 38 38 2,755 38 38 5,585 76 76

3
Description of Programs
Table 5 provides a summary of the programs included in this evaluation of Avista’s 2018 DSM portfolio.
Table 5. 2018 Evaluated Program Descriptions
Program Measure(s) Implementer Program Summary
Nonresidential
Site Specific Custom measure(s) Avista
Customers design energy efficiency projects
with documented energy savings and a
minimum 10-year measure life for a technical
review and possible rebates.
Prescriptive
Lighting, HVAC, VFDs,
food service equipment,
and shell
Avista
Customers identify potential energy efficiency
projects, submit paperwork and receive
prescriptive rebates for projects.
Fleet Heat Smart block heating
system Avista
Electric customers are provided with a smart
block heating system to install on vehicles. The
device controls both the water temperature in
the block and the air temperature outside the
block. Installation help is available from
HOTSTART.
Green Motor Rewind Repair/rewind of motors
The Green
Motors Practices
Group (CMPG)
Electric customers who receive a green motor
rewind at a participating service will receive a
rebate. The rebate applies to 15 HP to 5,000 HP
industrial motors.
AirGuardian Compressed
Air
Compressed air leak
reduction device
Sight Energy
Group
Direct installation of compressed air leak
reduction device to electric customers following
a compressed air audit
Residential
HVAC Space heat, water heat,
and smart thermostats
Avista
Customers identify potential energy efficiency
projects, submit paperwork, and receive
prescriptive rebates for projects.
Shell Standard and storm
windows
Fuel Efficiency Natural gas space and
water heat
Multifamily Direct Install
Pilot
Lighting, water-saving
measures, water heater
insulation,
VendingMisers
SBW Consulting
Direct installation of energy-saving measures,
on-site audits to identify opportunities and
interest in existing Avista programs, and follow-
up visits to install supplemental lighting
measures.

Findings
Nonresidential Site Specific
This section outlines the findings from the interview Cadmus completed with the program manager and
the surveys completed with 19 site-specific participants.
Program Changes
No design, implementation, or rebate changes were made to the site specific program in 2018. The
program manager did not report any problems or issues of concern implementing this program. She
noted that communication between implementation staff, account executives, and engineers who
provide technical guidance has been working very well. Engineers were involved in the initial and final

4
cost and savings reports, which provided customers with more-accurate predictions of expected rebate
levels.
Marketing and Outreach
The program used a direct, customer-centered approach for outreach: marketing the program through
established relationships with account executives (AE). AEs most commonly reach out to customers
through email blasts. In addition, the Avista website provided preliminary information about the site-
specific program and encouraged customers to reach out to their account executive or a trade ally when
they had questions. In 2018, the program created and published on the Avista website a case study
targeted at the multifamily sector as a method of engagement. AEs and trade allies cross-promoted all
nonresidential programs when discussing energy efficiency improvement projects with customers. To
answer questions and promote all nonresidential programs to trade allies, Avista hosted informational
breakfasts throughout the year.
Customer Awareness
Seventeen of the 19 survey respondents previously participated in an Avista business energy efficiency
program. As shown in Figure 1, survey respondents learned about the site specific program from a
variety of sources. Most respondents indicated that the best way for Avista to inform customers about
rebate amounts and rebate programs is via their Avista account executive (11 responses).
Figure 1. Program Awareness

Source: Site specific survey questions C2 and C3: “How did you first hear about the site specific program?”
and “What is the best way for Avista to inform commercial customers like you about
their rebates and incentives for energy efficiency improvements?”

5
Motivation and Benefits of Participation
As shown in Figure 2, survey respondents said they were motivated to participate in the site specific
program to save energy (8 responses) and save money (7 responses).
Figure 2. Site Specific Participation Motivation

Source: Site specific survey question C4: “What motivated you to participate in the Site specific
Program?” Multiple responses allowed.

Additionally, survey respondents said the main benefits for participating in the program are to save
money (12 responses), use less energy (12 responses), and receive a rebate (11 responses) as shown in
Figure 3.

6
Figure 3. Site Specific Participation Benefits

Source: Site specific survey question C5: “What would you say are the main benefits your
company has experienced as a result of participation?” Multiple responses allowed.

Customer Experience
Program Delivery
Survey respondents answered questions about how they designed and implemented their projects.
Eight survey respondents (n=19) said they received design and implementation support from their
contractor; four said they received support from Avista staff; two said they relied on internal resources
for design and implementation; and five said they received support from both Avista staff and a
contractor, vendor, or retailer.
Two of the 19 survey respondents said their contractor provided an instant discount toward the cost of
the project. One of them said they requested the instant discount because it was easier to have their
contractor handle the details. The other respondent did not provide a reason.
Program Satisfaction
All respondents (n=19) were satisfied with the program overall and satisfied with Avista (n=19).
Respondents were most satisfied with equipment that was installed, as shown in Figure 4. Two
respondents were not too satisfied with the time it took to process their application: one reported
issues with correct calculations during the rebate process and one said the check was delayed because
of delays with site inspections.

7
Figure 4. Satisfaction with Site Specific Program Components

Source: Site specific survey question E1: “In terms of the site specific program, how satisfied were you with
the following aspects? Please think about each item individually as you select your answer.”

All survey respondents reported being either very or somewhat satisfied (n=19) with the rebate amount
and all respondents (n=19) said the rebate was very or somewhat important in their decision to
complete the project as it was implemented. Additionally, the program manager said the program was
more attractive to customers because Avista is using a flat rebate structure rather than a tiered rebate
structure.
Program Challenges and Successes
Twelve respondents reported a variety of program participation challenges (Table 6). Two respondents
said they did not encounter challenges with the program, and the remaining five did not provide a
response to this question.

8
Table 6. Participation Challenges
Challenge Number of
Responses (n=12)
Determining program eligibility 3
Determining the correct rebate amount 1
Deciding when to engage Avista engineers and vendors 1
Cost of the project 1
Getting internal buy-in 1
Reminding installers about taking pre- and post-installation photos 1
Vendor availability 1
Working with multiple internal and external staff to complete the
project 1
Time needed to complete the project 1
Rebate availability for large, multi-year projects in apartment
complexes 1
Source: Site specific survey question E3. What do you see as the biggest challenges to participating in
Avista’s site specific program?”

Despite these issues, 12 respondents called out several program areas that they viewed as working well
(Figure 5).
Figure 5. Site Specific Program Successes

Source: Site specific survey question E5: “What would you say is working particularly well with
Avista’s Site specific Program?” Multiple responses allowed.

Five survey respondents provided recommendations to improve the program:
• Provide more education about the program
• Come to a final agreement about the rebate amount at the beginning of the project
• Less cost
• Pay rebates more quickly

9
• Guarantee that rebate money would still be available when the project is completed because
making improvements to an apartment building can take multiple years to complete
Energy Efficiency Attitudes and Behaviors
All respondents (n=19) said the rebate provided by Avista was very or somewhat important in their
decision to complete their project, and almost all respondents (18 of 19) said energy efficiency was very
or somewhat important when making capital upgrades or improvements. As shown in Figure 6, initial
equipment cost and return on investment (ROI) were the most important criteria in the decision to
make energy efficiency improvements.
Figure 6. Important Criteria for Making Energy Efficiency Improvements

Source: Site specific survey question F3: “Which of the following criteria are important in deciding whether
your company makes energy efficiency improvements?” Multiple responses allowed.

Since participating in the site specific program, four respondents have purchased energy-efficient
equipment: two have installed more boilers, one has completed an LED lighting project and one did not
provide details about the project. Two respondents have adopted new protocols such as staging start
and end times on production and using unspecified energy-management protocols.
Survey Respondent Profile
Three respondents lease their facilities while 15 own their facility. The number of employees at each
facility ranged from one to 3,500: eight had between one and 200 employees, three had between 200
and 500 employees, and three had more than 500 employees (n=14). Eleven facilities primarily used gas
to heat their facility while two used electricity and one used steam. As shown in Figure 7, the largest
group of survey respondents completed a manufacturing project.

10
Figure 7. Site Specific Project Type

Source: 2018 Program participant data.

Nonresidential Prescriptive
This section outlines the findings from the three interviews Cadmus completed with Avista and
implementation staff and the 46 online surveys completed with prescriptive participants. Figure 8 lists
the prescriptive programs in which survey participants participated.
Figure 8. Prescriptive Programs

Source: 2018 Program participant data.

11
Program Changes
Avista made several changes to commercial lighting program rebates in 2018, as summarized in Table 7.
In addition to the changes to the rebate amounts, Avista modified the wattage range on most interior
and exterior lighting products.3
Table 7. 2018 Prescriptive Program Rebate Changes4
Program Change 2017 2018
Lighting
Interior 4-Foot 4-Lamp T12/T8 Fixture to 2-Lamp HP
T8 Fixture or Retrofit Kit $35 $0*
Interior 4-Foot 3-Lamp T12/T8 Fixture to 2-Lamp HP
T8 Fixture or Retrofit Kit $25 $0*
Interior 4-Foot 2-Lamp T12/T8 Fixture to 1-Lamp HP
T8 Fixture/Retrofit Kit $18 $0*
Interior 250 watt HID to ≤ 140-watt DLC approved
LED Fixture $180 $155
Exterior New Construction 320 & 400 Watt HID to ≤
175-watt DLC LED Fixture $175 $250
* measure discontinued

When rebates or other program changes occur, Avista holds webinars or other events to explain the
changes. Additionally, program staff for the lighting program attend trade ally meetings to discuss
program changes with contractors and vendors.
Program managers said Avista planned to revise the customer relationship management system,
InforCFM, in mid- to late-2018 but this had not happened at the time of the program staff interviews.
The current tracking system was working well for most programs, however, the lighting program
manager indicated that being able to track more measure level detail would be helpful for future
planning purposes.
Marketing and Outreach
According to the program and implementer interviews, most customers learn about the program from
the contractor or vendor they work with to implement the project, from Avista’s account executives, or
from email messages sent to customers. Customers may also learn about energy efficiency programs
through Avista’s monthly newsletters targeted at commercial customers. Bill statements also include
messages about energy efficiency in general and sometimes highlight specific energy efficiency
programs. To answer questions and promote all nonresidential programs to trade allies, Avista hosts
informational breakfasts throughout the year.

3 A comparison of 2017 and 2018 Prescriptive Lighting rebates is found in the 2018 Avista DSM
Standard Operating Procedures Manual, p. 36–37.
4 Source: 2017 Avista DSM Standard Operating Procedures Manual and 2018 Avista DSM Standard
Operating Procedures Manual.

12
While outreach remained the same for most 2018 nonresidential programs, the implementer said a
slight change was made to outreach for the Green Motors Initiative in 2018. In the past, the
implementer, Green Motors Practice Group (GMPG), placed cold calls to Avista customers to find and
recruit participants. In 2018, they focused outreach efforts on interested and eligible customers
identified by Avista account executives.
Customer Awareness
Over half of survey respondents (58%; 23 of 40) have previously participated in an Avista business
energy efficiency program. None of the 2018 insulation program survey respondents (n=3) had
participated in an Avista business energy efficiency program before 2018.
Twenty-one of the 23 respondents who had participated previously provided details about the types of
equipment they installed. The most common type of equipment respondents installed while
participating in an Avista business energy efficiency program was lighting (Figure 9; 15 responses). No
notable differences emerged across participant types.
Figure 9. Equipment Installed by Previous Avista Program Participants

Source: Prescriptive survey question C1.2: “What other Avista nonresidential energy efficiency
programs has your business participated in?” Multiple responses accepted.

As shown in Figure 10, the most common way survey respondents first learned of the program was from
an equipment vendor or retailer (27%). Over one-quarter of respondents indicated that the best way for
Avista to inform them about rebate programs is by email from Avista (28%) or directly from their Avista
account executive (26%).

13
Figure 10. Program Awareness

Source: Prescriptive survey questions C2 and C3: “How did you first hear about the program?”
and “What is the best way for Avista to inform commercial customers like you about
their rebates and incentives for energy efficiency improvements?” Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Motivation and Benefits of Participation
As shown in Figure 11, survey respondents said they were motivated to participate in the program to
save money (83%) and save energy (67%). The Green Motors Rewind respondent was motivated by his
interactions with the contractor or vendor, and respondents in the food services equipment program
were motivated by saving energy. There were no other notable differences among participant groups.

14
Figure 11. Prescriptive Participation Motivation

Source: Prescriptive survey question C4: “What motivated you to participate in the program?” Multiple responses accepted.

Additionally, survey respondents said the main benefits for participating in the program were to save
money on utility bills (72%) and use less energy (65%; Figure 12). These top benefits were consistent
across all programs except the Green Motors Rewind participant who said the main benefit was saving
money on maintenance costs.

15
Figure 12. Prescriptive Participation Benefits

Source: Prescriptive survey question C5: “What would you say are the main benefits your company
has experienced as a result of participation?” Multiple responses accepted.

Customer Experience
Program Delivery
Most survey respondents (82%; n=38) used a third-party consultant such as a contractor or vendor to
design or implement their project while 18% used only internal resources. In addition to using a
contractor or vendor, 13% used Avista staff to design or implement their project. Over half of
organizations (68%; n=38) in the survey took the lead role in completing the application for the rebate.
Most respondents received the rebate check directly (89%; n=37), however, 11% (4 of 37) received an
instant discount from their contractor. Two respondents who received an instant discount from their
contractor said they opted for this method of payment because their contractor did not offer another
option for receiving the rebate, one respondent said it was easier to have the contractor submit the
necessary paperwork, and one respondent did not provide a reason for selecting this option.
Program Satisfaction
Almost all respondents (98%; n=45) were satisfied with Avista and 91% (n=34) were satisfied with the
program. All respondents were very or somewhat satisfied with the pre-project inspection and the
rebate amount, as shown in Figure 13. Program staff said that if rebate levels were reduced,
participation would decrease, especially in the lighting and insulation programs. The lighting program
manager said current rebates for exterior lighting motivated customers to participate while current
interior lighting rebates were less motivating.

16
Figure 13. Satisfaction with Prescriptive Program Components

Source: Prescriptive survey questions H1 and H7: “In terms of the [PROGRAM], how satisfied were you with
the following aspects? Please think about each item individually as you select your answer.”

While almost all survey respondents were satisfied with the program and its components, four
respondents provided reasons for their dissatisfaction as shown in Table 8. Other respondents who were
dissatisfied with a program component did not provide a reason for their dissatisfaction.
Table 8. Reasons for Program Dissatisfaction
Component Reason for Dissatisfaction Program
Communication with account
executive
Have not received the rebate HVAC
Very little communication Interior Lighting
Have not received much email communication and it
takes a long time for rebate to be approved Exterior Lighting
Communication with trade ally Unresponsive and misled organization about
effectiveness of the equipment Interior Lighting
Equipment installed Equipment not as effective as the lighting it replaced Interior Lighting
Overall satisfaction
Have not received the rebate HVAC
No energy reduction Interior Lighting
Concerns with contractor that were not addressed by
Avista Interior Lighting

17
Program Challenges and Successes
Over half of respondents (52%; n=46) reported program participation challenges. The most common
challenge, as shown in Figure 14, was being aware of the program and what it offers. “Other” responses
include contractor availability, receiving rebate, getting buy-in, prioritizing projects, getting a quality
result, and no more improvements to make.
Five of the eight respondents who said program awareness was a challenge were interior or exterior
lighting participants. Three lighting participants said the rebate paperwork was challenging. They said
the form was confusing and it did not provide precise directions. Additionally, they said identifying
fixtures that qualified for the program was challenging. These customer challenges were reinforced by
the program manager who said the biggest challenge for lighting participants was understanding the
terminology especially around DesignLights Consortium certification. The program manager also said
there have been fewer application rejections in the past year or two because of an improved rebate
application form. The AirGuardian implementer said the biggest challenge for this program is assuring
participants that there is no cost to them to participate. When customers are skeptical, the implementer
refers them to Avista for confirmation.
Figure 14. Participation Challenges

Source: Prescriptive survey question H9: “What do so see as the biggest challenges to
participating in Avista’s [PROGRAM_NAME]?”

Despite these issues, 29 respondents called out several program areas that they viewed as working well
(Figure 15).

18
Figure 15. Prescriptive Program Successes

Source: Prescriptive survey question H11: “What would you say is working particularly well with
Avista’s Program?” Multiple responses allowed.

Sixteen participants provided recommendations to improve the program. Six of these participants
suggested more outreach or different types of outreach, two would like the programs to continue, and
two suggested Avista provide more information when program changes are made. Additional responses
(one each) included:
• Better communication
• Easier application process
• Allow online application submittal
• Do not allow contractors to receive the rebate
• Provide a contractor list
• Electronic reporting
Energy Efficiency Attitudes and Behaviors
All but one of the respondents (n=46) said the rebate provided by Avista was very or somewhat
important in their decision to complete their project. As shown in Figure 16, maintenance costs (77%)
and energy or operating costs (74%) were the most important criteria in their decision to make energy
efficiency improvements. While maintenance costs were the most important criteria among all
prescriptive program participants, the most-important criteria differed by program (Table 9).

19
Figure 16. Important Criteria for Making Energy Efficiency Improvements

Source: Prescriptive survey question K2: “Which of the following criteria are important in deciding whether
your company makes energy efficiency improvements?” Multiple responses allowed.

Table 9 shows the criteria most commonly selected when deciding whether to make energy efficiency
improvements for each of the prescriptive programs.
Table 9. Important Energy Efficiency Project Criteria by Prescriptive Program
Program Most Selected Criteria Percentage of
Respondents
Commercial HVAC (n=6) Maintenance costs 100%
Food Service (n=5) Initial cost of the equipment 100%
Green Motors (n=1)* ROI, payback period, availability of rebates, and
information from Avista staff 100%
Insulation (n=3) Energy or operating costs 100%
Exterior Lighting (n=14) Maintenance costs 79%
Interior Lighting (n=12) ROI, energy or operating costs, and maintenance
costs 67%
HVAC Motor Controls
(n=2)*
ROI, payback period, availability of rebates, energy
costs, maintenance costs and availability of rebates 100%
*Multiple criteria selected by 100% of survey respondents.

20
Nine respondents suggested other energy savings programs Avista could offer:
• Solar for commercial and residential customers (2 responses)
• Energy audit (2 responses)
• Multi-stage air conditioning (1 response)
• Scheduling evening/weekend setbacks and HVAC schedule improvements (1 response)
• Equipment performance improvements (1 response)
• Energy efficient windows (1 response)
• Renewal energy projects for rural customers (1 response)
Survey Respondent Profile
Most survey respondents’ primary heating fuel was electricity (83%; n=41), and 70% own their facility.
Facility sizes ranged from 1,600 square feet to 550,000 square feet with an average of 60,617 square
feet (n=36). Number of employees ranged from three to 500 with an average of 77 employees (n=34).
Residential Programs
For its 2018 process evaluation, Cadmus conducted stakeholder interviews with Avista and implementer
staff, phone interviews with HVAC contractors, and phone surveys with residential program participants.
Each data collection task informed its own set of research objectives and covered the HVAC, Shell, and
Fuel Efficiency programs together.
Stakeholder Interviews
Cadmus interviewed Avista program staff about its residential programming in April 2018. Avista staff
said the HVAC, Shell, and Fuel Efficiency programs ran smoothly and were delivered mostly as described
in Avista’s 2017 Plan Washington & Idaho Demand Side Management Standard Operating Procedures,
with the following small changes to rebates:5
• HVAC: Staff reduced rebates for smart thermostats to $60 if self-installed (originally $75) and
$75 if contractor-installed (originally $100) to stay within budget. Despite lower rebate levels,
rebate applications increased from those in 2017, according to Avista staff.
• Fuel Efficiency: Staff increased rebates to $500 for ductless heat pumps (originally $450). Avista
discontinued stand-alone rebates for natural gas water heaters because of a lack of interest in
the measure but still incentivized them as part of a $2,250 combined rebate for converting to
natural gas for both space and water heating.
At the time of the interview, the Avista team said customers had responded most strongly to smart
thermostats during Q1 despite reduced rebates. Conversely, Shell program participants had been

5 These changes are reflected in the Avista 2018 Washington & Idaho Demand Side Management Standard
Operating Procedures.

21
inclined to replace existing windows with regular windows rather than storm windows, leading Avista to
consider but ultimately not follow through on retiring rebates for storm windows.
Avista staff did not note any structural barriers to participation or challenges in delivering the programs.
Participant Phone Surveys
Cadmus completed 76 phone surveys with HVAC, Shell, and Fuel Efficiency program participants in May
and October 2018 (38 respondents each month). The following sections synthesize the results from both
waves of surveys and detail the findings below.
Customer Awareness
Cadmus asked survey respondents where they remembered learning about the program in which they
participated.
Respondents most commonly learned about Avista programs through contractors (53%), followed
distantly by word of mouth (14%) and Avista’s website (11%), as shown in Figure 17. Respondents
preferred to hear about Avista energy efficiency programs through word of mouth (27%) but also cited
bill inserts (32%) as an effective way to spread information. A small portion of respondents also
preferred to learn about programming via Avista emails (10%) or TV advertisements (10%).
Figure 17. Awareness of Avista Energy Efficiency Programming

Source: Residential Programs Participant Survey, Question B1: “How did you first hear about the [PROGRAM
NAME] Program?”; Question B2: “What is the best way for Avista to inform residential customers like you
about their energy efficiency improvement rebates?”

Ninety-three percent of respondents reported that they had heard about at least one Avista energy
efficiency program in 2018, other than the program in which they participated. Respondents most
frequently reported hearing about the HVAC program (86%), followed by the Shell (63%) and Fuel

22
Efficiency (57%) programs,6 as shown in Figure 18. ENERGY STAR® Homes and Simple Steps, Smart
Savings, two programs run by third-party implementers, garnered much lower levels of awareness from
survey respondents (24% and 18%), respectively.
Figure 18. Awareness of Other Avista Residential Programs

Source: Residential Programs Participant Survey, Question D1: “What other Avista energy efficiency
programs have you heard of?”

Motivation and Program Benefits
As shown in Figure 19, more than half of respondents said their primary motivation to participate in
Avista residential energy efficiency programming was to save money (56%). Respondents also wanted to
save energy (11%) and increase the comfort of their homes (9%). Twelve percent said they participated
only because it was necessary (for example, the existing furnace or windows were broken).

6 Cadmus did not ask respondents about programs in which they participated (e.g., no Shell participants were
asked cross-promotion questions about Shell). Multiple responses were allowed.

23
Figure 19. Motivation to Participate in Residential Programs

Source: Residential Programs Participant Survey, Question B3: “What motivated you to participate in the
[PROGRAM NAME] Program?”

Cadmus asked survey respondents a multiple-response question about what benefits were associated
with participating in Avista residential programs. Most respondents cited energy savings (83%),
increased comfort (78%), lower operation/maintenance costs (74%), and rebates (72%) (Figure 20). A
small portion of respondents like keeping up with technological trends, and another 7% to 10% saw
value in producing less waste and better environmental outcomes.

24
Figure 20. Benefits of Participation in Residential Programs

Source: Residential Programs Participant Survey, Question B5. “What benefits come to mind when thinking
about your participation in the [PROGRAM NAME] Program?” Multiple responses allowed.

Program Satisfaction
Cadmus asked survey respondents to indicate their levels of satisfaction with various program elements
associated with their rebate, their new equipment, and the installing contractor. Respondents were
anywhere from 93% to 99% satisfied7 with the five program elements shown in Figure 21. Respondents
were least satisfied with the rebate amount, measured by the percentage of very satisfied responses
(42%, whereas very satisfied percentages for other program elements were at least twice as large).
Lower satisfaction with rebates, as self-reported by customers via survey, is a common trait among
prescriptive programs; Cadmus does not find this result out of the ordinary.

7 The combination of very satisfied and somewhat satisfied responses.

25
Figure 21. Satisfaction with Residential Program Elements

Source: Residential Programs Participant Survey, Question C2: “How would you rate your overall experience
with...”

Cadmus found detectable differences in rebate satisfaction by program. Despite small sample sizes, only
five of 28 Shell program participants were very satisfied with the rebate amount (18%), compared with
16 of 32 HVAC and eight of 16 Fuel Efficiency program survey respondents (50% each). Cadmus found
each of these differences to be statistically significant at 95% confidence. It is not clear, beyond
feedback that rebates were “too low,” why the percentage of very satisfied respondents was
dramatically lower for Shell program rebates than for HVAC and Fuel Efficiency program rebates.
Overall, 96% to 99% of respondents were satisfied with their residential program participation and
experiences with Avista (Figure 22).
Figure 22. Satisfaction with Avista and Residential Programs Overall

Source: Residential Programs Participant Survey, Question C2: “How would you rate your overall experience
with...”

26
After asking respondents about their satisfaction with the programs and their elements, Cadmus
solicited recommendations and feedback from respondents regarding possible program improvements.
Across both survey waves, 62% of respondents (47 of 76) provided feedback, consisting mostly of the
following recommendations:
• Increase rebates (23 of 47)
• Increase advertising (16 of 47)
• Simplify rebate applications (7 of 47)
Energy Efficiency Behaviors
Eleven of 75 survey respondents (15%) purchased and installed other high-efficiency equipment after
participating in an Avista residential program in 2018. Four of the 11 respondents considered their
program participation a very important influence on their purchasing decisions. Among the four
respondents, two purchased tankless water heaters and applied for rebates. One respondent installed a
natural gas furnace and also applied for a rebate. The fourth respondent installed lighting and reported
not applying for a rebate because the equipment was ineligible.
One respondent purchased two rebate-eligible appliances (a tankless water heater and a natural gas
furnace) and applied for rebates for both measures. The respondent said the program was somewhat
important to the decisions to purchase and install these appliances.
The remaining six respondents who purchased efficient equipment did not apply (or did not know if they
applied) for Avista rebates. Installed equipment, as self-reported by the respondents, included a smart
thermostat, natural gas stoves, a dishwasher, a water heater, and connected LED lighting. None of the
six indicated their participation in Avista programming was very important to their purchases.

27
Survey Respondent Profile
As shown in Figure 23, most survey respondents completed a two- or four-year college or university
degree (31% and 33%, respectively).
Figure 23. Residential Program Participant Education

Source: Residential Programs Participant Survey, Question F1: “What is the highest level of education
that you have completed?”

Two-thirds of respondents earned at least $50,000 annually, with most respondents earning between
$50,000 and $75,000 (21%). Figure 24 shows the breakdown of income.

28
Figure 24. Residential Program Participant Income Ranges

Source: Residential Programs Participant Survey, Question F8: “Please tell me which of the following
categories applies to your total household income for the year 2017.”

The average household size among survey respondents was roughly 2.5 residents (n=73). Almost 99% of
respondents owned their homes (n=73), and 85% have wireless internet access (n=74).
HVAC Program Contractor Interviews
In October 2018, Cadmus interviewed eight HVAC contractors to collect information about their
awareness of and motivation to participate in the HVAC program as well as their standard business
practices, experiences with the program, and perceptions of customers’ experiences with the program.
Program Awareness
Six of the eight contractors were unsure how they heard about the HVAC program; oftentimes, their
firms were involved with the program before they joined the company. The last two contractors heard
about the program through an Avista employee and a local heating association.
Motivation to Participate
Seven contractors were involved with the program so they could help their customers afford heating by
getting the best deals on high-efficiency equipment. Two contractors said the program drove business
for the company.8

8 One contractor mentioned both helping customers and driving business as motivations.

29
Program Benefits
Six contractors said the program benefitted their customers by allowing them to upgrade to more-
efficient equipment that provided greater comfort and savings for the price of standard equipment. Two
contractors emphasized that the program particularly benefitted lower-income customers by making
equipment more affordable and by lowering energy bills. One contractor said energy savings generated
by the program benefitted the community, and another said the program proved very profitable for his
or her firm.
Marketing
Five contractors said most of their business was generated through word-of-mouth, supplemented by a
social media presence or by traditional advertising through newspapers, radio, and television. Three
contractors relied on traditional advertising such as television and radio advertising, fliers, and door
hangers. None of the contractors promoted Avista’s HVAC program exclusively; their marketing included
information about Avista programming alongside rebates from manufacturers and other utilities. Every
contractor mentioned the HVAC program to customers who qualified to participate in it.
Rebate Application Process
Five contractors handled the entire rebate application process for their customers; two other
contractors had customers complete their applications but provided help during the process. Only one
contractor had his customers complete and submit their rebate applications entirely on their own.
Contractors offered a variety of ways for customers to redeem their rebates:
• Direct discount: The contractor subtracted the rebate amount up front and invoiced the
customer for remaining costs; the contractor then kept the rebate.
• Contractor-delivered rebate: The contractor invoiced the customer for the full project cost,
received the rebate from Avista, and passed the amount of the rebate along to the customer
after the work was completed.
• Utility-delivered rebate: The contractor invoiced the customer for the full project cost, and
Avista delivered the rebate directly to the customer.
Contractor Experience
Cadmus spoke to contractors about their satisfaction with various program elements and how much the
program influenced their businesses’ success.
Satisfaction
Contractors rated all program elements shown in Table 10 with high satisfaction marks, ranging from 4.4
to 4.9 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 meant not at all satisfied and 5 meant very satisfied.

30
Table 10. Satisfaction Ratings by Program Element
Program Element Satisfaction Ratings Average 1 – Not at all Satisfied 2 3 4 5 – Very Satisfied
Interaction with Avista 0 0 0 1 7 4.9
Rebate application process 0 0 1 1 6 4.6
Rebate levels 0 0 0 4 4 4.5
Equipment covered by rebates 0 0 2 1 5 4.4
Program overall 0 0 0 2 6 4.8

Additional details related to contractors’ ratings for each program element above include the following:
• Interaction with Avista: Contractors rated their interactions with Avista the highest of the five
discussed program elements (4.9), although some said they did not contact Avista very often.
The one contractor who did not give a ‘5’ rating still praised Avista’s customer service team but
said it seemed understaffed at times.
• Rebate application: All contractors said the application process was simple, straightforward,
and user-friendly. Three contractors experienced problems submitting applications online,
primarily because the website could not verify a customer’s mailing address, so they submitted
application forms by mail instead.
• Rebate levels: Contractors were generally satisfied with the rebate levels, although four said
they could be higher to provide further benefits to customers.9
• Equipment: Contractors were mostly satisfied with equipment covered by the program’s
rebates but suggested other types of high-efficiency equipment (such as air conditioners, water
heaters, and side-arm heat exchangers for boilers and furnaces) that could benefit customers.
Program Influence
Contractors were anywhere from neutral to very positive about the program’s influence on driving
business. Two contractors said the program enabled them to sell more higher-efficiency equipment, and
two other contractors said customers more frequently upgraded or bought new equipment specifically
to take advantage of program rebates. No contractors reported negative impacts on their businesses.
Perceived Customer Experience
Cadmus asked contractors about their perceptions of customers’ experiences with the program,
including its influence on customers’ decisions to purchase high-efficiency equipment.
Awareness
The eight contractors Cadmus interviewed estimated that, on average, 59% of customers already knew
about the program and, of the customers who were already aware, roughly 89% qualified for a rebate.

9 This feedback is commonly provided regarding prescriptive rebate programs like Avista’s HVAC program.

31
An estimated 79% of all customers (those who were aware of the program and those who were not
aware of the program) qualified for and received a rebate.
Influence on Purchases
Contractors rated the HVAC program’s influence on a customer’s decision to purchase new equipment
as a 4.6 on average, using a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 meant not at all influential and 5 meant very
Influential. Contractors who gave a ‘5’ rating said the program provided incentives to offset job costs
and educated customers about energy efficiency.10 Contractors who provided a ‘4’ rating said Avista
branding increased the program’s effectiveness, and the rebates sold customers on the program.
Feedback and Recommendations
Six contractors provided the following recommendations:11
• Increase rebate amounts (n=4)
• Provide rebates for air conditioners, water heaters, and side-arm heat exchangers for boilers
and furnaces (n=2)
• Hire more customer service representatives to answer rebate questions (n=1)
• Provide contractors with a list of customers to target (n=1)
Contractors praised the program’s ability to help customers, especially those who are low-income or
elderly. They provided the following recommendations to improve the contractor and customer
experiences:
• Increase rebates (n=2)
• Inform contractors better and work with them more (n=2)
• Include reference numbers with or on rebate checks to make it easier for contractors to assign
rebates already processed to specific projects and disburse those rebates to the appropriate
customers (n=1)
• Broaden the requirements to qualify for a rebate (n=1)
• Make it easier for customers and contractors to find information about rebates and the status of
their applications through Avista’s website (n=1)
• Simplify the application process/paperwork (n=1)

10 One contractor made a distinction that the program was a ‘5’ when influencing customers to install new
equipment, but only a ‘2 or 3’ when influencing customers to upgrade.
11 Two contractors were satisfied with the program and declined to provide feedback.

32
Multifamily Direct Install
For its process evaluation of the MFDI Pilot, Cadmus conducted stakeholder interviews with Avista pilot
and implementer staff as well as phone interviews with multifamily property managers who participated
in the pilot.
Stakeholder Interviews
Cadmus interviewed Avista and program implementer staff about the MFDI pilot in April 2018. The 2018
DSM Business Plan specified that the program implementer would recruit MFDI Pilot participants
through door-to-door visits, as with the SBDI program that preceded it but was discontinued. Instead,
Avista targeted multifamily property managers based on SBDI program rosters. The implementer noted
that the success of the targeted marketing made it difficult to control recruitment efforts. Some
property managers oversee multiple properties, making it difficult to anticipate the scale of individual
projects. Ultimately, Avista and the program implementer established a waitlist from which it selected
new projects. The design of the MFDI Pilot closely resembled Avista’s SBDI Program, helping pilot
delivery to run smoothly.
The program implementer reported high levels of satisfaction for direct-install measures. Avista staff
thought the program implementer used good judgment in choosing the best measures to install based
on each unit’s or property’s characteristics (such as building age or existing measure vintage).
The implementer faced challenges managing large amounts of data used to refine ex ante energy
savings and demand reduction estimates for the direct-install measures. While the pilot achieved its
initial participation and therms savings targets, it fell short of its kWh savings targets.12 The implementer
attributed the shortfall in kWh savings to its use of rough characterizations of the building stock in
Avista’s territory. The implementer used the pilot to collect more-granular building stock data to
improve multifamily sector estimates of per-unit savings for direct-install measures. The implementer
designed forms that installers used in individual units and common areas to record details—such as the
upgrade measures installed, retrofit (baseline) measures replaced, and hours of use (HOU)—used in
energy savings algorithms. Overall, these data collection challenges did not inhibit the pilot’s success.
Following the initial phase of the pilot—accepting Avista’s offer to participate, scheduling and
completing an on-site audit, and installing select direct-install measures as appropriate—Avista and the
implementer initiated a supplemental lighting phase for the pilot. Installers subcontracted by the
implementer revisited multifamily properties to install additional common area lighting with participants
who expressed interest. While completing installations of direct-install measures, the implementer
identified and reviewed opportunities for common area lighting with Avista and the pilot participant, all
subject to Avista’s approval. At the time of the interview, the supplemental phase was in progress and
running smoothly.

12 Because of its status as a pilot, the MFDI pilot did not set formal annual energy-saving goals.

33
Throughout the MFDI Pilot, Avista and the implementer met weekly to discuss the progress of and issues
with the pilot’s delivery. Both were highly satisfied with their working relationship.
Participant Interviews
In May 2018, Cadmus interviewed 10 multifamily residence managers who participated in the MFDI Pilot
to ascertain their awareness of, motivation to participate in, and satisfaction with the pilot as well as
barriers to participation and the pilot’s influence on other energy-saving behavior.
Awareness and Motivation
Nine of the 10 participants Cadmus interviewed learned that the properties they managed were
participating in the MFDI Pilot through their corporate offices. The last interviewee learned about the
pilot directly from Avista.
In terms of motivations, three participants said they pay attention to ways to save energy, including one
who looked out for flyers and mailings from Avista. Four participants make energy-saving changes to
their properties when instructed to do so by their corporate offices. The remaining three generally do
not think about or conduct research on ways to save energy.
Four participants responded to awareness questions Cadmus asked. Three respondents were aware of
other Avista incentives or rebate programs.13 Two of the four planned to install other energy efficiency
measures or equipment through the supplemental lighting phase of the MFDI Pilot, which at the time of
interviews, was still in its initial phase.
Measure Satisfaction
Eight participants were very satisfied with the energy-saving measures installed at their multifamily
properties. Three participants noted the benefit of saving energy and reducing utility costs, and six were
excited about the brightness and longevity of the LED bulbs installed. The two participants who were
less than very satisfied (one somewhat satisfied, one not at all satisfied) with certain water-saving
measures provided feedback regarding their satisfaction ratings, outlined below:
Showerheads
• Disliked the water pressure (n=2)
• Measure broke (n=1)
Kitchen faucet aerator
• Disliked the water pressure (n=1)
• Incompatible with the sinks (n=2)
• Measures broke (n=1)

13 Respondents were not asked to identify programs by name or description.

34
Satisfaction
All 10 participants were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their MFDI Pilot experiences. Similarly,
all but one or two participants were very satisfied with every element of the pilot, as shown in Figure 25.
(These results were also supported anecdotally by the follow-up survey Avista administered to property
managers. At the time of Cadmus’ interviews with participants, Avista’s survey had collected four
responses. All four respondents rated their experience with the installer as excellent.)
Figure 25. Satisfaction Ratings with Pilot Elements and Overall
Source: MFDI Pilot Participant Interview, Question C3:
“Using the same scale as before, how satisfied were you with…”

Barriers to Participation
No participants Cadmus interviewed reported any barriers to their participation in the pilot. One
reported having difficulty scheduling the assessment and installation appointment but eventually
working out the timing with the implementer. Avista and the implementer also did not observe
significant barriers preventing multifamily property managers or tenants from participating in the MFDI
Pilot. By using targeted marketing to approach a select group of multifamily properties for the pilot’s
launch, Avista effectively prescreened properties as potential participants, thereby eliminating barriers
to participation in advance.
Pilot Influence
Cadmus asked participants if they took energy-saving actions after participating in the MFDI Pilot and, if
so, how important the pilot was in influencing that behavior. Three participants installed additional
energy-saving items and said the pilot was very important14 in influencing their actions, all stating they

14 Using the following scale: not at all important, a little important, somewhat important, very important.

35
were only a little likely15 to pursue energy-saving actions in the absence of the pilot. The other seven
participants had not taken additional energy-saving actions, but all said they were very likely to seek out
energy-saving items.
Successes
Cadmus identified three areas of success for the MFDI Pilot through its interviews with Avista, the
implementer, and participating property managers:
• High customer interest generated through a targeted outreach campaign was enough to require
a waitlist for program participation.
• High participant satisfaction reported by participating property managers on the direct-install
measures and general elements of the pilot. The implementer said only a small number of
tenants requested returns of their original items, confirming the high satisfaction ratings
reported by the interviewed participants.
• Enhanced relationship with multifamily sector through the successful launch and delivery of a
no-cost, direct-install pilot. Avista thought the pilot’s delivery, which carefully targeted
multifamily properties, branded installers as Avista representatives, and obtained approval from
property managers, helped build trust among multifamily tenants.
Challenges
Cadmus identified four minor challenges for the MFDI Pilot through its primary data collection:
• Delayed pilot launch to finalize important elements such as marketing collateral, on-site audit
content and structure, and field data collection forms. The delay was slight; Avista planned to
launch the pilot in early January but formally launched in late January.
• Unexpected demand for pilot services made it difficult for Avista to accommodate all interested
property managers in a timely manner and resulted in a waitlist for participation. For example,
some property managers manage or own several properties, which made it more difficult than
with the SBDI Program to anticipate the scale of individual projects.
• Inaccurate initial per-unit measure savings assumptions caused the pilot to not meet its
estimated energy (kWh) savings per measure unit. The implementer said it produced rough
calculations based on broad characterizations of measure-level details and the building stock in
Avista’s service territory. The implementer intended to use the pilot to compile more-granular
data regarding household characteristics and measure-level details (such as baselines and HOU
for all measure types) from every multifamily property unit and common area to improve ex
ante savings estimates for a full program rollout.
• Unclear lighting phase communication. Two multifamily property managers Cadmus
interviewed said they had yet to hear from the implementer’s subcontractor regarding the
supplemental lighting phase of the pilot. Although not necessarily dissatisfied with the delay,

15 Using the following scale: not at all likely, a little likely, somewhat likely, very likely.

36
they were growing impatient having no further correspondence about a follow-up appointment
at the time of Cadmus’ interviews with participants.
Despite these minor start-up challenges, the pilot ran smoothly.
Conclusions
Nonresidential
• Two-thirds of nonresidential survey respondents have participated in past business energy-
efficiency programs. Most site specific (17 of 19) survey respondents have previously
participated in an Avista business energy efficiency program compared with 56% of prescriptive
respondents (23 of 41).
• Participants most often learn about the program from Avista or a contractor, vendor, or
retailer.
§ Most site specific survey respondents (32%; n=13) first learned about the program from
their Avista account executive or from an Avista email
§ Prescriptive survey respondents first learned about the program from a contractor, vendor,
or retailer (50%; n=44).
• Participants are motivated by saving energy and money.
§ The top two motivators both site specific and prescriptive survey respondents (n=19 and
n=46, respectively) cited for participating were to save energy (42% and 67%, respectively)
and save money (37% and 83%, respectively).
§ Participants of both programs said saving money and using less energy were the top
benefits of program participation.
• Most survey respondents (89%; n=56) received a check directly from Avista rather than an
instant discount from their contractor.
§ Six of the respondents (two of 19 site specific and four of 37 prescriptive) received an
instant discount from their contractor.
§ Two of them said this was an easier way to receive the rebate, one was not given a choice in
how to receive the rebate, and three did not provide a reason.
• Participants are highly satisfied with the program, but a small number did indicate some
dissatisfaction.
§ All site specific survey respondents (n=19) and 91% (n=46) of prescriptive survey
respondents were satisfied with the program overall.
§ Site specific respondents were satisfied with all components of the program except for the
time it took to process the application; two of 19 were not too satisfied with this component
because of delays caused by incorrect rebate calculations and the time it took to complete
site inspections.

37
§ Prescriptive survey respondents were highly satisfied with the pre-project inspection, the
rebate amount, and the process of completing and submitting their application. Several
survey respondents provided reasons for their dissatisfaction with the program and some of
its components. They stated they were dissatisfied with communication with an account
executive and their trade ally because there was not enough communication (4 responses).
One respondent expressed dissatisfaction because the rebate check had not yet arrived at
the time of the survey and one felt the equipment was not as effective as expected, which
led to low energy savings. One respondent reported concerns about their contractor that
Avista did not address.
• Site-specific survey respondents said the program was successful because of Avista staff (7 of
12) while prescriptive survey respondents said the program was easy to use (31%; n=29).
§ Site specific program participants also cited the rebate (two of 12); rebate delivery time
(two of 12); and overall process, communication, and energy savings (one response each) as
working well.
§ Prescriptive survey respondents also cited quick turnaround (28%) and customer service
(24%) as program elements that were working particularly well.
• Participation challenges differed by program.
§ The top challenge for participating in the site specific program was determining whether a
project was eligible for a rebate.
§ Prescriptive survey respondents said their top challenges were knowing about the program
and its offerings, completing application paperwork, and finding the time needed to apply
and complete the project. The application paperwork was of particular concern among
lighting participants.
• Avista’s rebate was important in the decision to complete the energy efficiency project. All
site specific and all but one prescriptive survey respondent said the rebate provided by Avista
was important in their decision to complete the project.
§ The most important criteria for making energy efficiency improvements for site specific
respondents were return on investment (14 of 19) and initial cost of equipment (14 of 19).
§ Prescriptive survey respondents said the most important criteria were maintenance costs
(77%; n=43) and energy or operating costs (74%; n=43).
Residential
• Residential program delivery went smoothly, per Avista and implementer staff. Except for a
couple of small changes to the rebate levels outlined in the 2018 DSM Business Plan, the HVAC,
Shell, and Fuel Efficiency programs were delivered and performed as expected.
• More than half of residential program participants heard about the program in which they
participated through their contractor, installer, or trade ally (53%, n=73). While a significant
portion of respondents said contractors are the best way to spread information about Avista
programs (27%, n=60), more respondents said bill inserts are the best way to spread
information (32%).

38
• Residential program participants were motivated to participate primarily to save money (56%,
n=75). Survey respondents perceived the main benefits of Avista’s residential programming to
be saving energy (83%, n=72), increasing the comfort of their homes (78%), lowering
maintenance costs (74%), and taking advantage of Avista rebates (72%).
• At least 93% of survey respondents were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with every
element of the program in which they participated as well as with Avista overall. Rebates
received the lowest satisfaction rating, specifically among survey respondents who participated
in the Shell program (n=28), who were much less satisfied with rebate levels than HVAC (n=32)
and Fuel Efficiency (n=16) program survey respondents.
• HVAC contractors Cadmus interviewed said the HVAC Program plays an important role in
“leveling the playing field” by installing costlier high-efficiency equipment in the homes of
customers who might otherwise not be able to afford them.
• HVAC contractors took varying approaches to helping customers complete their rebate
application forms. Some contractors completed forms entirely on their own, some worked with
customers to complete their forms, and some provided no help to customers. Contractors
reported occasional issues with submitting applications online because Avista’s website could
not verify a customer’s mailing address.
• The eight HVAC contractors Cadmus interviewed rated their satisfaction with various
elements of the HVAC Program from 4.4 to 4.8 on average, on a scale of 1 to 5. They also
provided an average rating of 4.6 to the program’s ability to influence customers in their
decisions to purchase new energy-efficient equipment.
Multifamily Direct Install Pilot
• Avista facilitated MFDI Pilot delivery by mimicking the design of the SBDI program and
recruiting its implementer to assume the same role for the pilot. Per Avista and implementer
staff, the pilot, like Avista’s residential program, was delivered smoothly and as expected. Avista
overcame barriers to participation by engaging in a highly targeted marketing campaign.
• Pilot participants were generally highly satisfied with the pilot and direct-install measures
provided to their tenants, per Avista reports and direct feedback from multifamily residence
property managers. Although some property managers relayed to Avista reports by tenants of
problems with certain measures installed through the pilot, these issues occurred very
infrequently and were all resolved by the implementer.
• Participating property managers were unclear about the timing of the supplemental lighting
phase of the pilot at the time of interviews with Cadmus. Interviewees were not dissatisfied
with the supplemental phase but expressed confusion about the timing of its rollout.
• Pre- and post-pilot per-unit energy savings differed significantly due to substantial differences
in algorithm inputs such as hours of use (HOU). Avista originally calculated energy savings
estimates using broad characterizations of building stock in its service territory and intended to
use the pilot to collect more refined information about its customers’ households. Thus,

39
differences between estimated and finalized energy savings, while not intended, were not an
unexpected outcome for Avista.
Recommendations
Nonresidential
Nonresidential Recommendation 1: A small number of survey respondents said they received an instant
discount from their contractor because it was easier to have their contractor apply the discount to the
total cost of the project. If Avista wants to promote the instant discount option to nonresidential
customers, it should educate customers about the ease of using this option.
Nonresidential Recommendation 2: While Avista is implementing a new tracking database, they should
review the data that is being recorded in the database from prescriptive lighting participants to
determine if it is sufficient for accurate planning in the future. If current data being gathered is not
sufficient, Avista should review what is needed for planning purposes and modify the database to
include these detailed measure-level data.
Nonresidential Recommendation 3: According to some survey respondents, the lighting application
paperwork was challenging because it was confusing and did not provide precise instructions for
completing the application. Although the Avista website provides several ways for customers to contact
Avista for additional information, Avista should create and post a document on its website with answers
to frequently asked questions about the application to decrease customer challenges. The FAQ
document could focus on ways to avoid the application being rejected.
Residential
Residential Recommendation 1: Consider adjusting the constraints used to verify mailing addresses for
customers trying to submit their rebate application forms online. While this system works most of the
time – per HVAC contractors interviewed by Cadmus, it was usually a non-issue – it can create
frustration for customers who ultimately can’t complete the process online and must mail in their forms.
A system that relies on something simpler, such as account number and/or mailing zip code or house
number could still validate customer eligibility without rejecting certain mailing address formats.
Multifamily Direct Install Pilot
MFDI Pilot Recommendation 1: Increase communication with participants to sustain interest in and
satisfaction in the event of a full program rollout that includes a supplemental lighting phase as well as
in general for similar future pilots.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices
APPENDIX D – 2018 TARIFF RIDER ACTIVITY
Electric Natural Gas Total
2018 Beginning Balance
(Underfunded)/Overfunded $ (9,574,630)$ 180,889 $ (9,393,741)
Energy-Efficiency Funding $ 10,177,172 $ 1,332,964 $ 11,510,136
Net Funding of Operations $ 602,542 $ 1,513,854
Energy-Efficiency Expenditures $ 7,736,789 $ 1,279,666
2018 Ending Balances
(Underfunded)/Overfunded $ (7,134,247)$ 234,188 $ (6,900,059)
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices
APPENDIX E – 2018 EXPENDITURES BY PROGRAM
Electric Natural Gas Total
Energy Efficiency
Low-Income
Low-Income $ 426,400 $ 317,326
Low-Income Fuel Conversions $ 97,057 $ 0
Residential
ENERGY STAR Homes $ 26,000 $ 2,000
Fuel Efficiency $ 291,437 $ 0
HVAC $ 97,240 $ 441,818
Water Heat $ 800 $ 36,000
Multifamily Direct Install $ 411,148 $ 16,080
Shell $ 11,969 $ 29,417
Simple Steps, Smart Savings $ 224,050 $ 0
Misc $ 363 $ 25
Commercial/Industrial
Site-Specific $ 1,396,587 $ 61,547
AirGuardian $ 0 $ 0
EnergySmart Grocer $ 560 $ 0
Food Services $ 930 $ 28,185
Green Motors $ 5,290 $ 0
HVAC $ 0 $ 6,985
Shell $ 68 $ 2,444
Exterior Lighting $ 759,662 $ 0
Interior Lighting $ 813,570 $ 0
Motor Control HVAC $ 14,365 $ 0
Fuel Conversion (MFMT)$ 301,000 $ 0
Total Energy Efficiency $ 4,878,494 $ 941,827
Market Transformation
NEEA $ 422,241 $ 49,712
Total Market Transformation $ 422,241 $ 49,712
Other Programs and Activities
General Implementation $ 1,688,014 $ 194,548
Pilot Programs $ 46,594 $ 0
EM&V/CPA $ 334,059 $ 93,579
Idaho Research $ 367,387 $ 0
Total Other Programs and Activities $ 2,436,054 $ 288,127
Grand Total $ 7,736,789 $ 1,279,666
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices
APPENDIX F – 2018 PROGRAM ACTIVITY
Energy Efficiency Program
Electric Natural Gas
Participants
Evaluated
Savings
(kWh)
Utility Cost Participants
Evaluated
Savings
(Therms)
Utility Cost
Low-Income
Weatherization 1,833 SqFt/ Units 63,727 $ 157,305 864 SqFt/ Units 2,173 $ 52,391
HVAC 271 Units 100,175 $ 207,271 358 Units 2,410 $ 166,203
Water Heat 43 Units 3,219 $ 2,753 209 Units 189 $ 71,511
Outreach/Giveaways 10,264 LEDs 85,578 $ 10,509 - - - $ 0
Health and Human Safety 552 HHS - $ 143,675 226 HHS - $ 47,255
Fuel Conversions 156 Units 103,054 $ 108,161 - NA - $ 0
Total Low-Income 355,753 $ 629,674 4,772 $ 365,895
Residential
ENERGY STAR Homes 26 Homes 83,738 $ 37,958 2 Homes 406 $ 2,083
Fuel Efficiency 170 Units 1,442,640 $ 515,055 - NA - $ 0
HVAC 458 Furnace,
Tstats 750,709 $ 213,605 1,900 Furnace,
Tstats 150,936 $ 472,608
Multifamily Direct Install 1,330 Units 729,920 $ 524,290 1,330 Units* 2,014 $ 16,491
Shell 64 Windows 85,608 $ 25,238 156 Windows 40,014 $ 37,580
Water Heat 4 Units 4,345 $ 1,473 180 Units 12,420 $ 38,534
Simple Steps, Smart Savings 240,437
LEDs,
Washers,
SH
3,454,352 $ 759,496 897 SH 2,202 $ 449
Total Residential 6,551,312 $ 2,077,116 207,992 $ 567,745
Commercial/Industrial
Site-Specific 77 Projects 10,205,592 $ 1,717,120 5 Projects 21,016 $ 82,850
AirGuardian - Units - $ 0 - NA - $ 0
EnergySmart Grocer (PSC) 1 Projects 3,402 $ 666 - Projects - $ 0
Food Services 4 Projects 8,527 $ 1,196 20 Projects 8,871 $ 37,178
Green Motors 11 Motor
Rewinds 42,870 $ 6,628 - NA - $ 0
HVAC - Units - $ 0 11 Units 3,956 $ 10,995
Shell 3 Projects 929 $ 97 4 Projects 1,149 $ 3,609
Exterior Lighting 273 Projects 4,243,826 $ 892,106 - NA - $ 0
Interior Lighting 315 Projects 8,012,238 $ 1,063,621 - NA - $ 0
Motor Control HVAC 3 Projects 113,171 $ 17,897 - Projects - $ 0
Fuel Conversion (MFMT) 3 Projects 267,385 $ 307,314 - NA - $ 0
Total Comm/Industrial 22,897,942 $ 4,006,645 34,992 $ 134,632
Total Energy Efficiency 29,805,007 $ 6,713,436 247,757 $ 1,068,271
Note: For purposes of Schedule F, Washers and Showerheads were included in the Simple Steps, Smart Savings total rather than in the Residential Water Heat
program as provided in Table 38 and Table 44.
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices
APPENDIX G – 2018 UES MEASURE LIST
Measure Description
Customer
Incremental
Cost
Y1 kWh
Savings
Y1 Therm
Savings
Measure
Life Y1 PV NEBs Recurring
NEBs
Residential Prescriptive – Natural Gas
G Windows Single Pane <0.30 U-value $ 20.50 - 1.87 40 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Web Tstat Gas DIY $ 240.35 - 26.00 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Web Tstat Gas Cont $ 294.25 - 26.00 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
NG FURNACE/BOILER 90% AFUE $ 682.00 - 102.00 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
TANKLESS WH (0.82+)$ 450.00 - 69.00 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
NG Storm Windows $ 9.90 - 0.34 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
E STAR HOME - GAS ONLY $ 3,000.00 - 203.00 25 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Residential Prescriptive – Electric
E --> NG Space and DHW $ 4,588.21 11,280.00 (216.00) 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
E --> NG DIRECT VENT WALL HEAT $ 3,873.33 10,624.00 (466.00) 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
ELEC RES --> CENTRAL NG $ 3,988.18 7,524.00 (498.00) 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
ELEC RESISTANCE TO ASHP $ 4,172.89 5,945.58 - 18 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Ductless Heat Pump $ 3,822.37 4,621.50 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 87.81
E ESTAR HOME - MANUF, ELEC/DF $ 2,441.65 3,296.00 - 25 $ 0.00 $ 42.85
Tier3 0-55Gallon HPWH $ 932.77 1,610.00 - 13 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Tier2 0-55Gallon HPWH $ 932.00 1,520.00 - 13 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Tier1 0-55Gallon HPWH $ 840.92 1,131.00 - 13 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Web Tstat Elec DIY $ 240.35 749.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Web Tstat Elec Cont $ 294.25 749.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
VARIABLE SPEED MOTOR ASHP $ 275.00 420.00 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
VARIABLE SPEED MOTOR FURNACE $ 275.00 414.00 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
ELEC WINDOWS SP/MDP --> <0.30 U $ 20.50 12.60 - 45 $ 0.00 $ 0.01
ElEC Storm Windows $ 9.90 8.50 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.01
Residential – Simple Steps, Smart Savings
Clothing Washer $ 55.00 108.58 - 11 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Exterior Porch Light Fixture 2000-7999
Lumens $ 7.47 104.00 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Exterior Security Fixture 2000-7999 Lumens $ 10.05 104.00 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Track Light Fixture 2000-7999 Lumens $ 16.47 103.50 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Hard Wired (4 Lamp)$ 0.00 86.16 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Showerhead 1.5 GPM Gas $ 0.00 83.82 4.00 10 $ 0.17 $ 0.00
LED Reflectors and Outdoor 1490-2600 lumens $ 5.24 72.00 - 13 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Showerhead 1.75 GPM Gas $ 6.00 54.51 3.00 10 $ 0.17 $ 0.00
LED Decorative Ceiling Flush Mount Fixture 2000-
7999 lumens $ 7.11 51.50 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Retro-Fit Fixture 2000-7999 Lumens $ 9.94 50.04 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices
Measure Description
Customer
Incremental
Cost
Y1 kWh
Savings
Y1 Therm
Savings
Measure
Life Y1 PV NEBs Recurring
NEBs
LED Hard Wired (3 Lamp)$ 0.00 48.69 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Bathroom Vanity 2000-7999 Lumens $ 13.19 42.00 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Hard Wired (2 Lamp)$ 0.00 40.22 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Exterior Security Fixture 500-1999 Lumens $ 2.82 36.00 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Bi-pin Multifaceted Reflector (MR) 500-999
Lumens $ 14.85 32.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Track Light Fixture 500-1999 lumens $ 4.62 29.00 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Exterior Porch Light Fixture 500-1999 Lumens $ 2.10 29.00 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Bi-pin Non-Multifaceted Reflector (MR) 500-
999 lumens $ 11.99 29.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Reflectors and Outdoor 250-1049 lumens $ 1.04 24.00 - 13 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Bi-pin Multifaceted Reflector (MR) 250-499
Lumens $ 5.73 23.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Reflectors and Outdoor 1050-1489 lumens $ 3.41 21.00 - 13 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Bi-pin Non-Multifaceted Reflector (MR) 250-
499 Lumens $ 10.11 21.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Hard Wired (1 Lamp)$ 0.00 20.08 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Showerhead 2.0 GPM Gas $ 2.20 19.96 2.00 10 $ 0.17 $ 0.00
LED General Purpose and Dimmable 1050-1489
lumens $ 4.32 18.00 - 13 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Globe 1050-1489 lumens $ 2.88 15.00 - 13 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Decorative Ceiling Flush Mount Fixture 500-
1999 lumens $ 2.00 14.50 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Retro-Fit Fixture 500-1999 Lumens $ 2.79 14.02 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Globe 1490-2600 lumens $ 2.73 14.00 - 13 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Decorative and Mini-Base 250-1049 lumens $ 2.82 13.00 - 13 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Globe 250-1049 lumens $ 2.67 12.00 - 13 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Bathroom Vanity 500-1999 Lumens $ 3.70 12.00 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED General Purpose and Dimmable 1490 -2600
lumens $ 3.72 11.00 - 13 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Exterior Security Fixture 0-499 Lumens $ 0.81 10.50 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED General Purpose and Dimmable 250-1049
lumens $ 1.18 10.00 - 13 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Track Light Fixture 0-499 Lumens $ 2.66 8.00 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED -Exterior Porch Light Fixture 0-499 Lumens $ 0.60 8.00 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED TLED 2000-3999 Lumens $ 6.40 8.00 - 13 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED TLED 1000-1999 Lumens $ 3.78 7.00 - 13 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Decorative Ceiling Flush Mount Fixture 0-499
lumens $ 0.37 4.50 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Linear Flush Mount Fixture 2000-7999
lumens $ 9.33 4.50 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices
Measure Description
Customer
Incremental
Cost
Y1 kWh
Savings
Y1 Therm
Savings
Measure
Life Y1 PV NEBs Recurring
NEBs
LED Retro-Fit Fixture 0-499 Lumens $ 0.00 4.03 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Bathroom Vanity 0-499 Lumens $ 1.07 3.50 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Linear Flush Mount Fixture 500-1999 lumens $ 2.60 3.00 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Linear Flush Mount Fixture 0-499 lumens $ 0.76 0.50 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Decorative and Mini-Base 1490-2600 lumens $ 0.01 - - 13 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LED Decorative and Mini-Base 1050-1489 lumens $ 0.01 - - 13 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Commercial/Industrial – VFDs
Prescriptive VFDS - HVAC Heating Pump or
combo $ 200.00 1,756.00 - 16 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Prescriptive VFDs - HVAC Cooling Pump $ 200.00 1,091.00 - 16 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Prescriptive VFDs - HVAC Fan $ 200.00 1,022.00 - 16 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Commercial/Industrial – Site-Specific
Site Specific $ 274,700.00 - 41,000.00 16 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Commercial/Industrial – Shell
Less than R4 wall insulation (E/E) to R19+ Wall
Insulation $ 0.65 4.11 - 22 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Less than R4 wall insulation (E/E) to R11-R18 Wall
Insulation $ 0.61 2.82 - 22 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Less than R11 attic insulation (E/E) to R45+ Attic
Insulation $ 0.86 1.39 - 22 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Less than R11 roof insulation (E/E) to R30+ Roof
Insulation $ 0.62 1.36 - 22 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Less than R11 attic insulation (E/E) to R30-R44
Attic Insulation $ 0.76 1.02 - 22 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Less than R11 attic insulation (E/G) to R30-R44
Attic Insulation $ 0.76 - 0.09 22 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Less than R11 attic insulation (E/G) to R45+ Attic
Insulation $ 0.86 - 0.13 22 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Less than R11 roof insulation (E/G) to R30+ Roof
Insulation $ 0.62 - 0.12 22 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Less than R4 wall insulation (E/G) to R11-R18 Wall
Insulation $ 0.61 - 0.24 22 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Less than R4 wall insulation (E/G) to R19+ Wall
Insulation $ 0.65 - 0.36 22 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Commercial/Industrial – MFMT
Multifamily NG Market Transformation (per unit)$ 6,000.00 5,874.00 (258.00) 20 $ 1,000.00 $ 0.00
Commercial/Industrial – Interior Lighting
1000 watt HID =< 400 watt LED $ 999.00 2,966.00 (40.60) 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.54
400 watt HID =< 75 watt LED $ 454.40 1,244.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 26.66
250 watt HID to =< 140 LED $ 480.00 773.00 (10.60) 15 $ 0.00 $ 2.51
Over 150 watt Incandescent to 50-60W LED $ 130.00 326.00 (4.50) 15 $ 0.00 $ 10.16
4-Lamp T12/T8 Fixture to 2-Lamp LED $ 120.00 217.00 (3.00) 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.39
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices
Measure Description
Customer
Incremental
Cost
Y1 kWh
Savings
Y1 Therm
Savings
Measure
Life Y1 PV NEBs Recurring
NEBs
75-100 watt Incandescent to LED* 12-20 watt
Fixture $ 30.00 210.02 (2.67) 15 $ 0.00 $ 7.94
Occupancy sensors built in with relays for room
control (not switch sensors)$ 64.00 204.83 (2.61) 20 $ 0.00 $ 1.80
3-Lamp T12/T8 Fixture to LED Qualified 2x4
Fixture $ 100.00 187.61 (1.35) 12 $ 0.00 $ 1.09
50 watt MR16 (GU10 Base) to MR16 LED 6-9
watt $ 14.49 140.01 (1.78) 15 $ 0.00 $ 31.37
75-100 watt Incandescent to 12-20 watt LED
lamp $ 13.00 117.61 (1.50) 15 $ 0.00 $ 7.94
T5HO - T5 TLED $ 35.48 86.40 (1.50) 15 $ 0.00 $ (0.05)
40 watt Incandescent to 6-10 watt LED lamp $ 13.00 84.01 (1.07) 15 $ 0.00 $ 6.90
60 watt Incandescent to 9-13 watt LED lamp $ 13.00 84.01 (1.07) 15 $ 0.00 $ 9.11
20 watt MR16 (GU10 Base) to MR16 LED 2-4
watt $ 24.00 56.00 (0.71) 15 $ 0.00 $ 21.53
35 watt MR16 (GU10 Base) to MR16 LED 4-6
watt $ 15.94 42.00 (0.53) 15 $ 0.00 $ 26.17
T12/T8 to 8-20 W TLED $ 15.00 31.68 (0.55) 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.38
Commercial/Industrial – HVAC
Gas Boiler <300kBtu .85-.89 AFUE $ 12.31 - 1.77 16 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Gas Boiler <300kBtu .90+ AFUE AFUE $ 14.77 - 2.87 16 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Multistage Furnace <225 kBtu .90-.95 AFUE $ 8.61 - 3.67 16 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Multistage Furnace <225 kBtu .95+ AFUE $ 10.76 - 4.22 16 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Singlestage Furnace <225 kBtu .90-.95 AFUE $ 6.66 - 2.87 16 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Singlestage Furnace <225 kBtu .95+ AFUE $ 8.61 - 3.67 16 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Commercial/Industrial – Grocer
Multiplex - Efficient/oversized Air-cooled
Condenser for Multiplex $ 106.83 2,061.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Multiplex - Compressors - Air-cooled Condenser $ 515.71 1,968.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Multiplex - Compressors - Evaporative Condenser $ 515.71 1,968.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Special Doors with Low/No ASH for Low
Temperature Reach-in $ 88.45 1,700.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Cases - Low Temp Open to Reach-in $ 282.84 1,674.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Multiplex - Efficient/oversized Water-cooled
Condenser for Multiplex $ 106.83 1,550.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Evap motors: shaded pole to ECM in Walk-in -
Greater than 23 watts $ 287.47 1,458.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Cases - Low Temp Coffin to High Efficiency
Reach-in $ 84.00 1,074.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Cases - Low Temp Reach-in to High Efficiency
Reach-in $ 282.84 963.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
VFD - Condenser Fan Motors - Air Cooled $ 191.18 930.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices
Measure Description
Customer
Incremental
Cost
Y1 kWh
Savings
Y1 Therm
Savings
Measure
Life Y1 PV NEBs Recurring
NEBs
VFD - Condenser Fan Motors - Evap Cooled $ 191.18 930.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Floating Head Pressure Control w/ VFD- Air
Cooled $ 200.00 915.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Floating Head Pressure for Single Compressor
Systems, LT Condensing Unit $ 306.99 855.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Efficient Compressors - Low Temperature $ 287.47 798.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Floating Head Pressure for Single Compressor
Systems, MT Condensing Unit $ 404.29 757.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Floating Head Pressure Control - Evap Cooled $ 51.87 708.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Evap motors: shaded pole to ECM in Display Case $ 287.47 685.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Floating Head Pressure for Single Compressor
Systems, LT Remote Condenser $ 163.25 685.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Advanced Floating Controls: Floating Head and
Suction Pressure with Electronic Expansion Valves
(EEXVs)
$ 404.29 676.80 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Evap motors: shaded pole to ECM in Walk-in -
less than 23 watts $ 287.47 592.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Cases - Medium Temp Open Case to New Reach
In $ 88.45 585.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Strip Curtains for Supermarket Walk-in Freezers $ 10.14 535.00 - 2 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Add doors to Open Medium Temp Cases $ 385.00 533.00 49.00 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Floating Head Pressure for Single Compressor
Systems, MT Remote Condenser $ 214.50 473.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Gaskets for Walk-in Freezer - Main Door $ 125.93 347.00 - 4 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Floating Head Pressure Control - Air Cooled $ 51.87 332.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Anti-Sweat Heater Controls - Low Temp $ 47.90 305.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Evaporated Fan - Walk-In ECM Controller -
Medium Temp - 1/10-1/20 HP $ 247.90 264.00 - 16 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Gaskets for Medium Temp Reach-in Glass Doors $ 89.95 248.00 - 4 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Gaskets for Low Temp Reach-in Glass Doors $ 111.12 243.00 - 4 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Advanced Floating Controls: Floating Head and
Suction Pressure with Balanced Port Valves $ 404.29 238.40 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Multiplex - Controls - Floating suction pressure -
evaporative condenser $ 106.83 231.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Multiplex - Controls - Floating suction pressure -
air cooled condenser $ 106.83 227.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Cases - Medium Temp Open Case to New High
Efficiency Open Case $ 88.45 222.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Anti-Sweat Heater Controls - Med Temp $ 47.90 217.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Evaporated Fan - Walk-In ECM Controller - Low
Temp - 1/10-1/20 HP $ 162.26 207.00 - 16 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Gaskets for Walk-in Cooler - Main $ 84.66 204.00 - 4 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices
Measure Description
Customer
Incremental
Cost
Y1 kWh
Savings
Y1 Therm
Savings
Measure
Life Y1 PV NEBs Recurring
NEBs
Advanced Floating Controls: Increase Suction
Temperature with Electronic Expansion Valves
(EEXVs)
$ 404.29 203.60 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Strip Curtains for Restaurant Walk-in Freezers $ 10.14 129.00 - 2 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Strip Curtains for Supermarket Walk-in Coolers $ 10.14 123.00 - 2 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LT Case: T12 to LP LED Inside Lamp $ 15.02 112.00 - 8 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
MT Case: T12 to LP LED Inside Lamp $ 15.02 81.00 - 8 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
LT Case: T8 to LP LED Inside Lamp $ 15.02 66.00 - 8 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
T12 to LP LED Outside Lamp $ 15.02 59.00 - 8 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
MT Case: T8 to LED Inside Lamp $ 15.02 48.00 - 8 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
T8 to LP LED Outside Lamp $ 15.02 35.00 - 8 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Strip Curtains for Convenience Store Walk-in
Freezers $ 10.14 31.00 - 2 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Commercial/Industrial – Green Motors
5000 HP Ind $ 8,840.29 116,183.00 - 7 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
4500 HP Ind $ 8,281.68 104,783.00 - 7 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
4000 HP Ind $ 7,684.64 93,334.00 - 7 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
3500 HP Ind $ 6,883.09 81,667.00 - 7 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
3000 HP Ind $ 6,228.79 70,147.00 - 7 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
2500 HP Ind $ 5,327.46 58,823.00 - 7 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
2250 HP Ind $ 4,869.35 53,051.00 - 7 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
2000 HP Ind $ 4,469.67 47,454.00 - 7 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
1750 HP Ind $ 3,984.53 41,697.00 - 7 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
1500 HP Ind $ 3,491.07 35,891.00 - 7 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
1250 HP Ind $ 3,047.56 29,973.00 - 7 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
1000 HP Ind $ 2,551.17 24,172.00 - 7 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
900 HP Ind $ 2,367.26 21,847.00 - 7 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
800 HP Ind $ 2,147.26 19,461.00 - 7 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
700 HP Ind $ 1,935.29 17,065.00 - 7 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
600 HP Ind $ 1,773.87 14,689.00 - 7 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
500 HP Ind $ 1,203.74 9,804.00 - 9 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
450 HP Ind $ 1,114.23 8,811.00 - 9 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
400 HP Ind $ 1,019.35 7,848.00 - 9 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
350 HP Ind $ 912.65 6,919.00 - 9 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
300 HP Ind $ 870.76 5,935.00 - 9 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
250 HP Ind $ 861.45 4,972.00 - 9 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
200 HP Ind $ 670.26 4,088.00 - 8 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
150 HP Ind $ 556.76 3,089.00 - 8 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
125 HP Ind $ 499.83 2,598.00 - 8 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices
Measure Description
Customer
Incremental
Cost
Y1 kWh
Savings
Y1 Therm
Savings
Measure
Life Y1 PV NEBs Recurring
NEBs
100 HP Ind $ 445.05 2,005.00 - 9 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
75 HP Ind $ 358.76 1,519.00 - 9 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
60 HP Ind $ 331.91 1,476.00 - 9 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
50 HP Ind $ 281.42 1,418.00 - 8 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
40 HP Ind $ 254.21 1,319.00 - 8 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
30 HP Ind $ 208.02 1,133.00 - 8 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
25 HP Ind $ 189.41 1,052.00 - 8 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
20 HP Ind $ 165.77 804.00 - 8 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
15 HP Industrial $ 148.59 601.00 - 8 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Commercial/Industrial – Food
10 or larger pan electric steamer $ 3,956.16 71,333.00 - 9 $ 0.00 $ 1,569.33
6 pan electric steamer $ 349.00 42,754.00 - 9 $ 0.00 $ 1,838.42
5 pan electric steamer $ 349.00 35,659.00 - 9 $ 0.00 $ 1,925.59
4 pan electric steamer $ 349.00 28,564.00 - 9 $ 0.00 $ 2,056.61
3 pan electric steamer $ 349.00 21,470.00 - 9 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Efficient combination oven (>= 16 pan and <= 20
pan) electric $ 1,577.76 17,877.00 - 10 $ 0.00 $ 160.89
Efficient combination oven (>= 6 pan and <= 15
pan) electric $ 431.07 12,990.00 - 10 $ 0.00 $ 389.70
High temp electric hot water dishwasher $ 2,297.00 4,110.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 1,068.60
Low temp electric hot water dishwasher $ 2,297.00 3,801.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 1,482.39
Electric fryer $ 761.70 2,449.00 - 8 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Efficient convection oven half size $ 998.06 1,683.00 - 10 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Efficient convection oven full size $ 785.76 1,661.00 - 10 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Standard Efficiency Appliance to H.E. electric
griddle, 70% effic. or better $ 1,000.00 1,636.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Refrigerator - Glass Door, 50 or greater cuft
Federal Standard to ENERGY STAR Refrigerator -
Glass Door, 50 or greater cuft
$ 1,760.66 1,598.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
0.61 to 0.80 GPM electric pre-rinse sprayer $ 71.63 891.00 - 4 $ 0.00 $ 119.39
Efficient hot food holding cabinet, full size $ 825.25 820.00 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Freezer - Energy Star Glass Door - 50 cu.ft. and
greater $ 2,156.05 741.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Freezer - Solid Door, 50 ≤ cuft Federal Standard
to ENERGY STAR Freezer - Solid Door, 50 ≤ cuft $ 1,985.91 741.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Refrigerator - Glass Door, 30 to 49.9 cuft Federal
Standard to ENERGY STAR Refrigerator - Glass
Door, 30 to 49.9 cuft
$ 1,080.55 572.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
0.81 to 1.00 GPM electric pre-rinse sprayer $ 71.63 552.00 - 4 $ 0.00 $ 73.97
Freezer - Energy Star Glass Door - 30 to 49.9 cu.ft $ 1,554.77 462.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices
Measure Description
Customer
Incremental
Cost
Y1 kWh
Savings
Y1 Therm
Savings
Measure
Life Y1 PV NEBs Recurring
NEBs
Freezer - Solid Door, 30 ≤ V < 49.9 cuft Federal
Standard to ENERGY STAR Freezer - Solid Door,
30 ≤ V < 49.9 cuft
$ 1,317.74 462.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Refrigerator - Solid Door, 50 or greater cuft
Federal Standard to ENERGY STAR Refrigerator -
Solid Door, 50 or greater cuft
$ 1,571.21 422.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Freezer - Energy Star Glass Door - 15 to 29.9
cu.ft.$ 640.39 360.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Freezer - Solid Door, 15-29.9 cuft Federal
Standard to ENERGY STAR Freezer - Solid Door,
15-29.9 cuft
$ 563.81 360.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Freezer - Energy Star Glass Door Chest Freezer $ 559.37 310.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Refrigerator - Solid Door, 15to 29.9 cuft Federal
Standard to ENERGY STAR Refrigerator - Solid
Door, 15 to 29.9 cuft
$ 479.48 268.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Refrigerator - Glass Door, 15 to 29.9 cuft Federal
Standard to ENERGY STAR Refrigerator - Glass
Door, 15 to 29.9 cuft
$ 486.77 264.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Refrigerator - Solid Door, 30 to 49.9 cuft Federal
Standard to ENERGY STAR Refrigerator - Solid
Door, 30 to 49.9 cuft
$ 1,035.39 255.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Efficient hot food holding cabinet, 1/2 size $ 320.13 253.00 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Freezer - Energy Star Solid Door Chest Freezer $ 1,036.59 233.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Refrigerator - Solid Door, < 15 cuft Federal
Standard to ENERGY STAR Refrigerator - Solid
Door,< 15 cuft
$ 208.95 231.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Freezer - Energy Star Glass Door - Less than 15
cu.ft.$ 359.66 215.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Freezer - Solid Door, < 15 cuft Federal Standard
to ENERGY STAR Freezer - Solid Door, < 15 cuft $ 331.28 215.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Refrigerator - Glass Door,< 15 cuft Federal
Standard to ENERGY STAR Refrigerator - Glass
Door, < 15 cuft
$ 191.59 166.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $0.00
Energy Star 50% effic.gas fryer $ 2,500.00 - 505.00 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
0.61 to 0.80 GPM gas pre-rinse sprayer $ 108.42 - 16.81 4 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
3 pan gas steamer $ 1,867.00 - 586.22 9 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
4 pan gas steamer $ 2,489.00 - 779.91 9 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
5 pan gas steamer $ 3,111.00 - 973.63 9 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
6 pan gas steamer $ 3,733.00 - 1,167.36 9 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
10 or larger pan gas steamer $ 4,287.16 - 3,043.24 9 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Efficient combination oven (>= 16 pan and <= 20
pan) gas $ 5,717.00 - 500.00 10 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Efficient combination oven (>= 6 pan and <= 15
pan) gas $ 5,717.00 - 403.00 10 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices
Measure Description
Customer
Incremental
Cost
Y1 kWh
Savings
Y1 Therm
Savings
Measure
Life Y1 PV NEBs Recurring
NEBs
Efficient convection oven full size $ 5,717.00 - 450.00 10 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Gas rack oven $ 4,933.00 - 1,034.00 8 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Energy Star 50% effic.gas fryer $ 2,500.00 - 505.00 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
H.E. gas griddle, 40% effic. or better $ 491.00 - 88.00 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
High temp gas hot water dishwasher $ 2,297.00 - 102.82 12 $ 1,068.60 $ 0.00
Low temp gas hot water dishwasher $ 2,297.00 - 140.10 12 $ 1,482.39 $ 0.00
Commercial/Industrial – Fleet Heat
Idaho Fleet Heat $ 520.50 8,000.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Commercial/Industrial – Exterior Lighting
1000W HID to 300W-400W LED $ 1,198.80 3,058.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 11.76
400 W HID to 100-175W LED Fixture $ 543.19 1,282.40 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 27.49
320 & 400 watt HID New Construction Fixture =<
175 watt LED Fixture $ 520.50 1,282.40 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 27.49
320 W HID to 100-160W LED Fixture $ 480.00 896.40 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 16.47
250 W HID to 80-140W LED Fixture $ 495.00 711.93 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 24.18
250 watt HID New Construction Fixture =< 99
watt LED Fixture $ 520.50 711.90 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 24.18
175 watt HID New Construction Fixture to =< 79
watt LED Fixture $ 175.00 665.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 26.75
175 W HID to 30-79W LED Fixture $ 277.24 664.76 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 26.75
150 W HID to 30-50W LED Fixture $ 257.61 643.31 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 19.83
90 - 100 W HID to 25-30W LED Fixture $ 272.00 416.00 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 22.53
70-89 watt HID Fixture =< 25 watt LED Fixture $ 265.00 321.70 - 12 $ 0.00 $ 22.68
Sign Lighting LED $ 24.00 125.00 - 10 $ 0.00 $ 27.90
Commercial/Industrial – AirGuardian
Idaho AirGuardian $ 1,440.00 6,000.00 - 10 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Low Income – Natural Gas
G AIR INFILTRATION $ 730.00 - 16.00 20 $ 13.81 $ 0.00
G ENERGY STAR DOORS $ 596.40 - 12.60 40 $ 628.00 $ 0.00
G ENERGY STAR WINDOWS $ 13.40 - 0.28 40 $ 8.72 $ 0.00
G HE FURNACE $ 698.00 - 80.34 20 $ 698.00 $ 0.00
G HE WH 50G $ 529.00 - 7.05 13 $ 500.00 $ 0.00
G INS - CEIL/ATTIC $ 2.14 - 0.02 45 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
G INS - DUCT $ 6.70 - 0.41 45 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
G INS - FLOOR $ 2.14 - 0.08 45 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
G INS - WALL $ 2.20 - 0.07 45 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
G duct sealing $ 608.58 - 47.00 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices
Measure Description
Customer
Incremental
Cost
Y1 kWh
Savings
Y1 Therm
Savings
Measure
Life Y1 PV NEBs Recurring
NEBs
Low Income – Electric
E TO G COMBO CONVERSION $ 8,408.56 9,075 (402.00) 25 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
E TO G FURNACE CONVERSION $ 5,566.10 5,999.00 (240.00) 25 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
E to Air Source HP conversion $ 3,297.00 4,795.00 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Ductless HP (Average RTF of HZ2 & CZ 1-3)$ 3,822.37 4,621.50 - 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
E HE AIR HPUMP $ 4,172.89 3,645.00 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
E TO G H2O CONVERSION $ 2,842.45 3,076.00 (162.00) 15 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Duct sealing $ 608.58 1,374.00 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Tier1 0-55Gallon HPWH $ 854.23 1,073.00 - 13 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
E AIR INFILTRATION $ 730.00 1,000.00 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
E ENERGY STAR DOORS $ 439.44 224.67 - 40 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
9 watt A19 bulbs - 60W replacement - (6 units)$ 16.92 78.00 - 13 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
E ENERGY STAR REFRIGERATOR $ 100.23 39.00 - 20 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
E ENERGY STAR WINDOWS $ 15.90 6.94 - 45 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
E INS - WALL $ 1.54 2.00 - 45 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
E INS - DUCT $ 1.23 0.72 - 18 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
E INS - FLOOR $ 1.41 0.67 - 45 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
E INS - CEIL/ATTIC $ 0.90 0.49 - 45 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
2018 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices
APPENDIX H – 2018-2019 EVALUATION WORK PLAN

Avista Utilities 2018–2019 
Evaluation Work Plan 
March 30, 2018 

 Avista Utilities    
1411 East Mission Avenue 
Spokane, WA 99252 

This page left blank. 

Prepared by: 
Jeff Cropp 
Allie Marshall 
Katrina Leichliter 
Mitt Jones 
Rachel Fernandez 

The Cadmus Group LLC 

This page left blank. 

i 
Table of Contents 
Introduction and Goals ................................................................................................................................. 1 
Evaluation Work Plan Overview .................................................................................................................... 2 
Evaluation Team ..................................................................................................................................... 2 
Timeline and Deliverables ...................................................................................................................... 2 
Communication and Reporting .............................................................................................................. 3 
Communication ................................................................................................................................ 3 
Reporting ......................................................................................................................................... 4 
Overview of Evaluation Methods ................................................................................................................. 6 
Impact Evaluation Methods ................................................................................................................... 6 
Simple Verification ........................................................................................................................... 7 
Engineering Calculation Models ...................................................................................................... 7 
Metering Analysis (IPMVP Options A and B) ................................................................................... 7 
Whole Building Analysis (IPMVP Option C) ...................................................................................... 7 
Simulation Model Analysis (IPMVP Option D) ................................................................................. 9 
Rolling Net‐to‐Gross ............................................................................................................................. 10 
Freeridership .................................................................................................................................. 12 
Participant and Nonparticipant Spillover ....................................................................................... 12 
Calculating Cost‐Effectiveness .............................................................................................................. 12 
Process Evaluation Methods ................................................................................................................ 13 
Implementation Research .............................................................................................................. 14 
Customer Research ........................................................................................................................ 17 
Natural Gas and Electric Impact Evaluations .............................................................................................. 19 
Impact Sampling Plan ........................................................................................................................... 19 
Impact Evaluation Activities by Program .............................................................................................. 21 
Low Income Program ..................................................................................................................... 21 
ENERGY STAR Homes Program ...................................................................................................... 21 
Residential HVAC Program ............................................................................................................. 22 
Residential Shell Program .............................................................................................................. 22 
Residential Fuel Efficiency Program ............................................................................................... 23 
Simple Steps, Smart Savings .......................................................................................................... 23 

ii 
Multi‐Family Hard to Reach Pilot ................................................................................................... 24 
Non‐Residential Site‐Specific Program .......................................................................................... 25 
Non‐Residential Prescriptive Programs ......................................................................................... 25 
Non‐Residential EnergySmart Grocer ............................................................................................ 26 
Real‐Time Evaluation and Measurement ............................................................................................. 27 
M&V for Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) .............................................................................. 27 
AMI M&V Analysis Details ............................................................................................................. 28 
Data Collection and Pre‐Processing ............................................................................................... 28 
Modeling ........................................................................................................................................ 28 
Savings Estimation ......................................................................................................................... 30 
Conduct Process Evaluation Tasks and Reporting ...................................................................................... 31 
Sampling Plans ...................................................................................................................................... 31 
Individual Program Process Evaluation Activities ................................................................................ 32 
Low Income Program Evaluation ................................................................................................... 32 
ENERGY STAR Homes Program ...................................................................................................... 32 
Residential HVAC Program ............................................................................................................. 32 
Residential Shell Program .............................................................................................................. 33 
Residential Fuel Efficiency Program ............................................................................................... 33 
Simple Steps, Smart Savings .......................................................................................................... 34 
Multifamily Market Transformation .............................................................................................. 34 
Multifamily Hard to Reach (Pilot) .................................................................................................. 35 
Non‐Residential Site‐Specific Program .......................................................................................... 35 
Non‐Residential EnergySmart Grocer Program ............................................................................. 35 
Non‐Residential Prescriptive Programs ......................................................................................... 36 
Budget and Level of Effort .......................................................................................................................... 37 

1 
Introduction and Goals 
Avista Utilities contracted with Cadmus to evaluate its portfolios of residential, non‐residential, and low‐
income demand‐side management (DSM) programs during the 2018–2019 cycle. As identified in Avista’s 
Request for Proposals (RFP), primary goals for the evaluation are these: 
 Independently verify, measure and document energy savings impacts from each of electric and 
natural gas energy efficiency programs, or for program categories representing consolidated 
small‐scale program offerings, from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2019 
 Analytically substantiate the measurement of those savings 
 Calculate the cost‐effectiveness of the portfolio and component programs 
 Identify program improvements, if any  
 Identify possible future programs 
Evaluation, measurement, and verification (EM&V) research will also support the following: 
 Avista’s development of a best‐of‐class evaluation infrastructure for its DSM programs 
 Communicate with and provide timely information to the stakeholder group (particularly the 
Avista Energy‐Efficiency Advisory Group and Technical Committee) 
In its original proposal to Avista, Cadmus presented a general approach to conducting the overall 
evaluation. We have prepared this evaluation work plan to reflect the programs as we understand them 
based on final (Washington) and draft (Idaho) plans for 2018 as well as the project kickoff. We anticipate 
further revisions to this work plan after additional discussions with program staff. Because the programs 
could change during the evaluation period, we may further revise the proposed evaluation approaches. 
We view the evaluation plan as a living document, which can change in response to program 
modifications throughout the 2018–2019 cycle. 
This document presents proven methods to conduct full impact and process evaluations for Avista’s 
three sector portfolios (low‐income, residential, and non‐residential). The plans address 16 individual 
programs across the portfolios.  
The following chapter summarizes the overall evaluation effort, followed by a chapter providing details 
of cross‐cutting evaluation tasks (that is, general descriptions of the EM&V approaches applied as 
appropriate across individual programs). The remainder of this document addresses program‐specific 
evaluation plans.  

2 
Evaluation Work Plan Overview 
Evaluation Team 
The Cadmus evaluation team is organized as shown in Figure 1.  
Figure 1. Cadmus Evaluation Team Organizational Chart 

Timeline and Deliverables  
The overall timeline presented in Table 1 broadly depicts progress for each of the work tasks. The work 
plans for each program cluster include their own specific evaluation timelines. Deliverable reports 
associated with work tasks are specified in the Communication and Reporting section. 

3 
Table 1. 2018‐2019 Task and Deliverable Schedule 
Task 2018 2019 2020 
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 
Kickoff Meeting                              
Work Plan                              
Project Management                     
Advisory Group Meetings, as needed                     
Residential NTG/Verification Surveys                         
Non‐Residential NTG/Verification Surveys                          
Non‐Residential On‐Site M&V and Analysis                       
Residential Modeling and Billing Analysis                             
Low Income Billing Analysis                            
Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis                          
Document and Database Review                         
Avista and Implementer Interviews                            
Participant Surveys and Interviews (Process)                           
Contractor Interviews                  
Quarterly Reports                         
Semiannual Reports                          
Annual Reports                            
Electric Impact Memos and Reports                            
Natural Gas Impact Memos and Reports                             
Process Memo and Report                            
Communication and Reporting 
Avista expects multiple communication and reporting activities to be performed as part of this 
evaluation effort.  
Communication 
Cadmus will design our project communications based on the following recommendations:  
 The Avista DSM Planning and Analytics team should serve as the lead contact for all evaluation 
aspects (impact and process) and, for contract purposes, is the client. Amber Gifford of the DSM 
Planning and Analytics team will serve as the contract manager and primary contact for the 
Cadmus team. 
 The Avista DSM Planning and Analytics team may work with the Cadmus team to facilitate 
incorporation of Avista’s implementation team’s input into the final product. Avista may 
encourage the implementation team to actively participate in the evaluations, seeking to deliver 
the best product possible, consistent with the evaluation’s independent character. 
 Avista would likely prefer to have a DSM Planning and Analytics team member present (in 
person, by phone, or copied on e‐mails) during any interactions between the Cadmus team and 
Avista’s DSM implementation team. 
Cadmus expects to hold biweekly conference calls with the Avista DSM Planning and Analytics team. 
These calls will provide updates about the project’s status and issues. Ad hoc calls may be required to 

4 
address specific project issues and activities. Cadmus anticipates attending and occasionally facilitating 
in‐person, telephone, or web‐based meetings in addition to regular and ad hoc project meetings and a 
final close‐out meeting.  
Throughout the evaluation process, Cadmus will remain highly engaged with Avista’s regional 
stakeholders, participating as requested in DSM Advisory Group and Technical Committee meetings. We 
anticipate providing the following support to Avista through these meetings: 
 Presenting evaluation plans 
 Presenting interim or final results on energy savings, realization rates, and cost‐effectiveness 
 Acting as a technical resource to explain the details of evaluation methodology and the rationale 
behind the methods employed for Avista 
 Exploring opportunities for new or expanded techniques to evaluate programs or inform 
program design  
Reporting 
The Cadmus team plans the following reporting activities: 
 Monthly memos. Provided in conjunction with monthly invoices to the Avista contract manager, 
these reports will include the following:  
 Summary of accomplishments during the previous month 
 The current month’s activities/plans, including any outstanding data requests 
 Variances in schedule and budget, including any necessary explanations 
 Any issues or concerns to be addressed (along with Cadmus‐proposed solutions) 
 Ad hoc reports will document problems, resolutions, and urgent issues, as they arise.  
 Quarterly reports. Beginning in May 2018, these reports will document project status over the 
previous three months, progress toward completing milestones for each deliverable, percentage 
toward completion by deliverable and task, percentage of budget spent to date, preliminary 
findings, and any other relevant information.  
 Semiannual reports. Beginning in September 2018, these reports will expand on the quarterly 
reports with a focus on preliminary estimates of energy savings results from the previous six 
months and cost‐effectiveness by program.  
 Annual reports. As specified in the RFP, annual reporting for this project will consist of the 
following Cadmus team deliverables:  
 2018 program year electric impact evaluation memorandums for Washington by April 15, 
2019, and for Idaho by April 30, 2019 
 2018 program year DSM Annual Report and Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Washington by 
April 15, 2019, and for Idaho by April 30, 2019  
 2018 program year natural gas impact evaluation memorandums for Washington and Idaho 
by May 15, 2019 

5 
 2018 program year process evaluation statement of effort with notable observations and 
recommendations by June 1, 2019 
 Combined 2018‐2019 process evaluation report by April 15, 2020 
 Combined 2018–2019 electric impact evaluation report for Washington by April 15, 2020, 
and for Idaho by April 30, 2020 
 2019 program year DSM Annual Report and Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Washington by 
April 15, 2020, and for Idaho by April 30, 2020 
 2019 program year natural gas impact evaluation reports for Washington and Idaho by May 
15, 2020 
For these annual reports, we will prepare a comprehensive outline and ask Avista for comments and 
approval. The final reports will describe our data collection and process methods, present the results of 
the analysis and summarize findings, draw conclusions, and recommend possible improvements. We will 
include data collection instruments used for the process evaluation as appendices to the final report.  

6 
Overview of Evaluation Methods 
Cadmus will apply the methods described below to develop findings that will determine the impacts and 
cost‐effectiveness of Avista’s programs and guide the development of current and future programs. 
Impact Evaluation Methods  
Our analyses will use standard engineering approaches such as those defined by the International 
Performance Measurement and Verification Protocols (IPMVP) and the Uniform Methods Project 
(UMP). We will employ the following primary methods: 
 Simple verification (phone, on‐line, or on‐site) 
 Energy calculation models 
 Metering (IPMVP A and B) 
 Whole building billing analysis (IPMVP Option C) 
 Simulation modeling (IPMVP Option D) 
Table 2 summarizes the impact evaluation data collection and analysis activities by program. We will 
conduct the low‐income and residential billing analyses in early 2020. We will conduct the online, 
phone, and on‐site measurement and verification activities on a quarterly basis in both 2018 and 2019 
to obtain a reasonable sample from each program year to provide early feedback to Avista. 
Table 2. PY 2018–2019 Natural Gas and Electric Impact Evaluation Activities 
Sector Program 
Database/ 
Document 
Review 
Phone 
Verification 
Site 
Metering Billing 
Analysis Modeling 
Visits  
Residential 
Simple Steps, Smart Savings™               
HVAC         
Shell         
Fuel Efficiency         
ENERGY STAR Homes          
MF Direct Install           
Nonresidential  
Interior Lighting   TBD       
Exterior Lighting           
Shell      TBD    
Green Motors           
Motor Control (VFD)   TBD  TBD    
Fleet Heat           
Food Service Equip.           
AirGuardian   TBD       
MFMT           
Site‐Specific      
EnergySmart Grocer   TBD       
Low‐Income  Low‐Income            

7 
Simple Verification 
Cadmus will verify some prescriptive measures (particularly those with relatively small reported savings) 
on site, by phone, or through an on‐line questionnaire to confirm that measures are installed in the 
reported quantity and operating in a manner consistent with deemed‐savings assumptions. We will also 
verify recorded nameplate efficiency data against manufacturer’s specifications. We will accept the 
reported savings without further investigation if we can confirm that these details match the 
assumptions used for Regional Technical Forum (RTF) or Avista technical reference manual (TRM) unit 
energy savings. If we identify inconsistencies, we will adjust the savings based on the equipment and 
operating parameters found at the site.  
Engineering Calculation Models 
For some nonresidential site‐specific measures, Avista uses spreadsheets to calculate the estimated 
energy savings for a variety of measures based on relevant inputs, such as quantity, fixture wattage, 
square footage, efficiency value, HVAC system details, and location details. For each spreadsheet, we 
will review input requirements and outputs to determine if the approach is reasonable. We will discuss 
any concerns about the approach with Avista’s implementation team and explain why we think a 
different method may yield more accurate results. Where applicable, we will update calculations using 
on‐site verification data, energy management system (EMS) trend data, spot measurements, and 
metering data. 
Metering Analysis (IPMVP Options A and B) 
To estimate the relevant operational parameters needed to inform engineering calculation models, 
Cadmus will perform any necessary data logging for a period of days, weeks, or months. During the site 
visits, we will confirm relevant information such as installation of the efficient equipment, set points, 
sequence of operations, operating schedules, and ambient conditions. We will also estimate the 
baseline energy performance, according to program documentation, on‐site conditions, facility 
interviews, and relevant energy code requirements.  
After downloading the meter data, we will clean it—checking key fields for missing data, correcting bad 
data, and removing sites with insufficient data. We will flag anomalies and send them to a senior 
engineer who will determine if the data should be used, corrected, or excluded from the analysis. Next, 
we will analyze the key variables in the metering data using spreadsheet tools or Python.1 We will use 
the resulting information to calculate savings (as input variables in an engineering model) or for 
comparison to consumption estimates. 
Whole Building Analysis (IPMVP Option C) 
Residential billing analysis. For programs in the residential portfolio, Cadmus will perform billing 
analyses to develop the most accurate estimate of energy and demand savings. Where practical, we will 

1   More information about Python software is available online at: https://www.python.org/ 

8 
rely on consumption data analysis, targeting a census of participants, which will maximize accuracy by 
preventing sampling bias.  
We will perform billing analyses to quantify the electric‐ and gas‐savings impacts associated with several 
of the residential programs. For each of these program, we will test several different regression models, 
including household‐level Princeton Score‐Keeping Method (PRISM)‐like models (aligned with IPMVP 
Option C), as well as fixed effects panel models (discussed in UMP protocols). Running several different 
regression models is an effective way to test the robustness of the savings estimates.  
We will tailor our billing analysis approach and research design to each program. When conducting 
experimental and quasi‐experimental design of a billing analysis, a control or comparison group should 
be selected that accurately represents the counterfactual and accounts for the naturally occurring 
changes in consumption. For most programs, we propose constructing a comparison group of 
nonparticipants who are similar to participants, either selected from future program periods or through 
matching (using preprogram energy consumption, demographics, or home characteristics). In the latter 
case, we would use a propensity‐scoring model to match nonparticipants to similar participants and to 
test the validity of the matches. In a randomized experiment, participants are put into test and control 
groups at the outset.  
Nonresidential billing analysis. Cadmus can use monthly billing or interval data to conduct site‐specific 
regression analyses for nonresidential retrofit projects, particularly in the site‐specific and HVAC‐related 
prescriptive programs (for example, HVAC and shell). This analysis method is particularly useful for 
accurately assessing the energy savings from comprehensive retrofit projects, especially those involving 
custom HVAC or controls measures.  
Using the pre‐ and post‐modeling approach, Cadmus will develop retrofit‐savings estimates for the 
sampled sites, accounting for cooling degree days (CDDs) and heating degree days (HDDs). We will 
match the participant‐consumption data to the nearest weather station by zip code. We will then 
calculate the building balance‐point temperature by correlating monthly energy use with monthly 
average temperature.  
Cadmus will use the balance‐point temperature to calculate the CDDs and HDDs then match that to the 
monthly billing data. We will use the resulting regression estimates to extrapolate average energy 
savings based on normalized weather conditions. (For this calculation, we will use typical meteorological 
year, 15‐year normal weather averages from 1991–2005, which we will obtain from the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.) 
For each project, Cadmus will model the average daily consumption in kilowatt hours (kWh) and/or 
therms as a function of base load, HDDs and CDDs, and, where appropriate, daily production. For the 
evaluated sites, we will estimate two demand models—one for the pre‐period and one for the post‐
period. We typically choose this methodology over a single standard‐treatment‐effects model to 
account for structural changes in demand that can occur with retrofits, such as changes in occupancy or 
usage patterns. We will then estimate the annual consumption based these values. 

9 
Simulation Model Analysis (IPMVP Option D) 
Residential simulation model analysis. For the ENERGY STAR® Homes program, Cadmus anticipates that 
Avista relies on simulation models developed through Simplified Energy Enthalpy Model (SEEM) or 
REM/Rate. Home Energy Rating System (HERS) raters should inspect each home during construction to 
create an energy analysis model to estimate the home’s energy savings, as compared to the reference 
home. These models predict savings for homes in comparison to state energy code.  
We will review the inputs to the simulation models for a sample of homes to make sure the homes 
adhere to program requirements. We will first compare program‐tracking records against the HERS 
raters’ home characterizations in the simulation models to verify participation and appropriate incentive 
levels. Then we will utilize simulation model‐predicted savings to compute the gross program electricity 
and gas energy savings. 
Nonresidential simulation model analysis. In past years, Avista’s implementation team relied 
extensively on eQuest models to estimate energy savings for complex site‐specific HVAC projects. 
Cadmus will review and verify the savings calculated from simulation models for a portion of the 
projects. Our simulation approach, which is based on in situ observations and measurements, is 
calibrated to the best available energy‐use indices. It entails the use of well‐developed, sophisticated 
building‐simulation tools, such as DOE‐2, and follows methods described in the U.S. Department of 
Energy M&V Guideline and ASHRAE Guideline 14.2,3  
We will obtain the existing as‐built and baseline models, utility billing data, and any available 
documentation for each simulated measure project in the sample. Step one will be to conduct a side‐by‐
side comparison of the existing baseline and as‐built models. Because different versions of the same 
software (mainly eQuest and EnergyPlus) can return conflicting results, we will open models only in the 
software‐build version in which they were developed.  
Our goal for the on‐site visit will be to gather all data necessary to improve and calibrate the model. 
Using our on‐site data collection form and following our facility operator interview guide, we will verify 
all necessary assumptions and obtain any available EMS data needed to further inform the calibration 
process.  
Following the site visit, Cadmus will update the model with the verified values. We will input verified 
values and actual meteorological year (AMY) weather data for the appropriate location and time period 
into the model then test statistical calibration, comparing model results with utility and metered data. In 
accordance with ASHRAE Guideline 14, we will target a monthly accuracy within a mean bias error (MBE) 
of ±5% and a coefficient of variation root mean square error (CVRMSE) of ±15%. We will make logical 
improvements, based on engineering judgment where anomalies are identified. In our analysis, we will 

2   U.S. Department of Energy. M&V Guidelines: Measurement and Verification for Performance‐Based Contracts 
(Version 4.0). Available online at: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/01/f28/mv_guide_4_0.pdf  
3   ASHRAE. Measurement of Energy, Demand, and Water Savings. Atlanta, GA. 2014. 

10 
account for fluctuations, such as those from initial building commissioning or first‐year occupancy 
changes.  
Once the adjusted as‐built model has achieved the accuracy requirements, the remaining steps are fairly 
straightforward. We will replace the AMY data used for calibration purposes with typical meteorological 
year (TMY) data. To develop the baseline model, we will back out the conservation measures based on 
incentive documentation, changes between existing models documented during the initial comparison, 
and any measure stipulations, such as code requirements. Unless instructed otherwise by Avista, we will 
calculate measure savings in the same order and manner suggested by the existing models and 
documentation (that is, first measure in, last measure out, and so on). We will determine savings by 
comparing results from the calibrated typical year as‐built and baseline models. 
Rolling Net‐to‐Gross 
One of the most challenging questions in DSM evaluation in general is the assessment of what would 
have happened absent the program (the counterfactual). This poses many challenges, chief among them 
determining what participants would have done had they not participated in the program. The most 
common approach is to determine the net‐to‐gross (NTG) values of a program or an offering within a 
program through a self‐reporting approach. However, this approach is problematic in that it requires 
inquiry into a hypothetical situation.  
In the Northwest, many have argued that it is best to use market practice (current practice) as the 
baseline and thus avoid the self‐reporting issue altogether. This approach is not without merit but has 
created its own difficulties. In areas outside the Northwest, the EM&V process assumes the baseline to 
be the least expensive legal option. This produces a gross estimate of savings. Later in the process, this 
may be discounted for what people may have done on their own (for example, exceeded the least 
expensive legal option for some reason) through a self‐reported NTG value. Although this market 
practice does have its problems, it has become the standard, and many industry standard EM&V 
protocols are constructed around its logical flow.  
The Northwest has created its own challenge through the market baseline approach. Through previous 
work with Avista, Cadmus knows that for measures using unit energy savings (UES) from the RTF, no 
NTG adjustment is necessary. For measures with no RTF UES, we will estimate and apply a NTG ratio.  
Given the differing needs and definitions of “net” within Avista’s territory, Cadmus suggests using a 
rolling NTG analysis. NTG analyses, which estimate the influence of program activities on the customer’s 
decision to participate, often are conducted at the end of a program cycle. The information provided 
may be of little use to program managers because much time has elapsed since the program ran, the 
delivery has changed sufficiently to make the findings not applicable, or the program is not offered 
anymore.  
Another concern with traditional NTG analysis is that the customer is asked a hypothetical—that is, what 
the customer would have done absent the program—and often has difficulty recalling the decision if 

11 
significant time has elapsed. It stands to reason that, although the question continues to be difficult to 
answer, the closer in time it is asked to the actual decision, the easier it will be to answer accurately.  
In large commercial and industrial (C&I) evaluations, other questions are often asked related to the 
decision—for example, what was already considered, was anything similar ever done in the past, was 
the work budgeted for, was it discussed with anyone else. All of these questions are better asked as 
close as possible in time to the actual decision, that is, soon after participation.  
A rolling NTG study will deliver near real‐time feedback regarding freeridership rates. Using quarterly 
participation information, we will survey participants for freeridership with a mix of on‐site, web‐based, 
and phone surveys to minimize potential bias and maximize response rate.  
We will analyze data in real‐time and deliver quarterly freeridership summaries to Avista. Collecting 
these data concurrent with program implementation activities not only increases the data accuracy (for 
example, reduced recall bias), it also closes the feedback loop between customers, program managers, 
and evaluators to allow program managers to react to findings during the program year.  
Table 3 shows the proposed sample sizes for the residential and non‐residential participant surveys. As 
discussed above, different timing and survey samples can maximize the efficiency and quality of 
responses. The 585 surveys that will determine freeridership and spillover will be spread out across 
quarters of calendar year 2018 and 2019 beginning with 2Q 2018..  
Table 3. NTG Survey Sampling 
Program Surveys 
Residential Programs  
HVAC 150 
ENERGY STAR Homes (builder surveys) 6 
Shell 150 
Fuel Efficiency 75 
Non‐Residential Programs   
Prescriptive 129 
Site‐Specific 52 
Energy Smart Grocer 23 
Total 585 

Freeriders are defined as participants who would have purchased and installed measures without the 
support of the program. Participant spillover indicates additional unrebated measures that customers 
have installed due to program influence, and nonparticipant spillover is defined as installed measures 
without program participation but still resulting from Avista influence. The equation to calculate NTG is 
as follows: 
100%  

12 
Freeridership 
Cadmus will determine freeridership through the participant online and phone survey using a 
participant self‐report approach. Before we field our survey, we will submit it to Avista for review and 
refinement of the freeridership questions and scoring methodology. Using the survey results, we will 
calculate a freeridership rate and, where appropriate, apply it to evaluated savings to estimate net gas 
and electric impacts attributed to programmatic effects. The standard survey battery we use for 
determining freeridership includes these questions:  
 Would the participant have installed the same measures without the program? 
 Would the participant have installed products that were just as energy‐efficient without the 
program?  
 Would the participant have installed the same quantity of item? 
 Would the participant have installed the item within the same year, within two years, within five 
years, or in more than five years? 
Participant and Nonparticipant Spillover 
Participant spillover will also be gathered through the customer surveys. Spillover measures must satisfy 
the following conditions to be counted: 
 The measure could not have received a rebate from Avista or another entity. 
 Respondents must indicate that Avista programs positively influenced their decision to install 
the measure. 
As with our last evaluation in 2013, we will add any spillover that can be attributed to measures using 
RTF savings values to produce a true net savings value and not merely a “net of freeridership” value. 
Calculating Cost‐Effectiveness  
Cadmus will calculate and report the program’s cost‐effectiveness using evaluated savings, avoided 
energy costs, and actual incurred implementation costs. We will use Portfolio ProPlus to provide cost‐
effectiveness assessments by portfolio, program, fuel type, year, measure, and state level. 
We will determine the economic performance of a program from five standard perspectives—a 
combination of the utility and program participants, the utility, program participants, all ratepayers 
(including nonparticipants). Cadmus will evaluate these perspectives using five cost‐effectiveness tests—
total resource cost (TRC) test, utility cost test (UCT), participant cost test (PCT), rate impact measure 
(RIM) test, and Resource Valuation Test (RVT).  
We will populate a database with Avista’s utility data common to all programs (such as discount rates, 
avoided costs, load shapes, and retail rates) so that we can maintain a consistent approach to cost‐
effectiveness valuation across all programs and portfolios.  

13 
Process Evaluation Methods 
We designed the process evaluation approach based on past evaluation findings, as well as on the draft 
and final 2018 electric and natural gas Washington and Idaho Annual Conservation Plans (ACPs) 
For all programs, our research methods will consider these four fundamental objectives: 
 Assess program delivery channel and marketing methods  
 Assess participant and market actor program journey including barriers to participation, 
satisfaction, and effectiveness of incentive levels  
 Assess Avista and implementer staff experiences including organizational structure, 
communication, and program processes 
 Document areas of success, challenge, and changes to the program  
To address these research objectives, we will conduct implementation and customer research. Our 
implementation research will include a document and database review for each program, in‐depth 
interviews with key Avista and implementation staff and with participating contractors. Our customer 
research will include participant surveys and interviews for customers, as well as builder, retailer and 
manufacturer interview for relevant programs (Figure 2). We discuss each of these research areas and 
the associated tasks in more detail below. 
Figure 2. Process Evaluation Research Areas and Tasks 

Table 4 shows the research areas by program and year confirmed during the kick off on January 17, 
2018.  

14 
Table 4. PY 2018–2019 Process Evaluation Activities 
Program Name Implementation Research Customer Research 
2018 2019 2018 2019 
Residential Portfolio 
ENERGY STAR Homes 
HVAC 
Shell 
Fuel Efficiency 
Simple Steps Smart Savings 
Multifamily Market Transformation    
Multifamily Direct Install (Pilot)    
Low Income Portfolio 
Low Income  
Non‐Residential Portfolio 
EnergySmart Grocer  
Site‐Specific 
Prescriptive* 
*Prescriptive: Lighting, HVAC, Shell, Variable Frequency Drive (VFD), Food Service Equipment, Green Motors, AirGuardian, 
and Fleet Heat.

The next sections describe the task methods for each research area. 
Implementation Research 
Cadmus will assess program processes and provide timely and actionable recommendations for 
continuous implementation improvement by reviewing the database and program documentation and 
conducting interviews with program staff and contractors. Our reviews of key program documents and 
corresponding databases will inform what data we collect to meet the research objectives.  
We anticipate conducting interviews with critical program staff, such as these: 
 DSM Analytical Manger 
 Direct of Policy 
 Manger of Energy Solutions 
 DSM Marketing Communications 
Manager 
 Utility Resources Analyst 
 Low Income Program manger 
 Residential Program Manager(s)  
 Non‐Residential Program Manager(s) 
We will also interview key third‐party implementers, such as CLEAResult, the Green Motors Practices 
Group (GMPG), and the Community Action Partner (CAP) agencies.  
Finally, for programs in which contractors play a vital role, we will conduct contractor interviews. 
Because contractors may provide services for more than one program, we will work with Avista to 
determine the appropriate target audience within each sector, such as high impact contractors. 

15 
Table 5 lists the implementation research by program. 
Table 5. Implementation Research by Program 
Program 
Implementation Research 
Implementer 
Interviews 
Avista 
Interviews 
Contractor 
Interviews 
Document & 
Database Review 
Residential Programs 
ENERGY STAR Homes    
HVAC   
Shell   
Fuel Efficiency   
Simple Steps Smart Savings   
Multifamily Market Transformation   
Multifamily Direct Install (Pilot)   
Low Income Programs 
Low Income   
Nonresidential Programs 
EnergySmart Grocer     
Site‐Specific  
Prescriptive Lighting    
Prescriptive HVAC 
Prescriptive Shell    
Prescriptive VFD    
Food Service Equipment    
Green Motors    
AirGuardian    
Fleet Heat    
The following sections describe each of the implementation research tasks. Program‐level details are 
provided in the We will conduct in‐depth interviews with one manufacture and up to three retailers 
participating in the Simple Steps program, up to ten builders participating in the Multifamily Market 
Transformation program, and up to 10 participants of the Multifamily Hard‐to‐Reach pilot. 
Individual Program Process Evaluation Activities section of this work plan. 
Document and Database Review 
Cadmus will review program materials—such as operation manuals, program theory and objectives 
documents, marketing plans, logic models, and the program website, as well as program databases—to 
gain a thorough understanding of the processes and identify trends in measures, savings, and overall 
performance. In our database review, we will also assess the accuracy and quality of program tracking 
data and its adherence to Avista’s program and regulatory policies and will explore any anomalies in 
evaluation results. We propose to review the database once per program, within the two‐year 

16 
evaluation period, so Avista has time to incorporate recommendations before assessing the database 
again.  
We also will review Avista’s most recent process and impact evaluation results to learn how Avista has 
incorporated earlier recommendations and to identify trends in program performance. We will apply 
our findings from the program document and database reviews to refine program‐specific research 
objectives and develop data‐collection instruments.  
Avista Staff and Third‐Party Implementer Interviews  
Avista and its third‐party implementers hold critical insight into program administration and delivery 
processes. Telephone interviews with these key stakeholders will focus on these topics: 
 Program roles and responsibilities  
 Program goals and objectives 
 Program design and implementation  
 Data tracking  
 Program participation 
 Marketing and outreach  
 Program successes 
 Market barriers  
 Program impact on the market 
 Future program changes including redesign 
During the interview, we will be conscientious of staff members’ time. Because we know they 
sometimes oversee multiple programs, our interview guides will avoid repetitive questions for programs 
with similar processes, such as data tracking. For example, we may cover all programs overseen by one 
or more staff members in one interview. We anticipate conducting five Avista program manager 
interview sessions and an additional three interviews with Avista senior DSM managers. 
We will build on our early findings from the program staff interviews to focus the interviews with third‐
party staff about areas of interest, such as how the CAP agencies address decreasing participation in the 
Low Income program or how CLEAResult continues to spur manufacturer and retailer participation in 
the Simple Steps Smart Savings program.  
Contractor Interviews  
For many customers, contractors are an important source of program awareness and their involvement, 
cooperation, and understanding can be an indicator of program success. Cadmus proposes to conduct 
in‐depth interviews to gain insights into contractors’ motivations, experience, marketing strategies, how 
contractors identify customers, their standard business practices, knowledge about customer 
perceptions and experience, and perspectives on program processes, the program’s influence on 
business, and the opportunities for improvement. 
The exact number of interviews will depend on the number and type of contractors and overlap in 
participation across programs; however, for this work plan we estimate conducting up to nine 
residential and up to 30 non‐residential contractor interviews. As discussed during the kick‐off meeting 
and confirmed on February 8, 2017, we will concentrate the residential contractor interviews on the 
HVAC program. For all contractor interviews, we will consult with Avista program managers and account 

17 
executives to identify target contactors, such as those with a high impact and who serve customers 
participating in specific programs, as well as to ensure that communication to program contractors is 
coordinated.  
Customer Research 
As shown in Table 6, Cadmus will conduct online participant surveys, as well as interviews with 
participants where smaller populations exist.4  
Table 6. Customer Research by Program 
Program 
Customer Research  
Participant 
Surveys 
Participant 
Interviews  
Residential Programs 
HVAC 
Shell 
Fuel Efficiency 
Simple Steps Smart Savings (Manufactures and Retailers)   
Multifamily Market Transformation (Builders)  
Multifamily Direct Install (Pilot)  
Non‐Residential Programs 
Site‐Specific   
Prescriptive*   
*Prescriptive: Lighting, HVAC, Shell, VFD, Food Service Equipment, Green Motors, AirGuardian, and 
Fleet Heat. 

Participant Online Surveys and Interviews 
Cadmus will prepare survey and interview guides for participants in all of Avista’s programs except the 
EnergySmart Grocer and ENERGY STAR Homes programs. Questions will focus on topics that can help 
Avista understand trends in measure adoption and overall program performance and that gather critical 
data to inform the impact evaluation.  

4 As discussed in the kick off meeting, we will not conduct customer research for the ENERGY STAR Homes or 
EnergySmart Grocer programs under this scope of work. 

18 
Our participant survey and interview guides will gather critical insights into participants’ program 
journey, such as these aspects: 
 Program awareness 
 How respondents learned about the 
program 
 General program participation 
 Reasons for participation 
 Program benefits 
 Program delivery experience 
 Overall program satisfaction 
  Satisfaction with Avista 
 Current energy‐efficient behaviors and 
purchases 
 Participant freeridership and spillover 
 Suggestions for program improvements 
including testing pilot program concepts 
For all process evaluations, we will use an online survey, which involves emailing a link to the survey to a 
random sample of participating customers for whom an email address is available. Because online 
surveys can be administered at low costs, we could consider emailing the survey to all participants.  
We typically recommend simple random sampling when the population is sufficiently large but will 
finalize the sampling plan according to the target sample sizes and expected response rates and after 
receiving comprehensive participant tracking data. For programs with unique populations (Simple Steps, 
Multifamily Market Transformation, and Multifamily Hard‐to‐Reach) we will conduct participant 
(manufacturer, retailers, builders, and small pilot populations) telephone interviews to allow for a 
greater range of topic exploration. See Table 10. Participant Survey Sample Design for Washington and 
Idaho CombinedTable 10 in the Sampling Plans section for sampling details.  
Our team will follow these three practices to manage and implement high‐quality data collection:  
 Data‐collection instruments that conform to best practices. Our team is dedicated to the 
quality and rigor of primary research. Project managers will review questionnaires to ensure 
they are consistent with best practices (for example, do not use double‐barreled questions and 
use appropriate scales) and, whenever possible, use consistent questions across programs to 
enable trend analysis. We will provide all instruments to Avista for review prior to launch and 
will provide a final copy of the instrument with the final report.  
 Online survey coordinator for streamlined and efficient data collection. We will designate a 
single survey coordinator who manages all survey activities to ensure consistent data collection 
across all research efforts and who is the primary contact for online programming and survey 
administration for our team. The coordinator will review each survey instrument, oversee the 
secure exchange of data with Avista and/or survey vendor, monitor data‐collection results on a 
daily basis, and report progress to Avista and our team.  
 Expert survey oversight and quality assurance. Cadmus’ survey research specialists will 
supervise every step of survey programming, testing, and data‐collection process. We always 
check programming for errors before fielding the survey to ensure skip patterns work as 
intended and that responses show the appropriate understanding of the survey questions. 

19 
Natural Gas and Electric Impact Evaluations 
Cadmus will apply best practices based on our previous experience with Avista’s programs and other 
portfolio evaluations to evaluate the natural gas and electric impacts for the relevant programs.  
Impact Sampling Plan 
Our approach to developing impact evaluation sampling plans is consistent with the methods described 
in the UMP. Specifically, we will include these guidelines in our approach:  
 Determine confidence and precision requirements for key metrics. Within each program, our 
team will use key metrics to support our gross and net energy estimates for each program. For 
programs with more complex or comprehensive offerings, we typically expect variation between 
customers to be larger than for programs with fewer variables or more streamlined installations. 
We will rely on our experience evaluating Avista’s programs to estimate the homogeneity or 
heterogeneity of the population of participants. When possible, we will design a sample for each 
program so that we can estimate the overall portfolio energy savings with 90% confidence and 
±10% precision. 
 Develop the sample design. We will apply sample designs including simple random sampling, 
stratified sampling, and cluster sampling and will employ the method most appropriate to the 
program and the population of interest. The optimal design depends on the homogeneity or 
heterogeneity of the population of participants within each program as well as any targeted 
research we plan to perform (that is, if we are particularly interested in evaluating savings for a 
particular measure or collection of measures, we will stratify accordingly to ensure ample 
sample sizes from that population). We will sample large projects with certainty, when the 
expected savings among them is expected to differ substantially from the rest of the population.  
 Calculate sample sizes. We will calculate sample sizes based on the confidence and precision 
requirements, expected variation, sample design, and population size for each program. Sample 
sizes will be sufficient to estimate gross and net savings for each program and the portfolio as a 
whole. 
For most residential program energy savings (except Simple Steps, Smart Savings and ENERGY STAR 
Homes), we will not need to identify a sample because we will conduct a billing analysis on the whole 
program population. However, we will conduct a random sample of residential program participants on 
a quarterly basis to determine measure verification rates and conduct NTG surveys. 
For non‐residential programs, Cadmus proposes a stratified sample design, with strata defined based on 
fuel type (electric and natural gas) and project savings. Within each program and fuel type, we will 
identify large‐ or small‐savings projects and conduct site visits with a census of the largest‐saving 
projects and a simple random sample of the small projects.  
We will determine sample sizes for each program and fuel type. We will use a combined sample for 
because Avista programs are substantially the same in Washington and Idaho. Data obtained during site 

20 
visits will inform calculation of realization rates used to estimate population savings for each program 
and fuel type. We will report these results and the corresponding state‐specific program savings results.  
We determined sample sizes according to the most recent evaluation results, actual participant and 
project population sizes, additional stratification variables, and/or alternative sampling approaches (for 
example, probability proportional to size), with portfolio‐level target confidence of 90% and precision of 
10%. If possible, we will apply a finite correction to sample sizes to decrease the sample sizes. Table 7 
shows the sample design for Washington and Idaho combined. 
Table 7. Sample Design for Verification Surveys and Site Visits for Washington and Idaho Combined 
Sector/ 
Evaluation 
Activity 
Program Fuel Type Confidence Precision 
Expected 
Population 
Size* 
Sample 
Size 
Residential/ 
Verification 
Surveys 
HVAC Electric  90%  10%  4,000  75 
Natural Gas  90%  10%  10,000  75 
Shell Electric  90%  10%  100  75 
Natural Gas  90%  10%  2,000  75 
Fuel Efficiency Electric  90%  10%  N/A  N/A 
Natural Gas  90%  10%  3,000  75 
ENERGY STAR Homes Electric  90%  10%  44 N/A 
 Natural Gas  90%  10%  40 
Total Residential Verification Surveys 90% 10%  428 
Non‐
Residential/Site 
Visits 
Site‐Specific Electric  90%  20%  300  23 
Natural Gas  90%  20%  110  20 
EnergySmart Grocer   Electric 90%  20%  100  23 
Prescriptive Lighting  Electric 90%  20%  689  29 
Green Motors Electric 90%  20%  20 10 
AirGuardian Electric 90%  20%  20 10 
Fleet Heat Electric 90%  20% 6 6 
Prescriptive VFD  Electric 90%  20%  18 12 
Prescriptive HVAC  Natural Gas  90%  20%  79 18 
Prescriptive Shell Electric  90%  20%  49  11 
Natural Gas  90%  20%  54 13 
Food Service Equipment Electric  90%  20%  52  10 
Natural Gas  90%  20%  68 10 
Total Nonresidential Site Visits/Verification Surveys 90% 10%  190 
*Population size is our best estimate of the number of residential program participants and nonresidential programs 
projects. We will update these and adjust sample sizes, based on 2018–2019 Avista program data across both states. 

As in the previous evaluations we have conducted for Avista, we do not believe site visits are necessary 
for residential participants and plan to use surveys to confirm verification of program records and 
savings. We will field the survey quarterly (discussed in greater detail in the Rolling Net‐to‐Gross 

21 
section), and the sample sizes will cover both program years. The state and fuel mix will be random for 
each program and proportional to the mix of gas and electric rebates for Washington and Idaho.  
Impact Evaluation Activities by Program 
Cadmus will conduct the verification activities in four waves and provide interim results on program 
progress to Avista after each semiannual wave. The four waves will occur in summer 2018, January 
2019, summer 2019, and January 2020. The site visits and phone surveys will collect baseline data, 
operations data, and other information that inform the energy savings analyses.  
The following sections describe each Avista program and the proposed impact evaluation activities.  
Low Income Program 
A group of seven CAP agencies delivers energy efficiency programs to low‐income communities. With 
annual funding of $2,000,000, these CAP agencies qualify low‐income customers, generate referrals 
through energy assistance efforts, and make funding resources available to meet customers’ home 
energy needs.  
As in the previous evaluation cycles, Cadmus will assess the energy savings of Avista’s Low Income 
program using statistical billing analyses, which is industry best practice for estimating the impacts 
associated with whole‐building programs, as noted in the UMP. In our experience, smaller program 
populations pose challenges in the analysis of billing data that could demonstrate more robust results 
given larger sample sizes. We will also develop fixed effects conditional‐savings regression models, with 
paired pre‐ and post‐participation months as needed, to estimate actual changes in energy consumption 
in participating homes from energy efficiency and behavioral improvements. We will populate the 
model using detailed installation data collected through the program tracking system for a census of 
available program participants. 
Cadmus will also estimate home‐specific performance by running multiple regression models similar to 
PRISM. If these models do not produce similar results, as we expect, we will use additional diagnostics to 
detect anomalies. 
ENERGY STAR Homes Program 
The ENERGY STAR Homes program offers 15% to 25% savings relative to state energy code 
requirements. The program relies on the partnership of Avista and other member utilities of the 
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEAA) to develop and implement the program and train 
contractors to provide third‐party verification of qualifying stick‐built and manufactured homes. NEAA 
administers the program, and Avista pays the rebate for homes that successfully achieve the designation 
of ENERGY STAR Home or ENERY STAR/ECO‐Rated Manufactured Home.5  

5   Cadmus understands that ENERY STAR Homes with electric heating built in Washington will not be eligible for 
rebate in 2018. 

22 
As noted in the Impact Evaluation Methods section, Cadmus will review program records and simulation 
model inputs for a sample of homes, which we estimate at 46. We will first compare program‐tracking 
records against the HERS raters’ home characterizations in the simulation models to verify participation 
and appropriate incentive levels. We will then use simulation model‐predicted savings to compute the 
gross program electricity and gas energy savings. We will apply average program savings by HERS level 
to the program population to estimate overall program savings. 
We will calculate the NTG ratio for Idaho through participant builder surveys to gather information 
about participant builder practices when not incented by the program (that is, building practices used 
for non‐program homes represent the baseline for that particular builder). This contrasts with most 
other programs, which will rely on participant surveys to determine the NTG ratio. We will attempt to 
understand the extent to which participant builders construct homes outside the ENERGY STAR Homes 
program different than inside it. If we learn that participating builders construct homes above the 
baseline for nonparticipating homes, the NTG for those builders will be based on the difference in 
energy consumption between a non‐program home and a program home. If non‐program homes were 
built to the same standards as the simulation model baseline home, net savings would be equal to gross 
savings. We will weight results up to the population based on the number of homes built in Avista 
service territory by each builder contacted. 
Residential HVAC Program 
The Residential HVAC program encourages residential customers to choose high‐efficiency home energy 
upgrade solutions. Avista offers incentives for such upgrades through the prescriptive rebates, which are 
paid to the customer after installation. Vendors’ use of the rebate as a sales tool generates participants. 
The program is advertised through utility websites, vendor training sessions, and customer 
presentations at retail events.  
Cadmus will conduct 70 document reviews to assess the quality of HVAC program tracking data (noting 
missing, duplicate, and out‐of‐range values) and will verify that values of key metrics are within 
expected limits. We will also review Avista’s reported gross ex ante savings estimates and assumptions, 
particularly for increasingly significant equipment such as air source heat pump measures, and 
benchmark these against similar programs in the Northwest. 
We will determine verified net savings using a billing analysis of participant and comparison groups 
where practical. If obtaining a comparison group for one or more of the measures or measure groups in 
the HVAC program groups proves infeasible, because of the difficulty of identifying a sufficient 
nonparticipating population using the same baseline equipment, we will estimate gross savings with the 
billing analysis for those measures and apply a separate NTG based on data from online surveys. 
Residential Shell Program 
Avista’s Residential Shell program offers prescriptive rebates to encourage residential customers to 
improve the energy efficiency of their homes’ shell by upgrading windows and storm windows. The 

23 
program is advertised through utility websites, vendor training sessions, and customer presentations at 
retail events. 
As with the Residential HVAC program, Cadmus will conduct 70 document reviews to assess the quality 
of program tracking data. We will also review Avista’s reported gross ex ante savings estimates and 
assumptions about per‐home consumption and benchmark these against similar programs in the 
Northwest. 
We will determine verified net savings using a billing analysis of participant and nonparticipant groups. 
We will estimate savings for each participant using two modeling approaches—monthly fixed effects 
panel modeling and customer‐specific regression—and summarize the results by measure.  
Residential Fuel Efficiency Program 
The Residential Fuel Efficiency program encourages customers to convert their electric space and water 
heater to natural gas. Although natural gas is an efficient fuel choice with decreasing prices over the 
years, the cost of infrastructure continues to increase for the utility and the customer. However, for the 
2018–2019 biennium, conversions to natural gas water heaters will no longer have a stand‐alone rebate; 
Avista now combines the rebate for water heaters with conversions to natural gas furnaces. 
Cadmus will assess the quality of program tracking data and review Avista’s reported gross ex ante 
savings estimates and assumptions. We will use the most recent data from the Northwest Energy 
Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) Residential Building Stock Assessment (RBSA) to analyze the saturation of the 
water heater fuel type in the territory and update the allocation of energy savings to electric and natural 
gas accordingly. Cadmus recently completed site visits for the RBSA and is compiling the data for 
regional stakeholders. We will work with Avista to determine the most appropriate programs to which 
we can apply this new regional residential data and benchmark these against similar programs in the 
Northwest.  
We will determine verified net savings using a billing analysis of participant and nonparticipant groups. 
We will estimate savings for each participant using two modeling approaches—monthly fixed‐effects 
panel modeling and customer‐specific regression—and will summarize results by measure type. We will 
also perform a gas billing analysis to better estimate the increase in the gas usage from fuel conversion.  
Simple Steps, Smart Savings 
Simple Steps, Smart savings, a collaborative program between Avista and Bonneville Power 
Administration, is designed to increase adoption of energy‐efficient residential products, partly through 
influencing retail stocking practices and consumer purchasing. Residential customers are encouraged to 
purchase and install high‐quality LEDs, light fixtures, and energy‐efficient showerheads  

24 
For the Simple Steps, Smart Savings program, Cadmus will calculate ex post savings using RTF UES and 
primary data gathered by Avista’s vendors regarding units sold.6 Savings calculated using RTF UES can be 
considered net savings values because the RTF uses a market average baseline, which effectively 
accounts for freeridership. We will determine appropriate spillover values using primary or secondary 
research as necessary.  
For any lighting measures without RTF UES, Cadmus will calculate savings using an annual savings 
algorithm with these variables—lamp wattage, delta watt multiplier, hours of use, days‐per‐year, waste 
heat factor, and in‐service rate—and apply RTF assumptions where practical. This algorithm is derived 
from industry‐standard engineering practices and is consistent with the methodology used by the RTF 
for calculating energy use and savings for residential lighting.  
Multi‐Family Hard to Reach Pilot  
Cadmus will conduct document reviews on the census of projects installed through the pilot program 
through May 1, 2018. We will assess the quality of program tracking data (noting missing, duplicate, and 
out‐of‐range values) and will verify that values of key metrics are within expected limits. We will verify 
measure installation through an on‐line survey with building managers and tenants, to the extent that 
contact information is available. 
Cadmus will then compare the ex post measure savings for each project against the most recent 12 
months of energy consumption to confirm the magnitude of savings is reasonable. We will request the 
most granular consumption data associated with each building. In the best case scenario, that would 
represent separate utility accounts for the multifamily common spaces and each individual living unit. In 
many cases, we anticipate one combined account for common spaces and living spaces.  
We will aggregate the ex post energy savings associated with the appropriate level of billing data (e.g., 
full building, individual living areas), based on the granularity of information provided by the direct 
install vendor. We will calculate the portion of consumption that the direct install measures are 
expected to offset. We will then benchmark the portion of consumption expected as savings against 
similar measures and expected savings for other regional utilities, based on resources such as impact 
evaluations and resource potential studies.  
We will provide Avista with ex post savings values by measure, along with our assessment of the 
reasonableness of the deemed savings assumptions relative to building energy consumption. We will 
also calculate the pilot program’s cost‐effectiveness. 

6   Cadmus has noted that the Avista TRM provided during the RFP process stated that matching lumens ranges 
for measures in the Simple Steps, Smart Savings program were not found in the RTF measures. Based on the 
lumens ranges in the Avista 2018 DSM Annual Conservation Plan and version 5.2 of the RTF ResLighting 
workbook, it appears RTF lumens values will match Simple Steps, Smart Savings values and that RTF UES 
values will be available. 

25 
Non‐Residential Site‐Specific Program 
The Non‐Residential Site‐Specific program is a core element of Avista’s C&I portfolio because it brings in 
the largest portion of savings. The program provides flexible opportunities to achieve energy savings for 
measures that do not fit a prescriptive path. In the past, these projects have included compressed air, 
custom lighting, process improvement, and complex HVAC measures, among others. The Multifamily 
Market Transformation projects are also included within this program. 
Cadmus will calculate participants’ gross reductions in electricity and natural gas consumption using 
data collected through on‐site visits, customer billing histories (as needed), and engineering models and 
calculations.  
We will conduct site visits to all the largest projects (typically defined as greater than 500,000 kWh or 
30,000 therms in expected savings) and a sample of smaller projects. The number of site visits will 
depend on actual enrollment and sample‐size calculations, based on expected variability and the desired 
confidence and precision of evaluated savings. During the site visits, we will verify measure installations, 
collect baseline and equipment data, and identify addressable enrollment or installation issues. We will 
also examine new or emerging technologies that have been given incentives through the program 
because the newness of such measures may lead to more issues with installation or operation.  
We will analyze gross program impacts using data collected from site visits and from tracking data. We 
will verify reported ex ante savings by recalculating energy savings using Excel spreadsheet analysis 
tools, site‐specific data, and standard engineering analysis methods. Data may include savings 
calculations, manufacturers’ specification sheets, and commissioning reports. We may also conduct 
regression analyses, as needed for measures whose savings impact cannot readily be evaluated through 
other means (for example, a comprehensive HVAC controls measure). Information collected during our 
site visits will determine if the sample projects reasonably address the measure’s operating parameters 
and accurately reflect operating conditions. 
Because we will not inspect all participant sites, we need a mechanism to extrapolate the difference 
between reported and evaluated to the population. To resolve this, we will apply a correction factor 
based on the realization rates to reported savings to calculate evaluated ex post gross savings. We will 
document the reasons and impacts on savings of all adjustments and will review these with Avista’s 
implementation team during a presentation before committing results to the draft reports. 
Non‐Residential Prescriptive Programs 
Avista implements these eight prescriptive programs that provide incentives directly to customers for a 
variety of measures supported by RTF UES or Avista’s TRM: 
 AirGuardian 
 Fleet Heat 
 Food Service 
 HVAC 
 Prescriptive Lighting 
 Prescriptive Shell 
 Prescriptive Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) 

26 
 Green Motors 
Cadmus will first work with Avista to prioritize and review prescriptive measures in the TRM. We will 
identify those measures that have the most variance based on previous impact evaluation results. These 
measures may benefit from primary data collection and analysis during the 2018–2019 impact 
evaluation. This review requires in‐depth knowledge and understanding about the specifics of each 
measure to ensure that the baseline and savings calculations reflected the best possible ex ante values 
for the region. Cadmus and Avista engineers will coordinate to ensure consistency in inputs and 
calculations and to ensure that the TRM uses the most up‐to‐date sources for Avista’s engineering 
calculations. Additionally, our knowledge and understanding of federal minimum codes and standards 
will augment our review. Ultimately, we will provide recommendations for examined measures, 
including references, algorithms, and inputs. 
Cadmus will design a sample for verification activities to include all prescriptive programs, with primary 
emphasis on those that contribute the most savings or represent the highest level of uncertainty. 
Although we anticipate that most participants will have installed lighting, our desk reviews, phone 
interviews, and site inspections will include lighting and non‐lighting projects. Our sample will represent 
both distributions, and we will apply sampling weights accordingly as part of the correction factor. 
We will conduct on‐site inspections during the initial round of impact data collection to confirm Avista’s 
quality‐assurance processes have been maintained. This is particularly relevant for any new programs or 
those with updated program processes. If in these initial site visits, we find a high correlation between 
the reported and evaluated results, we will likely use less intrusive data collection methods, such as desk 
reviews and phone interviews with participants.  
We will review project documents, verify assumptions, adjust reported calculations, and compute 
evaluated savings using Excel spreadsheet analysis tools or by approving installation rates for RTF 
measures with well‐defined UES. We will derive baseline data from on‐site visits, customer interviews, 
and Avista’s program data. We will calculate evaluated savings using site visit data and standard 
engineering analysis practices. We will also calculate a realization rate based on sampled sites and will 
apply this rate to the project population to estimate program total evaluated savings. 
As with the site‐specific program, we will document all reasons and impacts on savings for adjustments 
and will review these with Avista’s implementation team during a presentation before committing the 
results to the draft reports. 
Non‐Residential EnergySmart Grocer  
The EnergySmart Grocer program is designed to provide customers with a comprehensive overview of 
their refrigeration systems and the savings that can be achieved by increasing the energy efficiency of 
their cases and grocery equipment. Through the program, customers are encouraged to increase energy 
efficiency through direct financial incentives. As a benefit, customers receive a no‐cost audit of their 
facility’s refrigeration, a detailed savings report, and technical assistance. 

27 
Like the non‐residential prescriptive programs and others described above, Cadmus will review project 
documents, verify assumptions, adjust ex ante calculations, and compute ex post evaluated. We will 
collect baseline data and calculate ex post savings and realization rate. As with the site‐specific program, 
we will document all reasons and impacts on savings of adjustments and review these with Avista’s 
implementation team before committing results to the draft reports. 
Real‐Time Evaluation and Measurement 
Cadmus will coordinate with Avista’s implementation team to identify projects with both relatively large 
expected energy savings and relatively high uncertainty (for example, demand‐controlled ventilation, 
multi‐stage compressed air retrofit). In comparison, projects such as a large lighting retrofit may not 
require real‐time EM&V because the savings should be relatively certain if the operating hours are well‐
characterized. Once Avista identifies the most likely projects for real‐time EM&V, we will coordinate 
with implementation engineers and/or contractors to track project installation progress and estimate 
the completion date.  
We will develop a site‐specific M&V plan for each project. Our metering engineer will be prepared to 
travel to the site to install meters during a time frame estimated by Avista’s implementation team. Upon 
meter removal, we will follow our standard analysis procedures for metered data. We will summarize 
our methodology and results for further discussion with Avista before finalizing the energy savings. 
M&V for Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) 
Where relevant, Cadmus will conduct measurement and verification for projects with advanced 
metering infrastructure (AMI) data. This section describes our general approach for this type of analysis. 
We assume that electricity interval consumption data will be available for the pre‐treatment, or 
baseline, and treatment, or reporting, periods.  
The approach to calculating energy savings starts with building a predictive statistical model using 
baseline data, which includes baseline weather conditions and facility operating conditions as 
explanatory variables in the model. By applying the baseline model to the explanatory data measured 
during the reporting period, the model outputs represent the expected energy usage during the 
reporting period that would have occurred without the influence of the energy‐saving measures. 
Therefore, subtracting the observed energy usage and predicted energy usage at each point in time 
results in the evaluated energy savings (adjusted for reporting period weather and facility operations).  
Our proposed method has several advantages over other approaches:  
 The method allows for flexible modeling of each facility’s energy consumption. Because we 
conduct a separate analysis for each facility, it is possible to select a set of variables that are 
specific to that facility.  
 Baseline models are uncontaminated by project treatment effects. Because the model is fit with 
baseline period data, the parameters of the adjusted baseline consumption reflect only baseline 
period operation.  

28 
 The model‐building process is objective. Because we rely on automated machine‐learning to 
select the model variables, we can identify relevant variables affecting a facility’s consumption 
from a larger set of candidate variables based on pre‐determined criteria, which reduces time 
and the possibility for idiosyncratic analyst choice in building a model.  
 The proposed approach is versatile, scalable, and cost‐effective. Much of the estimation can be 
automated and applied to a variety of commercial building types and samples with large 
numbers of facilities.  
AMI M&V Analysis Details 
Our proposed analysis approach has four main steps, which are described in the next sections—data 
collection and pre‐processing, modeling, savings estimation, and reporting.  
Data Collection and Pre‐Processing 
Cadmus will collect the following data for the evaluation: 
 Interval data of facility energy consumption 
 Project implementation data including installation dates, project description, and ex ante 
savings estimate 
 Building systems data from the facility’s energy management system (if available) 
 Interval weather data from nearest weather station 
Cadmus will then conduct a quality review of the raw data. This process involves a visual inspection by a 
domain expert and automated checks for max and min values, consumption per square footage, rates of 
change, completeness of the data, etc. Once the validity of the data is established, we will define the 
facility’s baseline and reporting periods from documentation about the project implementation. 
Modeling 
Cadmus will develop models using these steps: 
 Identify candidate model inputs. Cadmus will begin by plotting energy usage against all 
explanatory variables and identify trends. Trends identified from visual inspection will be linear, 
non‐linear, or periodic; they will require evaluation in the context of Cadmus’ physical 
understanding of the systems involved and experience modeling similar facilities. We will also 
consider derived variables, such as day of week or degree days, and will assess correlations of 
these inputs and interactive effects between variables.  
 Select model type. Cadmus has applied a range of modeling techniques and methods and 
understands that the performance of an algorithm can depend on the dataset it is attempting to 
fit. Our approach is to select a class of models based on a specific use case and test various 
model types within that class for performance (that is, predictive accuracy, minimization of 
prediction error, minimal data requirements, etc.). Table 8 summarizes the collection of models 
we have used. 

29 
Table 8. Model Selection 
Model Class Model Type Use Case 
Linear Single and multiple linear, ridge, Lasso 
regression 
Low temporal resolution usage data, known 
physical relationships, observed linear trends 
Time Series 
Autoregressive integrated moving average 
(ARIMA), error term models, transfer 
functions 
High temporal periodicity and seasonality, 
predicting future response 
Bayesian Decision trees, random forests, neural 
networks 
Non‐linear relationships, complex systems, large 
amounts of data 

Model validation and testing. Cadmus will create a set of candidate models based on prior experience 
and understanding of energy‐savings projects. We will rigorously evaluate these models against the 
facility‐specific data, with the objective of choosing the best model in the energy‐savings calculations. 
We will apply graphical analysis of the relationship between energy usage and possible explanatory 
variables as a starting point in selecting best model. We will then use evaluation of existing seasonality 
or temporal changes in selecting model types. In this initial step, we will consider using the model that is 
the simplest, has the fewest explanatory variables, and can be interpreted based on good engineering 
judgment. 
To select a set of candidate models, Cadmus will test model prediction ability using a procedure that 
minimizes selection bias. We begin by randomly splitting the baseline period data into training and 
testing sets, giving us two datasets of independent variables and measured energy consumption. 
Models are fit to the training data, applied to the test data, and scored on bias, model fit, and prediction 
accuracy metrics, such as the mean prediction error, relative root mean‐squared error of prediction, 
mean absolute percentage error of prediction, and the median and other percentiles of prediction 
errors, r‐square, and Akaike information criterion (AIC).  
Randomly splitting the data does introduce bias and to fully understand a model we repeat this process 
for each model a large number of times. These simulations build distributions of test statistics for each 
model that inform the selection of a final model.  
Furthermore, we will identify patterns in the prediction errors by plotting or regressing the errors 
against variables such as hour of the day and day of the week. Also, we will investigate the evolution of 
errors over weeks and months to determine if there are prolonged trends that require further 
investigation. 
Once a final model has been selected, Cadmus will fit that model to the entire set of baseline data. In 
the model validation and testing phase, we may find that several models provide relatively good fit and 
predictions. In this case, we will calculate energy savings using several models and provide the results to 
Avista. For any given model that is chosen during the validation and testing phase, we will calculate the 
uncertainty in energy savings obtained using the entire dataset.  

30 
Additionally, Cadmus expects that a variety of factors could confound the savings analysis. For example, 
a facility may undertake energy efficiency projects that are not funded through Avista during the 
reporting period. If these other projects are unaccounted for, it is likely that the estimate of electricity 
savings will be biased upward. Table 9 lists possible confounding factors and the strategies for 
addressing them. 
Table 9. Potential Confounding Variables 
Confounding Variable Problem Solution Strategy 
Other energy efficiency projects 
Unaccounted savings from other 
energy efficiency projects during the 
reporting period may bias the 
savings estimate. 
Develop an engineering estimate of savings for 
the other project(s) and subtract validated 
savings estimates from Cadmus’ regression‐
based estimate. 
Floor space additions or 
changes in use of facility space 
These changes can bias the savings 
estimates. 
Cadmus will review project documentation and 
available energy management system data to 
identify significant changes. Cadmus may make 
engineering‐based adjustments to the savings 
estimates or model energy intensity instead of 
consumption.  

Savings Estimation 
After developing a model, estimating savings is straightforward. Cadmus will fit the model to the 
baseline data and apply it to the conditions present during the reporting period, generating facility 
consumption at each interval, and subtract these estimates from the actual measured consumption. To 
calculate “typical year” savings, Cadmus fits a baseline model and a reporting period model, applies each 
of these models to TMY3 data, and takes the difference in the estimated energy consumption. Savings 
are provided on a per‐site basis in each of these cases. 

31 
Conduct Process Evaluation Tasks and Reporting  
In this section, Cadmus describes its program‐specific research plan to assess Avista’s administrative 
processes and delivery of DSM programs in Washington and Idaho and identify areas for improvements.  
Sampling Plans 
Cadmus will calculate sample sizes for each program and fuel type and based on participant and project 
population sizes, expected variation, and confidence and precision targets. We will select one combined 
sample for electric service because Avista programs are the same in Washington and Idaho. For this 
work plan, we have described the sample design and estimated sample sizes but can revise them 
according to actual participant and project population sizes if program data indicate these factors could 
improve the accuracy or precision of the sample.  
In Table 10, we provide the finite survey sample sizes for each program and fuel type, determined based 
on target 90% confidence and 15% precision for each program and to far exceed 90% confidence and 
10% precision for the portfolio overall with error ratios of 0.5 within program and fuel type. We will 
apply a finite population correction to the sample sizes to decrease the number of survey completes if 
possible. 
Table 10. Participant Survey Sample Design for Washington and Idaho Combined 
Program Fuel Type Estimated Survey
Population Size* Completes 
HVAC Electric 4,000 30
Natural Gas 10,000 30
Shell Electric 100 24
Natural Gas 2,000 30
Fuel Efficiency Natural Gas 3,000 30
Residential Total ~19,100 144
Site‐Specific  Electric 300 28
Natural Gas 110 24
Prescriptive Lighting Electric 689 29
Prescriptive HVAC Natural Gas 79 22
Prescriptive Shell Electric 49 19
Natural Gas 54 20
Prescriptive VFD Electric 18 12
Food Service Equipment Electric 52 20
Natural Gas 68 21
Green Motors Electric 20 10
AirGuardian Electric 20 10
Fleet Heat Electric 6 6
Non‐Residential Total ~1,465 247
Portfolio Total ~20,565 391
* Population size is the number of residential program participants and non‐residential program projects. Note EnergySmart 
Grocer are not included as surveys for these programs are not part of this scope of work. 

32 
We will conduct in‐depth interviews with one manufacture and up to three retailers participating in the 
Simple Steps program, up to ten builders participating in the Multifamily Market Transformation 
program, and up to 10 participants of the Multifamily Hard‐to‐Reach pilot. 
Individual Program Process Evaluation Activities 
This section describes the process evaluation activities by program. Although many of the process 
research activities are similar, such as reviewing program documents and tracking database to assess 
roles and responsibilities, marketing and outreach, participation trends, and informing subsequent 
interview and survey questions, the descriptions below note more program‐specific focus areas.  
Low Income Program Evaluation 
The process evaluation of the Low Income program’s design, delivery, and performance will include the 
following data‐collection activities: 
 Review program documents and database to assess how Avista and the CAP agencies conduct 
marketing and outreach focusing on how they strive to increase participation in hard‐to‐reach 
areas and data‐tracking transparency.  
 Interview Avista staff about coordination with and support of the CAPs overall and more 
specifically about measures selection including those that are not approved or on the State 
Priority Rebate List.  
 Interview (n=5) CAP agencies to document their understanding of the program, including 
implementation challenges that lead to underspending, how CAP agencies allocate health and 
safety funding to help cover gas measures that are not cost‐effective (that is, benefit‐cost ratios 
are under 1.0 for the TRC or UCT). 
ENERGY STAR Homes Program   
The process evaluation of the ENERGY STAR Homes program’s design, delivery, and performance will 
include the following data‐collection activities:  
 Review program documents and database to assess marketing and outreach efforts and 
participation trends. 
 Interview Avista staff to document regional communication and coordination with NEEA and 
other partnering utilities that offer contractor training and third‐party verification of qualifying 
projects, explore future iterations for the program such as Build it Green (currently offered in 
areas in WA and being expanded to additional areas) and the DOE’s Zero Ready Home program, 
or other residential new construction certification or labeling programs. 
Residential HVAC Program 
The process evaluation of the HVAC program’s design, delivery, and performance will include the 
following data‐collection activities:  
 Review program documents and database to assess participation trends, such as continuing 
trend of natural gas furnaces to provide a significant portion of gas savings.  

33 
 Interview Avista staff to discuss and document the inclusion of the energy‐use component of 
program eligibility. Examine vendor training, rebate changes, and how visiting retailers and 
making presentations builds market awareness. 
 Interview participating contractors (n=9)to assess program understanding, experience, and 
satisfaction, how contractors identify customers, use of rebates as a sales factor, customer 
awareness of the program prior to engaging the contractor, standard business practices, 
influence of the program on business, and of qualifying equipment offered. 
 Survey participating customers to explore their experience, including application processing 
and influence of the contractor, continued levels of satisfaction, and marketing preferences. 
Residential Shell Program 
The process evaluation of the Residential Shell program’s design, delivery, and performance will include 
the following data‐collection activities: 
 Review program documents and database to document tactics used to drive the customer to 
the website, rebate changes, and contractor engagement strategies. 
 Interview Avista staff to discuss and document the energy‐usage component of program 
eligibility. Examine vendor training, rebate changes, and how visiting retailers and making 
presentations builds market awareness. 
 Survey participating customers to explore customer experience, including application 
processing and influence of contractor, satisfaction, and marketing preferences. 
Residential Fuel Efficiency Program 
The process evaluation of the Fuel Efficiency program’s design, delivery, and performance will include 
the following data‐collection activities: 
 Review program documents and database to identify changes in eligibility requirements, rebate 
changes, and contractor support documentation. 
 Interview Avista staff to confirm status of program in WA, document success and challenges of 
such items as confirming electric resistance heating and/or water heating for eligibility, no 
longer offering a stand‐alone rebate for the conversion to a natural gas water heater, as well as 
other rebate changes. Examine vendor training, the role of retail location visits and 
presentations, and other efforts to build market awareness. 
 Survey participating customers to explore awareness of fuel switching as an energy efficiency 
opportunity, motivation to participate, application processing, influence of contractor, 
satisfaction, and marketing preferences. 

34 
Simple Steps, Smart Savings 
The process evaluation of the Simple Steps, Smart Savings program’s design, delivery, and performance 
will include the following data collection activities:  
 Review program documents and database to assess the roles and responsibilities of the 
implementer, manufacturer, retailer, and coordination with Bonneville Power Administration. 
 Interview Avista staff to document the impact of rebate changes, engagement with internal 
stakeholders facilitating the implementation contract, and engagement with external 
stakeholders such as homeowners, landlords (renters), retailers, and contractor to increase 
participation. 
 Interview Implementer to document program understanding, including coordination of 
program marketing, outreach to retailers, product tracking, development of measure costs and 
savings, and overall program experience, including satisfaction and suggestions for 
improvement. 
 Interview participating manufacturers to document program understanding, participant 
motivation and experience, perceived impact of program on the market, and suggestions for 
improvement. 
 Interview participating retailers to document program understanding, participant motivation 
and experience, including point‐of‐purchase marketing, impact of program on customer uptake 
of eligible products, and suggestions for improvement. 
Multifamily Market Transformation 
The process evaluation of the Multifamily Market Transformation program’s design, delivery, and 
performance will include the following data collection activities:  
 Interview Avista staff to document program design and delivery, roles and responsibilities 
confirm status of program in WA, identify program changes (delivery, rebates, etc.), and areas of 
success and challenges. 
 Interview Implementer to document program understanding, including coordination of 
program marketing, outreach to retailers, product tracking, development of measure costs and 
savings, and overall program experience, including satisfaction and suggestions for 
improvement. 
 Interview participating builders (n=10) to document their understanding of the program, 
experience including program influence on business practices, satisfaction, and suggestions for 
improvement 

35 
Multifamily Direct Install (Pilot) 
The process evaluation of the Multifamily Direct Install pilot’s design, delivery, and performance will 
include the following data collection activities:  
 Review program documents and database to document the overarching topics described for all 
programs at the beginning of this process evaluation section including program processes, 
marketing efforts, and data tracking. 
 Interview Avista and implementer staff to document pilot design including goal setting, delivery 
process, customer eligibility, incentive structure, and data tracking, as well as roles and 
responsibilities, areas of success, challenge, and if the pilot will transform into a full program. 
 Interview participating customers to explore customer experience, including pilot awareness, 
satisfaction, energy efficiency actions, barriers to energy efficiency programs, and marketing 
preferences. 
Non‐Residential Site‐Specific Program 
The process evaluation of affect the Site‐Specific program’s design, delivery, and performance will 
include the following data‐collection activities: 
 Review program documents and database to assess clarity of roles and responsibilities 
including technical assistance, marketing and outreach (for example, multifamily), data‐tracking 
transparency, and participation trends, including types of measures installed. 
 Interview Avista staff, including account executives, to document program changes; areas of 
success; and challenges, such as the effectiveness of the Avista website to communicate 
program requirements, incentives, and rebate forms, engagement of the multifamily sector 
(new construction of five or more units), and how potential changes in rebate levels may affect 
the program as a critical driver of portfolio savings. 
 Interview participating contractors to document standard business practices, program 
influence, identification of customers, timing of projects, and impact of potential change in 
rebate levels. For lighting specific contactors, we will also assess their awareness of higher 
efficient lighting to inform new marking approach to target the replacement of T12 lamps. 
 Survey participating customers to explore customer experience, such as if the program 
successfully addresses the split‐incentive challenge and encourages adoption of energy‐efficient 
equipment and behaviors, satisfaction with contractors and key program components such as 
incentive levels and technical assistance, and marketing preferences. 
Non‐Residential EnergySmart Grocer Program 
The process evaluation of the EnergySmart Grocer program’s design, delivery, and performance will 
include the following data‐collection activities: 
 Review program documents and database to document the overarching topics described for all 
programs at the beginning of this process evaluation section including program processes, 
marketing efforts, and data tracking. 

36 
 Interview Avista staff, including account executives, to document program changes; areas of 
success; and challenges, such as coordination with implementer and contractors, and data 
tracking and reporting, such as the monthly analysis of program measures.  
 Interview Implementer to document coordination of field energy analyst, use of Grocer Smart 
modeling, marketing and outreach, contractor support, project tracking and processing, and 
overall program experience, including satisfaction and suggestions for improvement. 
 Interview participating contractors to document program understanding, experience, and 
satisfaction. Examine standard business practices, as well as the program influence on business, 
identification of customers, and suggestions for improvement. 
Non‐Residential Prescriptive Programs 
For the purposes of this plan, and for efficiencies of scale, Cadmus suggests combining these non‐
residential programs under the term “prescriptive”: Lighting, HVAC, Shell, VFD, Food Service Equipment, 
Green Motors, AirGuardian, and Fleet Heat. We plan to conduct the same process tasks for all programs 
with the addition of interviews for the three programs with third‐party implementers. The process 
evaluation will include the following data‐collection activities for each program: 
 Review program documents and database as described for all of the programs at the beginning 
of this process evaluation section. We will examine program documents to assess the clarity of 
roles and responsibilities, including overlap between programs, identify marketing and outreach 
efforts, and review the database for data tracking transparency and participation trends.  
 Interview Avista staff, including account executives, to document program eligibility, vendor 
training, efforts to build program specific and across program market awareness, rebate 
changes, and implementer and contractor communication and coordination. 
 Interview participating contractors to document program understanding, experience, and 
satisfaction, including program communication. We will assess how contractors identify 
customers, use of rebate as a sales factor, level of customer program awareness prior to 
engaging the contractor, standard business practices, and program influence on business. 
 Survey participating customers to explore experience with eligibility, application processing, 
communications with implementers and/or contractors (as appropriate), satisfaction, and 
marketing preferences. 
 Interview implementers to document program understanding, roles and responsibilities, 
experience, satisfaction, and suggestions for improvement. 
 GreenMotors: Green Motor Program Group  
 AirGuardian: Sight Energy Group LLC 

37 
Budget and Level of Effort 
Table 11 outlines the budget by major deliverable for EM&V of Avista’s 2018–2019 DSM portfolio, with a 
not‐to‐exceed amount of $971,762.  
Table 11. Budget for 2018‐2019 DSM Portfolio Evaluation 
Deliverables Total 
Budget 
Kickoff and Work Plan $35,755 
Impact Evaluations $443,914 
Process Evaluation $188,463 
Annual Reports with Cost‐Effectiveness  $70,590 
Meetings and Interim Reporting  $67,710 
Project Management $127,940 
Multi‐Family Direct Install Pilot $37,390 
Total $971,762 

Cadmus developed the budget with the following assumptions. Material changes or circumstances that 
result in a departure from these conditions may result in delays or additional costs to the project: 
 This pricing assumes one round of client review and revision for every deliverable. To help 
ensure that the project schedule is maintained, we ask that Avista provide any comments on 
deliverables within 10 business days.  
 This work plan describes Cadmus’ data needs to support Avista’s 2018–2019 DSM Programs. Our 
budget assumed that data requests from Avista will be fulfilled within a reasonable time and will 
require no more cleaning than is reasonable and customary for the industry. If we encounter 
unexpected issues with the data received (for example, if the data requires extensive cleaning or 
reformatting or research to complete missing data components) that will affect our ability to 
evaluate program impacts, this could cause additional effort not accounted for in the work plan. 
Cadmus will work with the appropriate department at Avista to identify these issues early in the 
evaluation process to avoid unnecessary delays or obstacles to the work plan.  
 The pricing for data collection is based on target quotas for surveys and interviews, estimated by 
Cadmus to maximize this effort, and summarized in this proposal. However, we are glad to work 
with Avista to adjust the targets as needed to reduce project costs or better achieve evaluation 
objectives.  
Table 12 provides an estimate of hours and portion of budget associated with the various tasks and 
preparation required for each deliverable. 

38 
Table 12. Cadmus Expected Level of Effort by Task 
Task Expected 
Hours 
Portion of Total 
Hours 
Kickoff Meeting 78 1% 
Work Plan 109 2% 
Project Management 646 11% 
Advisory Group Meetings, as needed 84 1% 
Residential NTG/Verification Surveys 143 2% 
Non‐residential NTG/Verification Surveys 141 2% 
Non‐residential On‐Site M&V and Analysis  1,833 32% 
Residential Modeling and Billing Analysis  479 8% 
Low Income Billing Analysis 100 2% 
Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis 260 5% 
Database Review 56 1% 
Interviews and Material Review 156 3% 
Process Surveys 107 2% 
Customer Research Analysis 123 2% 
Program Implementation Process Review 180 3% 
Quarterly Reports 100 2% 
Semiannual Reports 151 3% 
Annual Reports 130 2% 
Electric Impact Reports 411 7% 
Natural Gas Impact Reports 206 4% 
Process Memo and Report 231 4% 

An Avista lineman ascends a utility pole in North Idaho