20220801Exhibit 2 - 2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Final.pdf

2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report
August 1, 2022
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 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.
Coeur d’Alene, Idaho
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................1
Tariff Rider Balances ...............................................................................................................................................2
Idaho Achievements ...............................................................................................................................................2
Program Impacts .................................................................................................................................................3
COVID-19 .....................................................................................................................................................3
COVID-19 Emergency Operating Plan Stages and Response ...................................................................3
Program Modifications during COVID-19 ................................................................................................4
Portfolio Trends ...................................................................................................................................................5
Verified Savings ...................................................................................................................................................8
Expenditures .......................................................................................................................................................9
Evaluation Approach ............................................................................................................................................10
Evaluation Methodology and Activities ..............................................................................................................11
Impact Evaluation Results, Portfolio ...................................................................................................................13
Cost-Effectiveness .................................................................................................................................................14
Commercial/Industrial Sector ...............................................................................................................................16
Overview ......................................................................................................................................................17
Marketing ......................................................................................................................................................18
Business Partner Program ............................................................................................................................22
Customer Satisfaction .......................................................................................................................................23
Key Findings......................................................................................................................................................24
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................24
Impact Evaluation: Commercial/Industrial Sector ................................................................................................25
Performance and Savings Goals ..................................................................................................................25
Impact Evaluation Methodology ..................................................................................................................26
Sample Design......................................................................................................................................26
Document Review ................................................................................................................................28
Remote Verification ..............................................................................................................................29
Impact Evaluation Recommendations ..........................................................................................................29
Cost-Effectiveness .............................................................................................................................................30
Program-by-Program Summaries .......................................................................................................................31
Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program ................................................................................................31
Description ...........................................................................................................................................31
Program Activities .................................................................................................................................31
Program Changes .................................................................................................................................32
Customer Satisfaction ...........................................................................................................................33
COVID-19 Impacts ................................................................................................................................36
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report
Impact Evaluation .................................................................................................................................36
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................38
Plans for 2022 ......................................................................................................................................38
Commercial/Industrial Multifamily Natural Gas Market Transformation ........................................................39
Description ...........................................................................................................................................39
Program Activities .................................................................................................................................39
Marketing ............................................................................................................................................40
Impact Evaluation .................................................................................................................................40
Fuel Efficiency Conclusions and Recommendations ...............................................................................41
Plans for 2022 ......................................................................................................................................41
Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Lighting Programs ..................................................................................41
Description ...........................................................................................................................................41
Program Activities .................................................................................................................................42
Program Changes .................................................................................................................................45
Marketing ............................................................................................................................................46
Customer Satisfaction ...........................................................................................................................47
Impact Evaluation .................................................................................................................................51
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................53
Plans for 2022 ......................................................................................................................................53
Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Non-Lighting Programs ...........................................................................54
Description ...........................................................................................................................................54
Program Activities .................................................................................................................................56
Program Changes .................................................................................................................................57
Marketing ............................................................................................................................................57
Customer Satisfaction ...........................................................................................................................57
Impact Evaluation .................................................................................................................................58
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................59
Plans for 2022 ......................................................................................................................................59
Residential Sector .................................................................................................................................................60
Overview ......................................................................................................................................................61
Impacts of COVID-19 Pandemic ..................................................................................................................62
Marketing ......................................................................................................................................................63
At Home with Lisa .....................................................................................................................................67
Customer Satisfaction .......................................................................................................................................68
Residential Contractor Interviews ................................................................................................................68
Participant Surveys ......................................................................................................................................68
Impact Evaluation: Residential Sector .................................................................................................................68
Performance and Savings Goals ..................................................................................................................69
Impact Evaluation Methodology ..................................................................................................................70
Impact Evaluation Recommendations ..........................................................................................................72
Cost-Effectiveness .............................................................................................................................................73
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report
Program-by-Program Summaries .......................................................................................................................74
Residential HVAC Program ..........................................................................................................................74
Description ...........................................................................................................................................74
Program Activities .................................................................................................................................75
Impact Evaluation .................................................................................................................................76
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................76
Plans for 2022 ......................................................................................................................................77
Residential Shell Program ............................................................................................................................77
Description ...........................................................................................................................................77
Program Activities .................................................................................................................................78
Marketing ............................................................................................................................................78
Impact Evaluation .................................................................................................................................78
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................79
Plans for 2022 ......................................................................................................................................79
Residential Water Heating Program .............................................................................................................80
Description ...........................................................................................................................................80
Program Activities .................................................................................................................................80
Program Changes .................................................................................................................................80
Marketing ............................................................................................................................................81
Impact Evaluation .................................................................................................................................81
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................81
Plans for 2022 ......................................................................................................................................81
Residential ENERGY STAR Homes Program ..................................................................................................82
Description ...........................................................................................................................................82
Program Activities .................................................................................................................................83
Impact Evaluation .................................................................................................................................83
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................83
Plans for 2022 ......................................................................................................................................83
Residential Appliances Program ...................................................................................................................84
Description ...........................................................................................................................................84
Program Activities .................................................................................................................................84
Impact Evaluation .................................................................................................................................85
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................85
Plans for 2022 ......................................................................................................................................86
Residential Fuel Efficiency Program ..............................................................................................................86
Description ...........................................................................................................................................86
Program Activities .................................................................................................................................87
Program Changes .................................................................................................................................87
Marketing ............................................................................................................................................87
Impact Evaluation .................................................................................................................................87
Plans for 2022 ......................................................................................................................................87
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report
Residential Multifamily Direct Install and Supplemental Lighting Programs ...................................................88
Description ...........................................................................................................................................88
Program Activities .................................................................................................................................88
Program Changes .................................................................................................................................89
Marketing ............................................................................................................................................89
Impact Evaluation .................................................................................................................................90
Recommendations ...............................................................................................................................90
Plans for 2022 ......................................................................................................................................90
Residential Small Home & Multifamily Weatherization Program ..................................................................91
Description ...........................................................................................................................................91
Program Activities .................................................................................................................................92
Impact Evaluation .................................................................................................................................92
Recommendations ...............................................................................................................................93
Plans for 2022 ......................................................................................................................................93

Low-Income Sector ...............................................................................................................................................94
Program Summary ............................................................................................................................................95
Low-Income Program ..................................................................................................................................95
Description ...........................................................................................................................................95
Program Activities .................................................................................................................................96
Program Changes .................................................................................................................................97
Customer Outreach ..............................................................................................................................97
Marketing ..........................................................................................................................................100
Customer and Agency Satisfaction ....................................................................................................101
Cost-Effectiveness ..............................................................................................................................102
Plans for 2022 ....................................................................................................................................103
Pilot Programs ....................................................................................................................................................104
Program-by-Program Summaries .....................................................................................................................105
Active Energy Management ......................................................................................................................105
Program Activities ...............................................................................................................................106
Residential Home Energy Audit Pilot Program ............................................................................................107
Description .........................................................................................................................................107
Program Activities ...............................................................................................................................107
Plans for 2022 ....................................................................................................................................107
AeroBarrier Pilot Program ..........................................................................................................................108
Program Implementation ....................................................................................................................109
Program Eligibility ...............................................................................................................................110
Plans for 2022 ....................................................................................................................................110
Pilot Programs On Hold .............................................................................................................................110

2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report
Regional Market Transformation .......................................................................................................................112
Electric Energy Savings Share ...........................................................................................................................113
Natural Gas Energy Savings Share ...................................................................................................................114
Eastside Collaborative Market Transformation .................................................................................................114
Glossary of Terms ................................................................................................................................................116
Appendices and Supplements ............................................................................................................................126
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Tariff Rider Activity ......................................................................................................................................2
Table 2 – Avista COVID-19 Emergency Operating Plan Stages .....................................................................................3
Table 3 – Energy-Efficiency Savings by Sector – Electric ...............................................................................................8
Table 4 – Energy-Efficiency Savings by Sector – Natural Gas ........................................................................................8
Table 5 – Annual Conservation Plan Budget to Actual Expenditures Comparison ........................................................9
Table 6 – Programs with Highest Impact on Expenditure Variance ...............................................................................9
Table 7 – Cadmus Program Evaluation Activities – Electric ........................................................................................11
Table 8 – ADM Impact Evaluation Activities by Program and Sector – Electric ............................................................11
Table 9 – Cadmus Program Evaluation Activities – Natural Gas .................................................................................12
Table 10 – ADM Impact Evaluation Activities by Program and Sector – Natural Gas ..................................................12
Table 11 – Process Evaluations for Programs .............................................................................................................13
Table 12 – Electric Portfolio Cost-Effectiveness Results ..............................................................................................14
Table 13 – Natural Gas Portfolio Cost-Effectiveness Results .......................................................................................14
Table 14 – Commercial/Industrial Verified Savings by Program ..................................................................................17
Table 15 – Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Electric Evaluation Sample ...................................................................27
Table 16 – Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Electric Evaluation Sample .................................................................28
Table 17 – Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Natural Gas Evaluation Sample ............................................................28
Table 18 – Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Natural Gas Evaluation Sample ..........................................................28
Table 19 – Commercial/Industrial Electric Cost-Effectiveness Results ..........................................................................30
Table 20 – Commercial/Industrial Natural Gas Cost-Effectiveness Results ..................................................................30
Table 21 – Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program Metrics ................................................................................31
Table 22 – Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program Participation Challenges .......................................................34
Table 23 – Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program Electric Impact Findings ........................................................36
Table 24 – Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program Evaluation Summary of Discrepancies ..................................37
Table 25 – Commercial/Industrial Multifamily Natural Gas Market Transformation Program Metrics ..........................39
Table 26 – Commercial/Industrial Fuel-Efficiency Impact Findings ..............................................................................40
Table 27 – Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Lighting Program Metrics ....................................................................41
Table 28 – Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Lighting Program Changes ..................................................................45
Table 29 – Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Lighting Program Aspects that Worked Well .......................................50
Table 30 – Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Lighting Program Suggestions for Improvement ..................................50
Table 31 – Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Lighting Program Electric Impact Findings ...........................................51
Table 32 – Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Lighting Program Evaluation Summary of Discrepancies ......................52
Table 33 – Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Non-Lighting Program Metrics ............................................................54
Table 34 – Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Non-Lighting Program Rebate Changes ...............................................57
Table 35 – Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Non-Lighting Program Electric Impact Findings ....................................58
Table 36 – Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Non-Lighting Program Evaluation Summary of Discrepancies ...............58
Table 37 – Residential Savings by Program ................................................................................................................61
Table 38 – Residential Programs Reported Electric Savings ........................................................................................69
Table 39 – Residential Programs Reported Natural Gas Savings .................................................................................70
Table 40 – Residential Electric Cost-Effectiveness Results ..........................................................................................73
Table 41 – Residential Natural Gas Cost-Effectiveness Results ...................................................................................73
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report
Table 42 – Residential HVAC Program Metrics ..........................................................................................................74
Table 43 – Residential Shell Program Metrics ............................................................................................................77
Table 44 – Residential Water Heating Program Metrics .............................................................................................80
Table 45 – Residential ENERGY STAR Homes Program Metrics ..................................................................................82
Table 46 – Residential Appliances Program Metrics ...................................................................................................84
Table 47 – Residential Appliances Program Verified Electric Savings ..........................................................................85
Table 48 – Residential Appliances Program Verified Natural Gas Savings ...................................................................85
Table 49 – Residential Fuel-Efficiency Program Metrics ..............................................................................................86
Table 50 – Residential Multifamily Direct Install Program Metrics ...............................................................................88
Table 51 – Residential Multifamily Direct Install Program Electric Impact Findings ......................................................90
Table 52 – Residential Small Home & Multifamily Weatherization Program Metrics ...................................................91
Table 53 – Residential Small Home & Multifamily Weatherization Program Verified Savings ......................................92
Table 54 – Low-Income Program Metrics ..................................................................................................................95
Table 55 – Low-Income Program Evaluated Savings ..................................................................................................96
Table 56 – Low-Income Program Approved Measure List ..........................................................................................96
Table 57 – Low-Income Program Qualified Rebate Measure List ................................................................................97
Table 58 – Low-Income Outreach Event and LED Bulb Distribution Summary ............................................................98
Table 59 – Low-Income Electric Cost-Effectiveness Results ......................................................................................102
Table 60 – Low-Income Natural Gas Cost-Effectiveness Results ...............................................................................102
Table 61 – Actual Savings and Associated Costs for Idaho ......................................................................................113
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Electric and Natural Gas Service Areas ........................................................................................................1
Figure 2 – Electric Energy Savings (2020-21) ...............................................................................................................5
Figure 3 – Natural Gas Energy Savings (2020-21) ......................................................................................................6
Figure 4 – Electric Savings Portfolio ............................................................................................................................7
Figure 5 – Natural Gas Savings Portfolio .....................................................................................................................7
Figure 6 – Commercial/Industrial HVAC System Changes Q&A in Response to COVID-19 Flyer .................................18
Figure 7 – Commercial/Industrial Building Shutdown Checklist .................................................................................19
Figure 8 – Commercial/Industrial Tips to Save Energy when Shutting Down Commercial Buildings Flyer ....................19
Figure 9 – Commercial/Industrial Preparations for Workforce Re-Entry Checklist .......................................................20
Figure 10 – Commercial/Industrial Support for Small Businesses during the COVID-19 Crisis Flyer .............................20
Figure 11 – Commercial/Industrial Account Execs Email Template .............................................................................21
Figure 12 – Multifamily Direct Install Flyer, Reflecting Temporary Program Modifications due to COVID-19 ...............21
Figure 13 – Commercial/Industrial Business Partner Program Newsletter ...................................................................22
Figure 14 – Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program Incentive Dollars by Measure ..............................................32
Figure 15 – Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program Respondents Satisfied with Components ............................33
Figure 16 – Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program Important Criteria for Energy-Efficiency Improvements .......35
Figure 17 – Commercial/Industrial Multifamily Natural Gas Incentive Program Flyer ..................................................40
Figure 18 – Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Lighting Program Savings by Month ..................................................42
Figure 19 – Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Interior Lighting Program kWh Savings by Measure ...........................43
Figure 20 – Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Exterior Lighting Program kWh Savings by Measure ...........................44
Figure 21 – Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Program Components Satisfaction .....................................................47
Figure 22 – Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Program Participation Challenges ......................................................48
Figure 23 – Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Program Important Criteria for Energy-Efficiency Improvements .........49
Figure 24 – Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Program Incentive Dollars By Measure – Electric .................................56
Figure 25 – Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Program Incentive Dollars By Measure – Natural Gas ..........................56
Figure 26 – Change in Amount of Time spent at Home and Change in Electric Bill since COVID-19 Pandemic Began ...62
Figure 27 – Residential “Way To Save” Television Commercials .................................................................................63
Figure 28 – Residential “Way To Save” Rebates Social Media and Digital Advertising ................................................64
Figure 29 – Residential Energy-Savings Winter Tips Print Ad .....................................................................................65
Figure 30 – Residential Energy-Savings Winter Tips Bill Insert ....................................................................................65
Figure 31 – Residential Energy-Savings Tips Social Media ..........................................................................................66
Figure 32 – Residential At Home with Lisa Connections Article and Blog Posts .........................................................67
Figure 33 – Residential HVAC Program Incentive Dollars By Measure – Electric ..........................................................75
Figure 34 – Residential HVAC Program Incentive Dollars By Measure – Natural Gas ..................................................75
Figure 35 – Residential Multifamily Direct Install Program Flyer .................................................................................89
Figure 36 – Low-Income Program Home Energy Savings Kit Brochure .......................................................................99
Figure 37 – Low-Income Program Weatherization Flyer, Postcard, and Email Heading .............................................100
Figure 38 – Expected Benefits of the Active Energy Management Program for Avista and for Customers ................105
Figure 39 – Active Energy Management Design Process..........................................................................................106
Figure 40 – AeroBarrier Application Process ............................................................................................................108
Figure 41 – AeroBarrier Marketing Collateral ..........................................................................................................109
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report
LIST OF APPENDICES AND SUPPLEMENTS
Appendix A – 2021 Idaho Electric Impact Evaluation Report
Appendix B – 2021 Idaho Natural Gas Impact Evaluation Report
Appendix C – Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification (EM&V) of Avista Idaho Electric
2021 Residential and Low-Income Energy Efficiency Programs
Appendix D – Evaluation, Measurement and Verification (EM&V) of Avista Idaho Natural Gas
2021 Residential and Low-Income Energy Efficiency Programs
Appendix E – Process Evaluation Report
Appendix F – Idaho Energy Efficiency Incentive Methodology
Appendix G – 2021 Expenditures by Program
Appendix H – 2021 Energy Efficiency Activity by Program
Appendix I – Cost-Effectiveness Tables
INTRODUCTION
Bonners Ferry, Idaho
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 1
INTRODUCTION
For more than four decades, Avista has served its communities by developing and implementing reliable and cost‐
effective energy-efficiency programs. The 2021 Annual Conservation Report provides a synopsis of those efforts for
the company’s electric and natural gas customers in the state of Idaho – efforts that are designed not only to provide
a least-cost resource, but also to help these customers conserve energy, save money, and live more comfortably – and
delivers the results of third-party assessments of Avista’s efficiency program portfolio performance.
Recommendations from these assessments, as well as the application of lessons learned through each program year,
are incorporated into Avista’s annual business planning process to further refine program design and improve their
chances of success.
Throughout 2021, COVID-19 continued to have significant impacts both on Avista’s customers and on its electric
and natural gas conservation achievements. The pandemic required customers to adapt their day-to-day activities,
causing them to reprioritize how they invest their time, money, and energy. Avista programs continued to focus on
affordability and flexibility so that opportunities remained available to customers who wished to pursue efficiency
in their homes or businesses. While Avista made changes to manage its Energy-Efficiency Program, the overall
conservation achieved in 2021 continued to be affected by lower participation rates. Nevertheless, the company
made meaningful modifications to its outreach efforts and took steps to ensure customers stayed connected. These
efforts are discussed in more detail in this report. In addition to offering a mix of programs implemented both by
the company and by third-party contractors, Avista funds the regional market transformation effort through the
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA). Reported electric energy savings, cost-effectiveness, and other related
data, however, are specific to local programs unless otherwise noted.
Note that the electric and natural gas savings conveyed in this report are provided as gross values based on all
program participants.
FIGURE 1 – ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS SERVICE AREAS
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 2
TARIFF RIDER BALANCES
At the start of 2021, the Idaho electric and natural gas (aggregate) tariff rider balances were underfunded by nearly
$1.6 million. During the year, approximately $12.1 million in tariff rider revenue was collected to fund energy
efficiency, while over $9.2 million was expended to operate energy-efficiency programs. The $2.9 million excess of
collections over expenditures contributed to the decrease in the underfunded balance of the tariff riders, resulting in
an overfunded balance close to $1.3 million by year-end.
Table 1 illustrates the 2021 tariff rider activity by fuel type.
TABLE 1 – TARIFF RIDER ACTIVITY
Electric Natural Gas Total
Beginning Balance (Underfunded)/Overfunded $ (574,186)$ (1,021,500)$ (1,595,686)
Energy-Efficiency Funding $ 10,700,382 $ 1,401,103 $ 12,101,485
Net Funding of Operations $ 10,126,196 $ 379,603 $ 10,505,798
Energy-Efficiency Expenditures $ 6,763,901 $ 2,446,649 $ 9,210,550
Ending Balances (Underfunded)/Overfunded $ 3,362,295 $ (2,067,047)$ 1,295,248
IDAHO ACHIEVEMENTS
◆Electric Conservation: For 2021, Avista’s electric Energy-Efficiency Program achieved 13,509,604 kWh of
conservation from local programs.
◆Natural Gas Conservation: For 2021, Avista’s natural gas Energy-Efficiency Program achieved 300,000
therms of conservation from local programs.
◆NEEA Conservation: An additional 3,416 MWh were conserved through the Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance (NEEA) program, resulting in overall electric savings of 16,926 MWh; an additional 152,881 therms
led to an overall natural gas savings of 452,881 therms.
Note: This Annual Conservation Report is intended to provide information on Avista’s local programs and therefore
will consistently refer to the local achievement of 13,509,604 kWh for electric and 300,000 therms for natural gas.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 3
Program Impacts
COVID-19
COVID-19 continued to have multiple and far-reaching impacts on Avista’s customers in 2021, though those impacts
were significantly different from those of 2020. The job market made a strong recovery, and the region’s economy
is now experiencing a labor shortage. Contractors have faced increasingly challenging hiring conditions, resulting in
longer turnaround times for many efficiency projects. Businesses have also experienced supply chain problems, further
contributing to delays. Avista continued to adapt its Energy-Efficiency Program to provide support for customers to
help them through the pandemic.
COVID-19 Emergency Operating Plan Stages and Response
Early in 2020, Avista operated at the monitoring and precautions stages of its emergency operating plan (EOP),
with additional precautions put in place to protect the safety of employees and customers. At the beginning of
March 2020, the company had moved into the preventative stage, which increased restrictions and limited customer
interactions. Within the same month, Avista had skipped the responsive stage and moved to critical, which places the
highest restrictions on meetings, public interactions, travel, and customer-related work. In addition, all non-essential
employees moved to a work-from-home model. Avista remained in the critical stage throughout 2021.
Table 2 illustrates the four stages of the COVID-19 EOP.
TABLE 2 – AVISTA COVID-19 EMERGENCY OPERATING PLAN STAGES
Stage Monitoring and
Precautions Preventative Responsive Critical
Description
A regional health or
safety threat exists with
potential impact to
Avista operations and/
or employees. Avista is
monitoring and preparing
to take necessary actions.
Regional organizations
and/ or public
health officials begin
recommending
preventative actions.
Avista is mitigating risks to
ensure it can continue to
provide essential services
to its customers.
Either the threat has
affected employees or
service territory directly
or an impact is clearly
imminent. Avista is actively
responding to protect
employees, customers,
and essential services.
The threat to essential
services is severe. Avista
is taking critical measures
to protect employees and
essential services.
Public Interactions Precautions Additional precautions Limited Critical only
Meetings Normal Large postponed, virtual
encouraged Virtual only Virtual only
Travel Discretionary/limit high-
risk Limit non-essential Essential only Emergency only
DSM Staff Desk Work Remote work voluntary Remote work
recommended Remote work mandatory Remote work mandatory
DSM Customer Site Work Call ahead to check with
customer.
Ask permission to work
on customer site. Go
to campus only for
instruments.
Ask customer for essential
work only. Plan trips to
Avista campus for supplies
to avoid others. Meet
with two or fewer people
at the customer site and
maintain social distance.
Request through account
executive that customer
send information
necessary for projects.
No trips to Avista campus
or customer without
permission from manager.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 4
The additional restrictions placed on demand-side management (DSM) customer site work and on programs with
high customer interaction created challenges for programs within Avista’s energy-efficiency portfolio. Customer-facing
offerings such as the Multifamily Direct Install (MFDI) Program and the residential Home Energy Audit Program were
placed on hold, since their inherent design includes entering customer homes. Avista maintains that customer safety
continues to be a top priority and looks forward to resuming these programs in 2022.
Program Modifications during COVID-19
Installation Verification: Avista continued its modified approach to installation verification in 2021. For projects
normally requiring on-site verification, the company allowed customers to submit photos in lieu of an in-person
site visit. For some projects, Avista participated in live video chats with owners to verify equipment installation. This
approach prioritized the safety of both workers and customers.
Multifamily Direct Install: This program uses the direct installation of LED lighting, faucet aerators, low-flow
showerheads, and other measures to help multifamily customers save energy and reduce costs. Throughout 2021, the
MFDI implementation team attempted multiple approaches to program delivery that did not require installers to enter
multifamily homes, including a pilot approach that enabled customers to drop off their old equipment and pick up
new energy-efficient items. This pilot is discussed in more detail later in the report.
Account Executives: Avista’s account executive (AE) team is responsible for interacting with commercial and
industrial customers. COVID-19 continued to present challenges for the AE team in 2021. (Avista’s EOP critical
phase significantly limited face-to-face meetings; many business customers had similar restrictions.) Impacts ranged
from customers closing operations for months to operating under reduced hours and workforce to, in some cases,
increased demand for business and product. Customers have consequently had to re-evaluate energy-efficiency
projects and how to fund them. Several have delayed or canceled capital expenditures, directly affecting energy-
efficiency projects. In response, the AE team pursued every opportunity to continue to engage with customers while
adhering to the restrictions.
Customer Outreach: Energy fairs and outreach events were canceled throughout the 2020-21 period, leaving a
significant hole in Avista’s ability to engage in-person within the communities it serves. The company developed
outreach kits that contained low-cost, energy-saving items, and partnered with Meals on Wheels to help distribute
them. The kits included window plastic, LED lamps, nightlights, energy-saving tips, and information on assistance
programs.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 5
Portfolio Trends
As shown in Figure 2, Avista’s energy savings achieved in 2021 were lower than in 2020 (16,710,969 kWh vs
13,509,604 kWh). This decrease was greatly attributed to the reduction in residential program savings, e.g., the
expiration of the Simple Steps, Smart Savings Program and lower activity in the Multifamily Direct Install Program.
Savings acquired through the company’s residential program decreased 73 percent between 2020 and 2021, while
commercial/industrial programs increased 11 percent.
FIGURE 2 – ELECTRIC ENERGY SAVINGS (2020-21)
Customer Segment 2020 2021
Residential (Inclusive of Low-Income Programs)5,497,847 1,566,738
Commercial/Industrial 11,213,122 11,942,866
Total 16,710,969 13,509,604
El
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y

S
a
v
i
n
g
s

(
k
W
h
)
Residential Commercial/Industrial
18,000,000
2020 2021
16,000,000
8,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
12,000,000
16,710,969
13,509,604
14,000,000
6,000,000
10,000,000
20,000,000
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 6
As shown in Figure 3, Avista’s natural gas portfolio also decreased in savings in 2021 compared to the prior year. Both
residential and commercial/industrial programs experienced a slight savings decrease. Overall natural gas portfolio
savings decreased by 15 percent.
FIGURE 3 – NATURAL GAS ENERGY SAVINGS (2020-21)
Customer Segment 2020 2021
Residential 323,044 279,274
Commercial/Industrial 29,503 20,726
Total 352,547 300,000
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
400,000
2020 2021
300,000
200,000
100,000
50,000
0
352,547
300,000350,000
250,000
150,000
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 7
Of Avista’s overall electric portfolio, the commercial/industrial prescriptive lighting and site-specific programs obtained
82 percent of the savings in 2021. All other programs combined achieved the remaining 18 percent (see Figure 4).
FIGURE 4 – ELECTRIC SAVINGS PORTFOLIO
Of Avista’s overall natural gas savings portfolio, residential HVAC programs obtained 71 percent of the savings in
2021. Low-income, residential water heater, shell, and commercial/industrial programs combined achieved 29 percent
of the overall savings for 2021 (see Figure 5).
FIGURE 5 – NATURAL GAS SAVINGS PORTFOLIO
1% Low-Income
10% Residential
1% Multifamily Direct Install
40% Site-Specic
42% Commercial/Industrial Lighting
5% Multifamily Market Transformation
1% Commercial/Industrial other
1% Low-Income
71% Residential HVAC
21% Residential Other
7% Commercial/Industrial
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 8
Verified Savings
Avista’s targets are set through the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) process. Targets for 2021 were 14,504 MWh and
358,160 therms.
For the 2021 electric target, Avista chose to use the conservation potential assessment (CPA) obtained from its
2020 electric IRP as the basis for its Annual Conservation Plan (ACP) savings goals and targets. The company’s 2021
conservation acquisition target identified in its IRP was 14,504 MWh of qualifying energy efficiency in Idaho.
The 2021 natural gas target of 358,160 therms was identified in the 2020 natural gas IRP and was used to establish
the targets for each program in the natural gas portfolio.
In 2021, the electric energy-efficiency portfolio achieved first-year annual energy savings of 13,510 MWh (16,926
MWh inclusive of NEEA) and natural gas savings of 300,000 therms (452,881 therms inclusive of NEEA). Based on
the target established in the electric and natural gas IRPs, Avista achieved 93 percent (107 inclusive of NEEA) of the
electric savings target and 84 percent (126 inclusive of NEEA) of natural gas. Table 3 shows 2021 savings by fuel and
sector.
The Idaho electric portfolio achieved an overall 100 percent realization rate.
TABLE 3 – ENERGY EFFICIENCY SAVINGS BY SECTOR – ELECTRIC
Sector Reported Savings
(kWh)
Evaluated Savings
(kWh)Realization Rate
Commercial/Industrial 11,879,012 11,942,866 101%
Residential 1,505,298 1,413,235 94%
Low-Income 161,323 153,503 95%
Total 13,545,633 13,509,604 100%
The Idaho natural gas portfolio achieved an overall realization rate of 100 percent as shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4 – ENERGY EFFICIENCY SAVINGS BY SECTOR – NATURAL GAS
Sector Reported Savings
(therms)
Gross Evaluated
Savings (therms)Realization Rate
Commercial/Industrial 20,726 20,726 100%
Residential 274,701 276,057 100%
Low-Income 3,778 3,217 85%
Total 299,205 300,000 100%
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 9
Expenditures
As part of Avista’s annual business planning process, the company sets an expectation for operational planning,
pursuing all cost-effective measures under Tariff 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 5 provides
a detailed comparison of budgeted to actual energy-efficiency expenditures by fuel type.
TABLE 5 – ANNUAL CONSERVATION PLAN BUDGET TO ACTUAL EXPENDITURES COMPARISON
Electric Natural Gas
Projected 2021 Expenditures
Incentives Budget $ 5,301,623 $ 2,243,064
Non-Incentives and Labor $ 1,734,268 $ 284,526
NEEA, CPA, EM&V $ 1,394,232 $ 133,500
Total Budgeted Expenditures $ 8,430,123 $ 2,661,090
Actual 2021 Expenditures
Incentives $ 4,104,944 $ 1,789,495
Non-Incentives and Labor $ 1,566,938 $ 425,531
Market Transformation, CPA, EM&V, R&D, Pilot Programs $ 1,092,019 $ 231,623
Total Actual Expenditures $ 6,763,901 $ 2,446,649
Variance $ (1,666,222)$ (214,441)
Table 6 illustrates the top five programs with the highest impact on the expenditure variance.
TABLE 6 – PROGRAMS WITH HIGHEST IMPACT ON EXPENDITURE VARIANCE
Program Planned Actual Variance Variance Percentage
Multifamily Direct Install – Electric $ 2,742,346 $ 155,623 $ 2,586,723 94%
Commercial/Industrial Exterior Lighting $ 1,176,456 $ 1,514,671 $ (338,215) (29)%
Residential Prescriptive – Electric $ 302,822 $ 777,093 $ (474,271)(157)%
Residential Fuel Conversions $ 1,755,686 $ 359,619 $ 1,396,067 80%
Multifamily Market Transformation $ 306,575 $ 989,860 $ (683,285)(223)%
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 10
EVALUATION APPROACH
Because evaluation is a critical component of any successful energy conservation program, Avista employs evaluation,
measurement, and verification (EM&V) protocols to validate and report verified energy savings related to its energy-
efficiency measures and programs. Those protocols represent the comprehensive analyses and assessments necessary
to supply useful information to both management and stakeholders. (EM&V includes impact and process, and, taken
as a whole, is analogous with industry standard terms such as portfolio evaluation or program evaluation.) Avista also
incorporates recommendations to improve program performance, enact changes to programs, and make decisions to
phase out programs and measures.
Program evaluations are generally conducted by third-party EM&V firms, selected on a biennial basis through a
competitive bidding process managed by Avista’s supply chain management group. Scope of work for selected
evaluators is defined and managed by the company’s planning and analytics team. Third-party evaluators provide
recommendations pertaining to specific programs and related processes in impact and process evaluation report
outputs; Avista tracks those recommendations and uses them as inputs for the annual business planning process.
For 2021, Avista retained two separate firms to conduct impact and process evaluations of electric and natural
gas programs in the utility’s Idaho program portfolio. Cadmus conducted impact evaluations of the commercial/
industrial program portfolio and process evaluations for most programs in the program portfolio; ADM performed
impact evaluations of residential and low-income programs. Evaluations took a portfolio-wide evaluation approach
to provide a benchmark to compare against future years. Impact and process evaluations for most programs were
also completed at the program level, so that customer experience could be better delineated and realization rates
understood.
Several guiding EM&V documents are maintained and published to support planning and reporting requirements.
These include 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 to inform and benefit the DSM activities.
These documents are reviewed and updated as necessary to improve the processes and protocols for energy-efficiency
measurement, evaluation, and verification.
EM&V efforts are also used to evaluate emerging technologies and applications in consideration of their inclusion
in Avista’s energy-efficiency portfolio. In its electric portfolio, the company may spend up to 10 percent of its
conservation budget on programs whose savings impacts have not yet been measured if the overall conservation
portfolio passes the applicable cost-effectiveness test. These programs may include educational, behavioral
change, and other 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.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 11
Both Avista and its customers benefit from activities and resources related to energy efficiency and conservation. To
contribute to regional efforts, one Avista employee has a voting role and a second a corresponding member role
on the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) – the advisory committee to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council
and a primary source of information regarding the standardization of energy savings and measurement processes
for electric applications in the Pacific Northwest. This knowledge base provides Avista with energy-efficiency data,
metrics, non-energy benefits, and references for inclusion in the company’s Technical Reference Manual (TRM) relating
to acquisition planning and reporting. Avista also works with other Northwest utilities and NEEA in a number of pilot
projects and subcommittee evaluations; portions of the energy-efficiency savings acquired through the latter’s regional
programs are attributable to Avista’s portfolio.
Evaluation Methodology and Activities
The 2021 Idaho electric portfolio impact evaluation employed a variety of methodology approaches, as shown in
Table 7.
TABLE 7 – CADMUS PROGRAM EVALUATION ACTIVITIES – ELECTRIC
Sector Program Document/Database
Review
Verification/Metering
Site Visits
Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive (Multiple)✔✔
Site-Specific ✔✔
Multifamily Multifamily Direct Install ✔
Supplemental Lighting ✔
Fuel Efficiency Multifamily Market Transformation ✔
Table 8 shows the methods used for the residential electric portfolio.
TABLE 8 – ADM IMPACT EVALUATION ACTIVITIES BY PROGRAM AND SECTOR – ELECTRIC
Sector Program Database Review Survey Verification Impact Methodology
Residential
Water Heat ✔✔RTF UES
HVAC ✔✔RTF UES/Billing Analysis with
Comparison Group
Shell ✔RTF UES
Fuel Efficiency ✔✔Avista TRM/Billing Analysis
with Comparison Group
ENERGY STAR Homes ✔RTF UES
Simple Steps, Smart Savings ✔RTF UES
Low-Income Low-Income ✔Avista TRM
More details about sample design for each sector are included later in this report and in Appendices A, B, C, and D.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 12
Each evaluator also chose a tailored approach for program evaluation in the natural gas portfolio. Table 9 shows the
evaluation activities by Cadmus.
TABLE 9 – CADMUS PROGRAM EVALUATION ACTIVITIES – NATURAL GAS
Sector Program Document / Database
Review
Verification / Virtual
Site Visit
Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive (Multiple)✔✔
Site-Specific ✔✔
Fuel Efficiency Site-Specific (Commercial/Industrial)✔
ADM evaluated programs in the residential natural gas portfolio.
TABLE 10 – ADM IMPACT EVALUATION ACTIVITIES BY PROGRAM AND SECTOR – NATURAL GAS
Sector Program Database Review Survey Verification Impact Methodology
Residential
Water Heat ✔✔Avista TRM
HVAC ✔✔Avista TRM/IPMVP Option A
Shell ✔Avista TRM/Billing Analysis
with Comparison Group
Fuel Efficiency ✔✔Avista TRM/Billing Analysis
with Comparison Group
ENERGY STAR Homes ✔Avista TRM
Simple Steps, Smart Savings ✔RTF UES
Low-Income Low-Income ✔Avista TRM
Cadmus was also contracted to conduct process evaluation activities, focusing on three fundamental objectives:
◆Assess participant trade ally program journey, including motivation for participation, barriers to participation,
and satisfaction.
◆Assess Avista and implementer staff experiences, including organizational structure, communication, and
program processes.
◆Document areas of success, challenges, and changes to the program.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 13
Table 11 outlines the process evaluation activities that were completed in Idaho in 2021.
TABLE 11 – PROCESS EVALUATIONS FOR PROGRAMS
Program
Commercial/Industrial Programs
Site-Specific
Prescriptive a)
Multifamily Programs
Multifamily Direct Install (MFDI)
Multifamily Market Transformation (MFMT)
Residential Programs
ENERGY STAR Homes
Simple Steps, Smart Savings
a) Includes Lighting, Food Service Equipment, Green Motors Rewind, Commercial HVAC, Insulation, HVAC Motor Controls, Grocer, Fleet Heat, and AirGuardian
Compressed Air.
Residential HVAC, Water Heat, and Shell/Window Programs in Idaho will be evaluated following the program year.
Process evaluation findings are included in this report for each sector and, where relevant, at the program level under
“Customer Satisfaction” headings.
Impact Evaluation Results, Portfolio
As a result of the impact evaluation performed, the following realization rates were achieved in the Idaho program
portfolio:
◆Electric: 100 percent realization rate and 13,509,604 kWh in annual verified savings
◆Natural Gas: 100 percent realization rate and 300,000 therms in annual gross savings
The evaluators collected Avista’s reported savings through database extracts from its customer care and billing
(residential) and Infor CRM and iEnergy (commercial/industrial) databases and from data provided by third-party
implementers to determine evaluated savings.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 14
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 for both the electric and
natural gas program portfolios is to have a UCT above 1.00, which indicates that the benefits to the utility exceed the
costs of implementing the program. In 2021, the UCT benefit/cost ratios were 1.24 for electric and 1.24 for natural
gas.
TABLE 12 – ELECTRIC PORTFOLIO COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 8,349,163 $ 7,554,710 1.11
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 6,778,064 $ 5,453,202 1.24
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 15,934,301 $ 6,157,230 2.59
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 6,728,843 $ 17,331,781 0.39
TABLE 13 – NATURAL GAS PORTFOLIO COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 2,629,603 $ 4,346,572 0.60
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 2,483,710 $ 2,007,089 1.24
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 6,221,173 $ 4,059,208 1.53
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 2,413,940 $ 6,508,537 0.37

2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 15
(This page intentionally left blank.)
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SECTOR
Cedar Street Bridge, Sandpoint, Idaho
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 17
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 path – and/or that does not meet its
parameters – is automatically eligible for treatment through the site-specific program path, subject to the criteria for
participation in that program.
The prescriptive program path is selected for simple, 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.
◆846 commercial/industrial electric measures in 2021: Total savings of 11,943 MWh
◆39 commercial/industrial natural gas measures in 2021: Total savings of 20,726 therms
TABLE 14 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL VERIFIED SAVINGS BY PROGRAM
Commercial/Industrial Program Type Electric Savings
(kWh)
Natural Gas Savings
(Therms)
Interior Lighting Prescriptive 3,362,227 -
Exterior Lighting Prescriptive 2,307,395 -
HVAC Prescriptive - 5,885
Green Motors Prescriptive 23,986 -
Motor Control HVAC (VFD)Prescriptive 56,210 -
Shell Prescriptive 2,547 360
Food Services Prescriptive 977 14,480
Grocer Prescriptive 7,443 -
Multifamily Market Transformation Prescriptive 711,593 -
Site-Specific Lighting Site-Specific 3,347,375 -
Site-Specific Other Site-Specific 2,123,113 -
Total Commercial/Industrial 11,942,866 20,726
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 18
Marketing
To assist commercial customers during the coronavirus pandemic, Avista developed communications materials that
included tip sheets – e.g., “HVAC System Changes Q&A” – plus checklists for saving energy when shutting buildings
down and when re-entering. To support small businesses, a flyer was created identifying sources of local, state, and
federal help available in Idaho. Electronic newsletters containing information on Avista’s energy-efficiency programs
and related content were also sent to commercial and small business customers. Vendors were mailed updates about
program information. New email templates were created for Avista’s account executives, providing a customizable
tool that could be used to promote various rebate programs to their customers.
Ongoing updates to Avista’s website regarding energy-efficiency programs, as well as COVID-19 information,
continued throughout the year.
FIGURE 6 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL HVAC SYSTEM CHANGES Q&A IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19 FLYER
HVAC System Changes Q&A
in Response to COVID-19
What is the required percentage of outside air supply (OSA) according
to code?
Minimum OSA rates are based on type of usage and square footage; however,
outside air rates are not limited to 10% above design airflow. As COVID-19 is
a special case, facility operators could choose to take emergency measures for
the safety of staff.
If you choose to increase outside air rates, we recommend that you ensure
the equipment and building are operating properly. All equipment should be
operating within their respective design envelopes, and building pressure is to
be maintained by an equal amount of exhaust/relief air leaving the building.
Special pressurization and operating conditions also must be maintained for
labs, hospitals, restrooms, workspaces, etc.
Will increasing the flow of outside air improve the air quality in office
settings?
Yes, increasing the OSA rate will improve air quality, and we would encourage
increased outside air flow if possible. Air flow should only be increased to the
level that the HVAC equipment is rated. Increasing outside air flow beyond
the equipment limits can cause insufficient building heating/cooling, as well as
damage to HVAC equipment and possibly the building. Outside temperatures
can also dip below freezing, so you need to guard against the possibility of
freeze damage from cold outside air.
Fan speeds should not be increased above rated speeds or fan bearings may
be damaged. We do not recommend adjusting individual room diffusers, since
that could cause balance issues in the overall building. Building pressure should
be maintained by an equal amount of exhaust/relief air exiting the building.
What would be the impact to our utility costs if we set the outside
air-flow at 100%?
Utility costs would increase based on additional fan use and natural gas
usage to heat OSA to room temperature. Based on an average outside air
temperature of 40°F, we estimate natural gas use could double.
Please use this information to answer customer
questions regarding HVAC
systems changes to reduce viral possibilities. We give special thanks to Coffman
Engineers for their expertise in this matter.
HVAC System Changes Q&A in Response to COVID-19
What recommendations do you have to ease concerns of staff about supply air?
The supply and ventilation air rates of commercial HVAC systems are designed to mitigate the
transmission of cold and flu viruses, but there is no way to completely eliminate the risk. Air humidity
plays a large role in stopping the transmission of bacteria and viruses through the air.
As shown in the graph above, there is a sweet spot around 55-60% humidity that reduces viruses and
respiratory infections while still keeping other agents, such as fungi, in check. We encourage increasing
building humidification or having employees keep a humidifier in their work area.
Avista recommends following the CDC guidelines for businesses:
cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/guidance-business-response.html
Should we install a special HEPA filter on RTUs/AHUs?
Increased filtering on the return/supply air can improve air quality and safety (more filtering on
the outside air will not help). High efficiency filters, like HEPA filters, would increase the pressure
drop in air ducting which could impede air flow. Poor airflow could defeat the purpose of
providing fresh ventilation and could also damage natural gas heating elements in the
HVAC equipment. We recommend that you improve filtering if possible but follow
the equipment manufacturers’ filter guidelines.
Bacteria
Viruses
Fungi
Mites
Respiratory Infections
Allergic Rhinitis & Asthma
Chemical Interactions
Ozone Productions
Too Dry
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%
Healthy Zone Too Moist
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

b
y

C
o
f
f
m
a
n

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
OPTIMUM RELATIVE HUMIDITY RANGE FOR HUMAN COMFORT AND HEALTH(A decrease in bar height indicates a decrease in effect for each of the items.)
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 19
FIGURE 7 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL BUILDING SHUTDOWN CHECKLIST
FIGURE 8 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL TIPS TO SAVE ENERGY WHEN SHUTTING DOWN COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS FLYER
Building Shutdown
Checklist
GENERAL BEST PRACTICES
Review this checklist one week prior to shutdown to ensure all arrangements are made to complete a successful shutdown of
each building.
Check that all windows and doors to the outside are closed and
locked.
Cooling Season: Lower and close all blinds to prevent solar heat gain.
Heating Season: Open blinds to allow for warming (unless this
creates a security issue).*
Make a quick walkthrough of your building at the end of the last day of operation to see how you’re doing and identify any potential problems. Listen/feel for any
equipment that is running.
Consolidate building activities during shutdown period and
instruct occupants on set-back procedures.
*This is at the building owner’s discretion (providing safety allows).
WATER
Check all drinking fountains, faucets, showers and toilets for
water leaks.
Turn off any automatic flushing systems.
Check water meters to verify there
is not use (movement of the meter) due to water leaks.
Turn off all water heaters that will not be needed.
If possible, turn off or unplug
drinking fountains containing individual refrigeration units.
LIGHTING
Check that timers are working and set correctly for exterior lights that will be in operation during the break.
Turn off all display-case lighting.
Wherever possible, turn off all
interior lights except exit/security lighting.
Where lighting controls exist, adjust scheduling to be in accordance
with new operation schedules.
HVAC
Heating Season: Set temperatures
to 45-50 degrees in all parts of the building.
Cooling Season: Set temperatures
to 80-85 degrees in all parts of the building or just shut off AC system.
Ensure that all HVAC equipment is set to “auto,” not “on.” If
individual rooms have working HVAC controls, check each room.
Adjust your HVAC timers according
to required schedules; review building automation system to
ensure that schedules are updated for unoccupied period.
Ensure that nothing is stacked on supplies or returns.
Turn off all automatic and manual
exhaust fans.
Review the need for building ventilation and shut down all unnecessary ventilation fans.

ELECTRICITY
Check to make sure that all unnecessary electrical appliances are turned off and unplugged. This includes copiers, computers,
printers, televisions, fax machines, radios, water coolers, sound
systems and task lighting.*
For schools, check that all electrical appliances in the teachers’ lounge are turned off and unplugged.
Unplug vending machines (be sure
to inform the vendor).
Check computer rooms. Turn off and unplug computers, monitors,
speakers, projectors and printers.
Turn off intercom and conference room systems.
KITCHENS & WORKSHOPS
Confirm that all kitchen equipment, both gas and electric, is turned off.
Consolidate items from multiple
refrigerators into one and clean out, open and unplug others.*
Milk coolers not in use should be
turned off.*
Turn off electric water heaters at
circuit box.
Turn off any hot water boosters for kitchen dishwashers.
Turn off domestic hot water circulating pumps, if feasible.
Check to see that all compressors
used in facilities or other shops are turned off.
*Send e-mail to appropriate staff
requesting they take these steps prior to leaving.
Save energy when shutting
down commercial buildings
Leaving Lights On
If you are concerned about security,
it’s smart to leave at least one light
on to deter burglars (or to put a few
lights on an automatic timer). If you
do leave any lights on, just make
sure they are all LEDs, which use the
least amount of energy. Businesses
with a security fence should turn off
all their lighting. Just make sure to
close and lock your fence.
Unplug Energy-Nabbing Devices
Few people realize it, but electronics
and appliances use energy even
when they are off. These “parasitic
load” devices include printers,
scanners, personal entertainment
systems, personal computers and
other at-the-ready equipment that
may be located throughout your
offices. Unplugging these devices
before you leave will save energy
while you’re temporarily away.
Curtains and Blinds
Save on heating and cooling by
making sure all the windows of your
building are closed and locked and
that curtains and blinds are shut. This
helps heat from coming in during
the summer and prevents heat loss
in the winter.
Refrigeration
A refrigerator can use up to $80 a
year in electricity—even if it’s not
opened. To save energy, empty the
contents of all refrigerators, unplug
them, and open the doors (block
them so they stay open). The same
goes for any miniature refrigerators
as well, and be sure to turn off lights
in walk-in refrigerators. Also check
to see if you have other types of
refrigeration systems that can be
shut off. You’ll save money by pulling
the plug on water coolers not being
used, as well. If your business uses
air compressors, shut them all off if
there is not work occurring in the
building. Although air compressors
may not sound as if they’re running,
they will come on every time there
is a slight drop in pressure. Last but
not least, as you turn devices off,
put sticky notes on them to remind
people that they should be off (and
as a reminder for you to turn them
back on when you return).
HVAC Systems
If you must shorten the occupancy
hours of your building, also
shorten the operating time of
your HVAC system and automated
lighting systems by changing the
programming in your EMS system,
programmable thermostats, or
manual thermostats. If your building
will be unoccupied for several
weeks, consider lowering your
HVAC heating set point to 45°F.
This will create a noticeable drop in
HVAC usage and should not pose a
problem to the building, as long as
you monitor for extended periods of
freezing temperatures.
Water Heater
Save electricity or natural gas by
turning down your water heater
when you leave. A water heater
consumes 25% of its energy to keep
the tank of water warm—even if
hot water is not being used. When
lowering the water temperature,
set it above 115°F or below 75°F
to prevent the growth of Legionella
bacteria, which can cause illness.
If you think you’ll be away for an
extended period, shut off your water
heater completely. Make sure your
circulation pumps are off, as well.
Save energy when leaving a building
unoccupied. Just follow
these simple energy-saving tips from Avista. The larger your facility, the more you
can save.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 20
FIGURE 9 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PREPARATIONS FOR WORKFORCE RE-ENTRY CHECKLIST
FIGURE 10 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SUPPORT FOR SMALL BUSINESSES DURING THE COVID-19 CRISIS FLYER
Preparations for
Workforce Re-Entry
GENERAL BEST PRACTICES
Begin completing these checklist
tasks a week early for a successful reopening.
Restart larger or hastily closed
buildings earlier as they take more time to recommission.
Send emails to educate building occupants about restarting
procedures.
Restart systems and equipment backward from shutdown order to
avoid damage.
Complete a complete facility inspection a day before reopening.
ELECTRICITY AND GAS
Check all circuit breakers/fuses to ensure they are not tripped/blown.
Ensure natural gas valves are open and that fittings do not leak.
Plug in all office equipment, such
as copiers, computers, printers, sound systems, task lighting,
breakroom appliances, etc.
Turn on intercom and conference room systems.
Inspect and plug in refrigerated water fountains and water coolers.
Plug in vending machines (be sure
to inform the vendor).
Ensure all gas appliances have relit
pilot lights and are operational.
Test the building security system.
LIGHTING
Check all lighting controls and
adjust settings to new operational schedules.
Ensure exit and security lights are
working.
Turn on all display-case lighting.
WATER
Flush water through all lines,
especially drinking and potable sources, before use.
Make sure all water fountain, faucet, toilet and shower valves are
open and do not leak.
Turn on all automatic flushing systems.
Turn on water heaters and set temperatures at or above 120° F to meet safety requirements.
Ensure hot-water recirculating pumps are turned on and
operational.
Turn on any hot water boosters for kitchen dishwashers.
Ensure facility and shop compressors are turned on.
HEATING & AC/REFRIGERATION
Inspect ductwork for holes/leaks
as well as rodent or other animal nests.
Replace dirty filters with higher-
efficiency filters that are sealed properly.
Ensure required vents are open.
Turn on all necessary ventilation fans.
Test economizers to ensure they are
not stuck open or closed.
Ensure all HVAC equipment and timers, including programmable thermostats, are operating
properly. (Remember to check rooms with individual HVAC
controls.)
Gradually adjust temperature settings to suit occupancy levels (adjust a few degrees each day over a week).
Maximize the introduction of outside air (per CDC guidelines)
to dilute airborne contaminants/viruses while maintaining indoor
comfort.
Aim for 40-60% relative humidity, which is considered ideal for containing the virus.
Apply additional ASHRAE
measures, including those for high-risk situations, found at
ashrae.org/technical-resources/commercial
Check equipment refrigerant levels to ensure there are no leaks. (Turn
on milk coolers, if applicable.)
TRAFFIC EFFORT/SIGNAGE
Place signs on all entrance doors
reminding occupants not to enter if they have COVID-19 symptoms. Encourage personal health monitoring for employees as well.
Suggest (or require) face masks for all occupants, visitors and
maintenance personnel as part of entrance-sign messaging.
Install signs listing CDC guidelines for COVID-19 in breakrooms and other highly used rooms.See “Print Resources” at cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/communication
Install signs that encourage safe
physical distancing and respiratory etiquette (cover sneezes) in high-traffic and confined areas.
Install signs that urge 20-second
handwashing in common areas and restrooms.
Consider 6-foot physical-distance
markings on floors.
POINTS OF CONTACT/TOUCH
Limit elevator capacity where
possible.
Provide open access to stairwells where security requirements allow.
Prop open interior doors that do not pose a security or safety risk in
order to provide hands-free traffic.
Remove some tables and seating in breakrooms/conference areas for added physical distancing, and keep disinfectant wipes nearby to clean tables, handles and other
equipment after each use.
Consider staggering employee breaks so fewer people are in
breakroom areas at the same time.
Consider installing automated faucets, soap dispensers and towel dispensers in bathrooms.
Consider installing ultraviolet
disinfection lighting to create sterile environments.
JANITORIAL/MAINTENANCE
Focus on cleaning and disinfecting
high-touch surfaces using EPA-recommended products which eliminate SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.
Install stations with alcohol-based (70%) hand sanitizer in common
areas with high-touch surfaces such as elevator buttons and door
handles.
Supply additional soap and paper towels in breakrooms.
Frequently clean and disinfect breakroom refrigerator, microwave,
coffee station, etc.
Close blinds during cooling season to prevent solar heat gain. Open blinds during heating season to do the opposite.
Perform building inspections/non-urgent repairs when rooms and
offices are least crowded. Instruct nearby staff to wear masks when
appropriate.
Support for small businesses
during the COVID-19 crisis
Small businesses are the backbone of our country. It’s why Avista is dedicated to supporting you in these challenging times. We want to empower small business owners like you by providing advice and services to help, including:
• Making payment arrangements
• Applying security deposits to existing account balances (if applicable)
• Providing references to existing resources in Idaho and the federal
programs available from the $2 Trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, (CARES Act)
Let our dedicated support team help with your business.
Please call 509-495-4717 or 800-936-6629
(Monday thru Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) or email [e-mail]
(See additional information on back)
COVID-19 Small Business Resources for Idaho
U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business
& Entrepreneurship:
A small business owner’s guide to the CARES Act.
sbc.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/guide-to-the-cares-act
home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/ assistance-for-small-businesses
SBA COVID-19 Small Business
Guidance & Loan Resources:Long-term, low-interest SBA loans due to COVID-19
for eligible small business owners.
sba.gov/page/coronavirus-covid-19-small- business-guidance-loan-resources
SBA Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program:
Working-capital loans of up to $2 million to help
small businesses overcome temporary revenue loss.
disasterloan.sba.gov/ela
Paycheck Protection Program (PPP)
information Sheet – Borrowers:
Borrowers information fact sheet.
home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/PPP--Fact-Sheet.pdf
Coronavirus Emergency Loans Guide
and Checklist for Small Businesses:
uschamberfoundation.org/reports/coronavirus- emergency-loans-guide-and-checklist-small-businesses -and-nonprofits
Business & Industry Loan Guarantees
Offers loan guarantees to rural businesses.
rd.usda.gov/programs-services/business-industry- loan-guarantees
Avista’s COVID-19 Response and Resources:Energy-saving tips for closing buildings, suggested
HVAC system changes, FAQs and more.
myavista.com/safety/covid-19-response
Innovia Foundation:
Two COVID-19 Response and Recovery Funds for
community-based organizations working at the
frontlines of the outbreak in Eastern Washington and North Idaho.
innovia.org/covid19
Joint Business Service Providers
cdaedc.org/covid19
Idaho Small Business Development Center:COVID-19 resources for North Idaho.
idahosbdc.org/covid-19-resources
Idaho Community Foundation Response and Recovery Fund for Idaho, which will
provide grants to trusted organizations that support
and serve low-income Idahoans.
idahocf.org/covid-19
United Way of North Idaho
Coeur d’Alene Coronavirus Relief Fund
unitedwayofnorthidaho.org/coronavirus-relief-fund
Where to find business relief assistance due to COVID-19
Avista is committed to a strong future for small businesses. Below are some sources of local, state and federal help that may be available to your small business.
Federal Resources
Idaho Resources
©️ 2020 AVISTA CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 21
FIGURE 11 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ACCOUNT EXECS EMAIL TEMPLATE
FIGURE 12 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL MULTIFAMILY DIRECT INSTALL FLYER,
REFLECTING TEMPORARY PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS DUE TO COVID-19
Free LED Light Bulb Exchange for Multifamily Units
Your property management team is participating in the Avista Multifamily Direct Install Program. Avista is
providing free energy-saving LED light bulbs that can help you lower your utility bills. This is an equipment
exchange program; if you’d like to participate, please bring your inefficient light bulbs to the on-site tent (see
below) and we’ll exchange them for LEDs. Please follow CDC guidelines for social distancing and wear a mask.
Masks will be available for anyone who needs one.
Replacing an incandescent light bulb with an LED is quick and easy – not to mention smart.
Not only do they provide better lighting, they also use about 90 percent less electricity than
an incandescent bulb. And they can last up to 50 times longer than both incandescents and
CFLs. LEDs are also cool to the touch – unlike incandescent bulbs, which waste much of their
electricity to heat, leading to increased fire risk.
Replacing your light bulbs
1) Turn off the light at the switch.
2) Remove your old compact fluorescent or incandescent light bulbs.
(If you already have LEDs, please don’t replace them.)
3) Take your old light bulbs to the Avista representative –
where: _____________________________________________________________________________________________
when: _____________________________________________ or: _____________________________________________.
4) Place the new LED light bulb into the socket.
5) Gently turn clockwise until it stops.
6) Turn on the light at the switch.
If have any questions, please contact us. We’ve attached your Avista representative’s business card to this form.
Only replace CFLs (left) and
incandescents (right).
Thank you for participating in this Avista energy-efficiency program!
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 22
Business Partner Program
The Business Partner Program (BPP) began in fall 2019 as an outreach effort designed to target small business
customers in Avista’s rural service territories. Initiated with an introductory letter followed by a site visit, it was revised
in March 2021 to mail-only due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The BPP brings awareness of Avista’s services to rural
small business customers in Washington and Idaho, and includes information on energy audits, budget billing plans,
energy-efficiency rebates, and, most recently, information related to COVID-19.
By the end of 2021, the BPP had reached 1,926 small businesses in 15 Idaho rural service territories. Outreach
communication included mail, email, phone calls, and some initial site visits. Seven audits were performed, and 53
incandescent lamps were replaced with LEDs for a savings of 6,464 kWh.
In April of 2021, Avista introduced the Trade Ally Bid Program, in which the company arranges for various vendors
(e.g., lighting, HVAC, window, and insulation) to provide cost estimates to customers for energy-efficiency upgrades
to their facilities. This service also helps to educate and empower business owners and their employees to use less
energy. Avista has collaborated with trade ally partners to help customers identify energy conservation projects by
performing audits, walking through the efficiency incentive process, and helping customers obtain bids for projects.
The Trade Ally Bid Program has enabled Avista to reach small business customers who may not have the time, budget,
or access to contractors to make efficiency improvements. By the end of 2021, the program provided cost estimates
to eight small business customers in Idaho.
FIGURE 13 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARTNER PROGRAM NEWSLETTER
Business Partner Program
Avista’s COVID-19 Response To learn more please visit: myavista.com/safety/covid-19-response
COVID-19 Programs and Assistance for Small Business:
Innovia Foundation – COVID-19 Community Response and Recovery Funds
Local philanthropic, government and business partners have joined to create two COVID-19 Response and
Recovery Funds, both of which will be rapidly deployed to community-based organizations working at the frontlines of the COVID-19 outbreak in Eastern Washington and North Idaho. Funds are intended to
complement the work of public health officials, medical providers, businesses and governments and expand
their capacity of to more effectively address the regional outbreak. For details, visit: innovia.org/covid19
SBA – COVID-19 Small Business Guidance & Loan Resources
Small business owners in all U.S. states, Washington D.C. and U.S. territories are eligible to apply for a long-
term, low-interest loan from The Small Business Association (SBA) due to COVID-19. The SBA will work directly with state governors to target this vital economic support toward small businesses and non-profits severely
impacted by the virus.
Visit: sba.gov/page/coronavirus-covid-19-small-business-guidance-loan-resources
SBA – Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program
The Economic Injury Disaster Loan program provides working-capital loans of up to $2 million to help small businesses overcome temporary revenue loss. For details, visit:
Disaster Loan Assistance Application: disasterloan.sba.gov/ela
Access to local assistance: disasterloan.sba.gov/ela
Avista’s new Business Partner Program is an outreach effort aimed at rural small-
business customers in Washington and Idaho to create awareness of utility programs
and services related to the recent spread of COVID-19. The situation has caused all of
us to make changes in how we operate our business.
Here is what you should know:
Best of success,
Lorri Kirstein – Program Manager
Avista’s Business Partner Program
[e-mail]
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 23
Customer Satisfaction
Evaluators conducted process evaluations of the site-specific and prescriptive programs for 2021. The methodology
consisted of interviews with program staff at Avista as well as online surveys with trade allies and program
participants.
Interviews with Avista program 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 evaluator conducted 81 online surveys in 2021 with commercial/industrial program participants in Idaho and
Washington. Site visits and telephone reminder calls were used to increase survey participation. The participant survey
guides gathered critical insights into participants’ program journey, covering the following topics:
◆Program awareness
◆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

2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 24
Key Findings
The impact of COVID-19 on project scope was minimal, but there may be slight reductions in the number
or scope of energy-efficiency projects due to budget or staff constraints. Ten of 13 site-specific respondents
and 88 percent of prescriptive participants (n=59) said COVID-19 did not create any obstacles to their 2021 project;
most respondents who reported obstacles said those obstacles were minor. Four of 13 site-specific respondents and
24 percent of prescriptive respondents expected reductions to budget or staff availability to support energy-efficiency
upgrades in 2021.
Although contractors drive a significant portion of participation, continued Avista outreach and messaging
is important to support contractor sales. Eight of 15 site-specific participants and 70 percent of prescriptive
participants (n=63) reported first hearing about the Avista program from a contractor, vendor, or retailer. Twelve
of 15 site-specific participants and 55 percent of prescriptive participants (n=64) thought the best way to learn
about rebates and incentives was through Avista emails or direct mail, or communication from an Avista account
representative.
Despite some process issues in 2021, participants are satisfied with the application process and the
program overall. Site-specific satisfaction was lowest for process-related aspects, including submitting the rebate
application (75 percent satisfied, n=15) and the time to process the application (87 percent satisfied), but 100 percent
of respondents were satisfied with the program overall. Though 14 percent of prescriptive participants mentioned
that the application paperwork was burdensome – and 9 percent had some difficulty understanding requirements –
100 percent of participants were satisfied with the program overall, and several respondents mentioned the easy and
fast process as an aspect of the program that worked well. Suggestions for process improvements were related to
potential enhancements (such as a searchable database of eligible products, or a chat feature for application support)
rather than suggestions to correct significant problems.
Recommendations
The evaluator offered the following recommendations to improve customer satisfaction for Avista’s commercial/
industrial programs:
◆Develop tools to help participants sort through options and scope eligible projects more quickly.
For example, although the Avista website currently directs customers to search for eligible lighting on the
ENERGY STAR Product Finder database or Design Lights Consortium websites, both of which have advanced
search functionality, the results can be overwhelming. A resource such as an “Energy-Efficiency Buying
Guide” for specific products could help customers with less technical background navigate their options or
evaluate and understand proposals they receive from contractors.
◆If not already doing so, use emails, bill inserts, and other promotional tools that are direct from
Avista to its customers, and use Avista branding to promote commercial/industrial programs
and incentives. Participants were more likely to want communication directly from Avista than through
their contractor or vendor. These marketing efforts will enhance any contractor and vendor marketing or
advertising, and give sales representatives better credibility, enabling them to make more sales through the
program.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 25
◆Consider developing and using customer testimonials in targeted outreach to those who have
not historically participated in programs. The testimonials from satisfied participants could focus on
the ease of participating in the programs and the benefits of participation, such as reduced energy use, bill
savings, and receiving the rebate. The marketing could also provide information to prospective participants on
potential energy savings for businesses with similar profiles.
◆Continue to look for ways to provide contractor and installer training, educational resources about
program requirements, and application completion tips to remove roadblocks or communication
issues between Avista and participants.
Program-specific customer satisfaction recommendations, as well as Avista’s plans to improve the customer
experience, are described in more detail in the program-by-program summaries (see pages 31-59).
Impact Evaluation: Commercial/Industrial Sector
Although some individual project results varied, particularly within the Prescriptive Exterior Lighting Program,
the overall commercial/industrial sector performed strongly in 2021 relative to reported savings. Most projects
that Cadmus sampled for the evaluation were well documented and matched findings from the remote project
verifications. Savings realization rates were as follows:
◆Electric: total verified savings of 11,943 MWh in 2021 with a combined realization rate of 101 percent
◆Natural Gas: total verified savings of 20,726 therms with a combined realization rate of 100 percent
Performance and Savings Goals
The commercial/industrial sector did not meet the combined prescriptive and site-specific program paths’ electric
goal of 13,757 MWh, with the programs achieving 87 percent of the overall goal. For natural gas programs, the
commercial/industrial sector also fell short of the annual therm savings goal for combined prescriptive and site-specific
programs, achieving 20,725 therms (40 percent of the combined prescriptive and site-specific program paths’ natural
gas savings goal of 51,225 therms).
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 26
Impact Evaluation Methodology
As the first step in evaluating electric and natural gas savings for the commercial/industrial sector, Cadmus explored
the following documents and data records to gain an understanding of the programs and measures slated for
evaluation:
◆Avista’s annual business plans, detailing processes and energy savings justifications
◆Project documents from external sources (such as customers, program consultants, or implementation
contractors)
◆Avista’s iEnergy tracking system
Based on the initial review, Cadmus checked the distribution of program contributions with the overall program
portfolio. The review provided insight into the sources for unit energy savings (UES) claimed for each measure offered
in the programs, along with sources for energy-savings algorithms, internal quality assurance, and quality control
processes for large commercial/industrial sector projects.
Following this review, Cadmus designed a sample strategy for impact evaluation activities and performed the
following evaluation activities in two waves:
◆Selected evaluation sample and requested project documentation from Avista
◆Reviewed project documentation
◆Prepared virtual site-visit M&V plans
◆Performed virtual site visits using the Streem platform and collected on-site data (such as trends, photos, and
operating schedules)
◆Used virtual site-visit findings to calculate evaluated savings by measure
◆Applied realization rates to the total reported savings population to determine overall evaluated savings
Sample Design
Cadmus created two sample waves for 2021. Sample 1 included program data from January through June; sample
2 included program data from July through December. As a guideline, Cadmus used the proposed overall 2019
commercial/industrial sample sizes by subprogram in the measurement and verification plan, seeking to complete
approximately half of the sample in each wave.
Cadmus initially estimated the total annual population size by reviewing the wave 1 population data and comparing
it to 2018-19. It developed initial sample size targets to achieve 90 percent confidence at ±10 percent precision
(90/10) for the estimated annual population for 2021, with a target of 90/20 by program. After receiving the wave 2
population data, Cadmus revised the annual sample size targets for the full year and selected the wave 2 sample to
complete the revised target within each program.
Avista advised Cadmus not to evaluate certain programs with low participation and historically consistent realization
rates every year. Since the Green Motors Program has shown a 100 percent realization rate in every prior evaluation,
Cadmus did not evaluate the program in 2021. Cadmus evaluated the Food Services and HVAC Programs in
2020 only, and the Energy Smart Grocer and Prescriptive Shell Programs only in 2021. Cadmus evaluated all other
commercial/industrial programs that had participation in 2020 and 2021.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 27
For each sample wave, Cadmus developed a stratified random sample of applications by program (such as Site-
Specific Other, Site-Specific Lighting, Prescriptive Interior Lighting, or Prescriptive Motor Controls). In programs where
individual projects represented a significant portion of the total savings in the program, the team selected the highest-
savings applications with certainty. Within programs with a wide variance in savings, the team further stratified
non-certainty applications by reported savings magnitude into small and medium strata, each with approximately 50
percent of the total non-certainty program savings. The team assigned random numbers within each stratum to select
a random sample of non-certainty sites. In some cases, Cadmus selected additional applications at the same location
as a previously selected application to evaluate as a convenience selection if the team could assess both applications in
a single virtual visit.
Cadmus encountered some challenges contacting customers to evaluate the wave 1 sample, primarily due to changes
in business operations as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The team pulled an additional backup sample for the
wave 2 sample using random sampling and recruited participants from the backup sample when participants from the
initial random sample were unreachable.
The team pooled results from the randomly selected sites to calculate a realization rate by stratum and applied that
realization rate to projects in the population in that stratum. Cadmus applied the project-specific evaluated savings for
every project that was in the sample, regardless of whether it was a random, certainty, or convenience selection.
Table 15 summarizes the Idaho commercial/industrial prescriptive program path evaluation sample. Cadmus sampled
41 prescriptive applications at 32 unique sites. Of the sampled applications, the team selected five for certainty review
based on the scale of savings, selected the 29 randomly, and selected seven additional convenience projects based on
location. There was no participation in the AirGuardian, Fleet Heat, and Motor Control Programs in 2021.
Table 15 shows the total number of unique application IDs sampled in each program, including three applications
containing measures from more than one program.
TABLE 15 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE ELECTRIC EVALUATION SAMPLE
Program Type Applications Sampled Sampled Savings
(kWh)
Percentage of
Reported Savings
Interior Lighting 15 458,642 14%
Exterior Lighting 19 594,496 25%
Shell Measure 2 2,547 100%
Motor Control HVAC (VFD)2 56,210 100%
Energy Smart Grocer 2 4,323 100%
Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive 35 1,116,218 19%
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 28
Table 16 summarizes the Site-Specific Program path’s evaluation sample, where Cadmus sampled 12 site-specific
applications at 12 unique sites overall. Of the sampled applications, the team selected three for certainty review based
on the savings scale and selected the remaining nine applications randomly.
TABLE 16 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE-SPECIFIC ELECTRIC EVALUATION SAMPLE
Program Path Applications Sampled Sampled Savings
(kWh)
Percentage of
Reported Savings
Site-Specific 13 3,751,483 70%
Table 17 summarizes the Idaho commercial/industrial prescriptive program path natural gas evaluation sample.
Overall, Cadmus sampled 14 prescriptive applications at 14 unique sites, selecting all applications randomly. The team
did not select any applications for certainty review.
TABLE 17 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE NATURAL GAS EVALUATION SAMPLE
Program Type Applications Sampled Sampled Savings
(therms)
Percentage of
Reported Savings
HVAC 7 3,553 26%
Shell 0 0 0%
Food Service Equipment 7 4,490 33%
Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive 14 8,043 28%
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Table 18 summarizes the Idaho commercial/industrial Site-Specific Program path’s natural gas evaluation sample.
Cadmus sampled one site-specific application at one unique site. The team selected the sampled application with
certainty as it was the only natural gas participant in the Site-Specific Program.
TABLE 18 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE-SPECIFIC NATURAL GAS EVALUATION SAMPLE
Program Applications Sampled Sampled Savings
(therms)
Percentage of
Reported Savings
Site-Specific 1 94 100%
Document Review
Cadmus requested and reviewed project documentation for each sampled application and prepared M&V plans
to guide the site visits. Typically, project documentation included data entered into the iEnergy system, incentive
application forms, calculation workbooks, invoices, equipment specification sheets, and Avista installation verification
(IV) reports.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 29
Remote Verification
Cadmus performed virtual site visits and verification calls at 36 unique commercial/industrial locations to assess
electric savings for 102 unique prescriptive and site-specific measures (not including fuel-efficiency measures) from
44 different applications. To assess natural gas savings, Cadmus performed verifications at 14 unique commercial/
industrial locations in Idaho to assess natural gas energy savings for 17 unique prescriptive and site-specific measures
(not including fuel-efficiency measures). Cadmus evaluated the remaining applications through desk reviews that did
not require participant outreach, or through verification calls, which involved a brief discussion by phone or video to
confirm key details and any information that was missing in the project documentation. Cadmus typically conducted
video calls using the Streem platform, which records video and audio. The team conducted some verifications using
Microsoft Teams meetings if customers were unable to access Streem or preferred using Teams due to prior familiarity.
Cadmus used the project documentation review and on-site findings to adjust the reported savings calculations where
necessary.
Impact Evaluation Recommendations
Cadmus offers the following conclusions and recommendations to improve the commercial/industrial sector’s energy
savings.
Cadmus found that Avista’s new iEnergy system records detailed inputs on some prescriptive measures that were not
previously tracked in Infor CRM and are not currently used in the savings calculations.
Recommendation: Review deemed savings values for prescriptive measures and consider opportunities to use the
additional data now collected in iEnergy to calculate more accurate savings for each participant project. For example,
food service measures can use the reported pounds of food cooked per day and cooking hours per day values
collected in iEnergy to automatically calculate more precise savings.
The iEnergy system introduced variance of up to five percent between reported and evaluated savings by rounding
intermediate wattage calculation values.
Recommendation: Review iEnergy calculations to ensure that rounding is only applied on final displayed values and
not to any intermediate values.
Cadmus staff found that the level of detail in IV reports varied. Many IV reports only mention that “equipment and
quantities were verified,” and photos sometimes show the equipment only from a distance. Cadmus recommends
including additional details in IV reports in 2019 and 2020, though it didn’t observe additional detail in IV reports
reviewed in 2021.
Recommendation: Provide more consistent documentation with Avista IV reports. Cadmus recommends that all IV
reports include basic information explicitly stating the quantity and type of equipment found. For lighting projects, this
would include confirmed fixture types, quantities, installation locations, controls, and estimated HOU. For most other
equipment, this would include nameplates, model numbers, and quantities.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 30
Cost-Effectiveness
Tables 19 and 20 show the commercial/industrial sector cost-effectiveness results by fuel type.
TABLE 19 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 5,625,230 $ 5,161,398 1.09
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 5,113,845 $ 3,808,611 1.34
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 11,465,145 $ 4,454,119 2.57
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 5,113,845 $ 12,172,425 0.42
TABLE 20 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NATURAL GAS COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 109,588 $ 221,655 0.49
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 109,588 $ 169,968 0.64
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 246,625 $ 99,169 2.49
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 109,588 $ 369,111 0.30
As noted above, the UCT benefit-to-cost ratio for the commercial/industrial sector was 0.49 in 2021. While Avista
always strives to ensure programs are cost-effective, the commercial/industrial natural gas program is very cost-
sensitive due to its low participation rates. As compared to 2020, the 2021 program had a decrease in therm savings,
yet continued to carry administrative costs that are allocated to Idaho natural gas. This decrease in savings was
enough to move the program from a 1.01 UCT to a 0.64 UCT. As significant projects are completed, however, future
years could see a material shift in CE with avoided cost benefits far exceeding the costs of providing those benefits.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 31
Program-by-Program Summaries
Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Program
TABLE 21 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE-SPECIFIC PROGRAM METRICS
Site-Specific – Electric 2021
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 174
Overall kWh Savings 5,470,488
Incentive Spend $ 996,932
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 285,774
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 1,282,706
Site-Specific – Natural Gas 2021
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects -
Overall Therm Savings 0
Incentive Spend $ 0
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 0
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 0
Description
The commercial/industrial energy-efficiency market is delivered through a combination of prescriptive and site-specific
offerings. Any measure not offered through a prescriptive program is automatically eligible for treatment through the
Site-Specific Program, subject to the criteria for participation in that program. Avista’s account executives work with
commercial/industrial customers to provide assistance in identifying energy-efficiency opportunities. Customers receive
technical assistance in determining potential energy and cost savings as well as identifying and estimating incentives
for participation. Site-specific projects include appliances, compressed air, HVAC, industrial process, motors (non‐
prescriptive), shell, and lighting, with the majority being HVAC, lighting, and shell.
Program Activities
◆Electric: Savings of 5,470,488 kWh, or 40 percent of the overall electric savings. The largest percentage of
incentives went to lighting projects (61 percent).
◆Natural Gas: No savings were recognized in 2021.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 32
Measure type and savings are shown in Figure 14.
FIGURE 14 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE-SPECIFIC PROGRAM INCENTIVE DOLLARS BY MEASURE
Program Changes
In 2021, Avista did not make any changes to site-specific programs. Incentives for any qualifying electric or natural gas
energy-saving improvements with a 15-year simple payback or less continue to be offered.
$ 612,057 Site-Specic Lighting
$ 384,875 all other measures
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 33
Customer Satisfaction
Cadmus evaluated the Site-Specific Program in its 2021 process evaluation. Ten of 11 respondents were very or
somewhat satisfied with the overall program. Figure 15 compares the percentage of 2021 respondents rating
themselves very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with different aspects of the site-specific program with responses from
2020. Respondents were more likely to be satisfied with several components in 2021 than in 2020: communication
with vendors (100 percent in 2021 vs. 93 percent in 2020), the rebate amount (100 percent in 2021 vs. 93 percent in
2020 ), and completing the rebate application/materials (100 percent in 2021 vs. 75 percent in 2020). Respondents
were less satisfied in 2021 than in 2020 with the technical assistance they received, their post-project inspection, and
their communication with their Avista account representative.
FIGURE 15 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE-SPECIFIC PROGRAM RESPONDENTS SATISFIED WITH COMPONENTS
Source: 2021 and 2020 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.” Showing only respondents that indicated they were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied.
Communication with your account executive
Post-project inspection
The technical assistance you
received from Avista staff (i.e.
analysis report)
The program overall
The project contract process
Percentage of Respondents
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
3
5
0%100%90%
100%
86%
Completing and submitting the
rebate application and all
required materials
Pre-project inspection
Your communication and
interaction with program
contractors/vendors
The rebate amount
The time it took to process
your application
100%
90%
100%
90%
87%
90%
92%
91%
100%
91%
100%
100%
75%
100%
93%
100%
93%
100%
Satised, 2021 (n=11)Satised, 2020 (n=12)
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 34
As shown in Table 22, eight of 11 respondents provided feedback about their program participation challenges. The
most common challenge reported was lack of knowledge about the program (four respondents). Two respondents
reported that coordinating internal resources and external contractors were challenges for them.
TABLE 22 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE-SPECIFIC PROGRAM PARTICIPATION CHALLENGES
Challenge 2021
Knowledge of the programs, costs and/or the rebates 4
Coordinating internal resources and external contractors 2
COVID-19 restrictions 1
Coordinating with Avista 1
Source: Site-specific survey question E4: “What do you so see as the biggest challenges to participating in Avista’s site-specific program for your company or other
companies like yours (n=8)?”
On the other hand, 2021 respondents commented on many aspects of the program that worked well:
◆“The Avista energy-efficiency program engineering and utility account executive teams were very helpful.”
◆“Communication from Avista account executive.”
◆“It was relatively easy and fast to participate in, so that was appreciated.”
◆“[The] rebates are a great incentive.”
◆“Keep doing what you’re doing. It worked out well.”
Four of the 11 survey respondents provided suggestions about improving the program, which primarily fell into
categories listed below:
◆Increase communication about programs (three respondents)
◆Increase rebate amounts (one respondent)
Eight of 11 2021 respondents said the rebate provided by Avista was very important in their decision to complete
their project. Another three said it was somewhat important. When making capital upgrades, eight respondents
said energy efficiency was very important, two said it was somewhat important and only one said it was not too
important.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 35
As shown in Figure 16, respondents most frequently selected energy or operating costs as the most important criteria
for making energy-efficiency improvements (100 percent). This was followed closely by the rebate or the availability of
outside funding (90 percent).
FIGURE 16 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE-SPECIFIC PROGRAM IMPORTANT CRITERIA FOR
ENERGY-EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS
Source: Site-specific survey question F5: “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, three 2021 respondents purchased energy-efficient equipment, and
one adopted new energy-efficient protocols and purchased new equipment. Three respondents who mentioned
purchasing new equipment had invested in lighting upgrades. One had purchased compressor upgrades and one
upgraded to digital programmable thermostats.
Information from your Avista
account executive or other
program staff
Payback period
Initial cost of the equipment
Percentage of Respondents
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
30%100%90%
Return on investment
Maintenance costs
Energy or operating costs
Availability of rebates and/or other outside funding
Information from a contractor,
vendor, or retailer
31%
30%
38%
60%
75%
60%
69%
60%
56%
70%
81%
70%
75%
90%
81%
100%
2021 (n=10)2020 (n=16)
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 36
COVID-19 Impacts
In 2021, respondents faced potential obstacles related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Six respondents said there were no
impacts to their project from the pandemic, however. Most respondents (three of 10) who faced challenges related to
COVID-19 experienced issues with both general delays and delays in receiving equipment. One respondent said their
project scope was affected because it was difficult to get supplies; another said both their project scope and timeline
were affected.
Two respondents thought the COVID-19 impacts would not affect their organization’s interest in or ability to complete
other energy-efficiency projects. Two respondents thought there would be less budget available; two thought there
would be more interest in cost-cutting projects like efficiency. One noted that their organization’s interest would not
be affected unless there were new guidelines and policies mandated.
Impact Evaluation
Table 23 shows reported and evaluated electric energy savings for Avista’s commercial/industrial Site-Specific Program
path for the year. The overall Site-Specific Program path had a 102 percent electric realization rate. The table does not
include reported and evaluated electric savings for measures in the Multifamily Market Transformation Program which,
for the purposes of the Cadmus Impact Evaluation Report, were included as a site-specific program.
TABLE 23 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE-SPECIFIC PROGRAM ELECTRIC IMPACT FINDINGS
Program Path Reported Savings
(kWh)
Evaluated Savings
(kWh) Realization Rate
Site-Specific 5,355,291 5,470,488 102%
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 37
Of 13 evaluated applications, Cadmus identified discrepancies in 12, based on in-person and virtual site visits and
project documentation review. Table 24 summarizes the reasons for discrepancies between reported and evaluated
savings.
TABLE 24 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE-SPECIFIC PROGRAM EVALUATION SUMMARY OF DISCREPANCIES
Project Type Number of
Occurrences Savings Impact Reason(s) for Discrepancy
Site-Specific Lighting
3 
Cadmus evaluated one project and found additional fixtures installed than
reported and increased the HOU for several areas of the facility.
Cadmus evaluated one project that reported replacing wall-mounted three-
lamp fluorescent fixtures with LED wall packs. The team confirmed with the
site contact that the baseline fixtures were actually standard high-intensity
discharge fixtures with higher baseline wattage than reported, increasing
estimated savings.
Cadmus evaluated two applications at one facility that used different HVAC
interactive factors. Cadmus adjusted the HVAC interactive factor for one
application to be consistent with the other application at this facility.
4 
Cadmus verified fewer fixtures installed in several areas of the facility for
one project.
Cadmus evaluated one project with several discrepancies across its
measures. One measure replaced a 75 W incandescent fixture with an LED,
but the Energy Independence and Security Act baseline wattage for these
types of lamps is 53 W. Avista used the correct baseline wattage to estimate
lighting savings, but the original 75 W value was referenced to calculate the
cooling savings due to interactive HVAC effects. Cadmus also adjusted the
baseline lamp type for another measure based on an interview with the site
contact and finding that the reported baseline lamp type would not mount
into the fixture that was retrofit.
Cadmus reduced the HOU for some fixtures on two projects based on
interviews with site staff.
Compressed Air 1 
Cadmus evaluated one compressed air project and used updated trend
data after the new air compressor was installed. We found an increase in
the average flow and average current from what was reported, increasing
energy savings.
Motor Controls
Industrial 2 
Cadmus updated the average motor load for one irrigation pump VFD
project to match the operational schedule reported. Cadmus also updated
the motor efficiencies based on the verified value on each motor’s
nameplate, increasing energy savings.
Cadmus increased the HOU of one project based on the run hours verified
on the equipment’s interface.
Appliance 1 
Cadmus adjusted the analysis inputs for one project based on the values
verified on the equipment’s nameplate. Cadmus verified that the systems
were single phase rather than three-phase as reported, reducing the
calculated energy consumption in the baseline and post periods.
Other 1 Cadmus increased the uptime HOU of one project which installed a VFD on
a forced draft fan of a boiler based on interviews with site staff.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 38
Recommendations
Evaluated hours of use (HOU) reported by site contacts during verification interviews often varied substantially from
the HOU reported on interior and exterior documentation for HOU lighting among site-specific projects.
◆Recommendation: Standardize the site-specific lighting report template to include a description of the
lighting schedule and HOU source. Ensure that meter data are clearly referred to in the report if a light state
logger or power meter is used to determine HOU.
◆Recommendation: Consider deploying light loggers on a random sample of lighting projects each year to
validate reported HOU values and develop an understanding of whether self-reported hours are typically over-
or under-reported compared to actual usage.
Cadmus evaluated a site-specific appliance project that used logger data provided by the implementer to estimate
savings. Avista also installed temporary electric current loggers and then estimated savings based on these data, but
ultimately did not report the savings from these calculations. Both calculations assumed the equipment had three-
phase service, but Cadmus verified that the installed equipment was single-phase.
◆Recommendation: When estimating power from logged current data, carefully review the equipment
nameplates and operating parameters to ensure the correct conversion. When multiple datasets are collected
for a project, clearly identify in the project files which dataset was used for the final estimation and document
why one dataset was chosen over the other.
Cadmus found that reported fixture quantities for site-specific lighting projects often did not match invoice quantities,
and applications often lacked detailed notes explaining these differences. It is often impractical for Avista staff
conducting IV inspections or evaluators conducting verification visits to count every fixture for large lighting projects
to resolve such discrepancies.
◆Recommendation: Include more detailed documentation for site-specific lighting projects. Applications
should include lighting drawings whenever possible, and should clearly explain any difference between
invoice quantities and rebated quantities. Lighting workbooks should note the locations where fixtures are
installed to facilitate verification by Avista and by evaluators. Avista IV inspection reports should explicitly
state the verified quantities of each fixture type and should include any notes, spreadsheets, or other
documentation used to verify the eligible quantities.
Plans for 2022
Avista plans to continue to offer the site-specific program in Idaho for both electric and natural gas customers in
2022. Avista will assess the current measurement and verification process and develop a standardized installation
verification report, which could include lighting schedules and hours of use as well as an indication if lighting loggers
or power meters were used for lighting projects, as well as nameplates, model numbers, and quantities of other
equipment installed.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 39
Commercial/Industrial Multifamily Natural Gas Market Transformation
TABLE 25 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL MULTIFAMILY NATURAL GAS MARKET TRANSFORMATION PROGRAM METRICS
Multifamily Natural Gas Market Transformation Program Summary 2021
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 5
Overall kWh Savings 711,593
Incentive Spend $ 890,123
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 99,738
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 989,860
Description
The site-specific program path also includes a market transformation initiative intended to encourage natural gas
space and water heating in multifamily residential developments. The focus is on new-construction multifamily
residential rental buildings with five or more units. The goal of the program is to address the split incentive issue
where developers are focused on low development costs, which can drive low-efficiency heating choices and place
a higher cost burden on building tenants. The program intends to create developer confidence in natural gas as a
heating option for multifamily construction, while also helping developers and building owners understand the added
long-term value of natural gas space and water heating systems. Avista offers program incentives of $3,000 per unit
for converting to natural gas by installing standard-efficiency space heat and water heaters.
Program Activities
In 2021, Idaho program performance was consistent with prior years. Five projects with a total of 121 units
were constructed. Savings totaled 711,593 kWh and $989,860 in total tariff rider spend. The multifamily market
transformation program accounted for approximately six percent of non-residential savings in 2021.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 40
Marketing
Avista’s account executive team focused on creating relationships with regional builders, including one-on-one
conversations with contractors and developers. The team also engaged in regular informal check-ins to provide
education about offered programs, benefits, savings, and payoffs in installing natural gas – from environmental,
comfort, and cost-saving standpoints.
FIGURE 17 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL MULTIFAMILY NATURAL GAS INCENTIVE PROGRAM FLYER
Impact Evaluation
Cadmus followed the same impact evaluation methodology for fuel-efficiency measures as outlined in the Impact
Evaluation Methodology section on page 26, sampling two of five multifamily market transformation projects in 2021.
TABLE 26 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL FUEL-EFFICIENCY IMPACT FINDINGS
Fuel-Efficiency Measure Reported Savings
(kWh)
Evaluated Savings
(kWh) Realization Rate
Multifamily Market Transformation 711,593 711,593 100%
Total 711,593 711,593 100%
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, using it directly in homes for heating and cooking is the most efficient use
of this natural resource.
Because direct use is the best use, Avista is offering incentives to assist developers in bringing this
convenient, plentiful, and versatile fuel into multifamily projects. This program is available exclusively
for Avista electric customers.
Eligibility
The Multifamily Natural Gas Incentive 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 1, 2020
and complete their projects within two years.
Funding
Avista incentives pay up to $3,000 per unit for installation
of either space heating or hot water – or a combination
of both.*
And once the project has natural gas heat, adding
a natural gas range, dryer, or fireplace is easy and
economical. Plus, installing high-efficiency natural gas
appliances can help make your property more attractive.
*Capped at 100% of the incremental cost to install
natural gas. Program subject to change.
Natural gas too costly to
install? Think again.
For more information or to apply, contact:
Jamie HowardAvista Account Executive208.769.1871
[e-mail]
728 Sherman, Coeur d’Alene
Idaho
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 41
Fuel Efficiency Conclusions and Recommendations
Multifamily Market Transformation (MFMT) fuel-efficiency measures achieved evaluated savings of 711,593 kWh,
yielding a 100 percent realization rate. Combined, the measures achieved 150 percent of the electric energy savings
goal of 475,794 kWh. The evaluator found that the MFMT Program achieved its objectives in 2021 and does not have
any recommendations for this program.
Plans for 2022
The program will continue in the Idaho service area. Avista has increased documentation standards for this program
and has not made any adjustments to the incentive levels.
Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Lighting Programs
TABLE 27 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE LIGHTING PROGRAM METRICS
Prescriptive Lighting Program Summary 2021
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 499
Overall kWh Savings 5,669,622
Incentive Spend $ 1,199,848
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 314,824
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 1,514,671
Description
This program is intended to prompt commercial electric customers to increase the energy efficiency of their lighting
equipment through direct financial incentives. It indirectly supports the infrastructure and inventory necessary to
ensure that the installation of high-efficiency equipment is a viable option for the customer.
There is opportunity for lighting improvements in commercial facilities – and, to streamline the process and make
it easier for customers and vendors to participate, Avista developed a prescriptive approach in 2004. This program
provides for many common retrofits to receive a predetermined incentive amount, which is calculated using a baseline
average for existing wattages and the average replacement wattages from the previous year’s project data. Claimed
energy savings is calculated based on actual customer run times and qualified product lighting data.
This streamlined approach makes program participation easier, especially for smaller customers and vendors. The
measures included in the prescriptive lighting program include fluorescent lamps and fixtures, HID, MR16, and
incandescent can fixture retrofits to more energy-efficient LED light sources and controls.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 42
Program Activities
Savings for prescriptive lighting were 5,669,622 kWh, or 42 percent of commercial/industrial electric savings, a 13
percent decrease in savings compared to 2020.
As the continued shift toward more prescriptive exterior lighting measures occurred in 2020 and 2021, the 4 foot
T12/T8 lamp replacement measure fell second to the sign lighting measure as the most popular, which also achieved
the highest kWh savings in 2021.
As seen in Figure 18, lighting throughput was not affected by COVID-19 in 2021. There was a noticeable shift toward
exterior lighting projects throughout the year which may have been a result of social distancing measures. However,
apart from June and September, monthly goals were met and annual savings targets were not affected.
FIGURE 18 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE LIGHTING PROGRAM SAVINGS BY MONTH
1,600,000
1,200,000
800,000
400,000
Jan
2020 2021
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Interior Exterior
0
1,400,000
1,000,000
600,000
200,000
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 43
FIGURE 19 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE INTERIOR LIGHTING PROGRAM KWH SAVINGS BY MEASURE
U-Bend T12/T8 to 23W or less T8 LED
4-Foot T5HO to 29W or less T5HO TLED
T12/T8 Fixture to 40W or less 2x2 LED LED Fixture
T12/T8 Fixture to 40W or less 1x4 LED LED Fixture
T12/T8 Fixture to 60W or less 2x4 LED LED Fixture
20-50W MR16 to 9W LED MR16 LED
6-Lamp T5HO Fixture to 160W or less LED Fixture
75-100W Incandescent Can to 20W LED Retrot
250W HID Fixture to 140W or less LED
1000W HID Fixture to 400W or less LED
Occupancy Sensor Controls
250,000 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000
LLLC Fixture Controls
400W HID Fixture to 175W or less LED
750,000 1,250,000
2-Foot T12/T8 to 13W or less T8 LED
3-Foot T12/T8 to 17W or less T8 LED
4-Foot T12/T8 to 23W or less T8 LED
8-Foot T12/T8 to 45W or less T8 LED
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 44
FIGURE 20 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE EXTERIOR LIGHTING PROGRAM KWH SAVINGS BY MEASURE
200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000
70-89W HID Fixture to 25W or less LED
90-100W HID Fixture to 30W or less LED
175W HID Fixture to 100W or less LED
175W HID Fixture to 100W or less LED (NC)
250W HID Fixture to 140W or less LED
250W HID Fixture to 140W or less LED (NC)
320-400W HID Fixture to 160W or less LED (NC)
320W HID Fixture to 160W or less LED
400W HID Fixture to 175W or less LED
750W HID Fixture to 300W or less LED
1000W HID Fixture to 400W or less LED
Sign Lighting
600,000
150W HID Fixture to 50W or less LED
100,000
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 45
Program Changes
Avista made the following changes to the program in 2021.
TABLE 28 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE LIGHTING PROGRAM CHANGES
2021 Changes to Commercial Lighting Rebates 2020 2021 2021 Mid-Year
Exterior Lighting
Replacement HID Lighting (Pole, Wallpack, or Canopy) – Requires at Least 4,288 Hours of Use per Year – Must Be DLC or ENERGY
STAR-Rated
70-89W HID fixture to ≤ 25W LED fixture, retrofit kit, or lamp $ 65 $ 65 $ 70
90-100W HID fixture to ≤ 30W LED fixture, retrofit kit, or lamp $ 85 $ 85 $ 100
150W HID fixture to ≤ 50W LED fixture, retrofit kit, or lamp $ 130 $ 130 $ 150
175W HID fixture to ≤ 100W LED fixture, retrofit kit, or lamp $ 130 $ 130 $ 155
250W HID fixture to ≤ 140W LED fixture, retrofit kit, or lamp $ 160 $ 180 $ 200
320W HID fixture to ≤ 160W LED fixture, retrofit kit, or lamp $ 195 $ 215 $ 270
400W HID fixture to ≤ 175W LED fixture, retrofit kit, or lamp $ 280 $ 285 $ 325
750W HID fixture to ≤ 300W LED fixture, retrofit kit, or lamp $ 490 $ 505 $ 575
1000W HID fixture to ≤ 400W LED fixture, retrofit kit, or lamp $ 610 $ 640 $ 820
New Construction Fixtures HID Lighting – Requires at Least 4,288 Hours of Use per Year – Must Be DLC or ENERGY STAR-Rated
175W code HID fixture to ≤ 100W LED fixture $ 130 $ 140 $ 150
250W code HID fixture to ≤ 140W LED fixture $ 160 $ 160 $ 175
320W code HID fixture to ≤ 160W LED fixture $ 195 $ 195 $ 220
Sign Lighting Retrofit – Requires at Least 4,288 Hours of Use per Year
T12 to LED sign lighting $ 22/SQFT $ 22/SQFT $ 11/SQFT
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 46
2021 Changes to Commercial Lighting Rebates 2020 2021 2021 Mid-Year
Interior Lighting
Fluorescent Tubular Lamps – Must Be DLC-Rated
T5HO four-foot TLED $ 12.50 $ 15.00 $ 22.00
T8 two-foot TLED $ 0.00 $ 8.00 $ 15.00
T8 three-foot TLED $ 0.00 $ 8.00 $ 15.00
T8 four-foot TLED $ 6.50 $ 8.00 $ 13.50
T8 four-foot TLED to TLED (>5W reduction) $ 0.00 $ 0.00
T8 U-bend TLED $ 10.00 $ 10.00 $ 16.00
T8 eight-foot TLED $ 11.50 $ 11.50 $ 12.00
Fluorescent Fixtures – Must Be DLC-Rated
2, 3, or 4-Lamp T12/T8 fixture to LED-qualified 2x4 fixture $ 28.00 $ 30.00 $ 46.00
2-Lamp T12/T8 fixture to LED-qualified 2x2 fixture $ 20.00 $ 20.00 $ 30.00
2-Lamp T12/T8 fixture to LED-qualified 1x4 fixture $ 0.00 $ 20.00 $ 30.00
6-Lamp T5HO Fixture to ≤ 160W LED fixture $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 215.00
HID Lighting – Must Be DLC-Rated
250W HID fixture to ≤ 140W LED fixture or lamp $ 125.00 $ 125.00 $ 195.00
400W HID fixture to ≤ 175W LED fixture or lamp $ 185.00 $ 195.00 $ 250.00
1000W HID fixture to ≤ 400W LED fixture or lamp $ 270.00 $ 355.00 $ 565.00
MR16 (GU10 base) – Must be ENERGY STAR-Rated
2-9W MR16 lamp $ 5.50 $ 8.50
Can Light Kit – Must be ENERGY STAR-Rated
≤ 20W LED fixture retrofit $ 20.00 $ 30.00 $ 40.00
Controls
Occupancy Sensor Controls with Built-In Relays $ 25.00 $ 30.00 $ 40.00
LLLC Fixture Controls $ 35.00 $ 50.00 $ 150.00
Marketing
Key to the success of the prescriptive lighting program is clear communication to lighting supply houses, distributors,
electricians, and customers regarding incentive requirements and forms. The Avista website communicates program
requirements and highlights opportunities for customers. In addition, the company’s regionally based account
executives play an integral role in delivering the prescriptive lighting program to commercial/industrial customers.
Any changes to the program typically include 90 days’ advance notice to allow customers to submit applications for
incentives under the old requirements and/or incentive levels if desired. This usually includes – at a minimum – direct
email communication to trade allies as well as website updates.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 47
Customer Satisfaction
Fifty-six online surveys were completed with prescriptive participants in 2021. Because 50 of the 56 respondents
installed lighting projects, the results primarily represent lighting participants rather than non-lighting participants.
Respondents were nearly all somewhat or very satisfied with all aspects of the Avista program, as shown in Figure 21.
One respondent was not too satisfied with the overall program, citing challenges in filling out the forms due to lack
of instructions from the contractor. None of the other respondents who were not too or not at all satisfied provided
specific reasons for being less satisfied.
FIGURE 21 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE PROGRAM COMPONENTS SATISFACTION
Source: Prescriptive survey questions H1: “In terms of the program, how satisfied were you with the following aspects? Please think about each item individually as
you select your answer.”
Program overall (n=55)
Rebate amount (n=55)
Time to process the
application (n=54)
Post-project inspection (n=24
Pre-project inspection (n=19)
Completing and submitting the
application materials (n=21)
Communications with
trade allies (n=45)
Information about the program
requirements (n=54)
Communications with
account executive (n=41)
Percentage of Respondents
Very Satised
25%75%100%50%
Somewhat Satised Not too Satised Not at all Satised
91%
93%
93%
88%
81%
79%
84%
81%
85%
7%
7%
7%
12%
14%
21%
11%
15%
12%
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 48
When asked what challenges the program presented, 39 percent of respondents (n=56) provided no response and 18
percent reported there were no problems or complimented the program. As shown in Figure 22, respondents most
frequently cited lack of awareness as their biggest challenge to participation (42 percent, n=24) followed by difficulty
understanding the lighting requirements and rebate form. Two respondents had issues using an approved contractor;
for example, one respondent mentioned they did not want to use an approved contractor, but would have liked to
complete the work themselves. Responses in the “other” category include difficulty disposing of old lighting, internal
company challenges such as budget and labor, differing lighting preferences, and finding the decision-maker.
FIGURE 22 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE PROGRAM PARTICIPATION CHALLENGES
Source: Prescriptive survey question H10: “What do so see as the biggest challenges to participating in Avista’s program for your company or other companies like
yours?” Percentage may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
Difculty understanding requirements
Other
Excessive or confusing paperwork
Lack of awareness
Required to use an approved contractor
Percentage of Respondents
5%10%15%20%25%35%45%
3
5
8%
13%
17%
21%
42%
(n=24)
30%40%
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 49
A majority of the 2021 respondents (98 percent, n=55) considered energy efficiency either somewhat or very
important to their organization when making capital upgrades or improvements. As shown in Figure 23, respondents
cited energy or operating costs (76 percent, n=56) as the most important criteria in their decision to undertake
energy-efficiency improvements, followed by maintenance costs (65 percent) and initial cost of equipment (63
percent).
FIGURE 23 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE PROGRAM IMPORTANT CRITERIA FOR
ENERGY-EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS
Source: Prescriptive survey question I4: “Which of the following criteria are important in deciding whether your company makes energy-efficiency improvements?”
Multiple responses allowed.
Payback period
Information from Avista staff
Directive from senior leadership
Other
Percentage of Respondents
10%20%30%50%70%
3
5
2%
7%
11%
43%
44%
(n=56)
40%60%
56%
57%
63%
65%
76%
Initial cost of the equipment
Return on investment
Availability of rebates and/or other
outside co-funding
Information from a contractor,
vendor, or retailer
Maintenance costs
Energy or operating costs
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 50
Respondents provided feedback about what worked well in Avista’s prescriptive programs. As shown in Table 29, they
most commonly mentioned the fast or easy application process (seven respondents), followed by the opportunity to
save energy and money on utility bills (six respondents).
TABLE 29 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE LIGHTING PROGRAM ASPECTS THAT WORKED WELL
Program Aspects Number of
Respondents
Easy/fast process 7
Saving energy and money on utility bills 6
Overall program works well 5
Good customer service 5
Rebate amount 4
Contractor support 3
Program duration 2
Access to better lighting 1
Source: Prescriptive survey question H12: “What would you say is working particularly well with Avista’s program?” (n=33)
As shown in Table 30, 18 respondents made suggestions for improvements to the prescriptive programs. They most
frequently suggested providing more information about the program requirements (nine respondents).
TABLE 30 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE LIGHTING PROGRAM SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT
Suggestion Number of
Respondents
More information about program requirements 9
More marketing to customers 3
Expansion of prescriptive list to include motion sensors and other lighting options 2
Vendor motivation 1
More time to submit rebate application 1
Bigger rebates 1
List of available contractors 1
Source: Prescriptive survey question H11: “What recommendations, if any, would you make to improve the program?” (n=18)
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 51
The survey asked respondents how the COVID-19 pandemic affected their project. The majority (78 percent, n=51)
reported there was no impact, while 16 percent said the pandemic affected the project timeline, and six percent said
it affected both the timeline and the scope. One respondent mentioned that COVID-19 affected the project positively
as they could complete the project faster. Those who reported negative impacts described the following factors:
◆Supply chain problems (six responses)
◆Labor shortages (two responses)
◆Delay in project (one responses)
Overall, respondent satisfaction with the prescriptive programs was high.
◆Ninety-eight percent of prescriptive program respondents said they were very or somewhat satisfied with the
program. While satisfaction with all aspects of the prescriptive programs remained high, some respondents
expressed dissatisfaction with completing and submitting the rebate application, communication with trade
allies and their account executive, and information about program requirements.
Most prescriptive respondents said their lack of awareness about the program was the biggest challenge to
participation (42 percent, n=24). Some respondents (nine of 18) said that more information about the program
requirements would improve the prescriptive program.
Impact Evaluation
TABLE 31 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE LIGHTING PROGRAM ELECTRIC IMPACT FINDINGS
Program Type Reported Savings
(kWh)
Evaluated Savings
(kWh) Realization Rate
Interior Lighting 3,382,567 3,362,227 99%
Exterior Lighting 2,341,518 2,307,395 99%
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 52
Of 35 evaluated applications across all prescriptive programs, Cadmus identified discrepancies for 18 based on in-
person and virtual site visits, verification calls, and project documentation review. 17 of 18 were lighting discrepancies.
Table 32 summarizes the reasons for discrepancies between reported and evaluated savings.
TABLE 32 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE LIGHTING PROGRAM EVALUATION SUMMARY OF DISCREPANCIES
Project Type Number of
Occurrences Savings Impact Reason(s) for Discrepancy
Interior Lighting
6 
Cadmus found that for one project, only half of the installed quantity of one
fixture type was installed because the occupants felt they provided sufficient
illumination to the space. Cadmus also found that another installed fixture type
on the same project had a higher wattage than reported.
Cadmus reduced the HOU for five projects after interviewing on-site staff about
their facilities’ lighting operation.
4 
Cadmus increased the HOU of two projects after interviewing on-site staff
about their facilities’ lighting operation. Cadmus also determined that the
Avista database incorrectly categorized one of these projects as exterior lighting
measures and transferred these savings to interior lighting.
Cadmus revised two projects to use the actual installed lamp wattage instead of
the default proposed lamp wattage to calculate savings.
Exterior Lighting
4 
Cadmus evaluated one sign lighting project that reported multiple different
lamp types installed in a single 100-square-foot sign. Cadmus determined that
only one of the lamp types matched the dimensions of the sign and recalculated
savings.
Cadmus found that two projects had fewer lamps installed than reported.
Some missing lamps were found in storage for possible installation at a later
date and others were ordered in higher quantities than required to retrofit all
corresponding fixtures in the space.
Cadmus found that one project had discrepancies up to five percent due to
rounding differences. iEnergy rounds the kilowatt savings to two decimal places
in the middle of the calculation, causing a loss of accuracy in the final savings.
3 
Cadmus increased the HOU for one sign lighting project due to verifying that it is
controlled by a manually adjusted mechanical timeclock. Cadmus also found that
the sign had more fixtures installed than reported.
Cadmus evaluated one project that had one more fixture retrofitted than
reported.
Cadmus verified a higher baseline lamp wattage for one project.
During the 2020 evaluation, Cadmus identified a systemic issue with sign lighting measures in the prescriptive exterior
lighting program, which resulted in particularly low realization rates for applicable projects. Avista had applied a
deemed savings estimate per square footage of signage replaced based on a 2014 internal engineering review
that assumed 8-foot T12 high-output fluorescent lamps as the baseline for all sign lighting. Cadmus evaluated sign
lighting projects by verifying the actual quantity, wattages, and HOU for the baseline and installed lamps in each. The
average realization rate for 2020 sign lighting measures was approximately 26 percent. Cadmus advised Avista of this
discrepancy upon noticing it and reported these findings in detail in the 2020 report. Avista implemented changes
to the exterior lighting program in the first quarter of 2021 in response to the exterior lighting program in the first
quarter of 2021 in response to the recommendations. Since then, no similar issues were encountered, and the exterior
lighting program achieved a 99 percent realization rate in 2021.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 53
Recommendations
The evaluator found that lighting HOU reported by site contacts during verification interviews often varied
substantially from the HOU reported on interior and exterior lighting applications. The HOU portion of the prescriptive
lighting application does not collect any explanation or context, and documentation for HOU lighting among site-
specific projects varied. The following recommendations were offered:
◆Add a line to the prescriptive lighting application for customers to briefly describe their interior lighting
schedule. Review this description when entering the application to determine whether the annual HOU values
are consistent with the schedule described. For exterior lighting, include a line in the application to document
existing controls, with checkboxes for common control types and timer settings.
◆Benchmark the estimated annual HOU against the RTF’s values for the building type and request additional
details from the customer if there is a significant difference.
◆Consider deploying light loggers on a random sample of lighting projects each year to validate reported HOU
values and develop an understanding of whether self-reported hours are typically over- or under-reported
compared to actual usage.
The evaluator also found that some prescriptive lighting projects referred to the default proposed wattage in the
iEnergy system to calculate energy savings when the actual proposed wattage was also provided. To remedy this, the
following recommendation was offered:
◆Review iEnergy calculations to ensure that the actual proposed wattage is used in the savings calculation
when provided.
◆General recommendations to increase customer awareness of all commercial/industrial programs are
described on pages 24 and 25.
Plans for 2022
With the more sophisticated measure-level detail in iEnergy, Avista has been able to update interior and exterior
lighting measures annually to reflect market conditions. The refined iEnergy data now also includes the site-specific
program path, allowing Avista to refine and add new measures into the prescriptive offerings in 2022. Minor
refinement to the program is anticipated in 2022 as the company plans to keep the increased incentive rates adopted
in mid-2021. Avista will continue to be flexible in making mid-year changes as needed to further encourage program
participation. The company will continue evaluating networked lighting controls incentives and will use existing
project data to determine whether the prescriptive offering is the right fit for the uniqueness of Luminaire Level
Lighting installations. Avista will also consider bringing RTF annual hours-of-use assumptions into IEnergy, flagging
outliers for further analysis.
iEnergy is currently configured to use actual proposed wattage rather than default. Avista investigated all instances in
which iEnergy referred to default wattage and determined that these calculations happened in error, likely due to a
glitch in the iEnergy software or a temporary lapse in connectivity. Avista will consider implanting an additional report
for verification and quality control purposes, which could be done on a monthly or quarterly basis.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 54
Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Non-Lighting Programs
TABLE 33 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE NON-LIGHTING PROGRAM METRICS
Prescriptive Non-Lighting Program Summary – Electric 2021
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 52
Overall kWh Savings 91,163
Incentive Spend $ 14,429
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 6,944
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 21,373
Prescriptive Non-Lighting Program Summary – Natural Gas 2021
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 39
Overall Therm Savings 20,725
Incentive Spend $ 47,482
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 122,486
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 169,968
Description
Commercial Food Service Equipment Program – The Commercial Food Service Equipment Program helps
encourage customers to use energy-efficient equipment and is available for replacing existing or purchasing new
equipment. If Avista provides the fuel type of the equipment installed, customers are eligible when that equipment
meets the efficiency requirement. For equipment that requires hot water heat, Avista must provide that heat source
for eligibility. This program offers a variety of electric and natural gas food service equipment. Customers who meet
the requirements must submit rebate paperwork within 90 days of project completion. Incentives are disbursed after
receipt of documentation and verification of equipment eligibility.
Commercial Insulation – The Commercial Insulation Program is a retrofit program to encourage customers to
increase the insulation in an existing building. It addresses three building areas – wall, attic, and roof – and is
available to Avista commercial customers who have an annual heating footprint of at least 340 therms or 8,000 kWh.
Insulation must be installed by a licensed contractor and meet the eligibility guidelines for existing and new R-values.
Customers who meet the requirements must submit rebate paperwork with an accompanying insulation certificate
and invoice within 90 days of project completion. Incentives are disbursed after receipt of documentation and
verification of eligibility.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 55
Compressed Air Line Isolation Program – The Compressed Air Line Isolation Program was developed to offer a
prescriptive path for Avista electric customers with a 15 horsepower (HP) or greater rotary screw compressor. It offers
direct installation of a compressed air leak reduction device. Energy savings are generated by reducing the impact of
compressed air leaks during off-hour periods. Customers can work with compressed air contractors to do a two-week
pre-logging of compressed air systems, install a line isolation device, and complete the project with a two-week post-
logging. After logging is complete, a site report is presented that summarizes the kWh savings and includes photos of
actual installation (including nameplate), invoices, and a completed rebate form. Incentives are paid to the contractor
with no cost to the customer.
Commercial Natural Gas HVAC – The Commercial Natural Gas HVAC Program encourages Avista commercial
natural gas customers to save energy by choosing to install energy-efficient natural gas furnaces and boilers. It offers
six different equipment types that customers may select from to best fit their business needs and save energy dollars.
Incentives are paid by the input kBtu and the efficiency of the equipment selected. Customers must submit rebate
forms with proof of purchase invoices and AHRI certificates within 90 days of project completion. Incentives are
disbursed after receipt of documentation and verification of eligibility.
Green Motors Rewind – The Green Motors Rewind Program offers Avista commercial electric customers an instant
rebate on their service center invoice for a green rewind of an existing motor. Qualifying motors must fall between 15
and 5,000 HP and be used in an industrial capacity. The program pays $1 per HP to the service center and another $1
per HP off the invoice for the customer. Green Motors Practices Group is the third party that manages this program
for the region and is paid an administrative fee of $.05 per kWh savings per customer rewind. Program participation is
presented monthly by Green Motors Practices Group in the form of an invoice accompanied by detailed service center
information per project.
Fleet Heat – The Fleet Heat Program is provided to Avista commercial electric customers who use uncontrolled block
heaters to keep fleet engines warm when their vehicles are not running during the colder climate months, typically
from the end of October to the end of March. This program offers a product that provides an engine-mounted remote
thermostat with an ambient temperature thermostat in a Twinstat cord to maximize energy efficiency. Upon receiving
the rebate form, Avista will order the cords for customers from Hotstart according to the information provided on the
form. Avista delivers the cords to the customer. The customer is responsible for the installation of the cords and the
initial payment to Hotstart. After installation verification, Avista refunds the customer’s Twinstat cord costs.
Commercial Grocer – The Commercial Grocer Program offers Avista commercial electric customers a range of
retrofit energy savings measures associated with commercial refrigeration. The incentives within this program offer
specific measures that can be installed and applied for after project completion. Customers may install any of the
eligible measures from display case lighting, motors, controls, strip curtains, or gaskets, and apply for an incentive by
submitting a rebate form with associated invoicing and providing proof of purchase and installation. Incentives are
disbursed after receipt of documentation and verification of eligibility.
Commercial VFD Retrofit – The Commercial Variable Frequency Drive Retrofit Program offers incentives to
customers to increase the energy efficiency of their HVAC fan or pump applications with a variable frequency drive.
Installing a VFD on an existing unit of equipment enables that equipment to be more energy-efficient. This program
is available for Avista commercial electric customers. The incentive is calculated at $200 per HP of the motor the VFD
is installed on. Post-installation verification is required before payment may be issued for all VFD projects. Customers
may apply for this incentive after they install a VFD on an existing piece of eligible equipment and submit required
documentation. Incentive disbursement will be processed after an installation inspection has occurred.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 56
Program Activities
◆Electric: Savings of 91,163 kWh, a decrease of 19 percent compared to 113,087 kWh in 2020.
◆Natural Gas: Savings of 20,725 therms, a decrease of 30 percent in comparison to 29,409 therms in 2020.
FIGURE 24 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE NON-LIGHTING PROGRAM INCENTIVE DOLLARS
BY MEASURE – ELECTRIC
FIGURE 25 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE NON-LIGHTING PROGRAM INCENTIVE DOLLARS
BY MEASURE – NATURAL GAS
$ 4,259 Green Motors Rewind
$ 7,850 Motor Control HVAC (VFD)
$ 1,375 Shell
$ 220 Food Services
$ 725 Grocer
$ 28,100 Shell
$ 17,966 Food Services
$ 1,416 HVAC
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 57
Program Changes
Table 34 lists changes to commercial/industrial non-lighting prescriptive programs in 2021.
TABLE 34 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE NON-LIGHTING PROGRAM REBATE CHANGES
2021 Changes to Prescriptive Program Incentives 2020 2021 Notes
Commercial Natural Gas HVAC Program
92% AFUE Natural Gas Unit Heater <300 kBtu/hr $ 0 $ 6/kBtu Input New Measure
Commercial Variable Frequency Drive Retrofit
VFD Fans $ 130 $ 200 Incentive Increase
VFD Cooling Pump Only $ 130 $ 200 Incentive Increase
VFD Heating Pump Only or Combined Heating and Cooling Pump $ 130 $ 200 Incentive Increase
Commercial Insulation Retrofit Program
Wall Less Than R4 to R11-R18 $ .35/SQ FT $ .60/SQ FT Incentive Increase
Wall Less Than R4 to R19 or Greater $ .45/SQ FT $ .65/SQ FT Incentive Increase
Attic Less Than R11 to R30-R44 $ .50/SQ FT $ .75/SQ FT Incentive Increase
Attic Less Than R11 to R45 or Greater $ .60/SQ FT $ .85/SQ FT Incentive Increase
Roof Less Than R11 to R30 or Greater $ .40/SQ FT $ .60/SQ FT Incentive Increase
Commercial Compressed Air Line Isolation Retrofit Program
New program. See myavista.com/bizrebates or the Commercial
Compressed Air Line Isolation Retrofit agreement form for details.
Marketing
Avista account executives market this program; it’s also featured on the Avista efficiency website and used by trade
allies as a marketing tool.
Customer Satisfaction
This program was included in a prescriptive programs process evaluation for 2021. Survey respondents from lighting
and non-lighting prescriptive programs were combined into one set of commercial/industrial prescriptive findings,
which are summarized in the preceding prescriptive lighting section. The full process evaluation is included as
Appendix E to this report.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 58
Impact Evaluation
Electric: Table 35 shows reported and evaluated electric energy savings for Avista’s commercial/industrial prescriptive
program path (non-lighting) as well as the realization rates between the evaluated and reported savings for 2021. The
overall commercial/industrial prescriptive program path achieved a 76 percent electric realization rate.
TABLE 35 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE NON-LIGHTING PROGRAM ELECTRIC IMPACT FINDINGS
Program Type Reported Savings
(kWh)
Evaluated Savings
(kWh) Realization Rate
Shell Measure 2,547 2,547 100%
Green Motors 23,986 23,986 100%
Motor Control HVAC (VFD) 56,210 56,210 100%
Food Service Equipment 977 977 100%
Energy Smart Grocer 4,323 7,443 172%
Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive 88,043 91,163 104%
Of 35 evaluated applications, the evaluator identified discrepancies for 18; however, just one discrepancy was in
the non-lighting prescriptive program (the other 17 were in lighting and were covered in the preceding prescriptive
lighting section). Table 36 summarizes the reasons for discrepancies between reported and evaluated savings for the
Energy Smart Grocer Program.
TABLE 36 – COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PRESCRIPTIVE NON-LIGHTING PROGRAM
EVALUATION SUMMARY OF DISCREPANCIES
Project Type Number of
Occurrences Savings Impact Reason(s) for Discrepancy
Grocer 1 
Cadmus found that one refrigerated lighting application used lamp counts rather
than the total lamp length as the unit of measurement to estimate deemed
energy savings. Cadmus updated the calculation to account for the 4' lamps that
were installed in the refrigerated cases.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 59
Recommendations
Evaluators offered the following recommendations to improve realization rates for prescriptive programs:
◆Review deemed savings values for prescriptive measures and consider opportunities to use the additional data
now collected in iEnergy to calculate more accurate savings for each participant project. For example, HVAC
furnace measures can use the exact AHRI efficiency rating collected in iEnergy instead of a typical average to
automatically calculate more precise savings.
◆Review iEnergy calculations to ensure that rounding is only applied on final displayed values and not to any
intermediate values.
◆When estimating power from logged current data, carefully review the equipment nameplates and operating
parameters to ensure the correct conversion. When multiple datasets are collected for a project, clearly
identify in the project files which dataset was used for the final estimation and document why one dataset
was chosen over the other.
Plans for 2022
Avista is considering modifications to the Grocer and Food Service Equipment Programs to better align with the RTF.
The company will continue to improve and refine calculations in iEnergy for prescriptive rebates in line with Cadmus’
recommendations. Avista currently collects more detailed customer information, such as pounds of food cooked per
day, hours per day, and days per year – as well as AHRI certification – but does not use this information for savings
calculations. Avista will consider doing so, balanced with considerations related to the upcoming transition to a
midstream program for many prescriptive HVAC, Grocer, and Food Service Equipment Program measures.
Avista will also consider increasing outreach to customers for commercial/industrial programs, as well as ways to help
participants sort through equipment options more efficiently.
RESIDENTIAL SECTOR
Coeur d’Alene River, Idaho
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 61
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, including select distribution of low-cost lighting and
weatherization materials, direct-installation programs, and a multifaceted, multichannel outreach and customer
engagement effort.
Nearly $2 million in rebates and direct customer benefits were provided to Idaho residential customers to offset the
cost of implementing these energy-efficiency measures in 2021. All programs within the residential sector portfolio
combined contributed 1,413 MWh and 276,057 therms to the annual energy savings.
TABLE 37 – RESIDENTIAL SAVINGS BY PROGRAM
Residential Electric Savings
(kWh)
Natural Gas Savings
(Therms)
Water Heat 30,726 41,972
HVAC 323,274 212,647
Shell 219,690 18,214
Fuel Efficiency 586,226
ENERGY STAR Homes 72,093 670
Small Home & Multifamily Weatherization 49,193 2,301
Appliances 13,420 253
Multifamily Direct Install 118,613
Total Residential 1,413,235 276,057
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 62
Impacts of COVID-19 Pandemic
Idaho residential programs fared well in 2021 with active programs, but did see decreases in activity due to the
expiration of the Simple Steps Program and less activity in the Multifamily Direct Install Program.
The impact evaluator conducted a survey of program participants and asked respondents about changes in electric
bills as well as changes in amount of time spent at home.
Sixty-four percent of respondents said that the amount of time they spend at home had increased since the COVID-19
pandemic began. Thirty-seven percent of respondents indicated that their utility bill had increased. Figure 26 displays
the change in amount of time spent at home and the change in electricity bills since the COVID-19 pandemic began.
FIGURE 26 – CHANGE IN AMOUNT OF TIME SPENT AT HOME AND CHANGE IN ELECTRIC BILL
SINCE COVID-19 PANDEMIC BEGAN
The process evaluator also noted that COVID-19 was the main challenge for customers and trade allies in 2021. Not
all program goals were met because of the impact of pandemic-specific issues, such as quarantine periods, contractor
staffing issues, and customers being less likely to allow contractors in their homes. Some of these issues affected
project completion, but Avista was lenient with schedules to account for timeline challenges. In addition, the cost
of equipment continued to increase due to supply chain issues caused by the pandemic – another challenge for
customers, though Avista was able to increase some incentives in response.
Don’t know / Prefer not to say 1 – Greatly decreased 2 3 4 5 – Greatly increased
25%75%100%50%
20%Amount of time you spend at home
4%Change in electric bill
7%6%30%25%12%
2%2%
28%24%40%
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 63
Marketing
The “Way to Save” advertising campaign included TV, digital, search engine marketing, streaming, and social media.
With a call-to-action to visit myavista.com for more information, the advertising successfully drove visits to the
company’s website as evidenced by analytics. The campaign ran three times: in the spring between March 15 and
May 9, in the summer between July 23 and August 15, and in the fall between September 7 and November 1. The
campaign was effective in driving website traffic: Average page views on Avista’s Idaho rebates page had been 75 per
day; when the ads were running, that number jumped to 1,025 (spring), 1,039 (summer), and 882 (fall) – an increase
of as much as 493 percent.
FIGURE 27 – RESIDENTIAL “WAY TO SAVE” TELEVISION COMMERCIALS
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 64
Avista continued its annual “Way to Save” digital advertising campaign in 2021 to help increase awareness of the
company’s rebates. The advertising included streaming and YouTube for time-shifted viewing, social media, online
advertising banners, and search engine marketing. The digital campaign coincided with the same spring, summer, and
fall timeframes as the overall advertising campaign described on page 34. The digital efforts drove 27,908,068 display
and 1,494,811 YouTube impressions, as well as 561,686 searches and 16,910 clicks. Customer interest in particular
measures varied by season; furnaces and electric heat pumps garnered the most interest in spring; insulation, washers,
and ductless heat pumps took the lead in summer and fall.
FIGURE 28 – RESIDENTIAL “WAY TO SAVE” REBATES SOCIAL MEDIA AND DIGITAL ADVERTISING
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 65
As cold weather moved in, the “Winter Tips” campaign was implemented to remind customers of energy-saving tips
for the season.
FIGURE 29 – RESIDENTIAL ENERGY-SAVINGS WINTER TIPS PRINT AD
FIGURE 30 – RESIDENTIAL ENERGY-SAVINGS WINTER TIPS BILL INSERT
Don’t let your space
heater fool you.
Space heaters can actually increase your winter bill if used
improperly. Only use them to heat a single, occupied room,
and be sure to lower the temperature setting on your
furnace while the space heater’s in use.
For more ways to save this winter, visit
myavista.com/winterbill.
Hey, it’s cold outside.
Lower winter temperatures c
a
n

m
e
a
n

higher heating b
i
l
l
s
.
Learn what aff
e
c
t
s

y
o
u
r

energy usage so

y
o
u

can make adjus
t
m
e
n
t
s

to save.
AVA385i
OtherHot Water14%
Heat50%or more
Heating your home can account for over half your monthly winter energy bill. A small change can make a big difference.
Your monthly energy bill can vary due to the length of each billing cycle, which ranges from 27 to 35 days.
Let us help!
Find energy-saving tools, such as our Bill Analyzer, as well as tips, rebates, and help paying your bill at myavista.com/winterbill
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 66
FIGURE 31 – RESIDENTIAL ENERGY-SAVINGS TIPS SOCIAL MEDIA
In addition to appearing on Avista’s website, energy-efficiency tips and/or rebates content was included in the
company’s monthly Connections newsletter, which is sent to customers as a bill insert. Search engine marketing (SEM)
was also used to reach customers who were actively seeking information about energy-efficiency rebates.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 67
At Home with Lisa
Many Avista customers live in older homes with energy-efficiency challenges. In 2020, the company partnered with
Lisa, an Avista customer who bought her 1910 house because she loved the old-world character – and then quickly
discovered it wasn’t very energy-friendly. She attended an Avista energy fair and discovered how easy implementing
some efficiency measures can be. Lisa began writing weekly features sharing her experience with simple do-it-yourself
projects around her house that help improve her energy use and comfort. Most of Lisa’s articles focus on low- or no-
cost energy-saving tips that customers can do on their own, regardless of their home’s fuel type or heating system.
Titled “At Home with Lisa,” her articles are hosted on Avista’s website at the Connections blog. They’re also shared on
Avista’s social media pages.
In 2021, “At Home with Lisa” blogs on myavista.com/connect were viewed 8,449 times. On social media, her posts
reached 102,441 viewers. Of 49 articles written, 38 focused solely on energy-efficiency topics. Hoping to influence
similar customers to act, Lisa continues to share about the steps she’s taking to help control her energy use.
FIGURE 32 – RESIDENTIAL AT HOME WITH LISA CONNECTIONS ARTICLE AND BLOG POSTS
Connect With Us
Mailing Address: 1411 E. Mission, PO Box 3727, Spokane, WA 99220-3727
Toll-Free: [phone] | Web Site: myavista.com
Email: [e-mail]
443i AVA © Copyright 2021 Avista Corporation
!Downed power lines
It doesn’t happen often but damage from high winds, ice and other issues can bring a power line down. If you ever find a power line that is down on the ground or in a tree or shrub you need to always assume that the power line is still energized or has electricity still flowing through it.
The next steps to take are:
• Stay back at least 50 feet.
• Never touch or attempt to move the line.
• Don’t try to use a branch to move the power line as wood does conduct electricity.
• When there’s a downed line, always call Avista.
You need to follow those rules even if the line is in contact with someone as the electricity can pass through that person to harm you as well. The line may look harmless or like it is not energized and you may not see sparks or other signs of power, but the ground around a high voltage line can be dangerous. Electricity can travel through dirt or the ground and when is does, it travels in waves much like the ripples a rock makes when you throw it into a pond. If you stand on separate wave rings, electricity may pass through your body. If a downed wire touches a metal object like a car, fence or guardrail it too can become energized, so be aware of your surroundings and make sure to stay at least 50 feet away and call 911 and Avista to notify them of the issue.
For more information, visit myavista.com/safety.
When’s the last time you replaced your furnace filter?
Regularly changing your furnace filter can greatly improve the efficiency and extend the life of your furnace. But it’s a task most of us tend to forget.
We have a great solution to help you remember to change your furnace filter, even if you’ve got this down like clockwork and you just want the convenience of doorstep delivery. Join our furnace filter program and we’ll send you email reminders every three months. If desired, you can also choose to receive money-saving manufacturer’s coupons, or even have new filters conveniently delivered to your door.
There are many great reasons to replace the air filter in your furnace, including creating better operation and extending the life of your furnace, as well as the benefits of reduced energy use and cleaner indoor air quality. You can even save unnecessary expenses that restricted air flow place on your furnace.
Never forget that filter again. Sign up today at myavista.com/changemyfilter.
ConnectionsJanuary 2021 | Wash
i
n
g
t
o
n

•

I
d
a
h
o
Cold weather and
c
o
f
f
e
e

What happens when

y
o
u
r

h
o
m
e
gets the chills This time of year, you m
a
y

h
a
v
e

n
o
t
i
c
e
d

an increase in energy u
s
a
g
e

o
n

y
o
u
r

m
o
s
t

recent bill. We’re ofte
n

a
s
k
e
d

h
o
w

e
n
e
r
g
y

use can increase wh
e
n

n
o

c
h
a
n
g
e
s

h
a
v
e
been made to a thermos
t
a
t
.

I
t
’
s

a

g
r
e
a
t
question and one that c
a
n

b
e

e
x
p
l
a
i
n
e
d

b
y

comparing our homes
t
o

a

c
u
p

o
f

c
o
f
f
e
e
.

During hot summer months, when we take our cup of coffee outside, it remains warm for quite some time. When cold
weather hits, that sam
e

c
u
p

o
f

c
o
f
f
e
e

c
o
o
l
s

down rather quickly d
u
e

t
o

a

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

difference in temper
a
t
u
r
e

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

t
h
e
coffee and the outdoor a
i
r

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
.
Just like our cup of coffee
,

o
u
r

h
o
m
e
s

r
e
t
a
i
n

and release heat differen
t
l
y

t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t

t
h
e

year. A thermos-style c
o
f
f
e
e

c
u
p

w
i
t
h

a

l
i
d
,

just like a well-insulate
d

h
o
m
e

w
i
t
h

m
i
n
i
m
a
l

air leaks, will do bett
e
r

t
h
a
n

a

p
o
r
c
e
l
a
i
n

c
u
p

or a leaky and poorly insu
l
a
t
e
d

h
o
m
e

i
n

c
o
l
d

weather, due to its insula
t
i
n
g

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
.
The more heat our home
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
,

t
h
e
more energy it takes to

w
a
r
m

t
h
e
m

b
a
c
k

up. A cup of coffee ca
n

b
e

w
a
r
m
e
d

u
p

i
n

a

few seconds. A house
,

o
n

t
h
e

o
t
h
e
r

h
a
n
d
,

requires more effort

f
r
o
m

i
t
s

h
e
a
t
i
n
g

s
y
s
t
e
m

— and more effort mean
s

m
o
r
e

e
n
e
r
g
y
.

T
r
y

setting your thermostat

a
t

6
8

d
e
g
r
e
e
s

w
h
e
n

home and reduce by a

f
e
w

d
e
g
r
e
e
s

a
t

n
i
g
h
t

or when away. For ev
e
r
y

d
e
g
r
e
e

d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
,

you will save on your

h
e
a
t
i
n
g

e
n
e
r
g
y

u
s
a
g
e

by 3 percent. Visit myavista.com/winter
b
i
l
l

f
o
r

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

tips and learn how to sa
v
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

s
t
a
y

comfortable in your ho
m
e

t
h
i
s

s
e
a
s
o
n
.

© Copyright 2021 Avis
t
a

C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
At home with Lisa:

H
u
m
i
d
i
t
y

v
a
s
e
s
It happens every year
.

W
h
e
n

t
h
e

w
e
a
t
h
e
r

g
e
t
s

c
o
l
d
e
r
,

t
h
e

s
k
i
n

o
n

m
y

hands begins to cha
p

a
n
d

c
r
a
c
k
.

I
t
’
s

n
o
t

t
h
e

c
o
l
d

t
h
a
t

d
o
e
s

t
h
i
s
.

I
t
’
s

t
h
e

dryness in the air.
Something I learned th
i
s

w
e
e
k
—
t
h
e

h
u
m
i
d
i
t
y

o
f

y
o
u
r

h
o
u
s
e

c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
s

t
o

h
o
w

warm you feel during
w
i
n
t
e
r

m
o
n
t
h
s
.

W
h
e
n

I

a
t
t
e
n
d
e
d

l
a
s
t

y
e
a
r
’
s

A
v
i
s
t
a

E
n
e
r
g
y

Fair, my goody bag in
c
l
u
d
e
d

a

s
m
a
l
l

d
i
g
i
t
a
l

g
a
u
g
e
.

I
t

l
o
o
k
e
d

l
i
k
e

a

t
h
e
r
m
o
m
e
t
e
r
,

but it had an extra numb
e
r

o
n

i
t
.

I
t

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

t
h
e

h
u
m
i
d
i
t
y

o
f

a

r
o
o
m
.

Y
o
u

c
a
n

f
i
n
d

these on Amazon for un
d
e
r

$
5
.
I wondered what eff
e
c
t

h
u
m
i
d
i
t
y

h
a
s

o
n

y
o
u
r

h
o
m
e

i
n

t
h
e

w
i
n
t
e
r

a
n
d

f
o
u
n
d

l
o
t
s

of resources online. I foun
d

t
h
i
s

b
l
o
g

p
o
s
t

(
b
o
b
v
i
l
a
.
c
o
m
/
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
/
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
-
h
u
m
i
d
i
t
y
/
)
very helpful. When the h
u
m
i
d
i
t
y

o
f

a

r
o
o
m

d
r
o
p
s

b
e
l
o
w

3
0

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
,

y
o
u
r

s
k
i
n

g
e
t
s

chapped and it feels co
l
d
e
r
.

You don’t have to get a
w
h
o
l
e
humidifier to add mois
t
u
r
e

t
o

t
h
e
room. You can boil a p
o
t

o
r

k
e
t
t
l
e
of water on your stov
e

a
s

l
o
n
g

a
s
you keep an eye on
i
t
.

L
e
a
v
e

t
h
e
door open when you sho
w
e
r
,

o
r
if you are a bath person
,

o
p
e
n

t
h
e
door when you are fi
n
i
s
h
e
d

a
n
d
let the water cool on
i
t
s

o
w
n
.
One creative way to ad
d

m
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

t
o

a

r
o
o
m

i
s

t
o

p
l
a
c
e

v
a
s
e
s

o
f

w
a
t
e
r

o
n

e
l
e
v
a
t
e
d

surfaces in a room. Yo
u

w
a
n
t

i
t

h
i
g
h

e
n
o
u
g
h

s
o

i
t

i
s

a
w
a
y

f
r
o
m

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

o
r

p
e
t
s
.

You can add decorati
v
e

r
o
c
k
s
,

e
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
l

o
i
l
s
,

c
r
a
n
b
e
r
r
i
e
s
…
w
h
a
t
e
v
e
r

y
o
u

w
a
n
t
.

I

t
o
o
k

a vase and added so
m
e

g
l
o
w
-
i
n
-
t
h
e
-
d
a
r
k

p
l
a
s
t
i
c

p
l
a
n
t
s

f
o
r

a
n

a
q
u
a
r
i
u
m
,

f
i
l
l
e
d

i
t

with water and added so
m
e

p
l
a
s
t
i
c

f
i
s
h
.

Y
o
u

c
a
n

a
l
s
o

g
e
t

l
u
m
i
n
a
r
y

l
a
n
t
e
r
n
s

w
i
t
h

floating candles and pl
a
c
e

t
h
e
m

a
r
o
u
n
d

y
o
u
r

r
o
o
m
.
These humidity vases ma
y

t
a
k
e

a

l
i
t
t
l
e

l
o
n
g
e
r

t
h
a
n

a

h
u
m
i
d
i
f
i
e
r
,

b
u
t

i
f

y
o
u

h
a
v
e

more humidity, you can
t
u
r
n

y
o
u
r

h
e
a
t
e
r
s

d
o
w
n

a

b
i
t

a
n
d

s
t
i
l
l

f
e
e
l

c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
.

Lisa, an Avista custome
r
,

b
o
u
g
h
t

h
e
r

1
9
1
0

house because she lo
v
e
d

t
h
e

o
l
d
-
w
o
r
l
d

character, some of w
h
i
c
h

d
o
e
s
n
’
t

m
a
k
e

her house very energy e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
.

L
i
s
a

i
s

sharing her experience

o
n

t
a
k
i
n
g

s
o
m
e

simple do-it-yourself

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s

t
o

inspire others to do

t
h
e

s
a
m
e
.

Y
o
u
’
l
l

f
i
n
d

her stories at myavista.
c
o
m
/
c
o
n
n
e
c
t

e
v
e
r
y

Tuesday morning.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 68
Customer Satisfaction
Evaluators conducted process evaluations of the residential programs for the 2021 program year. The methodology
consisted of interviews with trade allies as well as online surveys with program participants.
Residential Contractor Interviews
The evaluator conducted 10 interviews with contractors who serve residential customers (five serving Idaho, five
Washington). The telephone interviews focused on the following 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
Participant Surveys
Residential participants in Idaho and Washington completed 150 online surveys. The complete process evaluation is
included as Appendix E.
Impact Evaluation: Residential Sector
While some individual program results varied, the residential sector performed strongly overall in 2021. Savings
realization rates were as follows:
◆Electric: Total verified savings of 1,413,235 kWh with a realization rate of 94 percent
◆Natural Gas: Evaluated natural gas savings show a realization rate of 100 percent on savings of 276,057
therms
Complete impact evaluations for electric and natural gas are included as Appendices C and D.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 69
Performance and Savings Goals
The electric program portfolio achieved 31 percent of the 2021 savings goal. The Multifamily Direct Install Program
continued to be impacted by COVID-19 restrictions, operating on a limited basis and offering only supplemental
lighting measures in 2021. The Small Home & Multifamily Weatherization and the fuel-efficiency programs also had
lower than expected savings, driven by lower than expected participation.
Although the Fuel-Efficiency Program did not meet its target, it still accounted for 41 percent of total residential sector
savings. HVAC measures accounted for 23 percent of savings. The ENERGY STAR Homes Program far surpassed its
kWh saving goal, contributing 5 percent of residential savings.
Table 38 shows savings goals assigned to Avista’s residential sector programs for 2021, as well as reported savings and
the goal portion achieved in 2021.
TABLE 38 – RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS REPORTED ELECTRIC SAVINGS
Program Savings Goals
(kWh)
Verified Savings
(kWh)Percentage of Goal
Water Heat 16,324 30,726 188%
HVAC 349,613 323,274 92%
Shell 252,351 219,690 87%
Fuel Efficiency 2,391,800 586,226 25%
ENERGY STAR Homes 6,630 72,093 1087%
Small Home & Multifamily Weatherization 94,287 49,193 52%
Appliances 4,220 13,420 318%
Multifamily Direct Install 1,500,000 118,613 8%
Residential Total 4,615,225 1,413,235 31%
The natural gas segment of the portfolio achieved 63 percent of the goal for 2021.
The following shows the percentage of residential evaluated savings provided by each program:
◆The HVAC Program accounted for 77 percent of residential natural gas savings
◆The Water Heating Program accounted for 15% of residential natural gas savings
◆The Shell Program accounted for 6.5% of residential natural gas savings
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 70
Table 39 shows savings goals assigned to Avista’s residential sector programs for 2021, as well as reported savings and
percentage of goal achieved in 2021.
TABLE 39 – RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS REPORTED NATURAL GAS SAVINGS
Program Savings Goals
(Therms)
Verified Savings
(Therms)Percentage of Goal
Water Heat 27,593 41,972 152%
HVAC 342,173 212,647 62%
Shell 59,286 18,214 31%
ENERGY STAR Homes 1,340 670 50%
Small Home & Multifamily Weatherization 5,602 2,301 41%
Appliances - 253 NA
Residential Total 435,994 276,057 63%

Impact Evaluation Methodology
In their effort to complete impact evaluation activities, the evaluators defined two primary methods of determining
net savings for Avista’s programs:
◆A deemed savings approach involves using stipulated savings for energy conservation measures with well-
known and documented savings values. These prescriptive savings may also include an adjustment for certain
measures, such as lighting, in which site operating hours may differ from RTF values.
◆A billing analysis approach involves estimating energy savings by applying a linear regression to measured
participant energy consumption utility meter billing data. Billing analyses included billing data from non-
participant customers. Billing analysis does not require on-site data collection for model calibration. This
approach aligns with the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) Option C.
The evaluators accomplished the following quantitative goals as part of the impact evaluation:
◆Verify savings with 10 percent precision at the 90 percent confidence level
◆Where appropriate, apply the RTF to verify measure impacts
◆Where available data exists, conduct billing analysis with a suitable comparison group to estimate measure
savings
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 71
For each program, the evaluators calculated adjusted savings for each measure based on the Avista TRM and results
from the database review. They calculated verified savings for each measure based on the RTF UES, Avista TRM, or
billing analysis in combination with the results from document review. For the HVAC, Water Heat, and Fuel-Efficiency
Programs, the evaluators also applied in-service rates (ISRs) from verification surveys.
The evaluators assigned a methodological rigor level for each measure and program based on its contribution to the
portfolio savings and availability of data. They analyzed billing data for all electric measure participants in the HVAC
and Low-Income Programs. The evaluators applied billing analysis results to determine evaluated savings only for
measures where savings could be isolated (that is, where a sufficient number of participants could be identified who
installed only that measure). Program-level realization rates for the HVAC, Water Heat, and Fuel-Efficiency Programs
incorporate billing analysis results for some measures.
A longer overview of the impact evaluation methodology for residential and low-income programs is described
in Appendix C (Electric Residential Impact Evaluation) as well as in Appendix D (Natural Gas Residential Impact
Evaluation).
The evaluators implemented a web-based survey to verify program participation. They contacted all customers in
the Water Heat, Fuel-Efficiency, and Small Home & Multifamily Weatherization Programs with the goal of reaching
90/10 precision. All efforts were exhausted to reach these customers; however, these programs do not display 90/10
precision at the program-level for in-service rate calculations. For programs in which this goal was not met, the
evaluators assumed in-service rates of 100 percent.
The findings from these activities served to estimate in-service rates for each measure surveyed. These in-service rates
were applied to verification sample desk review rebates toward verified savings, which were then applied to the
population of rebates.
Adjusted
Savings
Document
Review
Interim
Veried
Savings
Reported
Savings
Database
Review
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 72
Impact Evaluation Recommendations
The evaluators offered the following recommendations for Avista’s residential programs:
◆Avista could improve methods for collecting mail-in rebate application information to reconcile the CC&B
database. The values found in the project documentation should accurately reflect the values represented in
the CC&B database.
◆A number of rebates were not accompanied by AHRI certification. In order to acquire accurate equipment
efficiencies and tank sizes, AHRI certifications are recommended to be required and submitted with the
rebate application, with an invoice that matches the model number found in the AHRI certification.
◆A number of rebate applications did not contain values associated with whether the home was existing or
new construction. This field is an input to apply correct RTF UES values. The evaluators recommend requiring
this field be completed in rebate applications, both mail-in and web-based.
◆The evaluators also recommend collecting information on single-family/multifamily/manufactured homes
on the web rebate form. This enables them to accurately assign RTF values. The mail-in rebates collect this
information; however, it is not currently required to complete the rebate. As a result, many rebates are
missing this information.
◆The evaluators note several instances in which the web-based rebate data indicates the household has
electric space heating, but all other sources (project data and document verification) indicate natural gas
space heating, and vice versa. They recommend updating data collection standards in order for all sources of
information to reflect the same values as the project documentation.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 73
Cost-Effectiveness
Tables 40 and 41 show the residential sector cost-effectiveness results by fuel type. Note that these values are inclusive
of both the prescriptive programs and the Multifamily Direct Install Programs.
TABLE 40 – RESIDENTIAL ELECTRIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 2,334,452 $ 1,805,380 1.29
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 1,467,936 $ 967,775 1.52
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 3,737,848 $ 1,368,023 2.73
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 1,467,936 $ 4,175,204 0.35
TABLE 41 – RESIDENTIAL NATURAL GAS COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 2,270,583 $ 3,844,791 0.59
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 2,270,583 $ 1,543,307 1.47
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 5,682,281 $ 3,750,981 1.51
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 2,270,583 $ 5,776,091 0.39

2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 74
Program-by-Program Summaries
Residential HVAC Program
TABLE 42 – RESIDENTIAL HVAC PROGRAM METRICS
HVAC Program Summary – Electric 2021
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 239
Overall kWh Savings 323,274
Incentive Spend $ 103,839
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 72,866
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 176,705
HVAC Program Summary – Natural Gas 2021
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 3,717
Overall Therm Savings 212,647
Incentive Spend $ 1,162,362
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 67,905
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 1,230,267
Description
Avista’s residential rebate program provides a variety of options to assist customers with multiple energy-efficiency
improvements for the home. Various rebates are available to provide comprehensive solutions for space and water
heating systems, the building shell, and appliances.
Idaho residential electric customers (Schedule 1) who heat their homes with Avista electricity may be eligible for a
rebate to convert their electric straight-resistance space heating to an air-source heat pump or ductless heat pump
system. Annual energy use in the home pre-upgrade must show 8,000 kWh or more (and less than 340 therms if
natural gas is also available) of heating use. Air source heat pumps with HSPF of nine or higher and ductless heat
pumps with HSPF of 10 or higher qualify for the program.
Idaho natural gas customers (Schedule 101) who heat their homes with Avista natural gas may be eligible for a rebate
for installing a high-efficiency natural gas furnace or boiler. High-efficiency natural gas furnaces and boilers with an
AFUE of 90 percent or higher are eligible. 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 (AHRI)
certification.
The rebate is paid to the customer after the measure has been installed and associated documentation has been
received. Energy-efficiency marketing efforts build awareness of opportunities in the home and drive customers to the
website for rebate information. Vendors generate participation using the Avista rebate as a sales tool for their services.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 75
Additional communication methods that encourage program participation include website promotion and bill inserts.
Vendor training, retail location visits, and presentations at various customer events are also part of the marketing
efforts, though they’ve been postponed due to pandemic restrictions.
Program Activities
◆Electric: Savings of 323,274 kWh in 2021, 23 percent of the overall savings achieved in Avista’s residential
portfolio. The program achieved 92 percent of its savings goal of 349,613 kWh.
◆Natural Gas: Savings of 212,647 therms in 2021 – 71 percent of the overall residential savings. The program
achieved less than its savings goal of 342,173 therms (62 percent of goal).
FIGURE 33 – RESIDENTIAL HVAC PROGRAM INCENTIVE DOLLARS BY MEASURE – ELECTRIC
For the electric HVAC program, electric furnace to air-source heat pump conversions comprised approximately 62
percent of residential HVAC electric incentives. Ductless heat pumps experienced a decrease with approximately 50
percent of the number of incentives provided in 2021 as compared to 2020.
FIGURE 34 – RESIDENTIAL HVAC PROGRAM INCENTIVE DOLLARS BY MEASURE – NATURAL GAS
$ 64,000 Electric to Air-Source Heat Pump
$ 25,500 Electric to Ductless Heat Pump
$ 4,639 Smart Thermostat DIY with Electric Heat
$ 14,700 Smart Thermostat Paid-Install with Electric Heat
$ 904,950 Natural Gas Boiler
$ 37,117 Natural Gas Furnace
$ 205,895 Smart Thermostat DIY with Natural Gas Heat
$ 14,400 Smart Thermostat Paid-Install with Natural Gas Heat
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 76
High-efficiency natural gas furnaces continued to provide the largest portion of natural gas savings in the residential
sector portfolio, comprising approximately 78 percent of Avista’s 2021 residential HVAC incentives. Smart thermostats
continued to be popular, with 1,810 installed in the Idaho service territory (1,676 for natural gas HVAC systems, 134
for electric HVAC systems).
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.
In 2021, Avista program managers kept in contact with trade allies via topical, focused email messages to notify them
of upcoming program changes and deadlines. Engagement with trade allies continues to be an important marketing
strategy for this program.
The program also took advantage of the “Way to Save” advertising campaigns to increase awareness and drive
program participation, as well as ongoing SEM activities. See pages 63-67.
Impact Evaluation
The ADM impact evaluation team found a 97 percent realization rate for the electric HVAC program and a 100
percent realization rate for the natural gas HVAC program in 2021.
The evaluators reviewed the Avista TRM values along with verified tracking data to estimate net program adjusted
savings. In addition, they reviewed and applied the current RTF UES values for the electric measures along with
verified tracking data to estimate net program verified savings for this measure.
The smart thermostat DIY with electric heat measure realization rate is low because the Avista TRM uses an average
of retail and direct-installation savings values as well as an average across heating types, while the evaluators assigned
the appropriate RTF UES value for each installation type and heating zone. The appropriate categories in the RTF
led to a lower-than-expected savings for the direct installation and retail rebates for this measure. In addition, the
evaluators found that a number of thermostats did not qualify for RTF savings; savings were therefore removed in
these instances. Finally, the measure-level ISRs were applied to the measures, further decreasing the realization rate
for the electric to air source heat pump and smart thermostat measures.
Recommendations
ADM offered the following recommendations for Avista’s residential HVAC programs, in addition to the overall
recommendations for the residential sector listed on page 72:
◆A number of smart thermostat rebates included equipment that did not meet RTF measure specifications
to receive verified savings through the RTF workbooks, which the Avista TRM values are drawn from. The
evaluators recommend providing a qualified product list for customers to ensure purchased smart thermostats
meet program requirements. In addition, the evaluators recommend that Avista verify each program rebate to
ensure qualifications after rebates are submitted.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 77
Plans for 2022
Avista will continue to offer this program in 2022. The company will consider a qualified product list for thermostats;
however, this potential improvement must be considered against potential increases in the program’s administrative
burden.
Residential Shell Program
TABLE 43 – RESIDENTIAL SHELL PROGRAM METRICS
Shell Program Summary – Electric 2021
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 130
Overall kWh Savings 219,690
Incentive Spend $ 71,766
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 107,345
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 179,111
Shell Program Summary – Natural Gas 2021
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 370
Overall Therm Savings 18,214
Incentive Spend $ 55,712
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 10,708
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 66,420
Description
Avista encourages residential customers to improve their home’s building envelope by adding insulation, upgrading
windows, and installing storm windows. Following the same energy usage requirements as the HVAC program, this
approach issues payment to the customer after the measure has been installed.
Idaho residential electric customers who heat their homes with Avista electric and use at least 8,000 kWh a year are
eligible to apply, as are Idaho residential natural gas customers with an annual home heating usage of 340 therms or
more.
Rebates related to attics, floors, and walls follow the same eligibility requirements for usage and must be installed by
a licensed contractor. Existing levels of insulation in the home must meet the following parameters: attic insulation
must have an initial insulation level of R-11 or less, and floor and wall insulation may not have any insulation to start.
Contractor supporting documentation should verify these details and include an invoice along with information about
the square footage of the space insulated along with both pre- and post-installation R-values.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 78
Window projects must replace existing windows in a home, be installed by a licensed contractor, and have a
U-factor rating of .29 or lower. Supporting documentation should include a copy of the invoice, along with window
dimensions and U-factor ratings.
New storm windows can also be considered for a rebate. They must be the same size and not in direct contact with
the existing window. The storm window exterior 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.
Marketing efforts build 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
communication methods that encourage program participation include promotion on Avista’s website and bill inserts.
Vendor training, retail location visits, and presentations at various customer events have been postponed due to
pandemic restrictions.
Program Activities
◆Electric: Savings of 219,690 kWh in 2021 (16 percent of the overall residential savings), a 39 percent
decrease over the 358,972 kWh achieved in 2020.
◆Natural Gas: Savings of 18,214 therms in 2021, or seven percent of the overall residential savings. The
program had a 51 percent increase in savings relative to the 12,000 therms achieved in 2020.
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 have generally been inclined to replace existing windows with regular windows rather than
with storm windows.
Marketing
The program also took advantage of the “Way to Save” advertising campaigns to increase awareness and drive
program participation, as well as ongoing SEM activities. See pages 63-67.
Impact Evaluation
ADM arrived at a 116 percent realization rate of savings for prescriptive shell rebate measures in electric homes and a
realization rate of 100 percent for rebate measures in homes with natural gas. This includes all three insulation cavities
(attic, floor, and wall) along with regular and storm window installation.
The realization rate for the electric savings in the Shell Program deviates from 100 percent due to the differences
between the categories applied in the Avista TRM prescriptive savings values and the more detailed categories present
with unique RTF UES values for heat pumps, electric FAF, and zonal heating types.
The realization rate for natural gas savings in the Shell Program had significant deviation from 100 percent because
of low realization rates for two measures: window replacement and attic insulation. Both measures had a statistically
significant difference between the billing analysis done by ADM and the RTF values the program used to calculate
savings.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 79
The evaluators found no duplicate rebates in the project data and therefore did not remove any rebates from verified
savings. However, ADM’s document review did illuminate some discrepancies for residential shell projects:
◆In one instance, square footage quantity in the rebate application did not match the values presented in the
project data for attic insulation.
◆Two rebates showed R-values that did not align with TRM or RTF values related to the measure.
◆For one floor insulation rebate, the new R-value did not match TRM or RTF values.
◆In several instances, web-based rebate data indicated electric space heating, but other sources (project data
and document verification) indicated natural gas space heating, and vice versa.
◆In one instance, R-values for a window were assigned incorrectly. Evaluators reassigned window insulation on
this project from an insulation of R0 to R49 to an insulation of R11 to R49.
Recommendations
In addition to the recommendations offered in the overall residential impact evaluation recommendations (noted on
page 72), ADM offered the following recommendations for the Residential Shell Program:
◆The evaluators recommend adjusting the Avista TRM values to more closely align with observed participation
within each heating type category. In addition, small changes to verified square footage led to variation in
realization rate for each project.
Plans for 2022
For window measures in the Shell Program, Avista plans to adjust the U-factor requirement to 0.29 or lower, following
the RTF required efficiency revision. ENERGY STAR-rated doors will also be added to the shell measure category.
As restrictions related to COVID-19 are reduced, Avista is planning a return to in-person vendor interaction and
customer events and education around energy-efficiency program availability. The company is also considering ways
to improve customer-facing processes and accuracy of data, as program data is migrated to iEnergy in 2022.

2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 80
Residential Water Heating Program
TABLE 44 – RESIDENTIAL WATER HEATING PROGRAM METRICS
Water Heating Program Summary – Electric 2021
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 26
Overall kWh Savings 30,726
Incentive Spend $ 5,590
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 4,052
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 9,642
Water Heating Program Summary – Natural Gas 2021
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 562
Overall Therm Savings 41,972
Incentive Spend $ 216,100
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 13,501
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 229,601
Description
Idaho customers who use either electricity or natural gas to heat their water are eligible for participation in the
Residential Water Heating Program. Three different types of water heaters are available: a high-efficiency electric heat
pump water heater with an efficiency rating of 1.8 or higher, a natural gas tankless water heater with an efficiency of
.82 or higher, or a natural gas high-efficiency storage tank water heater with an efficiency of .65 or higher. Efficiency
ratings for all equipment are verified according to the contractor invoice or the AHRI certification and should be
included with the customer’s rebate application.
Program Activities
◆Electric: Program savings were 30,726 kWh in 2021, a 137 percent increase over the 12,986 kWh of savings
achieved in 2020.
◆Natural Gas: Overall therm savings were 41,972 therms, an increase of 11 percent over savings of 37,976
therms in 2020. Savings accounted for 15 percent of the residential portfolio and the program achieved 96
percent of its savings goal of 39,436 therms.
Program Changes
There were no program changes for 2021.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 81
Marketing
The program also took advantage of the “Way to Save” advertising campaigns to increase awareness and drive
program participation, as well as ongoing SEM activities. See pages 63-67.
Impact Evaluation
ADM arrived at a realization rate of 101 percent for the electric program and 100 percent for the natural gas
program.
The evaluators found all Water Heat Program rebates to have completed rebate applications with the associated water
heater model number and efficiency values filled in either the customer care & billing (CC&B) web rebate data or mail-
in rebate applications.
They noted that the CC&B web rebate data consistently reflected the same values found in the mail-in rebate
applications, invoices, and AHRI certification documents submitted with the rebate application.
In addition, the majority of rebates were accompanied with AHRI certification. In order to acquire accurate equipment
efficiencies and tank sizes, AHRI certifications are required to be submitted with the rebate application, with an
invoice that matches the model number found in the AHRI certification. The evaluators were able to easily verify each
sampled rebate’s equipment due to inclusion of these documents.
The evaluators did note the following discrepancy for electric measures:
◆Space-heating type and water-heating type indicated on the household’s characteristics in the CC&B database
did not consistently match the values indicated on the rebate application forms. This may be due to lack of
customer knowledge about the household, or due to change in space and/or water heating type without
Avista knowledge. Not all rebates were accompanied with AHRI certification.
Recommendations
◆For electric measures, the evaluators recommend verifying space and water heating values with the customer
and updating the CC&B database to reflect the most updated information for the home.
◆The evaluators offered no recommendations for natural gas measures.
Plans for 2022
Avista plans to continue offering water heater rebates in the 2022 program year with increases to the efficiency
values. Heat-pump water heaters must have an efficiency rating of 2.9; natural gas tankless water heaters will
increase to .93 UEF. There will be no efficiency change to the storage tank natural gas water heater.
As restrictions related to COVID-19 are reduced, Avista is planning a return to in-person vendor interaction and
customer events and education around energy-efficiency program availability. Avista is also considering ways to
improve customer-facing processes and accuracy of data, as program data is migrated to iEnergy in 2022.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 82
Residential ENERGY STAR Homes Program
TABLE 45 – RESIDENTIAL ENERGY STAR HOMES PROGRAM METRICS
ENERGY STAR Homes Program Summary – Electric 2021
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 22
Overall kWh Savings 72,093
Incentive Spend $ 20,000
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 23,960
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 43,960
ENERGY STAR Homes Program Summary – Natural Gas 2021
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 6
Overall Therm Savings 670
Incentive Spend $ 3,800
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 276
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 4,076
Description
The ENERGY STAR Manufactured 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. The ENERGY STAR
Manufactured Homes Program promotes a sustainable, low operating cost, environmentally friendly structure as an
alternative to traditional manufactured home construction.
Avista offers both electric and natural gas energy-efficiency programs; as a result, the company has structured the
program to account for homes where either a single fuel or both fuels are used for space and water heating needs.
Any Idaho residential electric customer (Schedule 1) with a Northwest Energy-Efficient Manufactured (NEEM)-certified
home with Avista electric and/or Avista residential natural gas (Schedule 101) for space and water heating is eligible
for the rebate.
NEEM-certified homes provide energy savings beyond code requirements for space heating, water heating, shell
measures, lighting, and appliances. Space-heating equipment can be electric forced air, an 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).
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 83
Program Activities
◆Electric: ENERGY STAR Homes electric savings were 72,093 kWh in 2021. The program accounted for five
percent of the residential electric savings portfolio.
◆Natural Gas: Program savings were 670 therms in 2021, with six projects overall (three natural gas, three
natural gas and electric combined), less than 1 percent of the residential natural gas savings portfolio.
The 2021 incentive for ENERGY STAR Manufactured Homes was $1,000 for homes using either Avista electric service
or homes with both electric and natural gas. Customers whose homes are heated with Avista natural gas and who
receive electricity from another provider received a $600 rebate.
Impact Evaluation
Evaluators arrived at a realization rate of 99 percent for the electric ENERGY STAR Homes Program and 100 percent
for the natural gas program.
The evaluators found that realization rates for electric measures differed from 100 percent due to application of
heating zone and cooling zone via the RTF, which the Avista TRM lacks. In addition, the realization for the measure
is low because the expected savings employed an additive methodology between a natural gas-heated home and an
electric-heated home for the electric savings. However, the evaluators reviewed the RTF and determined manufactured
home electric savings for a fully natural gas-heated home would be closer to the savings a natural gas-heated home
with electricity would save. Therefore, they assigned electric savings from the RTF associated with a fully natural gas-
heated home at 43 kWh saved per year. Finally, two projects were verified to have natural gas furnace space heating
for the home and therefore verified savings did not include full electric savings. This led to one project displaying 130
percent realization for electric savings, leading to a large downward adjustment in the population realization rates.
Recommendations
◆For electric measures, the evaluators recommend verifying space heating type prior to claiming savings for
each ENERGY STAR Homes project and specifying separate savings for heating zone and cooling zone in the
Avista TRM.
◆The evaluators recommend that Avista’s TRM be updated to reflect electric savings of 43 kWh for a fully
natural gas-heated home.
Plans for 2022
There are no substantial measure changes planned for this program in 2022. However, Avista will include a TRM
savings value of 43kWh for natural gas-heated ENERGY STAR homes. Avista will also consider ways to claim more
specific building heating and square footage data, as program data is migrated to iEnergy.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 84
Residential Appliances Program
TABLE 46 – RESIDENTIAL APPLIANCES PROGRAM METRICS
Appliances Program Summary – Electric 2021
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 152
Overall kWh Savings 13,420
Incentive Spend $ 5,590
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 2,466
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 8,056
Appliances Program Summary – Natural Gas 2021
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 68
Overall Therm Savings 253
Incentive Spend $ 2,530
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 67
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 2,597
Description
Avista has historically offered incentives for high-efficiency appliances such as residential washers, dryers, and
refrigerators through various avenues such as point-of-sale programs and other prescriptive paths. For 2021, the
company backed an appliance rebate specifically for ENERGY STAR-certified products that included front-load washers
and electric dryers.
The program served more than 500 customers in 2021. More participation is anticipated in future years, as market
awareness grows. This tends to be an easy home improvement that most customers appreciate having available,
though there is a lack of customer understanding about what is considered ENERGY STAR. The yellow energy guide
on the side of the appliance is usually provided as proof of eligibility, though it serves only as a descriptor of the
amount of energy the product will use, not whether it is ENERGY STAR-certified.
This type of program allows renters to control some of the energy costs in their homes. While usually not able to
make decisions regarding the space heat, water heat, or shell improvements for their rental property, they sometimes
own their own appliances and can be an active participant in saving energy.
Program Activities
◆Electric: Savings of 13,420 kWh in 2021.
◆Natural Gas: Savings of 253 therms in 2021.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 85
Impact Evaluation
TABLE 47 – RESIDENTIAL APPLIANCES PROGRAM VERIFIED ELECTRIC SAVINGS
Measure Participation Expected
Savings (kWh)
Adjusted
Savings (kWh)
Verified Savings
(kWh) Realization Rate
ENERGY STAR-Rated Clothes Dryer 68 4,846 4,624 4,846 100.00%
ENERGY STAR-Rated Front Load
Washer 84 11,989 12,012 8,574 71.51%
Total 152 16,835 16,636 13,420 79.71%
The electric Appliances Program displayed verified savings of 13,420 kWh with a realization rate of 79.71 percent
against the expected savings for the program.
TABLE 48 – RESIDENTIAL APPLIANCES PROGRAM VERIFIED NATURAL GAS SAVINGS
Measure Participation
Expected
Savings
(Therms)
Adjusted
Savings
(Therms)
Verified Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Realization Rate
ENERGY STAR-Rated Clothes Dryer 29 78.88 67.30 67.30 85.32%
ENERGY STAR-Rated Front Load
Washer 39 235.17 190.34 185.33 78.81%
Total 68 314.05 257.65 252.64 80.44%
The natural gas Appliance Program displayed verified savings of 252.64 therms with a realization rate of 80.44
percent against the expected savings for the program.
Evaluators found that three of the sampled clothes washer projects did not qualify due to minimum volume
requirements specified by the RTF. They also found that the Avista TRM applied RTF savings from the “front load”
measure description for clothes washers. However, the evaluators found that three of the clothes washers were top-
loading, which the RTF assigns significantly lower annual savings. This change, in addition to the disqualification of
three rebates, led to a downward adjustment in realization rate.
The natural gas measures rebated through the Appliances Program are not contained in the Avista TRM. Therefore,
the evaluators applied savings for these projects by converting Avista TRM electric savings to natural gas savings by
dividing approved Avista TRM savings for the equipment by 29.3. This led to an 85 percent realization for clothes
dryers and 79 percent for clothes washers. The evaluators recommend Avista include savings estimates for these
measures in the Avista TRM for future evaluations.
Recommendations
The evaluators recommend adding top-loading clothes washers to the Avista TRM and applying savings for those
measures appropriately. They recommend Avista include savings estimates for natural gas measures in the Avista TRM
for future evaluations.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 86
Plans for 2022
Due to the interest in the program in 2021, the measure list for these appliances has been expanded for 2022 to
include the following:
◆front-load washer
◆top-load washer
◆clothes dryer – electric and natural gas
◆refrigerator
◆freezer
As restrictions related to COVID-19 are reduced, Avista is planning a return to in-person vendor interaction and
customer events and education around energy-efficiency program availability. The company has also added top-
loading clothes washers to the TRM.
Residential Fuel-Efficiency Program
TABLE 49 – RESIDENTIAL FUEL-EFFICIENCY PROGRAM METRICS
Fuel-Efficiency Program Summary 2021
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 50
Overall kWh Savings 586,226
Incentive Spend $ 201,900
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 157,719
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 359,619
Description
The Fuel-Efficiency Program 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. While natural
gas prices have risen slowly in recent years, the cost of infrastructure continues to rise at a faster pace, both for the
utility and for customers’ installation costs for these conversions. Avista residential customers who use more than
8,000 kWh of Avista electricity for straight-resistance heat are eligible to participate. This program is also available
to customers considering a switch to a natural gas forced-air furnace. The rebate is also available as a combination
space/water heat incentive for customers who plan to switch to natural gas for both systems.
In 2021, the rebate to convert from electric heat to a forced-air natural gas furnace or boiler was $2,100. The rebate
to convert from electric heat to natural gas forced-air space and water heat was $2,850.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 87
Program Activities
The Fuel-Efficiency Program obtained 586,226 kWh of savings in 2021, which is a decrease of eight percent from the
635,962 kWh achieved in 2020. Savings from this program accounted for 41 percent of the residential electric savings
portfolio.
Program Changes
No changes to this program were implemented in 2021.
Marketing
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 communication methods that encourage program participation and utility website promotion include
vendor training, retail location visits, and presentations at various customer events throughout the year.
The program also took advantage of the “Way to Save” advertising campaigns to increase awareness and drive
program participation, as well as ongoing SEM activities. See pages 63-67.
Impact Evaluation
ADM arrived at a realization rate of 83.5 percent for the residential Fuel-Efficiency Program in the Idaho service
territory.
The realization rate for the electric savings in the Fuel-Efficiency Program deviate from 100 percent due to the
differences between the applied Avista TRM prescriptive savings value and the billing analysis and true Avista TRM
value.
The Fuel-Efficiency Program, which contributes 45 percent of the expected savings, resulted in a realization rate of 84
percent whereas each of the other programs resulted in a combined 103 percent realization rate. The Fuel-Efficiency
Program contributed to a 10 percent decrease in the overall residential sector, which displayed a realization rate of 93
percent.
Evaluation methods for this program included a database review and document verification, verification surveys, and
a billing analysis. The realization rate for the electric savings deviate from 100 percent due to the differences between
the applied Avista TRM prescriptive savings value and the billing analysis and true Avista TRM value. The evaluators
found one rebate was duplicated in the project data for the electric to natural gas furnace measure. ADM removed
this instance from the verified savings for the program. In addition, the 93.33 percent survey in-service rate applied to
the combination conversion measure further decreased the realization rate for the measure and program overall.
Plans for 2022
There were no changes made for the program in 2021. In 2022, Avista will consider ADM’s general recommendations
to expand information collected on the rebate form to include efficiency values and manufacturer information.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 88
Residential Multifamily Direct Install and Supplemental Lighting Programs
TABLE 50 – RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY DIRECT INSTALL AND SUPPLEMENTAL LIGHTING PROGRAM METRICS
Multifamily Direct Install Program Summary – Electric 2021
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 121
Overall kWh Savings 118,613
Incentive Spend $ 110,710
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 44,913
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 155,623
The MFDI has been tracked by total measures installed, which include LED lamps, faucet aerators, showerheads, smart strips, pipe wrap, and other measures.
Description
The Multifamily Direct Install (MFDI) Program is designed to help hard-to-reach customers save energy. Field installers
coordinate with property managers of multifamily complexes of five units or more to directly install, in tenant units,
small energy savers such as LED lamps, faucet aerators, showerheads, and smart power strips, as well as vending
misers in common areas. During the first site visit with properties, installers audit the complex not only for tenant
needs, but also for any eligible common area lighting, which would include stairwell lighting used 24/7, exterior
lamps and fixtures on a daylight sensor, and conversions from interior fluorescent T12s and T8s to LEDs used 24/7.
Direct installations are completed at the complex and the supplemental lighting information is passed on to lighting
contractors contracted to work in various areas. Lighting contractors communicate with the property managers to
audit and put together project data that is sent to SBW and Avista to ensure the project is cost-effective, after which
the project is completed.
Program Activities
◆Electric: MFDI electric program savings were 118,613 kWh in 2021. The response to the COVID-19 pandemic
disrupted the MFDI Program’s direct-installation design, forcing the third-party implementer to temporarily
halt program processes and apply changes that adapt to pandemic restrictions. These changes included the
Exchange and Trunk N Treat pandemic pilots, which reduced the face-to-face interaction that occurs in a
traditional MFDI program design. As a result, there was no participation in the MFDI Program and limited
participation in the MFDI Supplemental Lighting Program, where participation is defined as the number of
installed lighting fixtures. Avista completed and provided incentives through the MFDI Supplemental Lighting
Program for 121 installed lighting fixtures in Idaho and reported total electric energy savings of 118,613
kWh.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 89
Program Changes
The program did not have any measure changes in 2021.
Marketing
The program is marketed by Avista and SBW, and by property managers through word of mouth. Avista tries to
proactively manage the program pipeline to provide a timely scheduling process.
FIGURE 35 – RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY DIRECT INSTALL PROGRAM FLYER
Free Common Area Lighting for Multifamily Complexes
For a limited time, Avista is providing energy-saving lighting retrofits that can help lower multifamily housing
utility bills!
The Supplemental Lighting Program provides the following retrofits for common spaces in multifamily complexes:
n stairwell lighting fixtures (if used 24/7)
n exterior lamps and fixtures on a daylight sensor (if they average at least 4,288 hours/year)
If you would like to participate, a program-specific lighting contractor will first conduct an assessment – then
perform the work if a project is developed. Avista will pay for eligible lighting.*
Additional lighting work that does not fall under the scope of the Supplemental Lighting Program may be
completed at the property owner’s expense, and if eligible, may be processed through the Avista Commercial
Prescriptive Lighting Incentive Program.
Be sure to schedule your lighting retrofit project before the program ends 12/31/21.
For more information, please call:
John Roberts, Avista business partner
SBW Consulting Inc
office: 425.824.0330 x222
cell: 206.300.9121
*Free installation by program contractor based on existing equipment eligible for replacement.
Greta Zink, Avista program manager
office: 509.495.4793
cell: 509.720.4812
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 90
Impact Evaluation
The evaluator conducted a database review to evaluate savings for each measure, then rolled up measure-level
evaluated savings to calculate savings and a realization rate for each element of the program. Table 51 shows the
resulting rates.
TABLE 51 – RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY DIRECT INSTALL PROGRAM ELECTRIC IMPACT FINDINGS
Program Reported Electric
Savings (kWh)
Adjusted Electric
Savings (kWh) Realization Rates
MFDI 0 0 N/A
MFDI Supplemental Lighting 116,121 118,613 102%
MFDI Programs Total 116,121 118,613 102%
During 2021, the evaluator identified discrepancies between evaluated and reported savings. This included contractors
using undefined annual HOU for exterior spaces in the reported savings calculations instead of hours that were
consistent with the savings calculations methodology or the site data provided. All evaluated projects with undefined
HOU exceeded 100 percent realization because these hours were lower than those documented in the calculation
methodology.
Due to the adaptations made for pandemic restrictions the MFDI Program’s participation in Idaho was limited to only
the supplemental lighting component; savings were therefore well below target. Cadmus found that the program
continues to be an efficient mechanism for installing high-efficiency lighting in additional multifamily common
areas. However, the lack of participation in the non-supplemental lighting multifamily component and the limited
participation in the Supplemental Lighting Program that resulted from the pandemic adaptations were insufficient to
meet 2021 savings targets.
All reported program savings calculations appeared to use custom HOU values that were different from deemed HOU
values for exterior spaces. Avista could not confirm some custom HOU values because some spaces did not have an
assigned site identification.
Recommendations
Cadmus offered the following recommendations for the MFDI Program:
◆As pandemic restrictions are lifted in future years, return to a traditional MFDI program design by providing
direct installation of energy-efficient lighting and non-lighting measures. Continue to replace high-use, low-
efficiency lamps where practical to maximize program cost-effectiveness and yield higher savings.
◆The MFDI Program implementer should ensure clear and consistent project documentation and accurate
inputs for all site data relating to site locations and hours of use (HOU)
Plans for 2022
This program is currently scheduled to run as originally planned as COVID-19 restrictions are lifted. Avista will continue
to set expectations for clear and consistent project documentation for all site data.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 91
Residential Small Home & Multifamily Weatherization Program
TABLE 52 – RESIDENTIAL SMALL HOME & MULTIFAMILY WEATHERIZATION PROGRAM METRICS
Small Home & Multifamily Weatherization Program Summary – Electric 2021
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 25
Overall kWh Savings 49,193
Incentive Spend $ 11,023
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 24,037
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 35,059
Small Home & Multifamily Weatherization Program Summary – Natural Gas 2021
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 16
Overall Therm Savings 2,301
Incentive Spend $ 8,993
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 1,353
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 10,345
Description
Created in response to a gap in program availability, the Small Home & Multifamily Weatherization Program addresses
two unique barriers to Avista’s residential rebate program: First, customers who did not meet minimum annual energy
usage requirements of 8,000 kWh or 340 therms were not eligible for the program. The annual usage requirement is
in place to ensure an Avista fuel is being used as a primary heat source instead of an alternative heat source (e.g., oil,
wood, propane). Second, condominium owners have typically been excluded from program eligibility because condos
are usually constructed as a multifamily building (i.e., five or more units per building).
The company has often been forced to turn away owners of condominiums or small houses for window or insulation
rebates, as very little to no energy savings existed for these homes. Customers were left dissatisfied and confused as
to why their condo or their 800-square-foot stick-built home would not qualify for a rebate. In 2021, Avista decided
to test the interest and the energy savings that may be achieved in these types of housing structures by providing
incentives for window replacement, storm windows, insulation, and line voltage thermostats.
Energy savings claimed were less than the traditional residential rebate program. Savings were determined by
considering lower estimated energy use and home square footage.
Results from the 2021 evaluation and implementation review demonstrated that 49,139 kWh savings and 2,301
therms were achieved with this program, prompting consideration toward adding additional measures for these
homes.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 92
Program Activities
The Residential Small Home & Multifamily Weatherization Program accounted for three percent of program savings
for electric and one percent of savings for natural gas programs.
◆Electric: Savings of 49,139 kWh in 2021.
◆Natural Gas: Savings of 2,301 therms in 2021.
Impact Evaluation
TABLE 53 – RESIDENTIAL SMALL HOME & MULTIFAMILY WEATHERIZATION PROGRAM VERIFIED SAVINGS
Electric Measure 2021
Participation
Expected
Savings
(kWh)
Adjusted
Savings
(kWh)
Verified
Savings (kWh)Realization Rate
Multifamily Attic Insulation with Electric
Heat 3 2,685 2,780 2,685 100.00%
Multifamily Thermostat with Baseboard
Electric Heat 2 152 152 220 144.74%
Multifamily Wall Insulation with Electric
Heat 1 1,904 1,906 1,400 73.53%
Multifamily WIFI Thermostat with
Baseboard Electric Heat 6 549 549 6,858 1249.18%
Multifamily Window Replc with Electric
Heat 13 44,621 44,616 38,030 85.23%
Total 25 49,911 50,003 49,193 98.56%
Natural Gas Measure 2021 Units
Expected
Savings
(Therms)
Adjusted
Savings
(Therms)
Verified Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Realization Rate
Multifamily Attic Insulation with
Natural Gas Heat 2 28.11 76.18 70.56 251.01%
Multifamily Floor Insulation with
Natural Gas Heat 1 0.04 42.60 42.60 -
Multifamily Window Replacement with
Natural Gas Heat 16 437.61 1,203.24 2,117.20 483.81%
Natural Gas Wall Heater 1 81.66 70.54 70.54 86.39%
Total 20 547.42 1,392.56 2,300.90 420.32%
The Small Home & Multifamily Weatherization Program displayed verified savings of 2,300.90 therms with a
realization rate of 420.32 percent against the expected savings for the program.
Evaluators found that many projects exceeded the “small home” square footage limit defined in Avista’s program
guidelines. In addition, the evaluators note that the current program rebate applications do not provide an option
to indicate “multifamily” home type. Rather, the current rebate application includes an option for “single family,”
“manufactured,” “new construction,” and “other.”
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 93
The realization rate for the natural gas savings in the Small Home & Multifamily Weatherization Program is
unexpectedly high at 420.32 percent due to differences between the unit-level savings values Avista had applied to
the project quantity for seven sampled projects and the unit-level savings presented in the Avista TRM.
Recommendations
Evaluators recommend claiming projects on single family homes that are larger than 1,000 square feet into the Shell
Program.
They recommend verifying space heating type and home type during application approval, in order to apply correct
savings values to each project. The evaluators also recommend including an option for “multifamily” on the project
application
The expected savings calculated for these projects did not align with the values indicated in the Avista TRM. The
evaluators recommend updating the CC&B database to correct for these issues.
Plans for 2022
Due to the interest in the program in 2021, the measure list for these homes has been extended to offer all incentives
currently accessible through the residential rebate program.
As restrictions related to COVID-19 are reduced, Avista is planning a return to in-person vendor interaction and
customer events and education around energy-efficiency program availability. The company has updated the program
application for 2022 with a “multifamily” option for building type. Avista is also considering ways to capture
additional building information that doesn’t contribute to the administrative burden of the program for staff, trade
allies, and customers.
LOW-INCOME SECTOR
Wallace, Idaho
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 95
LOW-INCOME SECTOR
Program Summary
Low-Income Program
TABLE 54 – LOW-INCOME PROGRAM METRICS
Low-Income Program Summary – Electric 2021
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 158
Overall kWh Savings 153,503
Incentive Spend $ 473,195
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 252,844
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 726,038
Low-Income Program Summary – Natural Gas 2021
Participation, Savings, and Costs
Conservation Projects 133
Overall Therm Savings 3,217
Incentive Spend $ 473,195
Non-Incentive Utility Costs $ 252,844
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider Spend $ 726,038
Description
Avista partners with a community action partnership (CAP) agency to deliver low-income energy-efficiency programs
in nine Idaho counties within the company’s service territory. The CAP has the infrastructure to income-qualify
customers and provides access to a variety of funding sources to install energy-efficiency improvements to the homes.
The agency serving Avista’s Idaho territory receives an annual funding amount of $875,000.
The agency may spend the contract amount at its discretion on either electric or natural gas efficiency measures.
Improvements to the residential shell (e.g., insulation, windows) require that the home demonstrates a minimum
level of annual energy use of either Avista electricity or natural gas for space heating purposes. For conversions
from electric resistive heat to a heat pump or to a natural gas furnace, an annual kilowatt hour use of 8,000 is
required. Within the annual funding allocation is a 15 percent reimbursement for administrative costs. The agency
may also choose to use up to 15 percent of its annual allocation for home repair, as well as other health and safety
improvements.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 96
To guide the agencies toward projects that are most beneficial to Avista’s energy-efficiency efforts, the company
provides an approved list of measures that are considered cost-effective and allow for full reimbursement of the
installation.
A qualified list of measures allows for partial reimbursement of efficiency improvements that may not be cost-
effective from a utility perspective but may be vital for the home’s functionality. These measures are compensated
with an amount that is equal to the utility’s avoided cost of the energy savings associated with the energy-efficiency
improvement.
Program Activities
For 2021, the program achieved 153,503 kWh of verified electric savings and 3,217 of verified natural gas savings in
Idaho. Table 55 shows Avista savings goals for the low-income sector for 2021, as well as reported savings and goal
portions achieved.
TABLE 55 – LOW-INCOME PROGRAM EVALUATED SAVINGS
Program Savings Goals Verified Savings Percentage of Goal
Electric (kWh)109,952 153,503 140%
Natural Gas (Therms)16,078 3,217 20%
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 Table 56). Avista deemed these measures as cost-effective during the
development of the 2021 Annual Conservation Plan, which took place in late 2020.
TABLE 56 – LOW-INCOME PROGRAM APPROVED MEASURE LIST
Electric Measures Natural Gas Measures
Air Infiltration
Attic Insulation
Doors – ENERGY STAR-Rated
Duct Insulation
Duct Sealing
Floor Insulation
LED Lamps
Refrigerator – ENERGY STAR-Rated
Wall Insulation
Windows – ENERGY STAR-Rated
Boiler
Doors – ENERGY STAR-Rated
Furnace
Water Heater (storage)
Water Heater (tankless)
Windows – ENERGY STAR-Rated
Fuel Conversion Measures
Electric to Natural Gas Furnace
Electric to Natural Gas Water Heater
Electric to Air-Source Heat Pump
Electric to Ductless Heat Pump
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 97
Measures that did not meet the utility cost-effectiveness test are found on the qualified rebate list. The agency is
eligible to receive partial reimbursement for the installation. The reimbursement amount is equal to the avoided cost-
energy value of the improvement. This approach focuses the agency toward installing measures that had the greatest
cost-effectiveness from the utility’s perspective. To allow for additional flexibility, the agency may use the health and
safety dollars to fully fund the cost of the measures on the qualified rebate list.
TABLE 57 – LOW-INCOME PROGRAM QUALIFIED REBATE MEASURE LIST
Electric Measures Natural Gas Measures
Air Source Heat Pump Replacement (9 HSPF)
Attic Insulation
Electric to Ductless Heat Pump (9.0 HSPF)
Heat Pump Water Heater (Tier 2-3 any size)
Window – ENERGY STAR Rated – .30 U-factor
Air Infiltration
Attic Insulation
Duct Insulation
Duct Sealing
Floor Insulation
Wall Insulation
Program Changes
The agency has a funding allocation of $875,000 for energy-efficiency measures. Other program changes include the
yearly update of measures eligible for the approved and qualified rebate lists. This is based on the company’s annual
business plan process that is completed in Q4 2020. The eligible measures for 2021 are summarized in Tables 57 and
58. While COVID-19 was still part of everyday conversation and daily precautions continued, the agency was able to
spend its contract allocation.
Customer Outreach
Customers who participate in the low-income weatherization program are often referred through the agency’s
energy-assistance program. In a typical year, Avista provides a handful of referrals from a variety of internal
departments including energy efficiency, customer service, and its Customer Assistance Referral and Evaluation
Services (CARES) Program. CARES representatives provide support for disabled, elderly, and low-income customers, or
customers experiencing hardships related to employment, health, or finances.
In a typical year, other customer contacts and referrals are made to the agency as a result of various outreach events
Avista hosts or is invited to attend. In partnership with the company’s energy-efficiency efforts, its community and
economic vitality department conducts conservation education and outreach for low-income customers, seniors,
individuals living with disability, and veterans. Avista reaches this target population through workshops, energy
fairs, and mobile and general outreach. Each medium 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 agencies. One low-income and senior outreach goal is to increase awareness
of energy assistance programs such as the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and Project Share.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 98
Avista 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 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 partnerships that reach the target populations. General outreach also includes outlining bill
payment options and assistance resources in senior and low-income publications.
In 2021, to safeguard public and staff health and well-being, Avista suspended outreach activities for several
months and used the time to come up with new strategies to safely connect with customers to provide energy-
saving information and resources. The outreach team distributed items to local food banks to include in food boxes.
Customers could also pick up items during drive-through events at food banks. In the spring, kits were provided
to the St. Maries CAP agency and to the Community Resource EnVision Center in Sandpoint. The outreach team
conducted and participated in 34 events that included mobile outreach and general outreach (via partnerships and
events) that reached 1,550 individuals in Idaho. Table 58 shows an overview of the different activities in Idaho.
TABLE 58 – LOW-INCOME PROGRAM OUTREACH EVENT AND LED BULB DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY
Description Number of Events/
Activities Contacts LEDs
Energy Fairs 0 0 0
General Outreach 29 953 2,450
Mobile Outreach 3 547 1,093
Workshops 2 50 300
Total 34 1,550 3,843
In addition to the company’s outreach and education activities, Avista partners with CAP agencies for the employment
of a full-time conservation education specialist. CAP agencies also use the funds to enable energy assistance intake
specialists in their 10 offices to conduct conservation education activities with clients and in their communities.
The conservation specialist conducts activities similar to and in parallel with Avista, and also provides one-on-one
education to individuals seeking energy assistance and while weatherization projects are underway. Furthermore, the
conservation specialist supports each CAP office’s energy staff in their local conservation efforts.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 99
In some situations, the conservation specialist partners with Avista’s outreach personnel.
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. Due to COVID and similar to Avista’s Outreach Program, CAP agencies suspended participation
at community events in 2021 and sought to connect with clients through mailed kits. Nine hundred and seventy-two
home energy kits were mailed to households who had received energy assistance in the past year, including deluxe
window kits, gasket covers, V-Seal weather-stripping, LED bulbs, nightlights, energy saving tips, a bill/payment options
and assistance programs information sheet, and an option for customers to request a home energy guide and/or a
kid’s energy-saving activity book.
FIGURE 36 – LOW-INCOME PROGRAM HOME ENERGY SAVINGS KIT BROCHURE
Your 2021 AvistaHome Energy Kit
If you have questions about your Home Energy
Kit, please contact Avista Outreach by email at [e-mail] or by phone at 509-495-8500.
More energy-saving tips
Open curtains on south-facing windows to let in
warm sunlight during the winter. Keep window coverings closed in rooms that do not receive direct sunlight to insulate from cold window drafts.
Close all curtains at night to retain heat.
Clean or replace your furnace filters monthly
throughout the heating season and every three
months during the cooling season. Also put in a clean filter at the start of the fire season to improve air quality, and replace the filter when it
becomes necessary due to outside air conditions.
Sign up for a free email reminder at myavista.com/changemyfilter.
• Take quick showers and use low-flow showerheads. Short showers use less hot water than a bath.
Practice zone heating when using baseboard or space heaters. Turn down the heat and close doors in unused rooms (a good temperature is 55°F). Keep
both clear from obstructions such as furniture and
drapes that block heat. Anything that touches these
See a complete list of energy-saving tips at myavista.com/DIY.
Window Plastic
Covering your windows with plastic insulation is a simple solution to save energy. The film seals out cold air and keeps in warm air,
plus it’s clear so you can still see outside.
To Install:
1. Clean and dry edge of window.
2. Apply double-sided mounting tape around window edge.
3. Unfold film and cut it to the width of the window, adding an extra 2 inches on all sides.
4. Press film in place starting at the top of the window,
then sides and bottom.
5. Shrink film to remove wrinkles using a hair dryer ¼ inch or so away from the film.
Rechargeable Emergency Light Bulb
This unique UL-listed bulb can be used in any standard light fixture, just like a regular light bulb.
However, should a power outage occur, it can be
turned back on just like a flashlight. Simply press the ON/OFF button on its base. While the electricity is on, the bulb’s built-in battery automatically
recharges, providing up to three hours of
emergency lighting once it is fully charged.
Blanket
A cozy blanket lets you lower your thermostat and still stay warm and comfy in winter. Save energy by setting your thermostat at 68°F. Also lower it another 5°F at night or
when away from home for an hour or more.
V-Seal Weather Strip
V-Seal weather strip blocks narrow gaps around doors or windows. The two sides of its V shape are squeezed together for a tight seal when you close your door or window.
To Install:
1. Apply when temperature is above 20°F.
2. Cut to the required length.
3. Fold along the pre-scored center line to form a “V” with the adhesive on the outside.
4. Peel off the backing strip and press into place, positioning it so the “V” compresses as the door or window is closed.
Doors:
1. Apply across and down the latch side of the doorstop molding.
2. Apply to the hinge side, next to doorframe molding.
Windows:
1. Apply to frame above the window.
2. Apply to sill under the window.
3. Apply across the lock rail.
Reusable Tote
We’ve also included a handy reusable tote to carry whenever you shop.
See how to install these products with our do-it-yourself
videos at myavista.com/DIY.
Your 2021 AvistaHome Energy Kit
If you have questions about your Home Energy
Kit, please contact Avista Outreach by email at [e-mail] or by phone at 509-495-8500.
More energy-saving tips
• Open curtains on south-facing windows to let in
warm sunlight during the winter. Keep window coverings closed in rooms that do not receive direct sunlight to insulate from cold window drafts.
Close all curtains at night to retain heat.
• Clean or replace your furnace filters monthly
throughout the heating season and every three
months during the cooling season. Also put in a clean filter at the start of the fire season to improve air quality, and replace the filter when it
becomes necessary due to outside air conditions.
Sign up for a free email reminder at myavista.com/changemyfilter.
• Take quick showers and use low-flow showerheads. Short showers use less hot water than a bath.
• Practice zone heating when using baseboard or space heaters. Turn down the heat and close doors in unused rooms (a good temperature is 55°F). Keep
both clear from obstructions such as furniture and
drapes that block heat. Anything that touches these devices can be a fire hazard.
• See a complete list of energy-saving tips at myavista.com/DIY.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 100
Marketing
Multiple communication channels were utilized to increase awareness of Avista’s energy fairs. Tactics included news
releases, direct mail, email, fliers, community calendars, social media, signage, and print advertising.
FIGURE 37 – LOW-INCOME PROGRAM WEATHERIZATION FLYER, POSTCARD, AND EMAIL HEADING
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: brochures or
flyers 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.
With a realization rate of 95 percent for electricity and 85 percent for natural gas savings, the low-income program
achieved savings of 153,503 kWh in 2021. The program achieved 3,217 therms in natural gas savings.
The realization rates for each program deviate from 100 percent due to differences between the Avista TRM values
applied to the quantities displayed in the tracking data. The evaluators note several instances in which the tracking
data displayed correct quantity values, but the expected savings calculated for the project did not indicate Avista TRM
values were applied properly to the quantities. The evaluators applied the verified Avista TRM values for the Low-
Income Program, then applied a realization rate from a sample of rebates after verifying documentation for quantity
and efficiency of measures.
Energy Efficiency
Program for Income-
Eligible Households
Avista provides funding to area community action agencies to offer energy-efficiency services to
income-qualified households. These services include free improvements to help reduce energy consumption
and will keep your home more comfortable all year long.
Improvements may include insulation, caulking and weatherstripping to reduce drafts, and energy-efficient
doors and windows. They may also check to see if health and safety improvements are needed, such as
installing smoke and carbon monoxide detectors.
After your income eligibility is confirmed by a partnering community action agency, they will provide a
home-energy audit to identify efficiency improvements that would benefit your home.
If you currently receive assistance to pay your Avista bill, you are likely eligible to participate in this program.
FRANKLIN COUNTY Benton Franklin Community Action Committee 720 W Court St Pasco, WA 99301
509-545-4042
WHITMAN COUNTY
Community Action Center
350 SE Fairmont Rd
Pullman, WA 99163
509-334-9147
KLICKITAT & SKAMANIA COUNTIES Community Action Council of Lewis, Mason & Thurston Counties 3020 Willamette Dr NE Lacey, WA 98516
360-438-1100
10 NORTHERN-MOST IDAHO COUNTIES & ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON Community Action Partnership 124 New 6th St
Lewiston, ID 83501
208-746-3351 or 800-326-4843
ADAMS COUNTY
Opportunities
Industrialization Center
1419 Hathaway St Yakima, WA 98902 509-452-2555 or 877-952-7145
SPOKANE COUNTY SNAP 212 W Second Ave Spokane, WA 99201 509-456-7627 snapwa.org
FERRY, LINCOLN, PEND OREILLE & STEVENS COUNTIES Rural Resources Community Action 956 S Main St Colville, WA 99114
509-684-8421
Spokane Indian Housing
Authority
6403 Sherwood Addition Rd
Wellpinit, WA 99040 509-818-1486
To learn more, contact the community action agency that serves your county:
Avista financia a las
a
g
e
n
c
i
a
s

d
e

a
c
c
i
ó
n

c
o
m
u
n
i
t
a
r
i
a

de la zona para que o
f
r
e
z
c
a
n

s
e
r
v
i
c
i
o
s

d
e

e
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
i
a

energética a los hog
a
r
e
s

q
u
e

c
u
m
p
l
e
n

l
o
s

r
e
q
u
i
s
i
t
o
s

de ingresos. Estos se
r
v
i
c
i
o
s

i
n
c
l
u
y
e
n

m
e
j
o
r
a
s

g
r
a
t
u
i
t
a
s

para ayudar a reduc
i
r

e
l

c
o
n
s
u
m
o

d
e

e
n
e
r
g
í
a
,

c
o
m
o

la mejora del aislam
i
e
n
t
o

o

l
a

i
n
s
t
a
l
a
c
i
ó
n

d
e

ventanas nuevas.
Tras la confirmación
p
o
r

p
a
r
t
e

d
e

u
n
a

a
g
e
n
c
i
a

d
e

acción comunitaria d
e

q
u
e

s
u
s

i
n
g
r
e
s
o
s

s
o
n

e
l
e
g
i
b
l
e
s
,

ésta realizará una au
d
i
t
o
r
í
a

e
n
e
r
g
é
t
i
c
a

d
e

s
u

v
i
v
i
e
n
d
a

para identificar las
m
e
j
o
r
a
s

d
e

e
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
i
a

q
u
e

beneficiarían a la
m
i
s
m
a
.

S
i

a
c
t
u
a
l
m
e
n
t
e

r
e
c
i
b
e

a
y
u
d
a

para pagar su factu
r
a

d
e

A
v
i
s
t
a
,

e
s

p
r
o
b
a
b
l
e

q
u
e

u
s
t
e
d

pueda participar en es
t
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
a
.
Consulte el reverso p
a
r
a

o
b
t
e
n
e
r

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
c
i
ó
n

s
o
b
r
e

s
u

agencia de acción co
m
u
n
i
t
a
r
i
a

l
o
c
a
l
.

Avista provides fund
i
n
g

t
o

a
r
e
a

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

action agencies to o
f
f
e
r

e
n
e
r
g
y
-
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s

to income-qualifie
d

h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
.

T
h
e
s
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s

include free improv
e
m
e
n
t
s

t
o

h
e
l
p

r
e
d
u
c
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

consumption such as
i
n
s
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

u
p
g
r
a
d
e
s

o
r

installing new window
s
.
After confirming yo
u
r

i
n
c
o
m
e

e
l
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

w
i
t
h

a community action

a
g
e
n
c
y
,

t
h
e
y

w
i
l
l

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

a home-energy aud
i
t

t
o

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

improvements that

w
o
u
l
d

b
e
n
e
f
i
t

y
o
u
r

h
o
m
e
.

If you currently rec
e
i
v
e

a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

t
o

p
a
y

y
o
u
r

Avista bill, you’re likely

e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e

t
o

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t

in this program.
See other side for in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

o
n

y
o
u
r

l
o
c
a
l

community action a
g
e
n
c
y
.
Each home is evaluat
e
d

o
n

a

c
a
s
e

b
y

c
a
s
e

b
a
s
i
s
.
Cada vivienda se evalú
a
caso por caso.
Energy Efficie
n
c
y

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
for Income-Elig
i
b
l
e

Households Programa de Ef
i
c
i
e
n
c
i
a

E
n
e
r
g
é
t
i
c
a

para Hogares co
n

I
n
g
r
e
s
o
s

q
u
e
Califican para Ello
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 101
In the Low-Income Program, the evaluators found the LED bulbs’ unit-level savings were inaccurately referred to.
Avista TRM specifies 1 kWh per bulb, while expected savings uses 9 kWh savings per bulb, leading to 11 percent
realization for LED bulb projects under the program.
Customer and Agency Satisfaction
The evaluator’s process evaluation of the Low-Income Program consisted of stakeholder interviews with Avista staff
and with six CAP agencies participating in 2021, including the lone agency serving the state of Idaho.
Generally, CAP agencies and participating customers were highly satisfied with the Low-Income Program. All six CAP
agencies and Avista staff emphasized positive, well-established relationships that are communicative and collaborative.
Despite facing challenges with participation, some CAP agencies noted that Avista was working with them to market
the program and increase outreach in an effort to bring in potential customers.
All CAP agencies who served customers in 2021 reported that customers generally provided positive feedback.
These agencies said that customers were typically happy with the equipment they received through the program and
appreciative of the work provided.
Both Avista and CAP agencies reported that COVID-19 affected the program in 2021. After Avista temporarily
suspended the program in 2020 to establish health and safety protocols, participation was slow to rebound in some
areas. While some CAP agencies had returned to steady work, others (especially newer agencies) have struggled to
reach customers. Other customer bases, such as elderly clients and those with health vulnerabilities, were still difficult
to serve at the time of the interviews.
Program marketing also suffered as a result of the pandemic. Certain in-person events were canceled, which made
particular groups of clients more difficult to reach.
Idaho’s CAP agency reported issues with untreatable homes due to the condition of the home, such as a damaged
roof or sewer line.
The evaluators provided the following recommendations for Avista’s Low-Income Program:
◆Increase and adjust program marketing efforts to target hard-to-reach members of the income-eligible
community. As more in-person events are offered, market the program to increase potential customer
participation. Along with in-person events, offer virtual marketing opportunities to reach more vulnerable
customers, such as the elderly or those with health vulnerabilities, who may not be able to attend in-person
events. Work with community groups in rural areas to help identify customer bases and plan marketing
efforts to inform them of the program.
◆Continue to work with newer CAP agencies to help increase customer participation. Providing support
in more rural areas where these new CAP agencies are working will be essential to helping them gain
customers. Understanding the needs of people within their territories can also help inform targeted
marketing offerings or ways to promote the program.
◆Many deviations from a 100 percent realization rate are due to differences between the limited measure
category option’s Avista TRM values, and the more detailed categories referring to heating zone, cooling
zone, heating type, and bulb types present in the RTF. The evaluators recommend that Avista refer to the
more detailed RTF measures when calculating expected savings for the programs.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 102
◆The evaluators reviewed the project documentation provided by Avista and identified conflicting square
footage or number of units between the aggregated project data from the expected savings calculated for
each project. The evaluators found very few instances in which the tracking data quantity differed from the
quantity displayed in sampled documentation and invoices. They recommend providing corrections to the
application of Avista TRM values to tracking data quantity.
The evaluators note that many deviations from 100 percent realization rate in the Low-Income Program are due to
verifying that 20 percent annual household energy caps were properly applied.
◆The evaluators found the LED bulbs’ unit-level savings were inaccurately referred to for the Low-Income
Program. Avista TRM specifies 1 kWh per bulb, while expected savings uses 9 kWh savings per bulb, leading
to 11 percent realization for LED bulb projects under the program. The evaluators recommend updating
database calculations to use Avista TRM values during expected savings calculations.
Cost-Effectiveness
Tables 59 and 60 show the low-income sector cost-effectiveness results by fuel type.
TABLE 59 – LOW-INCOME PROGRAM ELECTRIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 389,481 $ 587,932 0.66
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 196,283 $ 676,816 0.29
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 731,308 $ 335,089 2.18
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 147,061 $ 984,151 0.15
TABLE 60 – LOW-INCOME PROGRAM NATURAL GAS COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
Cost-Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 249,432 $ 280,125 0.89
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 103,539 $ 293,813 0.35
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 292,267 $ 209,058 1.40
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 33,769 $ 363,334 0.09
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 103
Plans for 2022
The measures available for full reimbursement will be the same as 2021. Homes that heat with electricity continue to
receive partial funding that has been slightly adjusted for replacement of existing air-source heat pumps with high-
efficiency models, conversion of electric water heaters to natural gas, and the installation of heat pump water heaters.
Homes that heat with natural gas continue to receive partial funding for all insulation measures.
As a dual-fuel utility, Avista does not impose requirements to annually serve a set number of electric- or natural gas-
heated homes. The CAP is provided with the flexibility to serve the home of a qualified customer identified during a
program year. As mentioned previously, the measures that appear on the approved and qualified list may fluctuate
annually based on utility cost-effectiveness tests. The flexibility given to the health, safety, and repair allocation does
allow for measures on the qualified list to be fully funded.
The agency has demonstrated the ability to fully spend its utility allocation each year. In 2022 it will receive a two-year
agreement to allow for continuous service of Avista customers. Often the agency will have spent out utility funds prior
to the end of the calendar year; the two-year agreement will enable them to reach into the future year for additional
funds that may be needed in year one of the contract.
In a separate but related issue, the agency was awarded $250,000 from the company’s Energy Efficiency Assistance
Fund (EEAF) that was developed as part of Idaho Settlement Agreement AVU-E-19-4. In conjunction with the EEAF
advisory group, these funds are distributed for projects that are not typically eligible for traditional energy-efficiency
funding. The agency will use this amount toward health, safety, and repair work on homes that have not been able
to receive holistic energy-efficiency services due to extenuating circumstances. The agency will make the necessary
improvements that could vary from electrical issues to asbestos removal. Once the issue has been resolved, the agency
will be able to provide a comprehensive energy-efficiency offering using funds from Avista’s low-income energy
efficiency contract. In 2021 the agency served 12 homes with over $103,000 worth of work that enabled the home
to receive weatherization services. Most of the improvements were for electrical panel replacements – an item that is
needed if a heat pump is installed and is often not supported by other funding sources.
Avista plans to fix a discrepancy in the TRM related to direct-installation LED bulbs savings assumptions by adding a
separate TRM value for LED direct installation. Avista currently notes on each invoice whether a cap related to annual
consumption has been applied to the project. Avista also maintains a tracking spreadsheet for projects that have
savings caps. The company will work with the evaluator in subsequent years to ensure this process is understood and
is visible to evaluators. Finally, Avista will conduct a comparison between current measures in the TRM and current
RTF measures to evaluate whether it makes sense to move to more detailed RTF categories for savings associated with
low-income projects.
PILOT PROGRAMS
Canyon Creek, Wallace, Idaho
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 105
PILOT PROGRAMS
Program-by-Program Summaries
Active Energy Management
Consistent with Avista’s goals to be carbon-neutral by 2030 and carbon-free by 2045 – and also aligning with
efficiency requirements on commercial buildings – the Active Energy Management (AEM) pilot focuses on the
exploration of clean energy transformation for commercial buildings. AEM can be defined in industry terms as a
strategic energy management program that employs monitoring-based commissioning processes and the best fault
detection and diagnostic tools.
Avista is partnering with Edo for this pilot. Edo, a joint investment between Avista Development and McKinstry, is a
building efficiency and grid optimization business. The AEM pilot uses the newly built eco-district’s communication
networks, cloud services, and data-mining algorithms to capture, process, and disseminate actionable information
to participants in the program. The technology platform is expected to provide a framework to evaluate building
performance.
The energy management pilot represents an enhanced approach to utility customer solutions through interactive
sponsored Strategic Energy Management (SEM) services. This arrangement creates an integrated customer experience
and expanded outcomes and skills for Avista. Figure 38 illustrates the expected benefits for both customers and
Avista.
FIGURE 38 – EXPECTED BENEFITS OF THE ACTIVE ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR AVISTA AND FOR CUSTOMERS

2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 106
Program Activities
The design process, finalized in 2021, identified nine work stages.
FIGURE 39 – ACTIVE ENERGY MANAGEMENT DESIGN PROCESS
The first three work stages were completed in 2021; the others were delayed due to COVID restrictions and customer
availability to coordinate equipment installations. In 2022, the customer selection through ongoing optimization
stages are happening in tandem. Site setups are expected to be completed by the end of 2022.
When setup is complete, up to 10 sites will be participating in the pilot, which will encompass more than one million
square feet.
Program goals include the following:
1. 4.8 million kWh of energy savings over three years.
2. Up to eight Avista account management and energy-efficiency team members trained in technology-based
SEM solutions and best practices.
3. Acquire rich facility operating information that can inform future rate or program design, particularly focused
on future load flexibility programs.
4. Increased customer satisfaction for participating building owners and operators.
5. Insights into customer willingness to participate in future demand flexibility programs.
6. Demonstrate non-energy benefits from program participation including occupant comfort, reduced
greenhouse gas emissions, and improved equipment life expectancy.
Charter
Creation
Marketing
Preparation Training Customer
Selection Outreach
Customer
Kick-off
Site
Set-up
Ongoing
Optimization
Annual
Reporting
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 107
Residential Home Energy Audit Pilot Program
Description
Taking advantage of previous experience and aligning with industry best practices, Avista launched a pilot Home
Energy Audit Program in 2019. Eligible participants included residential customers who use Avista energy as their
primary heating source and reside in Kootenai County, Idaho or in Spokane County, Washington. The program was
implemented by Avista using a contract auditor.
The contract auditor conducted in-person energy audits in customer homes. Audit findings and energy-efficiency
recommendations were discussed with the customer and documented in an audit report, which was later sent by
both email and postal mail to customers. Customers were also given low-cost efficiency items if needed. Where
applicable/feasible, items were installed by the auditor at the time of the audit. Energy savings were captured for LED
lamps, power strips, low-flow showerheads, and low-flow faucet aerators. Other low-cost efficiency items were left
behind for the customer to self-install if warranted. These included rope caulk, plastic window film kits, foam outlet
and switch-plate gaskets, door sweeps, and weather stripping. Customers were then interviewed for feedback on the
program.
Program Activities
In early 2020, Avista gained support from the Energy-Efficiency Advisory Group and commission staff for both
Washington and Idaho to move the program from pilot to full program status. Modifications to program marketing
materials and agreement forms were underway prior to the COVID-19 pandemic; restrictions effectively suspended
the program. As a result, no audits were conducted in 2020 or 2021.
Plans for 2022
The program will resume as planned by June 2022. The Home Energy Audit Program will be scaled up and offered
across the utility’s entire Idaho and Washington service territory. Based on participation, Avista estimates that 200
audits will be conducted between the two states per year. Customer education about energy efficiency and cross-
program awareness will be key focus areas. Avista will also continue to work closely with community agency partners
to serve vulnerable populations with this program offering.
Qualifying participants are residential customers using an Avista fuel for space heating. Single-family homes,
multifamily homes up to a four-plex, and condominium homes are eligible to participate. Multifamily homes with five
or more units will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 108
AeroBarrier Pilot Program
Reducing air leaks in a new-construction home results in sustainable benefits with increased comfort, reduced
energy usage, and lower energy bills. Many builders recognize and promote this, but there are several value-based
builders who choose not to meet air-seal code requirements. Avista is targeting all builders for this pilot and will track
demographics of each to determine the value of and future potential for this program.
The pilot program offers incentives exclusively for the air-sealing method using AeroBarrier. This product differs from
traditional air sealing practices that use spray foam, caulk, gaskets, and tape because AeroBarrier manufacturers its
product (acrylic sealant) from technology invented, and proven, by the U.S. Department of Energy more than 20 years
ago. The sealant is applied using sprayers throughout the home while it’s under pressure, which delivers consistent
results.
FIGURE 40 – AEROBARRIER APPLICATION PROCESS
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 109
Program Implementation
The pilot was launched in April 2021 to provide home builders with an incentive to seal new homes with AeroBarrier’s
product. Through this pilot, Avista intends to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this method on up to 300 homes; to
accomplish this, the pilot is expected to run for a one-year term.
A comprehensive list of new home builders was created from publicly available historical building permit applications
and internal trade ally lists. Marketing materials to bring awareness of this new pilot program were then mailed
and/or emailed to this list of builders. In addition, Avista promoted the pilot to the Spokane Area Home Builder’s
Association at monthly meetings and provided leave-behind reference materials for this group to have on hand.
Website content was also created and added to myavista.com for awareness and reference.
FIGURE 41 – AEROBARRIER MARKETING COLLATERAL
1411 East Mission A
v
e
n
u
e
,

P
.
O
.

B
o
x

3
7
2
7
Spokane, WA 99220-3
7
2
7
Get a money-sav
i
n
g

r
e
b
a
t
e

o
n

a

game-changing

s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
.
1**1****SCH 5-DIGIT 9
9
0
0
0

<COMPANYNAME>
<MAIL_ADDRESS1>
<MAIL_ADDRESS2>

<MAIL_CITY>, <MAIL_S
T
A
T
E
>

<
M
A
I
L
_
P
O
S
T
A
L
>
<SEQUENCE>
PRESORTED
FIRST CLASS
U.S. POSTAGE
PAIDSpokane, WA
Permit No. 307
AeroBarrier makes it possible to easily meet or exceed the envelope-sealing requirements of ENERGY STAR®, LEED,
Washington State Prescriptive Energy Code Option 2 Credits, or Net Zero – more consistently and cost-effectively than
traditional methods. With a better envelope, you can meet your state energy requirements while providing more flexibility in appliance, heating system, and domestic water heat fuel choices.
> fast and easy to apply> measurable results> cost-effective and air-tight> durable, reliable, and safe
Consistently Tighter Building Envelopes
Step 1 – Seal Building: Cover all large openings (drains,
bathroom vents, etc.) and horizontal surfaces, set up
sealing equipment, and pressurize space.
Step 2 – Aerosolize Sealant: Air currents will transport and
deposit non-toxic acrylic sealant particles along the leaks
throughout the space – up to ½" and as small as a human hair – without coating vertical surfaces.
Step 3 – Verify Completion: Software will regulate the
entire process, controlling the parameters, monitoring the
sealing, recording all data, and confirming that the air-tightness target has been achieved.
Guaranteed Results: Seals remain firmly in place for years
while staying completely pliable and flexible.
A Simple, Time-Saving Process
Avista is offering a rebate to help offset the cost of
AeroBarrier’s cutting-edge technology. The rebate is
calculated using the pre-seal ACH(50) value or 5 ACH(50) – whichever is lower – minus the post-ACH(50) value and multiplied by $150 per 1,000 SF of conditioned space.
Example for a 2,350 SF home with a pre-seal value of 7.5
ACH(50) and a post-seal value of 3.5 ACH(50):
5-3.5 = 1.5 (because the starting value is more than code)1.5 x $150 = $225$225 x 2.350 = $528.75
More Cost-Effective than Ever
Get a money-saving rebate on a game-changing solution.
PILOT PROGRAM
Avista’s AeroBarrier rebate is a pilot program, and ends March 31, 2022 or after 300 rebates have been issued, whichever comes first.
For more information about Avista’s AeroBarrier rebate pilot program, contact:
Leona Haleyenergy efficiency program manager
Avista Corp.(509) [e-mail]
For more information about AeroBarrier, contact:
Adam MetzgerAir Barrier Northwest(509) [e-mail]
AeroBarrier is changing the way
homes are built with a convenient,
cost-effective approach that seals
homes in less than three hours – and
provides verified, documented results.Jamie Howardaccount executive for builders/developers
Avista Corp.(208) [e-mail]
Get a money-saving rebate on a game-changing solution.
AeroBarrier is changing the way homes are built with a convenient, cost-
effective approach that seals homes in less than three hours – and provides
verified, documented results.
PILOT PROGRAM
AeroBarrier makes it possible to easily meet or exceed the envelope-sealing requirements of ENERGY STAR®,
LEED, Washington State Prescriptive Energy Code Option 2 Credits, or Net Zero – more consistently and cost-
effectively than traditional methods. With a better envelope, you can meet your state energy requirements
while providing more flexibility in appliance, heating system, and domestic water heat fuel choices.
> fast and easy to apply> measurable results
> cost-effective and air-tight> durable, reliable, and safe
Consistently Tighter Building Envelopes
(See additional information on back)
Avista is offering a rebate to help offset the cost of AeroBarrier’s cutting-edge technology.
The rebate is calculated using the pre-seal ACH(50) value or 5 ACH(50) – whichever is lower –
minus the post-ACH(50) value and multiplied by $150 per 1,000 SF of conditioned space.
Example for a 2,350 SF home with a pre-seal value of 7.5 ACH(50) and a post-seal value of
3.5 ACH(50):
5-3.5 = 1.5 (because the starting value is more than code)
1.5 x $150 = $225
$225 x 2.350 = $528.75
More Cost-Effective than Ever
Step 1 – Seal Building: Cover all large openings (drains, bathroom vents, etc.) and horizontal surfaces, set up sealing equipment, and pressurize space.
Step 2 – Aerosolize Sealant: Air currents will transport and deposit non-toxic acrylic sealant particles along the leaks throughout the space – up to ½" and as small as a human hair – without coating vertical surfaces.
Step 3 – Verify Completion: Software will regulate the entire
process, controlling the parameters, monitoring the sealing,
recording all data, and confirming that the air-tightness target has been achieved.
Guaranteed Results: Seals remain firmly in place for years
while staying completely pliable and flexible.
Avista’s AeroBarrier rebate is a pilot program, and ends March 31, 2022 or after 300 rebates have been issued,
whichever comes first.
Jamie Howardaccount executive for builders/developersAvista Corp.[phone]
[e-mail]
Leona Haleyenergy efficiency program managerAvista Corp.[phone]
[e-mail]
For more information about Avista’s AeroBarrier rebate pilot program, contact:For more information about AeroBarrier, contact:
Adam MetzgerAir Barrier Northwest(509) [e-mail]
airbarriernorthwest.com
A Simple, Time-Saving Process
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 110
Program Eligibility
Eligibility for the pilot rebate is limited to builders of residential single-family new-construction homes in Idaho and
Washington using an Avista fuel for space heating. Customers who meet the eligibility requirements will receive a
$100 per air change per hour at 50 pascals (ACH(50)) reduction from the pre-seal value or state building code level
(whichever is less) per 1,000 square feet sealed, subject to the provision of required documents by the customer to
Avista (either mailed or submitted electronically). However, online rebate processing is not currently within the scope
of the pilot, as further review by Avista’s technology team is still required. For the pilot, Avista will include a 50 percent
incentive bonus to aid in removing the market barrier. Incentives will be capped at the total project cost.
Plans for 2022
This pilot will conclude in June of 2022. Avista will evaluate the pilot and determine whether to offer a full program.
Findings and a recommendation will be presented to the EEAG at the fall 2022 meeting, and input from stakeholders
will be incorporated into next steps.

Pilot Programs On Hold
The following pilot programs remained on hold in 2020 due to COVID-19:
Small Business Lighting Direct Install Pilot – The Small Business Lighting Direct Install pilot is designed for hard-to-
reach small business customers within Avista’s service territory. The criteria for participation are still in development;
it will, however, have similar criteria to the company’s MFDI program for area lighting. Initially, the pilot will select 25
customers to participate, and its cost-effectiveness will be evaluated.
Luminaire Level Lighting Control (LLLC)/Networked Lighting Pilot – Avista will pilot LLLC for 20 customers
to determine whether additional efficiencies can be gained by fine-tuning lighting within a commercial/industrial
building. Avista will work with the customer to add LLLC or networked lighting in a space in the customer’s building
prior to a lighting upgrade of 50 percent or greater. The goal of the pilot is to show the additional energy savings
derived from the additional network controls.
Energy Use Index (EUI) Retrofit Pilot – The EUI pilot will encourage customers to move toward a more efficient
use of their energy. The pilot will use a pay-for-performance approach with the goal of achieving 50 percent of the
customer’s previous energy use. Facilities must do at least 25 percent of their buildings’ square footage, and there
must be a way to accurately measure at a sub-panel for performance. The pilot will be limited to five customers.
Tool-Lending Pilot – The Tool-Lending pilot will be a two-year program allowing tool lending to Avista customers
from a public space in the eco-district. The library of tools will include the current stock of energy efficiency-related
equipment but will also include some newer technologies that provide more insight into energy use. In addition to
training, the program will include shipping the tools and training materials to customers who are not in the immediate
area.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 111
(This page intentionally left blank.)
REGIONAL MARKET TRANSFORMATION
Clark Fork, Idaho
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 113
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 cooperatively worked together through NEEA to address opportunities that are
beyond the ability or reach of individual utilities. Avista has been participating in and funding NEEA since it was
founded in 1997.
Table 61 shows the 2021 NEEA actual savings and the associated costs for Idaho. The 2021 electric costs of $560,054
are inclusive of $557,659 paid directly to NEEA and $2,395 for Avista’s participation in committees. For natural gas,
$157,375 was paid directly to NEEA and an additional $2,023 originated from Avista’s participation in committees.
TABLE 61 – ACTUAL SAVINGS AND ASSOCIATED COSTS FOR IDAHO
Fuel Type
2021 NEEA Final
Reported Energy
Savings
2021 Costs
(Avista Financials)
Avista Idaho Current
Funding Share
(2021-2024)
Electric 3,416 MWh
(0.39 aMW)$ 560,054 1.69%
Natural Gas 152,881 $ 159,398 3.55%
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, the funding share for Avista is split between 30 percent for Avista Idaho
and 70 percent for Avista Washington. The funding share for Avista varies by funding cycle and within each cycle if
the funding composition changes.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 114
Natural Gas Energy Savings Share
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; and all administrative costs.
Avista’s criteria for funding NEEA’s electric market transformation portfolio calls for the portfolio to deliver
incrementally cost‐effective resources beyond what could be acquired through Avista’s local portfolio alone. Avista
has historically communicated with NEEA the importance of that organization delivering cost‐effective resources
to the company’s service territory. The company believes that NEEA will continue to offer cost‐effective electric
market transformation in the foreseeable future. Avista will continue to be active in the organizational oversight of
NEEA, a critical step in ensuring that geographic equity, cost‐effectiveness, and resource acquisition goals of market
transformation are met.
Eastside Collaborative Market Transformation
During 2021, Avista began investigating new market transformation efforts with a specific focus on energy-
efficiency measures and solutions that work well in northern Idaho and eastern Washington. This engagement
is complementary to NEEA’s efforts for the broader region. The goal of this effort is aimed at assessing market
transformation opportunities that drive greater local impact and create deeper customer engagement. To do
this, Avista is piloting the application of a market transformation approach that focuses on mid- and upstream
interventions to remove market barriers and create lasting change.
While 2022 will focus on pilot execution and initial assessment of an eastside market transformation approach, much
of the groundwork for these efforts began in 2020-21. In 2021 the team conducted a competitive bid process to
identify market partners to support the pilot. The team negotiated partnerships with two major manufacturers and
their distribution channels to invest additional resources and dollars aimed at removing market barriers associated
with cost, awareness, and acceptance using an approach tailored to eastside markets and customers. The team
has created a market transformation strategy, captured pilot logic, identified key market indicators of success, and
negotiated relevant data exchanges to track pilot success and continue to explore ductless heat pump potential and
specific barriers to adoption found in Avista’s and Idaho Power’s service territories.

2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 115
(This page intentionally left blank.)
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Coeur d’Alene, Idaho
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 117
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Advisory Group: Avista’s group of external stakeholders who comment about the company’s energy-efficiency
activities.
AHRI (Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute) certificates: a certification widely recognized
through the industry as a standard certification for HVAC/refrigeration efficiency.
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 to 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.
Annual Conservation Plan: A plan produced annually by Avista laying out expected savings and efficiency program
expenditures as well as new programs and changes to existing programs.
annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE): A measurement on how efficiently a furnace or boiler uses its fuel.
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’s energy-efficiency activity. Baseline conditions are sometimes referred to as “business-as-usual” conditions.
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. Load on a system is
typically measured at the 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.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 118
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 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.
customer/customer classes: 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 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 referred to as unit energy savings, an estimate of the 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.
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 mean 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.
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).
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 119
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 Advisory Group (EEAG): A group which advises investor-owned utilities on the development of
integrated resource plans and conservation programs.
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.”
energy use intensity (EUI): A metric – energy per square foot per year – that expresses a building’s energy use as a
function of its size or other characteristics.
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.
external evaluators (AKA third-party evaluators): Independent professional efficiency person or entity retained
to conduct EM&V activities. Consideration will be made for those who are Certified Measurement and Verification
Professionals (CMVPs) through the Association of Energy Engineers (AEE) and the Efficiency Evaluation Organization
(EVO).
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 were enacted.
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, HVAC is particularly
important in the design of medium to large industrial and office buildings where humidity and temperature must all
be closely regulated while maintaining safe and healthy conditions within.
high-intensity discharge (HID) fixture: A fixture that is bright and powerful enough to throw a high amount of
lumens an extremely long distance; often used in very large spaces such as manufacturing facilities or sports stadiums.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 120
HOU: Hours of use (an annual estimation of lighting or HVAC equipment operation hours).
Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC): Regulators of investor-owned or privately owned utilities that provide
natural 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.
implementer: Avista employee 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, or in the case of a third-party implementer, may be contractually obligated to implement programs on
behalf of Avista.
incremental cost: The difference between the cost of baseline equipment or services and the cost of alternative
energy-efficient equipment or services.
installation verification (IV) report: A detailed report documenting installed conservation measures on a site-
specific project.
Integrated Resource Plan (IRP): 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.
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.
kilo British thermal unit (kBtu): Btu, which stands for British thermal units, measures heat energy. Each Btu equals
the amount of heat needed to raise one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit; the prefix kilo means 1,000, which
means that a kBtu equals 1,000 Btu.
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.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 121
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.
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.
measurement and verification (M&V): A subset of program impact evaluation that is associated with the
documentation of energy savings at individual sites or projects, 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).
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA): A nonprofit organization that works to accelerate energy efficiency
in the Pacific Northwest through the adoption of energy-efficient products, services, and practices.
Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC): An organization that develops and maintains both a
regional power plan and a fish and wildlife program to balance the environmental and energy needs of the Pacific
Northwest.
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. It 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.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 122
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.
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 programs.
project: An activity or course of action involving one or multiple energy-efficiency measures at a single facility or site.
ratepayer impact (RIM) test: A cost effectiveness test that measures changes in customer bills or rates due to
changes in utility revenues and operating costs caused by an energy efficiency or demand response program.
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.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 123
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.
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.
service territory: The areas in Idaho, Washington, and Oregon served by Avista to provide either natural gas or
electric service (or both).
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 or 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 (TRM): 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.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 124
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 uses 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.
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 third-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.
8,760: Total number of hours in a year.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Pg 125
(This page intentionally left blank.)
APPENDICES AND SUPPLEMENTS
Kootenay River, Bonners Ferry, Idaho
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

PY 2021 Idaho Electric
Impact Evaluation Report
April 15, 2022
Prepared for:
Avista Corporation
1411 East Mission Avenue
Spokane, WA 99202

APPENDIX A

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 ......................................................................................................... 5
Program Summary ................................................................................................................................. 5
Program Participation Summary ............................................................................................................ 5
Nonresidential Impact Evaluation Methodology ................................................................................... 7
Nonresidential Impact Evaluation Results ........................................................................................... 10
Nonresidential Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... 14
Multifamily Direct Install Impact Evaluation ....................................................................................... 17
Program Summary ............................................................................................................................... 17
Program Participation Summary .......................................................................................................... 17
MFDI Impact Evaluation Methodology ................................................................................................ 18
MFDI Impact Evaluation Results .......................................................................................................... 18
MFDI Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 18
Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 20
Program Summary ............................................................................................................................... 20
Program Participation Summary .......................................................................................................... 20
Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation Methodology .................................................................................. 20
Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation Results ............................................................................................ 21
Fuel Efficiency Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................ 21

Tables
Table 1. Electric Program Evaluation Activities ............................................................................................ 1
Table 2. Reported and Evaluated Energy Efficiency Electric Savings ............................................................ 2
Table 3. PY 2021 Nonresidential Prescriptive Electric Savings ..................................................................... 6
Table 4. PY 2021 Nonresidential Prescriptive Participation by Project ........................................................ 6
Table 5. PY 2021 Nonresidential Site Specific Electric Savings ..................................................................... 6
Table 6. PY 2021 Nonresidential Site Specific Participation by Project ........................................................ 7

ii
Table 7. PY 2021 Idaho Nonresidential Prescriptive Electric Evaluation Sample ......................................... 9
Table 8. PY 2021 Idaho Nonresidential Site Specific Electric Evaluation Sample ......................................... 9
Table 9. PY 2021 Nonresidential Prescriptive Electric Impact Findings ...................................................... 10
Table 10. PY 2021 Nonresidential Prescriptive Evaluation Summary of Discrepancies ............................. 10
Table 11. PY 2021 Nonresidential Site Specific Electric Impact Findings .................................................... 12
Table 12. PY 2021 Nonresidential Site Specific Evaluation Summary of Discrepancies ............................. 13
Table 13. MFDI Programs Reported Electric Savings .................................................................................. 17
Table 14. MFDI Programs Participation ...................................................................................................... 17
Table 15. MFDI Programs Electric Impact Findings .................................................................................... 18
Table 16. Avista Portfolio Fuel Efficiency Reported Electric Savings .......................................................... 20
Table 17. Avista Portfolio Fuel Efficiency Reported Participation .............................................................. 20
Table 18. Nonresidential Fuel Efficiency Electric Impact Findings ............................................................. 21

1
Portfolio Executive Summary
For several decades, Avista Corporation (Avista) has administered demand-side management (DSM)
programs to reduce the electricity and natural gas energy use by its customer portfolio. While Avista has
implemented most of these programs in house, external vendors have fulfilled some of them.
Avista contracted with Cadmus to complete process and impact evaluations of its program year
(PY) 2021 electric DSM nonresidential and multifamily residential programs in Idaho. This report
presents the electric impact evaluation findings for PY 2021. Cadmus did not apply net-to-gross (NTG)
adjustments to savings values, except where deemed energy savings values already incorporated NTG as
a function of the market baseline.
Evaluation Methodology and Activities
Table 1 shows the methods and activities Cadmus conducted as a part of the Idaho portfolio evaluation.
Table 1. Electric Program Evaluation Activities
Sector Program Document/Database
Review
Verification/Metering Site
Visits
Nonresidential Prescriptive (multiple) ü ü
Site Specific ü ü
Multifamily Multifamily Direct Install (MFDI) ü --
Supplemental Lighting ü --
Fuel Efficiency Multifamily Market Transformation ü --

Summary of Impact Evaluation Results
The nonresidential and multifamily Idaho electric energy efficiency programs achieved an 101%
realization rate and acquired 12,061,479 kWh in evaluated savings, as shown in Table 2. Cadmus
collected Avista’s reported savings through database extracts, drawn from Avista’s iEnergy database
(nonresidential) and from data provided by the third-party implementor (MFDI program).
Despite impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic and reduced participation in the nonresidential and
multifamily sectors, most programs Cadmus evaluated performed strongly relative to reported savings
in PY 2021.

2
Table 2. Reported and Evaluated Energy Efficiency Electric Savings
Sector Reported Savings (kWh) Evaluated Savings (kWh) Realization Rate
Nonresidential 11,167,420 11,231,273 101%
Multifamily Direct Install 116,121 118,613 102%
Fuel Efficiency 711,593 711,593 100%
Total 11,995,134 12,061,479 101%
Note: totals may not sum due to rounding.
Conclusions and Recommendations
During the PY 2021 evaluation, Cadmus identified several areas for improvement, outlined below by
sector.
Nonresidential Conclusions and Recommendations
The nonresidential programs achieved total evaluated electric energy savings of 11,231 MWh in
PY 2021, with a combined realization rate of 101%. The nonresidential sector did not meet the
combined Prescriptive and Site Specific programs’ electric savings goal of 13,281 MWh, achieving 85% of
this goal.
Realization rates varied across projects, but overall, the PY 2021 nonresidential programs performed
strongly relative to reported savings. Most projects Cadmus sampled for the evaluation were well
documented and verified savings matched reported savings.
Cadmus offers the following conclusions and recommendations to improve the nonresidential sector’s
energy savings:
• Conclusion: Cadmus found that lighting hours of use (HOU) reported by site contacts during
verification interviews often varied substantially from the HOU reported on interior and exterior
lighting applications. The HOU portion of the Prescriptive lighting application does not collect
any explanation or context, and documentation for HOU lighting among Site Specific projects
varied.
§ Recommendation: Add a line to the Prescriptive lighting application for customers to briefly
describe their interior lighting schedule. Review this description when entering the
application to determine whether the annual HOU values are consistent with the schedule
described. For exterior lighting, include a line in the application to document existing
controls, with checkboxes for common control types and timer settings.
§ Recommendation: Standardize the Site Specific lighting report template to include a
description of the lighting schedule and HOU source. Ensure that meter data are clearly
referenced in the report if a light state logger or power meter is used to determine HOU.
§ Recommendation: Benchmark the estimated annual HOU against the Region Technical
Forum’s (RTF’s) values for the building type and request additional details from the
customer if there is a significant difference.

3
§ Recommendation: Consider deploying light loggers on a random sample of lighting projects
each year to validate reported HOU values and develop an understanding of whether self-
reported hours are typically over- or under-reported compared to actual usage.
• Conclusion: Cadmus evaluated a Site Specific Appliance project that used logger data provided
by the implementer to estimate savings. Avista also installed temporary electric current loggers
and then estimated savings based on these data, but ultimately did not report the savings from
these calculations. Both calculations assumed the equipment had three-phase service, but
Cadmus verified that the installed equipment was single-phase.
§ Recommendation: When estimating power from logged current data, carefully review the
equipment nameplates and operating parameters to ensure the correct conversion. When
multiple datasets are collected for a project, clearly identify in the project files which
dataset was used for the final estimation and document why one dataset was chosen over
the other.
• Conclusion: Cadmus found that some Prescriptive lighting projects referenced the Default
Proposed Wattage in the iEnergy system to calculate energy savings when the actual Proposed
Wattage was also provided.
§ Recommendation: Review iEnergy calculations to ensure that the actual Proposed Wattage
is used in the savings calculation when provided.
• Conclusion: Cadmus found that Avista’s new iEnergy system records detailed inputs on some
Prescriptive measures that were not previously tracked in InforCRM and are not currently used
in the savings calculations.
§ Recommendation: Review deemed savings values for Prescriptive measures and consider
opportunities to leverage the additional data now collected in iEnergy to calculate more
accurate savings for each participant project. For example, food service measures can use
the reported pounds of food cooked per day and cooking hours per day values collected in
iEnergy to automatically calculate more precise savings.
• Conclusion: The iEnergy system introduced variance of up to 5% between reported and
evaluated savings by rounding intermediate wattage calculation values.
§ Recommendation: Review iEnergy calculations to ensure that rounding is only applied on
final displayed values and not to any intermediate values.
• Conclusion: Cadmus staff found that the level of detail in IV reports varied. Many IV reports only
mention that “equipment and quantities were verified,” and photos sometimes show the
equipment only from a distance. We recommended including additional details in IV reports in
PY 2019 and PY 2020, but we did not observe additional detail in IV reports reviewed in PY 2021.
§ Recommendation: Provide more consistent documentation with Avista IV reports. We
recommend that all IV reports include basic information explicitly stating the quantity and
type of equipment found. For lighting projects, this would include confirmed fixture types,
quantities, installation locations, controls, and estimated HOU. For most other equipment,
this would include nameplates, model numbers, and quantities.

4
• Conclusion: Cadmus found that reported fixture quantities for Site Specific lighting projects
often did not match invoice quantities, and applications often lacked detailed notes explaining
these differences. It is often impractical for Avista staff conducting IV inspections or evaluators
conducting verification visits to count every fixture for large lighting projects to resolve such
discrepancies.
§ Recommendation: Include more detailed documentation for Site Specific lighting projects.
Applications should include lighting drawings whenever possible, and should clearly explain
any difference between invoice quantities and rebated quantities. Lighting workbooks
should note the locations where fixtures are installed to facilitate verification by Avista and
by evaluators. Avista IV inspection reports should explicitly state the verified quantities of
each fixture type and should include any notes, spreadsheets, or other documentation used
to verify the eligible quantities.
Multifamily Direct Install Conclusions and Recommendations
The MFDI programs achieved 118,613 kWh of evaluated electricity savings, for a realization rate of
102%. The programs met 8% of their combined savings goal for the year.
Cadmus offers the following conclusions and recommendations:
• Conclusion: Due to the adaptations made for pandemic restrictions the, MFDI program’s
participation in Idaho was limited to only the Supplemental Lighting path and savings were well
below target. Cadmus found that the Supplemental Lighting program continued to be an
efficient mechanism for installing high-efficiency lighting in additional multifamily common
areas. However, the lack of participation in the non-supplemental lighting multifamily
component and the limited participation in the Supplemental Lighting program were insufficient
to meet PY 2021 savings targets.
§ Recommendation: As pandemic restrictions are lifted in future years, return to a traditional
MFDI program design by providing direct installation of energy-efficient lighting and non-
lighting measures. Continue to replace high-use low-efficiency lamps where practical to
maximize program cost-effectiveness and yield higher savings.
• Conclusion: All reported Supplemental Lighting program savings calculations appeared to use
custom HOU values that were different from deemed HOU values for exterior spaces. We could
not confirm some custom HOU values because some spaces did not have an assigned site
identification.
§ Recommendation: The MFDI program implementor should ensure clear and consistent
project documentation and accurate inputs for all site data.
Fuel Efficiency Conclusions and Recommendations
The Multifamily Market Transformation (MFMT) fuel efficiency measures achieved evaluated savings of
711,593 kWh, yielding a 100% realization rate. Combined, the measures achieved 150% of the electric
energy savings goal of 475,794 kWh. Cadmus found that the MFMT program achieved its objectives in
PY 2021 and does not have any recommendations for this program.

5
Nonresidential Impact Evaluation
Through its nonresidential portfolio of programs, Avista promotes the purchase of high-efficiency
equipment to commercial and industrial utility customers. Avista provides rebates to partially offset the
difference in cost between high-efficiency equipment and standard equipment. Cadmus conducted
nonresidential impact evaluation activities to determine evaluated savings for most programs; the team
conducted measurement and verification (M&V) across a sample of Prescriptive and Site Specific
projects.
Program Summary
Avista completed and provided incentives for 987 nonresidential electric measures in Idaho during
PY 2021 and reported total electric energy savings of 11,167,420 kWh. Through the nonresidential
sector, Avista offers incentives for high-efficiency equipment and controls through three program paths:
Prescriptive, Site Specific, and Multifamily Market Transformation.
The Prescriptive programs apply to smaller, straightforward equipment installations that generally have
similar operating characteristics (such as lighting, simple HVAC systems, food service equipment, and
variable frequency drive [VFD]). The Site Specific programs apply to 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).
Multifamily Market Transformation, a Site Specific program, prompts building owners and developers to
consider natural gas as the fuel of choice when constructing new multifamily housing. These measures,
which generate electric savings offset by natural gas penalties, typically involve replacing electric space-
heating or water-heating systems with natural gas equipment. See the Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation
section for a discussion of the evaluation methodology and results for the nonresidential fuel efficiency
measures.
Program Participation Summary
This section summarizes nonresidential sector participation and progress toward PY 2021 goals through
the Prescriptive and Site Specific programs.
Nonresidential Prescriptive Program Path
Table 3 shows electric energy savings goals assigned to Avista’s nonresidential Prescriptive programs for
PY 2021, as well as reported savings and a comparison between reported savings and goals. Avista’s
Nonresidential Prescriptive programs reported savings totaling 70% of their collective savings goal in
PY 2021.

6
Table 3. PY 2021 Nonresidential Prescriptive Electric Savings
Program Name Savings Goals (kWh) Savings Reported
(kWh) Percentage of Goal
Interior Lighting 3,425,845 3,382,567 99%
Exterior Lighting 4,695,385 2,341,518 50%
Shell Measure 18,202 2,547 14%
Green Motors 13,038 23,986 184%
Motor Control (VFD) 19,345 56,210 291%
Fleet Heat 8,000 0 0%
Food Service Equipment 56,152 977 2%
AirGuardian 6,000 0 0%
Energy Smart Grocer 39,413 4,323 11%
Total 8,281,380 5,812,128 70%

Table 4 summarizes program participation by unique application numbers.
Table 4. PY 2021 Nonresidential Prescriptive Participation by Project
Program Type Number of Applications Number of Measures
Interior Lighting 301 442
Exterior Lighting 198 344
Shell Measure 2 3
Green Motors 8 8
Motor Control (VFD) 2 12
Fleet Heat 0 0
Food Service Equipment 1 1
AirGuardian 0 0
Energy Smart Grocer 2 3
Totala 514 813
a Total participants. A single application may contain measures from multiple programs.

Nonresidential Site Specific Program Path
Table 5 shows electric savings goals, reported savings, and the percentage of goal achieved for the Site
Specific program in Avista’s nonresidential sector for PY 2021. The table does not include reported
electric savings for the fuel efficiency sector, such as those associated with the MFMT program.
Reported savings for the Site Specific program met 107% of the program’s PY 2021 savings goal.
Table 5. PY 2021 Nonresidential Site Specific Electric Savings
Program Path Savings Goals (kWh) Savings Reported (kWh) Percentage of Goal
Site Specific 5,000,000 5,355,291 107%

7
Table 6 summarizes program participation for the Site Specific program.
Table 6. PY 2021 Nonresidential Site Specific Participation by Project
Program Number of Applications Number of Measures
Site Specific Lighting 24 166
Site Specific Other 7 8
Total 31 174

Nonresidential Impact Evaluation Methodology
Cadmus examined the following documents and data records to identify any changes to the
nonresidential programs and measures slated for evaluation:
• Avista’s annual business plans, processes, and energy savings justifications
• Project documents from external sources (such as customers, program consultants, or
implementation contractors)
• Avista’s iEnergy tracking system for nonresidential programs
Based on the initial review, Cadmus checked the distribution of program contributions with the overall
program portfolio energy savings. The review provided insight into the sources for unit energy savings
(UES) claimed for each program measure, along with sources for energy-savings algorithms, internal
quality assurance, and quality control processes for large nonresidential sector projects.
Following this review, Cadmus designed a sample strategy to conduct the following evaluation activities
in two waves:
• Selected evaluation sample and requested project documentation from Avista
• Reviewed project documentation
• Prepared M&V plans for virtual and in-person site visits
• Performed virtual site visits using the Streem platform or in-person site visits and collected on-
site data (such as trend data, photos, and operating schedules)1
• Calculated evaluated savings by measure using site visit findings
• Determined overall evaluated savings by applying realization rates to the total reported savings
population
Sample Design
Cadmus created two sample waves for PY 2021:
• Sample 1 included program data from January 2021 through June 2021.
• Sample 2 included program data from July 2021 through December 2021.

1 For more information on Streem: https://www.streem.com/platform-streem#platform-remote-video

8
Cadmus initially estimated the total annual population size by reviewing the wave 1 population data and
comparing it to PY 2020 population data. We developed initial sample size targets to achieve 90%
confidence and ±10% precision (90/10) for the estimated PY 2021 population, with a target of 90/20 by
program. After receiving the wave 2 population data, we revised the sample size targets and selected
the wave 2 sample to bring the 2021 sample to the annual target within each program.
Avista advised Cadmus not to evaluate certain programs with low participation and historically
consistent realization rates every year. Since the Green Motors program has shown a 100% realization
rate in every prior evaluation, Cadmus did not evaluate the program in PY 2020 or PY 2021. We
evaluated the Food Services and HVAC programs in PY 2020 only and evaluated the Energy Smart Grocer
and Prescriptive Shell programs in PY 2021 only. Cadmus evaluated all other nonresidential programs
that had participation in both PY 2020 and PY 2021.
For each sample wave, Cadmus developed a stratified random sample of applications by program (such
as Site Specific Other, Site Specific Lighting, Prescriptive Interior Lighting, or Prescriptive Motor
Controls). In programs where individual projects represented a significant portion of the total savings in
the program, we evaluated a census of the highest-savings applications as a certainty stratum. Within
programs with a wide variance in savings, we stratified applications by reported savings magnitude into
small and large strata, each with approximately 50% of the total noncertainty program savings. We
assigned random numbers within each stratum to select a random sample of noncertainty sites. In some
cases, we evaluated one or more additional applications at the same location as another sampled
application, as a convenience selection, if we could assess both applications in a single site visit.
Our team encountered some challenges contacting customers to evaluate in each sample, primarily due
to changes in participant business operations as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. We pulled an
additional backup sample for the wave 2 sample using random sampling and recruited participants to
meet the year’s sample target.
Cadmus summed the evaluated savings from each of the sampled projects to calculate a realization rate
by stratum and applied that realization rate to projects in the population in that stratum. We applied the
project-specific evaluated savings for every project that was in the sample, regardless of whether it was
a random, certainty, or convenience selection. To determine the evaluated savings and realization rates
for each program, we summed the annual evaluation results.
Table 7 summarizes the evaluation samples for the Idaho nonresidential Prescriptive programs. Cadmus
sampled 35 Prescriptive applications at 34 unique sites. Of the sampled applications, we selected three
for certainty review based on the scale of savings, 31 randomly, and six additional convenience projects
at six sites based on location. There was no participation in the AirGuardian and Fleet Heat programs in
PY 2021, as shown in Table 4. Table 7 shows the total number of unique applications sampled in each
program, including five applications containing measures from more than one program.

9
Table 7. PY 2021 Idaho Nonresidential Prescriptive Electric Evaluation Sample
Program Type Applications Sampleda Sampled Savings (kWh) Percentage of Reported Savings
Interior Lighting 15 458,642 14%
Exterior Lighting 19 594,496 25%
Shell Measure 2 2,547 100%
Motor Control HVAC (VFD) 2 56,210 100%
Energy Smart Grocer 2 4,323 100%
Nonresidential Prescriptive 35 1,116,218 19%
a Five applications included measures in the Interior Lighting and Exterior Lighting programs, but each measure is only
counted once in the total.

Table 8 summarizes the Idaho nonresidential Site Specific program path’s evaluation sample, where
Cadmus sampled 13 Site Specific applications at 12 unique sites overall. Of the sampled applications, we
selected two for certainty review based on the savings scale and the remaining 11 applications
randomly.
Table 8. PY 2021 Idaho Nonresidential Site Specific Electric Evaluation Sample
Program Path Applications Sampled Sampled Savings (kWh) Percentage of Reported Savings
Site Specific 13 3,751,483 70%

Document Review
Cadmus requested and reviewed project documentation for each sampled application and prepared
M&V plans to guide its site visits. Typically, project documentation included data entered into the
iEnergy system, incentive application forms, calculation workbooks, invoices, equipment specification
sheets, and Avista installation verification reports.
On-Site Verification
Cadmus performed site visits at 15 unique nonresidential locations to assess electric savings for 99
unique Prescriptive and Site Specific measures from 18 different applications. During the site visits, we
verified installed equipment types, make and model numbers, operating schedules, and set points, as
applicable. Our team used the project documentation review and on-site findings to adjust reported
savings calculations, where necessary.
Remote Verification
Cadmus performed virtual site visits and verification calls at 26 unique nonresidential locations to assess
electric savings for 60 unique Prescriptive and Site Specific measures from 27 different applications. We
evaluated the remaining three applications through desk reviews that did not require participant
outreach. Typically, we conducted virtual site visits using the Streem platform, which records video and
audio. During the visits, the site contact conducted a detailed walkthrough to help us verify installed
equipment types, make and model numbers, operating schedules, and set points, as applicable. We
conducted some virtual visits using Microsoft Teams with customers who were unable to access Streem
or preferred using Teams. Verification calls involved a brief phone or video call to confirm key details

10
and any information missing from the project documentation. We used the project documentation
review and on-site findings to adjust reported savings calculations, where necessary.
Nonresidential Impact Evaluation Results
This section summarizes electric impact evaluation findings for the nonresidential Prescriptive and Site
Specific programs in PY 2021.
Nonresidential Prescriptive Programs
Table 9 shows reported and evaluated electric energy savings for Avista’s nonresidential Prescriptive
programs, as well as the realization rates between the evaluated and reported savings for PY 2021.
Overall, the nonresidential Prescriptive programs achieved a 99% electric realization rate.
Table 9. PY 2021 Nonresidential Prescriptive Electric Impact Findings
Program Type Reported Savings (kWh) Evaluated Savings (kWh) Realization Rate
Interior Lighting 3,382,567 3,362,227 99%
Exterior Lighting 2,341,518 2,307,395 99%
Shell Measure 2,547 2,547 100%
Green Motors 23,986 23,986 100%
Motor Control (VFD) 56,210 56,210 100%
Food Service Equipment 977 977 100%
Energy Smart Grocer 4,323 7,443 172%
Nonresidential Prescriptive 5,812,128 5,760,785 99%

Of 35 evaluated applications, Cadmus identified discrepancies for 18 based on in-person and virtual site
visits, verification calls, and project documentation review. Table 10 summarizes the reasons for
discrepancies between reported and evaluated savings.
Table 10. PY 2021 Nonresidential Prescriptive Evaluation Summary of Discrepancies
Project Type Number of
Occurrences Savings Impact Reason(s) for Discrepancy
Interior Lighting
6 ↓
• Cadmus found that for one project, only half of the installed
quantity of one fixture type was installed because the occupants
felt they provided sufficient illumination to the space. Cadmus
also found that another installed fixture type on the same project
had a higher wattage than reported.
• Cadmus reduced the HOU for five projects after interviewing on-
site staff about their facilities' lighting operation.
4 ↑
• Cadmus increased the HOU of two projects after interviewing on-
site staff about their facilities' lighting operation. Cadmus also
determined that the Avista database incorrectly categorized one
of these projects as exterior lighting measures and transferred
these savings to interior lighting.
• Cadmus revised two projects to use the actual installed lamp
wattage instead of the default proposed lamp wattage to
calculate savings.

11
Project Type Number of
Occurrences Savings Impact Reason(s) for Discrepancy
Exterior Lighting
4 ↓
• Cadmus evaluated one sign lighting project that reported multiple
different lamp types installed in a single 100 square foot sign.
Cadmus determined that only one of the lamp types matched the
dimensions of the sign and recalculated savings.
• Cadmus found that two projects had fewer lamps installed than
reported. Some missing lamps were found in storage for possible
installation at a later date and others were ordered in higher
quantities than required to retrofit all corresponding fixtures in
the space.
• Cadmus found that one project had discrepancies up to 5% due to
rounding differences. iEnergy rounds the kilowatt savings to two
decimal places in the middle of the calculation, causing a loss of
accuracy in the final savings.
3 ↑
• Cadmus increased the HOU for one sign lighting project due to
verifying that it is controlled by a manually adjusted mechanical
timeclock. Cadmus also found that the sign had more fixtures
installed than reported.
• Cadmus evaluated one project that had one more fixture
retrofitted than reported.
• Cadmus verified a higher baseline lamp wattage for one project.
Grocer 1 ↑
• Cadmus found that one refrigerated lighting application used
lamp counts rather than the total lamp length as the unit of
measurement to estimate deemed energy savings. Cadmus
updated the calculation to account for the 4' lamps that were
installed in the refrigerated cases.

During the PY 2020 evaluation, Cadmus identified a systematic issue with sign lighting measures in the
Prescriptive Exterior Lighting program, which resulted in particularly low realization rates for applicable
projects. Avista had applied a deemed savings estimate per square footage of signage replaced based on
a 2014 internal engineering review that assumed 8-foot T12 high-output fluorescent lamps as the
baseline for all sign lighting. Cadmus evaluated sign lighting projects by verifying the actual quantity,
wattages, and HOU for the baseline and installed lamps in each. The average realization rate for PY 2020
sign lighting measures was approximately 26%. We advised Avista of this discrepancy upon noticing it
and reported these findings in detail in the PY 2020 report. Avista implemented changes to the Exterior
Lighting program in the first quarter of 2021 in response to the recommendations from Cadmus. Since
then, no similar issues were encountered, and the Exterior Lighting program achieved a 99% realization
rate in PY 2021.
Nonresidential Site Specific Program
Table 11 shows reported and evaluated electric energy savings for Avista’s nonresidential sector Site
Specific program for the program year. Overall, the Site Specific program achieved a 102% electric
realization rate. The table does not include reported and evaluated electric savings for measures in the
fuel efficiency path.

12
Table 11. PY 2021 Nonresidential Site Specific Electric Impact Findings
Program Path Reported Savings (kWh) Evaluated Savings (kWh) Realization Rate
Site Specific 5,355,291 5,470,488 102%

Of 13 evaluated applications, Cadmus identified discrepancies in 12, based on in-person and virtual site
visits and project documentation review. Table 12 summarizes the reasons for discrepancies between
reported and evaluated savings.

13
Table 12. PY 2021 Nonresidential Site Specific Evaluation Summary of Discrepancies
Project Type Number of
Occurrences
Savings
Impact Reason(s) for Discrepancy
Site Specific
Lighting
3 ↑
• Cadmus evaluated one project and found additional fixtures installed
than reported and increased the HOU for several areas of the facility.
• Cadmus evaluated one project that reported replacing wall-mounted
three-lamp fluorescent fixtures with LED wall packs. The team
confirmed with the site contact that the baseline fixtures were actually
standard high intensity discharge fixtures with higher baseline wattage
than reported, increasing estimated savings.
• Cadmus evaluated two applications at one facility that used different
HVAC interactive factors. Cadmus adjusted the HVAC interactive factor
for one application to be consistent with the other application at this
facility.
4 ↓
• Cadmus verified fewer fixtures installed in several areas of the facility
for one project.
• Cadmus evaluated one project with several discrepancies across its
measures. One measure replaced a 75 W incandescent fixture with an
LED, but the Energy Independence and Security Act baseline wattage
for these types of lamps is 53 W. Avista used the correct baseline
wattage to estimate lighting savings, but the original 75 W value was
referenced to calculate the cooling savings due to interactive HVAC
effects. Cadmus also adjusted the baseline lamp type for another
measure based on an interview with the site contact and finding that
the reported baseline lamp type would not mount into the fixture that
was retrofit.
• Cadmus reduced the HOU for some fixtures on two projects based on
interviews with site staff.
Compressed Air 1 ↑
• Cadmus evaluated one compressed air project and used updated trend
data after the new air compressor was installed. We found an increase
in the average flow and average current from what was reported,
increasing energy savings.
Motor Controls
Industrial 2 ↑
• Cadmus updated the average motor load for one irrigation pump VFD
project to match the operational schedule reported. Cadmus also
updated the motor efficiencies based on the verified value on each
motor’s nameplate, increasing energy savings.
• Cadmus increased the HOU of one project based on the run hours
verified on the equipment’s interface.
Appliance 1 ↓
• Cadmus adjusted the analysis inputs for one project based on the
values verified on the equipment’s nameplate. Cadmus verified that the
systems were single phase rather than three-phase as reported,
reducing the calculated energy consumption in the baseline and post
periods.
Other 1 ↑ • Cadmus increased the uptime HOU of one project which installed a VFD
on a forced draft fan of a boiler based on interviews with site staff.

Cadmus found that some M&V plans, pre-installation verifications, and installation verification reports
relied on customer-provided photos and data because Avista staff could not safely visit the site due to
the COVID-19 pandemic. It is likely that some of the discrepancies identified above may have been

14
avoided had Avista been able to conduct thorough in-person inspections before and after the project to
verify the baseline and installed equipment.
Nonresidential Conclusions and Recommendations
The nonresidential programs achieved total evaluated electric energy savings of 11,231 MWh in
PY 2021, with a combined realization rate of 101%. The nonresidential sector did not meet the
combined Prescriptive and Site Specific programs’ electric savings goal of 13,281 MWh, achieving 85% of
this goal.
Realization rates varied across projects, but overall the PY 2021 nonresidential programs performed
strongly relative to reported savings. With most projects Cadmus sampled for the evaluation, projects
were well documented and verified savings matched reported savings.
Cadmus offers the following conclusions and recommendations to improve the nonresidential sector’s
energy savings:
• Conclusion: Cadmus found that lighting HOU reported by site contacts during verification
interviews often varied substantially from the HOU reported on interior and exterior lighting
applications. The HOU portion of the Prescriptive lighting application does not collect any
explanation or context, and documentation for HOU lighting among Site Specific projects varied.
§ Recommendation: Add a line to the Prescriptive lighting application for customers to briefly
describe their interior lighting schedule. Review this description when entering the
application to determine whether the annual HOU are consistent with the schedule
described. For exterior lighting, include a line in the application to document existing
controls, with checkboxes for common control types and timer settings.
§ Recommendation: Standardize the Site Specific lighting report template to include a
description of the lighting schedule and HOU source. Ensure that meter data are clearly
referenced in the report if a light state logger or power meter is used to determine HOU.
§ Recommendation: Benchmark the estimated annual HOU against RTF values for the
building type and request additional details from the customer if there is a significant
difference.
§ Recommendation: Consider deploying light loggers on a random sample of lighting projects
each year to validate reported HOU and develop an understanding of whether self-reported
hours are typically over- or under-reported compared to actual usage.
• Conclusion: Cadmus evaluated a Site Specific appliance project that used logger data provided
by the implementer to estimate savings. Avista also installed temporary electric current loggers
and then estimated savings based on these data, but ultimately did not report the savings from
these calculations. Both calculations assumed the equipment had three-phase service, but
Cadmus verified that the installed equipment was single-phase.
§ Recommendation: When estimating power from logged current data, carefully review the
equipment nameplates and operating parameters to ensure the correct conversion. When
multiple datasets are collected for a project, clearly identify in the project files which

15
dataset was used for the final estimation and document why one dataset was chosen over
the other.
• Conclusion: Cadmus found that some Prescriptive lighting projects referenced the Default
Proposed Wattage in the iEnergy system to calculate energy savings when the actual Proposed
Wattage was also provided.
§ Recommendation: Review iEnergy calculations to ensure that the actual Proposed Wattage
is used in the savings calculation when provided.
• Conclusion: Cadmus found that Avista’s new iEnergy system records detailed inputs on some
Prescriptive measures that were not previously tracked in InforCRM and are not currently used
in the savings calculations.
§ Recommendation: Review deemed savings values for Prescriptive measures and consider
opportunities to leverage the additional data now collected in iEnergy to calculate more
accurate savings for each participant project. For example, food service measures can use
the reported pounds of food cooked per day and cooking hours per day values collected in
iEnergy to automatically calculate more precise savings.
• Conclusion: The iEnergy system introduced variance of up to 5% between reported and
evaluated savings by rounding intermediate wattage calculation values.
§ Recommendation: Review iEnergy calculations to ensure that rounding is only applied on
final displayed values and not to any intermediate values.
• Conclusion: Cadmus staff found that the level of detail in IV reports varied. Many IV reports only
mention that “equipment and quantities were verified,” and photos sometimes show the
equipment only from a distance. We recommended including additional details in IV reports in
PY 2019 and PY 2020, but we did not observe additional detail in IV reports reviewed in PY 2021.
§ Recommendation: Provide more consistent documentation with Avista IV reports. We
recommend that all IV reports include basic information explicitly stating the quantity and
type of equipment found. For lighting projects, this would include confirmed fixture types,
quantities, installation locations, controls, and estimated HOU. For most other equipment,
this would include nameplates, model numbers, and quantities.
• Conclusion: Cadmus found that reported fixture quantities for Site Specific lighting projects
often did not match invoice quantities, and applications often lacked detailed notes explaining
these differences. It is often impractical for Avista staff conducting IV inspections or evaluators
conducting verification visits to count every fixture for large lighting projects to resolve such
discrepancies.
§ Recommendation: Include more detailed documentation for Site Specific lighting projects.
Applications should include lighting drawings whenever possible, and should clearly explain
any difference between invoice quantities and rebated quantities. Lighting workbooks
should note the locations where fixtures are installed to facilitate verification by Avista and
by evaluators. Avista IV inspection reports should explicitly state the verified quantities of

16
each fixture type and should include any notes, spreadsheets, or other documentation used
to verify the eligible quantities.

17
Multifamily Direct Install Impact Evaluation
Cadmus designed the MFDI program’s impact evaluation to verify reported program participation and
energy savings. Considering that billing analysis for the PY 2018 – PY 2019 evaluation did not provide
meaningful evaluation results and that a document review was out of scope for this evaluation, we
determined that a database review was the most appropriate evaluation approach. We used data
collected and reported in the tracking database, the Avista Technical Reference Manual, and RTF values
to evaluate savings. This approach provided a reasonable estimate of the achieved savings practical for
each program, given its delivery method, magnitude of savings, and number of participants.
Program Summary
During PY 2021, the response to the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the MFDI program’s direct-install
design, forcing the third-party implementer to temporarily halt program processes and implement
changes that adapt to pandemic restrictions. These changes included the Exchange and Trunk N Treat
pandemic pilots, which reduced the face-to-face interaction that occurs in a traditional MFDI program
design. As a result, there was no participation in the MFDI program and limited participation in the MFDI
Supplemental Lighting program, where participation is defined as the number of installed lighting
fixtures. Avista completed and provided incentives through the MFDI Supplemental Lighting program for
121 installed lighting fixtures in Idaho and reported total electric energy savings of 116,121 kWh.
Program Participation Summary
Table 13 shows PY 2021savings goals and reported savings for the MFDI programs. Due to pandemic
restrictions, the MFDI and MFDI Supplemental Lighting programs did not meet savings goals, with
reported savings only meeting 8% of their combined goal.
Table 13. MFDI Programs Reported Electric Savings
Program Savings Goals
(kWh)
Savings Reported
(kWh)
Percentage of
Goal
MFDI 1,000,000 0 0%
MFDI Supplemental Lighting 500,000 116,121 23%
MFDI Programs Total 1,500,000 116,121 8%

Table 14 summarizes reported participation in the MFDI programs for PY 2021.
Table 14. MFDI Programs Participation
Program Participation Reported
MFDIa 0
MFDI Supplemental Lightingb 121
MFDI Programs Total 121
a Participation is defined as the number of living units and common areas served.
b Participation is defined as the number of installed units.

18
Supplemental Lighting measures accounted for 100% of the total MFDI programs’ electricity savings in
PY 2021.
MFDI Impact Evaluation Methodology
To determine the MFDI program’s evaluated savings for PY 2021, Cadmus employed a database review.
For the impact evaluation database review, Cadmus applied UES values and savings methodologies
outlined by the RTF to calculate savings for measures reported in the measure tracking database. Such
impact activity has helped identify incorrect UES values and methods used to calculate reported savings.
For this evaluation, Cadmus applied the most recent RTF UES values and standard protocols to PY 2021
measures.
MFDI Impact Evaluation Results
Cadmus used the results of the database review to evaluate savings for each measure. We then rolled
up measure-level evaluated savings to calculate evaluated savings and a realization rate for each
program. Table 15 shows the resulting evaluated savings and realization rates.
Table 15. MFDI Programs Electric Impact Findings
Program Reported Electric
Savings (kWh)
Adjusted Electric
Savings (kWh)
Realization
Rates
MFDI 0 0 N/A
MFDI Supplemental Lighting 116,121 118,613 102%
MFDI Programs Total 116,121 118,613 102%

During PY 2021, Cadmus identified discrepancies between evaluated and reported savings for the MFDI
Supplemental Lighting program. This included contractors using undefined annual HOU for exterior
spaces in the reported savings calculations instead of hours that were consistent with the savings
calculations methodology or the site data provided. In PY 2021, all evaluated projects with undefined
HOU exceeded 100% realization because these hours were lower than those documented in the
calculation methodology.
MFDI Conclusions and Recommendations
The MFDI programs achieved 118,613 kWh of evaluated electricity savings, for a realization rate of
102%. The programs met 8% of their combined savings goal for the year.
Cadmus offers the following conclusions and recommendations to improve Avista’s MFDI electric
programs:
• Conclusion: Due to the adaptations made for pandemic restrictions the, MFDI program’s
participation in Idaho was limited to only the Supplemental Lighting component and savings
were well below target. Cadmus found that the Supplemental Lighting program continues to be
an efficient mechanism for installing high-efficiency lighting in additional multifamily common
areas. However, the lack of participation in the non-supplemental lighting multifamily

19
component and the limited participation in the Supplemental Lighting program that resulted
from the pandemic adaptations were insufficient to meet PY 2021 savings targets.
§ Recommendation: As pandemic restrictions are lifted in future years, return to a traditional
MFDI program design by providing direct installation of energy-efficient lighting and non-
lighting measures. Continue to replace high-use, low-efficiency lamps where practical to
maximize program cost-effectiveness and yield higher savings.
• Conclusion: All reported Supplemental Lighting program savings calculations appeared to use
custom HOU values that were different from deemed HOU values for exterior spaces. We could
not confirm some custom HOU values because some spaces did not have an assigned site
identification.
§ Recommendation: The MFDI program implementor should ensure clear and consistent
project documentation and accurate inputs for all site data.

20
Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation
Cadmus designed the fuel efficiency sector impact evaluation to verify reported program participation
and energy savings. Evaluation methods included a database review and document review.
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 programs, which includes
MFMT measures. From this program, Avista reported electric energy savings of 711,593 kWh for five
fuel efficiency measures.
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 and reported the negative natural gas consumption impacts in the PY 2021
Idaho Natural Gas Impact Evaluation report.
Program Participation Summary
This section summarizes fuel efficiency sector participation and progress toward PY 2021 goals for the
MFMT program.
Table 16 shows savings goals, reported savings, and percentage of goal for the MFMT program. Avista
did not set savings goals for the Site Specific fuel efficiency measures outside of the MFMT program.
Table 16. Avista Portfolio Fuel Efficiency Reported Electric Savings
Program Savings Goals (kWh) Reported Savings (kWh) Percentage of Goal
Multifamily Market Transformation 475,794 711,593 150%

Table 17 shows Avista’s PY 2021 reported participation for the MFMT measures. Avista did not set
participation goals for Site Specific fuel efficiency measures. There were five MFMT participants in
PY 2021.
Table 17. Avista Portfolio Fuel Efficiency Reported Participation
Fuel Efficiency Measure Participation Reported
Multifamily Market Transformation 5
Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation Methodology
The impact methodology for fuel efficiency measures is outlined below for the MFMT program.
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. Cadmus sampled two MFMT applications.
Of the sampled applications, we selected one for certainty review based on the savings scale and one
randomly.

21
Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation Results
The following section summarizes findings for the MFMT program. All fuel efficiency measures provide
positive electricity savings and negative natural gas consumption impacts because these measures
replace electric space-heating or water-heating systems with equipment that uses natural gas. Negative
natural gas consumption impacts reflect negative avoided costs and are incorporated in the electric
cost-effectiveness calculations. We also reported these negative natural gas consumption impacts in the
PY 2021 Idaho Natural Gas Impact Evaluation report.
Nonresidential Fuel Efficiency Impact Findings
Table 18 shows reported and evaluated electric energy savings for Avista’s nonresidential fuel efficiency
measures, along with realization rates, for PY 2021.
Table 18. Nonresidential Fuel Efficiency Electric Impact Findings
Fuel Efficiency Measure Reported Savings (kWh) Evaluated Savings (kWh) Realization Rate
Multifamily Market Transformation 711,593 711,593 100%
Total 711,593 711,593 100%

Fuel Efficiency Conclusions and Recommendations
MFMT fuel efficiency measures achieved evaluated savings of 711,593 kWh, yielding a 100% realization
rate. Combined, the measures achieved 150% of the electric energy savings goal of 475,794 kWh.
Cadmus found that the MFMT program achieved its objectives in PY 2021 and does not have
recommendations for this program.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

Evaluation, Measurement
and Verification (EM&V) of
Avista Idaho Electric PY2021
Residential and
Low-Income Energy
Efficiency Programs
ADM Associates, Inc
3239 Ramos Circle
Sacramento, CA 95827
Avista Utilities
1411 E. Mission Ave.
Spokane, WA 99252
SUBMITTED TO: AVISTA UTILITIES
SUBMITTED ON: APRIL 1, 2022
SUBMITTED BY: ADM ASSOCIATES, INC. &
CADEO GROUP

PY 2021 Idaho Natural Gas
Impact Evaluation Report
April 15, 2022
Prepared for:
Avista Corporation
1411 East Mission Avenue
Spokane, WA 99202

APPENDIX B

i
Table of Contents
Portfolio Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 1
Evaluation Methodology and Activities ................................................................................................. 1
Summary of Impact Evaluation Results ................................................................................................. 1
Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 1
Nonresidential Impact Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 3
Program Summary ................................................................................................................................. 3
Program Participation Summary ............................................................................................................ 3
Nonresidential Impact Evaluation Methodology ................................................................................... 4
Nonresidential Impact Evaluation Findings ........................................................................................... 6
Nonresidential Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................. 6
Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 8
Program Summary ................................................................................................................................. 8
Program Participation Summary ............................................................................................................ 8
Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation Methodology .................................................................................... 8
Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation Results .............................................................................................. 8
Fuel Efficiency Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................. 9

Tables
Table 1. Annual Natural Gas Program Evaluation Activities ......................................................................... 1
Table 2. PY 2020 Reported and Gross Evaluated Natural Gas Savings ......................................................... 1
Table 3. Nonresidential Prescriptive Natural Gas Savings ............................................................................ 3
Table 4. Nonresidential Prescriptive Participation by Project ...................................................................... 4
Table 5. Nonresidential Site Specific Natural Gas Savings ............................................................................ 4
Table 6. Nonresidential Site Specific Participation by Project ...................................................................... 4
Table 7. Idaho Nonresidential Prescriptive Natural Gas Evaluation Sample ................................................ 5
Table 8. Idaho Nonresidential Site Specific Natural Gas Evaluation Sample ................................................ 5
Table 9. Nonresidential Prescriptive Natural Gas Impact Findings .............................................................. 6
Table 10. Nonresidential Site Specific Natural Gas Impact Findings ............................................................ 6
Table 11. Avista Portfolio Fuel Efficiency Participation ................................................................................ 8
Table 12. Nonresidential Fuel Efficiency Natural Gas Findings .................................................................... 9

1
Portfolio Executive Summary
For several decades, Avista Corporation (Avista) has administered demand-side management (DSM)
programs to reduce electricity and natural gas energy use by its customer portfolio. While most of these
programs have been implemented in house, a few have had external implementers.
Avista contracted with Cadmus to complete process and impact evaluations of its program year (PY) 2021
natural gas DSM nonresidential and multifamily residential programs in Idaho. This report presents the
natural gas impact evaluation findings. Cadmus did not apply net-to-gross (NTG) adjustments to savings
values, except where deemed energy savings values already incorporated NTG as a function of the market
baseline.
Evaluation Methodology and Activities
Cadmus used a variety of methods and activities to conduct the Idaho natural gas portfolio evaluation,
shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Annual Natural Gas Program Evaluation Activities
Sector Program Document/
Database Review
Verification/ Virtual Site
Visit
Nonresidential Prescriptive (multiple) ü ü
Site Specific ü ü
Fuel Efficiency Site Specific (nonresidential) ü --

Summary of Impact Evaluation Results
Overall, the Idaho portfolio achieved a 100% realization rate on savings from natural gas measures,
acquiring 20,726 therms in annual gross savings, as shown in Table 2. Cadmus collected Avista’s
reported savings through database extracts, drawn from Avista’s iEnergy database.
Table 2. PY 2020 Reported and Gross Evaluated Natural Gas Savings
Sector Reported Savings (therms) Gross Evaluated Savings (therms) Realization Rate
Nonresidential 20,726 20,726 100%
Total 20,726 20,726 100%

Conclusions and Recommendations
During the course of the annual evaluation, Cadmus identified the areas addressed below for
improvements by sector.
Nonresidential Conclusions and Recommendations
The nonresidential sector achieved total evaluated natural gas energy savings of 20,726 therms in
PY 2021, with a combined realization rate of 100%. The Prescriptive and Site Specific programs achieved
25% of their combined natural gas savings goal of 82,680 therms.

2
Cadmus offers the following conclusion and recommendation to improve the nonresidential sector’s
natural gas savings:
• Conclusion: Cadmus found that Avista’s new iEnergy system records detailed inputs on some
Prescriptive measures that were not previously tracked in InforCRM and are not currently used
in the savings calculations.
§ Recommendation: Review deemed savings values for Prescriptive measures and
consider opportunities to leverage the additional data now collected in iEnergy to
calculate more accurate savings for each participant project. For example, HVAC furnace
measures can use the exact AHRI efficiency rating collected in iEnergy instead of a
typical average to automatically calculate more precise savings.
Fuel Efficiency Conclusions and Recommendations
Nonresidential Site Specific and Multifamily Market Transformation MFMT fuel efficiency measures
resulted in evaluated natural gas penalties of 36,409 therms, yielding a 100% realization rate.

3
Nonresidential Impact Evaluation
Through its nonresidential program portfolio, Avista promotes purchases of high-efficiency equipment
for commercial and industrial utility customers. Avista provides rebates to partially offset the difference
in costs between high-efficiency and standard equipment. Cadmus conducted nonresidential impact
evaluation activities to determine evaluated savings for most programs, as well as measurement and
verification (M&V) across a sample of Prescriptive and Site Specific projects.
Program Summary
In PY 2021, Avista completed and provided incentives for 38 nonresidential natural gas projects in Idaho,
reporting total natural gas energy savings of 20,726 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 programs serve smaller, straightforward equipment installations that generally include
similar operating characteristics (such as simple HVAC systems, food service equipment, and envelope
upgrades). The Site Specific program serves more unique projects requiring custom savings calculations
and technical assistance from Avista’s account executives (such as process equipment, controls, and
comprehensive HVAC retrofits).
MFMT measures involve a combination of electric savings and natural gas penalties. Typically, these
measures include replacing electric space-heating or water-heating systems with natural gas equipment.
The Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation section details the evaluation methodology and results for MFMT
measures.
Program Participation Summary
This section summarizes nonresidential sector participation and progress toward PY 2021 goals through
the Prescriptive and Site Specific programs.
Nonresidential Prescriptive Programs
Table 3 shows natural gas energy savings goals assigned to Avista’s nonresidential Prescriptive programs
for PY 2021, as well as reported savings and a comparison between reported savings and goals. The
programs achieved 44% of their collective savings goal in PY 2021. The lower participation is likely due to
effects from the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced many businesses to reduce their operations or close
entirely. For those businesses that remained open, facility and maintenance staff had to prioritize
planning for health and safety impacts above energy efficiency concerns.
Table 3. Nonresidential Prescriptive Natural Gas Savings
Program Type Savings Goals (therms) Savings Reported (therms) Percentage of Goal
HVAC 19,070 5,885 31%
Shell 10,080 360 4%
Food Service Equipment 18,075 14,480 80%
Total 47,225 20,726 44%

4
Table 4 summarizes program participation by unique application numbers.
Table 4. Nonresidential Prescriptive Participation by Project
Program Type Number of Applications Number of Measures
HVAC 15 16
Shell 1 2
Food Service Equipment 20 20
Totala 36 38
a Total participants. A single application may contain measures from multiple programs.

Nonresidential Site Specific Program
Table 5 shows natural gas savings goals, reported savings, and the percentage of goal achieved by the
Site Specific program for Avista’s nonresidential sector for PY 2021. The Site Specific program did not
achieve any savings goal as there was no participation. The table does not include reported natural gas
penalties for the fuel efficiency sector, such as those associated with the MFMT program.
Table 5. Nonresidential Site Specific Natural Gas Savings
Program Savings Goals (therms) Savings Reported (therms) Percentage of Goal
Site Specific 4,000 0 0%

Table 6 summarizes program participation of the Site Specific program.
Table 6. Nonresidential Site Specific Participation by Project
Program Type Number of Applications Number of Measures
Site Specific Other 0 0
Total 0 0

Nonresidential Impact Evaluation Methodology
To review the programs and measures slated for evaluation in Avista’s nonresidential sector, Cadmus
examined the following documents and data records:
• Avista’s annual business plans, processes, and energy savings justifications
• Project documents from external sources (such as customers, program consultants, or
implementation contractors)
• Avista’s iEnergy tracking system for nonresidential programs
Based on the initial review, Cadmus checked the distribution of program contributions with the overall
program portfolio energy savings. The review provided insight into the sources for unit energy savings
(UES) claimed for each program measure, along with sources for energy-savings algorithms, internal
quality assurance, and quality control processes for large nonresidential sector projects.

5
Following this review, Cadmus designed a sample strategy for impact evaluation activities and
performed the following evaluation activities in two waves:
• Selected evaluation sample and requested project documentation from Avista
• Reviewed project documentation
• Prepared M&V plans for virtual and in-person site visits
• Performed virtual site visits using the Streem platform or in-person site visits and collected on-
site data (such as trend data, photos, and operating schedules)1
• Calculated evaluated savings by measure using site visit findings
• Determined overall evaluated savings by applying realization rates to the total reported savings
population
Sample Design
Avista advised Cadmus not to evaluate certain programs with low participation and historically
consistent realization rates every year. Cadmus evaluated the Food Services and HVAC programs in
PY 2020 only. Cadmus evaluated the Prescriptive Shell program in PY 2021 only. There were no other
programs with participation in PY 2021.
Table 7 summarizes natural gas evaluation sample for the Idaho nonresidential Prescriptive program.
Cadmus evaluated the only participating Prescriptive Shell application.
Table 7. Idaho Nonresidential Prescriptive Natural Gas Evaluation Sample
Program Type Applications Sampled Sampled Savings (therms) Percentage of Reported Savings
HVAC 0 0 0%
Shell 1 360 100%
Food Service Equipment 0 0 0%
Nonresidential Prescriptive 1 360 2%
Note: totals may not sum due to rounding.

Table 8 summarizes the natural gas evaluation sample for the Idaho nonresidential Site Specific
program. None of the Site Specific applications reported natural gas savings in PY 2021.
Table 8. Idaho Nonresidential Site Specific Natural Gas Evaluation Sample
Program Applications Sampled Sampled Savings (therms) Percentage of Reported Savings
Site Specific 0 0 N/A

1 For more information on Streem: https://www.streem.com/platform-streem#platform-remote-video

6
Document Review
Cadmus requested and reviewed project documentation for the evaluated application and prepared an
M&V plan to guide the virtual site visit. Project documentation included data entered into the iEnergy
system and the incentive application forms.
Remote Verification
Cadmus performed a verification at one nonresidential location in Idaho to assess natural gas energy
savings for two unique Prescriptive measures from one application. We conducted the video call using
the Streem platform that records video and audio. Our team used the project documentation review
and on-site findings to adjust the reported savings calculations where necessary.
Nonresidential Impact Evaluation Findings
This section summarizes the nonresidential Prescriptive and Site Specific program’s natural gas impact
evaluation results for PY 2021.
Nonresidential Prescriptive Programs
Table 9 shows the reported and evaluated natural gas energy savings for Avista’s nonresidential
Prescriptive programs and the associated realization rates for PY 2021. Overall, the nonresidential
Prescriptive programs achieved a 100% natural gas realization rate.
Table 9. Nonresidential Prescriptive Natural Gas Impact Findings
Program Type Reported Savings (therms) Evaluated Savings (therms) Realization Rate
HVAC 5,885 5,885 100%
Shell 360 360 100%
Food Service Equipment 14,480 14,480 100%
Nonresidential Prescriptive 20,726 20,726 100%

Cadmus did not identify any discrepancies in the sampled application based on the verification and
project documentation review.
Nonresidential Site Specific Program
Avista’s nonresidential Site Specific program did not report any natural gas savings for the program year
(Table 10). The table does not include reported and evaluated natural gas penalties for measures in the
fuel efficiency sector.
Table 10. Nonresidential Site Specific Natural Gas Impact Findings
Program Reported Savings (therms) Evaluated Savings (therms) Realization Rate
Site Specific 0 0 N/A

Nonresidential Conclusions and Recommendations
The nonresidential sector programs achieved total evaluated natural gas energy savings of
20,726 therms in PY 2021, with a combined realization rate of 100%. The Prescriptive and Site Specific
programs achieved 25% of their combined natural gas savings goal of 82,680 therms.

7
Cadmus offers the following conclusion and recommendation to improve the nonresidential sector’s
natural gas savings:
• Conclusion: Cadmus found that Avista’s new iEnergy system records detailed inputs on some
Prescriptive measures that were not previously tracked in InforCRM and are not currently used
in the savings calculations.
§ Recommendation: Review deemed savings values for Prescriptive measures and
consider opportunities to leverage the additional data now collected in iEnergy to
calculate more accurate savings for each participant project. For example, HVAC furnace
measures can use the exact AHRI efficiency rating collected in iEnergy instead of a
typical average to automatically calculate more precise savings.

8
Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation
Cadmus designed the fuel efficiency sector impact evaluation to verify reported program participation
and natural gas consumption impacts. Evaluation methods included a database review and document
review.
Program Summary
Fuel efficiency measures replace electric space-heating or water-heating systems with equipment using
natural gas. These measures are offered through the nonresidential Site Specific program, which
includes MFMT measures. From this program, Avista reported a natural gas energy penalty of 36,409
therms for five fuel efficiency measures.
Fuel efficiency measures provide positive electricity savings and negative natural gas consumption
impacts, reflecting negative avoided costs. Cadmus reported the electric energy savings in the PY 2021
Idaho Electric Impact Evaluation report.
Program Participation Summary
This section summarizes participation and progress toward PY 2021 goals for the MFMT program.
Table 11 shows reported participation for MFMT measures in PY 2021. Avista did not set participation
goals for Site Specific fuel efficiency measures. There were five MFMT participants in PY 2021.
Table 11. Avista Portfolio Fuel Efficiency Participation
Program Participation Reported
Multifamily Market Transformation 5

Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation Methodology
The impact methodology for fuel efficiency measures is outlined below for the MFMT program.
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. Cadmus sampled two MFMT applications.
Of the sampled applications, we selected one for certainty review based on the savings scale and one
randomly.
Fuel Efficiency Impact Evaluation Results
The following section summarizes findings for the MFMT program. All fuel efficiency measures provide
positive electricity savings and negative natural gas consumption impacts because these measures
replace electric space-heating or water-heating systems with equipment that uses natural gas. Negative
natural gas consumption impacts reflect negative avoided costs and are incorporated in the electric
cost-effectiveness calculations. We also reported these positive electric savings in the PY 2021 Idaho
Electric Impact Evaluation report.

9
Nonresidential Site Specific Fuel Efficiency Impact Findings
Table 12 shows reported and evaluated natural gas penalties for Avista’s nonresidential fuel efficiency
measures, along with realization rates, through PY 2021.
Table 12. Nonresidential Fuel Efficiency Natural Gas Findings
Fuel Efficiency Measure Reported Impacts (therms) Evaluated Impacts (therms) Realization Rate
Multifamily Market Transformation (36,409) (36,409) 100%
Total (36,409) (36,409) 100%

Fuel Efficiency Conclusions and Recommendations
Nonresidential Site Specific and MFMT fuel efficiency measures resulted in evaluated natural gas
penalties of 36,409 therms, yielding a 100% realization rate.

2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

Evaluation, Measurement
and Verification (EM&V) of
Avista Idaho Electric PY2021
Residential and
Low-Income Energy
Efficiency Programs
ADM Associates, Inc
3239 Ramos Circle
Sacramento, CA 95827
Avista Utilities
1411 E. Mission Ave.
SUBMITTED TO: AVISTA UTILITIES
SUBMITTED ON: APRIL 1, 2022
SUBMITTED BY: ADM ASSOCIATES, INC. &
CADEO GROUP
APPENDIX C

Tables of Contents and Tables ii
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 5
1.1 Savings Results ........................................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 6
2. General Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 12
2.1 Glossary of Terminology ........................................................................................................................... 12
2.2 Summary of Approach .............................................................................................................................. 13
3. Residential Impact Evaluation Results ............................................................................................... 25
3.1 Simple Verification Results ....................................................................................................................... 25
3.2 Impacts of COVID-19 Pandemic ............................................................................................................... 27
3.3 Program-Level Impact Evaluation Results ................................................................................................ 28
3.4 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 50
4. Low-Income Impact Evaluation Results ............................................................................................. 55
4.1 Program-Level Impact Evaluation Results ................................................................................................ 55
4.2 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 59
5. Appendix A: Billing Analysis Results ................................................................................................... 61
5.1 Fuel Efficiency Program ............................................................................................................................ 61
5.2 Low-Income Program ............................................................................................................................... 66
6. Appendix B: Summary of Survey Respondents .................................................................................. 70

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 iii
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Residential Verified Impact Savings by Program ......................................................................... 5
Table 1-2: Low-Income Verified Impact Savings by Program ....................................................................... 5
Table 1-3: Impact Evaluation Activities by Program and Sector ................................................................... 6
Table 2-1: Document-based Verification Samples and Precision by Program ........................................... 16
Table 2-2: Survey-Based Verification Sample and Precision by Program ................................................... 17
Table 3-1: Residential Verified Impact Savings by Program ....................................................................... 25
Table 3-2: Summary of Survey Response Rate ........................................................................................... 26
Table 3-3: Simple Verification Precision by Program ................................................................................. 26
Table 3-4: Water Heat Program ISRs by Measure ...................................................................................... 26
Table 3-5: HVAC Program ISRs by Measure ................................................................................................ 27
Table 3-6: Fuel Efficiency Program ISRs by Measure .................................................................................. 27
Table 3-7: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program ISRs by Measure .................................................. 27
Table 3-8: Appliance Program ISRs by Measure ......................................................................................... 27
Table 3-9: Water Heat Program Measures ................................................................................................. 28
Table 3-10 Water Heat Program Verified Electric Savings ......................................................................... 29
Table 3-11 Water Heat Program Incentive Costs by Measure ................................................................... 29
Table 3-12: Water Heat Verification Survey ISR Results ............................................................................. 30
Table 3-13: HVAC Program Measures ........................................................................................................ 31
Table 3-14: HVAC Program Verified Electric Savings .................................................................................. 32
Table 3-15: HVAC Program Incentive Costs by Measure ............................................................................ 32
Table 3-16: HVAC Verification Survey ISR Results ...................................................................................... 34
Table 3-17: Shell Program Measures .......................................................................................................... 35
Table 3-18: Shell Program Verified Electric Savings ................................................................................... 35
Table 3-19: Shell Program Incentive Costs by Measure ............................................................................. 36
Table 3-20: Fuel Efficiency Program Measures .......................................................................................... 38
Table 3-21: Fuel Efficiency Program Verified Electric Savings .................................................................... 38
Table 3-22: Fuel Efficiency Program Incentive Costs by Measure .............................................................. 38
Table 3-23: Fuel Efficiency Verification Survey ISR Results ........................................................................ 39
Table 3-24: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Fuel Efficiency Program ........................................ 40

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 iv
Table 3-25: Measure Savings, Fuel Efficiency Program .............................................................................. 41
Table 3-26: ENERGY STAR® Homes Program Measures ............................................................................. 42
Table 3-27: ENERGY STAR® Homes Program Verified Electric Savings ....................................................... 42
Table 3-28: ENERGY STAR® Homes Program Incentive Costs by Measure ................................................. 42
Table 3-29: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program Measures .......................................................... 44
Table 3-30: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program Verified Electric Savings .................................... 44
Table 3-31: Small Home & MF Weatherization Incentive Costs by Measure ............................................. 45
Table 3-32: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program Verification Survey ISR Results .......................... 47
Table 3-33: Appliances Program Measures ................................................................................................ 48
Table 3-34: Appliances Program Verified Electric Savings ......................................................................... 48
Table 3-35: Appliances Program Incentive Costs by Measure ................................................................... 48
Table 3-36: Appliances Program Verification Survey ISR Results ............................................................... 49
Table 3-37: AeroBarrier Program Measures .............................................................................................. 50
Table 4-1: Low-Income Verified Impact Savings by Program ..................................................................... 55
Table 4-2: Low-Income Program Measures ................................................................................................ 56
Table 4-3: Low-Income Program Verified Electric Savings ......................................................................... 56
Table 4-4: Low-Income Program Incentive Costs by Measure ................................................................... 57
Table 4-5: Measure Savings, Low-Income Program ................................................................................... 59
Table 5-1: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Fuel Efficiency Program .......................................... 61
Table 5-2: Cohort Restrictions, Fuel Efficiency Program ............................................................................ 62
Table 5-3: Pre-period Usage T-test for Electric to Gas Furnace, Fuel Conversion Program ....................... 64
Table 5-4: TMY Weather, Fuel Efficiency Program ..................................................................................... 64
Table 5-5: Measure Savings, Fuel Efficiency Program ................................................................................ 65
Table 5-6: Measure Savings for All Regression Models, Fuel Efficiency Program ...................................... 66
Table 5-7: Cohort Restrictions, Low-Income Program ............................................................................... 67
Table 5-8: Pre-period Usage T-test for Electric Measures, Low-Income Program ..................................... 68
Table 5-9: TMY Weather, Low-Income Program ........................................................................................ 69
Table 5-10: Household Savings for All Regression Models, Low-Income Program .................................... 69
Table 6-1: Type and Number of Measures Received by Respondents ....................................................... 70
Table 6-2: Survey Respondent Home Characteristics ................................................................................ 71

Work Plan 5
1. Executive Summary
This report is a summary of the Residential and Low-Income Electric Evaluation, Measurement, and
Verification (EM&V) effort of the 2021 program year (PY2021) portfolio of programs for Avista
Corporation (Avista) in the Idaho service territory. The evaluation was administered by ADM
Associates, Inc. and Cadeo Group, LLC (herein referred to as the “Evaluators”).
1.1 Savings Results
The Evaluators conducted an impact evaluation for Avista’s Residential and Low-Income programs for
PY2021. The Residential portfolio savings amounted to 1,294,535 kWh with a 93.19% realization rate.
The Low-Income portfolio savings amounted to 153,503 kWh with a 95.15% realization rate. The
Evaluators summarize the Residential portfolio verified savings in Table 1-1 and the Low-Income
portfolio verified savings in Table 1-2 below.
Table 1-1: Residential Verified Impact Savings by Program
Program
Expected
Savings
(kWh)
Verified
Savings
(kWh)
Verified
Realization
Rate
Water Heat 30,316 30,726 101.35%
HVAC 333,762 323,274 96.86%
Shell 190,085 219,690 115.57%
Fuel Efficiency 702,026 586,226 83.50%
ENERGY STAR Homes 66,243 72,007 108.70%
Small Home & MF
Weatherization 49,911 49,193 98.56%
Appliances 16,835 13,420 79.71%
AeroBarrier 0 0 -
Total Res 1,389,177 1,294,535 93.19%

Table 1-2: Low-Income Verified Impact Savings by Program
Program
Expected
Savings
(kWh)
Verified
Savings
(kWh)
Verified
Realization
Rate
Low-Income 161,323 153,503 95.15%
Total Low-Income 161,323 153,503 95.15%
Table 1-3 summarizes the electric programs offered to residential and low-income customers in the
Idaho Avista service territory in PY2021 as well as the Evaluators’ evaluation tasks and impact
methodology for each program.

Evaluation Report 6
Table 1-3: Impact Evaluation Activities by Program and Sector
Sector Program Database
Review
Survey
Verification Impact Methodology
Residential Water Heat ü ü RTF UES
Residential HVAC ü ü RTF UES
Residential Shell ü RTF UES
Residential Fuel Efficiency ü ü Avista TRM/Billing analysis with
comparison group
Residential ENERGY STAR®
Homes ü RTF UES
Residential Small Home & MF
Weatherization ü ü RTF UES
Residential Appliances ü ü RTF UES
Residential AeroBarrier ü No evaluation completed for
PY2021
Low-Income Low-Income ü Avista TRM
1.2 Conclusions and Recommendations
The following section details the Evaluators’ conclusions and recommendations for each the Residential
Portfolio and Low-Income Portfolio program evaluations.
1.2.1 Conclusions
The following section details the Evaluator’s findings resulting from the program evaluations for each
the Residential Portfolio and Low-Income Portfolio.
1.2.1.1 Residential Programs
The Evaluators provide the following conclusions regarding Avista’s Residential electric programs:
n The Evaluators found the Residential portfolio to demonstrate a total of 1,294,535 kWh with a
realization rate of 93.19%.
n The Fuel Efficiency Program, which contributes 45% of the expected savings, resulted in a
realization rate of 84% whereas each of the other programs resulted in a combined 103%
realization rate. The Fuel Efficiency Program contributed to a 10% decrease in the overall
residential sector, which displayed a realization rate of 93%.
n The Residential Portfolio impact evaluation resulted in a realization rate of 93% due to slight
differences between the Avista TRM categories and the appropriately assigned RTF UES
categories for each measure as well as due to differences between applied values from billing
analysis and the expected savings for those measures. The Evaluators note several instances in
which the Avista TRM value reflects an average of a range of RTF UES values for the electric
measures offered in the Washington electric service territory. The values had been averaged
across heating zones, water heater storage tank sizes, equipment efficiency values, and fuel
types. The Evaluators, instead of applying these averages, verified the appropriate RTF UES
values for each rebate for a sample of rebates in each program and applied the resulting

Evaluation Report 7
realization rates to the population of rebates for each program. This led to a higher realization
rate, as some rebates reflected RTF savings values higher than the average for that measure.
n The Evaluators conducted verification surveys for a random sample of customers who had
participated in the residential prescriptive rebates programs. The Evaluators calculated in-
service rates for measures in which in-service rates are not typically 100% (water heaters,
furnaces, clothes washers and dryers, smart thermostats, etc.). The Evaluators found that all
surveyed measures responses indicated in-service rates of 92-100%. These values were applied
to impact analysis results to estimate verified savings through the programs.
n The Evaluators found the CC&B tracking database consistently reflected values indicated on
randomly sampled documents.
n In the HVAC Program, the E Smart Thermostat DIY with Electric Heat and E Smart Thermostat
Paid Install with Electric Heat realization rates are lower than 100% because the Avista TRM uses
an average UES across heating types, while the Evaluators assigned the appropriate RTF UES
value for each heating zone. The appropriate categories in the RTF led to a lower-than-expected
savings and higher than expected savings across individual projects within these measures, with
an overall downward adjustment for these measures.
n In the HVAC Program, the Evaluators verified smart thermostat model specifications through the
ENERGY STAR qualified products list to verify if the thermostat met all conditions required from
the RTF measure specifications. The Evaluators verified that 6 of the 68 thermostats did not
meet RTF measure specifications (6% of sampled thermostat rebates). The 6% of thermostats
verified to not meet the conditions had lacked occupancy detection and/or geofencing
capabilities, a specification required by the RTF.
n In the Shell Program, the Evaluators imputed home type and space heating type for a large
number of sampled rebates, as the tracking database does not contain values for these
characteristics or remain outdated. The mail-in rebates collect this information; however, it
does not seem to be required to complete the rebate and therefore many rebates are missing
this information.
n In the ENERGY STAR Homes Program, the Evaluators found that realization rates differed from
100% due to application of heating zone and cooling zone via the RTF, which the Avista TRM lacks.
In addition, the realization for the E ENERGY STAR® Home – Manufactured, Gas & Electric measure
is low because the expected savings employed an additive methodology between a gas-heated
home and an electric-heated home for the electric savings. However, the Evaluators reviewed the
RTF and determined manufactured home electric savings for a fully natural gas heated home
would be closer to the savings a gas heated home with electricity would save. Therefore, the
Evaluators assigned electric savings from the RTF associated with a fully natural gas-heated home
at 43 kWh saved per year. Finally, two projects were verified to have natural gas furnace space
heating for the home and therefore verified savings did not include full electric savings. This led
to one project displaying 1.30% realization for electric savings, leading to a large downward
adjustment in the population realization rates.
n In the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program, the Evaluators found that many projects
exceed the "Small Home" definition from Avista - that a home is single family with less than 1,000
SQFT or is a multifamily home (5 or more units). In addition, the Evaluators note that the current
program rebate applications do not provide an option to indicate “Multifamily” home type.

Evaluation Report 8
Rather, the current rebate application includes an option for “Single family”, “Manufactured”,
“New construction”, and “Other”.
n In the Appliance Program, the Evaluators found that 3 of the sampled clothes washer projects did
not qualify due to minimum volume requirements specified by the RTF. The Evaluators also found
that the Avista TRM applied RTF savings from the “Front Load” measure description for clothes
washers. However, the Evaluators found that 3 of the clothes washer equipment were “Top
loading”, which the RTF assigns significantly lower annual savings. This change in addition to the
disqualification of 3 rebates led to a downward adjustment in realization rate for this program.
n The Evaluators did not complete an impact analysis for the AeroBarrier Program. A full impact
analysis will be completed for the program in PY2022.
1.2.1.2 Low-Income Programs
The Evaluators provide the following conclusions regarding Avista’s Residential electric programs:
n The Evaluators found the Low-Income portfolio to demonstrate a total of 153,503 kWh with a
realization rate of 95.15%.
n The realization rates for each program deviate from 100% due to differences between the Avista
TRM values applied to the quantities displayed in the tracking data. The Evaluators note several
instances in which the tracking data displayed correct quantity values, but the expected savings
calculated for the project did not indicate Avista TRM values were applied properly to the
quantities. The Evaluators applied the verified Avista TRM values for the Low-Income Program.
For the Low-Income Program, the Evaluators applied a realization rate from a sample of rebates
after verifying documentation for quantity and efficiency of measures.
n The Evaluators attempted to estimate measure-level Low-Income Program energy savings
through billing analysis regression with a counterfactual group selected via propensity score
matching. The Evaluators attempted to isolate each unique measure. However, participation for
the Low-Income program resulted in a small number of customers with isolated measures and
therefore the Evaluators conducted a whole-home billing analysis for all the electric measures
combined in the Low-Income in order to estimate savings for the average household
participating in the program, across all measures. The Evaluators found a realization rate of 65%
for all electric measures in the program, which is significantly lower than the realization rate of
95% from the desk review. However, due to requirements for measure-level verified savings for
cost-effectiveness testing, the Evaluators designated the desk review savings as verified.
n In the Low-Income Program, The Evaluators found the LED bulbs unit-level savings were
inaccurately referenced. Avista TRM specifies 1 kWh per bulb, while expected savings uses 9
kWh savings per bulb, leading to 11% realization for LED bulb projects under the program.
1.2.2 Recommendations
The following section details the Evaluator’s recommendations resulting from the program evaluations
for each the Residential Portfolio and Low-Income Portfolio.

Evaluation Report 9
1.2.2.1 Residential Programs
The Evaluators offer the following recommendations regarding Avista’s Residential electric programs:
n The Evaluators imputed home type and space heating type for a large number of sampled
rebates, as the tracking database does not contain values for these characteristics or remain
outdated. The mail-in rebates collect this information; however, it does not seem to be required
to complete the rebate and therefore many rebates are missing this information. The Evaluators
recommend verifying home type and space heating type during rebate application approval in
order to apply correct savings values to each project.
n In addition, the Evaluators note that the current program rebate applications for the Small
Home & MF Weatherization Program do not provide an option to indicate “Multifamily” home
type. For the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program, project savings largely depends on the
home type (single family vs. multifamily vs. manufactured). The current rebate application
includes an option for “Single family”, “Manufactured”, “New construction”, and “Other”. The
Evaluators recommend including an option for “Multifamily” in order to consistently apply RTF
savings for each of the measures. The Evaluators recommend Avista verify home type prior to
applying Avista TRM values in order to ensure proper categorization of measure savings.
n The Evaluators note several instances in which the web-based rebate data indicates the
household has electric space heating, but all other sources (project data and document
verification) indicate natural gas space heating, and vice versa. The Evaluators recommend
updating data collection standards in order for all sources of information to reflect the same
values as the project documentation.
n The Evaluators found that space heating type and water heating type indicated on the
household’s characteristics in the CC&B database did not consistently match the values
indicated on the rebate application forms. This may be due to lack of customer knowledge
about the household, or due to change in space and/or water heating type without Avista
knowledge. The Evaluators recommend verifying space and water heating values with the
customer and updating the CC&B database to reflect the most updated information for the
home.
n The Evaluators found that many projects claimed under the Small Home & MF Weatherization
Program exceed the "Small Home" definition from Avista - that a home is single family with less
than 1,000 SQFT or is a multifamily home (5 or more units). The Evaluators recommend claiming
projects on single family homes that are larger than 1,000 SQFT into the Shell Program.
n The ENERGY STAR Homes rebates depend on heating zone and cooling zone specifications to
calculate RTF savings. In addition, the savings applied largely depends on space heating type.
The program realization rate differs from 100% due to changes in heating zone/cooling zone
savings assignment as well as verified space heating type (electric vs. natural gas). The
Evaluators recommend verifying space heating type prior to claiming savings for each ENERGY
STAR homes project and specifying separate savings for heating zone and cooling zone in the
Avista TRM.
n A number of smart thermostat rebates included equipment that did not meet RTF measure
specifications to receive verified savings through the RTF workbooks, which the Avista TRM values
are drawn from. The Evaluators recommend providing a qualified product list for customers to

Evaluation Report 10
ensure purchased smart thermostat meets program requirements. In addition, the Evaluators
recommend Avista verify each program rebate to verify qualifications after rebates are submitted.
n In the Appliances Program, the Evaluators found that the Avista TRM applied RTF savings from
the “Front Load” measure description for clothes washers. However, the Evaluators found that 3
of the clothes washer equipment were “Top loading”, which the RTF assigns significantly lower
annual savings. This change in addition to the disqualification of 3 rebates led to a downward
adjustment in realization rate for this program. The Evaluators recommend adding “top loading”
clothes washers to the Avista TRM and applying savings for those measures appropriately.
n The Avista TRM assigns the savings values for water heaters of any size. During document
review, the Evaluators found most of the water heaters to have a storage tank under 55 gallons,
which has a higher savings value in the RTF than water heaters with unknown tank sizes (larger
systems have a more stringent code baseline). The Evaluators applied the RTF UES value for the
associated tank size and tier found for each model number in the sampled rebates. These
changes led to the high realization rate for the E Heat Pump Water Heater measure in the Water
Heat Program. The Evaluators recommend updating the Avista TRM value for this measure
based on actual tank size, in addition to collecting information on the tank size of the measure in
the rebate applications.
n The Evaluators note that the realization for the E ENERGY STAR® Home – Manufactured, Gas &
Electric measure is low because the Avista TRM savings was employed using an additive
methodology between a gas-heated home and an electric-heated home for the electric savings.
However, the Evaluators reviewed the RTF and determined manufactured home electric savings
for a fully natural gas heated home would be closer to the savings a gas heated home with
electricity would save. The Evaluators recommend adjusting Avista TRM electric savings for this
measure to reflect the RTF values associated with a fully natural gas-heated home at 43 kWh
saved per year.
1.2.2.2 Low-Income Programs
The Evaluators offer the following recommendations regarding Avista’s Low-Income electric programs:
n The Evaluators note that most deviations from 100% realization rate is due to differences
between the limited measure category options Avista TRM values and the more detailed
categories referencing heating zone, cooling zone, heating type, and bulb types present in the
RTF. The Evaluators recommend that Avista reference the more detailed RTF measures when
calculating expected savings for the programs.
n The Evaluators reviewed the project documentation provided by Avista and identified conflicting
square footage or number of units between the aggregated project data from the expected
savings calculated for each project. The Evaluators found very few instances in which the
tracking data quantity differed from the quantity displayed in sampled documentation and
invoices. The Evaluators recommend providing corrections to the application of Avista TRM
values to tracking data quantity.
n The Evaluators found the LED bulbs unit-level savings were inaccurately referenced for the Low-
Income Program. Avista TRM specifies 1 kWh per bulb, while expected savings uses 9 kWh savings
per bulb, leading to 11% realization for LED bulb projects under the program. The Evaluators

Evaluation Report 11
recommend updating database calculations to use Avista TRM values during expected savings
calculations.

Evaluation Report 12
2. General Methodology
The Evaluators performed an impact evaluation on each of the programs summarized in Table 1-3. The
Evaluators used the following approaches to calculate energy impact defined by the International
Performance Measurement and Verification Protocols (IPMVP)1 and the Uniform Methods Project
(UMP)2:
n Simple verification (web-based surveys supplemented with phone surveys)
n Document verification (review project documentation)
n Deemed savings (RTF UES and Avista TRM values)
n Whole facility billing analysis (IPMVP Option C)
The Evaluators completed the above impact tasks for each the electric impacts and the natural gas
impacts for projects completed in the Idaho Avista service territory.
The M&V methodologies are program-specific and determined by previous Avista evaluation
methodologies as well as the relative contribution of a given program to the overall energy efficiency
impacts. Besides drawing on IPMVP, the Evaluators also reviewed relevant information on
infrastructure, framework, and guidelines set out for EM&V work in several guidebook documents that
have been published over the past several years. These include the following:
n Northwest Regional Technical Forum (RTF)3
n National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), United States Department of Energy (DOE) The
Uniform Methods Project (UMP): Methods for Determining Energy Efficiency Savings for Specific
Measures, April 20134
n International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) maintained by the
Efficiency Valuation Organization (EVO) with sponsorship by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)5
The Evaluators kept data collection instruments, calculation spreadsheets, and monitored/survey data
available for Avista records.
2.1 Glossary of Terminology
As a first step to detailing the evaluation methodologies, the Evaluators have provided a glossary of
terms to follow:
n Deemed Savings – An estimate of an energy savings outcome (gross savings) for a single unit of
an installed energy efficiency measure. This estimate (a) has been developed from data sources

1 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/31505.pdf
2 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70472.pdf
3 https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures
4 Notably, The Uniform Methods Project (UMP) includes the following chapters authored by ADM. Chapter 9 (Metering Cross-
Cutting Protocols) was authored by Dan Mort and Chapter 15 (Commercial New Construction Protocol) was Authored by Steven
Keates.
5 Core Concepts: International Measurement and Verification Protocol. EVO 100000 – 1:2016, October 2016.

Evaluation Report 13
and analytical methods that are widely accepted for the measure and purpose and (b) are
applicable to the situation being evaluated.
n Expected Savings – Calculated savings used for program and portfolio planning purposes.
n Adjusted Savings – Savings estimates after database review and document verification has been
completed using deemed unit-level savings provided in the Avista TRM. It adjusts for such factors
as data errors and installation rates.
n Verified Savings – Savings estimates after the unit-level savings values have been updated and
energy impact evaluation has been completed, integrating results from billing analyses and
appropriate RTF UES and Avista TRM values.
n Gross Savings – The change in energy consumption directly resulting from program-related
actions taken by participants in an efficiency program, regardless of why they participated.
n Free Rider – A program participant who would have implemented the program measure or
practice in absence of the program.
n Net-To-Gross – A factor representing net program savings divided by gross program savings that
is applied to gross program impacts to convert them into net program load impacts.
n Net Savings – The change in energy consumption directly resulting from program-related actions
taken by participants in an efficiency program, with adjustments to remove savings due to free
ridership.
n Non-Energy Benefits – Quantifiable impacts produced by program measures outside of energy
savings (comfort, health and safety, reduced alternative fuel, etc.).
n Non-Energy Impacts – Quantifiable impacts in energy efficiency beyond the energy savings gained
from installing energy efficient measures (reduced cost for operation and maintenance of
equipment, reduced environmental and safety costs, etc.).
2.2 Summary of Approach
This section presents our general cross-cutting approach to accomplishing the impact evaluation of
Avista’s Residential and Low-Income programs listed in Table 1-3. The Evaluators start by presenting our
general evaluation approach. This chapter is organized by general task due to several overlap across
programs. Section 3.3 describes the Evaluators’ program-specific residential impact evaluation methods
and results in further detail and Section 4.1 describes the Evaluator’s program-specific low-income
impact evaluation methods and results.
The Evaluators outline the approach to verifying, measuring, and reporting the residential portfolio
impacts as well as summarizing potential program and portfolio improvements. The primary objective of
the impact evaluation is to determine ex-post verified net energy savings. On-site verification and
equipment monitoring was not conducted during this impact evaluation due to stay-at-home orders due
to the COVID19 pandemic.
Our general approach for this evaluation considers the cyclical feedback loop among program design,
implementation, and impact evaluation. Our activities during the evaluation estimate and verify annual
energy savings and identify whether a program is meeting its goals. These activities are aimed to provide
guidance for continuous program improvement and increased cost effectiveness for the 2022 and 2023
program years.

Evaluation Report 14
The Evaluators employed the following approach to complete impact evaluation activities for the
programs. The Evaluators define two major approaches to determining net savings for Avista’s
programs:
n A Deemed Savings approach involves using stipulated savings for energy conservation measures
for which savings values are well-known and documented. These prescriptive savings may also
include an adjustment for certain measures, such as lighting measures in which site operating
hours may differ from RTF values.
n A Billing Analysis approach involves estimating energy savings by applying a linear regression to
measured participant energy consumption utility meter billing data. Billing analyses included
billing data from nonparticipant customers. This approach does not require on-site data collection
for model calibration. This approach aligns with the IPMVP Option C.
The Evaluators accomplished the following quantitative goals as part of the impact evaluation:
n Verify savings with 10% precision at the 90% confidence level;
n Where appropriate, apply the RTF to verify measure impacts; and
n Where available data exists, conduct billing analysis with a suitable comparison group to estimate
measure savings.
For each program, the Evaluators calculated adjusted savings for each measure based on the Avista TRM
and results from the database review. The Evaluators calculated verified savings for each measure based
on the RTF UES, Avista TRM, or billing analysis in combination with the results from document review.
For the HVAC, Water Heat, and Fuel Efficiency programs, the Evaluators also applied in-service rates
(ISRs) from verification surveys.

The Evaluators assigned methodological rigor level for each measure and program based on its
contribution to the portfolio savings and availability of data.
The Evaluators analyzed billing data for all electric measure participants in the HVAC and Low-Income
programs. The Evaluators applied billing analysis results to determine evaluated savings only for
measures where savings could be isolated (that is, where a sufficient number of participants could be
identified who installed only that measure). Program-level realization rates for the HVAC, Water Heat,
and Fuel Efficiency programs incorporate billing analysis results for some measures.
2.2.1 Database Review
At the outset of the evaluation, the Evaluators reviewed the databases to ensure that each program
tracking database conforms to industry standards and adequately tracks key data required for
evaluation.
Reported
Savings
Database
Review
Adjusted
savings
Document
Review
Evaluated
Savings

Evaluation Report 15
Measure-level net savings were evaluated primarily by reviewing measure algorithms and values in the
tracking system to assure that they are appropriately applied using the Avista TRM. The Evaluators then
aggregated and cross-check program and measure totals.
The Evaluators reviewed program application documents for a sample of incented measures to verify
the tracking data accurately represents the program documents. The Evaluators ensured the home
installed measures that meet or exceed program efficiency standards.
2.2.2 Verification Methodology
The Evaluators verified a sample of participating households for detailed review of the installed measure
documentation and development of verified savings. The Evaluators verified tracking data by reviewing
invoices and surveying a sample of participant customer households. The Evaluators also conducted a
verification survey for program participants.
The Evaluators used the following equations to estimate sample size requirements for each program and
fuel type. Required sample sizes were estimated as follows:
Equation 2-1: Sample Size for Infinite Sample Size
𝑛= $𝑍× 𝐶𝑉
𝑑*
!

Equation 2-2: Sample Size for Finite Population Size
𝑛"= 𝑛
1 +-𝑛𝑁/
Where,
n n = Sample size
n 𝑍 = Z-value for a two-tailed distribution at the assigned confidence level.
n 𝐶𝑉 = Coefficient of variation
n 𝑑 = Precision level
n 𝑁 = Population
For a sample that provides 90/10 precision, Z = 1.645 (the critical value for 90% confidence) and d = 0.10
(or 10% precision). The remaining parameter is CV, or the expected coefficient of variation of measures
for which the claimed savings may be accepted. A CV of .5 was assumed for residential programs due to
the homogeneity of participation6, which yields a sample size of 68 for an infinite population. Sample
sizes were adjusted for smaller populations via the method detailed in Equation 2-2.
The following sections describe the Evaluator’s methodology for conducting document-based
verification and survey-based verification.

6 Assumption based off California Evaluation Framework:
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUC_Public_Website/Content/Utilities_and_Industries/Energy/Energy_Programs/De
mand_Side_Management/EE_and_Energy_Savings_Assist/CAEvaluationFramework.pdf

Evaluation Report 16
2.2.2.1 Document-Based Verification
The Evaluators requested rebate documentation for a subset of participating customers. These
documents included invoices, rebate applications, pictures, and AHRI certifications for the following
programs.
n Water Heat Program
n HVAC Program
n Shell Program
n Fuel Efficiency Program
n ENERGY STAR® Homes Program
n Small Home & MF Weatherization Program
n Appliances Program
n Low-Income Program
This sample of documents was used to cross-verify tracking data inputs. In the case the Evaluators found
any deviations between the tracking data and application values, the Evaluators reported and
summarized those differences in the Database Review sections presented for each program in Section
3.3 and Section 4.1.
The Evaluators developed a sampling plan that achieves a sampling precision of ±10% at 90% statistical
confidence – or “90/10 precision” – to estimate the percentage of projects for which the claimed savings
are verified or require some adjustment.
The Evaluators developed the following samples for each program’s document review using Equation
2-1 and Equation 2-2. The Evaluators ensured representation in each state and fuel type for each
measure.
Table 2-1: Document-based Verification Samples and Precision by Program
Sector Program

Electric
Population
Sample
(With Finite
Population
Adjustment) *
Precision at
90% CI
Residential Water Heat 109 42 ±10.0%
Residential HVAC 648 64 ±9.8%
Residential Shell 386 66 ±9.2%
Residential Fuel Efficiency 84 39 ±9.7%
Residential ENERGY STAR® Homes 51 31 ±9.3%
Residential Small Home & MF
Weatherization 93 43 ±9.3%
Residential Appliances 479 61 ±9.9%
Residential AeroBarrier N/A N/A N/A
Low-Income Low-Income 408 87 ±7.8%
*Assumes sample size of 68 for an infinite population, based on CV (coefficient of variation) = 0.5, d (precision) = 10%, Z (critical
value for 90% confidence) = 1.645.
The table above represents the number of rebates in both Washington and Idaho territories. The
Evaluators ensured representation of state and fuel type in the sampled rebates for document
verification.

Evaluation Report 17
2.2.2.2 Survey-Based Verification
The Evaluators conducted survey-based verification for the Water Heat, HVAC, Fuel Efficiency, Small
Home & MF Weatherization, and Appliances Programs. The primary purpose of conducting a verification
survey is to confirm that the measure was installed and is still currently operational and whether the
measure was early retirement or replace-on-burnout.
The Evaluators summarize the final sample sizes shown in Table 2-2 for the Idaho Electric Avista
projects. The Evaluators developed a sampling plan that achieved a sampling precision of ±5.5% at 90%
statistical confidence for ISRs estimates at the measure-level during web-based survey verification.
Table 2-2: Survey-Based Verification Sample and Precision by Program
Sector Program Population Respondents Precision
at 90% CI
Residential Water Heat 109 8 ±28.1%*
Residential HVAC 648 77 ±8.8%
Residential Fuel Efficiency 84 19 ±16.7%*
Residential Small Home & MF
Weatherization 93 6 ±32.7%*
Residential Appliances 479 86 ±8.0%
Total 1,413 196 ±5.5%
*These programs did not meet 90/10 precision for the survey-based verification.
For these programs, 100% in-service rates were assumed.
The Evaluators implemented a web-based survey to complete the verification surveys. The Evaluators
contacted all customers in the Water Heat Program, Fuel Efficiency Program, and Small Home & MF
Weatherization Program with the goal of reaching 90/10 precision, however, all efforts were exhausted
to reach these customers and therefore these programs do not display 90/10 precision at the program-
level for in-service rate calculations. For programs in which this goal was not met, the Evaluators
assumed in-service rates of 100%.
The findings from these activities served to estimate ISRs for each measure surveyed. These ISRs were
applied to verification sample desk review rebates towards verified savings, which were then applied to
the population of rebates. The measure-level ISRs resulting from the survey-based verification are
summarized in Section 3.1.
2.2.3 Impact Evaluation Methodology
The Evaluators employed the following approach to complete impact evaluation activities for the
programs. The Evaluators define two major approaches to determining net savings for Avista’s
programs:
n Deemed Savings
n Billing Analysis (IPMVP Option C)
In the following sections, the Evaluators summarize the general guidelines and activities followed to
conduct each of the above analyses.

Evaluation Report 18
2.2.3.1 Deemed Savings
This section summarizes the deemed savings analysis method the Evaluators employed for the
evaluation of a subset of measures for each program. The Evaluators completed the validation for
specific measures across each program using the RTF unit energy savings (UES) values, where available.
The Evaluators ensured the proper measure unit savings were recorded and used in the calculation of
Avista’s ex-ante measure savings. The Evaluators requested and used the technical reference manual
Avista employed during calculation of ex-ante measure savings (Avista TRM). The Evaluators
documented any cases where recommend values differed from the specific unit energy savings
workbooks used by Avista.
In cases where the RTF has existing unit energy savings (UES) applicable to Avista’s measures, the
Evaluators verified the quantity and quality of installations and apply the RTF’s UES to determine
verified savings.
2.2.3.2 Billing Analysis
This section describes the billing analysis methodology employed by the Evaluators as part of the impact
evaluation and measurement of energy savings for measures with sufficient participation. The Evaluators
performed billing analyses with a matched control group and utilized a quasi-experimental method of
producing a post-hoc control group. In program designs where treatment and control customers are not
randomly selected at the outset, such as for downstream rebate programs, quasi-experimental designs
are required.
For the purposes of this analysis, a household is considered a treatment household if it has received a
program incentive. Additionally, a household is considered a control household if the household has not
received a program incentive. To isolate measure impacts, treatment households are eligible to be
included in the billing analysis if they installed only one measure during the2021 program year. Isolation
of individual measures are necessary to provide valid measure-level savings. Households that installed
more than one measure may display interactive energy savings effects across multiple measures that
are not feasibly identifiable. Therefore, instances where households installed isolated measures are
used in the billing analyses. In addition, the pre-period identifies the period prior to measure installation
while the post-period refers to the period following measure installation.
The Evaluators utilized propensity score matching (PSM) to match nonparticipants to similar participants
using pre-period billing data. PSM allows the evaluators to find the most similar household based on the
customers’ billed consumption trends in the pre-period and verified with statistical difference testing.
After matching based on these variables, the billing data for treatment and control groups are
compared, as detailed in IPMVP Option C. The Evaluators fit regression models to estimate weather-
dependent daily consumption differences between participating customer and nonparticipating
customer households.
Cohort Creation
The PSM approach estimates a propensity score for treatment and control customers using a logistic
regression model. A propensity score is a metric that summarizes several dimensions of household
characteristics into a single metric that can be used to group similar households. The Evaluators created
a post-hoc control group by compiling billing data from a subset of nonparticipants in the Avista territory

Evaluation Report 19
to compare against treatment households using quasi-experimental methods. This allowed the
Evaluators to select from a large group of similar households that have not installed an incented
measure. With this information, the Evaluators created statistically valid matched control groups for
each measure via seasonal pre-period usage. The Evaluators matched customers in the control group to
customers in the treatment group based on nearest seasonal pre-period usage (e.g., summer, spring,
fall, and winter) and exact 3-digit zip code matching (the first three digits of the five-digit zip code). After
matching, the Evaluators conducted a t-test for each month in the pre-period to help determine the
success of PSM.
While it is not possible to guarantee the creation of a sufficiently matched control group, this method is
preferred because it is likely to have more meaningful results than a treatment-only analysis. Some
examples of outside variables that a control group can sufficiently control for are changes in economies
and markets, large-scale social changes, or impacts from weather-related anomalies such as flooding or
hurricanes. This is particularly relevant in 2021 due to COVID-19 related lockdowns and restrictions.
After PSM, the Evaluators ran the following regression models for each measure:
n Fixed effect Difference-in-Difference (D-n-D) regression model (recommended in UMP protocols)7
n Random effects post-program regression model (PPR) (recommended in UMP protocols)
n Gross billing analysis (treatment only)
The second model listed above (PPR) was selected because it had the best fit for the data, identified
using the adjusted R-squared. Further details on regression model specifications can be found below.
Data Collected
The following lists the data collected for the billing analysis:
1. Monthly billing data for program participants (treatment customers)
2. Monthly billing data for a group of non-program participants (control customers)
3. Program tracking data, including customer identifiers, address, and date of measure installation
4. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather data between January 1, 2020
and December 31, 2021)
5. Typical Meteorological Year (TMY3) data
Billing and weather data were obtained for program year 2021 and for one year prior to measure install
dates (2020).
Weather data was obtained from the nearest weather station with complete data during the analysis
years for each customer by mapping the weather station location with the customer zip code.
TMY weather stations were assigned to NOAA weather stations by geocoding the minimum distance
between each set of latitude and longitude points. This data is used for extrapolating savings to long-
run, 30-year average weather.

7 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Uniform Methods Project (UMP) Chapter 17 Section 4.4.7.

Evaluation Report 20
Data Preparation
The following steps were taken to prepare the billing data:
1. Gathered billing data for homes that participated in the program.
2. Excluded participant homes that also participated in the other programs, if either program
disqualifies the combination of any other rebate or participation.
3. Gathered billing data for similar customers that did not participate in the program in evaluation.
4. Excluded bills missing address information.
5. Removed bills missing fuel type/Unit of Measure (UOM).
6. Removed bills missing usage, billing start date, or billing end date.
7. Remove bills with outlier durations (<9 days or >60 days).
8. Excluded bills with consumption indicated to be outliers.
9. Calendarized bills (recalculates bills, usage, and total billed such that bills begin and end at the
start and end of each month).
10. Obtained weather data from nearest NOAA weather station using 5-digit zip code per household.
11. Computed Heating Degree Days (HDD) and Cooling Degree Days (CDD) for a range of setpoints.
The Evaluators assigned a setpoint of 65°F for both HDD and CDD. The Evaluators tested and
selected the optimal temperature base for HDDs and CDDs based on model R-squared values.
12. Selected treatment customers with only one type of measure installation during the analysis years
and combined customer min/max install dates with billing data (to define pre- and post-periods).
13. Restricted to treatment customers with install dates in specified range (typically January 1, 2021
through June 30, 2021) to allow for sufficient post-period billing data.
14. Restricted to control customers with usage less than or equal to two times the maximum observed
treatment group usage. This has the effect of removing control customers with incomparable
usage relative to the treatment group.
15. Removed customers with incomplete post-period bills (<4 months).
16. Removed customers with incomplete pre-period bills.
17. Restricted control customers to those with usage that was comparable with the treatment group
usage.
18. Created a matched control group using PSM and matching on pre-period seasonal usage and zip
code.
Regression Models
The Evaluators ran the following models for matched treatment and control customers for each
measure with sufficient participation. For net savings, the Evaluators selected either Model 1 or Model
2. The model with the best fit (highest adjusted R-squared) was selected. The Evaluators utilized Model
3 to estimate gross energy savings.

Evaluation Report 21
Model 1: Fixed Effects Difference-in-Difference Regression Model
The following equation displays the first model specification to estimate the average daily savings due to
the measure.
Equation 2-3: Fixed Effects Difference-in-Difference (D-n-D) Model Specification
𝐴𝐷𝐶#$=𝛼"+𝛽%(𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡)#$+𝛽!(𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡× 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡)#$+𝛽&(𝐻𝐷𝐷)#$+𝛽'(𝐶𝐷𝐷)#$+𝛽((𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡× 𝐻𝐷𝐷)#$+𝛽)(𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡× 𝐶𝐷𝐷)#$+𝛽*(𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡× 𝐻𝐷𝐷× 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡)#$
+𝛽+(𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡× 𝐶𝐷𝐷× 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡)#$+𝛽,(𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ)$+𝛽%"(𝐶𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑦)#+𝜀#$
Where,
n i = the ith household
n t = the first, second, third, etc. month of the post-treatment period
n 𝐴𝐷𝐶#$ = Average daily usage reading t for household i during the post-treatment period
n 𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡#$ = A dummy variable indicating pre- or post-period designation during period t
at home i
n 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡# = A dummy variable indicating treatment status of home i
n 𝐻𝐷𝐷#$ = Average heating degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during
period t at home i
n 𝐶𝐷𝐷#$ = Average cooling degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during period t
at home i (if electric usage)
n 𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ$= A set of dummy variables indicating the month during period t
n 𝐶𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑦# = a customer-specific dummy variable isolating individual household
effects
n 𝜀#$ = The error term
n 𝛼"= The model intercept
n 𝛽%-%" = Coefficients determined via regression
The Average Daily Consumption (ADC) is calculated as the total monthly billed usage divided by the
duration of the bill month. 𝛽! represents the average change in daily baseload in the post-period
between the treatment and control group and 𝛽* and 𝛽+ represent the change in weather-related daily
consumption in the post-period between the groups. Typical monthly and annual savings were
estimated by extrapolating the 𝛽* and 𝛽+ coefficients with Typical Meteorological Year (TMY) HDD and
CDD data. However, in the case of gas usage, only the coefficient for HDD is utilized because CDDs were
not included in the regression model.
The equation below displays how savings were extrapolated for a full year utilizing the coefficients in the
regression model and TMY data. TMY data is weighted by the number of households assigned to each
weather station.
Equation 2-4: Savings Extrapolation
𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠= 𝛽!∗365.25 +𝛽*∗𝑇𝑀𝑌 𝐻𝐷𝐷+𝛽+∗𝑇𝑀𝑌 𝐶𝐷𝐷

Evaluation Report 22
Model 2: Random Effects Post-Program Regression Model
The following equation displays the second model specification to estimate the average daily savings
due to the measure. The post-program regression (PPR) model combines both cross-sectional and time
series data in a panel dataset. This model uses only the post-program data, with lagged energy use for
the same calendar month of the pre-program period acting as a control for any small systematic
differences between the treatment and control customers; in particular, energy use in calendar month t
of the post-program period is framed as a function of both the participant variable and energy use in the
same calendar month of the pre-program period. The underlying logic is that systematic differences
between treatment and control customers will be reflected in the differences in their past energy use,
which is highly correlated with their current energy use. These interaction terms allow pre-program
usage to have a different effect on post-program usage in each calendar month.
The model specification is as follows:
Equation 2-5: Post-Program Regression (PPR) Model Specification
𝐴𝐷𝐶#$=𝛼"+𝛽%(𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡)#+𝛽! (𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒)#+𝛽& (𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑆𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑟)#+𝛽'(𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟)#+𝛽((𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ)$+𝛽)(𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ× 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒)#$+𝛽*(𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ× 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑆𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑟)#$+𝛽+(𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ× 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟)#$
+𝛽,(𝐻𝐷𝐷)#$+𝛽%"(𝐶𝐷𝐷)#$+𝛽%%(𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡× 𝐻𝐷𝐷)#$+𝛽%!(𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡× 𝐶𝐷𝐷)#$
+𝜀#$
Where,
n i = the ith household
n t = the first, second, third, etc. month of the post-treatment period
n 𝐴𝐷𝐶#$ = Average daily usage for reading t for household i during the post-treatment period
n 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡# = A dummy variable indicating treatment status of home i
n 𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ$ = Dummy variable indicating month of month t
n 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒# = Average daily usage across household i’s available pre-treatment billing reads
n 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑆𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑟# = Average daily usage in the summer months across household i’s
available pretreatment billing reads
n 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟# = Average daily usage in the winter months across household i’s available
pre-treatment billing reads
n 𝐻𝐷𝐷#$ = Average heating degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during
period t at home i
n 𝐶𝐷𝐷#$ = Average cooling degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during period t
at home i (if electric usage)
n 𝜀#$ = Customer-level random error
n 𝛼"= The model intercept for home i
n 𝛽%-%! = Coefficients determined via regression
The coefficient 𝛽% represents the average change in consumption between the pre-period and post-
period for the treatment group and 𝛽%% and 𝛽%! represent the change in weather-related daily
consumption in the post-period between the groups. Typical monthly and annual savings were

Evaluation Report 23
estimated by extrapolating the 𝛽%% and 𝛽%! coefficients with Typical Meteorological Year (TMY) HDD and
CDD data.
The equation below displays how savings were extrapolated for a full year utilizing the coefficients in the
regression model and TMY data.
Equation 2-6: Savings Extrapolation
𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠= 𝛽%∗365.25 +𝛽%%∗𝑇𝑀𝑌 𝐻𝐷𝐷+𝛽%!∗𝑇𝑀𝑌 𝐶𝐷𝐷
Model 3: Gross Billing Analysis, Treatment-Only Regression Model
The sections above detail the Evaluator’s methodology for estimating net energy savings for each
measure. The results from the above methodology report net savings due to the inclusion of the
counterfactual comparison group. However, for planning purposes, it is useful to estimate gross savings
for each measure. To estimate gross savings, the Evaluators employed a similar regression model;
however, only including participant customer billing data. This analysis does not include control group
billing data and therefore models energy reductions between the pre-period and post-period for the
measure participants (treatment customers).
To calculate the impacts of each measure, the Evaluators applied linear fixed effects regression using
participant billing data with weather controls in the form of Heating Degree Days (HDD) and Cooling
Degree Days (CDD). The following equation displays the model specification to estimate the average
daily savings due to the measure.
Equation 2-7: Treatment-Only Fixed Effects Weather Model Specification
𝐴𝐷𝐶#$=𝛼"+𝛽%(𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡)#$+𝛽!(𝐻𝐷𝐷)#$+𝛽&(𝐶𝐷𝐷)#$+𝛽'(𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡× 𝐻𝐷𝐷)#$+𝛽((𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡× 𝐶𝐷𝐷)#$+𝛽)(𝐶𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑦)#+𝛽*(𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ)$+𝜀#$
Where,
n i = the ith household
n t = the first, second, third, etc. month of the post-treatment period
n 𝐴𝐷𝐶#$ = Average daily usage for reading t for household i during the post-treatment period
n 𝐻𝐷𝐷#$ = Average heating degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during
period t at home i
n 𝐶𝐷𝐷#$ = Average cooling degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during period t
at home i (if electric usage)
n 𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡#$ = A dummy variable indicating pre- or post-period designation during period t at
home i
n 𝐶𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑦# = a customer-specific dummy variable isolating individual household
effects
n 𝜀#$ = Customer-level random error
n 𝛼"= The model intercept for home i
n 𝛽%-) = Coefficients determined via regression

Evaluation Report 24
The results of the treatment-only regression models are gross savings estimates. The gross savings
estimates are useful to compare against the net savings estimates. However, the treatment-only models
are unable to separate the effects of the COVID19 pandemic. The post-period for PY2021 and perhaps
also PY2021 are affected by the stay-at-home orders that had taken effect starting March 2021 in Idaho.
The stay-at-home orders most likely affect the post-period household usage. Because there is
insufficient post-period data before the shelter-in-place orders, the Evaluators were unable to separate
the effects on consumption due to the orders and the effects on consumption due to the measure
installation. Therefore, the results from this additional gross savings analysis are unable to reflect actual
typical year savings. However, for planning purposes, these estimates may be useful.
2.2.4 Net-To-Gross
The Northwest RTF UES measures do not require NTG adjustments as they are built into the deemed
savings estimates. In addition, billing analyses with counterfactual control groups, as proposed in our
impact methodology, does not require a NTG adjustment, as the counterfactual represents the
efficiency level at current market (i.e. the efficiency level the customer would have installed had they
not participated in the program).
2.2.5 Non-Energy Benefits
The Evaluators used the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) to quantify non-energy benefits (NEBs) for
residential measures with established RTF values where available. Measures with quantified NEBs
include residential insulation, high efficiency windows, air source heat pumps, and ductless heat pumps.
In addition to the residential NEBs, the Evaluators applied the end-use non-energy benefit and health
and human safety non-energy benefit to the Low-Income Program. The Evaluators understand that the
two major non-energy benefits referenced above are uniquely applicable to the Low-Income Program.
The Evaluators applied those benefits to the program impacts as well as additional non-energy benefits
associated with individual measures included in the program. The Evaluators incorporated additional
NEBs to the impact evaluation, as applicable. Additional details on the non-energy benefits applied can
be found in Section 2.2.5.

Work Plan 25
3. Residential Impact Evaluation Results
The Evaluators completed an impact evaluation on Avista’s Residential portfolio to verify program-level
and measure-level energy savings for PY2021. The following sections summarize findings for each
electric impact evaluation in the Residential Portfolio in the Idaho service territory. The Evaluators used
data collected and reported in the tracking database, online application forms, Avista TRM, RTF, and
billing analysis of participants and nonparticipants to evaluate savings. This approach provided the
strongest estimate of achieved savings practical for each program, given its delivery method, magnitude
of savings, number of participants, and availability of data. Table 3-1 summarizes the Residential verified
impact savings by program.
Table 3-1: Residential Verified Impact Savings by Program
Program Expected
Savings (kWh)
Verified
Savings
(kWh)
Verified
Realization
Rate
Water Heat 30,316 30,726 101.35%
HVAC 333,762 323,274 96.86%
Shell 190,085 219,690 115.57%
Fuel Efficiency 702,026 586,226 83.50%
ENERGY STAR Homes 66,243 72,007 108.70%
Small Home & MF
Weatherization 49,911 49,193 98.56%
Appliances 16,835 13,420 79.71%
AeroBarrier 0 - -
Total Res 1,389,177 1,294,535 93.19%
In PY2021, Avista completed and provided incentives for residential electric measures in Idaho and
reported total electric energy savings of 1,294,535 kWh. All programs except the Fuel Efficiency Program
and Appliances Program met or exceeded savings goals based on reported savings, leading to an overall
achievement of 93.19% of the expected savings for the residential programs. Further details of the
impact evaluation results by program are provided in the sections following.
3.1 Simple Verification Results
The Evaluators surveyed 302 unique customers that participated in Avista’s residential energy efficiency
program in September and October 2021 and in February 2022 using an email survey approach.
Customers with a valid email were sent the survey via an email invitation. Fifty-three did not have email
addresses in program records. The Evaluators also conducted targeted follow-up outreach to customers
for certain measures.
The Evaluators surveyed customers that received rebates for HVAC, Water Heater, and Small Home &
MF Weatherization, and Appliances Programs.

Evaluation Report 26
Table 3-2: Summary of Survey Response Rate
Population Respondents
Initial email contact list 1,376
Invalid or bounced 53
Invalid or bounced email (%) 4%
Invitations sent (unique valid) 1,323
Completions 302
Response rate (%) 23%

3.1.1 In-Service Rates
The Evaluators calculated in-service rates of installed measures from simple verification surveys
deployed to program participants for the Water Heat, HVAC, Fuel Efficiency, Small Home & MF
Weatherization, and Appliances Programs. The Evaluators asked participants if the rebated equipment is
currently installed and working, in addition to questions about the new equipment fuel type. The
Evaluators achieved 5.5% precision across the programs surveyed for the electric measures in Avista’s
service territory, summarized in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3: Simple Verification Precision by Program
Sector Program Population Respondents Precision
at 90% CI
Residential Water Heat 109 8 ±28.1%
Residential HVAC 648 77 ±8.8%
Residential Fuel Efficiency 84 19 ±16.7%
Residential Small Home & MF
Weatherization 93 6 ±32.7%
Residential Appliances 479 86 ±8.0%
Total 1,413 196 ±5.5%
As previously stated, the Evaluators contacted all customers in the Water Heat Program, Fuel Efficiency
Program, and Small Home & MF Weatherization Program with the goal of reaching 90/10 precision,
however, all efforts were exhausted to reach these customers and therefore these programs do not
display 90/10 precision at the program-level for in-service rate calculations. For programs in which this
goal was not met, the Evaluators assumed in-service rates of 100%. The measure-level ISRs determined
from the verification survey for each program in which simple verification was conducted is presented in
Table 3-4, Table 3-5, and Table 3-6.
Table 3-4: Water Heat Program ISRs by Measure
Measure Respondents ISR
E Heat Pump Water Heater 8 100%*
*Due to lack of 90/10 precision, this ISR is instead assumed to be 100%

Evaluation Report 27
Table 3-5: HVAC Program ISRs by Measure
Measure Respondents ISR
E Electric To Air Source Heat Pump 19 95%
E Electric to Ductless Heat Pump 10 100%
E Smart Thermostat DIY with Electric
Heat 23 96%
E Smart Thermostat Paid Install with
Electric Heat 25 92%

Table 3-6: Fuel Efficiency Program ISRs by Measure
Measure Respondents ISR
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace 9 89%*
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace &
Water Heat 10 100%
*Due to lack of 90/10 precision, this ISR is instead assumed to be 100%
Table 3-7: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program ISRs by Measure
Measure Respondents ISR
E Multifamily Thermostat with
Baseboard Electric Heat 3 100%
E Multifamily WIFI Thermostat with
Baseboard Electric Heat 3 100%
Table 3-8: Appliance Program ISRs by Measure
Measure Respondents ISR
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace 35 100%
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace &
Water Heat 51 98%
*Due to lack of 90/10 precision, this ISR is instead assumed to be 100%
These ISR values were utilized in the desk reviews for the Water Heat, HVAC, Fuel Efficiency, Small Home
& MF Weatherization, and Appliance Programs in order to calculate verified savings. Additional insights
from the survey responses are summarized in Appendix B.
3.2 Impacts of COVID-19 Pandemic
On average, about three people lived at the residence that had the rebated equipment installed and
about 65% of respondents said that two or fewer lived at the residence that had the rebated equipment
installed.
About two-thirds of respondents observed that the pandemic had not changed the number of people in
their household that worked or went to school remotely.8 Eighteen percent of respondents said that
more members of their household were attending school remotely or working from home since the

8 n=257

Evaluation Report 28
COVID-19 pandemic began. Sixteen percent of respondents indicated that more members of their
household had gone to work or school remotely before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sixty-four percent of respondents said that the amount of time they spend at home has increased since
the COVID-19 pandemic began. Thirty-seven percent of respondents indicated that their utility bill had
increased. Figure 3-1 displays the change in amount of time spent at home and the change in electricity
bills since the COVID-19 pandemic began.
Figure 3-1: Change in amount of time spent at home and change in electricity bill since COVID-19
pandemic began

3.3 Program-Level Impact Evaluation Results
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Residential sector in the section below.
3.3.1 Water Heat Program
The Water Heat Program encourages customers to replace their existing electric or natural gas water
heater with high efficiency equipment. Customers receive incentives after installation and after
submitting a completed rebate form. Table 3-9 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-9: Water Heat Program Measures
Measure Description
Impact
Analysis
Methodology
E Heat Pump Water Heater Electric water heater (0.94 EF or higher) RTF UES
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Water Heat Program impact
evaluation.

Evaluation Report 29
Table 3-10 Water Heat Program Verified Electric Savings
Measure PY2021
Participation
Expected
Savings
Adjusted
Savings
Verified
Savings
Realization
Rate
E Heat Pump Water Heater 26 30,316 30,316 30,726 101.35%
Total 26 30,316 30,316 30,726 101.35%
The Water Heat Program displayed verified savings of 30,726 kWh with a realization rate of 101.35%
against the expected savings for the program. The following table summarizes the incentive costs
associated with the program.
Table 3-11 Water Heat Program Incentive Costs by Measure
Measure Incentive
Costs
E Heat Pump Water Heater $5,590.00
Total $5,590.00
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Water Heat Program in the section below.
3.3.1.1 Database Review & Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator’s database review and document verification findings for
the Water Heat Program.
3.3.1.2 Database Review & Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Water Heat
Program. The Evaluators selected a subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data inputs,
summarized in Section 2.2.2.1.
The Evaluators found all Water Heat Program rebates to have completed rebate applications with the
associated water heater model number and efficiency values filled in either the Customer Care & Billing
(CC&B) web rebate data or mail-in rebate applications.
The Evaluators note that the CC&B web rebate data consistently reflected the same values found in the
mail-in rebate applications, invoices, and AHRI certification documents submitted with the rebate
application.
In addition, the majority of rebates were accompanied with AHRI certification. In order to acquire
accurate equipment efficiencies and tank sizes, AHRI certifications are required to be submitted with the
rebate application, with an invoice that matches the model number found in the AHRI certification. The
Evaluators were able to easily verify each sampled rebate’s equipment due to inclusion of these
documents.
However, the Evaluators found that space heating type and water heating type indicated on the
household’s characteristics in the CC&B database did not consistently match the values indicated on the
rebate application forms. This may be due to lack of customer knowledge about the household, or due
to change in space and/or water heating type without Avista knowledge. The Evaluators recommend

Evaluation Report 30
verifying space and water heating values with the customer and updating the CC&B database to reflect
the most updated information for the home.
The Evaluators found all sampled rebate equipment met or exceeded the measure efficiency
requirements for the Water Heat Program.
3.3.1.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators randomly selected a subset of participant customers to survey for simple verification of
installed measure. The Evaluators included questions such as:
n Was this water heater a new construction, or did it replace another water heater?
n Was the previous water heater functional?
n Is the newly installed water heater still properly functioning?
In addition, the Evaluators asked participants how the COVID19 pandemic stay-at-home orders have
affected their household’s energy consumption. The responses to this verification survey were used to
calculate ISRs for the measures offered in the Water Heat Program.
Table 3-12 displays the ISRs for each of the Water Heat measures for Idaho and Washington territory
combined.
Table 3-12: Water Heat Verification Survey ISR Results
Measure Number of
Rebates
Number of
Survey
Completes
Program-Level
Precision at 90%
Confidence
In-Service Rate
E Heat Pump Water Heater 83 8 ±28.1%* 100%
Although the Evaluators contacted all participants for this program, response rates did not meet the
90/10 precision goal for the program. Therefore, the Evaluators assumed 100% in-service rate for this
measure. However, of the participants who did respond, all survey respondents for each water heater
measure described equipment to be currently functioning, supporting the 100% in-service rate
assumption for this measure. The Evaluators applied these ISRs to each rebate to quantify verified
savings for each measure.
3.3.1.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Water Heat Program. The Evaluators
calculated verified savings for the E Heat Pump Water Heater measure using the RTF workbook in place
at the time the savings goal for the program was finalized The UES value associated with this measure
was applied to a random sample of participants, with verification of project documents such as rebate
applications to verify installation, quantity, and efficiency of the equipment.
3.3.1.5 Billing Analysis
The Evaluators did not conduct a billing analysis for the electric measures in the Water Heat Program.

Evaluation Report 31
3.3.1.6 Verified Savings
The Evaluators reviewed and applied the current RTF UES values for the E Heat Pump Water Heater
measure along with verified tracking data to estimate net program savings for this measure. The verified
savings for the program is 30,316 kWh with a realization rate of 101.35%, as displayed in Table 3-10.
The realization rate for the electric savings in the Water Heat Program deviate from 100% due to the
Avista TRM prescriptive savings value. The Avista TRM assigns a combination of the values the RTF
assigns for Tier 2 and Tier 3 heat pump water heaters. However, among document verification, the
Evaluators found a majority of water heaters to be Tier 3 or higher, which the RTF UES assigns a higher
savings value.
In addition, the Avista TRM assigns the savings values for water heaters of any size. During document
review, the Evaluators found most of the water heaters to have a storage tank under 55 gallons, which
has a higher savings value in the RTF than water heaters with unknown tank sizes. The Evaluators
applied the RTF UES value for the associated tank size and tier found for each model number in the
sampled rebates. These changes led to the high realization rate for the E Heat Pump Water Heater
measure in the Water Heat Program. The ISRs for each of the measures in the Water Heat Program was
100% and therefore did not affect the verified savings realization rates.
3.3.2 HVAC Program
The HVAC program encourages installation of high efficiency HVAC equipment and smart thermostats
through customer incentives. The program is available to residential electric or natural gas customers
with a winter heating season usage of 4,000 or more kWh, or at least 160 Therms of space heating in the
prior year. Existing or new construction homes are eligible to participate in the program. Table 3-9
summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-13: HVAC Program Measures
Measure Description Impact Analysis
Methodology
E Electric To Air Source Heat
Pump
Electric forced air furnace replacement
with air source heat pump RTF UES
E Electric to Ductless Heat Pump Electric forced air furnace replacement
with ductless heat pump RTF UES
E Smart Thermostat DIY with
Electric Heat
Self-installed connected thermostats in
electrically heated home RTF UES
E Smart Thermostat Paid Install
with Electric Heat
Professionally installed connected
thermostats in electrically heated home RTF UES
E Variable Speed Motor Variable speed motor in electrically
heated home N/A*
*No E Variable Speed Motor projects were completed in PY2021
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the HVAC Program impact
evaluation.

Evaluation Report 32
Table 3-14: HVAC Program Verified Electric Savings
Measure PY2021
Participation
Expected
Savings
(kWh)
Adjusted
Savings
(kWh)
Verified
Savings
(kWh)
Verified
Realization
Rate
E Electric To Air Source Heat
Pump 64 194,670 197,776 196,597 100.99%
E Electric to Ductless Heat Pump 41 37,228 37,228 38,795 104.21%
E Smart Thermostat DIY with
Electric Heat 37 28,462 27,695 28,713 100.88%
E Smart Thermostat Paid Install
with Electric Heat 97 73,402 72,605 59,169 80.61%
Total 239 333,762 335,303 323,274 96.86%
The HVAC Program displayed verified savings of 323,274 kWh with a realization rate of 96.86% against
the expected savings for the program. The following table summarizes the incentive costs associated
with the program.
Table 3-15: HVAC Program Incentive Costs by Measure
Measure Incentive
Costs
E Electric To Air Source Heat Pump $64,000.00
E Electric to Ductless Heat Pump $20,500.00
E Smart Thermostat DIY with Electric Heat $4,639.29
E Smart Thermostat Paid Install with Electric Heat $14,700.00
Total $103,839.29
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the HVAC Program in the section below.
3.3.2.1 Database Review & Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator’s database review and document verification findings for
the HVAC Program.
3.3.2.2 Database Review & Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the HVAC
Program. The Evaluators selected a random subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data
inputs, summarized in in Section 2.2.2.1.
The Evaluators found all HVAC Program rebates to have project documentation with the associated
HVAC model number and efficiency values in either the CC&B web rebate data or mail-in rebate
applications. The majority of project files contained associated AHRI certifications for the installed
equipment. This allowed the Evaluators to easily verify equipment specifications to assign savings values
to each sampled project.
The Evaluators note that not all rebate applications contained existing/new construction field and single
family home/manufactured home fields. This field is an input to apply correct RTF UES values. The
Evaluators recommend requiring this field be completed in rebate applications, both mail-in and web-
based.

Evaluation Report 33
The Evaluators verified smart thermostat model specifications through the ENERGY STAR database and
to verify if thermostat met all conditions required from the RTF measure specifications. The Evaluators
was unable to verify 2 of the 68 sampled thermostats due to missing information (4% of sampled
thermostat rebates). The Evaluators verified that 6 of the 68 thermostats did not meet RTF measure
specifications (6% of sampled thermostat rebates). The 6% of thermostats verified to not meet the
conditions had lacked occupancy detection and/or geofencing capabilities, a specification required by
the RTF. The remaining smart thermostats were verified to qualify for RTF measure savings (92% of
sampled thermostat rebates). The thermostats that were verified to not meet RTF measure
specifications were removed from verified savings (6 thermostats). These 6 smart thermostat rebates
encompassed 2 different smart thermostat models (Honeywell RTH9585WF1004 and AccuLink Platinum
850 Control). This change led to an 80% realization rate for the paid install smart thermostat.
Additionally, the RTF defines different UES values for the same measure in homes with different space
heating type, cooling type, and homes in different heating and cooling zones. The Avista TRM provides
UES values averaged between these values. Therefore, the realization rates resulting from the verified
savings defined by the RTF differ for each project. This led to slight variations in realization rate across
the HVAC measures.
In addition, the Evaluators identified one rebate to be a duplicated rebate. The tracking data indicated
two separate line items for the same project, however, one of the entries defined expected savings for
the project while the other did not. For the entry in which no savings was defined, the Evaluators did not
verify savings. Therefore, the realization rate was not affected by this identification. However, the
Evaluators recommend that Avista note instances in which corrections are made to rebates in order to
avoid duplicate verified savings in the future.
3.3.2.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators randomly selected a subset of participant customers to survey for simple verification of
installed measure described in Section 2.2.2.2. The Evaluators included questions such as:
n What type of thermostat did this thermostat replace?
n Is your home heating with electricity, natural gas, or another fuel?
n Was the previous equipment functional?
Is the newly installed equipment still properly functioning?
The responses to this verification survey were used to calculate ISRs for the measures offered in the
HVAC Program. In addition, the Evaluators asked participants how the COVID19 pandemic stay-at-home
orders have affected their household’s energy consumption. The responses to these additional
questions can be found in Appendix B.
Table 3-16 displays the ISRs for each of the HVAC measures for Idaho and Washington electric territory
combined. The ISRs resulted in 8.8% precision at the 90% confidence interval for the program.

Evaluation Report 34
Table 3-16: HVAC Verification Survey ISR Results
Measure
Number
of
Rebates
Number of
Survey
Completes
Precision
at 90%
Confidence
In-Service
Rate
E Electric To Air Source Heat Pump 104 19
±8.8%
95%
E Electric to Ductless Heat Pump 72 10 100%
E Smart Thermostat DIY with Electric Heat 102 23 96%
E Smart Thermostat Paid Install with Electric Heat 131 25 92%
The majority of survey respondents described equipment to be currently functioning, leading to a 100%
ISR for the ductless heat pump and above 90% ISR for all remaining measures. The Evaluators applied
the ISRs listed in Table 3-16 to each rebate to quantify verified savings for each measure.
3.3.2.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the HVAC Program. The Evaluators attempted to
conduct a billing analysis for the HVAC measures, but participation was insufficient to complete verified
savings using this methodology. Therefore, the Evaluators calculated verified savings for the HVAC
measures using the RTF workbook in place at the time the savings goal for the program was finalized.
These UES values were applied to a random sample of participants, with verification of project
documents such as rebate applications to verify installation, quantity, and efficiency of the equipment.
3.3.2.5 Billing Analysis
The Evaluators did not conduct a billing analysis for the electric measures in the HVAC Program.
3.3.2.6 Verified Savings
The HVAC Program in total displays a realization rate of 96.86% with 323,274 kWh verified electric
energy savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 3-14. The realization rate for the
electric savings in the HVAC Program deviate from 100% due to the differences between the applied
Avista TRM prescriptive savings value and the true Avista TRM or appropriate RTF UES value.
The Evaluators reviewed the Avista TRM values along with verified tracking data to estimate net
program adjusted savings. In addition, the Evaluators reviewed and applied the current RTF UES values
for the electric measures along with verified tracking data to estimate net program verified savings for
this measure.
The E Smart Thermostat DIY with Electric Heat realization rate is low because the Avista TRM uses an
average of retail and direct install savings values as well as an average across heating types, while the
Evaluators assigned the appropriate RTF UES value for each installation type and heating zone. The
appropriate categories in the RTF led to a lower-than-expected savings for the direct install and retail
rebates for this measure. In addition, the Evaluators found a number of thermostats did not qualify for
RTF savings and therefore savings were removed for these instances. Finally, the measure-level ISRs
were applied to the measures, further decreasing the realization rate for the E Electric to Air Source
Heat Pump and smart thermostat measures.

Evaluation Report 35
3.3.3 Shell Program
The Shell Program provides incentives to customers for improving the integrity of the home’s envelope
with upgrades to windows and storm windows. Rebates are issued after the measure has been installed
for insulation and window measures. Participating homes must have electric or natural gas heating and
itemized invoices including measure details such as insulation levels, window values, and square
footage. In order to be eligible for incentive, the single-family households, including fourplex or less,
must demonstrate an annual electricity usage of at least 8,000 kWh or an annual gas usage of at least
340 Therms. Multifamily homes have no usage requirement. This program includes free manufactured
home duct sealing implemented by UCONS. Table 3-9 summarizes the measures offered under this
program.
Table 3-17: Shell Program Measures
Measure Description Impact Analysis
Methodology
E Attic Insulation with Electric Heat Attic insulation for homes heated with electricity RTF UES
E Floor Insulation with Electric Heat Floor insulation for homes heated with
electricity RTF UES
E IGU Window Replc from Single
Pane W Electric Heat
IGU window replacement for homes heated with
electricity RTF UES
E Storm Window with Electric Heat High-efficiency storm window replacement for
homes heated with electricity RTF UES
E Wall Insulation with Electric Heat Wall insulation for homes heated with electricity RTF UES
E Window Replc from Double Pane
W Electric Heat
High-efficiency double pane window
replacement for homes heated with electricity RTF UES
E Window Replc from Single Pane W
Electric Heat
High-efficiency single pane window replacement
for homes heated with electricity RTF UES
The following table summarizes the adjusted and verified electric energy savings for the Shell Program
impact evaluation.
Table 3-18: Shell Program Verified Electric Savings
Measure PY2021
Participation
Expected
Savings
(kWh)
Adjusted
Savings
(kWh)
Verified
Savings
(kWh)
Verified
Realization
Rate
E Attic Insulation With Electric Heat 20 39,113 39,113 13,492 34.49%
E Floor Insulation With Electric Heat 3 2,094 2,094 2,094 100.00%
E IGU Window Replc from Single Pane
W Electric Heat 1 2,200 2,200 1,773 80.59%
E Wall Insulation With Electric Heat 8 22,290 21,480 9,606 43.10%
E Window Replc from Single Pane W
Electric Heat 98 124,388 124,388 192,725 154.94%
Total 130 190,085 189,275 219,690 115.57%
The Shell Program displayed verified savings of 219,690 kWh with a realization rate of 115.57% against
the expected savings for the program. The following table summarizes the incentive costs associated
with the program.

Evaluation Report 36
Table 3-19: Shell Program Incentive Costs by Measure
Measure Incentive Costs
E Attic Insulation With Electric Heat $17,476.50
E Floor Insulation With Electric Heat $1,570.50
E IGU Window Replc from Single Pane
W Electric Heat $800.00
E Wall Insulation With Electric Heat $6,687.00
E Window Replc from Single Pane W
Electric Heat $45,232.00
Total $71,766.00
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Shell Program in the section below.
3.3.3.1 Database Review & Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator’s database review and document verification findings for
the Shell Program.
3.3.3.2 Database Review & Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Shell
Program. The Evaluators selected a random subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data
inputs, summarized in Section 2.2.2.1.
The Evaluators reviewed each measure number of units, square footage, and insulation where available.
The Evaluators found six instances of the 23 sampled projects in which square footage quantity in the
rebate application did not match the values presented in the project data attic insulation. However, the
Evaluators also note that Avista consistently verified square footage and R-values with customers when
information was unclear. The tracked quantity and U-values were then documented in the tracking
database consistently.
The Evaluators imputed home type (single family home vs. manufactured home) and space heating type
for a number of sampled rebates, as the tracking database did not contain values for these accounts,
and rebate applications were not available to draw values from. This allows the Evaluators to accurately
assign RTF values. The mail-in rebates collect this information; however, it does not seem to be required
to complete the rebate and therefore many rebates are missing this information. The Evaluators
recommend verifying home type and space heating type during rebate application approval in order to
apply correct savings values to each project.
The Evaluators found no duplicate rebates in the project data and therefore did not remove any rebates
from verified savings.
3.3.3.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators did not conduct verification surveys for the Shell Program. Weatherization measures
historically have high verification rates.

Evaluation Report 37
3.3.3.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Shell Program. The Evaluators calculated
verified savings for the electric measures using the RTF workbook in place at the time the savings goals
for the program was finalized. The Evaluators calculated adjusted savings for each measure using the
active Avista TRM values and verified tracking data. These UES values were applied to a random sample
of participants, with verification of project documents such as rebate applications to verify installation,
quantity, and efficiency of the equipment.
3.3.3.5 Billing Analysis
The Evaluators did not conduct a billing analysis for the electric Shell measures, as the RTF provides valid
UES savings for all measures incented through the program.
3.3.3.6 Verified Savings
The Shell Program in total displays a realization rate of 115.57% with 219,690 kWh verified electric
energy savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 3-18. The realization rate for the
electric savings in the Shell Program deviate from 100% due to the differences between the categories
applied in the Avista TRM prescriptive savings values and the more detailed categories present with
unique RTF UES values associated with heat pump vs electric FAF vs zonal heating type. The Evaluators
recommend adjusting the Avista TRM values to more closely align with observed participation within
each heating type category. In addition, small changes to verified square footage led to variation in
realization rate for each project.
The Evaluators did not conduct a verification survey for the Shell Program and therefore did not adjust
verified savings with an ISR.
3.3.4 Fuel Efficiency Program
The Residential Fuel Efficiency Program encourages customers to consider converting their resistive
electric space and water heating equipment to natural gas. This program is offered to residential
customers in the Idaho service territory. Customers must use Avista electricity for electric straight-
resistance heating or water heating in order to qualify for the rebate, which is verified by evaluating
their energy use. The home’s electric baseboard or furnace heat consumption must indicate at least
8,000 kWh during the previous heating season. Customers receive incentives after installation and after
submitting a completed rebate form. Table 3-9 summarizes the measures offered under this program.

Evaluation Report 38
Table 3-20: Fuel Efficiency Program Measures
Measure Description Impact Analysis
Methodology
E Electric to Air Source Heat Pump
Electric central ducted forced
air furnace to air source heat
pump (9.0 HFSP or greater)
RTF UES
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace
Electric baseboard or forced air
furnace heat to natural gas
forced air furnace
Billing Analysis
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace & Water Heat Electric to natural gas furnace
and water heat combo Avista TRM
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Fuel Efficiency Program
impact evaluation.
Table 3-21: Fuel Efficiency Program Verified Electric Savings
Measure PY2021
Participation
Expected
Savings
Adjusted
Savings
Verified
Savings
Verified
Realization
Rate
E Electric to Air Source Heat Pump* 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace 50 369,200 369,200 253,400 68.63%
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace &
Water Heat 34 332,826 332,826 332,826 100.00%
Total 84 702,026 702,026 586,226 83.50%
*The E Electric to Air Source Heat Pump measure had 0 rebates completed in PY2021
The Fuel Efficiency Program displayed verified savings of 586,226 kWh with a realization rate of 83.50%
against the expected savings for the program. The following table summarizes the incentive costs
associated with the program.
Table 3-22: Fuel Efficiency Program Incentive Costs by Measure
Measure Incentive
Costs
E Electric to Air Source Heat Pump* N/A
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace $105,000.00
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace & Water Heat $96,900.00
Total $201,900.00
*The E Electric to Air Source Heat Pump measure had 0 rebates completed in PY2021
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Fuel Efficiency Program in the section below.
3.3.4.1 Database Review & Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator’s database review and document verification findings for
the Fuel Efficiency Program.

Evaluation Report 39
3.3.4.2 Database Review & Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Fuel
Efficiency Program. The Evaluators selected a random subset of rebate applications to cross-verify
tracking data inputs, summarized in in Section 2.2.2.1.
The Evaluators found all Fuel Efficiency Program rebates to have project documentation with the
associated HVAC model number and efficiency values in either the CC&B web rebate data or mail-in
rebate applications. The majority of project files contained associated AHRI certifications for the
installed equipment. This allowed the Evaluators to easily verify equipment specifications to assign
savings values to each sampled project.
The Evaluators found the CC&B data does not contain manufacturer information. The Evaluators
recommend this as an input in the CC&B data. The E Electric to Natural Gas Furnace & Water Heat
measure CC&B data does not detail both the furnace and the water heater model number and
manufacturer details. Instead, it contains only the furnace or only the water heater equipment, but not
both. The Evaluators recommend collecting both equipment manufacturer, model number, and
efficiency for the combination measures.
The Evaluators found all sampled rebate equipment met or exceeded the measure efficiency
requirements for the Fuel Efficiency Program.
3.3.4.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators randomly selected a subset of participant customers to survey for simple verification of
installed measure, as described in Section 2.2.2.2. The Evaluators included questions such as:
n Is your home heating with electricity, natural gas, or another fuel?
n Was the previous equipment functional?
n Is the newly installed equipment still properly functioning?
The responses to this verification survey were used to calculate in-service rates (ISRs) for the measures
offered in the Fuel Efficiency Program. In addition, the Evaluators asked participants how the COVID19
pandemic stay-at-home orders have affected their household’s energy consumption. The responses to
these additional questions can be found in Appendix B.
Table 3-12 displays the ISRs for each of the Fuel Efficiency measures for Idaho territory. The ISRs did not
meet 10% precision at the 90% confidence interval for the program.
Table 3-23: Fuel Efficiency Verification Survey ISR Results
Measure
Number
of
Rebates
Number of
Survey
Completes
Precision
at 90%
Confidence
In-Service
Rate
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace 50 9 ±16.7% 88.89%
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace & Water Heat 34 10 100.00%
Although the Evaluators contacted all participants for this program, response rates did not meet the
90/10 precision goal for the program. Therefore, the Evaluators assumed 100% in-service rate for this

Evaluation Report 40
measure. However, of the participants who did respond, all survey respondents for each furnace water
heater combination measure described equipment to be currently functioning, supporting the 100% in-
service rate assumption for this measure. In addition, due to the furnace impact billing analysis used to
verify savings for the measure, in-service rates are already included in the verified unit energy savings
developed. Therefore, no in-service rate adjustments were made to the verified impact savings for this
program.
3.3.4.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Fuel Efficiency Program. The Evaluators
attempted to conduct a billing analysis for the Fuel Efficiency Program measures, but participation was
insufficient to complete verified savings using this methodology. Therefore, the Evaluators calculated
verified savings for the measures using the PY2020 billing analysis results for the E Electric to Natural
Gas Furnace measure and used the RTF workbook in place at the time the savings goal for the program
was finalized for the E Electric to Natural Gas Furnace & Water Heat measure. The Evaluators calculated
verified savings for the gas measures using the active Avista TRM values. These UES values were applied
to a random sample of participants, with verification of project documents such as rebate applications
to verify installation, quantity, and efficiency of the equipment.
The following sections summarize the results of the billing analysis and the desk review, with a summary
of the verified savings for the Fuel Efficiency Program.
3.3.4.5 Billing Analysis
The results of the billing analysis for the Fuel Efficiency Program are provided in the PY2020 Residential
Impact Evaluation Report. The details of the PY2020 billing analysis are presented in this section as well
as further details in Appendix A.
Table 3-24 displays customer counts for customers considered for billing analysis (i.e. customer with
single-measure installations) and identifies measures that met the requirements for a billing analysis.
Table 3-24: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Fuel Efficiency Program
Measure
Measure
Considered for
Billing Analysis
Number of
Customers w/
Isolated-Measure
Installations
Sufficient
Participation
for Billing
Analysis
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace ü 186 ü
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace &
Water Heat ü 33

The Evaluators were provided a considerable pool of control customers to draw upon. The Evaluators
used nearest neighbor matching with a 5 to 1 matching ratio. Therefore, each treatment customer was
matched to 5 similar control customers. The final number of customers in each the treatment and
control group are listed in Table 3-25.
The Evaluators performed three tests to determine the success of PSM:
1. t-test on pre-period usage by month

Evaluation Report 41
2. Joint chi-square test to determine if any covariates are imbalanced
3. Standardized difference test for each covariate employed in matching
All tests confirmed that PSM performed well for each measure and the Evaluators conducted a linear
regression using the matched participant and nonparticipant monthly billing data. Further details
regarding the billing analysis methodology can be found in Appendix A.
Table 3-25 provides annual savings per customer for each measure. Model 2 (PPR) was selected as the
final model for the Fuel Conversion Program as it provided the highest adjusted R-squared among the
regression models. Savings are statistically significant at the 90% level for all measures and the adjusted
R-squared shows the model provided an excellent fit for the data.
Table 3-25: Measure Savings, Fuel Efficiency Program
Measure Treatment
Customers
Control
Customers
Annual
Savings per
Customer
(kWh)
90%
Lower
CI
90%
Upper
CI
Relative
Precision
(90% CI)
Adjusted
R-
Squared
Model
E Electric to Natural
Gas Furnace 85 421 5,068 4,384 5,7512 0.13 0.73 Model 2:
PPR
The Evaluators determined the savings estimate for E Electric to Natural Gas Furnace in PY2020 to be
5,068 kWh, which represents a value 68.63% of that demonstrated in the Avista TRM. The Evaluators
applied this value to all rebates in the PY2021 project data.
3.3.4.6 Verified Savings
The Fuel Efficiency Program in total displays a realization rate of 83.50% with 586,226 kWh verified
electric energy savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 3-14. The realization rate for
the electric savings in the Fuel Efficiency Program deviate from 100% due to the differences between
the applied Avista TRM prescriptive savings value and the billing analysis and true Avista TRM value.
The Evaluators applied the results of the PY2020 billing analysis to each E Electric to Natural Gas Furnace
measure. The Evaluators reviewed the Avista TRM values along with verified tracking data to estimate
net program adjusted savings for measures not evaluated through billing analysis. In addition, the
Evaluators reviewed and applied the current Avista TRM values for the electric measures along with
verified tracking data to estimate net program verified savings for this measure.
3.3.5 ENERGY STAR® Homes Program
The ENERGY STAR® Homes Program provides rebates for homes within Avista’s service territory that
attain an ENERGY STAR® certification. This program incentivizes for ENERGY STAR® Eco-rated homes.
Table 3-9 summarizes the measures offered under this program.

Evaluation Report 42
Table 3-26: ENERGY STAR® Homes Program Measures
Measure Description Impact Analysis
Methodology
E ENERGY STAR Home -
Manufactured, Furnace
ENERGY STAR-rated manufactured
home with electric furnace RTF UES
G ENERGY STAR Home -
Manufactured, Natural Gas
ENERGY STAR-rated manufactured
home with natural gas heating RTF UES
G ENERGY STAR Home -
Manufactured, Gas & Electric
ENERGY STAR-rated manufactured
home with gas and electric RTF UES
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the ENERGY STAR® Homes
Program impact evaluation.
Table 3-27: ENERGY STAR® Homes Program Verified Electric Savings
Measure PY2021
Participation
Expected
Savings
(kWh)
Adjusted
Savings
(kWh)
Verified
Savings
(kWh)
Verified
Realization
Rate
E Energy Star Home - Manufactured,
Furnace 17 56,355 56,355 65,730 117%
E Energy Star Home - Manufactured,
Gas & Electric 3 9,888 9,945 6,278 63%
G Energy Star Home - Manufactured,
Gas & Electric 2 6,592 6,630 86 1%
Total 22 72,835 72,930 72,093 98.98%
The ENERGY STAR® Homes Program displayed verified savings of 72,930 kWh with a realization rate of
98.98% against the expected savings for the program. The following table summarizes the incentive
costs associated with the program.
Table 3-28: ENERGY STAR® Homes Program Incentive Costs by Measure
Measure Incentive
Costs
E Energy Star Home - Manufactured, Furnace $17,000.00
E Energy Star Home - Manufactured, Gas & Electric $3,000.00
G Energy Star Home - Manufactured, Gas & Electric N/A
Total $20,000.00
*The costs associated with this measure are claimed in the Idaho Gas Impact Evaluation Report
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the ENERGY STAR® Homes Program in the section below.
3.3.5.1 Database Review & Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator’s database review and document verification findings for
the ENERGY STAR® Homes Program.
3.3.5.2 Database Review & Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the ENERGY
STAR® Homes Program. The Evaluators selected a random subset of rebate applications to cross-verify
tracking data inputs, summarized in Section 2.2.2.1.

Evaluation Report 43
The Evaluators found no significant or notable discrepancies in the project data and rebate
documentation for the rebates in the Idaho electric service territory.
3.3.5.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators did not conduct verification surveys for the ENERGY STAR® Homes Program.
3.3.5.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the ENERGY STAR® Homes Program. The
Evaluators calculated verified savings for the electric measures using the RTF workbook in place at the
time the savings goal for the program was finalized. These RTF UES values were applied to a random
sample of participants, with verification of project documents such as rebate applications to verify
installation, quantity, and efficiency of the equipment.
3.3.5.5 Verified Savings
The Evaluators reviewed the Avista TRM values along with verified tracking data to estimate adjusted
program savings for each of the ENERGY STAR® Homes measures. In addition, the Evaluators reviewed
and applied the current RTF UES values for each measure along with verified tracking data to estimate
net program savings.
The ENERGY STAR® Homes Program in total displays a realization rate of 98.98% with 72,093 kWh
verified electric energy savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 3-27. The realization
rate for the electric savings in the ENERGY STAR® Homes Program deviate from 100% due to the
categorical differences between the applied Avista TRM prescriptive savings value and the more detailed
RTF UES categories.
The Avista TRM applies RTF savings values from heating zone 2 to all rebates. In addition, the Avista TRM
does not take into account cooling zone, which also affects savings assigned in the RTF. The Evaluators
applied the appropriate RTF savings values for the heating zone and cooling zone for each rebated
household. This change led to low realization rates for some rebates and high realization rates for others
within the same Avista E ENERGY STAR® Home – Manufactured Furnace measure category. The overall
effect this change had on the measure is an upward adjustment on savings.
The realization for the E ENERGY STAR® Home – Manufactured, Gas & Electric measure is low because
the expected savings employed an additive methodology between a gas-heated home and an electric-
heated home for the electric savings. However, the Evaluators reviewed the RTF and determined
manufactured home electric savings for a fully natural gas heated home would be closer to the savings a
gas heated home with electricity would save. Therefore, the Evaluators assigned electric savings from
the RTF associated with a fully natural gas-heated home at 43 kWh saved per year.
The Evaluators did not conduct a verification survey for the ENERGY STAR® Homes Program and
therefore did not adjust verified savings with an ISR.
3.3.6 Small Home & MF Weatherization Program
The Small Home & MF Weatherization Program is a residential prescriptive program that waives the
energy usage requirement that is typically employed for residential prescriptive programs. This benefits

Evaluation Report 44
small homes (less than 1,000 square feet in size) and multifamily dwellings (specifically customers in
condominiums larger than five units in size). While this program is designed for all customers, it could
also benefit members of Named Communities who reside in smaller homes.
This section summarizes the impact results of the evaluation results for the Small Home & MF
Weatherization Program. Table 3-29 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-29: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program Measures
Measure Description
Impact
Analysis
Methodology
E Multifamily Attic Insulation With
Electric Heat
Attic insulation for multifamily homes with
electric heat RTF UES
E Multifamily Floor Insulation With
Electric Heat
Floor insulation for multifamily homes
with electric heat RTF UES
E Multifamily IGU Window Replc
With Electric Heat
Window replacement for multifamily
homes with electric heat RTF UES
E Multifamily Storm Window Replc
With Electric Heat
Storm window replacement for
multifamily homes with electric heat RTF UES
E Multifamily Thermostat with
Baseboard Electric Heat
Thermostats for multifamily homes with
electric heat RTF UES
E Multifamily Wall Insulation With
Electric Heat
Wall insulation for multifamily homes with
electric heat RTF UES
E Multifamily WIFI Thermostat with
Baseboard Electric Heat
Connected thermostat for multifamily
homes with electric heat RTF UES
E Multifamily Window Replc With
Electric Heat
Window replacement for multifamily
homes with electric heat RTF UES
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Small Home & MF
Weatherization impact evaluation.
Table 3-30: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program Verified Electric Savings
Measure PY2021
Participation
Expected
Savings
(kWh)
Adjusted
Savings
(kWh)
Verified
Savings
(kWh)
Realization
Rate
E Multifamily Attic Insulation
With Electric Heat 3 2,685 2,780 2,685 100.00%
E Multifamily Thermostat
with Baseboard Electric Heat 2 152 152 220 144.74%
E Multifamily Wall Insulation
With Electric Heat 1 1,904 1,906 1,400 73.53%
E Multifamily WIFI
Thermostat with Baseboard
Electric Heat
6 549 549 6,858 1249.18%
E Multifamily Window Replc
With Electric Heat 13 44,621 44,616 38,030 85.23%
Total 25 49,911 50,003 49,193 98.56%
The Small Home & MF Weatherization Program displayed verified savings of 49,193 kWh with a
realization rate of 98.56% against the expected savings for the program. The following table summarizes
the incentive and non-incentive costs associated with the program.

Evaluation Report 45
Table 3-31: Small Home & MF Weatherization Incentive Costs by Measure
Measure Incentive
Costs
E Multifamily Attic Insulation With Electric Heat $2,013.75
E Multifamily Thermostat with Baseboard Electric Heat $80.00
E Multifamily Wall Insulation With Electric Heat $525.00
E Multifamily WIFI Thermostat with Baseboard Electric Heat $160.00
E Multifamily Window Replc With Electric Heat $8,244.00
Total $11,022.75
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for Small Home & MF Weatherization Program in the section below.
3.3.6.1 Database Review & Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator’s database review and document verification findings for
the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program.
3.3.6.2 Database Review & Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Small Home
& MF Weatherization Program. The Evaluators selected a random subset of rebate applications to cross-
verify tracking data inputs, summarized in in Section 2.2.2.1.
The rebate application form sufficiently collects all required RTF measure specification details. All rebate
applications and tracking data contain smart thermostat manufacturer and model number. The
Evaluators were able to verify the models for RTF specifications for connected thermostats.
The Evaluators found that many projects exceed the "Small Home" definition from Avista - that a home
is single family with less than 1,000 SQFT or is a multifamily home (5 or more units). The Evaluators
recommend claiming projects on single family homes that are larger than 1,000 SQFT into the Shell
Program.
In addition, the Evaluators note that the current program rebate applications do not provide an option
to indicate “Multifamily” home type. Rather, the current rebate application includes an option for
“Single family”, “Manufactured”, “New construction”, and “Other”. The Evaluators recommend
including an option for “Multifamily” in order to consistently apply RTF savings for each of the measures.
The Evaluators reviewed each measure number of units, square footage, and insulation where available.
The Evaluators found three instances of the 14 sampled rebates in which square footage quantity in the
rebate application does not match the values presented in the project data attic insulation. However,
the Evaluators also note that Avista consistently verified square footage and R-values with customers
when information was unclear. The tracked quantity and U-values were then documented in the
tracking database consistently.
Although quantity in the CC&B database were consistent, the Avista TRM savings values differed from
verified RTF UES values for each of the projects. The majority of projects displayed realization rates
larger than 100% due to differences in home type. The Evaluators verified home type via Zillow to apply

Evaluation Report 46
correct RTF workbook savings from the single family, multifamily, and manufactured home RTF
workbooks. These adjustments led to high realization rates for the overall program.
The Evaluators imputed home type (single family home vs. manufactured home vs. multifamily home)
and space heating type for a number of sampled rebates, as the tracking database did not contain values
for these accounts, and rebate applications were not available to draw values from. This allows the
Evaluators to accurately assign RTF values. The mail-in rebates collect this information; however, it does
not seem to be required to complete the rebate and therefore many rebates are missing this
information. The Evaluators recommend verifying home type and space heating type during rebate
application approval in order to apply correct savings values to each project.
The realization rate for the 3 E Multifamily WIFI Thermostat with Baseboard Electric Heat projects are
high due to verification that the equipment qualified for RTF connected thermostat savings at 939 kWh
annual savings rather than the Avista TRM value of 91.5 kWh saved. The Evaluators recommend
verifying proper measure assignment for the equipment provided in the rebate application.
The Evaluators found no duplicate rebates in the project data and therefore did not remove any rebates
from verified savings.
3.3.6.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators randomly selected a subset of participant customers to survey for simple verification of
installed measure described in Section 2.2.2.2. The Evaluators included questions such as:
n What type of thermostat did this thermostat replace?
n Is your home heating with electricity, natural gas, or another fuel?
n Was the previous equipment functional?
Is the newly installed equipment still properly functioning?
The responses to this verification survey were used to calculate ISRs for the measures offered in the
Small Home & MF Weatherization Program. In addition, the Evaluators asked participants how the
COVID19 pandemic stay-at-home orders have affected their household’s energy consumption. The
responses to these additional questions can be found in Appendix B.
Table 3-16 displays the ISRs for each of the Small Home & MF Weatherization measures for Idaho and
Washington electric territory combined. The ISRs resulted in 8.8% precision at the 90% confidence
interval for the program.

Evaluation Report 47
Table 3-32: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program Verification Survey ISR Results
Measure
Number
of
Rebates
Number of
Survey
Completes
Precision
at 90%
Confidence
In-Service
Rate
E Multifamily Thermostat with Baseboard Electric
Heat 4 3
±32.7%
100%
E Multifamily WIFI Thermostat with Baseboard
Electric Heat 9 3 100%
Although the Evaluators contacted all participants for this program, response rates did not meet the
90/10 precision goal for the program. Therefore, the Evaluators assumed 100% in-service rate for this
measure. However, of the participants who did respond, all survey respondents for each smart
thermostat measure described equipment to be currently functioning, supporting the 100% in-service
rate assumption for this measure. The Evaluators applied these ISRs to each rebate to quantify verified
savings for each measure.
3.3.6.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program.
The Evaluators calculated verified savings for the electric measures using the RTF workbook in place at
the time the savings goal for the program was finalized.
3.3.6.5 Verified Savings
The Evaluators reviewed the Avista TRM values along with verified tracking data to estimate net
adjusted program savings for those measures. Final verified savings were estimated using the RTF UES
values associated with each measure. The Small Home & MF Weatherization Program displayed 98.56%
realization with 49,193 kWh saved, as displayed in Table 3-30.
Although quantity in the CC&B database were consistent, the Avista TRM savings values differed from
verified RTF UES values for each of the projects. The majority of projects displayed realization rates
larger than 100% due to differences in home type. The Evaluators verified home type via Zillow to apply
correct RTF workbook savings from the single family, multifamily, and manufactured home RTF
workbooks. In addition, three smart thermostats qualified for connected thermostat savings,
significantly higher than the savings the expected savings identified for those projects. These
adjustments led to high realization rates for the overall program. The Evaluators recommend Avista
verify home type prior to applying Avista TRM values in order to ensure proper categorization of
measure savings.
3.3.7 Appliances Program
The Appliances Program is residential prescriptive program that offers incentives for customers to
upgrade their existing clothes washers and dryers to ENERGY STAR-rated clothes dryers and washers.
This section summarizes the impact results of the evaluation results for the Appliances Program. Table
3-29 summarizes the measures offered under this program.

Evaluation Report 48
Table 3-33: Appliances Program Measures
Measure Description
Impact
Analysis
Methodology
E Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer ENERGY STAR-certified clothes dryer for
residential homes RTF UES
E Energy Star Rated Front Load
Washer
ENERGY STAR-certified clothes washer for
residential homes RTF UES
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Appliances Program impact
evaluation.
Table 3-34: Appliances Program Verified Electric Savings
Measure PY2021
Participation
Expected
Savings
(kWh)
Adjusted
Savings
(kWh)
Verified
Savings
(kWh)
Realization
Rate
E Energy Star Rated Clothes
Dryer 68 4,846 4,624 4,846 100.00%
E Energy Star Rated Front
Load Washer 84 11,989 12,012 8,574 71.51%
Total 152 16,835 16,636 13,420 79.71%
The Appliances Program displayed verified savings of 13,420 kWh with a realization rate of 79.71%
against the expected savings for the program. The following table summarizes the incentive costs
associated with the program.
Table 3-35: Appliances Program Incentive Costs by Measure
Measure Incentive
Costs
E Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer $1,390.00
E Energy Star Rated Front Load Washer $4,200.00
Total $5,590.00
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for Appliances Program in the section below.
3.3.7.1 Database Review & Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator’s database review and document verification findings for
the Appliances Program.
3.3.7.2 Database Review & Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Appliances
Program. The Evaluators selected a random subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data
inputs, summarized in in Section 2.2.2.1.
The rebate application form sufficiently collects all required RTF measure specification details. All rebate
applications and tracking data contain AHRI documentation or model numbers to verify model
specifications. The Evaluators were able to verify the models for RTF specifications for the majority of
projects.

Evaluation Report 49
The Evaluators verified each model specification with values provided by ENERGY STAR qualified product
lists. The Evaluators found that 1 of the 13 sampled clothes washer projects did not qualify due to
minimum volume requirements specified by the RTF. All other sampled projects qualified for RTF
savings.
The Evaluators found that the Avista TRM applied RTF savings from the “Front Load” measure
description for clothes washers. However, the Evaluators found that 3 of the clothes washer equipment
were “Top loading”, which the RTF assigns significantly lower annual savings. This change in addition to
the disqualification of 3 rebates led to a downward adjustment in realization rate for this program. The
Evaluators recommend adding “top loading” clothes washers to the Avista TRM and applying savings for
those measures appropriately.
The Evaluators found no duplicate rebates in the project data and therefore did not remove any rebates
from verified savings.
3.3.7.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators randomly selected a subset of participant customers to survey for simple verification of
installed measure described in Section 2.2.2.2. The Evaluators included questions such as:
n What type of clothes washer/dryer did this equipment replace?
n Is your home heating’s water heated with electricity or natural gas?
n Was the previous equipment functional?
Is the newly installed equipment still properly functioning?
The responses to this verification survey were used to calculate ISRs for the measures offered in the
Appliances Program. In addition, the Evaluators asked participants how the COVID19 pandemic stay-at-
home orders have affected their household’s energy consumption. The responses to these additional
questions can be found in Appendix B.
Table 3-16 displays the ISRs for each of the Appliances measures for Idaho and Washington electric
territory combined. The ISRs resulted in 8.0% precision at the 90% confidence interval for the program.
Table 3-36: Appliances Program Verification Survey ISR Results
Measure
Number
of
Rebates
Number of
Survey
Completes
Precision
at 90%
Confidence
In-Service
Rate
E Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer 219 35 ±8.0% 100%
E Energy Star Rated Front Load Washer 260 51 98%
The majority of survey respondents described equipment to be currently functioning, leading to a 100%
ISR for the clothes dryer measure and a 98% ISR for the clothes washer measure. The Evaluators applied
the ISRs listed in Table 3-16 to each rebate to quantify verified savings for each measure.

Evaluation Report 50
3.3.7.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Appliances Program. The Evaluators
calculated verified savings for the electric measures using the RTF workbook in place at the time the
savings goal for the program was finalized.
3.3.7.5 Verified Savings
The Evaluators reviewed the Avista TRM values along with verified tracking data to estimate net
adjusted program savings for those measures. Final verified savings were estimated using the RTF UES
values associated with each measure. The Appliances Program displayed 79.71% realization with 13,420
kWh saved, as displayed in Table 3-30.
The program verified savings resulted in a realization rate of less than 100% due to three projects in
which clothes washers were “top loading” instead of “front loading” and three instances in which the
equipment was disqualified due to lack of RTC measure specification requirements in minimum volume.
The Evaluators recommend adding “top loading” clothes washers to the Avista TRM and applying
savings for those measures appropriately.
3.3.8 AeroBarrier Program
The AeroBarrier program provides incentives for customers to complete envelope sealing improvements
using the AeroBarrier product, a convenient, cost-effective approach that seal homes in less than three
hours and provides documented results.
This section summarizes the estimated savings Avista has calculated for the AeroBarrier Program. The
Evaluators did not conduct an impact evaluation for the measures in this program for PY2021. A full
impact analysis will be completed for PY2022 projects. Table 3-37 summarizes the measures offered
under this program.
Table 3-37: AeroBarrier Program Measures
Measure Description Impact Analysis
Methodology
E AeroBarrier Rebate Whole home insulation with
AeroBarrier
No impact
evaluation
completed for
PY2021
In PY2021, there were no AeroBarrier projects completed for homes in Idaho with electric heating.
3.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
The Evaluators provide the following conclusions and recommendations for Avista’s Residential Portfolio
program implementation.
3.4.1 Conclusions
The Evaluators provide the following conclusions regarding Avista’s Residential electric programs:

Evaluation Report 51
n The Evaluators found the Residential portfolio to demonstrate a total of 1,294,535 kWh with a
realization rate of 93.19%.
n The Fuel Efficiency Program, which contributes 45% of the expected savings, resulted in a
realization rate of 84% whereas each of the other programs resulted in a combined 103%
realization rate. The Fuel Efficiency Program contributed to a 10% decrease in the overall
residential sector, which displayed a realization rate of 93%.
n The Residential Portfolio impact evaluation resulted in a realization rate of 93% due to slight
differences between the Avista TRM categories and the appropriately assigned RTF UES
categories for each measure as well as due to differences between applied values from billing
analysis and the expected savings for those measures. The Evaluators note several instances in
which the Avista TRM value reflects an average of a range of RTF UES values for the electric
measures offered in the Washington electric service territory. The values had been averaged
across heating zones, water heater storage tank sizes, equipment efficiency values, and fuel
types. The Evaluators, instead of applying these averages, verified the appropriate RTF UES
values for each rebate for a sample of rebates in each program and applied the resulting
realization rates to the population of rebates for each program. This led to a higher realization
rate, as some rebates reflected RTF savings values higher than the average for that measure.
n The Evaluators conducted verification surveys for a random sample of customers who had
participated in the residential prescriptive rebates programs. The Evaluators calculated in-
service rates for measures in which in-service rates are not typically 100% (water heaters,
furnaces, clothes washers and dryers, smart thermostats, etc). The Evaluators found that all
surveyed measures responses indicated in-service rates of 92-100%. These values were applied
to impact analysis results to estimate verified savings through the programs.
n In the HVAC Program, the E Smart Thermostat DIY with Electric Heat and E Smart Thermostat
Paid Install with Electric Heat realization rates are lower than 100% because the Avista TRM uses
an average UES across heating types, while the Evaluators assigned the appropriate RTF UES
value for each heating zone. The appropriate categories in the RTF led to a lower-than-expected
savings and higher than expected savings across individual projects within these measures, with
an overall downward adjustment for these measures.
n In the HVAC Program, the Evaluators verified smart thermostat model specifications through the
ENERGY STAR qualified products list to verify if the thermostat met all conditions required from
the RTF measure specifications. The Evaluators verified that 6 of the 68 thermostats did not
meet RTF measure specifications (6% of sampled thermostat rebates). The 6% of thermostats
verified to not meet the conditions had lacked occupancy detection and/or geofencing
capabilities, a specification required by the RTF.
n In the Shell Program, the Evaluators imputed home type and space heating type for a large
number of sampled rebates, as the tracking database does not contain values for these
characteristics or remain outdated. The mail-in rebates collect this information; however, it
does not seem to be required to complete the rebate and therefore many rebates are missing
this information.
n In the ENERGY STAR Homes Program, the Evaluators found that realization rates differed from
100% due to application of heating zone and cooling zone via the RTF, which the Avista TRM lacks.

Evaluation Report 52
In addition, the realization for the E ENERGY STAR® Home – Manufactured, Gas & Electric measure
is low because the expected savings employed an additive methodology between a gas-heated
home and an electric-heated home for the electric savings. However, the Evaluators reviewed the
RTF and determined manufactured home electric savings for a fully natural gas heated home
would be closer to the savings a gas heated home with electricity would save. Therefore, the
Evaluators assigned electric savings from the RTF associated with a fully natural gas-heated home
at 43 kWh saved per year. Finally, two projects were verified to have natural gas furnace space
heating for the home and therefore verified savings did not include full electric savings. This led
to one project displaying 1.30% realization for electric savings, leading to a large downward
adjustment in the population realization rates.
n In the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program, the Evaluators found that many projects
exceed the "Small Home" definition from Avista - that a home is single family with less than 1,000
SQFT or is a multifamily home (5 or more units). In addition, the Evaluators note that the current
program rebate applications do not provide an option to indicate “Multifamily” home type.
Rather, the current rebate application includes an option for “Single family”, “Manufactured”,
“New construction”, and “Other”.
n In the Appliance Program, the Evaluators found that 3 of the sampled clothes washer projects did
not qualify due to minimum volume requirements specified by the RTF. The Evaluators also found
that the Avista TRM applied RTF savings from the “Front Load” measure description for clothes
washers. However, the Evaluators found that 3 of the clothes washer equipment were “Top
loading”, which the RTF assigns significantly lower annual savings. This change in addition to the
disqualification of 3 rebates led to a downward adjustment in realization rate for this program.
n The Evaluators did not complete an impact analysis for the AeroBarrier Program. A full impact
analysis will be completed for the program in PY2022.
3.4.2 Recommendations
The Evaluators offer the following recommendations regarding Avista’s Residential electric programs:
n The Evaluators imputed home type and space heating type for a large number of sampled
rebates, as the tracking database does not contain values for these characteristics or remain
outdated. The mail-in rebates collect this information; however, it does not seem to be required
to complete the rebate and therefore many rebates are missing this information. The Evaluators
recommend verifying home type and space heating type during rebate application approval in
order to apply correct savings values to each project.
n In addition, the Evaluators note that the current program rebate applications for the Small
Home & MF Weatherization Program do not provide an option to indicate “Multifamily” home
type. For the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program, project savings largely depends on the
home type (single family vs. multifamily vs. manufactured). The current rebate application
includes an option for “Single family”, “Manufactured”, “New construction”, and “Other”. The
Evaluators recommend including an option for “Multifamily” in order to consistently apply RTF
savings for each of the measures. The Evaluators recommend Avista verify home type prior to
applying Avista TRM values in order to ensure proper categorization of measure savings.

Evaluation Report 53
n The Evaluators note several instances in which the web-based rebate data indicates the
household has electric space heating, but all other sources (project data and document
verification) indicate natural gas space heating, and vice versa. The Evaluators recommend
updating data collection standards in order for all sources of information to reflect the same
values as the project documentation.
n The Evaluators found that space heating type and water heating type indicated on the
household’s characteristics in the CC&B database did not consistently match the values
indicated on the rebate application forms. This may be due to lack of customer knowledge
about the household, or due to change in space and/or water heating type without Avista
knowledge. The Evaluators recommend verifying space and water heating values with the
customer and updating the CC&B database to reflect the most updated information for the
home.
n The Evaluators found that many projects claimed under the Small Home & MF Weatherization
Program exceed the "Small Home" definition from Avista - that a home is single family with less
than 1,000 SQFT or is a multifamily home (5 or more units). The Evaluators recommend claiming
projects on single family homes that are larger than 1,000 SQFT into the Shell Program.
n The ENERGY STAR Homes rebates depend on heating zone and cooling zone specifications to
calculate RTF savings. In addition, the savings applied largely depends on space heating type.
The program realization rate differs from 100% due to changes in heating zone/cooling zone
savings assignment as well as verified space heating type (electric vs. natural gas). The
Evaluators recommend verifying space heating type prior to claiming savings for each ENERGY
STAR homes project and specifying separate savings for heating zone and cooling zone in the
Avista TRM.
n A number of smart thermostat rebates included equipment that did not meet RTF measure
specifications to receive verified savings through the RTF workbooks, which the Avista TRM values
are drawn from. The Evaluators recommend providing a qualified product list for customers to
ensure purchased smart thermostat meets program requirements. In addition, the Evaluators
recommend Avista verify each program rebate to verify qualifications after rebates are submitted.
n In the Appliances Program, the Evaluators found that the Avista TRM applied RTF savings from
the “Front Load” measure description for clothes washers. However, the Evaluators found that 3
of the clothes washer equipment were “Top loading”, which the RTF assigns significantly lower
annual savings. This change in addition to the disqualification of 3 rebates led to a downward
adjustment in realization rate for this program. The Evaluators recommend adding “top loading”
clothes washers to the Avista TRM and applying savings for those measures appropriately.
n The Avista TRM assigns the savings values for water heaters of any size. During document
review, the Evaluators found most of the water heaters to have a storage tank under 55 gallons,
which has a higher savings value in the RTF than water heaters with unknown tank sizes (larger
systems have a more stringent code baseline). The Evaluators applied the RTF UES value for the
associated tank size and tier found for each model number in the sampled rebates. These
changes led to the high realization rate for the E Heat Pump Water Heater measure in the Water
Heat Program. The Evaluators recommend updating the Avista TRM value for this measure
based on actual tank size, in addition to collecting information on the tank size of the measure in
the rebate applications.

Evaluation Report 54
n The Evaluators note that the realization for the E ENERGY STAR® Home – Manufactured, Gas &
Electric measure is low because the Avista TRM savings was employed using an additive
methodology between a gas-heated home and an electric-heated home for the electric savings.
However, the Evaluators reviewed the RTF and determined manufactured home electric savings
for a fully natural gas heated home would be closer to the savings a gas heated home with
electricity would save. The Evaluators recommend adjusting Avista TRM electric savings for this
measure to reflect the RTF values associated with a fully natural gas-heated home at 43 kWh
saved per year.

Evaluation Report 55
4. Low-Income Impact Evaluation Results
The Low-Income Program delivers energy efficiency measures to low-income residential customers in its
Idaho service territory with a partnership with five network Community Action Agencies (“Agencies”)
and one tribal weatherization organization. The Agencies qualify income to prioritize and treat
households based on several characteristics. In-house or contract crews install approved program
measures. In addition, the Agencies have access to other monetary resources which allow them to
weatherize a home or install additional energy efficiency measures.
The Evaluators completed an impact evaluation on Avista’s Low-Income portfolio to verify program-level
and measure-level energy savings for PY2021. The following sections summarize findings for each
electric impact evaluation in the Low-Income Portfolio in the Idaho service territory. The Evaluators used
data collected and reported in the tracking database, online application forms, Avista TRM, and RTF
values to evaluate verified savings. This approach provided the strongest estimate of achieved savings
practical for each program, given its delivery method, magnitude of savings, number of participants, and
availability of data.
Table 4-1: Low-Income Verified Impact Savings by Program
Program Expected
Savings (kWh)
Verified
Savings
(kWh)
Verified
Realization
Rate
Low-Income 161,323 153,503 95.15%
Total Low-Income 161,323 153,503 95.15%
In PY2021, Avista completed and provided incentives for low-income electric measures in Idaho and
achieved total electric energy savings of 153,503 kWh. The Low-Income Program exceeded savings
expectations based on reported savings. The Low-Income sector had achieved 95.15% of the savings
expectations. Further details of the impact evaluation results by program are provided in the sections
following.
4.1 Program-Level Impact Evaluation Results
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Low-Income sector in the section below.
4.1.1 Low-Income Program
The Low-Income Program delivers energy efficiency measures to low-income residential customers in its
Idaho service territory with a partnership with five network Community Action Agencies (“Agencies”)
and one tribal weatherization organization. The Agencies qualify income to prioritize and treat
households based on several characteristics. In-house or contract crews install approved program
measures. In addition, the Agencies have access to other monetary resources which allow them to
weatherize a home or install additional energy efficiency measures.
Avista provides CAP agencies with the following approved measure list, which are reimbursed in full by
Avista. Avista also provides a rebate list of additional energy saving measures the CAP agencies are able

Evaluation Report 56
to utilize which are partially reimbursed. The following table summarizes the measures offered under
this program.
Table 4-2 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 4-2: Low-Income Program Measures
Measure Impact Analysis Methodology
Air Infiltration
Avista TRM
Air source heat pump
Attic insulation
Duct insulation
Duct sealing
Electric to air source heat pump
Electric to ductless heat pump
ENERGY STAR® door
ENERGY STAR® refrigerator
ENERGY STAR® window
Floor insulation
Heat pump water heater
LED lighting
Wall insulation
High efficiency furnace
High efficiency tankless natural
gas water heater
Natural gas boiler
Table 4-3 summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Low-Income Program impact
evaluation.
Table 4-3: Low-Income Program Verified Electric Savings
Measure PY2021
Participation
Expected
Savings
(kWh)
Adjusted
Savings
(kWh)
Verified
Savings
(kWh)
Realization
Rate
E Air Infiltration 22 11,006 10,874 10,874 98.80%
E Duct Sealing 1 610 218 218 35.76%
E Ductless Heat Pump 5 15,080 15,081 15,081 100.01%
E Energy Star Doors 13 2,853 2,781 2,781 97.48%
E Energy Star Refrigerator 1 16 16 16 101.13%
E Energy Star Windows 20 8,955 8,494 8,494 94.85%
E INS - Attic 4 2,154 1,878 1,878 87.22%
E INS - Duct 1 346 124 124 35.70%
E INS - Floor 6 5,707 4,465 4,465 78.25%
E To G Furnace Conversion 3 12,981 12,982 12,982 100.00%
E To Heat Pump Conversion 29 100,056 96,399 96,399 96.35%

Evaluation Report 57
Measure PY2021
Participation
Expected
Savings
(kWh)
Adjusted
Savings
(kWh)
Verified
Savings
(kWh)
Realization
Rate
Health And Safety 21 0 0 0 N/A
LED Bulbs 32 1,559 191 191 12.25%
Total 158 161,323 153,503 153,503 95.15%
The Low-Income Program displayed verified savings of 153,503 kWh with a realization rate of 95.15%
against the expected savings for the program. The following table summarizes the incentive costs
associated with the program.
Table 4-4: Low-Income Program Incentive Costs by Measure
Measure Incentive
Costs
E Air Infiltration $25,464.13
E Duct Sealing $245.82
E Ductless Heat Pump $43,589.98
E Energy Star Doors $14,142.24
E Energy Star Refrigerator $780.85
E Energy Star Windows $59,333.23
E INS - Attic $8,144.71
E INS - Duct $491.64
E INS - Floor $11,876.88
E To G Furnace Conversion $16,768.37
E To Heat Pump Conversion $305,993.52
Health And Safety $56,604.90
LED Bulbs $737.16
Total $544,173.43
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for Low-Income Program in the section below.
4.1.1.1 Database Review & Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator’s database review and document verification findings for
the Low-Income Program.
4.1.1.2 Database Review & Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Low-Income
Program. The Evaluators selected a subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data inputs,
summarized in Section 2.2.2.1.
During review, the Evaluators found that all the requested project information clearly outlined measure
details and calculations. In addition, the Evaluators found database quantity information to be
consistent with documents verified.

Evaluation Report 58
However, the Evaluators found some instances in which 20% savings cap was not applied to all measures
found to be installed in the household, leading to low realization rates for some projects in the program.
In addition, the Evaluators found some instances in which electric savings were applied to gas measures.
The Evaluators found the LED bulbs unit-level savings were inaccurately referenced. Avista TRM specifies
1 kWh per bulb, while expected savings uses 9 kWh savings per bulb, leading to 11% realization for LED
bulb projects under the program. The Evaluators recommend updating database calculations to use
Avista TRM values during expected savings calculations.
These few instances of downward adjustment led to a realization rate of 95% for the Low-Income
Program.
4.1.1.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators did not conduct verification surveys for the Low-Income Program.
4.1.1.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Low-Income Program. The Evaluators
calculated verified savings for Low-Income Program measures using the Avista TRM. However, a whole
building billing analysis was completed to supplement the findings from the desk review.
4.1.1.5 Billing Analysis
The results of the billing analysis for the Low-Income Program are provided below.
The Evaluators attempted to estimate measure-level Low-Income Program energy savings through
billing analysis regression with a counterfactual group selected via propensity score matching. The
Evaluators attempted to isolate each unique measure. In doing so, the Evaluators also isolate the
measure effects using the customer’s consumption billing data. However, participation for the Low-
Income program resulted in a small number of customers with isolated measures and therefore the
Evaluators were unable to estimate measure-level savings through billing analysis.
The Evaluators instead conducted a whole-home billing analysis for all the electric measures combined
in order to estimate savings for the average household participating in the program, across all measures.
The Evaluators successfully created a matched cohort for the electric measure households. Customers
were matched on zip code (exact match) and their average pre-period seasonal usage, including
summer, fall, winter, and spring for each control and treatment household. The Evaluators were
provided a considerable pool of control customers to draw upon. The Evaluators used nearest neighbor
matching with a 5 to 1 matching ratio. Therefore, each treatment customer was matched to 5 similar
control customers.
Table 4-5 provides annual savings per customer for each measure. Model 2 (PPR) was selected as the
final model for the Low-Income Program as it provided the highest adjusted R-squared among the
regression models. Savings are statistically significant at the 90% level for all measures and the adjusted
R-squared shows the model provided an sufficient fit for the data.

Evaluation Report 59
Table 4-5: Measure Savings, Low-Income Program
Measure Treatment
Customers
Control
Customers
Annual Savings
per Customer
(kWh)
90%
Lower
CI
90%
Upper
CI
Adjusted
R-
Squared
Model
All Electric Measures 31 308 827 351.07 1302.81 0.7 Model 2: PPR

The Evaluators applied these regression savings estimates to the program, by the number of unique
households in the program and found a realization rate of 64.84% for all electric measures in the
program. Further details of the billing analysis can be found in Appendix A.
4.1.1.6 Verified Savings
Due to insufficient participation to conduct measure-level billing analyses, the Evaluators reviewed the
Avista TRM values along with verified tracking data to estimate net program savings for those measures.
Adjusted savings were estimated using the Avista TRM. The Low-Income Program in total displays a
realization rate of 95.15% with 153,503 kWh verified electric energy savings in the Idaho service
territory, as displayed in Table 4-3. The billing analysis supports this estimate, with the billing analysis
estimating a 64.84% realization. Due to requirements for measure-level verified savings for cost-
effectiveness testing, the Evaluators designated the adjusted savings as final.
The Evaluators note that the majority of deviations from 100% realization rate is due to the change in
square footage or number of units verified in the project documentation or due to changes in the 20%
savings cap.
4.2 Conclusions and Recommendations
The Evaluators provide the following conclusions and recommendations for Avista’s Low-Income
Portfolio program implementation.
4.2.1 Conclusions
The Evaluators provide the following conclusions regarding Avista’s Low-Income electric programs:
n The Evaluators found the Low-Income portfolio to demonstrate a total of 153,503 kWh with a
realization rate of 95.15%.
n The realization rates for each program deviate from 100% due to differences between the Avista
TRM values applied to the quantities displayed in the tracking data. The Evaluators note several
instances in which the tracking data displayed correct quantity values, but the expected savings
calculated for the project did not indicate Avista TRM values were applied properly to the
quantities. The Evaluators applied the verified Avista TRM values for the Low-Income Program.
For the Low-Income Program, the Evaluators applied a realization rate from a sample of rebates
after verifying documentation for quantity and efficiency of measures.
n The Evaluators attempted to estimate measure-level Low-Income Program energy savings
through billing analysis regression with a counterfactual group selected via propensity score
matching. The Evaluators attempted to isolate each unique measure. However, participation for

Evaluation Report 60
the Low-Income program resulted in a small number of customers with isolated measures and
therefore the Evaluators conducted a whole-home billing analysis for all the electric measures
combined in the Low-Income in order to estimate savings for the average household
participating in the program, across all measures. The Evaluators found a realization rate of 65%
for all electric measures in the program, which is significantly lower than the realization rate of
95% from the desk review. However, due to requirements for measure-level verified savings for
cost-effectiveness testing, the Evaluators designated the desk review savings as verified.
n In the Low-Income Program, The Evaluators found the LED bulbs unit-level savings were
inaccurately referenced. Avista TRM specifies 1 kWh per bulb, while expected savings uses 9
kWh savings per bulb, leading to 11% realization for LED bulb projects under the program.
4.2.2 Recommendations
The Evaluators offer the following recommendations regarding Avista’s Low-Income electric programs:
n The Evaluators note that most deviations from 100% realization rate is due to differences
between the limited measure category options Avista TRM values and the more detailed
categories referencing heating zone, cooling zone, heating type, and bulb types present in the
RTF. The Evaluators recommend that Avista reference the more detailed RTF measures when
calculating expected savings for the programs.
n The Evaluators reviewed the project documentation provided by Avista and identified conflicting
square footage or number of units between the aggregated project data from the expected
savings calculated for each project. The Evaluators found very few instances in which the
tracking data quantity differed from the quantity displayed in sampled documentation and
invoices. The Evaluators recommend providing corrections to the application of Avista TRM
values to tracking data quantity.
n The Evaluators found the LED bulbs unit-level savings were inaccurately referenced for the Low-
Income Program. Avista TRM specifies 1 kWh per bulb, while expected savings uses 9 kWh
savings per bulb, leading to 11% realization for LED bulb projects under the program. The
Evaluators recommend updating database calculations to use Avista TRM values during
expected savings calculations.

Evaluation Report 61
5. Appendix A: Billing Analysis Results
This appendix provides additional details on the billing analyses conducted for each program.
5.1 Fuel Efficiency Program
The results of the billing analysis for the Fuel Conversion program are provided in this section. These
results are provided from the PY2020 impact evaluation for this program.
The methodology for the billing analysis is provided in Section 2.2.3.2. Table 5-1 displays customer
counts for customers considered for billing analysis (i.e. customer with single-measure installations) and
identifies measures that met the requirements for a billing analysis.
The Evaluators attempted to estimate measure-level Fuel Efficiency Program energy savings through
billing analysis regression with a counterfactual group selected via propensity score matching. The
Evaluators attempted to isolated each unique measure. In doing so, the Evaluators also isolate the
measure effects using the customer’s consumption billing data.
A billing analysis was completed for measures that had at least 75 customers with single-measure
installations. This ensured that measures would have a sufficient sample size after applying PSM data
restrictions (e.g. sufficient pre- and post-period data). The billing analysis included participants in both
PY2019 and PY2020 in order to acquire the maximum number of customers possible. However, results
from billing analyses are only extrapolated to PY2020 participants.
Table 5-1: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Fuel Efficiency Program
Measure
Measure
Considered for
Billing Analysis
Number of
Customers w/
Isolated-Measure
Installations
Sufficient
Participation
for Billing
Analysis
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace ü 186 ü
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace &
Water Heat ü 33

The Evaluators were successful in creating a matched cohort for each of the measures with sufficient
participation. Customers were matched on zip code (exact match) and their average pre-period seasonal
usage, including summer, fall, winter, and spring for each control and treatment household.
The Evaluators were provided a considerable pool of control customers to draw upon, as shown in Table
5-2. The Evaluators used nearest neighbor matching with a 5 to 1 matching ratio. Therefore, each
treatment customer was matched to 5 similar control customers. Also shown in Table 5-2, are the
impact of various restrictions on the number of treatment and control customers that were included in
the final regression model. The “Starting Count” displays the beginning number of customers available
prior to applying the data restrictions, while the “Ending Count” displays the number of customers after
applying data restrictions and final matching.

Evaluation Report 62
Table 5-2: Cohort Restrictions, Fuel Efficiency Program
Measure Data Restriction
# of
Treatment
Customers
# of
Control
Customers
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace Starting Count 186 132,725
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace Install Date Range: January 1, 2019 to June 30,
2020 162 132,725
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace Control Group Usage Comparable to Treatment
Group 158 132,654
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace Incomplete Post-Period Bills (<4 months) 132 89,361
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace Incomplete Pre-Period Bills (<10 months) 85 69,413
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace Restrict to Controls w/ Probable Electric
Resistance9 85 10,412
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace Ending Count (Matched by PSM) 85 421
Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2 display the density of each variable employed in propensity score matching for
the E Electric to Natural Gas Furnace measure, before and after conducting matching.
The distributions prior to matching appear to be less similar, with control customers averaging lower
usage. However, after matching, the pre-period usage distribution is more similar between the groups.
The pre-period usage in the winter before and after matching averages a more spread distribution for the
treatment group, however, the average usage between groups appears the same after matching (verified
with t-test on pre-usage).

9 The Evaluators restricted to controls with pre-period winter usage higher than the 85th percentile (i.e. top 15%) as these
customers are more likely to have electric resistance heating.

Evaluation Report 63
Figure 5-1: Covariate Balance Before Matching, E Electric to Natural Gas Furnace

Figure 5-2: Covariate Balance After Matching, E Electric to Natural Gas Furnace

The Evaluators performed three tests to determine the success of PSM:
1. t-test on pre-period usage by month
2. Joint chi-square test to determine if any covariates are imbalanced
3. Standardized difference test for each covariate employed in matching
All tests confirmed that PSM performed well for the measure. The t-test displayed no statistically
significant differences at the 95% level in average daily consumption between the treatment and control
groups for any month in the pre-period. In addition, the chi-squared test returned a p-value well over
0.05 for all measures, indicating that pre-period usage was balanced between the groups. Lastly, the
standardized difference test returned values well under the recommended cutoff of 25, and always
falling under 10, further indicating the groups were well matched on all included covariates.

Evaluation Report 64
Table 5-3 provides the results for the t-test on pre-period usage between the treatment and control
groups after matching for the Fuel Efficiency Program. The P-Value is over 0.05 for each month, meaning
pre-period usage between treatment and control groups is similar at the 95% confidence level.
Table 5-3: Pre-period Usage T-test for Electric to Gas Furnace, Fuel Conversion Program
Month
Average Daily
Usage (kWh),
Control
Average Daily
Usage (kWh),
Treatment
T Stat Std Error P-Value Reject Null?
Jan 72.502 69.978 0.699 3.613 0.486 No
Feb 69.808 67.655 0.611 3.522 0.542 No
Mar 59.063 60.098 -0.344 3.006 0.731 No
Apr 43.331 43.494 -0.077 2.133 0.939 No
May 30.497 29.155 0.915 1.466 0.362 No
Jun 29.164 27.861 0.802 1.624 0.423 No
Jul 34.092 33.291 0.364 2.198 0.716 No
Aug 33.202 32.844 0.175 2.050 0.862 No
Sep 30.944 30.174 0.435 1.766 0.664 No
Oct 41.417 41.816 -0.156 2.567 0.877 No
Nov 59.142 60.794 -0.389 4.246 0.698 No
Dec 69.305 69.601 -0.072 4.086 0.942 No

Table 5-4 provides customer counts for customers in the final regression model by assigned weather
station ID for each measure. In addition, TMY HDD and CDD from the nearest available TMY weather
station is provided as well as the weighted HDD/CDD for each measure. The HDD and CDD was weighted
by the number of treatment customers assigned to a weather station.
Table 5-4: TMY Weather, Fuel Efficiency Program
Measure
USAF
Station
ID
# of
Treatment
Customers
TMY USAF
ID TMY HDD TMY
CDD
Weighted
TMY HDD
Weighted
TMY CDD
E Electric to Natural Gas Furnace 720322 3 727834 6,915 376 6,333 517
E Electric to Natural Gas Furnace 726817 3 727834 6,915 376 6,333 517
E Electric to Natural Gas Furnace 727827 4 727827 5,428 731 6,333 517
E Electric to Natural Gas Furnace 727830 7 727830 5,511 907 6,333 517
E Electric to Natural Gas Furnace 727834 13 727834 6,915 376 6,333 517
E Electric to Natural Gas Furnace 727855 2 727855 7,360 439 6,333 517
E Electric to Natural Gas Furnace 727856 47 727856 6,246 519 6,333 517
E Electric to Natural Gas Furnace 727857 4 727857 6,467 299 6,333 517
E Electric to Natural Gas Furnace 727870 2 727856 6,246 519 6,333 517

Evaluation Report 65
Table 5-5 provides annual savings per customer for each measure. Model 2 (PPR) was selected as the
final model for the Fuel Efficiency Program as it provided the highest adjusted R-squared among the
regression models. Savings are statistically significant at the 90% level for all measures and the adjusted
R-squared shows the model provided an excellent fit for the data.
Table 5-5: Measure Savings, Fuel Efficiency Program
Measure
# of
Treatment
Customers
# of
Control
Customers
Annual
Savings/Customer
(kWh)
90%
Lower
CI
90%
Upper
CI
90%
Relative
Precision
Adjusted
R-
Squared
Model
E Electric to Natural
Gas Furnace 85 421 5,068 4,384 5,7512 0.13 0.73 Model 2:
PPR

Figure 5-3 provides monthly TMY savings per customer for the Fuel Conversion Program. As expected,
the greatest savings occur during the winter months.
Figure 5-3: E Electric to Gas Furnace Monthly Savings, Fuel Conversion Program

The Evaluators found the E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace measure to display 5,068 kWh savings per
year. This estimate was statistically significant at the 90% confidence interval with precision of 13%. The
Evaluators estimate the Therms penalty for this measure with the following equation:
Equation 5-1: Furnace Conversion Heating Load
𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑=𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑘𝑊ℎ 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠∗𝐶𝑂𝑃/012$3#2 ∗3,412 𝑘𝑊ℎ𝐵𝑇𝑈100,000 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑠
𝐵𝑇𝑈

Equation 5-2 Furnace Conversion Therms Penalty
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑠 𝑃𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑦=𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑
0.80 𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝐴𝐹𝑈𝐸
919.0
769.1 722.3
385.4
281.9
21.6
-98.6 -103.4
76.1
464.9
716.4
913.5
-200.0
0.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
1000.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Mo
n
t
h
l
y

S
a
v
i
n
g
s
/
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

(
T
h
e
r
m
s
)
Month

Evaluation Report 66
Where,
n 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 = The number of full load hours required for heating the home per year
n 𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑘𝑊ℎ 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = measure saving result from linear regression (5,068 kWh/year)
n 𝐶𝑂𝑃/012$3#2 = Coefficient of performance (equal to 1, assuming electric resistance baseline)
The Therms penalty for the E Electric to Natural Gas Furnace measure is 216.15 Therms. This penalty is
applied in the Idaho Gas Impact Evaluation Report.
Due to the insufficient isolated measure participation for the E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace & Water
Heater measure, the Evaluators assigned savings for this measure using the Avista TRM value of 9,789
kWh and -565 Therms savings per year.
Evaluators also conducted a treatment-only regression model for each of the measures described above.
This analysis was completed at the request of Avista in order to help with program planning. Table 5-6
provides annual savings/customer for the Fuel Conversion program for each measure and regression
model. The PPR model was selected for ex post savings because it provided the best fit for the data
(highest adjusted R-squared). The treatment-only model represents estimated gross savings for this
measure at 5,430 Therms saved per year.
Table 5-6: Measure Savings for All Regression Models, Fuel Efficiency Program
Measure Model
# of
Treatment
Customers
# of
Control
Customers
Annual
Savings/Customer
(kWh)
90%
Lower
CI
90%
Upper
CI
90%
Relative
Precision
Adjusted
R-
Squared
Electric to Natural
Gas Furnace Diff-in-diff 85 421 5,267.69 3,572.27 6,963.10 0.32 0.26
Electric to Natural
Gas Furnace PPR 85 421 5,068.03 4,384.25 5,751.80 0.13 0.73
Electric to Natural
Gas Furnace
Treatment
Only (Gross) 85 N/A 5,430.42 4,625.74 6,235.10 0.15 0.70

5.2 Low-Income Program
The Evaluators conducted a whole-home billing analysis for all the electric measures combined in order
to estimate savings for the average household participating in the program, across all measures. The
Evaluators successfully created a matched cohort for the electric measure households. Customers were
matched on zip code (exact match) and their average pre-period seasonal usage, including summer, fall,
winter, and spring for each control and treatment household.
The Evaluators were provided a considerable pool of control customers to draw upon, as shown in Table
5-7. The Evaluators used nearest neighbor matching with a 5 to 1 matching ratio. Therefore, each
treatment customer was matched to 5 similar control customers. Also shown in Table 5-7, are the
impact of various restrictions on the number of treatment and control customers that were included in
the final regression model. The “Starting Count” displays the beginning number of customers available
prior to applying the data restrictions, while the “Ending Count” displays the number of customers after
applying data restrictions and final matching.

Evaluation Report 67
Table 5-7: Cohort Restrictions, Low-Income Program
Measure Data Restriction
# of
Treatment
Customers
# of
Control
Customers
Whole home electric

Starting Count 412 8,045
Install Date Range: January 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021 47 8,045
Control Group Usage Outlier (>2X max treatment usage) 47 8,045
Incomplete Post-Period Bills (<4 months) 46 7,162
Incomplete Pre-Period Bills (<10 months) 31 4749
Ending Count (Matched by PSM) 31 315/308
Figure 5-4 and Figure 5-5 display the density of each variable employed in propensity score matching for
the combined electric measures before and after conducting matching.
The distributions prior to matching appear to be less similar in summer, with control customers averaging
higher usage. However, after matching, the pre-period usage distribution in summer is more similar
between the groups. The remaining pre-period seasons (winter, summer, fall), closely overlap before and
after matching, indicating little differences exist on average between the groups prior to matching and
validating the initial selection of control customers.
Figure 5-4: Covariate Balance Before Matching, Low-Income Electric Measures

Evaluation Report 68
Figure 5-5: Covariate Balance After Matching, Low-Income Electric Measures

The Evaluators performed three tests to determine the success of PSM:
1. t-test on pre-period usage by month
2. Joint chi-square test to determine if any covariates are imbalanced
3. Standardized difference test for each covariate employed in matching
All tests confirmed that PSM performed well for each measure. The t-test displayed no statistically
significant differences at the 95% level in average daily consumption between the treatment and control
groups for any month in the pre-period. In addition, the chi-squared test returned a p-value well over
0.05 for all measures, indicating that pre-period usage was balanced between the groups. Lastly, the
standardized difference test returned values were under 10 (well under the recommended cutoff of 25),
further indicating the groups were well matched on all included covariates.
Table 5-8 provides results for the t-test on pre-period usage between the treatment and control groups
after matching for the Low-Income program. The P-Value is over 0.05 for each month, meaning pre-
period usage between treatment and control groups is similar at the 95% confidence level.
Table 5-8: Pre-period Usage T-test for Electric Measures, Low-Income Program
Month
Average Daily
Usage
(Therms),
Control
Average Daily
Usage
(Therms),
Treatment
T Statistic Std Error P-Value Reject
Null?
Jan 28.926 29.498 -0.241 2.371 0.809 No
Feb 27.695 27.928 -0.105 2.203 0.916 No
Mar 24.674 25.378 -0.374 1.886 0.709 No
Apr 21.803 21.716 0.053 1.628 0.958 No
May 19.853 19.733 0.08 1.503 0.936 No
Jun 21.393 21.452 -0.033 1.782 0.973 No
Jul 25.695 26.272 -0.254 2.27 0.8 No
Aug 26.904 27.217 -0.135 2.319 0.893 No

Evaluation Report 69
Month
Average Daily
Usage
(Therms),
Control
Average Daily
Usage
(Therms),
Treatment
T Statistic Std Error P-Value Reject
Null?
Sep 22.217 21.801 0.241 1.725 0.81 No
Oct 22.956 23.387 -0.253 1.701 0.8 No
Nov 27.493 28.509 -0.453 2.243 0.651 No
Dec 29.415 30.491 -0.431 2.496 0.667 No

Table 5-9 provides customer counts for customers in the final regression model by assigned weather
station ID for each measure. In addition, TMY HDD and CDD from the nearest available TMY weather
station is provided as well as the weighted HDD/CDD for each measure. The HDD and CDD was weighted
by the number of treatment customers assigned to a weather station.
Table 5-9: TMY Weather, Low-Income Program
Measure USAF
Station ID
# of
Treatment
Customers
TMY USAF ID TMY
HDD
TMY
CDD
Weighted
TMY HDD
Weighted
TMY CDD
All Electric Measures 727827 8 727827 5,428 731 6,292 510
All Electric Measures 727830 22 727830 5,510 906 6,292 510
All Electric Measures 727834 23 727834 6,915 376 6,292 510
All Electric Measures 727850 9 727850 6,246 519 6,292 510
All Electric Measures 727855 5 727855 7,360 439 6,292 510
All Electric Measures 727856 104 727856 6,246 519 6,292 510
All Electric Measures 727857 32 727857 6,467 299 6,292 510
In addition to the net savings value represented above, the Evaluators also conducted a treatment-only
regression model for each of the measures described above. Table 5-10 provides annual
savings/customer for the Low-Income program for all electric measures and regression model. The PPR
model was selected for ex-post net savings because it provided the best fit for the data (highest
adjusted R-squared). The treatment-only model represents estimated gross savings for this measure.
The Evaluators estimate gross savings for each Low-Income participant is 1,303 kWh per year.
Table 5-10: Household Savings for All Regression Models, Low-Income Program
Measure Model
# of
Treatment
Customers
# of
Control
Customers
Annual
Savings/Customer
90%
Lower
CI
90%
Upper
CI
Adjusted
R-Squared
All Electric
Measures Diff-in-diff 31 308 387.59 0 1,223.79 0.13
All Electric
Measures PPR 31 308 826.98 351.07 1,302.81 0.70
All Electric
Measures
Treatment
Only (Gross) 31 308 520.36 0 1,459.29 0.14

Evaluation Report 70
6. Appendix B: Summary of Survey Respondents
This section summarizes additional insights gathered from the simple verification surveys deployed by
the Evaluators for the impact evaluation of Avista’s Residential and Low-Income Programs.
Survey respondents confirmed installing between one and three measures that were rebated by Avista,
displayed in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1: Type and Number of Measures Received by Respondents
Measure Category Total Percent
One Measure 171 56%
Two Measures 91 30%
Three Measures 34 11%
Four Measures 7 2%
Five Measures 2 1%
HVAC 108 35%
Water Heater 87 29%
Smart Thermostat 127 42%
Clothes Washer 99 32%
Clothes Dryer 66 22%
The Evaluators asked respondents to provide information regarding their home, as displayed in Table
6-2. Similar to the previous impact evaluation findings, the majority of respondents noted owning a
single-family home between 1,000 and 3,000 square feet with central air conditioning.

Evaluation Report 71

Table 6-2: Survey Respondent Home Characteristics10

10 Four contractors or construction companies were not asked these questions.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

Evaluation, Measurement
and Verification (EM&V) of
Avista Idaho Gas PY2021
Residential and
Low-Income Energy
Efficiency Programs
ADM Associates, Inc
3239 Ramos Circle
Sacramento, CA 95827
Avista Utilities
1411 E. Mission Ave.
SUBMITTED BY: ADM ASSOCIATES, INC. &
CADEO GROUP

SUBMITTED TO: AVISTA UTILITIES
SUBMITTED ON: APRIL 1, 2022

Appendix to the 2021 Annual
Conservation Report
PROCESS EVALUATION REPORT
April 15, 2022
Prepared for:
Avista
1411 E. Mission Avenue
Spokane, WA 99202

APPENDIX D

Tables of Contents and Tables ii
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 6
1.1 Savings Results ........................................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 7
2. General Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 11
2.1 Glossary of Terminology ........................................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Summary of Approach .............................................................................................................................. 12
3. Residential Impact Evaluation Results ............................................................................................... 24
3.1 Simple Verification Results ....................................................................................................................... 24
3.2 Impacts of COVID-19 Pandemic ............................................................................................................... 26
3.3 Program-Level Impact Evaluation Results ................................................................................................ 27
3.4 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 48
4. Low-Income Impact Evaluation Results ............................................................................................. 50
4.1 Program-Level Impact Evaluation Results ................................................................................................ 51
4.2 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 55
5. Appendix A: Billing Analysis Results ................................................................................................... 55
5.1 Water Heat Program ................................................................................................................................ 55
5.2 HVAC Program .......................................................................................................................................... 61
5.3 Shell Program ........................................................................................................................................... 72
5.4 Low-Income Program ............................................................................................................................... 79
6. Appendix B: Summary of Survey Respondents .................................................................................. 82

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 iii
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Residential Verified Impact Savings by Program ......................................................................... 6
Table 1-2: Low-Income Verified Impact Savings by Program ....................................................................... 6
Table 1-3: Impact Evaluation Activities by Program and Sector ................................................................... 7
Table 2-1: Document-based Verification Samples and Precision by Program ........................................... 15
Table 2-2: Survey-Based Verification Sample and Precision by Program ................................................... 16
Table 3-1: Residential Verified Impact Savings by Program ....................................................................... 24
Table 3-2: Summary of Survey Response Rate ........................................................................................... 25
Table 3-3: Simple Verification Precision by Program ................................................................................. 25
Table 3-4: Water Heat Program ISRs by Measure ...................................................................................... 25
Table 3-5: HVAC Program ISRs by Measure ................................................................................................ 26
Table 3-6: Appliances Program ISRs by Measure ....................................................................................... 26
Table 3-7: Water Heat Program Measures ................................................................................................. 27
Table 3-8: Water Heat Program Verified Natural Gas Savings ................................................................... 27
Table 3-9: Water Heat Program Costs ........................................................................................................ 28
Table 3-10: Water Heat Verification Survey ISR Results ............................................................................. 29
Table 3-11: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Water Heat Program ............................................ 29
Table 3-12: Measure Savings, Water Heat Program .................................................................................. 30
Table 3-13: HVAC Program Measures ........................................................................................................ 31
Table 3-14: HVAC Program Verified Natural Gas Savings ........................................................................... 31
Table 3-15: HVAC Program Costs ............................................................................................................... 31
Table 3-16: HVAC Verification Survey ISR Results ...................................................................................... 32
Table 3-17: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, HVAC Program ...................................................... 33
Table 3-18: Measure Savings, HVAC Program ............................................................................................ 34
Table 3-19: Customer Counts for Natural Gas Furnaces, HVAC Program .................................................. 34
Table 3-20: Measure Savings for Natural Gas Furnaces, HVAC Program ................................................... 35
Table 3-21: Shell Program Measures .......................................................................................................... 36
Table 3-22: Shell Program Verified Natural Gas Savings ............................................................................ 36
Table 3-23: Shell Program Costs ................................................................................................................. 37
Table 3-24: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Shell Program ....................................................... 38

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 iv
Table 3-25: Measure Savings, Shell Program ............................................................................................. 39
Table 3-26: Fuel Efficiency Program Measures .......................................................................................... 40
Table 3-27: Fuel Efficiency Program Verified Natural Gas Penalty ............................................................. 40
Table 3-28: ENERGY STAR® Homes Program Measures ............................................................................. 40
Table 3-29: ENERGY STAR® Homes Program Verified Natural Gas Savings ................................................ 41
Table 3-30: ENERGY STAR® Homes Program Costs .................................................................................... 41
Table 3-31: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program Measures .......................................................... 42
Table 3-32: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program Verified Natural Gas Savings ............................. 43
Table 3-33: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program Costs .................................................................. 43
Table 3-34: Appliance Program Measures ................................................................................................. 45
Table 3-35: Appliance Program Verified Natural Gas Savings .................................................................... 45
Table 3-36: Appliance Program Costs ......................................................................................................... 45
Table 3-37: Appliance Verification Survey ISR Results ............................................................................... 46
Table 3-38: AeroBarrier Program Measures .............................................................................................. 47
Table 3-39: AeroBarrier Program Verified Natural Gas Savings ................................................................. 47
Table 3-40: AeroBarrier Program Costs ...................................................................................................... 48
Table 4-1: Low-Income Verified Impact Savings by Program ..................................................................... 51
Table 4-2: Low-Income Program Measures ................................................................................................ 51
Table 4-3: Low-Income Program Verified Natural Gas Savings .................................................................. 52
Table 4-4: Low-Income Program Costs ....................................................................................................... 52
Table 4-5: Measure Savings, Low-Income Program ................................................................................... 54
Table 5-1: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Water Heat Program .............................................. 56
Table 5-2: Cohort Restrictions, Water Heat Program ................................................................................. 56
Table 5-3: Pre-period Usage T-test for 50 Gallon Water Heater, Water Heat Program ............................. 59
Table 5-4: Pre-period Usage T-test for Tankless Gas Water Heater, Water Heat Program ....................... 60
Table 5-5: TMY Weather, Water Heat Program ......................................................................................... 60
Table 5-6: Measure Savings for All Regression Models, Water Heat Program ........................................... 61
Table 5-7: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, HVAC Program ........................................................ 62
Table 5-8: Cohort Restrictions, HVAC Program .......................................................................................... 63
Table 5-9: Pre-period Usage T-test for Natural Gas Furnace, HVAC Program ............................................ 67

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 v
Table 5-10: Pre-period Usage T-test for Smart Thermostat Paid Install with Natural Gas Heat, HVAC
Program ............................................................................................................................................. 67
Table 5-11: Pre-period Usage T-test for Smart Thermostat DIY with Natural gas Heat, HVAC Program ... 68
Table 5-12: TMY Weather, HVAC Program ................................................................................................. 68
Table 5-13: Measure Savings, HVAC Program ............................................................................................ 71
Table 5-14: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Shell Program ....................................................... 73
Table 5-15: Cohort Restrictions, Shell Program .......................................................................................... 73
Table 5-16: Pre-period Usage T-test for Attic Insulation, Shell Program .................................................... 76
Table 5-17: Pre-period Usage T-test for Window Replacement, Shell Program ........................................ 76
Table 5-18: TMY Weather, Shell Program .................................................................................................. 77
Table 5-19: Measure Savings for All Regression Models, Shell Program ................................................... 78
Table 5-20: Measure Savings, Shell Program ............................................................................................. 78
Table 5-21: Cohort Restrictions, Low-Income Program ............................................................................. 80
Table 5-22: TMY Weather, Low-Income Program ...................................................................................... 82
Table 5-23: Measure Savings for All Regression Models, Low-Income Program ....................................... 82
Table 6-1: Type and Number of Measures Received by Respondents ....................................................... 83
Table 6-2: Survey Respondent Home Characteristics ................................................................................ 84

Work Plan 6
1. Executive Summary
This report is a summary of the Residential and Low-Income Gas Evaluation, Measurement, and
Verification (EM&V) effort of the 2021 program year (PY2021) portfolio of programs for Avista
Corporation (Avista) in the Idaho service territory. The evaluation was administered by ADM
Associates, Inc. and Cadeo Group, LLC (herein referred to as the “Evaluators”).
1.1 Savings Results
The Evaluators conducted an impact evaluation for Avista’s Residential and Low-Income programs for
PY2021. The Residential portfolio savings amounted to 276,056.86 Therms with a 100.49% realization
rate. The Low-Income portfolio savings amounted to 3,217.49 Therms with a 85.17% realization rate.
The Evaluators summarize the Residential portfolio verified savings in Table 1-1 and the Low-Income
portfolio verified savings in Table 1-2 below.
Table 1-1: Residential Verified Impact Savings by Program
Program
Expected
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Realization
Rate
Water Heat 41,972.20 41,972.20 100.00%
HVAC 212,961.56 212,647.17 99.85%
Shell 18,236.15 18,214.05 99.88%
Fuel Efficiency1 0.00 0.00 -
ENERGY STAR Homes2 669.90 669.90 100.00%
Small Home & MF
Weatherization 547.42 2,300.90 420.32%
Appliances 314.05 252.64 80.44%
AeroBarrier 3,497.63 0.00 -
Total Res 274,701.28 276,056.86 100.49%

Table 1-2: Low-Income Verified Impact Savings by Program
Program
Expected
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Realization
Rate
Low-Income3 3,777.56 3,217.49 85.17%
Total Low-Income 3,777.56 3,217.49 85.17%

Table 1-3 summarizes the gas programs offered to residential and low-income customers in the Idaho
Avista service territory in PY2021 as well as the Evaluators’ evaluation tasks and impact methodology for
each program.

1 The Fuel Efficiency Program displayed a verified Therms penalty of 14,008.00 Therms due to fuel conversion measures. For the
purposes of this report, this penalty is not included in the overall metrics of natural gas-saving energy efficiency measures.
2 The ENERGY STAR Homes Program displayed a verified Therms savings of 67.00 Therms for the electric measures.
3 The Low-Income Program displayed a verified Therms penalty of 720.00 Therms due to fuel conversion measures.

Evaluation Report 7
Table 1-3: Impact Evaluation Activities by Program and Sector
Sector Program Database
Review
Survey
Verification Impact Methodology
Residential Water Heat ü ü Avista TRM
Residential HVAC ü ü Avista TRM/IPMVP Option A
Residential Shell ü Avista TRM
Residential ENERGY STAR®
Homes ü Avista TRM
Residential Small Home & MF
Weatherization ü ü Avista TRM
Residential Appliances ü ü Avista TRM
Residential AeroBarrier No evaluation completed for
PY2021
Low-Income Low-Income ü Avista TRM
1.2 Conclusions and Recommendations
The following section details the Evaluators’ conclusions and recommendations for each the Residential
Portfolio and Low-Income Portfolio program evaluations.
1.2.1 Conclusions
The following section details the Evaluator’s findings resulting from the program evaluations for each
the Residential Portfolio and Low-Income Portfolio.
1.2.1.1 Residential Programs
The Evaluators provide the following conclusions regarding Avista’s Residential gas programs:
n The Evaluators found the Residential portfolio to demonstrate a total of 276,056.86 Therms with
a realization rate of 100.49%. All programs except the Appliances Program (80.44% realization)
met savings goals based on reported savings.
n The Residential Portfolio impact evaluation resulted in a realization rate of 100.44% due to
differences between the applied Avista TRM values and the active RTF UES or applied measure-
level quantities for each measure in addition to the difference in savings values between the
results from billing analyses and the Avista TRM.
n The Evaluators conducted verification surveys via web survey to collect information from
customers who participated in the Water Heat, HVAC, and Appliance Programs. A total of 305
unique customers were surveyed between August 2021 and February 2022. The Evaluators
collected information including the functionality of the efficient equipment, the functionality of
the replaced equipment, and information on how the COVID19 stay-at-home orders have
affected the household energy usage. The Evaluators calculated in-service rates for the
measures within these two programs in order to apply findings to the verified savings results for
each program.
n The realization rate for the natural gas savings in the Water Heat Program was 100.00% with
41,972.20 Therms saved. The Evaluators found no instances in which a project savings deviated
from the expected savings.

Evaluation Report 8
n The Evaluators explored a billing analysis for the natural gas water heater measures within the
Water Heat Program. However, the G 50 Gallon Natural gas Water Heater and the G Tankless
Gas Water Heater measures resulted in savings that were not statistically significant. Therefore,
the Evaluators elected to use Avista TRM values to estimate verified savings. The Evaluators will
explore further billing analyses for these measures during the next program year if participation
permits.
n The HVAC Program in total displays a realization rate of 99.85% with 212,647.17 Therms verified
natural gas savings in the Washington service territory. The realization rate for the natural gas
savings in the HVAC Program deviate from 100% due to one project which was verified to be a
duplicate. The Evaluators removed savings for this project. All other rebates were assigned
savings equivalent to the expected savings through Avista TRM values. The furnace measure has
nearly identical billing analysis results to the Avista TRM value (billing analysis indicated 81.5
Therms saved for G Natural Gas Furnace, while Avista TRM indicated 81.66 Therms).
n The Evaluators attempted to estimate smart thermostat measure savings values for the HVAC
Program. However, because the results from the billing analyses for smart thermostats were
contradicting and/or inconclusive, the Evaluators elected to utilize Avista TRM values to
estimate verified savings for these measures. The findings from the PY2021 billing analyses for
these measures may have been impacted by the COVID19 pandemic. The Evaluators will explore
additional billing analyses for these measures during program year 2022.
n The Shell Program displayed verified savings of 18,214.05 Therms with a realization rate of
99.88% against the expected savings for the program. The realization rate for the natural gas
savings in the Shell Program deviate from 100% due to the slight differences between R-values
or quantities between the Avista tracking database and the verified documents. The Evaluators
conducted a billing analysis for the attic insulation and window replacement measures,
however, due to unexpectedly low savings estimates, the Evaluators chose to verify savings
through the Avista TRM.
n The ENERGY STAR Homes Program displayed a realization rate of 100.00% at 669.90 Therms saved
in PY2021. The Evaluators no found expected savings to differ for any of the sampled projects.
The Evaluators have no recommendations for improving the program.
n In the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program, the Evaluators found that many projects
exceed the "Small Home" definition from Avista - that a home is single family with less than 1,000
SQFT or is a multifamily home (5 or more units). In addition, the Evaluators note that the current
program rebate applications do not provide an option to indicate “Multifamily” home type.
Rather, the current rebate application includes an option for “Single family”, “Manufactured”,
“New construction”, and “Other”.
n The realization rate for the natural gas savings in the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program
are unexpectedly high at 420.32% due to differences between the unit-level savings values Avista
had applied to the project quantity for 7 sampled projects and the unit-level savings presented in
the Avista TRM.
n The gas measures rebated through the Appliance Program are not contained in the Avista TRM.
Therefore, the Evaluators applied savings for these projects by converting Avista TRM electric
savings to gas savings by dividing approved Avista TRM savings for the equipment by 29.3. This

Evaluation Report 9
application led to 85% realization for clothes dryers and 79% realization for clothes washers,
leading to a program realization rate of 80.44%.
n The Evaluators summarize expected savings for the AeroBarrier program in this report as 3,497.63
Therms. The Evaluators did not verify savings for this program. A complete impact analysis will be
completed in PY2022.

1.2.1.2 Low-Income Programs
The Evaluators provide the following conclusions regarding Avista’s Low-Income natural gas programs:
n The Evaluators found the Low-Income portfolio to demonstrate a total of 3,217.49 Therms with
a realization rate of 85.17%. The Low-Income Portfolio impact evaluation resulted verified
savings that exceeded expected savings.
n The Evaluators attempted to estimate measure-level Low-Income Program energy savings
through billing analysis regression with a counterfactual group selected via propensity score
matching. The Evaluators attempted to isolate each unique measure. However, participation for
the Low-Income program resulted in a small number of customers with isolated measures and
therefore the Evaluators conducted a whole-home billing analysis for all the natural gas
measures combined in the Low-Income in order to estimate savings for the average household
participating in the program, across all measures. However, the billing analysis results were not
statistically significant. Therefore, the Evaluators found a realization rate of 85.17% from the
desk review with Avista TRM values.
n The Evaluators note that the deviations from 100% realization rate is due verifying 20% annual
household energy caps were properly applied. The Evaluators allowed full savings when the 20%
annual cap was not reached by the sum of all project savings for the service address. For instances
in which the 20% cap was met or exceeded, the Evaluators applied the appropriate cap to those
projects, weighted by measure.
1.2.2 Recommendations
The following section details the Evaluator’s recommendations resulting from the program evaluations
for each the Residential Portfolio and Low-Income Portfolio.
1.2.2.1 Residential Programs
The Evaluators offer the following recommendations regarding Avista’s Residential natural gas
programs:
n The Evaluators note instances found in which the web-based rebate data indicates the
household has electric space heating, but all other sources (project data and document
verification) indicate natural gas space heating, and vice versa. The Evaluators recommend
updating data collection standards in order for all sources of information to reflect the same
values as the project documentation.
n The Evaluators found that many projects claimed under the Small Home & MF Weatherization
Program exceed the "Small Home" definition from Avista - that a home is single family with less

Evaluation Report 10
than 1,000 SQFT or is a multifamily home (5 or more units). The Evaluators recommend claiming
projects on single family homes that are larger than 1,000 SQFT into the Shell Program.
n The Evaluators found expected savings to differ significantly for 7 of the 13 sampled projects in
the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program. The expected savings calculated for these
projects did not align with the values indicated in the Avista TRM. The Evaluators recommend
updating the CC&B database to correct for these issues.
n The gas measures rebated through the Appliances Program are not contained in the Avista TRM.
Therefore, the Evaluators applied savings for these projects by converting Avista TRM electric
savings to gas savings by dividing approved Avista TRM savings for the equipment by 29.3. This
application led to 85% realization for clothes dryers and 79% realization for clothes washers. The
Evaluators recommend Avista include savings estimates for these measures in the Avista TRM for
future evaluations.

1.2.2.2 Low-Income Programs
The Evaluators offer the following recommendations regarding Avista’s Low-Income natural gas
programs:
n The Evaluators note that the majority of deviations from 100% realization rate in the Low-Income
Program is due verifying 20% annual household energy caps were properly applied. The
Evaluators recommend verifying each of these values are documented and applied.

Evaluation Report 11
2. General Methodology
The Evaluators performed an impact evaluation on each of the programs summarized in Table 1-3. The
Evaluators used the following approaches to calculate energy impact defined by the International
Performance Measurement and Verification Protocols (IPMVP)4 and the Uniform Methods Project
(UMP)5:
n Simple verification (web-based surveys supplemented with phone surveys)
n Document verification (review project documentation)
n Deemed savings (RTF UES and Avista TRM values)
n Whole facility billing analysis (IPMVP Option C)
The Evaluators completed the above impact tasks for each the electric impacts and the natural gas
impacts for projects completed in the Idaho Avista service territory.
The M&V methodologies are program-specific and determined by previous Avista evaluation
methodologies as well as the relative contribution of a given program to the overall energy efficiency
impacts. Besides drawing on IPMVP, the Evaluators also reviewed relevant information on
infrastructure, framework, and guidelines set out for EM&V work in several guidebook documents that
have been published over the past several years. These include the following:
n Northwest Regional Technical Forum (RTF)6
n National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), United States Department of Energy (DOE) The
Uniform Methods Project (UMP): Methods for Determining Energy Efficiency Savings for Specific
Measures, April 20137
n International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) maintained by the
Efficiency Valuation Organization (EVO) with sponsorship by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)8
The Evaluators kept data collection instruments, calculation spreadsheets, and monitored/survey data
available for Avista records.
2.1 Glossary of Terminology
As a first step to detailing the evaluation methodologies, the Evaluators have provided a glossary of
terms to follow:
n Deemed Savings – An estimate of an energy savings outcome (gross savings) for a single unit of
an installed energy efficiency measure. This estimate (a) has been developed from data sources

4 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/31505.pdf
5 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70472.pdf
6 https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures
7 Notably, The Uniform Methods Project (UMP) includes the following chapters authored by ADM. Chapter 9 (Metering Cross-
Cutting Protocols) was authored by Dan Mort and Chapter 15 (Commercial New Construction Protocol) was Authored by Steven
Keates.
8 Core Concepts: International Measurement and Verification Protocol. EVO 100000 – 1:2016, October 2016.

Evaluation Report 12
and analytical methods that are widely accepted for the measure and purpose and (b) are
applicable to the situation being evaluated.
n Expected Savings – Calculated savings used for program and portfolio planning purposes.
n Adjusted Savings – Savings estimates after database review and document verification has been
completed using deemed unit-level savings provided in the Avista TRM. It adjusts for such factors
as data errors and installation rates.
n Verified Savings – Savings estimates after the updated unit-level savings values have been
updated and energy impact evaluation has been completed, integrating results from billing
analyses and appropriate RTF UES and Avista TRM values.
n Gross Savings – The change in energy consumption directly resulting from program-related
actions taken by participants in an efficiency program, regardless of why they participated.
n Free Rider – A program participant who would have implemented the program measure or
practice in absence of the program.
n Net-To-Gross – A factor representing net program savings divided by gross program savings that
is applied to gross program impacts to convert them into net program load impacts.
n Net Savings – The change in energy consumption directly resulting from program-related actions
taken by participants in an efficiency program, with adjustments to remove savings due to free
ridership.
n Non-Energy Benefits – Quantifiable impacts produced by program measures outside of energy
savings (comfort, health and safety, reduced alternative fuel, etc.).
n Non-Energy Impacts – Quantifiable impacts in energy efficiency beyond the energy savings gained
from installing energy efficient measures (reduced cost for operation and maintenance of
equipment, reduced environmental and safety costs, etc.).
2.2 Summary of Approach
This section presents our general cross-cutting approach to accomplishing the impact evaluation of
Avista’s Residential and Low-Income programs listed in Table 1-3. The Evaluators start by presenting our
general evaluation approach. This chapter is organized by general task due to several overlap across
programs. Section 3.3 describes the Evaluators’ program-specific residential impact evaluation methods
and results in further detail and Section 4.1 describes the Evaluator’s program-specific low-income
impact evaluation methods and results.
The Evaluators outline the approach to verifying, measuring, and reporting the residential portfolio
impacts as well as cost-effectiveness and summarizing potential program and portfolio improvements.
The primary objective of the impact evaluation is to determine ex-post verified net energy savings. On-
site verification and equipment monitoring was not conducted during this impact evaluation due to stay-
at-home orders due to the COVID19 pandemic.
Our general approach for this evaluation considers the cyclical feedback loop among program design,
implementation, and impact evaluation. Our activities during the evaluation estimate and verify annual
energy savings and identify whether a program is meeting its goals. These activities are aimed to provide
guidance for continuous program improvement and increased cost effectiveness for the 2022 and 2023
program years.

Evaluation Report 13
The Evaluators employed the following approach to complete impact evaluation activities for the
programs. The Evaluators define two major approaches to determining net savings for Avista’s
programs:
n A Deemed Savings approach involves using stipulated savings for energy conservation measures
for which savings values are well-known and documented. These prescriptive savings may also
include an adjustment for certain measures, such as lighting measures in which site operating
hours may differ from RTF values.
n A Billing Analysis approach involves estimating energy savings by applying a linear regression to
measured participant energy consumption utility meter billing data. Billing analyses included
billing data from nonparticipant customers. This approach does not require on-site data collection
for model calibration. This approach aligns with the IPMVP Option C.
The Evaluators accomplished the following quantitative goals as part of the impact evaluation:
n Verify savings with 10% precision at the 90% confidence level;
n Where appropriate, apply the RTF to verify measure impacts; and
n Where available data exists, conduct billing analysis with a suitable comparison group to estimate
measure savings.
For each program, the Evaluators calculated adjusted savings for each measure based on the Avista TRM
and results from the database review. The Evaluators calculated verified savings for each measure based
on the RTF UES, Avista TRM, or billing analysis in combination with the results from document review.
For the HVAC, Water Heat, and Fuel Efficiency programs, the Evaluators also applied in-service rates
(ISRs) from verification surveys.

The Evaluators assigned methodological rigor level for each measure and program based on its
contribution to the portfolio savings and availability of data.
The Evaluators analyzed billing data for all natural gas measure participants in the HVAC and Low-
Income programs. The Evaluators applied billing analysis results to determine evaluated savings only for
measures where savings could be isolated (that is, where a sufficient number of participants could be
identified who installed only that measure). Program-level realization rates for the HVAC, Water Heat,
and Fuel Efficiency programs incorporate billing analysis results for some measures.
2.2.1 Database Review
At the outset of the evaluation, the Evaluators reviewed the databases to ensure that each program
tracking database conforms to industry standards and adequately tracks key data required for
evaluation.
Reported
Savings
Database
Review
Adjusted
savings
Document
Review
Evaluated
Savings

Evaluation Report 14
Measure-level net savings were evaluated primarily by reviewing measure algorithms and values in the
tracking system to assure that they are appropriately applied using the Avista TRM. The Evaluators then
aggregated and cross-check program and measure totals.
The Evaluators reviewed program application documents for a sample of incented measures to verify
the tracking data accurately represents the program documents. The Evaluators ensured the home
installed measures that meet or exceed program efficiency standards.
2.2.2 Verification Methodology
The Evaluators verified a sample of participating households for detailed review of the installed measure
documentation and development of verified savings. The Evaluators verified tracking data by reviewing
invoices and surveying a sample of participant customer households. The Evaluators also conducted a
verification survey for program participants.
The Evaluators used the following equations to estimate sample size requirements for each program and
fuel type. Required sample sizes were estimated as follows:
Equation 2-1 Sample Size for Infinite Sample Size
𝑛= $𝑍× 𝐶𝑉
𝑑*
!

Equation 2-2 Sample Size for Finite Population Size
𝑛"= 𝑛
1 +-𝑛𝑁/
Where,
n n = Sample size
n 𝑍 = Z-value for a two-tailed distribution at the assigned confidence level.
n 𝐶𝑉 = Coefficient of variation
n 𝑑 = Precision level
n 𝑁 = Population
For a sample that provides 90/10 precision, Z = 1.645 (the critical value for 90% confidence) and d = 0.10
(or 10% precision). The remaining parameter is CV, or the expected coefficient of variation of measures
for which the claimed savings may be accepted. A CV of .5 was assumed for residential programs due to
the homogeneity of participation9, which yields a sample size of 68 for an infinite population. Sample
sizes were adjusted for smaller populations via the method detailed in Equation 2-2.

9 Assumption based off California Evaluation Framework:
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUC_Public_Website/Content/Utilities_and_Industries/Energy/Energy_Programs/De
mand_Side_Management/EE_and_Energy_Savings_Assist/CAEvaluationFramework.pdf

Evaluation Report 15
The following sections describe the Evaluator’s methodology for conducting document-based
verification and survey-based verification.
2.2.2.1 Document-Based Verification
The Evaluators requested rebate documentation for a subset of participating customers. These
documents included invoices, rebate applications, pictures, and AHRI certifications for the following
programs:
n Water Heat Program
n HVAC Program
n Shell Program
n Fuel Efficiency Program
n ENERGY STAR® Homes Program
n Small Home & MF Weatherization Program
n Appliances Program
n Low-Income Program
This sample of documents was used to cross-verify tracking data inputs. In the case the Evaluators found
any deviations between the tracking data and application values, the Evaluators reported and
summarized those differences in the Database Review sections presented for each program in Section
3.3 and Section 4.1.
The Evaluators developed a sampling plan that achieves a sampling precision of ±10% at 90% statistical
confidence – or “90/10 precision” – to estimate the percentage of projects for which the claimed savings
are verified or require some adjustment.
The Evaluators developed the following samples for each program’s document review using Equation
2-1 and Equation 2-2. The Evaluators ensured representation in each state and fuel type for each
measure.
Table 2-1: Document-based Verification Samples and Precision by Program
Sector Program Gas
Population
Sample
(With Finite
Population
Adjustment)*
Precision at
90% CI
Residential Water Heat 1230 66 ±9.9%
Residential HVAC 9193 70 ±9.8%
Residential Shell 1715 72 ±9.5%
Residential ENERGY STAR® Homes 8 8 ±0.0%
Residential Small Home & MF
Weatherization 66 36 ±9.3%
Residential Appliances 253 55 ±9.8%
Residential AeroBarrier N/A N/A N/A
Low-Income Low-Income 516 102 ±7.3%
*Assumes sample size of 68 for an infinite population, based on CV (coefficient of variation) = 0.5, d (precision) = 10%, Z (critical
value for 90% confidence) = 1.645.

Evaluation Report 16
The table above represents the number of rebates in both Washington and Idaho territories. The
Evaluators ensured representation of state and fuel type in the sampled rebates for document
verification.
2.2.2.2 Survey-Based Verification
The Evaluators conducted survey-based verification for the Water Heat Program, HVAC Program, and
Appliances Program. The primary purpose of conducting a verification survey is to confirm that the
measure was installed and is still currently operational and whether the measure was early retirement
or replace-on-burnout.
The Evaluators summarize the final sample sizes shown in Table 2-2 for the Water Heat, HVAC, and
Appliances Programs for the Idaho Gas Avista projects. The Evaluators developed a sampling plan that
achieved a sampling precision of ±4.24% at 90% statistical confidence for ISRs estimates at the measure-
level during web-based survey verification.
Table 2-2: Survey-Based Verification Sample and Precision by Program
Sector Program Population Respondents Precision
at 90% CI
Residential Water Heat 1,230 66 ±9.9%
Residential HVAC 9,193 117 ±7.6%
Residential Appliances 253 65 ±8.8%
Total 10,676 248 ±5.2%

The Evaluators implemented a web-based survey to complete the verification surveys. The Evaluators
supplemented with phone interviews to reach the 90/10 precision goal. The findings from these
activities served to estimate ISRs for each measure surveyed. These ISRs were applied to verification
sample desk review rebates towards verified savings, which were then applied to the population of
rebates. The measure-level ISRs resulting from the survey-based verification are summarized in Section
3.1.
2.2.3 Impact Evaluation Methodology
The Evaluators employed the following approach to complete impact evaluation activities for the
programs. The Evaluators define two major approaches to determining net savings for Avista’s
programs:
n Deemed Savings
n Billing Analysis (IPMVP Option C)
In the following sections, the Evaluators summarize the general guidelines and activities followed to
conduct each of the above analyses.
2.2.3.1 Deemed Savings
This section summarizes the deemed savings analysis method the Evaluators employed for the
evaluation of a subset of measures for each program. The Evaluators completed the validation for
specific measures across each program using the RTF unit energy savings (UES) values, where available.

Evaluation Report 17
The Evaluators ensured the proper measure unit savings were recorded and used in the calculation of
Avista’s ex-ante measure savings. The Evaluators requested and used the technical reference manual
Avista employed during calculation of ex-ante measure savings (Avista TRM). The Evaluators
documented any cases where recommend values differed from the specific unit energy savings
workbooks used by Avista.
In cases where the RTF has existing unit energy savings (UES) applicable to Avista’s measures, the
Evaluators verified the quantity and quality of installations and apply the RTF’s UES to determine
verified savings.
2.2.3.2 Billing Analysis
This section describes the billing analysis methodology employed by the Evaluators as part of the impact
evaluation and measurement of energy savings for measures with sufficient participation. The Evaluators
performed billing analyses with a matched control group and utilized a quasi-experimental method of
producing a post-hoc control group. In program designs where treatment and control customers are not
randomly selected at the outset, such as for downstream rebate programs, quasi-experimental designs
are required.
For the purposes of this analysis, a household is considered a treatment household if it has received a
program incentive. Additionally, a household is considered a control household if the household has not
received a program incentive. To isolate measure impacts, treatment households are eligible to be
included in the billing analysis if they installed only one measure during the 2019 and 2021 program
years. Isolation of individual measures are necessary to provide valid measure-level savings. Households
that installed more than one measure may display interactive energy savings effects across multiple
measures that are not feasibly identifiable. Therefore, instances where households installed isolated
measures are used in the billing analyses. In addition, the pre-period identifies the period prior to
measure installation while the post-period refers to the period following measure installation.
The Evaluators utilized propensity score matching (PSM) to match nonparticipants to similar participants
using pre-period billing data. PSM allows the evaluators to find the most similar household based on the
customers’ billed consumption trends in the pre-period and verified with statistical difference testing.
After matching based on these variables, the billing data for treatment and control groups are
compared, as detailed in IPMVP Option C. The Evaluators fit regression models to estimate weather-
dependent daily consumption differences between participating customer and nonparticipating
customer households.
Cohort Creation
The PSM approach estimates a propensity score for treatment and control customers using a logistic
regression model. A propensity score is a metric that summarizes several dimensions of household
characteristics into a single metric that can be used to group similar households. The Evaluators created
a post-hoc control group by compiling billing data from a subset of nonparticipants in the Avista territory
to compare against treatment households using quasi-experimental methods. This allowed the
Evaluators to select from a large group of similar households that have not installed an incented
measure. With this information, the Evaluators created statistically valid matched control groups for
each measure via seasonal pre-period usage. The Evaluators matched customers in the control group to

Evaluation Report 18
customers in the treatment group based on nearest seasonal pre-period usage (e.g., summer, spring,
fall, and winter) and exact 3-digit zip code matching (the first three digits of the five-digit zip code). After
matching, the Evaluators conducted a t-test for each month in the pre-period to help determine the
success of PSM.
While it is not possible to guarantee the creation of a sufficiently matched control group, this method is
preferred because it is likely to have more meaningful results than a treatment-only analysis. Some
examples of outside variables that a control group can sufficiently control for are changes in economies
and markets, large-scale social changes, or impacts from weather-related anomalies such as flooding or
hurricanes. This is particularly relevant in 2021 due to COVID-19 related lockdowns and restrictions.
After PSM, the Evaluators ran the following regression models for each measure:
n Fixed effect Difference-in-Difference (D-n-D) regression model (recommended in UMP
protocols)10
n Random effects post-program regression model (PPR) (recommended in UMP protocols)
n Gross billing analysis (treatment only)
The second model listed above (PPR) was selected because it had the best fit for the data, identified
using the adjusted R-squared. Further details on regression model specifications can be found below.
Data Collected
The following lists the data collected for the billing analysis:
1. Monthly billing data for program participants (treatment customers)
2. Monthly billing data for a group of non-program participants (control customers)
3. Program tracking data, including customer identifiers, address, and date of measure installation
4. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather data between January 1, 2018
and December 31, 2021)
5. Typical Meteorological Year (TMY3) data
Billing and weather data were obtained for program year 2021 and for one year prior to measure install
dates (2020).
Weather data was obtained from the nearest weather station with complete data during the analysis
years for each customer by mapping the weather station location with the customer zip code.
TMY weather stations were assigned to NOAA weather stations by geocoding the minimum distance
between each set of latitude and longitude points. This data is used for extrapolating savings to long-
run, 30-year average weather.
Data Preparation
The following steps were taken to prepare the billing data:
1. Gathered billing data for homes that participated in the program.

10 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Uniform Methods Project (UMP) Chapter 17 Section 4.4.7.

Evaluation Report 19
2. Excluded participant homes that also participated in the other programs, if either program
disqualifies the combination of any other rebate or participation.
3. Gathered billing data for similar customers that did not participate in the program in evaluation.
4. Excluded bills missing address information.
5. Removed bills missing fuel type/Unit of Measure (UOM).
6. Removed bills missing usage, billing start date, or billing end date.
7. Remove bills with outlier durations (<9 days or >60 days).
8. Excluded bills with consumption indicated to be outliers.
9. Calendarized bills (recalculates bills, usage, and total billed such that bills begin and end at the
start and end of each month).
10. Obtained weather data from nearest NOAA weather station using 5-digit zip code per household.
11. Computed Heating Degree Days (HDD) and Cooling Degree Days (CDD) for a range of setpoints.
The Evaluators assigned a setpoint of 65°F for both HDD and CDD. The Evaluators tested and
selected the optimal temperature base for HDDs and CDDs based on model R-squared values.
12. Selected treatment customers with only one type of measure installation during the analysis years
and combined customer min/max install dates with billing data (to define pre- and post-periods).
13. Restricted to treatment customers with install dates in specified range (typically January 1, 2021
through June 30, 2021) to allow for sufficient post-period billing data.
14. Restricted to control customers with usage less than or equal to two times the maximum observed
treatment group usage. This has the effect of removing control customers with incomparable
usage relative to the treatment group.
15. Removed customers with incomplete post-period bills (<4 months).
16. Removed customers with incomplete pre-period bills.
17. Restricted control customers to those with usage that was comparable with the treatment group
usage.
18. Created a matched control group using PSM and matching on pre-period seasonal usage and zip
code.
Regression Models
The Evaluators ran the following models for matched treatment and control customers for each
measure with sufficient participation. For net savings, the Evaluators selected either Model 1 or Model
2. The model with the best fit (highest adjusted R-squared) was selected. The Evaluators utilized Model
3 to estimate gross energy savings.
Model 1: Fixed Effects Difference-in-Difference Regression Model
The following equation displays the first model specification to estimate the average daily savings due to
the measure.

Evaluation Report 20
Equation 2-3: Fixed Effects Difference-in-Difference (D-n-D) Model Specification
𝐴𝐷𝐶#$=𝛼"+𝛽%(𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡)#$+𝛽!(𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡× 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡)#$+𝛽&(𝐻𝐷𝐷)#$+𝛽'(𝐶𝐷𝐷)#$
+𝛽((𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡× 𝐻𝐷𝐷)#$+𝛽)(𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡× 𝐶𝐷𝐷)#$+𝛽*(𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡× 𝐻𝐷𝐷× 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡)#$
+𝛽+(𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡× 𝐶𝐷𝐷× 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡)#$+𝛽,(𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ)$+𝛽%"(𝐶𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑦)#+𝜀#$
Where,
n i = the ith household
n t = the first, second, third, etc. month of the post-treatment period
n 𝐴𝐷𝐶#$ = Average daily usage reading t for household i during the post-treatment period
n 𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡#$ = A dummy variable indicating pre- or post-period designation during period t
at home i
n 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡# = A dummy variable indicating treatment status of home i
n 𝐻𝐷𝐷#$ = Average heating degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during
period t at home i
n 𝐶𝐷𝐷#$ = Average cooling degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during period t
at home i (if electric usage)
n 𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ$= A set of dummy variables indicating the month during period t
n 𝐶𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑦# = a customer-specific dummy variable isolating individual household
effects
n 𝜀#$ = The error term
n 𝛼"= The model intercept
n 𝛽%-%" = Coefficients determined via regression
The Average Daily Consumption (ADC) is calculated as the total monthly billed usage divided by the
duration of the bill month. 𝛽! represents the average change in daily baseload in the post-period
between the treatment and control group and 𝛽* and 𝛽+ represent the change in weather-related daily
consumption in the post-period between the groups. Typical monthly and annual savings were
estimated by extrapolating the 𝛽* and 𝛽+ coefficients with Typical Meteorological Year (TMY) HDD and
CDD data. However, in the case of gas usage, only the coefficient for HDD is utilized because CDDs were
not included in the regression model.
The equation below displays how savings were extrapolated for a full year utilizing the coefficients in the
regression model and TMY data. TMY data is weighted by the number of households assigned to each
weather station.
Equation 2-4: Savings Extrapolation
𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠= 𝛽!∗365.25 +𝛽*∗𝑇𝑀𝑌 𝐻𝐷𝐷+𝛽+∗𝑇𝑀𝑌 𝐶𝐷𝐷
Model 2: Random Effects Post-Program Regression Model
The following equation displays the second model specification to estimate the average daily savings
due to the measure. The post-program regression (PPR) model combines both cross-sectional and time
series data in a panel dataset. This model uses only the post-program data, with lagged energy use for
the same calendar month of the pre-program period acting as a control for any small systematic

Evaluation Report 21
differences between the treatment and control customers; in particular, energy use in calendar month t
of the post-program period is framed as a function of both the participant variable and energy use in the
same calendar month of the pre-program period. The underlying logic is that systematic differences
between treatment and control customers will be reflected in the differences in their past energy use,
which is highly correlated with their current energy use. These interaction terms allow pre-program
usage to have a different effect on post-program usage in each calendar month.
The model specification is as follows:
Equation 2-5: Post-Program Regression (PPR) Model Specification
𝐴𝐷𝐶#$=𝛼"+𝛽%(𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡)#+𝛽! (𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒)#+𝛽& (𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑆𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑟)#+𝛽'(𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟)#+𝛽((𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ)$+𝛽)(𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ× 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒)#$+𝛽*(𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ× 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑆𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑟)#$+𝛽+(𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ× 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟)#$
+𝛽,(𝐻𝐷𝐷)#$+𝛽%"(𝐶𝐷𝐷)#$+𝛽%%(𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡× 𝐻𝐷𝐷)#$+𝛽%!(𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡× 𝐶𝐷𝐷)#$
+𝜀#$
Where,
n i = the ith household
n t = the first, second, third, etc. month of the post-treatment period
n 𝐴𝐷𝐶#$ = Average daily usage for reading t for household i during the post-treatment period
n 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡# = A dummy variable indicating treatment status of home i
n 𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ$ = Dummy variable indicating month of month t
n 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒# = Average daily usage across household i’s available pre-treatment billing reads
n 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑆𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑟# = Average daily usage in the summer months across household i’s
available pretreatment billing reads
n 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟# = Average daily usage in the winter months across household i’s available
pre-treatment billing reads
n 𝐻𝐷𝐷#$ = Average heating degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during
period t at home i
n 𝐶𝐷𝐷#$ = Average cooling degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during period t
at home i (if electric usage)
n 𝜀#$ = Customer-level random error
n 𝛼"= The model intercept for home i
n 𝛽%-%! = Coefficients determined via regression
The coefficient 𝛽% represents the average change in consumption between the pre-period and post-
period for the treatment group and 𝛽%% and 𝛽%! represent the change in weather-related daily
consumption in the post-period between the groups. Typical monthly and annual savings were
estimated by extrapolating the 𝛽%% and 𝛽%! coefficients with Typical Meteorological Year (TMY) HDD and
CDD data.
The equation below displays how savings were extrapolated for a full year utilizing the coefficients in the
regression model and TMY data.

Evaluation Report 22
Equation 2-6: Savings Extrapolation
𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠= 𝛽%∗365.25 +𝛽%%∗𝑇𝑀𝑌 𝐻𝐷𝐷+𝛽%!∗𝑇𝑀𝑌 𝐶𝐷𝐷
Model 3: Gross Billing Analysis, Treatment-Only Regression Model
The sections above detail the Evaluator’s methodology for estimating net energy savings for each
measure. The results from the above methodology report net savings due to the inclusion of the
counterfactual comparison group. However, for planning purposes, it is useful to estimate gross savings
for each measure. To estimate gross savings, the Evaluators employed a similar regression model;
however, only including participant customer billing data. This analysis does not include control group
billing data and therefore models energy reductions between the pre-period and post-period for the
measure participants (treatment customers).
To calculate the impacts of each measure, the Evaluators applied linear fixed effects regression using
participant billing data with weather controls in the form of Heating Degree Days (HDD) and Cooling
Degree Days (CDD). The following equation displays the model specification to estimate the average
daily savings due to the measure.
Equation 2-7: Treatment-Only Fixed Effects Weather Model Specification
𝐴𝐷𝐶#$=𝛼"+𝛽%(𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡)#$+𝛽!(𝐻𝐷𝐷)#$+𝛽&(𝐶𝐷𝐷)#$+𝛽'(𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡× 𝐻𝐷𝐷)#$+𝛽((𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡× 𝐶𝐷𝐷)#$+𝛽)(𝐶𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑦)#+𝛽*(𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ)$+𝜀#$
Where,
n i = the ith household
n t = the first, second, third, etc. month of the post-treatment period
n 𝐴𝐷𝐶#$ = Average daily usage for reading t for household i during the post-treatment period
n 𝐻𝐷𝐷#$ = Average heating degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during
period t at home i
n 𝐶𝐷𝐷#$ = Average cooling degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during period t
at home i (if electric usage)
n 𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡#$ = A dummy variable indicating pre- or post-period designation during period t at
home i
n 𝐶𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑦# = a customer-specific dummy variable isolating individual household
effects
n 𝜀#$ = Customer-level random error
n 𝛼"= The model intercept for home i
n 𝛽%-) = Coefficients determined via regression
The results of the treatment-only regression models are gross savings estimates. The gross savings
estimates are useful to compare against the net savings estimates. However, the treatment-only models
are unable to separate the effects of the COVID19 pandemic. The post-period for PY2021 and perhaps
also PY2021 are affected by the stay-at-home orders that had taken effect starting March 2021 in Idaho.
The stay-at-home orders most likely affect the post-period household usage. Because there is
insufficient post-period data before the shelter-in-place orders, the Evaluators were unable to separate
the effects on consumption due to the orders and the effects on consumption due to the measure

Evaluation Report 23
installation. Therefore, the results from this additional gross savings analysis are unable to reflect actual
typical year savings. However, for planning purposes, these estimates may be useful.
2.2.4 Net-To-Gross
The Northwest RTF UES measures do not require NTG adjustments as they are built into the deemed
savings estimates. In addition, billing analyses with counterfactual control groups, as proposed in our
impact methodology, does not require a NTG adjustment, as the counterfactual represents the
efficiency level at current market (i.e. the efficiency level the customer would have installed had they
not participated in the program).
2.2.5 Non-Energy Benefits
The Evaluators used the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) to quantify non-energy benefits (NEBs) for
residential measures with established RTF values where available. Measures with quantified NEBs
include residential insulation, high efficiency windows, air source heat pumps, and ductless heat pumps.
In addition to the residential NEBs, the Evaluators applied the end-use non-energy benefit and health
and human safety non-energy benefit to the Low-Income Program. The Evaluators understand that the
two major non-energy benefits referenced above are uniquely applicable to the Low-Income Program.
The Evaluators applied those benefits to the program impacts as well as additional non-energy benefits
associated with individual measures included in the program. The Evaluators incorporated additional
NEBs to the impact evaluation, as applicable. Additional details on the non-energy benefits applied can
be found in Section 2.2.5.

Work Plan 24
3. Residential Impact Evaluation Results
The Evaluators completed an impact evaluation on Avista’s Residential portfolio to verify program-level
and measure-level energy savings for PY2021. The following sections summarize findings for each
natural gas impact evaluation in the Residential Portfolio in the Idaho service territory. The Evaluators
used data collected and reported in the tracking database, online application forms, Avista TRM, RTF,
and billing analysis of participants and nonparticipants to evaluate savings. This approach provided the
strongest estimate of achieved savings practical for each program, given its delivery method, magnitude
of savings, number of participants, and availability of data. Table 3-1 summarizes the Residential verified
impact savings by program.
Table 3-1: Residential Verified Impact Savings by Program
Program
Expected
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Realization
Rate
Water Heat 41,972.20 41,972.20 100.00%
HVAC 212,961.56 212,647.17 99.85%
Shell 18,236.15 18,214.05 99.88%
ENERGY STAR Homes 669.90 669.90 100.00%
Small Home & MF
Weatherization 547.42 2,300.90 420.32%
Appliances 314.05 252.64 80.44%
AeroBarrier 3,497.63 0.00 -
Total Res 274,701.28 276,056.86 100.49%

In PY2021, Avista completed and provided incentives for residential natural gas measures in Idaho and
reported total natural gas savings of 276,056.86 Therms. All programs except the Appliances Program
met savings goals based on reported savings, leading to an overall achievement of 100.49% of the
expected savings for the residential programs. Further details of the impact evaluation results by
program are provided in the sections following.
3.1 Simple Verification Results
The Evaluators surveyed 305 unique customers that participated in Avista’s residential energy efficiency
program from September-October 2021 and in February 2022 using an email survey approach. The
Evaluators also conducted targeted follow-up outreach to customers for certain measures.
The Evaluators surveyed customers that received rebates for HVAC, Water Heater, and Appliance
Programs.

Evaluation Report 25

Table 3-2: Summary of Survey Response Rate
Population Respondents
Initial email contact list 1,376
Invalid or bounced 53
Invalid or bounced email (%) 4%
Invitations sent (unique valid) 1,323
Completions 302
Response rate (%) 23%

3.1.1 In-Service Rates
The Evaluators calculated in-service rates of installed measures from simple verification surveys
deployed to program participants for the Water Heat and HVAC Programs. The Fuel Efficiency program
was surveyed for the electric measures; the sample is provided in the Idaho Electric Impact Evaluation
report and does not contribute to the precision for the Idaho Gas impacts. The Evaluators asked
participants if the rebated equipment is currently installed and working, in addition to questions about
the new equipment fuel type. The Evaluators achieved ±5.2% precision across the programs surveyed
for the natural gas measures in Avista’s service territory, summarized in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3: Simple Verification Precision by Program
Sector Program Population Respondents Precision
at 90% CI
Residential Water Heat 1,230 66 ±9.9%
Residential HVAC 9,193 117 ±7.6%
Residential Appliances 253 65 ±8.8%
Total 10,676 248 ±5.2%

The measure-level ISRs determined from the verification survey for each program in which simple
verification was conducted is presented in the tables below.
Table 3-4: Water Heat Program ISRs by Measure
Measure Respondents ISR
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas Water Heater 12 100.00%
G Tankless Water Heater 54 100.00%

Evaluation Report 26

Table 3-5: HVAC Program ISRs by Measure
Measure Respondents ISR
G Natural Gas Boiler 4 100.00%
G Natural Gas Furnace 56 98.21%
G Smart Thermostat DIY with Natural
Gas Heat 14 100.00%
G Smart Thermostat Paid Install with
Natural Gas Heat 43 100.00%
Table 3-6: Appliances Program ISRs by Measure
Measure Respondents ISR
G Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer 27 100.00%
G Energy Star Rated Front Load Washer 38 97.37%
These ISR values were utilized in the desk reviews for the Water Heat, HVAC, and Appliances Programs
in order to calculate verified savings. Additional insights from the survey responses are summarized in
Appendix B.
3.2 Impacts of COVID-19 Pandemic
On average, about three people lived at the residence that had the rebated equipment installed and
65% of respondents said that two or fewer lived at the residence that had the rebated equipment
installed.
Two-thirds of respondents observed that the pandemic had not changed the number of people in their
household that worked or went to school remotely.11 Eighteen percent of respondents said that more
members of their household were attending school remotely or working from home since the COVID-19
pandemic began. Sixteen percent of respondents indicated that more members of their household had
gone to work or school remotely before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sixty-four percent of respondents said that the amount of time they spend at home has increased since
the COVID-19 pandemic began. Thirty-seven percent of respondents indicated that their utility bill had
increased. Figure 3-1 displays the change in amount of time spent at home and electricity bills since the
COVID-19 pandemic began.

11 n=257

Evaluation Report 27

Figure 3-1: Change in amount of time spent at home and electricity bill since COVID-19 pandemic began

3.3 Program-Level Impact Evaluation Results
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Residential sector in the section below.
3.3.1 Water Heat Program
The Water Heat Program encourages customers to replace their existing electric or natural gas water
heater with high efficiency equipment. Customers receive incentives after installation and after
submitting a completed rebate form. Table 3-7 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-7: Water Heat Program Measures
Measure Description
Impact
Analysis
Methodology
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas Water Heater Storage tank natural gas water heater, 50 gallons or
less Avista TRM
G Tankless Water Heater Tankless natural gas water heater Avista TRM
The following table summarizes the verified natural gas savings for the Water Heat Program impact
evaluation.
Table 3-8: Water Heat Program Verified Natural Gas Savings
Measure PY2021
Participation
Expected
Savings
(Therms)
Adjusted
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Realization
Rate
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas Water Heater 28 632.20 610.40 632.20 100.00%
G Tankless Water Heater 534 41,340.00 41,652.00 41,340.00 100.00%
Total 562 41,972.20 42,262.40 41,972.20 100.00%

Evaluation Report 28

The Water Heat Program displayed verified savings of 41,972.20 Therms with a realization rate of
100.00% against the expected savings for the program. The following table summarizes the incentive
costs from the program.
Table 3-9: Water Heat Program Costs
Measure Incentive
Costs
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas Water Heater $2,900.00
G Tankless Water Heater $213,200.00
Total $216,100.00
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Water Heat Program in the section below.
3.3.1.1 Database Review & Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator’s database review and document verification findings for
the Water Heat Program.
3.3.1.2 Database Review & Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Water Heat
Program. The Evaluators selected a subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data inputs,
summarized in Section 2.2.2.1.
The Evaluators found all Water Heat Program rebates to have completed rebate applications with the
associated water heater model number and efficiency values filled in either the Customer Care & Billing
(CC&B) web rebate data or mail-in rebate applications.
In addition, the Evaluators note that the CC&B web rebate data reflected consistent values between the
mail-in rebate applications, invoices, and AHRI certification documents submitted with the rebate
application. The Evaluators found no deviations in any project rebated through the program.
The Evaluators found all sampled rebate equipment met or exceeded the measure efficiency
requirements for the Water Heat Program.
3.3.1.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators randomly selected a subset of participant customers to survey for simple verification of
installed measure. The Evaluators included questions such as:
n Was this water heater a new construction, or did it replace another water heater?
n Was the previous water heater functional?
n Is the newly installed water heater still properly functioning?
In addition, the Evaluators asked participants how the COVID19 pandemic stay-at-home orders have
affected their household’s energy consumption. The responses to this verification survey were used to
calculate ISRs for the measures offered in the Water Heat Program.

Evaluation Report 29

Table 3-10 displays the ISRs for each of the Water Heat measures for Idaho and Washington territory
combined.
Table 3-10: Water Heat Verification Survey ISR Results
Measure Number of
Rebates*
Number of
Survey
Completes
Program-Level
Precision at 90%
Confidence
In-Service Rate
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas
Water Heater 177 12 ±9.9%* 100%
G Tankless Water Heater 1,053 54 100%
*This count includes rebates from Washington and Idaho
All survey respondents for each water heater measure described equipment to be currently functioning,
leading to a 100% ISR. The Evaluators applied these ISRs to each rebate to quantify verified savings for
each measure.
3.3.1.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Water Heat Program. The Evaluators
conducted a billing analysis for measures where participation allowed. The Evaluators calculated verified
savings for the remaining measures using active values from the Avista TRM workbook. These values
were applied to a random sample of participants, with verification of project documents such as rebate
applications to verify installation, quantity, and efficiency of the equipment.
3.3.1.5 Billing Analysis
The results of the billing analysis for the Water Heat Program are provided in this section. The
methodology for the billing analysis is provided in Section 2.2.3.2.
Table 3-11 displays customer counts for customers considered for billing analysis (i.e. customer with
single-measure installations) and identifies measures that met the requirements for a billing analysis.
Table 3-11: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Water Heat Program
Measure
Measure
Considered for
Billing Analysis
Number of
Customers w/
Isolated-Measure
Installations
Sufficient
Participation
for Billing
Analysis
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas Water Heater ü 107 ü
G Tankless Gas Water Heater ü 399 ü
*This count includes rebates from Washington and Idaho
The Evaluators were provided a considerable pool of control customers to draw upon. The Evaluators
used nearest neighbor matching with a 5 to 1 matching ratio. Therefore, each treatment customer was
matched to 5 similar control customers. The final number of customers in each the treatment and
control group are listed in Table 3-12.
The Evaluators performed three tests to determine the success of PSM:
1. t-test on pre-period usage by month
2. Joint chi-square test to determine if any covariates are imbalanced

Evaluation Report 30

3. Standardized difference test for each covariate employed in matching
All tests confirmed that PSM performed well for each measure and the Evaluators conducted a linear
regression using the matched participant and nonparticipant monthly billing data.
Table 3-12 provides annual savings per customer for each measure. Model 2 (PPR) was selected as the
final model for the Water Heat Program as it provided the highest adjusted R-squared among the
regression models. However, savings for each the G 50 Gallon Natural Gas Water Heater and the G
Tankless Water Heater are not statistically significant at the 90% level.
Table 3-12: Measure Savings, Water Heat Program
Measure Treatment
Customers
Control
Customers
Annual
Savings
per
Customer
(Therms)
90%
Lower
CI
90%
Upper
CI
Adjusted
R-
Squared
Model
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas Water
Heater 65 325 37.79* -16.23 91.81 0.89 Model 2:
PPR
G Tankless Water Heater 203 1,013 -3.65* -25.62 18.32 0.82 Model 2:
PPR
*Not statistically significant
Because the results from these two billing analyses are inconclusive, the Evaluators elected to utilize
Avista TRM values to estimate verified savings for these measures. The findings from the PY2021 billing
analyses for these measures may have been impacted by the COVID19 pandemic. Further details of the
billing analysis for the variable speed motor measure can be found Appendix A.
3.3.1.6 Verified Savings
The Evaluators reviewed and applied the current Avista TRM values along with verified tracking data to
estimate net program savings for this measure. The verified savings for the program is 41,972.20 Therms
with a realization rate of 100.00%, as displayed in Table 3-8.
The realization rate for the natural gas savings in the Water Heat Program did not deviate from 100% for
the either of the measures. The Evaluators have no recommendations for this program.
3.3.2 HVAC Program
The HVAC program encourages installation of high efficiency HVAC equipment and smart thermostats
through customer incentives. The program is available to residential electric or natural gas customers
with a winter heating season usage of 4,000 or more kWh, or at least 160 Therms of space heating in the
prior year. Existing or new construction homes are eligible to participate in the program. Table 3-13
summarizes the measures offered under this program.

Evaluation Report 31

Table 3-13: HVAC Program Measures
Measure Description Impact Analysis
Methodology
G Natural Gas Boiler Natural gas boiler Avista TRM
G Natural Gas Furnace Natural gas forced air furnace IPMVP Option A
with billing data
G Natural Gas Wall Heater Natural gas wall heater Avista TRM
G Smart Thermostat DIY with
Natural Gas Heat
Professionally installed connected
thermostats in natural gas-heated home Avista TRM
G Smart Thermostat Paid Install
with Natural Gas Heat
Variable speed motor in natural gas-
heated home Avista TRM
The following table summarizes the verified natural gas savings for the HVAC Program impact
evaluation.
Table 3-14: HVAC Program Verified Natural Gas Savings
Measure PY2021
Participation
Expected
Savings
(Therms)
Adjusted
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Realization
Rate
G Natural Gas Boiler 32 3,596.80 3,596.80 3,596.80 100.00%
G Natural Gas Furnace 2,009 163,891.62 141,718.88 163,570.50 99.80%
G Smart Thermostat DIY with
Natural Gas Heat 309 8,374.68 8,350.42 8,375.92 100.01%
G Smart Thermostat Paid Install
with Natural Gas Heat 1,367 37,098.46 36,941.81 37,103.95 100.01%
Total 3,717 212,961.56 190,607.90 212,647.17 99.85%
The HVAC Program displayed verified savings of 219,647.17 Therms with a realization rate of 99.85%
against the expected savings for the program. The following table summarizes the incentive costs
associated with the program.
Table 3-15: HVAC Program Costs
Measure Incentive Costs
G Natural Gas Boiler $14,400.00
G Natural Gas Furnace $904,950.00
G Smart Thermostat DIY with
Natural Gas Heat $37,116.95
G Smart Thermostat Paid Install
with Natural Gas Heat $205,895.22
Total $1,162,362.17
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the HVAC Program in the section below.
3.3.2.1 Database Review & Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator’s database review and document verification findings for
the HVAC Program.

Evaluation Report 32

3.3.2.2 Database Review & Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the HVAC
Program. The Evaluators selected a random subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data
inputs, summarized in in Section 2.2.2.1.
The Evaluators found all HVAC Program rebates to have project documentation with the associated
HVAC model number and efficiency values in either the CC&B web rebate data or mail-in rebate
applications. In addition, all projects contained associated AHRI certifications, allowing the Evaluators to
easily verify model specifications.
3.3.2.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators randomly selected a subset of participant customers to survey for simple verification of
installed measure described in Section 2.2.2.2. The Evaluators included questions such as:
n What type of thermostat did this thermostat replace?
n Is your home heating with electricity, natural gas, or another fuel?
n Was the previous equipment functional?
n Is the newly installed equipment still properly functioning?
The responses to this verification survey were used to calculate ISRs for the measures offered in the
HVAC Program. In addition, the Evaluators asked participants how the COVID19 pandemic stay-at-home
orders have affected their household’s energy consumption. The responses to these additional
questions can be found in Appendix A.
Table 3-16 displays the ISRs for each of the HVAC measures for Idaho and Washington natural gas
territory combined. The ISRs resulted in 7.6% precision at the 90% confidence interval for the program.
Table 3-16: HVAC Verification Survey ISR Results
Measure
Number
of
Rebates*
Number of
Survey
Completes
Precision
at 90%
Confidence
In-Service
Rate
G Natural Gas Boiler 81 25
±7.6%*
100%
G Natural Gas Furnace 4,840 4 98%
G Smart Thermostat DIY with Natural Gas Heat 1,197 56 100%
G Smart Thermostat Paid Install with Natural Gas
Heat 3,075 14 100%
G Natural Gas Boiler 81 25 100%
*This count includes rebates from Washington and Idaho
Survey respondents described equipment to be currently functioning, leading to a 100% ISR for all
measures except the G Natural Gas Furnace measure. The Evaluators applied the ISRs listed in Table
3-16 to each rebate to quantify verified savings for each measure.

Evaluation Report 33

3.3.2.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the HVAC Program. The Evaluators conducted a
billing analysis for measures where participation allowed, however, the results were inconclusive. The
Evaluators calculated verified savings for the remaining measures using active values from the Avista
TRM workbook. These values were applied to a random sample of participants, with verification of
project documents such as rebate applications to verify installation, quantity, and efficiency of the
equipment.
3.3.2.5 Billing Analysis
The results of the billing analysis for the HVAC program are provided in this section. The methodology
for the billing analysis is provided in Section 2.2.3.2.
Table 3-17 displays customer counts for customers considered for billing analysis (i.e. customer with
single-measure installations) and identifies measures that met the requirements for a billing analysis.
The customers considered for billing analysis include customers in both Washington and Idaho service
territories in order to gather the maximum number of customers possible for precise savings estimates.
Table 3-17: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, HVAC Program
Measure
Measure
Considered for
Billing Analysis
Number of
Customers w/
Isolated-Measure
Installations*
Sufficient
Participation
for Billing
Analysis
G Natural Gas Boiler ü 35
G Natural Gas Furnace ü 2,327 ü
G Natural Gas Wall Heater ü 0
G Smart Thermostat DIY with Natural Gas Heat ü 1,067 ü
G Smart Thermostat Paid Install with Natural Gas
Heat ü 1,077 ü
*This count includes rebates from Washington and Idaho
The Evaluators were provided a considerable pool of control customers to draw upon. The Evaluators
used nearest neighbor matching with a 5 to 1 matching ratio. Therefore, each treatment customer was
matched to 5 similar control customers. The final number of customers in each the treatment and
control group are listed in Table 3-18.
The Evaluators performed three tests to determine the success of PSM:
4. t-test on pre-period usage by month
5. Joint chi-square test to determine if any covariates are imbalanced
6. Standardized difference test for each covariate employed in matching
All tests confirmed that PSM performed well for each measure and the Evaluators conducted a linear
regression using the matched participant and nonparticipant monthly billing data.
Table 3-18 provides annual savings per customer for each measure. Model 2 (PPR) was selected as the
final model for the HVAC Program as it provided the highest adjusted R-squared among the regression
models. Savings are not statistically significant at the 90% level for the Smart Thermostat Paid Install and

Evaluation Report 34

Smart Thermostat DIY measures. However, savings were statistically significant at the 90% level for the
Natural Gas Furnace measure.
Table 3-18: Measure Savings, HVAC Program
Measure Treatment
Customers
Control
Customers
Annual
Savings per
Customer
(Therms)
90%
Lower
CI
90%
Upper
CI
Adjusted
R-Squared Model
G Natural Gas Furnace 671 3,347 16.97 9.82 24.13 0.92 Model 2: PPR
G Smart Thermostat Paid Install with Natural
Gas Heat 267 1,335 -7.59 -19.77 4.59 0.91 Model 2: PPR
G Smart Thermostat DIY with Natural Gas
Heat 272 1,354 3.12 -7.45 13.68 0.93 Model 2: PPR

Because the results from the two billing analyses for smart thermostats are not statistically significant,
the Evaluators elected to utilize Avista TRM values to estimate verified savings for these measures.
Further details of the billing analysis can be found Appendix A.
However, the Evaluators explored a retrofit isolation analysis for the G Natural Gas Furnace, which
indicated statistically significant savings and were used for verifying savings for this measure. Details for
this analysis are provided in the following section. Further details of the billing analysis can be found
Appendix A.
Retrofit Isolation Results
A retrofit isolation approach was used to estimate savings for Natural Gas Furnaces in addition to the
billing analysis. Because the retrofit isolation approach relies on extracting baseload usage estimate
from summer (June – August) billing data, the sample was restricted to customers with installations in
January, 2021 and 11 months of post installation data.
Table 3-19 presents the total number of customers and the number of sampled customers.
Table 3-19: Customer Counts for Natural Gas Furnaces, HVAC Program
Measure Data Restriction # of Treatment Customers
G Natural Gas Furnace Starting Count 2,327
11 Months of Post Data:2021-02-01 – 2021-12-31 160

Table 3-20 provides annual savings for Natural Gas Furnaces. The Evaluators estimate the G Natural Gas
Furnace measure to display an annual savings of 81.46 Therms. This verified value was applied to all
associated rebates in the Idaho gas service territory.

Evaluation Report 35

Table 3-20: Measure Savings for Natural Gas Furnaces, HVAC Program
Measure # of Treatment
Customers
Annual
Savings/Customer
(Therms)
90%
Lower CI
90%
Upper CI
Relative
Precision (90%
CI)
G Natural Gas Furnace 160 81.46 78.99 83.94 3.0%

Figure 3-2 provides monthly weather-normalized savings for natural gas furnaces.
Figure 3-2: Natural Gas Furnaces Monthly Savings, HVAC Program

The savings for the natural gas furnace range between 15 and 23 Therms per month in the winter
months, with summer months displaying no Therms savings.
3.3.2.6 Verified Savings
The HVAC Program in total displays a realization rate of 99.85% with 212,647.17 Therms verified natural
gas savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 3-14.
The realization rate for the natural gas savings in the HVAC Program deviate from 100% due to small
differences in savings values between the applied expected savings value and the Avista TRM value for
the measure. The furnace measure has nearly identical billing analysis results to the Avista TRM value
(billing analysis indicated 81.5 Therms saved for G Natural Gas Furnace, while Avista TRM indicated
81.66 Therms).
The Evaluators attempted to estimate smart thermostat measure savings values for the HVAC Program.
However, because the results from the billing analyses for smart thermostats were contradicting and/or
inconclusive, the Evaluators elected to utilize Avista TRM values to estimate verified savings for these

Evaluation Report 36

measures. The findings from the PY2021 billing analyses for these measures may have been impacted by
the COVID19 pandemic. The Evaluators will explore additional billing analyses for these measures during
program year 2022.
3.3.3 Shell Program
The Shell Program provides incentives to customers for improving the integrity of the home’s envelope
with upgrades to windows and storm windows. Rebates are issued after the measure has been installed
for insulation and window measures. Participating homes must have natural gas or natural gas heating
and itemized invoices including measure details such as insulation levels, window values, and square
footage. In order to be eligible for incentive, the single-family households, including fourplex or less,
must demonstrate an annual electricity usage of at least 8,000 kWh or an annual gas usage of at least
340 Therms. Multifamily homes have no usage requirement. This program includes free manufactured
home duct sealing implemented by UCONS. Table 3-21 summarizes the measures offered under this
program.
Table 3-21: Shell Program Measures
Measure Description Impact Analysis
Methodology
G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas
Heat
Attic insulation for homes heated with natural
gas Avista TRM
G Floor Insulation With Natural Gas
Heat
Floor insulation for homes heated with natural
gas Avista TRM
G IGU Window Replc With Natural
Gas Heat
IGU window replacement for homes heated with
natural gas Avista TRM
G Storm Windows with Natural Gas
Heat
High-efficiency storm window replacement for
homes heated with natural gas Avista TRM
G Wall Insulation With Natural Gas
Heat
Wall insulation for homes heated with natural
gas Avista TRM
G Window Replc With Natural Gas
Heat
High-efficiency window replacement for homes
heated with natural gas Avista TRM
The following table summarizes the adjusted and verified natural gas savings for the Shell Program
impact evaluation.
Table 3-22: Shell Program Verified Natural Gas Savings
Measure PY2021
Participation
Expected
Savings
(Therms)
Adjusted
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Realization
Rate
G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas
Heat 50 8,643.30 8,643.30 8,643.30 100.00%
G Floor Insulation With Natural Gas
Heat 7 630.12 630.12 630.12 100.00%
G IGU Window Replc With Natural Gas
Heat 1 17.04 4.97 16.96 99.54%
G Storm Windows with Natural Gas
Heat 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 -
G Wall Insulation With Natural Gas
Heat 7 389.69 389.69 389.69 100.00%

Evaluation Report 37

Measure PY2021
Participation
Expected
Savings
(Therms)
Adjusted
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Realization
Rate
G Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat 304 8,556.00 8,517.03 8,533.98 99.74%
Total 370 18,236.15 18,185.11 18,214.05 99.88%
The Shell Program displayed verified savings of 18,214.05 Therms with a realization rate of 99.88%
against the expected savings for the program. The following table summarizes the incentive costs
associated with the program.
Table 3-23: Shell Program Costs
Measure Incentive Costs
G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat $43,185.50
G Floor Insulation With Natural Gas Heat $7,876.50
G IGU Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat $284.00
G Storm Windows with Natural Gas Heat $282.00
G Wall Insulation With Natural Gas Heat $4,084.21
G Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat $142,892.00
Total $198,604.21
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Shell Program in the section below.
3.3.3.1 Database Review & Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator’s database review and document verification findings for
the Shell Program.
3.3.3.2 Database Review & Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Shell
Program. The Evaluators selected a random subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data
inputs, summarized in Section 2.2.2.1.
The Evaluators reviewed each measure number of units, square footage, and insulation where available.
The Evaluators found no instances in which square footage quantity in the rebate application did not
match the values presented in the project data.
The Evaluators recommend collecting information on single-family/multi-family/manufactured in the
web rebate form. This allows the Evaluators to categorize home type during the impact evaluation
methodologies. The mail-in rebates collect this information; however, it does not seem to be required to
complete the rebate and therefore many rebates are missing this information.
The Evaluators found one duplicate rebate in which no expected savings was quantified and no verified
savings was applied (the single G Storm Windows with Natural Gas Heat measure) in the project data.
This did not impact the program realization rate, as no expected savings were quantified for the project.
The Evaluators recommend Avista indicate which projects are corrections and do not require additional
claimed savings in order to avoid inappropriate claimed savings in the future.

Evaluation Report 38

3.3.3.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators did not conduct verification surveys for the Shell Program. Weatherization measures
historically have high verification rates.
3.3.3.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Shell Program. The Evaluators calculated
verified savings for the natural gas measures using the active Avista TRM values. The Evaluators
calculated adjusted savings for each measure using the active Avista TRM values and verified tracking
data. The Evaluators conducted a billing analysis for measures where participation allowed. However,
the billing analysis results were not used due to unexpectedly low savings values. Therefore, the Avista
TRM values were applied to a random sample of participants, with verification of project documents
such as rebate applications to verify installation, quantity, and efficiency of the equipment.
3.3.3.5 Billing Analysis
The results of the billing analysis for the Shell program are provided in this section. The methodology for
the billing analysis is provided in Section 2.2.3.2.
Table 3-24 displays customer counts for customers considered for billing analysis (i.e. customer with
single-measure installations) and identifies measures that met the requirements for a billing analysis.
The customers considered for billing analysis include customers in both Washington and Idaho service
territories to gather the maximum number of customers possible for precise savings estimates.
Table 3-24: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Shell Program
Measure
Measure
Considered for
Billing Analysis
Number of
Customers w/
Isolated-Measure
Installations
Sufficient
Participation
for Billing
Analysis
G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat ü 230 ü
G IGU Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat ü 11
G Floor Insulation With Natural Gas Heat ü 9
G Storm Windows with Natural Gas Heat ü 4
G Wall Insulation With Natural Gas Heat ü 32
G Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat ü 1,075 ü

The Evaluators were provided a considerable pool of control customers to draw upon. The Evaluators
used nearest neighbor matching with a 5 to 1 matching ratio. Therefore, each treatment customer was
matched to 5 similar control customers. The final number of customers in each the treatment and
control group are listed in Table 3-25.
The Evaluators performed three tests to determine the success of PSM:
1. t-test on pre-period usage by month
2. Joint chi-square test to determine if any covariates are imbalanced
3. Standardized difference test for each covariate employed in matching

Evaluation Report 39

All tests confirmed that PSM performed well for each measure and the Evaluators conducted a linear
regression using the matched participant and nonparticipant monthly billing data.
Table 3-25 provides annual savings per customer for each measure. Model 2 (PPR) was selected as the
final model for the Shell Program as it provided the highest adjusted R-squared among the regression
models. Savings are statistically significant at the 90% level for all measures and the adjusted R-squared
shows the model provided an excellent fit for the data (adjusted R-squared > 0.90).
Table 3-25: Measure Savings, Shell Program
Measure Treatment
Customers
Control
Customers
Annual
Savings
per
Customer
(Therms)
90%
Lower
CI
90%
Upper
CI
Adjusted
R-
Squared
Model
G Attic Insulation With
Natural Gas Heat 49 245 26.35 6.09 46.62 0.93 Model
2: PPR
G Window Replc With
Natural Gas Heat 425 2,107 20.27 10.98 29.56 0.92 Model
2: PPR

The Evaluators found the G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat measure to display a statistically
significant verified savings value of 26.35 Therms per year. In addition, the Evaluators found statistically
significant savings of 20.27 Therms per year for the G Window Replacement with Natural Gas Heat
measure. Although the Evaluators estimated savings for these measures through billing analysis, the
verified savings for the measures were calculated via Avista TRM due to unexpectedly low savings
estimates. Further details of the billing analysis for the variable speed motor measure can be found
Appendix A.
3.3.3.6 Verified Savings
The Shell Program in total displays a realization rate of 99.88% with 18,214.05 Therms verified natural
gas savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 3-22. The realization rate for the natural
gas savings in the Shell Program are close to 100% and only deviate due to slight differences in quantity
or applied Avista TRM values.
The Evaluators did not conduct a verification survey for the Shell Program and therefore did not adjust
verified savings with an ISR.
3.3.4 Fuel Efficiency Program
The Residential Fuel Efficiency Program encourages customers to consider converting their resistive
electric space and water heating equipment to natural gas. This program is offered to residential
customers in the Idaho service territory. Customers must use Avista electricity for electric straight-
resistance heating or water heating in order to qualify for the rebate, which is verified by evaluating
their energy use. The home’s electric baseboard or furnace heat consumption must indicate at least
8,000 kWh during the previous heating season. Customers receive incentives after installation and after
submitting a completed rebate form. Table 3-26 summarizes the measures offered under this program.

Evaluation Report 40

Table 3-26: Fuel Efficiency Program Measures
Measure Description Impact Analysis
Methodology
E Electric to Air Source Heat Pump
Electric central ducted forced
air furnace to air source heat
pump (9.0 HFSP or greater)
RTF UES
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace
Electric baseboard or forced air
furnace heat to natural gas
forced air furnace
Billing Analysis
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace & Water Heat Electric to natural gas furnace
and water heat combo Avista TRM
The following table summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the Fuel Efficiency Program
impact evaluation. The program does not contain any natural gas saving measures; however, the
program includes a Therms penalty due to converting electric equipment to natural gas equipment. The
verified Therms penalty is 14,008.00 Therms and represents a 105.64% realization rate against the
expected Therms penalty amount of 13,260.00 Therms. The following table displays the Therms penalty
by measure.
Table 3-27: Fuel Efficiency Program Verified Natural Gas Penalty
Measure PY2021
Participation
Expected
Savings
(Therms)
Adjusted
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Realization
Rate
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace 23 -7,820.00 -10,327.00 -4,968.00 63.53%
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace &
Water Heat 16 -5,440.00 -9,040.00 -9,040.00 166.18%
Total 39 -13,260.00 -19,367.00 -14,008.00 105.64%
The Therms penalties represented in the table above are not aggregated in the Residential portfolio
impact evaluation and are summarized here for planning purposes. The costs associated with this
program are claimed in the Idaho Electric Impact Evaluation Report. The Evaluators summarize the
program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results, conclusions, and
recommendations for the Fuel Efficiency Program in Idaho Electric Impact Evaluation Report for PY2021.
3.3.5 ENERGY STAR® Homes Program
The ENERGY STAR® Homes Program provides rebates for homes within Avista’s service territory that
attain an ENERGY STAR® certification. This program incentivizes for ENERGY STAR® Eco-rated homes.
Table 3-28 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-28: ENERGY STAR® Homes Program Measures
Measure Description Impact Analysis
Methodology
G Energy Star Home - Manufactured,
Natural Gas
ENERGY STAR-rated manufactured
home with natural gas furnace RTF UES
G Energy Star Home - Manufactured,
Gas & Electric
ENERGY STAR-rated manufactured
home with natural gas and electric RTF UES
The following table summarizes the verified natural gas savings for the ENERGY STAR® Homes Program
impact evaluation.

Evaluation Report 41

Table 3-29: ENERGY STAR® Homes Program Verified Natural Gas Savings
Measure PY2021
Participation
Expected
Savings
(Therms)
Adjusted
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Realization
Rate
G Energy Star Home - Manufactured,
Gas & Electric 3 267.96 0.00 267.96 100.00%
G Energy Star Home - Manufactured,
Natural Gas 3 401.94 401.94 401.94 100.00%
Total 6 669.90 401.94 669.90 100.00%
The ENERGY STAR® Homes Program displayed verified savings of 669.90 Therms with a realization rate
of 100.00% against the expected savings for the program. The following table summarizes the incentive
costs associated with the program.
Table 3-30: ENERGY STAR® Homes Program Costs
Measure Incentive Costs
G Energy Star Home - Manufactured,
Gas & Electric $2,000.00
G Energy Star Home - Manufactured,
Natural Gas $1,800.00
Total $3,800.00
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the ENERGY STAR® Homes Program in the section below.
3.3.5.1 Database Review & Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator’s database review and document verification findings for
the ENERGY STAR® Homes Program.
3.3.5.2 Database Review & Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the ENERGY
STAR® Homes Program. The Evaluators selected a random subset of rebate applications to cross-verify
tracking data inputs, summarized in Section 2.2.2.1.
The Evaluators found no deviations between the program tracking data and the information provided in
the documentation for each project.
3.3.5.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators did not conduct verification surveys for the ENERGY STAR® Homes Program.
3.3.5.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the ENERGY STAR® Homes Program. The
Evaluators calculated verified savings for the natural gas measures using the most recent RTF workbook
for the ENERGY STAR® Homes measures. These RTF UES values were applied to a random sample of
participants, with verification of project documents such as rebate applications to verify installation,
quantity, and efficiency of the equipment.

Evaluation Report 42

3.3.5.5 Verified Savings
The Evaluators reviewed the Avista TRM values along with verified tracking data to estimate adjusted
program savings for each of the ENERGY STAR® Homes measures. In addition, the Evaluators reviewed
and applied the current RTF UES values for each measure along with verified tracking data to estimate
net program savings.
The ENERGY STAR® Homes Program in total displays a realization rate of 100.00% with 669.90 Therms
verified natural gas energy savings in the Idaho service territory, as displayed in Table 3-29. The
Evaluators found no deviations between the expected Therms savings quantified in the Avista tracking
data and the verified Therms savings from the Avista TRM, leading to a 100% realization rate for the
program. The Evaluators, however, recommend updating the applied expected savings for electric
savings for these measures, as they do not currently align with the Avista TRM. These differences do not
affect the Idaho Gas program savings.
The Evaluators did not conduct a verification survey for the ENERGY STAR® Homes Program and
therefore did not adjust verified savings with an ISR.
3.3.6 Small Home & MF Weatherization Program
The Small Home & MF Weatherization Program is a residential prescriptive program that waives the
energy usage requirement that is typically employed for residential prescriptive programs. This benefits
small homes (less than 1,000 square feet in size) and multifamily dwellings (specifically customers in
condominiums larger than five units in size). While this program is designed for all customers, it could
also benefit members of Named Communities who reside in smaller homes.
This section summarizes the impact results of the evaluation results for the Small Home & MF
Weatherization Program. Table 3-31 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-31: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program Measures
Measure Description
Impact
Analysis
Methodology
G Multifamily Attic Insulation
With Natural Gas Heat
Attic insulation for multifamily homes
with natural gas heat Avista TRM
G Multifamily Floor Insulation
With Natural Gas Heat
Floor insulation for multifamily homes
with natural gas heat Avista TRM
G Multifamily Window Replc
With Natural Gas Heat
Window replacement for multifamily
homes with natural gas heat Avista TRM
G Natural Gas Wall Heater Wall heater replacement for multifamily
homes with natural gas heat Avista TRM
The following table summarizes the verified natural gas savings for the Small Home & MF
Weatherization Program impact evaluation.

Evaluation Report 43

Table 3-32: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program Verified Natural Gas Savings
Measure PY2021
Units
Expected
Savings
(Therms)
Adjusted
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Realization Rate
G Multifamily Attic Insulation
With Natural Gas Heat 2 28.11 76.18 70.56 251.01%
G Multifamily Floor Insulation
With Natural Gas Heat 1 0.04 42.60 42.60 -
G Multifamily Window Replc
With Natural Gas Heat 16 437.61 1,203.24 2,117.20 483.81%
G Natural Gas Wall Heater 1 81.66 70.54 70.54 86.39%
Total 20 547.42 1,392.56 2,300.90 420.32%
The Small Home & MF Weatherization Program displayed verified savings of 2,300.90 Therms with a
realization rate of 420.32% against the expected savings for the program. The following table
summarizes the incentive costs associated with the program.
Table 3-33: Small Home & MF Weatherization Program Costs
Measure Incentive Costs
G Multifamily Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat $1,587.00
G Multifamily Floor Insulation With Natural Gas Heat $532.50
G Multifamily Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat $6,423.00
G Natural Gas Wall Heater $450.00
Total $8,992.50
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program in the section
below.
3.3.6.1 Database Review & Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator’s database review and document verification findings for
the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program.
3.3.6.2 Database Review & Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Small Home
& MF Weatherization Program. The Evaluators selected a random subset of rebate applications to cross-
verify tracking data inputs, summarized in Section 2.2.2.1.
The rebate application form sufficiently collects all required RTF measure specification details. The
Evaluators found that many projects exceed the "Small Home" definition from Avista - that a home is
single family with less than 1,000 SQFT or is a multifamily home (5 or more units). The Evaluators
recommend claiming projects on single family homes that are larger than 1,000 SQFT into the Small
Home & MF Weatherization Program.
In addition, the Evaluators note that the current program rebate applications do not provide an option
to indicate “Multifamily” home type. Rather, the current rebate application includes an option for

Evaluation Report 44

“Single family”, “Manufactured”, “New construction”, and “Other”. The Evaluators recommend
including an option for “Multifamily” in order to consistently apply RTF savings for each of the measures.
The Evaluators reviewed each measure number of units, square footage, and insulation where available.
The Evaluators found no instances in which square footage quantity in the rebate application does not
match the values presented in the project data attic insulation. The Evaluators also note that Avista
consistently verified square footage and R-values with customers when information was unclear. The
tracked quantity and U-values were then documented in the tracking database consistently.
The Evaluators found expected savings to differ significantly for 7 of the 13 sampled projects. The
expected savings calculated for these projects did not align with the values indicated in the Avista TRM.
The quantities aligned for these projects, but the applied savings values to the quantity were
unexpectedly low, leading to high realization rates when the Evaluators applied verified Avista TRM
values to the quantities presented in the documents. The Evaluators recommend updating the CC&B
database to correct for these issues.
The Evaluators found no duplicate rebates in the project data and therefore did not remove any rebates
from verified savings.
3.3.6.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators did not conduct verification surveys for the gas measures in the Small Home & MF
Weatherization Program. The insulation measures offered typically display high in-service rates.
3.3.6.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program.
The Evaluators calculated verified savings for the natural gas measures using the most recent RTF
workbook for the Small Home & MF Weatherization measures. These RTF UES values were applied to a
random sample of participants, with verification of project documents such as rebate applications to
verify installation, quantity, and efficiency of the equipment.
3.3.6.5 Verified Savings
The Evaluators reviewed the Avista TRM values along with verified tracking data to estimate net
adjusted program savings for those measures. Final verified savings were estimated using the RTF UES
values associated with each measure. The Small Home & MF Weatherization Program displayed
420.32% realization with 2,300.90 Therms saved, as displayed in Table 3-32.
The realization rate for the natural gas savings in the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program are
unexpectedly high due to differences between the unit-level savings values Avista had applied to the
project quantity for 7 of the 13 sampled projects and the unit-level savings presented in the Avista TRM.
The values presented in the Avista tracking data displayed deflated savings compared to the Avista TRM.
The Evaluators quantified verified savings using the Avista TRM values, leading to a significantly high
realization rate for the 7 projects and the program overall. The Evaluators recommend Avista
investigate the reasoning for the large difference in applied UES values in the tracking data and the
values present in the Avista TRM. This change will lead to more accurate expected savings outlook for
the program.

Evaluation Report 45

The Evaluators did not conduct a verification survey for the gas measures in the Small Home & MF
Weatherization Program and therefore did not adjust verified savings with an ISR.
3.3.7 Appliance Program
The Appliances Program is residential prescriptive program that offers incentives for customers to
upgrade their existing clothes washers and dryers to ENERGY STAR-rated clothes dryers and washers.
This section summarizes the impact results of the evaluation results for the Appliances Program. Table
3-34 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-34: Appliance Program Measures
Measure Description Impact Analysis
Methodology
G Energy Star Rated Clothes
Dryer
ENERGY STAR-certified clothes dryer for
residential homes RTF UES
G Energy Star Rated Front Load
Washer
ENERGY STAR-certified clothes washer
for residential homes RTF UES
The following table summarizes the verified natural gas savings for the Appliance Program impact
evaluation.
Table 3-35: Appliance Program Verified Natural Gas Savings
Measure PY2021
Participation
Expected
Savings
(Therms)
Adjusted
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Realization
Rate
G Energy Star Rated Clothes
Dryer 29 78.88 67.30 67.30 85.32%
G Energy Star Rated Front Load
Washer 39 235.17 190.34 185.33 78.81%
Total 68 314.05 257.65 252.64 80.44%
The Appliance Program displayed verified savings of 252.64 Therms with a realization rate of 80.44%
against the expected savings for the program. The following table summarizes the incentive and non-
incentive costs associated with the program.
Table 3-36: Appliance Program Costs
Measure Incentive Costs
G Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer $580.00
G Energy Star Rated Front Load Washer $1,950.00
Total $2,530.00
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Appliance Program in the section below.
3.3.7.1 Database Review & Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator’s database review and document verification findings for
the Appliance Program.

Evaluation Report 46

3.3.7.2 Database Review & Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Appliance
Program. The Evaluators selected a random subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data
inputs, summarized in in Section 2.2.2.1.
The Evaluators found all Appliance Program rebates to have project documentation with the associated
model number and efficiency values in either the CC&B web rebate data or mail-in rebate applications.
In addition, documents included AHRI certifications or model numbers necessary to verify AHRI
certifications. This allowed Evaluators to easily verify model specifications and apply savings.
The gas measures rebated through this program are not contained in the Avista TRM. Therefore, the
Evaluators applied savings for these projects by converting Avista TRM electric savings to gas savings by
dividing approved Avista TRM savings for the equipment by 29.3. This application led to 85% realization
for clothes dryers and 79% realization for clothes washers. The Evaluators recommend Avista include
savings estimates for these measures in the Avista TRM for future evaluations.
3.3.7.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators randomly selected a subset of participant customers to survey for simple verification of
installed measure described in Section 2.2.2.2. The Evaluators included questions such as:
n What type of clothes washer/dryer did this clothes washer/dryer replace?
n Is your home’s water heated with electricity, natural gas, or another fuel?
n Was the previous equipment functional?
n Is the newly installed equipment still properly functioning?
The responses to this verification survey were used to calculate ISRs for the measures offered in the
Appliance Program. In addition, the Evaluators asked participants how the COVID19 pandemic stay-at-
home orders have affected their household’s energy consumption. The responses to these additional
questions can be found in Appendix A.
Table 3-37 displays the ISRs for each of the Appliance measures for Idaho and Washington natural gas
territory combined. The ISRs resulted in ±8.8% precision at the 90% confidence interval for the program.
Table 3-37: Appliance Verification Survey ISR Results
Measure
Number
of
Rebates*
Number of
Survey
Completes
Precision
at 90%
Confidence
In-Service
Rate
G Energy Star Rated Clothes Dryer 94 27 ±8.8% 100%
G Energy Star Rated Front Load Washer 159 38 97%
*This count includes rebates from Washington and Idaho
Survey respondents described equipment to be currently functioning, leading to a 97-100% ISR for all
measures. Although less than 100%, the ISR for the G Energy Star Rated Front Load Washer still
exceeded an ISR of 95%. The Evaluators applied the ISRs listed in Table 3-37 to each rebate to quantify
verified savings for each measure.

Evaluation Report 47

3.3.7.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Appliance Program. The Evaluators
calculated verified savings for the remaining measures using active values from the Avista TRM
workbook. These values were applied to a random sample of participants, with verification of project
documents such as rebate applications to verify installation, quantity, and efficiency of the equipment.
3.3.7.5 Billing Analysis
The Evaluators did not complete a billing analysis for the measures in the Appliance Program.
3.3.7.6 Verified Savings
The Appliance Program in total displays a realization rate of 80.44% with 252.64 Therms verified natural
gas savings in the Washington service territory, as displayed in Table 3-35. The realization rate for the
natural gas savings in the Appliance Program deviate from 100% due to lack of Avista TRM values for the
measure. The Evaluators estimated savings by converting measure electric savings into Therms savings.
In addition, the Evaluators applied in-service rates for each of these measures, leading to a downward
adjustment for the clothes washer measure.
3.3.8 AeroBarrier Program
The AeroBarrier program provides incentives for customers to complete envelope sealing improvements
using the AeroBarrier product, a convenient, cost-effective approach that seal homes in less than three
hours and provides documented results.
This section summarizes the estimated savings Avista has calculated for the AeroBarrier Program. The
Evaluators did not conduct an impact evaluation for the measures in this program for PY2021 due to low
participation. A full impact analysis will be completed for PY2022 projects. Table 3-38 summarizes the
measures offered under this program. Table 3-39 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 3-38: AeroBarrier Program Measures
Measure Description Impact Analysis
Methodology
G AeroBarrier Rebate Whole home insulation with AeroBarrier
No impact
evaluation
completed for
PY2021
The following table summarizes the estimated natural gas savings for the AeroBarrier Program impact
evaluation.
Table 3-39: AeroBarrier Program Verified Natural Gas Savings
Measure PY2021
Participation
Expected
Savings
(Therms)
Adjusted
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Realization
Rate
G AeroBarrier Rebate 25 3,497.63 3,497.63 3,497.63 100.00%
Total 25 3,497.63 3,497.63 3,497.63 100.00%

Evaluation Report 48

The AeroBarrier Program displayed estimated savings of 3,497.63 Therms. The following table
summarizes the incentive costs associated with the program.
Table 3-40: AeroBarrier Program Costs
Measure Incentive Costs
G AeroBarrier Rebate $30,747.97
Total $30,747.97
The Evaluators did not conduct an impact analysis for this program for PY2021.
3.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
The Evaluators provide the following conclusions and recommendations for Avista’s Residential Portfolio
program implementation.
3.4.1 Conclusions
The Evaluators provide the following conclusions regarding Avista’s Residential natural gas programs:
n The Evaluators found the Residential portfolio to demonstrate a total of 276,056.86 Therms with
a realization rate of 100.49%. All programs except the Appliances Program (80.44% realization)
met savings goals based on reported savings.
n The Residential Portfolio impact evaluation resulted in a realization rate of 100.44% due to
differences between the applied Avista TRM values and the active RTF UES or applied measure-
level quantities for each measure in addition to the difference in savings values between the
results from billing analyses and the Avista TRM.
n The Evaluators conducted verification surveys via web survey to collect information from
customers who participated in the Water Heat, HVAC, and Appliance Programs. A total of 305
unique customers were surveyed between August 2021 and February 2022. The Evaluators
collected information including the functionality of the efficient equipment, the functionality of
the replaced equipment, and information on how the COVID19 stay-at-home orders have
affected the household energy usage. The Evaluators calculated in-service rates for the
measures within these two programs in order to apply findings to the verified savings results for
each program.
n The realization rate for the natural gas savings in the Water Heat Program was 100.00% with
41,972.20 Therms saved. The Evaluators found no instances in which a project savings deviated
from the expected savings.
n The Evaluators explored a billing analysis for the natural gas water heater measures within the
Water Heat Program. However, the G 50 Gallon Natural gas Water Heater and the G Tankless
Gas Water Heater measures resulted in savings that were not statistically significant. Therefore,
the Evaluators elected to use Avista TRM values to estimate verified savings. The Evaluators will
explore further billing analyses for these measures during the next program year if participation
permits.
n The HVAC Program in total displays a realization rate of 99.85% with 212,647.17 Therms verified
natural gas savings in the Washington service territory. The realization rate for the natural gas
savings in the HVAC Program deviate from 100% due to one project which was verified to be a

Evaluation Report 49

duplicate. The Evaluators removed savings for this project. All other rebates were assigned
savings equivalent to the expected savings through Avista TRM values. The furnace measure has
nearly identical billing analysis results to the Avista TRM value (billing analysis indicated 81.5
Therms saved for G Natural Gas Furnace, while Avista TRM indicated 81.66 Therms).
n The Evaluators attempted to estimate smart thermostat measure savings values for the HVAC
Program. However, because the results from the billing analyses for smart thermostats were
contradicting and/or inconclusive, the Evaluators elected to utilize Avista TRM values to
estimate verified savings for these measures. The findings from the PY2021 billing analyses for
these measures may have been impacted by the COVID19 pandemic. The Evaluators will explore
additional billing analyses for these measures during program year 2022.
n The Shell Program displayed verified savings of 18,214.05 Therms with a realization rate of
99.88% against the expected savings for the program. The realization rate for the natural gas
savings in the Shell Program deviate from 100% due to the slight differences between R-values
or quantities between the Avista tracking database and the verified documents. The Evaluators
conducted a billing analysis for the attic insulation and window replacement measures,
however, due to unexpectedly low savings estimates, the Evaluators chose to verify savings
through the Avista TRM.
n The ENERGY STAR Homes Program displayed a realization rate of 100.00% at 669.90 Therms saved
in PY2021. The Evaluators no found expected savings to differ for any of the sampled projects.
The Evaluators have no recommendations for improving the program.
n In the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program, the Evaluators found that many projects
exceed the "Small Home" definition from Avista - that a home is single family with less than 1,000
SQFT or is a multifamily home (5 or more units). In addition, the Evaluators note that the current
program rebate applications do not provide an option to indicate “Multifamily” home type.
Rather, the current rebate application includes an option for “Single family”, “Manufactured”,
“New construction”, and “Other”.
n The realization rate for the natural gas savings in the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program
are unexpectedly high at 420.32% due to differences between the unit-level savings values Avista
had applied to the project quantity for 7 sampled projects and the unit-level savings presented in
the Avista TRM.
n The gas measures rebated through the Appliance Program are not contained in the Avista TRM.
Therefore, the Evaluators applied savings for these projects by converting Avista TRM electric
savings to gas savings by dividing approved Avista TRM savings for the equipment by 29.3. This
application led to 85% realization for clothes dryers and 79% realization for clothes washers,
leading to a program realization rate of 80.44%.
n The Evaluators summarize expected savings for the AeroBarrier program in this report as 3,497.63
Therms. The Evaluators did not verify savings for this program. A complete impact analysis will be
completed in PY2022.
3.4.2 Recommendations
The Evaluators offer the following recommendations regarding Avista’s Residential natural gas
programs:

Evaluation Report 50

n The Evaluators note instances found in which the web-based rebate data indicates the
household has electric space heating, but all other sources (project data and document
verification) indicate natural gas space heating, and vice versa. The Evaluators recommend
updating data collection standards in order for all sources of information to reflect the same
values as the project documentation.
n The Evaluators found that many projects claimed under the Small Home & MF Weatherization
Program exceed the "Small Home" definition from Avista - that a home is single family with less
than 1,000 SQFT or is a multifamily home (5 or more units). The Evaluators recommend claiming
projects on single family homes that are larger than 1,000 SQFT into the Shell Program.
n The Evaluators found expected savings to differ significantly for 7 of the 13 sampled projects in
the Small Home & MF Weatherization Program. The expected savings calculated for these
projects did not align with the values indicated in the Avista TRM. The Evaluators recommend
updating the CC&B database to correct for these issues.
n The gas measures rebated through the Appliances Program are not contained in the Avista TRM.
Therefore, the Evaluators applied savings for these projects by converting Avista TRM electric
savings to gas savings by dividing approved Avista TRM savings for the equipment by 29.3. This
application led to 85% realization for clothes dryers and 79% realization for clothes washers. The
Evaluators recommend Avista include savings estimates for these measures in the Avista TRM for
future evaluations.

4. Low-Income Impact Evaluation Results
The Low-Income Program delivers energy efficiency measures to low-income residential customers in its
Idaho service territory with a partnership with five network Community Action Agencies (“Agencies”)
and one tribal weatherization organization. The Agencies qualify income to prioritize and treat
households based on several characteristics. In-house or contract crews install approved program
measures. In addition, the Agencies have access to other monetary resources which allow them to
weatherize a home or install additional energy efficiency measures.
The Evaluators completed an impact evaluation on Avista’s Low-Income portfolio to verify program-level
and measure-level energy savings for PY2021. The following sections summarize findings for each
natural gas impact evaluation in the Low-Income Portfolio in the Idaho service territory. The Evaluators
used data collected and reported in the tracking database, online application forms, Avista TRM, and
RTF values to evaluate verified savings. This approach provided the strongest estimate of achieved
savings practical for each program, given its delivery method, magnitude of savings, number of
participants, and availability of data. Table 4-1 summarizes the Low-Income verified impact savings by
program.

Evaluation Report 51

Table 4-1: Low-Income Verified Impact Savings by Program
Program
Expected
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Realization
Rate
Low-Income 3,777.56 3,217.49 85.17%
Total Low-Income 3,777.56 3,217.49 85.17%
In PY2021, Avista completed and provided incentives for low-income gas measures in Idaho and
achieved total natural gas savings of 3,217.49 Therms. The Low-Income Program did not meet savings
expectations based on reported savings with an achieved realization rate of 85.17%. Further details of
the impact evaluation results by program are provided in the sections following.
4.1 Program-Level Impact Evaluation Results
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Low-Income sector in the section below.
4.1.1 Low-Income Program
The Low-Income Program delivers energy efficiency measures to low-income residential customers in its
Idaho service territory with a partnership with five network Community Action Agencies (“Agencies”)
and one tribal weatherization organization. The Agencies qualify income to prioritize and treat
households based on several characteristics. In-house or contract crews install approved program
measures. In addition, the Agencies have access to other monetary resources which allow them to
weatherize a home or install additional energy efficiency measures.
Avista provides CAP agencies with the following approved measure list, which are reimbursed in full by
Avista. Avista also provides a rebate list of additional energy saving measures the CAP agencies are able
to utilize which are partially reimbursed. The following table summarizes the measures offered under
this program.
Table 4-2 summarizes the measures offered under this program.
Table 4-2: Low-Income Program Measures
Measure Impact Analysis Methodology
Air Infiltration
Avista TRM
Air source heat pump
Attic insulation
Duct insulation
Duct sealing
Natural gas to air source heat
pump
Natural gas to ductless heat
pump
ENERGY STAR® door

Evaluation Report 52

Measure Impact Analysis Methodology
ENERGY STAR® refrigerator
ENERGY STAR® window
Floor insulation
Heat pump water heater
LED lighting
Wall insulation
High efficiency furnace
High efficiency tankless natural
gas water heater
Natural gas boiler
Table 4-3 summarizes the verified natural gas savings for the Low-Income Program impact evaluation.
Table 4-3: Low-Income Program Verified Natural Gas Savings
Measure PY2021
Participation
Expected
Savings
(Therms)
Adjusted
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Savings
(Therms)
Verified
Realization
Rate
G Air Infiltration 25 290.83 283.36 283.36 97.43%
G Duct Sealing 2 36.17 35.83 35.83 99.06%
G Energy Star Doors 13 199.22 199.46 199.46 100.12%
G Energy Star Windows 17 379.75 374.81 374.81 98.70%
G HE Furnace 25 1,530.76 1,531.14 1,531.14 100.02%
G HE WH 50G 10 66.40 66.11 66.11 99.56%
G INS - Attic 5 942.76 390.51 390.51 41.42%
G INS - Duct 2 49.50 49.28 49.28 99.56%
G INS - Floor 7 272.09 277.58 277.58 102.02%
G INS - Wall 1 10.08 9.41 9.41 93.35%
Health And Safety 26 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A
Total 133 3,777.56 3,217.49 3,217.49 85.17%
The Low-Income Program displayed verified savings of 3,217.49 Therms with a realization rate of 85.17%
against the expected savings for the program. The following table summarizes the incentive and non-
incentive costs associated with the program.
Table 4-4: Low-Income Program Costs
Measure Incentive
Costs
G Air Infiltration $2,285.32
G Duct Sealing $399.30
G Energy Star Doors $16,014.19
G Energy Star Windows $52,267.80
G HE Furnace $131,729.93
G HE WH 50G $40,450.22
G INS - Attic $6,626.48
G INS - Duct $1,026.37

Evaluation Report 53

Measure Incentive
Costs
G INS - Floor $5,198.04
G INS - Wall $160.36
Health And Safety $74,645.06
Total $330,803.07
The Evaluators summarize the program-specific and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Low-Income Program in the section below.
4.1.1.1 Database Review & Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator’s database review and document verification findings for
the Low-Income Program.
4.1.1.2 Database Review & Document Verification
Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the Low-Income
Program. The Evaluators selected a subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data inputs,
summarized in Section 2.2.2.1.
During review, the Evaluators found that all the requested project information clearly outlined measure
details and calculations. In addition, the Evaluators found database quantity information to be
consistent with documents verified.
The Evaluators reviewed the project documentation provided by Avista and identified very few instances
in which there existed conflicting square footage or number of units between the aggregated project
data from the CC&B and the rebate project documentation provided in the data request for document
verification. The Evaluators, updated two project quantities quantity based on project documentation.
The Evaluators found some instances in which 20% savings cap was not applied to all measures found to
be installed in the household, leading to low realization rates for some projects in the program. In
addition, the Evaluators found some instances in which electric savings were applied to gas measures.
4.1.1.3 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators did not conduct verification surveys for the Low-Income Program.
4.1.1.4 Impact Analysis
This section summarizes the verified savings results for the Low-Income Program. The Evaluators
calculated verified savings for Low-Income Program measures using the Avista TRM. However, a whole
building billing analysis was completed to supplement the findings from the desk review.
4.1.1.5 Billing Analysis
The results of the billing analysis for the Low-Income Program are provided below.
The Evaluators attempted to estimate measure-level Low-Income Program energy savings through
billing analysis regression with a counterfactual group selected via propensity score matching. The
Evaluators attempted to isolated each unique measure. In doing so, the Evaluators also isolate the

Evaluation Report 54

measure effects using the customer’s consumption billing data. However, participation for the Low-
Income program resulted in a small number of customers with isolated measures and therefore the
Evaluators were unable to estimate measure-level savings through billing analysis.
The Evaluators instead conducted a whole-home billing analysis for all the natural gas measures
combined in order to estimate savings for the average household participating in the program, across all
measures. The Evaluators successfully created a matched cohort for the natural gas measure
households. Customers were matched on zip code (exact match) and their average pre-period seasonal
usage, including summer, fall, winter, and spring for each control and treatment household. The
Evaluators were provided a considerable pool of control customers to draw upon. The Evaluators used
nearest neighbor matching with a 5 to 1 matching ratio. Therefore, each treatment customer was
matched to 5 similar control customers.
Table 4-5 provides annual savings per customer for each measure. Model 2 (PPR) was selected as the
final model for the Low-Income Program as it provided the highest adjusted R-squared among the
regression models. However, savings for this model are not statistically significant at the 90% level,
indicated by the lower 90% confidence bound at 0 Therms saved per year.
Table 4-5: Measure Savings, Low-Income Program
Measure Treatment
Customers
Control
Customers
Annual Savings
per Customer
(Therms)
90%
Lower
CI
90%
Upper
CI
Adjusted
R-
Squared
Model
All Gas Measures
(Therms)* 67 335 1 0 16.31 0.9 Model 2: PPR
*Not statistically significant
Due to lack of statistical significance from the billing analysis results, The Evaluators did not apply these
regression savings estimates to the program. Instead, the Evaluators estimated savings through the
program by applying Avista TRM values to verified quantities. Further details of the billing analysis can
be found in Appendix A.
4.1.1.6 Verified Savings
Due to lack of significance in the billing analyses, the Evaluators reviewed the Avista TRM values along
with verified tracking data to estimate net program savings for those measures. Adjusted savings were
estimated using the Avista TRM. The Low-Income Program in total displays a realization rate of 98.51%
with 12,454.82 Therms verified natural gas savings in the Washington service territory, as displayed in
Table 4-3.
The Evaluators note that the deviations from 100% realization rate is due verifying 20% annual
household energy caps were properly applied. The Evaluators allowed full savings when the 20% annual
cap was not reached by the sum of all project savings for the service address. For instances in which the
20% cap was met or exceeded, the Evaluators applied the appropriate cap to those projects, weighted
by measure.

Evaluation Report 55

4.2 Conclusions and Recommendations
The Evaluators provide the following conclusions and recommendations for Avista’s Low-Income
Portfolio program implementation.
4.2.1 Conclusions
The Evaluators provide the following conclusions regarding Avista’s Residential natural gas programs:
n The Evaluators found the Low-Income portfolio to demonstrate a total of 3,217.49 Therms with
a realization rate of 85.17%. The Low-Income Portfolio impact evaluation resulted verified
savings that exceeded expected savings.
n The Evaluators attempted to estimate measure-level Low-Income Program energy savings
through billing analysis regression with a counterfactual group selected via propensity score
matching. The Evaluators attempted to isolate each unique measure. However, participation for
the Low-Income program resulted in a small number of customers with isolated measures and
therefore the Evaluators conducted a whole-home billing analysis for all the natural gas
measures combined in the Low-Income in order to estimate savings for the average household
participating in the program, across all measures. However, the billing analysis results were not
statistically significant. Therefore, the Evaluators found a realization rate of 85.17% from the
desk review with Avista TRM values.
n The Evaluators note that the deviations from 100% realization rate is due verifying 20% annual
household energy caps were properly applied. The Evaluators allowed full savings when the 20%
annual cap was not reached by the sum of all project savings for the service address. For instances
in which the 20% cap was met or exceeded, the Evaluators applied the appropriate cap to those
projects, weighted by measure.
4.2.2 Recommendations
The Evaluators offer the following recommendations regarding Avista’s Low-Income natural gas
programs:
n The Evaluators note that the majority of deviations from 100% realization rate in the Low-Income
Program is due verifying 20% annual household energy caps were properly applied. The
Evaluators recommend verifying each of these values are documented and applied.

5. Appendix A: Billing Analysis Results
This appendix provides additional details on the billing analyses conducted for each program.
5.1 Water Heat Program
The results of the billing analysis for the Water Heat program are provided in this section. The
methodology for the billing analysis is provided in Section 2.2.3.2. Table 5-1 displays customer counts for

Evaluation Report 56

customers considered for billing analysis (i.e. customer with single-measure installations) and identifies
measures that met the requirements for a billing analysis.
The Evaluators attempted to estimate measure-level Water Heat Program energy savings through billing
analysis regression with a counterfactual group selected via propensity score matching. The Evaluators
attempted to isolated each unique measure. In doing so, the Evaluators also isolate the measure effects
using the customer’s consumption billing data.
A billing analysis was completed for measures that had at least 75 customers with single-measure
installations. This ensured that measures would have a sufficient sample size after applying PSM data
restrictions (e.g. sufficient pre- and post-period data). The billing analysis included participants in both
PY2019 and PY2021 in order to acquire the maximum number of customers possible. However, results
from billing analyses are only extrapolated to PY2021 participants.
Table 5-1: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Water Heat Program
Measure
Measure
Considered for
Billing Analysis
Number of
Customers w/
Isolated-Measure
Installations
Sufficient
Participation
for Billing
Analysis
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas Water Heater ü 107 ü
G Tankless Gas Water Heater ü 399 ü

The Evaluators were provided a considerable pool of control customers to draw upon for each measure,
as shown in Table 5-2.
The Evaluators used nearest neighbor matching with a 5 to 1 matching ratio. Therefore, each treatment
customer was matched to 5 similar control customers. Also shown in Table 5-2, are the impact of
various restrictions on the number of treatment and control customers that were included in the final
regression model. The “Starting Count” displays the beginning number of customers available prior to
applying the data restrictions, while the “Ending Count” displays the number of customers after applying
data restrictions and final matching.
Table 5-2: Cohort Restrictions, Water Heat Program
Measure Data Restriction Treatment
Customers
Control
Customers
G 50 Gallon
Natural Gas Water
Heater
Starting Count 107 70,444
Install Date Range: 2021-01-01 to 2021-08-31 72 70,444
Customers w/ Multiple Accounts for one Premise in Tracking
Data 71 70,444
Treatment Customers Found in Billing Data 68 70,444
Control Group Usage Outlier (>2X Maximum Avg. Treatment
Usage) 68 70,228
Restrict to Pre- Post-Period 68 56,803
Post-Period Date Range Restriction: 2021-09-01 through 2021-
12-31 68 55,266
Require Minimum Post Period: 3 Months 67 41,612

Evaluation Report 57

Measure Data Restriction Treatment
Customers
Control
Customers
Incomplete Pre-Period Bills 65 31,782
Ending Count (Matched by PSM) 65 325
G Tankless Water
Heater
Starting Count 399 70,444
Install Date Range: 2021-01-01 to 2021-06-30 253 70,444
Customers w/ Multiple Accounts for one Premise in Tracking
Data 251 70,444
Treatment Customers Found in Billing Data 247 70,444
Control Group Usage Outlier (>2X Maximum Avg. Treatment
Usage) 247 70,393
Restrict to Pre- Post-Period 247 56,930
Post-Period Date Range Restriction: 2021-07-01 through 2021-
12-31 247 55,986
Require Minimum Post Period: 5 Months 235 39,856
Incomplete Pre-Period Bills 204 31,827
Ending Count (Matched by PSM) 203 1,013
Figure 5-1 through Figure 5-4 display the density of each variable employed in propensity score matching
for the G Tankless Gas Water Heater and G 50 Gallon Natural Gas Water Heater, before and after
conducting matching. The figures following display the density of each variable employed in propensity
score matching for the other billing analysis measures, before and after matching.
The distributions prior to matching show only small differences between the treatment and controls
groups. After matching, the pre-period usage distribution is very similar between the groups, indicating
little differences exist on average between the groups prior to matching and validating the initial selection
of control customers.

Evaluation Report 58

Figure 5-1: Covariate Balance Before Matching, 50 Gallon Water Heater

Figure 5-2: Covariate Balance After Matching, 50 Gallon Water Heater

Figure 5-3: Covariate Balance Before Matching, G Tankless Gas Water Heater

Figure 5-4: Covariate Balance After Matching, G Tankless Gas Water Heater

Evaluation Report 59

The Evaluators performed three tests to determine the success of PSM:
1. t-test on pre-period usage by month
2. Joint chi-square test to determine if any covariates are imbalanced
3. Standardized difference test for each covariate employed in matching
All tests confirmed that PSM performed well for each measure. The t-test displayed no statistically
significant differences at the 95% level in average daily consumption between the treatment and control
groups for any month in the pre-period. In addition, the chi-squared test returned a p-value well over
0.05 for all measures, indicating that pre-period usage was balanced between the groups. Lastly, the
standardized difference test returned values well under the recommended cutoff of 25, further
indicating the groups were well matched on all included covariates.
Table 5-3 and Table 5-4 provide results for the t-test on pre-period usage between the treatment and
control groups after matching for the Water Heat program. The P-Value is over 0.05 for each month,
meaning pre-period usage between treatment and control groups is similar at the 95% confidence level.
Table 5-3: Pre-period Usage T-test for 50 Gallon Water Heater, Water Heat Program
Month
Average Daily
Usage
(Therms),
Control
Average Daily
Usage
(Therms),
Treatment
T Statistic Std Error P-Value Reject Null?
Jan 3.877 3.728 0.696 0.215 0.488 No
Feb 3.648 3.485 0.814 0.200 0.417 No
Mar 3.008 2.926 0.483 0.169 0.630 No
Apr 1.834 1.834 -0.003 0.117 0.997 No
May 1.070 1.088 -0.240 0.076 0.811 No
Jun 0.765 0.814 -0.782 0.064 0.436 No
Jul 0.530 0.635 -1.598 0.066 0.113 No
Aug 0.493 0.593 -1.683 0.059 0.095 No

Evaluation Report 60

Month
Average Daily
Usage
(Therms),
Control
Average Daily
Usage
(Therms),
Treatment
T Statistic Std Error P-Value Reject Null?
Sep 0.684 0.744 -1.002 0.060 0.319 No
Oct 1.953 1.910 0.363 0.119 0.717 No
Nov 3.416 3.284 0.659 0.199 0.512 No
Dec 3.830 3.719 0.498 0.223 0.620 No
Table 5-4: Pre-period Usage T-test for Tankless Gas Water Heater, Water Heat Program
Month
Average Daily
Usage
(Therms),
Control
Average Daily
Usage
(Therms),
Treatment
T Statistic Std Error P-Value Reject Null?
Jan 3.880 3.806 0.492 0.150 0.623 No
Feb 3.667 3.577 0.660 0.137 0.510 No
Mar 3.147 3.067 0.672 0.118 0.502 No
Apr 1.961 1.899 0.762 0.082 0.447 No
May 1.141 1.138 0.045 0.061 0.964 No
Jun 0.812 0.864 -0.770 0.067 0.442 No
Jul 0.565 0.611 -0.863 0.053 0.389 No
Aug 0.528 0.564 -0.665 0.054 0.507 No
Sep 0.727 0.730 -0.055 0.053 0.956 No
Oct 1.968 1.956 0.147 0.085 0.883 No
Nov 3.348 3.310 0.294 0.129 0.769 No
Dec 3.771 3.787 -0.110 0.146 0.912 No

Table 5-5 provides customer counts for customers in the final regression model by assigned weather
station ID for each measure. In addition, TMY HDD and CDD from the nearest available TMY weather
station is provided as well as the weighted HDD/CDD for each measure. The HDD and CDD was weighted
by the number of treatment customers assigned to a weather station.
Table 5-5: TMY Weather, Water Heat Program
Measure USAF Station
ID
Treatment
Customers
TMY
USAF ID
TMY
HDD
TMY
CDD
Weighted
TMY HDD
Weighted
TMY CDD
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas
Water Heater 727830 2 727830 5,511 907 6,334 500
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas
Water Heater 727834 6 727834 6,915 376 6,334 500
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas
Water Heater 727850 3 727850 6,707 379 6,334 500
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas
Water Heater 727855 1 727855 7,360 439 6,334 500

Evaluation Report 61

Measure USAF Station
ID
Treatment
Customers
TMY
USAF ID
TMY
HDD
TMY
CDD
Weighted
TMY HDD
Weighted
TMY CDD
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas
Water Heater 727856 50 727856 6,246 519 6,334 500
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas
Water Heater 727857 3 727857 6,467 299 6,334 500
G Tankless Water Heater 720322 2 727834 6,915 376 6,560 457
G Tankless Water Heater 720923 2 727834 6,915 376 6,560 457
G Tankless Water Heater 726817 7 727834 6,915 376 6,560 457
G Tankless Water Heater 727830 7 727830 5,511 907 6,560 457
G Tankless Water Heater 727834 80 727834 6,915 376 6,560 457
G Tankless Water Heater 727850 8 727850 6,707 379 6,560 457
G Tankless Water Heater 727855 3 727855 7,360 439 6,560 457
G Tankless Water Heater 727856 82 727856 6,246 519 6,560 457
G Tankless Water Heater 727857 4 727857 6,467 299 6,560 457
G Tankless Water Heater 727870 8 727856 6,246 519 6,560 457

Table 5-6 provides annual savings/customer for the Water Heat program for each measure and
regression model. However, savings are not statistically significant at the 90% level for any of the models
explored for the Tankless Gas Water Heater and 50 Gallon Natural Gas Water Heater measures.
Table 5-6: Measure Savings for All Regression Models, Water Heat Program
Measure Model Treatment
Customers
Control
Customers
Annual
Savings per
Customer
(Therms)
90%
Lower
CI
90%
Upper CI
Adjusted
R-
Squared
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas
Water Heater Diff-in-diff 65 325 37.39* -97.33 172.11 0.52
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas
Water Heater PPR 65 325 37.79* -16.23 91.81 0.89
G 50 Gallon Natural Gas
Water Heater
Treatment
Only (Gross) 65 N/A 30.69* -53.88 115.27 0.83
G Tankless Water Heater Diff-in-diff 203 1,013 0.86* -50.96 52.68 0.49
G Tankless Water Heater PPR 203 1,013 -3.65* -25.62 18.32 0.82
G Tankless Water Heater Treatment
Only (Gross) 203 N/A 20.47* -10.17 51.10 0.81
*Not statistically significant
5.2 HVAC Program
The results of the billing analysis for the HVAC program are provided in this section. The methodology
for the billing analysis is provided in Section 2.2.3.2. The Evaluators attempted to estimate measure-
level HVAC Program energy savings through billing analysis regression with a counterfactual group

Evaluation Report 62

selected via propensity score matching. The Evaluators attempted to isolated each unique measure. In
doing so, the Evaluators also isolate the measure effects using the customer’s consumption billing data.
A billing analysis was completed for measures that had at least 75 customers with single-measure
installations. This ensured that measures would have a sufficient sample size after applying PSM data
restrictions (e.g. sufficient pre- and post-period data). The billing analysis included participants in both in
both Washington and Idaho service territories in order to acquire the maximum number of customers
possible.
Table 5-7 displays customer counts for customers considered for billing analysis (i.e. customer with
single-measure installations) and identifies measures that met the requirements for a billing analysis.
The Evaluators attempted to estimate measure-level HVAC Program energy savings through billing
analysis regression with a counterfactual group selected via propensity score matching. The Evaluators
attempted to isolated each unique measure. In doing so, the Evaluators also isolate the measure effects
using the customer’s consumption billing data.
A billing analysis was completed for measures that had at least 75 customers with single-measure
installations. This ensured that measures would have a sufficient sample size after applying PSM data
restrictions (e.g. sufficient pre- and post-period data). The billing analysis included participants in both in
both Washington and Idaho service territories in order to acquire the maximum number of customers
possible.
Table 5-7: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, HVAC Program
Measure
Measure
Considered for
Billing Analysis
Number of
Customers w/
Isolated-Measure
Installations
Sufficient
Participation
for Billing
Analysis
G Natural Gas Boiler ü 35
G Natural Gas Furnace ü 2,327 ü
G Natural Gas Wall Heater ü 0
G Smart Thermostat DIY with Natural Gas Heat ü 1,067 ü
G Smart Thermostat Paid Install with Natural Gas
Heat ü 1,077 ü

The Evaluators conducted a separate analysis for the G Natural Gas Furnace measure, displayed in
Section 3.3.2.5 as it provided more reasonable and statistically significant results than the billing
analysis. The following details the billing analysis for the remaining measures.
The Evaluators were provided a considerable pool of control customers to draw upon, as shown in Table
5-8. The Evaluators used nearest neighbor matching with a 5 to 1 matching ratio. Therefore, each
treatment customer was matched to 5 similar control customers. Also shown in Table 5-8, are the
impact of various restrictions on the number of treatment and control customers that were included in
the final regression model. The “Starting Count” displays the beginning number of customers available
prior to applying the data restrictions, while the “Ending Count” displays the number of customers after
applying data restrictions and final matching.

Evaluation Report 63

Table 5-8: Cohort Restrictions, HVAC Program
Measure Data Restriction Treatment
Customers
Control
Customers
G Natural Gas
Furnace
Starting Count 2,327 70,444
Install Date Range: 2021-01-01 to 2021-06-30 1,170 70,444
Customers w/ Multiple Accounts for one Premise in Tracking
Data 1,104 70,444
Treatment Customers Found in Billing Data 1,089 70,444
Control Group Usage Outlier (>2X Maximum Avg. Treatment
Usage) 1,089 70,422
Restrict to Pre- Post-Period 1,063 56,957
Post-Period Date Range Restriction: 2021-07-01 through 2021-
12-31 1,004 56,013
Require Minimum Post Period: 5 Months 801 39,877
Incomplete Pre-Period Bills 672 31,845
Ending Count (Matched by PSM) 671 3,347
G Smart
Thermostat Paid
Install with Natural
Gas Heat
Starting Count 1,077 70,444
Install Date Range: 2021-01-01 to 2021-06-30 465 70,444
Customers w/ Multiple Accounts for one Premise in Tracking
Data 429 70,444
Treatment Customers Found in Billing Data 426 70,444
Control Group Usage Outlier (>2X Maximum Avg. Treatment
Usage) 426 70,436
Restrict to Pre- Post-Period 425 56,969
Post-Period Date Range Restriction: 2021-07-01 through 2021-
12-31 423 56,025
Require Minimum Post Period: 5 Months 404 39,887
Incomplete Pre-Period Bills 268 31,855
Ending Count (Matched by PSM) 267 1,335
G Smart
Thermostat DIY
with Natural Gas
Heat
Starting Count 1,067 70,444
Install Date Range: 2021-01-01 to 2021-06-30 461 70,444
Customers w/ Multiple Accounts for one Premise in Tracking
Data 460 70,444
Treatment Customers Found in Billing Data 430 70,444
Control Group Usage Outlier (>2X Maximum Avg. Treatment
Usage) 430 70,379
Restrict to Pre- Post-Period 430 56,920
Post-Period Date Range Restriction: 2021-07-01 through 2021-
12-31 430 55,976
Require Minimum Post Period: 5 Months 412 39,850
Incomplete Pre-Period Bills 272 31,821
Ending Count (Matched by PSM) 272 1,354

Evaluation Report 64

The figures below display the density of each variable employed in propensity score matching for each
installed HVAC measure, before and after matching.
The distributions prior to matching show only small differences between the treatment and controls
groups. After matching, the pre-period usage distribution is very similar between the groups, indicating
little differences exist on average between the groups prior to matching and validating the initial selection
of control customers.
Figure 5-5: Covariate Balance Before Matching, Natural Gas Furnace

Figure 5-6: Covariate Balance After Matching, Natural Gas Furnace

Evaluation Report 65

Figure 5-7: Covariate Balance Before Matching, Smart Thermostat Paid Install with Natural Gas Heat

Figure 5-8: Covariate Balance After Matching, Smart Thermostat Paid Install with Natural Gas Heat

Evaluation Report 66

Figure 5-9: Covariate Balance Before Matching, Smart Thermostat DIY with Natural Gas Heat

Figure 5-10: Covariate Balance After Matching, Smart Thermostat DIY with Natural Gas Heat

The Evaluators performed three tests to determine the success of PSM:
1. t-test on pre-period usage by month
2. Joint chi-square test to determine if any covariates are imbalanced
3. Standardized difference test for each covariate employed in matching
For Natural Gas Furnace and Smart Thermostat DIY With Natural Gas Heat, all tests confirmed that PSM
performed well. The t-test displayed no statistically significant differences at the 95% level in average
daily consumption between the treatment and control groups for any month in the pre-period.
For Smart Thermostat Paid Install with Natural Gas Heat, the t-test showed statistically significant
differences at the 95% level for two summer months. However, the overall pre-period t-test across all

Evaluation Report 67

months showed no statistically significant difference between treatment and control groups after
matching.
In addition, the chi-squared test returned a p-value well over 0.05 for all measures, indicating that pre-
period usage was balanced between the groups. Lastly, the standardized difference test returned values
well under the recommended cutoff of 25, further indicating the groups were well matched on all
included covariates.
The tables below provide results for the t-test on pre-period usage between the treatment and control
groups after matching for the HVAC program. A P-Value over 0.05 indicates pre-period usage between
treatment and control groups is similar at the 95% confidence level.
Table 5-9: Pre-period Usage T-test for Natural Gas Furnace, HVAC Program
Month
Average Daily
Usage
(Therms),
Control
Average Daily
Usage
(Therms),
Treatment
T Statistic Std Error P-Value Reject Null?
Jan 3.882 3.914 -0.456 0.070 0.649 No
Feb 3.642 3.685 -0.648 0.067 0.517 No
Mar 3.052 3.103 -0.851 0.059 0.395 No
Apr 1.860 1.906 -1.094 0.042 0.274 No
May 1.032 1.089 -1.782 0.032 0.075 No
Jun 0.713 0.749 -1.413 0.026 0.158 No
Jul 0.490 0.502 -0.591 0.021 0.555 No
Aug 0.449 0.460 -0.553 0.020 0.580 No
Sep 0.641 0.647 -0.278 0.021 0.781 No
Oct 1.923 1.969 -1.124 0.042 0.261 No
Nov 3.378 3.427 -0.727 0.068 0.467 No
Dec 3.829 3.881 -0.702 0.074 0.483 No

Table 5-10: Pre-period Usage T-test for Smart Thermostat Paid Install with Natural Gas Heat, HVAC
Program
Month
Average Daily
Usage
(Therms),
Control
Average Daily
Usage
(Therms),
Treatment
T Statistic Std Error P-Value Reject Null?
Jan 3.842 3.754 0.753 0.117 0.452 No
Feb 3.630 3.548 0.739 0.111 0.460 No
Mar 3.101 2.962 1.509 0.092 0.132 No
Apr 1.924 1.813 1.608 0.069 0.109 No
May 1.112 1.057 0.953 0.058 0.341 No
Jun 0.795 0.781 0.235 0.059 0.815 No

Evaluation Report 68

Month
Average Daily
Usage
(Therms),
Control
Average Daily
Usage
(Therms),
Treatment
T Statistic Std Error P-Value Reject Null?
Jul 0.554 0.541 0.357 0.036 0.722 No
Aug 0.511 0.497 0.383 0.036 0.702 No
Sep 0.705 0.678 0.563 0.048 0.574 No
Oct 1.959 1.845 1.586 0.072 0.114 No
Nov 3.328 3.182 1.414 0.103 0.158 No
Dec 3.762 3.658 0.875 0.119 0.382 No

Table 5-11: Pre-period Usage T-test for Smart Thermostat DIY with Natural gas Heat, HVAC Program
Month
Average Daily
Usage
(Therms),
Control
Average Daily
Usage
(Therms),
Treatment
T Statistic Std Error P-Value Reject Null?
Jan 3.908 3.903 0.044 0.110 0.965 No
Feb 3.735 3.654 0.759 0.106 0.448 No
Mar 3.139 3.080 0.658 0.090 0.511 No
Apr 1.880 1.886 -0.083 0.068 0.934 No
May 1.069 1.093 -0.482 0.050 0.630 No
Jun 0.745 0.786 -1.113 0.037 0.266 No
Jul 0.508 0.578 -2.673 0.026 0.008 Yes
Aug 0.475 0.524 -2.010 0.025 0.045 Yes
Sep 0.668 0.701 -0.941 0.035 0.347 No
Oct 1.943 1.941 0.036 0.063 0.971 No
Nov 3.385 3.330 0.591 0.093 0.555 No
Dec 3.842 3.775 0.657 0.103 0.512 No

Table 5-12 provides customer counts for customers in the final regression model by assigned weather
station ID for each measure. In addition, TMY HDD and CDD from the nearest available TMY weather
station is provided as well as the weighted HDD/CDD for each measure. The HDD and CDD was weighted
by the number of treatment customers assigned to a weather station.
Table 5-12: TMY Weather, HVAC Program
Measure USAF
Station ID
# of
Treatment
Customers
TMY USAF
ID TMY HDD TMY CDD Weighted
TMY HDD
Weighted
TMY CDD
G Natural Gas Furnace 720322 10 727834 6,915 376 6,365 509

Evaluation Report 69

Measure USAF
Station ID
# of
Treatment
Customers
TMY USAF
ID TMY HDD TMY CDD Weighted
TMY HDD
Weighted
TMY CDD
G Natural Gas Furnace 720923 2 727834 6,915 376 6,365 509
G Natural Gas Furnace 726817 12 727834 6,915 376 6,365 509
G Natural Gas Furnace 726988 2 726988 4,561 882 6,365 509
G Natural Gas Furnace 727827 1 727827 5,428 731 6,365 509
G Natural Gas Furnace 727830 71 727830 5,511 907 6,365 509
G Natural Gas Furnace 727834 116 727834 6,915 376 6,365 509
G Natural Gas Furnace 727850 11 727850 6,707 379 6,365 509
G Natural Gas Furnace 727855 23 727855 7,360 439 6,365 509
G Natural Gas Furnace 727856 353 727856 6,246 519 6,365 509
G Natural Gas Furnace 727857 54 727857 6,467 299 6,365 509
G Natural Gas Furnace 727870 16 727856 6,246 519 6,365 509
G Natural Gas Furnace 727918 0 726980 4,301 296 6,365 509
G Smart Thermostat Paid
Install with Natural Gas
Heat
720322 2 727834 6,915 376 6,528 463
G Smart Thermostat Paid
Install with Natural Gas
Heat
720923 0 727834 6,915 376 6,528 463
G Smart Thermostat Paid
Install with Natural Gas
Heat
726817 0 727834 6,915 376 6,528 463
G Smart Thermostat Paid
Install with Natural Gas
Heat
727827 0 727827 5,428 731 6,528 463
G Smart Thermostat Paid
Install with Natural Gas
Heat
727830 5 727830 5,511 907 6,528 463
G Smart Thermostat Paid
Install with Natural Gas
Heat
727834 103 727834 6,915 376 6,528 463
G Smart Thermostat Paid
Install with Natural Gas
Heat
727850 8 727850 6,707 379 6,528 463
G Smart Thermostat Paid
Install with Natural Gas
Heat
727855 4 727855 7,360 439 6,528 463
G Smart Thermostat Paid
Install with Natural Gas
Heat
727856 139 727856 6,246 519 6,528 463

Evaluation Report 70

Measure USAF
Station ID
# of
Treatment
Customers
TMY USAF
ID TMY HDD TMY CDD Weighted
TMY HDD
Weighted
TMY CDD
G Smart Thermostat Paid
Install with Natural Gas
Heat
727857 2 727857 6,467 299 6,528 463
G Smart Thermostat Paid
Install with Natural Gas
Heat
727870 4 727856 6,246 519 6,528 463
G Smart Thermostat DIY
with Natural Gas Heat 720322 3 727834 6,915 376 6,388 490
G Smart Thermostat DIY
with Natural Gas Heat 720923 0 727834 6,915 376 6,388 490
G Smart Thermostat DIY
with Natural Gas Heat 726817 3 727834 6,915 376 6,388 490
G Smart Thermostat DIY
with Natural Gas Heat 727827 0 727827 5,428 731 6,388 490
G Smart Thermostat DIY
with Natural Gas Heat 727830 12 727830 5,511 907 6,388 490
G Smart Thermostat DIY
with Natural Gas Heat 727834 44 727834 6,915 376 6,388 490
G Smart Thermostat DIY
with Natural Gas Heat 727850 14 727850 6,707 379 6,388 490
G Smart Thermostat DIY
with Natural Gas Heat 727855 4 727855 7,360 439 6,388 490
G Smart Thermostat DIY
with Natural Gas Heat 727856 170 727856 6,246 519 6,388 490
G Smart Thermostat DIY
with Natural Gas Heat 727857 14 727857 6,467 299 6,388 490
G Smart Thermostat DIY
with Natural Gas Heat 727870 8 727856 6,246 519 6,388 490

Table 5-13 provides estimated annual savings per customer for each measure. Model 2 (PPR) was
selected as the final model for the HVAC Program as it provided the highest adjusted R-squared among
the regression models. Savings are not statistically significant at the 90% level for Smart Thermostat Paid
Install with Natural Gas Heat and DIY Smart Thermostat with Natural Gas Heat.. However, savings are
statistically significant for Natural Gas Furnace. The adjusted R-squared shows the model provided an
excellent fit for the data.

Evaluation Report 71

Table 5-13: Measure Savings, HVAC Program
Measure Treatment
Customers
Control
Customers
Annual
Savings per
Customer
(Therms)
90%
Lower
CI
90%
Upper
CI
Adjusted
R-Squared Model
G Natural Gas Furnace 671 3,347 16.97 9.82 24.13 0.92 Model 2: PPR
G Smart Thermostat
Paid Install with Natural
Gas Heat
267 1,335 -7.59 -19.77 4.59 0.91 Model 2: PPR
G Smart Thermostat DIY
with Natural Gas Heat 272 1,354 3.12 -7.45 13.68 0.93 Model 2: PPR

The figures below provide monthly TMY savings per customer for the HVAC program.
Figure 5-11: Natural Gas Furnace Monthly Savings, HVAC Program

Evaluation Report 72

Figure 5-12: Smart Thermostat Paid Install with Natural Gas Heat Monthly Savings, HVAC Program

Figure 5-13: Smart Thermostat DIY with Natural Gas Heat Monthly Savings, HVAC Program

5.3 Shell Program
The results of the billing analysis for the Shell program are provided below. Table 5-14 shows customer
counts for customers considered for billing analysis (i.e. customer with single-measure installations) and
identifies measures that met the requirements for a billing analysis. A billing analysis was completed for
measures that had at least 75 customers with single-measure installations. This ensured that measures
would have a sufficient sample size after applying PSM data restrictions (e.g. sufficient pre- and post-
period data). The billing analysis included participants in both in both Washington and Idaho service
territories in order to acquire the maximum number of customers possible.

Evaluation Report 73

Table 5-14: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Shell Program
Measure
Measure
Considered for
Billing Analysis
Number of
Customers w/
Isolated-Measure
Installations
Sufficient
Participation
for Billing
Analysis
G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat ü 230 ü
G IGU Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat ü 11
G Floor Insulation With Natural Gas Heat ü 9
G Storm Windows with Natural Gas Heat ü 4
G Wall Insulation With Natural Gas Heat ü 32
G Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat ü 1,075 ü

The Evaluators were successful in creating a matched cohort for each of the measures with sufficient
participation. Customers were matched on zip code (exact match) and their average pre-period seasonal
usage, including summer, fall, winter, and spring for each control and treatment household. The
Evaluators were provided a considerable pool of control customers to draw upon, as shown in Table
5-15. The Evaluators used nearest neighbor matching with a 5 to 1 matching ratio. Therefore, each
treatment customer was matched to 5 similar control customers. Also shown in Table 5-15, are the
impact of various restrictions on the number of treatment and control customers that were included in
the final regression model. The “Starting Count” displays the beginning number of customers available
prior to applying the data restrictions, while the “Ending Count” displays the number of customers after
applying data restrictions and final matching.
Table 5-15: Cohort Restrictions, Shell Program
Measure Data Restriction
# of
Treatment
Customers
# of
Control
Customers
G Attic Insulation With
Natural Gas Heat
Starting Count 230 70,444
Install Date Range: 2021-01-01 to 2021-04-30 62 70,444
Customers w/ Multiple Accounts for one Premise in
Tracking Data 62 70,444
Treatment Customers Found in Billing Data 62 70,444
Control Group Usage Outlier (>2X Maximum Avg.
Treatment Usage) 62 70,365
Restrict to Pre- Post-Period 62 56,911
Post-Period Date Range Restriction: 2021-05-01
through 2021-12-31 62 56,496
Require Minimum Post Period: 6 Months 58 39,457
Incomplete Pre-Period Bills 49 32,092
Ending Count (Matched by PSM) 49 245
G Window Replc With Natural
Gas Heat
Starting Count 1,075 70,444
Install Date Range: 2021-01-01 to 2021-06-30 514 70,444
Customers w/ Multiple Accounts for one Premise in
Tracking Data 514 70,444

Evaluation Report 74

Measure Data Restriction
# of
Treatment
Customers
# of
Control
Customers
Treatment Customers Found in Billing Data 501 70,444
Control Group Usage Outlier (>2X Maximum Avg.
Treatment Usage) 501 70,404
Restrict to Pre- Post-Period 500 56,941
Post-Period Date Range Restriction: 2021-07-01
through 2021-12-31 500 55,997
Require Minimum Post Period: 5 Months 478 39,865
Incomplete Pre-Period Bills 425 31,834
Ending Count (Matched by PSM) 425 2,107
Figure 5-14 and Figure 5-15 display the density of each variable employed in propensity score matching
for the attic insulation measure, before and after conducting matching. In addition, Figure 5-16 and Figure
5-17 display the density of each variable employed in propensity score matching for the window
replacement measure, before and after conducting matching.
For the attic insulation measure, the covariate balance shows small differences between the treatment
and control groups before and after matching. This is in part due to the small final number of treatment
customers for the attic insulation measure (N=49). However, for the window replacement measure, the
covariate distributions prior to matching and after matching are similar, indicating little differences exist
on average between the groups prior to matching and validating the initial selection of control customers.
Figure 5-14: Covariate Balance Before Matching, Shell Attic Insulation

Evaluation Report 75

Figure 5-15: Covariate Balance After Matching, Shell Attic Insulation

Figure 5-16: Covariate Balance Before Matching, Shell Window Replacement

Figure 5-17: Covariate Balance After Matching, Shell Window Replacement

Evaluation Report 76

The Evaluators performed three tests to determine the success of PSM:
1. t-test on pre-period usage by month
2. Joint chi-square test to determine if any covariates are imbalanced
3. Standardized difference test for each covariate employed in matching
All tests confirmed that PSM performed well for each measure. The t-test displayed no statistically
significant differences at the 95% level in average daily consumption between the treatment and control
groups for any month in the pre-period. In addition, the chi-squared test returned a p-value well over
0.05 for all measures, indicating that pre-period usage was balanced between the groups. Lastly, the
standardized difference test returned values well under the recommended cutoff of 25, further
indicating the groups were well matched on all included covariates.
Table 5-16 and Figure 5-18 provide results for the t-test on pre-period usage between the treatment and
control groups after matching for the Shell program. The P-Value is over 0.05 for each month, meaning
pre-period usage between treatment and control groups is similar at the 95% confidence level.
Table 5-16: Pre-period Usage T-test for Attic Insulation, Shell Program
Month
Average Daily
Usage
(Therms),
Control
Average Daily
Usage
(Therms),
Treatment
T Statistic Std Error P-Value Reject Null?
Jan 3.785 4.148 -1.097 0.330 0.277 No
Feb 3.503 3.916 -1.349 0.306 0.182 No
Mar 2.850 3.242 -1.539 0.255 0.129 No
Apr 1.648 1.905 -1.621 0.158 0.110 No
May 0.812 0.961 -1.597 0.094 0.115 No
Jun 0.506 0.626 -1.735 0.070 0.087 No
Jul 0.311 0.417 -1.852 0.057 0.069 No
Aug 0.286 0.384 -1.726 0.057 0.089 No
Sep 0.463 0.584 -1.774 0.068 0.081 No
Oct 1.802 2.083 -1.890 0.149 0.063 No
Nov 3.330 3.751 -1.649 0.256 0.104 No
Dec 3.772 4.296 -1.854 0.283 0.068 No
Table 5-17: Pre-period Usage T-test for Window Replacement, Shell Program
Month
Average Daily
Usage
(Therms),
Control
Average Daily
Usage
(Therms),
Treatment
T Statistic Std Error P-Value Reject Null?
Jan 3.727 3.807 -0.905 0.089 0.366 No
Feb 3.486 3.530 -0.529 0.083 0.597 No
Mar 2.876 2.941 -0.904 0.073 0.367 No

Evaluation Report 77

Month
Average Daily
Usage
(Therms),
Control
Average Daily
Usage
(Therms),
Treatment
T Statistic Std Error P-Value Reject Null?
Apr 1.722 1.798 -1.373 0.055 0.170 No
May 0.957 1.030 -1.249 0.058 0.212 No
Jun 0.670 0.726 -1.088 0.052 0.277 No
Jul 0.461 0.496 -0.902 0.039 0.367 No
Aug 0.435 0.459 -0.642 0.038 0.521 No
Sep 0.615 0.614 0.043 0.037 0.965 No
Oct 1.836 1.884 -0.930 0.052 0.353 No
Nov 3.250 3.345 -1.236 0.077 0.217 No
Dec 3.685 3.760 -0.918 0.082 0.359 No

Table 5-18 provides customer counts for customers in the final regression model by assigned weather
station ID for each measure. In addition, TMY HDD and CDD from the nearest available TMY weather
station is provided as well as the weighted HDD/CDD for each measure. The HDD and CDD was weighted
by the number of treatment customers assigned to a weather station.
Table 5-18: TMY Weather, Shell Program
Measure USAF
Station ID
# of
Treatment
Customers
TMY
USAF
ID
TMY
HDD
TMY
CDD
Weighted
TMY HDD
Weighted
TMY CDD
G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat 720322 3 727834 6,915 376 6,303 518
G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat 720923 1 727834 6,915 376 6,303 518
G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat 726817 5 727834 6,915 376 6,303 518
G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat 727827 2 727827 5,428 731 6,303 518
G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat 727830 44 727830 5,511 907 6,303 518
G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat 727834 39 727834 6,915 376 6,303 518
G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat 727850 15 727850 6,707 379 6,303 518
G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat 727855 10 727855 7,360 439 6,303 518
G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat 727856 252 727856 6,246 519 6,303 518
G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat 727857 37 727857 6,467 299 6,303 518
G Attic Insulation With Natural Gas Heat 727870 17 727856 6,246 519 6,303 518
G Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat 727827 1 727827 5,428 731 6,266 519
G Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat 727830 3 727830 5,511 907 6,266 519
G Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat 727834 3 727834 6,915 376 6,266 519
G Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat 727850 0 727850 6,707 379 6,266 519
G Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat 727855 1 727855 7,360 439 6,266 519
G Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat 727856 37 727856 6,246 519 6,266 519

Evaluation Report 78

Measure USAF
Station ID
# of
Treatment
Customers
TMY
USAF
ID
TMY
HDD
TMY
CDD
Weighted
TMY HDD
Weighted
TMY CDD
G Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat 727857 4 727857 6,467 299 6,266 519
G Window Replc With Natural Gas Heat 727870 0 727856 6,246 519 6,266 519

Table 5-19 provides annual savings per customer for the Shell program for each measure and regression
model. The PPR model was selected for ex post savings because it provided the best fit for the data
(highest adjusted R-squared).
Table 5-19: Measure Savings for All Regression Models, Shell Program
Measure Model
# of
Treatment
Customers
# of
Control
Customers
Annual
Savings/Customer
(Therms)
90% Lower
CI
90% Upper
CI
Adjusted
R-Squared
G Attic Insulation With
Natural Gas Heat Diff-in-diff 49 245 26.21* -51.23 103.66 0.63
G Attic Insulation With
Natural Gas Heat PPR 49 245 26.35 6.09 46.62 0.93
G Attic Insulation With
Natural Gas Heat
Treatment
Only (Gross) 49 N/A 111.93 19.97 203.89 0.79
G Window Replc With
Natural Gas Heat Diff-in-diff 425 2,107 23.40* -8.58 55.38 0.54
G Window Replc With
Natural Gas Heat PPR 425 2,107 20.27 10.98 29.56 0.92
G Window Replc With
Natural Gas Heat
Treatment
Only (Gross) 425 N/A 35.41 16.44 54.39 0.83
*Not statistically significant
Savings are statistically significant at the 90% level for all measures and the adjusted R-squared shows
the model provided an excellent fit for the data.
Table 5-20: Measure Savings, Shell Program
Measure
# of
Treatment
Customers
# of
Control
Customers
Annual
Savings/Customer
(Therms)
90%
Lower
CI
90%
Upper
CI
Adjusted
R-
Squared
Model
G Attic Insulation
With Natural Gas Heat 49 245 26.35 6.09 46.62 0.93 Model 2: PPR
G Window Replc With
Natural Gas Heat 425 2,107 20.27 10.98 29.56 0.92 Model 2: PPR

Figure 5-18 and Figure 5-12 provide monthly TMY savings per customer for the Shell program. As
expected for gas weatherization measures, the greatest savings occur during the winter months.

Evaluation Report 79

Figure 5-18: Attic Insulation Monthly Savings, Shell Program

Figure 5-19: Window Replacement Monthly Savings, Shell Program

5.4 Low-Income Program
The Evaluators conducted a whole-home billing analysis for all the natural gas measures combined in
order to estimate savings for the average household participating in the program, across all measures.
The Evaluators successfully created a matched cohort for the natural gas measure households.
Customers were matched on zip code (exact match) and their average pre-period seasonal usage,
including summer, fall, winter, and spring for each control and treatment household.

Evaluation Report 80

The Evaluators were provided a considerable pool of control customers to draw upon, as shown in Table
5-21. The Evaluators used nearest neighbor matching with a 5 to 1 matching ratio. Therefore, each
treatment customer was matched to 5 similar control customers. Also shown in Table 5-21, are the
impact of various restrictions on the number of treatment and control customers that were included in
the final regression model. The “Starting Count” displays the beginning number of customers available
prior to applying the data restrictions, while the “Ending Count” displays the number of customers after
applying data restrictions and final matching.
Table 5-21: Cohort Restrictions, Low-Income Program
Measure Data Restriction
# of
Treatment
Customers
# of
Control
Customers
Whole home natural
gas

Starting Count 258 3,274
Install Date Range: January 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021 100 3,274
Control Group Usage Outlier (>2X max treatment usage) 100 3,274
Incomplete Post-Period Bills (<4 months) 94 2867
Incomplete Pre-Period Bills (<10 months) 67 1995
Ending Count (Matched by PSM) 67 335
The distributions prior to matching appear to be less similar in summer, with control customers averaging
higher usage. However, after matching, the pre-period usage distribution in summer is more similar
between the groups. The remaining pre-period seasons (winter, summer, fall), closely overlap before and
after matching, indicating little differences exist on average between the groups prior to matching and
validating the initial selection of control customers.
Figure 5-20 and Figure 5-21 display the density of each variable employed in propensity score matching
for the combined natural gas measures before and after conducting matching.
The distributions prior to matching appear to be less similar in summer, with control customers averaging
higher usage. However, after matching, the pre-period usage distribution in summer is more similar
between the groups. The remaining pre-period seasons (winter, summer, fall), closely overlap before and

Evaluation Report 81

after matching, indicating little differences exist on average between the groups prior to matching and
validating the initial selection of control customers.
Figure 5-20: Covariate Balance Before Matching, Low Income Gas Measures

Figure 5-21: Covariate Balance After Matching, Low Income Gas Measures

The Evaluators performed three tests to determine the success of PSM:
1. t-test on pre-period usage by month
2. Joint chi-square test to determine if any covariates are imbalanced
3. Standardized difference test for each covariate employed in matching
All tests confirmed that PSM performed well for each measure. The t-test displayed no statistically
significant differences at the 95% level in average daily consumption between the treatment and control
groups for any month in the pre-period. In addition, the chi-squared test returned a p-value well over
0.05 for all measures, indicating that pre-period usage was balanced between the groups. Lastly, the
standardized difference test returned values well under the recommended cutoff of 25, and always
falling under 10, further indicating the groups were well matched on all included covariates. Further
details on the results of the three tests performed to determine PSM success are available in the
Appendix.

Evaluation Report 82

Table 5-22 provides customer counts for customers in the final regression model by assigned weather
station ID for each measure. In addition, TMY HDD and CDD from the nearest available TMY weather
station is provided as well as the weighted HDD/CDD for each measure. The HDD and CDD was weighted
by the number of treatment customers assigned to a weather station.
Table 5-22: TMY Weather, Low-Income Program
Measure USAF
Station ID
# of
Treatment
Customers
TMY USAF ID TMY
HDD
TMY
CDD
Weighted
TMY HDD
Weighted
TMY CDD
All Gas Measures 727827 1 727827 5,428 731 6,314 498
All Gas Measures 727830 13 727830 5,510 906 6,314 498
All Gas Measures 727834 18 727834 6,915 376 6,314 498
All Gas Measures 727850 6 727850 6,246 519 6,314 498
All Gas Measures 727855 0 727855 7,360 439 6,314 498
All Gas Measures 727856 73 727856 6,246 519 6,314 498
All Gas Measures 727857 21 727857 6,467 299 6,314 498
Table 5-23 provides annual savings/customer for the Low-Income program the program. Model 2 (PPR)
was selected as the final model for the Low Income Program as it provided the highest adjusted R-
squared among the regression models. Savings are statistically significant at the 90% level for all
measures and the adjusted R-squared shows the model provided an excellent fit for the data (adjusted
R-squared > 0.90).
Table 5-23: Measure Savings for All Regression Models, Low-Income Program
Measure
# of
Treatment
Customers
# of Control
Customers
Annual
Savings/Customer 90% Lower CI
90%
Upper
CI
Adjusted
R-
Squared
Model
All Gas
Measures
(Therms)
67 335 .78 0 16.31 0.90 Model 2:
PPR
*Not statistically significant
The results of the billing analysis indicate no statistically significant savings were found for the gas
measures.
6. Appendix B: Summary of Survey Respondents
This section summarizes additional insights gathered from the simple verification surveys deployed by
the Evaluators for the impact evaluation of Avista’s Residential and Low-Income Programs.
Survey respondents confirmed installing between one and three measures that were rebated by Avista,
displayed in Table 6-1.

Evaluation Report 83

Table 6-1: Type and Number of Measures Received by Respondents
Measure Category Total Percent
(n=305)
One Measure 171 56%
Two Measures 91 30%
Three Measures 34 11%
Four Measures 7 2%
Five Measures 2 1%
HVAC 108 35%
Water Heater 87 29%
Smart Thermostat 127 42%
Clothes Washer 99 32%
Clothes Dryer 66 22%
The Evaluators asked respondents to provide information regarding their home, as displayed in Table
6-2. Similar to ADM’s 2020 survey, the majority of respondents noted owning a single-family home
between 1,000-3,000 square feet with central air conditioning.

Evaluation Report 84

Table 6-2: Survey Respondent Home Characteristics12

12 Four contractors or construction companies were not asked these questions.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

Appendix to the 2021 Annual
Conservation Report
PROCESS EVALUATION REPORT
April 15, 2022
Prepared for:
Avista
1411 E. Mission Avenue
Spokane, WA 99202

APPENDIX E

i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 1
Summary of Milestones and Deliverables ............................................................................................. 1
Key Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Nonresidential ................................................................................................................................. 2
Low-Income ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Residential ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 5
Nonresidential ................................................................................................................................. 5
Low-Income ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Residential ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 7
Program Descriptions ............................................................................................................................ 7
Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 8
Program Administrator and Implementer Interviews ..................................................................... 8
CAP Agency Interviews .................................................................................................................... 8
Residential Contractor Interviews ................................................................................................... 9
Participant Surveys .......................................................................................................................... 9
Nonresidential Programs .................................................................................................................... 11
Nonresidential Site Specific Findings ................................................................................................... 11
Customer Awareness ..................................................................................................................... 11
Participation Motivations and Benefits ......................................................................................... 12
Customer Experience .................................................................................................................... 14
Energy Efficiency Attitudes and Behaviors .................................................................................... 16
COVID-19 Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 17
Survey Respondent Profile ............................................................................................................ 18
Nonresidential Prescriptive Findings ................................................................................................... 18
Program Delivery ........................................................................................................................... 18
Customer Awareness ..................................................................................................................... 18
Participation Motivations and Benefits ......................................................................................... 20
Customer Experience .................................................................................................................... 21

ii
Energy Efficiency Attitudes and Behaviors .................................................................................... 23
Survey Respondent Profile ............................................................................................................ 24
Nonresidential Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... 25
Nonresidential Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 25
Nonresidential Recommendations ................................................................................................ 27
Low-Income Programs ........................................................................................................................ 28
Low-Income Program Findings ............................................................................................................ 28
Stakeholder Interview ................................................................................................................... 28
CAP Agency Interviews .................................................................................................................. 29
Community Energy Efficiency Program Findings ................................................................................. 30
Stakeholder Interview ................................................................................................................... 30
Low-Income Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................... 31
Low-Income Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 31
Low-Income Recommendations .................................................................................................... 32
Residential Programs .......................................................................................................................... 33
Residential Program Findings .............................................................................................................. 33
Program Delivery ........................................................................................................................... 33
Space Heat, Water Heat, Shell, and Windows Customer Survey Results ...................................... 33
Contractor Interview Findings ....................................................................................................... 40
Residential Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................. 44
Residential Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 44
Residential Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 45

Figures
Figure 1. How Participants First Learned of Program ................................................................................. 11
Figure 2. How Participants Prefer to Learn of Programs and Offers .......................................................... 12
Figure 3. Site Specific Participant Motivation ............................................................................................ 13
Figure 4. Site Specific Participation Benefits .............................................................................................. 13
Figure 5. Respondents Satisfied with Site Specific Program Components ................................................. 15
Figure 6. Important Criteria for Making Energy Efficiency Improvements ................................................. 17
Figure 7. How Participants First Learned of Program ................................................................................. 19

iii
Figure 8. How Participants Preferred to Learn of Programs and Offers ..................................................... 20
Figure 9. Prescriptive Participant Motivation ............................................................................................. 20
Figure 10. Prescriptive Participation Benefits ............................................................................................ 21
Figure 11. Satisfaction with Prescriptive Program Components ................................................................ 22
Figure 12. Participation Challenges ............................................................................................................ 22
Figure 13. Important Criteria for Making Energy Efficiency Improvements ............................................... 24
Figure 14. PY 2021 Prescriptive Survey Organization Types ...................................................................... 25
Figure 15. Awareness of Avista Energy Efficiency Programming ............................................................... 34
Figure 16. Preferred Method to Learn About Programming ...................................................................... 35
Figure 17. Motivations to Participate in Residential Programs .................................................................. 36
Figure 18. Benefits of Participation in Residential Programs ..................................................................... 37
Figure 19. Satisfaction with Avista and Residential Programs Overall ....................................................... 37
Figure 20. Satisfaction with Residential Program Elements ....................................................................... 38
Figure 21. Respondent Feedback and Recommendations for Program and Program Components .......... 39
Figure 22. Influences on Program Participation ......................................................................................... 39
Figure 23. Respondent Feedback for Additional Drivers of Equipment Purchases .................................... 40

Tables
Table 1. PY 2021 Process Evaluations ........................................................................................................... 1
Table 2. PY 2021 Completed Milestones and Deliverables .......................................................................... 2
Table 3. PY 2021 Evaluated Program Descriptions ....................................................................................... 7
Table 4. PY 2021 Stakeholder Interviews ..................................................................................................... 8
Table 5. PY 2021 Trade Ally Interviews ........................................................................................................ 9
Table 6. Residential Participant Survey Sample Frame, Target, and Completes by Program .................... 10
Table 7. Nonresidential Participant Survey Sample Frame, Target, and Completes by Program .............. 10
Table 8. PY 2021 Participation Challenges ................................................................................................. 16
Table 9. Aspects of the Prescriptive Programs that Worked Well ............................................................. 23
Table 10. Suggestions to Improve Avista Prescriptive Programs ............................................................... 23
Table 11. Contractor Program Participation .............................................................................................. 41
Table 12. Rebate Options ........................................................................................................................... 42
Table 13. Satisfaction Ratings by Program Element ................................................................................... 42

1
Executive Summary
As part of the Avista 2021 demand-side management portfolio evaluation, Cadmus conducted process
evaluation activities for program year (PY) 2021. The process evaluation focused on three fundamental
objectives:
• Assess participant and market actor program journey, including motivation for participation, barriers
to participation, and satisfaction
• Assess Avista staff experiences, including program changes, impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and
program processes
• Document areas of success, challenges, and changes to the program
This report describes Cadmus’ data collection and process methods, presents analysis results,
summarizes findings, draws conclusions, and recommends possible improvements for the
nonresidential, low-income, and residential programs listed in Table 1.
Table 1. PY 2021 Process Evaluations
Programa Idaho Washington
Nonresidential Programs
Site Specific P P
Prescriptiveb P P
Low-Income
Low-Income P P
Low-Income Fuel Efficiency P
Community Energy Efficiency Program P
Residential
HVAC P P
Water Heat P P
Shell and Windows P P
Fuel Switching P
a Cadmus completed all evaluation activities for the Multifamily Direct Install, Multifamily Market Transformation, and
ENERGY STAR® Homes programs in 2020. Refer to the PY 2020 report for these findings.
b Includes the Lighting, Food Service Equipment, Green Motors, Commercial HVAC, Insulation, HVAC Motor Controls, Grocer,
Fleet Heat, and Compressed Air programs.

Summary of Milestones and Deliverables
Cadmus conducted the evaluation by reviewing documents, surveying participants, and interviewing
program and implementation staff and contractors. Table 2 lists the completed process evaluation
activities.

2
Table 2. PY 2021 Completed Milestones and Deliverables
Milestones and Deliverables Completed
Document and Database Review P
Avista and Implementer Interviews P
Participant Surveys P
Trade Ally Interviews
Contractors P
Community Action Program Agency Representatives P
Key Conclusions
Nonresidential
• Overall, respondent satisfaction with the PY 2021 Site Specific and Prescriptive programs was
high.
§ Overall, 91% of Site Specific respondents and 98% of Prescriptive program respondents said
they were very or somewhat satisfied with the program.
§ While most Site Specific respondents reported increased satisfaction across most categories
in PY 2021, satisfaction with the technical assistance received from Avista staff decreased
slightly from 100% in PY 2020 to 86% in PY 2021.
§ While satisfaction with all aspects of the Prescriptive programs remained high, some
respondents expressed dissatisfaction with completing and submitting the rebate
application, communication with trade allies and their account executive, and information
about program requirements.
• PY 2021 Site Specific and Prescriptive respondents’ top motivations to participate aligned with
their top benefits from the program.
§ Site Specific respondents were motivated to participate in the program to save energy (nine
of 11), to save money (nine of 11), and to receive the rebate (eight of 11).
§ Site Specific respondents said that saving money on their utility bills was the main benefit of
participation for their company (eight of 11), followed by using less energy (seven of 11) and
improved aesthetics (seven of 11). Although receiving the rebate was not one of the top
three benefits, a majority of respondents named it as a benefit (six of 11).
§ Prescriptive respondents most frequently cited saving energy (63%; n=56), receiving the
rebate (59%; n=56), and reducing energy (57%; n=56) as reasons for participating in the
programs.
§ They similarly cited these three items as benefits: saving energy (76%; n=54), reducing
energy (61%; n=54), and receiving the rebate (59%; n=54). While not one of the top three
benefits, prescriptive respondents also cited improved aesthetics as a top benefit (56%;
n=54).
• In PY 2021, the relationship between Site Specific respondents and vendors/contractors
worked well for different aspects of the program.

3
§ All Site Specific respondents were especially satisfied with their vendors and contractors,
specifically with their communication with program contractors. Five of 11 respondents said
that their contractor, vendor, or retailer was involved in the design of the project and took
the lead in preparing their application.
• Respondents in all nonresidential programs continued to report a lack of knowledge as a
challenge to participation.
§ Most Site Specific respondents (eight of 11) said their lack of knowledge about the program
was a challenge and three recommended increasing communication about the program to
participants.
§ Most Prescriptive respondents said their lack of awareness about the program was the
biggest challenge to participation (42%, n=24). Some respondents (nine of 18) said that
more information about the program requirements would improve the Prescriptive
program.
• In PY 2021, Site Specific and Prescriptive respondents said the programs were easy to
participate in and provided other aspects of the program that worked well, such as energy
savings, receiving the rebate, and communication.
§ Site Specific survey respondents said the Avista engineering and utility account executives
were helpful (two responses), the program was easy to participate in and worked out well
(two responses), and that they appreciated the rebates (one response).
§ Seven of 33 Prescriptive program participants said the program had an easy/fast process
and six of 33 said savings received due to improvements worked especially well.
• While most respondents stated they did not experience any impacts due to the continued
COVID-19 pandemic, a small number of respondents said that timing delays continued to
persist in PY 2021.
§ Most of the Site Specific respondents said that there were no COVID-19 impacts to their
project (six of 10), while those who experienced challenges said their project timeline was
impacted due to delays (three of 10) and one respondent said the project scope was
impacted.
§ A majority of the Prescriptive respondents (78%, n=51) reported no impact on their projects.
Among those who did report COVID impacts, respondents most frequently mentioned time
labor/supply chain problems (eight responses) and time delays (one response) as
roadblocks.
Low-Income
• CAP agencies and participating customers were highly satisfied with the Low-Income program.
§ Avista and all six CAP agencies interviewed emphasized positive, well-established
relationships that were communicative and collaborative. Despite facing challenges with
participation, some CAP agencies noted that Avista was working with them to market the
program and increase outreach in an effort to bring in potential customers.

4
§ All four CAP agencies that had participated reported that customers generally provided
positive feedback. These agencies said that customers were typically happy with the
equipment they received through the program and appreciative of the work provided.
• The COVID-19 pandemic impacted program implementation and participation.
§ Both Avista and CAP agencies reported that COVID-19 impacted the program in PY 2021.
After Avista temporarily suspended the program in PY 2020 to establish health and safety
protocols, participation was slow to rebound in some areas. While some CAP agencies had
returned to steady work, others (especially newer agencies) have struggled to reach
customers. Other customer bases, such as elderly clients and clients with health
vulnerabilities, were still difficult to serve at the time of the interviews.
§ Program marketing also suffered as a result of the pandemic. Certain in-person events that
were previously used to market the program were cancelled, which made particular groups
of clients more difficult to reach.
Residential
• Survey respondents and contractors are highly satisfied with most aspects of the program.
§ All survey respondents were very or somewhat satisfied (90% very satisfied and 10%
somewhat satisfied) with the program overall, with over 99% of respondents satisfied with
interactions with Avista staff and 99% satisfied with their overall experience with Avista.
§ All contractors were very or somewhat satisfied with the program overall. They said that the
rebate application process was simple, straightforward, and user-friendly.
• While contractors said the rebate application was simple and straightforward to complete,
some survey respondents suggested simplifying the application as a way to improve the
program.
§ All of the contractors who said they have completed the application for their customers did
not find the rebate application process difficult (nine of nine) and rated their satisfaction
with the rebate application process as a 4.7 on a 5-point scale where 1 means not at all
satisfied and 5 means very satisfied (n=10). As a program improvement, two contractors
suggested Avista create an application status tracker in the portal.
§ Most survey respondents who provided improvement suggestions said the program should
increase advertising to increase awareness among residential customers (16 of 29) or
simplify the rebate application as a program improvement (six of 29).
• Contractors said the program rebate influenced their decision to recommend equipment to
their customers and influenced their customers decisions to purchase and install new energy-
efficient equipment.
§ The majority of the contractors said that their participation in the Avista rebate programs
was the defining reason that influenced their customers to receive energy-efficient
equipment. They rated the programs influence on their decision to recommend equipment
as a 4.7 on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is not influential and 5 is very influential.

5
§ They rated how influential the program was on their customers decision to purchase new
equipment as a 4.9, on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 meant not at all influential and 5 meant very
influential.
§ Additionally, a majority of survey respondents said the most important reason they decided
to purchase and install energy efficiency equipment was because of information from their
retailer or installer (70%; n=134).
• While most residential customers learned about the programs from their contractor, installer
or trade ally, they prefer to learn about the program though emails and bill inserts from
Avista.
§ Respondents in both states most frequently learned about Avista programs through
contractors, installers, or trade allies (39% in Washington and 42% in Idaho).
§ Most respondents preferred to learn about the programs from Avista’s emails (31% in
Washington and 37% in Idaho) or bill inserts (29% in Washington and 27% in Idaho). A
smaller portion of the respondents preferred learning about the program from contractors,
installers, and trade allies (13% of Washington respondents and 14% of Idaho respondents) .
• Saving money or energy are the key drivers of motivation to participate in the program
according to survey respondents.
§ Respondents participated in Avista’s programs primarily to save money (80% of Washington
respondents and 69% of Idaho respondents) and save energy (63% of Washington
respondents and 55% of Idaho respondents).
• The COVID-19 pandemic continued to impact customer participation, but Avista pivoted
throughout the year to find ways to address customer challenges related to the pandemic.
§ Some of pandemic-related issues impacted project completion but Avista was lenient with
project completion schedules to account for these challenges. Additionally, costs of
equipment increased due to supply-chain issues, but Avista was able to increase some
incentives to help customers alleviate this challenge.
Recommendations
Nonresidential
Nonresidential Recommendation 1: Consider developing and using customer testimonials in targeted
outreach to customers who have not historically participated in programs. The testimonials from
satisfied participants could focus on the ease of participating in the programs and the benefits of
participation, such as reduced energy use, bill savings, and receiving the rebate. The marketing could
also provide information to prospective participants on potential energy savings for businesses with
similar profiles.
Nonresidential Recommendation 2: Continue to look for ways to provide contractor and installer
training, educational resources about program requirements, and application completion tips to remove
roadblocks or communication issues between Avista and participants.

6
Low-Income
Low-Income Recommendation 1: Increase and adjust program marketing efforts to target hard-to-reach
members of the income-eligible community. As more in-person events are offered, market the program
to increase potential customer participation. Along with in-person events, offer virtual marketing
opportunities to reach more vulnerable customers, such as the elderly or those with health
vulnerabilities, who may not be able to attend in-person events. Work with community groups in rural
areas to help identify customer bases and strategize marketing efforts to inform them of the program.
Low-Income Recommendation 2: Continue to work with newer CAP agencies to help increase customer
participation. Providing support in more rural areas where these new CAP agencies are working will be
essential to helping them gain customers. Understanding the needs of people within their territories can
also help inform targeted marketing offerings or ways to promote the program.
Residential
Residential Recommendation 1: Continue to use emails and bill inserts as the primary forms of program
outreach to advertise Avista’s residential programs and incentives. In outreach materials, consider using
messaging focused on program benefits: energy savings, lower maintenance costs, and increased home
comfort.
Residential Recommendation 2: Consult with contractors and identify tips for completing the rebate
application that could be shared with customers who complete their own application. These tips could
highlight the technical aspects of submitting the application, the steps involved in the application
process, and the amount of detail needed for an application so that it can be approved quickly.
Additionally, continue to encourage contractors and installers to complete the rebate application for
customers to eliminate the confusion some customers feel when they fill out and submit the application
themselves.
Residential Recommendation 3: If not already available or planned for development, consider adding a
way to track rebate status to the online portal so that contractors and customers can track the status of
their applications and follow-up with Avista if anything seems incorrect.

7
Introduction
In program year (PY) 2021, Avista provided rebates and services to its nonresidential and residential
electric and natural gas customers throughout its Washington and Idaho service territories. Through the
PY 2021 portfolio process evaluation, Cadmus sought to identify and document each program’s
successes and challenges by reviewing program materials, conducting interviews with program and
implementation staff and trade allies, and conducting surveys with nonresidential and residential
program participants.
Program Descriptions
Table 3 provides a summary of programs included in Avista’s PY 2021 demand-side management
portfolio’s evaluation.
Table 3. PY 2021 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, variable
frequency drives, food
service equipment, grocer,
shell
Avista
Customers identify potential energy efficiency
projects, submit paperwork, and receive
Prescriptive rebates for projects.
Fleet Heata Smart block heating system Avista
Electric customers receive a smart block
heating system to install on vehicles. The
device controls the water temperature in the
block and the air temperature outside the
block.
Green Motors Repair/rewind of motors The Green Motors
Practices Group
Electric customers who receive a green motor
rewind at a participating service receive a
rebate. The rebate applies to 15 hp to 5,000
hp industrial motors.
Compressed Aira Compressed air leak
reduction device Avista
Following a compressed air audit, electric
customers receive direct installation of a
compressed air leak reduction device.
Low-Income
Low-Income and
Low-Income Fuel
Efficiency
HVAC, insulation, water
heaters, windows,
appliances
Community Action
Program (CAP)
Agencies
Customers qualify through income level and
receive reimbursement for cost of work
completed on their home. CAP agencies
install measures in homes based on their
approved measure list.
Community Energy
Efficiency Program
(CEEP)
Multifamily housing energy
efficiency improvements,
removal of alternative
heating sources, small
business education
Avista and CAP
Agencies
Three focus areas that aim to improve the
efficiency and education of targeted customer
groups through home improvements and
education efforts.

8
Program Measure(s) Implementer Program Summary
Residential
HVAC Space heat and smart
thermostats
Avista
Customers complete energy efficiency
projects, submit paperwork, and receive
Prescriptive rebates for projects.
Water Heat Water heat
Shell and Windows
Wall, floor, and attic
insulation; standard and
storm windows
Fuel Efficiency
Space and water heat and
smart thermostats (offered
only in Idaho)
a Cadmus planned to evaluate the Fleet Heat and Compressed Air programs, but there were no participants in PY 2021.

Methodology
This section describes the interview and survey methodology.
Program Administrator and Implementer Interviews
Cadmus conducted telephone interviews with the program staff and third-party implementers listed in
Table 4. Interviews 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
• Program impacts on the market
Table 4. PY 2021 Stakeholder Interviews
Program Avista Staff Implementer Staff
Nonresidential Programs
Site Specific – N/A
Prescriptivea P -
Low-Income
Low-Income and Fuel Efficiency P P
CEEP P N/A
Residential Programs
HVAC P
N/A Water Heat P
Shell and Windows P
Fuel Efficiency P
a Includes Lighting, Food Service Equipment, Green Motors Rewind, Commercial HVAC,
Insulation, HVAC Motor Controls, Grocer, Fleet Heat, and Compressed Air.
CAP Agency Interviews
In September 2021, Cadmus conducted interviews with six CAP agencies participating in the Low-Income
program to assess experiences, successes, and challenges. Avista provided the contact list for the

9
interviews. Table 5 lists the program, audience, number of records provided by Avista, interview target,
and number of interviews.
Table 5. PY 2021 Trade Ally Interviews
Program Audience Number of
Records Target Number of
Interviews
Low-Income Program Participating CAP Agencies 8 5 6

Residential Contractor Interviews
Cadmus conducted 10 interviews with contractors who serve residential customers (five serving
customers in Idaho and five serving customers in Washington). Avista provided a list of 927 contractors
to Cadmus. We selected a random sample of 64 contractors from the list and averaged four attempts to
contact each contractor in the sample.
The telephone interviews focused on these 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
Participant Surveys
In PY 2021, Cadmus completed 150 online surveys with residential participants in Idaho and Washington
and 67 online surveys with nonresidential program participants in both states. Cadmus completed
telephone reminder calls to increase Site Specific survey participation. The participant survey guides
gathered critical insights into participants’ program journey, covering the following topics:
• Program awareness
• General program participation
• Reasons for participation
• Program benefits
• Program delivery experience
• Overall program satisfaction
• Satisfaction with Avista
• Suggestions for program improvements
Residential Sampling
To prepare the participant contact list for the residential survey, Cadmus removed duplicate records and
records with incorrect or missing email addresses. After preparing the list, we randomly selected a
sufficient number of records proportionate to participation in each of the programs to include in the
sample frame. We sent an email invitation to participants included in the sample frame, followed by a
reminder email. Overall, we collected 150 responses for process evaluation purposes, as shown in
Table 6.

10
Table 6. Residential Participant Survey Sample Frame, Target, and Completes by Program
Program
Idaho and Washington Total
Sample Framea Target Completed
Surveys
Space Heating 1,990
80
73
Shell and Windows 744 50
Water Heating 351 20
Fuel Switching 71 7
Total 3,156 80 150
a Sample frame refers to the records selected for the survey contact list.

Nonresidential Sampling
To prepare the contact lists for each nonresidential survey, Cadmus removed duplicate records and
records with incorrect or missing email addresses. We sent an email invitation to a census of all
participants with email addresses in each program, followed by two reminder emails. Additionally,
because of low initial participation in the Site Specific survey, we made a telephone attempt to Site
Specific participants to increase participation. As shown in Table 7, nonresidential participants
completed 67 surveys in PY 2021.
Table 7. Nonresidential Participant Survey Sample Frame, Target, and Completes by Program
Program
PY 2021 Total
Sample Framea Target Completed
Surveys
Nonresidential Site Specific
Electric 67
All eligible
8
Gas 2 1
Dual 4 2
Nonresidential Prescriptive
Lighting 793 30 to 40 50
Food Service Equipment 4
As many as possible
2
Green Motors Rewind - -
Commercial HVAC 12 3
Insulation 4 -
HVAC Motor Controls 3 1
Grocer 1 -
Fleet Heat - -
Compressed Air - -
Total 890 67
a Sample frame refers to the records available for surveys after removing duplicate records, records with only
installer contact information, records without email addresses, and records with incomplete or bad contact
information.

11
Nonresidential Programs
This section focuses on two nonresidential programs: Site Specific and Prescriptive. The Site Specific
program provides incentives to customers who install custom energy efficiency projects, while the
Prescriptive programs1 offer incentives for specific measures and services.
Nonresidential Site Specific Findings
This section describes the findings from 11 surveys completed with PY 2021 Site Specific participants.
Where meaningful, Cadmus compared PY 2020 results to PY 2021.
Customer Awareness
The majority of the PY 2021 Site Specific survey respondents (seven of 101) had previously participated
in an Avista energy efficiency program, which is consistent with PY 2020 results. As shown in Figure 1,
survey respondents first learned about the Site Specific program through a variety of sources.
Equipment vendors or retailers were the most common sources (40%), followed by contractors (30%).
PY 2021 respondents were more likely to mention equipment vendor or retailer compared to the
PY 2020 respondents but were less likely to mention contractors and the Avista website compared to
PY 2020 respondents.
Figure 1. How Participants First Learned of Program

Source: Site Specific survey questions C2: “How did you first hear about the Site Specific program?”
When asked how they preferred to learn of rebates and incentives, PY 2021 respondents were most
likely to select email (three respondents), followed by their equipment vendor or retailer and the Avista

1 Prescriptive includes Lighting, Food Service Equipment, Green Motors Rewind, Commercial HVAC, Insulation,
HVAC Motor Controls, Grocer, Fleet Heat, and Compressed Air.

12
website (two respondents each). This is slightly different from the actual channel through which they
learned about the program, as discussed above.
Figure 2. How Participants Prefer to Learn of Programs and Offers

Source: Site Specific survey questions C3: “What is the best way for Avista to inform commercial customers
like you about their rebates and incentives for energy efficiency improvements?”
Participation Motivations and Benefits
Figure 3 shows the distribution of motivations reported by PY 2021 Site Specific survey respondents.
Respondents were primarily driven by economic motivations, including saving money (nine
respondents), saving energy (nine respondents), and utilizing the Avista rebate (eight respondents).

13
Figure 3. Site Specific Participant Motivation

Source: Site Specific survey question C4: “What motivated you to participate in the Site Specific Program?”
Multiple responses allowed.
Respondents’ perceived benefits aligned closely with their motivations, as shown in Figure 4. The
majority (eight respondents) cited saving money on utility bills, followed by using less energy as benefits
(seven respondents) and better aesthetics from improved lighting (seven respondents).
Figure 4. Site Specific Participation Benefits

Source: Site Specific survey question C6: “What would you say are the main benefits your company has
experienced as a result of participating in the Avista Site-Specific Program?” Multiple responses allowed.

14
Customer Experience
Program Delivery
Most PY 2021 respondents (five of 11) reported their contractor, vendor, or retailer was involved in the
design or implementation of their project, four said their Avista account executive was involved, and
two completed the project with internal resources. Over half of the respondents (five of 9) said the
contractor, vendor, or retailer took the lead in preparing the application, three respondents completed
the application themselves, and one said their Avista account executive took the lead in completing their
application. Three respondents said the contractor, vendor, or retailer provided a discount on the cost
of their project and most received a check from Avista directly (six of 9).
Of the three respondents who did not mention a contractor helping implement their project, one said
their Avista account representative was involved in the design of the project, and two said they
completed the projects on their own.
Program Satisfaction
Figure 5 shows the percentage of PY 2021 respondents and PY 2020 respondents who rated each
program component as very or somewhat satisfied. Ten of the 11 respondents were very or somewhat
satisfied with the overall program.
Respondents were more likely to be satisfied with several components in PY 2021 than in PY 2020:
communication with vendors (100% in PY 2021 vs 93% in PY 2020), the rebate amount (100% in PY 2021
vs 93% in PY 2020 ), and completing the rebate application/materials (100% in PY 2021 vs 75% in
PY 2020). Respondents were less satisfied in PY 2021 than in PY 2020 with the technical assistance they
received, their post-project inspection and their communication with their Avista account
representative.

15
Figure 5. Respondents Satisfied with Site Specific Program Components

Source: PY 2021 and 2020 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.” Showing only respondents that indicated they were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied.
Program Challenges and Successes
As shown in Table 8, eight of 11 respondents provided feedback about their program participation
challenges. The most common challenge reported by respondents was their lack of knowledge about the
program (four respondents), which is consistent with PY 2020. Two respondents reported that
coordinating internal resources and external contractors were challenges for them.

16
Table 8. PY 2021 Participation Challenges
Challenge PY 2021 (n=8)
Knowledge of the programs, costs and/or the rebates 4
Coordinating internal resources and external contractors 2
COVID-19 restrictions 1
Coordinating with Avista 1
Source: Site Specific survey question E4: “What do you so see as the biggest challenges to
participating in Avista’s Site-Specific Program for your company or other companies like yours (n=8)?”

On the other hand, PY 2021 respondents commented on many aspects of the program that worked well:
• “The Avista energy efficiency program engineering and utility account executive teams were
very helpful.”
• “Communication from Avista account executive.”
• “It was relatively easy and fast to participate in, so that was appreciated.”
• “[The] rebates are a great incentive.”
• “Keep doing what you’re doing. It worked out well.”
Four of the 11 survey respondents provided suggestions about improving the program, which primarily
fell into categories listed below:
• Increase communication about programs (three respondents)
• Increase rebate amounts (one respondent)
Energy Efficiency Attitudes and Behaviors
Eight of 11 PY 2021 respondents said the rebate provided by Avista was very important in their decision
to complete their project. Another three said it was somewhat important. When making capital
upgrades, eight respondents said energy efficiency was very important, two said it was somewhat
important and only one said it was not too important.
As shown in Figure 6, respondents most frequently selected energy or operating costs as the most
important criteria for making energy efficiency improvements (100%). This was followed closely by the
rebate or the availability of outside funding (90%).

17
Figure 6. Important Criteria for Making Energy Efficiency Improvements

Source: Site Specific survey question F5: “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, three PY 2021 respondents purchased energy-efficient
equipment, and one adopted new energy-efficient protocols and purchased new equipment. Three
respondents who mentioned purchasing new equipment had invested in lighting upgrades. One had
purchased compressor upgrades and one upgraded to digital programmable thermostats.
COVID-19 Impacts
In PY 2021, respondents faced potential obstacles related to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, six
respondents said there were no impacts to their project from the pandemic. Most respondents (three of
10) who experienced challenges related to COVID-19, experienced issues with delays. These
respondents mentioned general delays and delays on receiving equipment. One respondent said their
project scope was impacted because it was difficult to get supplies and one respondent said both their
project scope and timeline were affected.
Looking forward, two respondents thought the COVID-19 impacts would not affect their organization’s
interest in or ability to complete other energy efficiency projects. However, two respondents thought
there would be less budget available, and two respondents thought there would be more interest in
cost-cutting projects like efficiency. One respondent noted that their organization’s interest would not
be impacted unless there were new guidelines and policies mandated.

18
Survey Respondent Profile
The majority of PY 2021 Site Specific survey respondents (nine of 11) owned their facilities. Seven of the
11 facilities used gas for heating, and three used electricity. The PY 2021 sample included a range of
sectors, including wholesale, retail trade, real estate, education, agriculture, arts, and emergency
services.
Nonresidential Prescriptive Findings
This section describes findings from 56 online surveys completed with Prescriptive participants in
PY 2021. Because 50 of the 56 respondents installed lighting projects, the results primarily represent
lighting participants rather than non-lighting participants. Where meaningful, Cadmus compared
PY 2020 results to PY 2021.
Program Delivery
This section provides an overview of program delivery and the impact of COVID-19 in PY 2021:
• Program Changes. Avista increased incentives for lighting measures in July 2021.
• Program Participation. Participation in programs was lower due to COVID-19. Additionally,
interest in the Fleet Heat program was lower because there was a mild winter, so customers
were less concerned with the potential benefits of this program.
• Marketing and Outreach. Most customers learned about the HVAC, variable frequency drives,
shell, and grocer measures through their account executive or through the website. Food service
equipment participants typically learned about the program through equipment retailers.
Customers who installed lighting measures typically learned about the program from their
electrician or lighting vendor.
• Data Tracking. iENERGY is used to track program data and allows program managers to capture
all important data fields. This system has improved reporting capabilities compared to previous
systems. Some lighting and food services vendors are able to enter rebate information directly
into the system which will continue to increase efficiencies.
• COVID-19 Impact. Program goals were not met due to the impacts of COVID-19. This included
businesses being unable to complete projects, supply chain issues regarding equipment
materials, decreases in installer availability, and general labor shortages.
• Successes. Communication with customers was positive and they continued to thank Avista for
offering the programs and providing incentives to encourage energy efficiency. Vendor and
trade allies continued to successfully support the programs.
Customer Awareness
Just over one-third of PY 2021 survey respondents (34%, n=56) previously participated in an Avista
business energy efficiency program, a decrease from PY 2020 (50%, n=60). Of the 19 respondents who
participated previously, 15 provided details about programs in which they participated. Most reported
installing lighting (87%, n=15), with one respondent reporting they participated multiple projects in
previous years and another reporting having previously upgraded a furnace.

19
Most respondents said they first learned about the program from a contractor (51%, n=55), followed by
a vendor or retailer (16%). The top two results are consistent with PY 2020 results.2 Figure 7 shows the
frequency that each information channel was mentioned.
Figure 7. How Participants First Learned of Program

Source: Prescriptive survey questions C2: “How did you first hear about the program?”
Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
Respondents most frequently said that the best way for Avista to inform them of rebate programs was
by an email from Avista (36%, n=56) or through a bill insert (21%). These were also the top responses in
PY 2020. 3 Figure 8 shows the distribution of preferred methods across all respondents in PY 2021.

2 In PY 2020, most respondents selected contractors (44%, n=63), followed by equipment vendor or retailer
(25%).
3 In PY 2020, most respondents said an email from Avista (31%, n=64), followed by bill inserts (19%).

20
Figure 8. How Participants Preferred to Learn of Programs and Offers

Source: Prescriptive survey question C3: “What is the best way for Avista to inform business customers like
you about their rebates and incentives for energy efficiency improvements?” Percentages may not total
100% due to rounding.
Participation Motivations and Benefits
In PY 2021, most respondents said saving energy (63%, n=56) and utilizing the rebate (59%) motivated
them to participate in the program, followed closely by saving money (57%). These top three results are
similar to the PY 2020 result.4 As shown in Figure 9, in PY 2021, many respondents said they were
motivated by improved aesthetics and better lighting (36%), which was not reported in the PY 2020.
Figure 9. Prescriptive Participant Motivation

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

4 PY 2020 respondents (n=66) top three motivations for participating were saving money (70%), receiving the
rebate (59%), and saving energy (55%).

21
As shown in Figure 10, PY 2021 respondents’ top program benefits align with their motivations to
participate, with most respondents reporting that saving money on utility bills was the primary benefit
of participation (76%, n=54). This was followed by reducing energy consumption (61%) and receiving the
rebate (59%). The top three benefits reported in PY 2021 are consistent with PY 2020 results.
Figure 10. Prescriptive Participation Benefits

Source: Prescriptive survey question C6: “What would you say are the main benefits your company
has experienced as a result of participation in Avista’s program?” Multiple responses accepted.
Customer Experience
Program Delivery
Although the majority of PY 2021 respondents reported a contractor or vendor (85%, n=54) or an Avista
account executive (15%) was involved in a project’s design or implementation, nearly half of
respondents (45%) took the lead on their own applications. These results are similar to PY 2020.
Most PY 2021 respondents (80%; n=44) also received their rebate checks directly, rather than as instant
discounts from a contractor or vendor. Of nine PY 2021 respondents who did receive an instant
discount, seven of them explained why they chose to receive an instant discount. Two said they chose
the instant discount because it was easier for them due to less cash outlay and the process being simple.
Two other respondents chose the instant discount as the contractor had set it up as such and they had
no problem with it. One respondent reported less wait time, while another respondent was happy with
the contractor services from past experience. The last respondent reported not having an option.
Program Satisfaction
PY 2021 respondents were nearly all somewhat or very satisfied with all aspects of the Avista program,
as shown Figure 11. One respondent was not too satisfied with the overall program citing challenges in
filling out the forms due to lack of instructions from the contractor. None of the other respondents who
were not too or not at all satisfied provided specific reasons for being less satisfied.

22
Figure 11. Satisfaction with Prescriptive Program Components

Source: Prescriptive survey questions H1: “In terms of the program, how satisfied were you with
the following aspects? Please think about each item individually as you select your answer.”
Program Challenges and Successes
When asked what challenges the program presented, 39% of respondents (n=56) provided no response
and 18% reported there were no problems or complimented the program. As shown in Figure 12,
respondents most frequently cited lack of awareness as their biggest challenge to participation (42%,
n=24) followed by difficulty understanding the lighting requirements and rebate form. Two respondents
had issues using an approved contractor, for example one respondent mentioned they did not want to
use an approved contractor, but would have liked to complete the work themselves. Responses in the
“other” category include difficulty disposing of old lighting, internal company challenges such as budget
and labor, differing lighting preferences, and finding the decision-maker.
Figure 12. Participation Challenges

Source: Prescriptive survey question H10: “What do so see as the biggest challenges to
participating in Avista’s program for your company or other companies like yours?” Percentage may not
sum to 100% due to rounding.

23
PY 2021 respondents provided feedback about what worked well in Avista’s Prescriptive programs. As
shown in Table 9, respondents most commonly mentioned the fast or easy application process (seven
respondents, followed by the opportunity to save energy and money on utility bills (six respondents).
Table 9. Aspects of the Prescriptive Programs that Worked Well
Program Aspects Number of Respondents
Easy/fast process 7
Saving energy and money on utility bills 6
Overall program works well 5
Good customer service 5
Rebate amount 4
Contractor support 3
Program duration 2
Access to better lighting 1
Source: Prescriptive survey question H12: “What would you say is working particularly well with Avista’s program?” (n=33)

As shown in Table 10, 18 respondents made suggestions for improvements to the Prescriptive programs.
Respondents most frequently suggested providing more information about the program requirements
(nine respondents).
Table 10. Suggestions to Improve Avista Prescriptive Programs
Suggestion Number of Respondents
More information about program requirements 9
More marketing to customers 3
Expansion of prescriptive list to include motion sensors and other lighting options 2
Vendor motivation 1
More time to submit rebate application 1
Bigger rebates 1
List of available contractors 1
Source: Prescriptive survey question H11: “What recommendations, if any, would you make to improve the program?” (n=18)
Energy Efficiency Attitudes and Behaviors
A majority of the PY 2021 respondents (98%, n=55) considered energy efficiency either somewhat or
very important to their organization when making capital upgrades or improvements. As shown in
Figure 13, respondents cited energy or operating costs (76%, n=56) as the most important criteria in
their decision to undertake energy efficiency improvements, followed by maintenance costs (65%) and
initial cost of equipment (63%).

24
Figure 13. Important Criteria for Making Energy Efficiency Improvements

Source: Prescriptive survey question I4: “Which of the following criteria are important in deciding whether
your company makes energy efficiency improvements?” Multiple responses allowed.
The survey asked respondents how the COVID-19 pandemic affected their project. The majority of
respondents (78%, n=51) reported there was no impact, while 16% said the pandemic impacted the
project timeline, and 6% said it impacted both the timeline and the scope. One respondent mentioned
that COVID-19 impacted the project positively as they could complete the project faster. Those who
reported negative impacts described the following factors:
• Supply chain problems (six responses)
• Labor shortages (two responses)
• Delay in project (one responses)
Survey Respondent Profile
The PY 2021 participant survey collected firmographic information about Prescriptive program survey
respondents. The majority of the survey respondents had the following characteristics:
• Natural gas as their primary heating fuel (64%; n=50)
• Owned their own facilities (81%; n=52)
• Fewer than 100 employees (95%; n=34)
Figure 14 shows respondents’ organization types. Respondents were most frequently from the
wholesale or retail trade industry (23%, n=52), followed by real estate and rental and leasing (12%) and
construction (12%).

25
Figure 14. PY 2021 Prescriptive Survey Organization Types

Source: Prescriptive survey question J1: “What is the primary industry of your organization?” Note: May not
sum to 100% due to rounding.
Nonresidential Conclusions and Recommendations
This section includes Cadmus’ conclusions and recommendations for Avista’s nonresidential Site Specific
and Prescriptive programs based on the evaluation findings.
Nonresidential Conclusions
• Overall, respondent satisfaction with the PY 2021 Site Specific and Prescriptive programs was
high.
§ Overall, 91% of Site Specific respondents and 98% of Prescriptive program respondents said
they were very or somewhat satisfied with the program.
§ While most Site Specific respondents reported increased satisfaction across most categories
in PY 2021, satisfaction with the technical assistance received from Avista staff decreased
slightly from 100% in PY 2020 to 86% in PY 2021.
§ While satisfaction with all aspects of the Prescriptive programs remained high, some
respondents expressed dissatisfaction with completing and submitting the rebate
application, communication with trade allies and their account executive, and information
about program requirements.
• PY 2021 Site Specific and Prescriptive respondents’ top motivations to participate aligned with
their top benefits from the program.
§ Site Specific respondents were motivated to participate in the program to save energy (nine
of 11), to save money (nine of 11), and to receive the rebate (eight of 11).

26
§ Site Specific respondents said that saving money on their utility bills was the main benefit of
participation for their company (eight of 11), followed by using less energy (seven of 11) and
improved aesthetics (seven of 11). Although receiving the rebate was not one of the top
three benefits, a majority of respondents named it as a benefit (six of 11).
§ Prescriptive respondents most frequently cited saving energy (63%; n=56), receiving the
rebate (59%; n=56), and reducing energy (57%; n=56) as reasons for participating in the
programs.
§ They similarly cited these three items as benefits: saving energy (76%; n=54), reducing
energy (61%; n=54), and receiving the rebate (59%; n=54). While not one of the top three
benefits, prescriptive respondents also cited improved aesthetics as a top benefit (56%;
n=54).
• In PY 2021, the relationship between Site Specific respondents and vendors/contractors
worked well for different aspects of the program.
§ All Site Specific respondents were especially satisfied with their vendors and contractors,
specifically with their communication with program contractors. Five of 11 respondents said
that their contractor, vendor, or retailer was involved in the design of the project and took
the lead in preparing their application.
• Respondents in all nonresidential programs continued to report a lack of knowledge as a
challenge to participation.
§ Most Site Specific respondents (eight of 11) said their lack of knowledge about the program
was a challenge and three recommended increasing communication about the program to
participants.
§ Most Prescriptive respondents said their lack of awareness about the program was the
biggest challenge to participation (42%, n=24). Some respondents (nine of 18) said that
more information about the program requirements would improve the Prescriptive
program.
• In PY 2021, Site Specific and Prescriptive respondents said the programs were easy to
participate in and provided other aspects of the program that worked well, such as energy
savings, receiving the rebate, and communication.
§ Site Specific survey respondents said the Avista engineering and utility account executives
were helpful (two responses), the program was easy to participate in and worked out well
(two responses), and that they appreciated the rebates (one response).
§ Seven of 33 Prescriptive program participants said the program had an easy/fast process
and six of 33 said savings received due to improvements worked especially well.
• While most respondents stated they did not experience any impacts due to the continued
COVID-19 pandemic, a small number of respondents said that timing delays continued to
persist in PY 2021.
§ Most of the Site Specific respondents said that there were no COVID-19 impacts to their
project (six of 10), while those who experienced challenges said their project timeline was

27
impacted due to delays (three of 10) and one respondent said the project scope was
impacted.
§ A majority of the Prescriptive respondents (78%, n=51) reported no impact on their projects.
Among those who did report COVID impacts, respondents most frequently mentioned time
labor/supply chain problems (eight responses) and time delays (one response) as
roadblocks.
Nonresidential Recommendations
Nonresidential Recommendation 1: Consider developing and using customer testimonials in targeted
outreach to customers who have not historically participated in programs. The testimonials from
satisfied participants could focus on the ease of participating in the programs and the benefits of
participation, such as reduced energy use, bill savings, and receiving the rebate. The marketing could
also provide information to prospective participants on potential energy savings for businesses with
similar profiles.
Nonresidential Recommendation 2: Continue to look for ways to provide contractor and installer
training, educational resources about program requirements, and application completion tips to remove
roadblocks or communication issues between Avista and participants.

28
Low-Income Programs
The Low-Income program consists of Community Action Program (CAP) agencies providing qualified
customers with energy efficiency measures, drawn from an Approved Measures List, at no cost. Avista
receives a set funding portion for each state and reimburses CAPs for the measures’ cost.
Low-Income Program Findings
For its process evaluation of the Low-Income program, Cadmus conducted stakeholder interviews with
Avista staff and with CAP agencies participating in PY 2021.
Stakeholder Interview
In August 2021, Cadmus interviewed Avista staff about its Low-Income program, and they confirmed
that, in Washington and Idaho, Avista provided funding to CAP agencies, which ultimately became
responsible for qualifying potential customers based on their income.
Successes
Avista staff reported two successes for the PY 2021 Low-Income program:
• CAP agency relationships: Avista staff noted an overall positive relationship with CAP agencies.
They emphasized that they appreciated their partnership with these agencies and how they
serve an integral role in operating the program.
• Data tracking: Program data are tracked through the Customer Care and Billing system, which
Avista staff said meets the needs of its staff.
Challenges
Avista staff reported a few challenges with the program in PY 2021:
• Savings and participation goals: Avista staff reported the program was likely to fall short of
savings and participation goals for the year and this was largely due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
CAP agencies were still not administering the program to seniors, people with health conditions,
or any other customers who may be more vulnerable, which comprised a large portion of their
typical base.
• New CAP agencies: Avista staff said there were two CAP agencies that were relatively new to
the program in 2021. While staff noted that they had good relationships with these agencies,
they had struggled to find any customers in their territory due to a small overall customer base.
• Marketing: Avista staff reported they had not introduced any new channels for marketing the
program, largely due to COVID-19. They noted that marketing is often done through in-person
outreach at energy fairs, food banks, and workshops for seniors, all of which were impacted.
Staff also said that they put together a post card campaign and email blast to customers with
information about the program and the CAP agencies but had not received much response from
the effort.

29
CAP Agency Interviews
In September 2021, Cadmus conducted interviews with six CAP agencies participating in the Low-Income
program. Two of the agencies were relatively new to the program and therefore had not completed any
projects with Avista funding as of the time of their interviews.
To qualify their clients by income, all of the CAP agencies said they used the Department of Commerce
low-income standard to income-qualify new clients.
In terms of prioritizing customers that qualify, the CAP agencies identified certain priority groups, such
as elderly clients, clients with small children, Native Americans, clients with high energy usage, and
clients with disabilities.
Avista provides funding to the CAP agencies on a calendar-year basis. All six agencies said the schedule
of funding by Avista works well for them and how they need to treat their clients’ homes. All six
agencies also reported that the current level of funding is sufficient to meet their needs, although three
noted some caveats. One agency reported that since COVID-19 interrupted participation, it is hard to
truly know if the current level of funding is sufficient and added they could potentially add more staff to
take on more work if funding increased. Similarly, another agency reported that the current level of
funding is sufficient for what they can handle right now, but they could take on more work if they hired
additional employees and received more funding. Another agency said the level of funding had
fluctuated over time, which makes it difficult to plan their needs for future years.
The CAP agencies have a mix of in-house teams that complete project work and external contractors
they work with to complete more specialized work. Three of the agencies reported they had sufficient
contractor support, two agencies had not begun work yet, and one agency struggled with contractor
availability. This agency had their own crews for some work, but contracts out tasks related to furnaces,
heaters, and electrical work. They said there were some issues with availability when construction work
started picking back up following shut downs from COVID-19. One CAP agency suggested that Avista
promote workshops for crew-based workers coming out of school so there are more trained workers
available.
Successes
CAP agencies reported three major successes for the Low-Income program:
• Relationship with Avista: All six CAP agencies emphasized a positive relationship with Avista. All
CAP agencies also noted the Avista was good at communicating with them about the program
and providing them with the proper amount of support to operate in the program.
• Positive customer feedback: Four of the CAP agencies reported that they receive mostly
positive customer feedback from the work they do through the program. Some agencies noted
occasional complaints, but said these are pretty rare. Two CAP agencies were relatively new and
had not had any participation in PY 2021 at the time of the interview, so they were unable to
provide feedback.

30
• Reliable data tracking systems: Five CAP agencies reported the current data tracking systems in
place were meeting their needs for administering the program.
Challenges
CAP agencies mentioned several challenges with the Low-Income program:
• Program implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic: All six CAP agencies reported impacts
on program participation due to COVID-19. Program participation was initially suspended in
PY 2020, while the CAP agencies worked to establish health and safety protocols, and five
agencies noted that engagement was slow to return in PY 2021 as a result.
• Marketing: Three CAP agencies serving Washington customers reported challenges with
customer engagement and marketing efforts. One agency said they noticed fewer clients
requesting help in PY 2021 and that they were looking at new ways to market the program and
be proactive in engaging with customers. Two other agencies had not completed any projects in
PY 2021 at the time of the interview, but said that Avista was working with them to market the
program. However, they still faced struggles with recruiting clients to the program.
• Additional barriers: Four CAP agencies noted additional barriers for program implementation
and customer participation. One agency noted an issue with finding contractors (electricians
particularly) to perform work. Two other agencies noted issues with trying to engage with
certain members of their communities. One agency serving Washington customers said their
county has a higher concentration of Hispanic clients who they have struggled to engage with,
while another agency serving Washington customers said their county has clients from the
Marshall Islands and they have been unable to find a translator to help communicate with them.
One CAP agency serving Idaho customers reported issues with untreatable homes due to things
like a damaged roof or sewer line.
Community Energy Efficiency Program Findings
The Community Energy Efficiency program (CEEP) is also implemented by CAP agencies, though the
program only operates in Washington. Funding for the program comes from the Washington capital
budget for energy efficiency improvements in identified areas that do not tend to benefit from
traditional energy efficiency programs. These are typically areas with low- to moderate-income
customers, small businesses, multifamily residences, and alternative fuel homes.
For its process evaluation of CEEP, Cadmus conducted a stakeholder interview with Avista staff.
Stakeholder Interview
In August 2021, Cadmus interviewed Avista about CEEP, and Avista staff thought they would have a
chance to spend out the funding for the program based on the current level of participation. The
funding for the CY 2021 program was set to expire in May of 2021, but an extension was granted
through the end of the year due to COVID-19 and its impact on the work. Avista staff stated the current
program has three focus areas: (1) energy efficiency improvements to multifamily properties, (2)
removal of alternative heating sources (e.g., wood, oil) in favor of heat pumps and weatherization

31
upgrades, and (3) a small business efficiency effort. The small business effort was combined with a
business partner program to target small rural towns and provide them with comprehensive information
about the utility to educate and raise awareness of energy efficiency and identify potential projects.
Avista staff clarified that CAP agencies only implement the first two focus areas of the program, but that
the third focus area operates independently through the partner program, which can use CEEP funding
for any projects identified.
Avista staff also reported that while they identified some potential opportunities for program
participation, the CAP agencies were the primary way they identified participants. They also noted that
they were unable to conduct a large marketing effort for the program due to limited funds.
Staff said they were thinking of shifting the focus from multifamily residences to the removal of wood
stoves (which they received some funding from a local clean air agency to help with) and possibly
expanding weatherization efforts.
Low-Income Conclusions and Recommendations
This section includes Cadmus’ conclusions and recommendations for Avista’s Low-Income program
based on the evaluation findings.
Low-Income Conclusions
• CAP agencies and participating customers were highly satisfied with the Low-Income program.
§ Avista and all six CAP agencies interviewed emphasized positive, well-established
relationships that were communicative and collaborative. Despite facing challenges with
participation, some CAP agencies noted that Avista was working with them to market the
program and increase outreach in an effort to bring in potential customers.
§ All four CAP agencies that had participated reported that customers generally provided
positive feedback. These agencies said that customers were typically happy with the
equipment they received through the program and appreciative of the work provided.
• The COVID-19 pandemic impacted program implementation and participation.
§ Both Avista and CAP agencies reported that COVID-19 impacted the program in PY 2021.
After Avista temporarily suspended the program in PY 2020 to establish health and safety
protocols, participation was slow to rebound in some areas. While some CAP agencies had
returned to steady work, others (especially newer agencies) have struggled to reach
customers. Other customer bases, such as elderly clients and clients with health
vulnerabilities, were still difficult to serve at the time of the interviews.
§ Program marketing also suffered as a result of the pandemic. Certain in-person events that
were previously used to market the program were cancelled, which made particular groups
of clients more difficult to reach.

32
Low-Income Recommendations
Low-Income Recommendation 1: Increase and adjust program marketing efforts to target hard-to-reach
members of the income-eligible community. As more in-person events are offered, market the program
to increase potential customer participation. Along with in-person events, offer virtual marketing
opportunities to reach more vulnerable customers, such as the elderly or those with health
vulnerabilities, who may not be able to attend in-person events. Work with community groups in rural
areas to help identify customer bases and strategize marketing efforts to inform them of the program.
Low-Income Recommendation 2: Continue to work with newer CAP agencies to help increase customer
participation. Providing support in more rural areas where these new CAP agencies are working will be
essential to helping them gain customers. Understanding the needs of people within their territories can
also help inform targeted marketing offerings or ways to promote the program.

33
Residential Programs
The Space Heat, Water Heat, Shell, and Windows programs provide residential households with
Prescriptive rebates for installing space heat, water heat, smart thermostats, storm and standard
windows, and natural gas space and water heat.
Residential Program Findings
For the PY 2021 process evaluation, Cadmus completed interviews with the Avista program manager
and conducted 150 online surveys with Space Heat, Water Heat, Shell, Windows, and Fuel Switching
program participants. The following sections present results and detail the findings.
The survey sample sizes noted in this report may vary by survey question because respondents could
skip questions if they chose not to answer; therefore, not all respondents provided answers to every
question. Cadmus included all survey responses.
Program Delivery
This section provides an overview of program delivery and the impact of COVID-19 in PY 2021:
• Rebate submission. Customers continued to participate through two avenues of rebate
submission: directly by the customer or landlord or through trade allies, such as contractors.
• Equipment and incentive levels. Avista increased the rebate amounts on a few equipment
categories and added a few new equipment types to the list of eligible equipment.
• Marketing and outreach. In PY 2021, the program continued to run the “Ways to Save”
advertising campaign and continued to reach out to customers through email blasts. Avista
updated the website as needed when program offerings changed.
• COVID-19 impact. The pandemic was the main challenge in PY 2021. Not all program goals were
met because of the impact of pandemic-specific issues, such as quarantine periods, contractor
staffing issues, and customers being less likely to allow contractors in their home. Some of these
issues impacted project completion but Avista was lenient with project completion schedules to
account for timeline challenges. Additionally, the cost of equipment continued to increase due
to supply chain issues caused by the pandemic. This increased equipment cost was a challenge
for customers, but Avista was able to increase some incentives in response to this customer
challenge.
Space Heat, Water Heat, Shell, and Windows Customer Survey Results
Customer Awareness
Cadmus asked survey respondents where they learned about the program in which they participated. In
PY 2021, respondents in both states most frequently said they learned about Avista programs through
contractors, installers, or trade allies (39% in Washington and 42% in Idaho). This was followed by the
Avista website in both states (27% in Washington and 21% in Idaho), bill inserts in Washington (16%),
and word of mouth in Idaho (15%). Figure 15 shows state-specific results.

34

Figure 15. Awareness of Avista Energy Efficiency Programming

Source: Residential Programs Participant Survey, Question D1: “How did you first hear about Avista’s
Energy Efficiency Rebate program?” Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

Cadmus also asked respondents how they preferred to learn about Avista’s energy efficiency programs.
Most PY 2021 respondents in both states preferred Avista’s emails or bill inserts (31% in Washington
and 37% in Idaho). These preferred methods were consistent with those chosen in PY 2020. Figure 16
shows all state-specific results.

35
Figure 16. Preferred Method to Learn About Programming
Source: Residential Programs Participant Survey, Question D2: “What is the best way for Avista to inform Residential
customers like you about their energy efficiency improvement rebates?”
Motivation and Program Benefits
In PY 2021, respondents participated in Avista’s programs primarily to save money (80% in Washington
and 69% in Idaho), save energy (63% in Washington and 55% in Idaho), and/ or increase their homes
comfort (40% in Washington and 37% in Idaho). Figure 17 shows all state-specific results.

36
Figure 17. Motivations to Participate in Residential Programs
Source: Residential Programs Participant Survey, Question D3: “What motivated you to participate in Avista’s Energy Efficiency
Rebate program?” Multiple responses allowed.
Cadmus asked respondents a multiple-response question about benefits they associated with Avista’s
residential programs. In PY 2021, most respondents cited energy savings (80% in Washington and 82% in
Idaho), rebates (68% in Washington and 78% in Idaho), and lower operating or maintenance costs (59%
in Washington and 67% in Idaho). While some respondents did note the importance of environmental
benefits and less waste, these were not the top responses in either state. Figure 18 shows all state-
specific results.

37
Figure 18. Benefits of Participation in Residential Programs
Source: Residential Programs Participant Survey, Question D4. “What benefits come to mind when thinking about your
participation in Avista’s Energy Efficiency Rebate program?” Multiple responses allowed.
Program Satisfaction
Cadmus asked survey respondents to indicate their satisfaction levels with various program elements
associated with their rebate, new equipment, and installing contractor. In PY 2021, all respondents in
both states who answered the question said they were very or somewhat satisfied with the program
overall, as shown in Figure 19.
Figure 19. Satisfaction with Avista and Residential Programs Overall
Source: Residential Programs Participant Survey, Questions E1, E4: “How would you
rate your overall experience with...”

38
Figure 20 shows satisfaction with various program components. Respondents were most satisfied with
the time it took to receive the rebate (100% said very or somewhat satisfied; n=141).
The proportion of very satisfied ratings increased for four of the components from PY 2020 to PY 2021,
while one of them stayed the same, as shown in Figure 20. While satisfaction with rebate amounts still
had the lowest very satisfied rating of all five elements, the percentage of very satisfied responses
increased by 10% from 65% in PY 2020 (n=117) to 75% (n=143) in PY 2021.
Figure 20. Satisfaction with Residential Program Elements

Source: Residential Programs Participant Survey, Question E1: “How would you rate your overall
experience with...” (PY 2020 n’s=101 to 117 and PY 2021 n’s=121 to 150)

After asking respondents about their satisfaction with the PY 2021 program and program components,
the survey asked respondents’ recommendations and feedback regarding possible program
improvements. Nineteen percent of respondents (29 of 150) provided feedback, the top two
responses—increase awareness/advertising (16 responses) and simplify rebate applications (six
responses)—were consistent with PY 2020. This was followed by increase rebate options (three
responses), a change from increase the rebate amount in PY 2020. Figure 21 highlights respondents’
recommendations and feedback in these program components.

39
Figure 21. Respondent Feedback and Recommendations for Program and Program Components

Decision Influencers
Cadmus asked respondents to rate the importance of several items on their decision to purchase and
install the equipment (Figure 22). The majority of respondents rated information about the equipment
from retailers and installers as very important (70%; n=134), followed by both the rebate amount (52%;
n=135) and Avista’s information about energy efficiency (52%; n=130).
Figure 22. Influences on Program Participation

Source: Residential Programs Participant Survey, Question F1: “Please rate the following items on
how important each item was on your decision to purchase and install the equipment?”

Cadmus asked respondents if anything else was very important in their decision to purchase and install
the equipment. Twenty seven percent of respondents (40 of 150) provided an answer that primarily fell

40
into three categories: equipment needed to be replaced, price of equipment, and increased
functionality. Figure 23 provides verbatim feedback from respondents in each category.
Figure 23. Respondent Feedback for Additional Drivers of Equipment Purchases

Survey Respondent Profile
The PY 2021 participant survey collected demographic information about residential survey
respondents. The majority of the survey respondents had the following characteristics:
• Had an average household size of 2.3 residents (n=130)
• Owned their homes (99%; n=143)
• Had completed some college or had a four-year university degree (66%; n=140)
• Earned at least $50,000 per year (72%; n=107)
Contractor Interview Findings
In January 2022, Cadmus interviewed 10 contractors, five from Idaho and five from Washington, to
collect information about their awareness of and motivation to participate in Avista’s residential rebate
programs as well as their standard business practices, experiences with the program, and perceptions of
customers’ experiences with the program.
Program Awareness
Table 11 shows which residential programs contractors said they have participated in.

41
Table 11. Contractor Program Participation
Residential Programs Reponses (n=10)
All Programs (unspecified) 2
Most programs (unspecified) 2
Insulation 2
Water heating 1
Fuel switching 1
Appliances 1
Smart thermostats 1
Don’t know 1
Source: Interview question B1:, “Which Avista programs have you
participated in?” Multiple responses accepted.

The contractors were also asked about their customers’ awareness of the Avista residential rebate
programs. Four of the contractors said customers are aware of Avista but were not aware they offered
rebate programs while two of the contractors said that their customers had a high level of
understanding about the offered programs. The other four did not know whether their customers were
aware of Avista or the rebate program offerings.
Motivation to Participate
Eight contractors participated in the residential programs so they could help their customers afford
higher efficiency equipment because they would receive a rebate. One contractor said that the
programs work well for them and that is why they participate in the program. Another contractor said
that by participating in the program, it allows their company to be more competitive among others.
Program Benefits
A majority of contractors said the program benefitted their customers by allowing them to upgrade to
more efficient equipment that provided greater comfort and electric bill savings (seven of 10). Two
contractors said the program made the difference of whether customers could make such upgrades.
One contractor mentioned that customers who participate in the programs, overall, lower their energy
bills.
Rebate Application Process
Seven contractors said they typically help their customers complete their rebate forms. Three
contractors said they provide their customers with an instant discount on their invoice. All of the
contractors who said they have completed the application for their customers did not find the rebate
application process difficult (nine of nine).

42
Table 12 shows the different ways the contractors offered to redeem rebates.
Table 12. Rebate Options
Rebate Type Description Count (n=10)
Direct discount The contractor subtracted the rebate amount up front and invoiced the
customer for remaining costs, and the contractor then kept the rebate. 4
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.
6
Utility-delivered rebate The contractor invoiced the customer for the full project cost, and
Avista delivered the rebate directly to the customer. 0
Source: Interview question D1:, “Do you typically help customers complete their rebate forms (and charge the normal price
of equipment and installation), or do you provide an instant discount up front and receive the rebate directly through Avista
afterward?”

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 13 with high satisfaction marks, ranging from 4.3
to 4.8 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 meant not at all satisfied and 5 meant very satisfied.
Table 13. Satisfaction Ratings by Program Element
Program Element Average
(n=10)
Overall program 4.8
Rebate application process 4.7
Rebate levels 4.6
Interaction with Avista 4.5
Equipment covered by rebates 4.3
Source: Interview question D4:, “On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means not at all satisfied and 5
means very satisfied, how satisfied are you with…?”

Additional details related to contractors’ ratings for each program element above include the following:
• Rebate application: All contractors said the application process was simple, straightforward,
and user-friendly.
• Rebate levels: Contractors were generally satisfied with the rebate levels, although those who
did not give a 5 rating (three of 10) said that the rebate amounts could be higher to provide
further benefits to customers.
• Equipment: Half of the contractors (five of 10) 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.

43
Program Influence
Most of the contractors (seven of 10) stated that Avista’s rebate program highly influenced their
decision to recommend its equipment. Six contractors said the program enabled them to sell more
higher-efficiency equipment. Two contractors stated that Avista’s residential programs did not affect the
type of work that their companies perform. No contractors reported negative impacts on their
businesses due to participating in the residential programs.
With regard to perceived customer experience, contractors
rated the programs’ importance on their customers’
decisions to purchase high-efficiency equipment on a 5-
point scale, where 1 meant not at all important and 5
meant very important. The overall rating for program
importance was 4.9.
“Participating in Avista’s programs can be
the deciding factor on whether or not our
customers can get the energy-efficient
upgrades.”
- Contractor
Awareness
Half of the contractors (five of 10) estimated that, on average, 50% of customers already knew about
the program when they contacted them and were highly knowledgeable of the program requirements
and benefits. Roughly 85% of all customers who contacted the contractors, qualified for a rebate
through Avista’s residential rebate program.
COVID-19 Impacts
In PY 2021, two contractors in Washington observed sales of energy equipment increase during
COVID-19. The contractors explained that the increase in sales was probably because more people were
spending time at home and were more aware of the amount of energy their households consumed.
Three contractors stated that their customers experienced scheduling issues when trying to find
installers. One contractor explained that this issue could be due to the uncertainty of the pandemic or
because visits had to be rescheduled due to positive COVID-19 tests. One contractor experienced a delay
in receiving equipment. However, none of the contractors said they observed changes in the quality or
quantity of the products, nor did they have any issues finding installers. In PY 2021, contractors
indicated that most of their work was done via virtual meetings with customers.
Feedback and Recommendations
Four of the contractors stated that they could not think of any
recommendations or of any aspect where the program could be
improved while two praised Avista’s easy and straightforward
application process.
“The programs work well
for us.”
- Contractor
Six of the contractors provided the following recommendations to improve the contractor and customer
experiences:
• Increase rebate amounts (two respondents)
• Provide contractors and customers with an application status tracker in the portal (two
respondents)

44
• Provide contractors with marketing tools (one respondent)
• Provide contractors with a list of certified installers (one respondent)
Residential Conclusions and Recommendations
This section includes Cadmus’ conclusions and recommendations for Avista’s residential programs based
on the evaluation findings.
Residential Conclusions
• Survey respondents and contractors are highly satisfied with most aspects of the program.
§ All survey respondents were very or somewhat satisfied (90% very satisfied and 10%
somewhat satisfied) with the program overall, with over 99% of respondents satisfied with
interactions with Avista staff and 99% satisfied with their overall experience with Avista.
§ All contractors were very or somewhat satisfied with the program overall. They said that the
rebate application process was simple, straightforward, and user-friendly.
• While contractors said the rebate application was simple and straightforward to complete,
some survey respondents suggested simplifying the application as a way to improve the
program.
§ All of the contractors who said they have completed the application for their customers did
not find the rebate application process difficult (nine of nine) and rated their satisfaction
with the rebate application process as a 4.7 on a 5-point scale where 1 means not at all
satisfied and 5 means very satisfied (n=10). As a program improvement, two contractors
suggested Avista create an application status tracker in the portal.
§ Most survey respondents who provided improvement suggestions said the program should
increase advertising to increase awareness among residential customers (16 of 29) or
simplify the rebate application as a program improvement (six of 29).
• Contractors said the program rebate influenced their decision to recommend equipment to
their customers and influenced their customers decisions to purchase and install new energy-
efficient equipment.
§ The majority of the contractors said that their participation in the Avista rebate programs
was the defining reason that influenced their customers to receive energy-efficient
equipment. They rated the programs influence on their decision to recommend equipment
as a 4.7 on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is not influential and 5 is very influential.
§ They rated how influential the program was on their customers decision to purchase new
equipment as a 4.9, on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 meant not at all influential and 5 meant very
influential.
§ Additionally, a majority of survey respondents said the most important reason they decided
to purchase and install energy efficiency equipment was because of information from their
retailer or installer (70%; n=134).

45
• While most residential customers learned about the programs from their contractor, installer
or trade ally, they prefer to learn about the program though emails and bill inserts from
Avista.
§ Respondents in both states most frequently learned about Avista programs through
contractors, installers, or trade allies (39% in Washington and 42% in Idaho).
§ Most respondents preferred to learn about the programs from Avista’s emails (31% in
Washington and 37% in Idaho) or bill inserts (29% in Washington and 27% in Idaho). A
smaller portion of the respondents preferred learning about the program from contractors,
installers, and trade allies (13% of Washington respondents and 14% of Idaho respondents) .
• Saving money or energy are the key drivers of motivation to participate in the program
according to survey respondents.
§ Respondents participated in Avista’s programs primarily to save money (80% of Washington
respondents and 69% of Idaho respondents) and save energy (63% of Washington
respondents and 55% of Idaho respondents).
• The COVID-19 pandemic continued to impact customer participation, but Avista pivoted
throughout the year to find ways to address customer challenges related to the pandemic.
§ Some of pandemic-related issues impacted project completion but Avista was lenient with
project completion schedules to account for these challenges. Additionally, costs of
equipment increased due to supply-chain issues, but Avista was able to increase some
incentives to help customers alleviate this challenge.
Residential Recommendations
Residential Recommendation 1: Continue to use emails and bill inserts as the primary forms of program
outreach to advertise Avista’s residential programs and incentives. In outreach materials, consider using
messaging focused on program benefits: energy savings, lower maintenance costs, and increased home
comfort.
Residential Recommendation 2: Consult with contractors and identify tips for completing the rebate
application that could be shared with customers who complete their own application. These tips could
highlight the technical aspects of submitting the application, the steps involved in the application
process, and the amount of detail needed for an application so that it can be approved quickly.
Additionally, continue to encourage contractors and installers to complete the rebate application for
customers to eliminate the confusion some customers feel when they fill out and submit the application
themselves.
Residential Recommendation 3: If not already available or planned for development, consider adding a
way to track rebate status to the online portal so that contractors and customers can track the status of
their applications and follow-up with Avista if anything seems incorrect.
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices

Idaho Energy Efficiency
Incentive Methodology
Avista Energy Efficiency Programs
Version 2022.1 1/1/22 Avista Corporation

APPENDIX F
Idaho Energy Efficiency Incentive Methodology Page 1

Contents
Purpose and Scope ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Background .................................................................................................................................................. 2
Objective Standard to Incentive Level Setting ............................................................................................. 3
Cost-Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Items that Influence Downward Incentive Revisions ................................................................................... 3
Sources Used to Determine Savings Values ................................................................................................. 4
Process for Evaluating Existing Rebate Levels .............................................................................................. 5
Addressing Programs with Cost-Effectiveness below 1.0 ............................................................................ 6
Calculation of Incentives for New Measures ................................................................................................ 6
Low Income Programs .................................................................................................................................. 7
Questions ..................................................................................................................................................... 7

Idaho Energy Efficiency Incentive Methodology Page 2

Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this document is to describe Avista’s existing methodology for the modification and
setting of rebates (aka incentives) for its Idaho Energy Efficiency Programs. Currently, Avista adjusts
incentive levels on an as-needed basis. However, with changes to regional Unit Energy Savings (UES)
values, impact evaluation feedback and changing/emerging technology, the result is that some
measures are subject to necessary incentive revisions in order to remain cost-effective. The following
methodology is designed to functionalize those inputs into an informed approach to modifying incentive
levels.
Background
As part of Avista’s 2018-2019 application for a prudency determination (Case Nos. AVU-E-20-13/AVU-G-
20-08), Commission Staff noted concerns about constant incentive level changes having a negative
impact on customer participation, and that incentive level setting for Idaho should be independent
from those efforts in Washington. The below comments were provided by Commission Staff in Final
Order No. 35129:
Staff discussed the inconsistency of the Company’s energy efficiency rebate and incentive
values. Staff noted several occasions where the rebate or incentive amount changed during the
year. Staff learned that the Company tries to match rebates for its programs in Idaho and
Washington. However, with Washington being evaluated from the TRC perspective and Idaho by
the UCT perspective, Staff notes this can be difficult and causes varying rebate amounts
between jurisdictions. Staff believed the Company should evaluate its rebates and incentives
from the UCT perspective for its Idaho customers before making changes to the rebate and
incentive values. Staff believed the Company should consult with its Energy Efficiency
stakeholders to formalize a process for evaluating and altering rebate and incentive levels and
to document and formalize a process for setting and adjusting rebates and incentives.
In response to these comments, the Idaho Commission provided the following statement, supporting
Staff’s position:
The Commission is concerned with the Company’s tendency to change some rebate and
incentive values frequently. This creates uncertainty for customers who may be interested in the
programs, but hesitant to participate due to fluctuations in the rebate and incentive values. An
objective standard for changing rebate and incentive levels may encourage participation. We
direct the Company, Staff, and interested parties to work together to develop a process to
evaluate and change rebate and incentive values. The parties working to address this issue
should rely on objective criteria as a baseline for changing the rebate and incentive values and
should continue to focus on being cost-effective from a UCT perspective.
Idaho Energy Efficiency Incentive Methodology Page 3

Objective Standard to Incentive Level Setting
Avista’s approach to incentivizing Energy Efficiency measures is to provide the highest level of benefit to
the customer at the lowest resource cost while also remaining cost-effective on an overall portfolio
basis. Given that all measures offered within the Demand Side Management (DSM) portfolio have a
unique set of UES values, the incentive level for each measure observes the following standards:
1. Maintain a cost-effective energy efficiency portfolio
2. Drive conservation achievements to support Avista’s preferred resource strategy of pursuing the
lowest cost resources
3. Provide incentives that are meaningful to customers, influencing their decision to pursue energy
efficient equipment
4. Structure incentives to avoid unnecessary revisions to promote customer certainty in energy
efficiency programs
5. Provide incentives to drive market transformation and/or adoption of emerging technology.
Cost-Effectiveness
As its primary cost test, Avista utilizes the Utility Cost Test (UCT) to set incentive levels for individual
measures and to gauge the overall cost-effectiveness (CE) of the DSM program portfolio.
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
The UCT cost-effectiveness analysis approach addresses energy efficiency cost-effectiveness by simply
determining which approach has the highest associated net benefit.1 As the name suggests, the UCT
focuses on the overall impact to the utility when pursing DSM by measuring:
1) Benefit: the costs to the company’s system that are assumed to be avoided over the life of the
measure. These costs included the avoided energy and capacity costs of Avista’s system.
2) Cost: the costs are incurred by the company in administering the program which include
incentives paid to customers and the program administration costs for the program’s entirety.
UCT cost-effectiveness simply comes down to a comparison of reduced utility costs (avoided costs) and
the full cost (incentive and non-incentive cost) of delivering the utility program. When the resulting
ratio is 1.0 or above, cost-effectiveness is achieved. the below formula provides a simplified calculation
of the UCT as it applies to DSM programs.

𝐿𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑 𝐴𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑈𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦
𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡+𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚 𝐴𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠=𝑼𝒕𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕𝒔

Items that Influence Downward Incentive Revisions
While the goal of this process is to maintain a consistent level for incentive revisions, there are key
factors that are considered in incentive modifications.

1 Net benefit is calculated as the avoided cost less the program’s cost.
Idaho Energy Efficiency Incentive Methodology Page 4

• Failing the UCT Cost-Effectiveness Test: When a measure or program achieves a UCT benefit-to-
cost ratio lower than 1.0, it is not considered to be cost-effective. This alone does not mean an
incentive revision is required; however, it does have a negative impact on individual programs
and the overall portfolio.
• Changes to Avoided Cost: When the overall system avoided cost is modified as part of Avista’s
Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) process, the cost avoided per kWh or therm of conservation is
impacted. A decrease in the avoided cost value, which is the numerator in the UCT calculation,
causes more pressure to be placed on the program cost (i.e. the denominator) to maintain cost-
effectiveness.
• Unit Energy Savings Values: As with a change to the avoided cost, a reduction in the kWh
and/or therms achieved per measure or a reduction in the useful life of the measure will result
in less conservation achieved over the unit life.
• Market impacts/saturation: The anticipated degree to which a higher or lower incentive level
causes the market to react, resulting in higher or lower program participation.
• Codes and Standards: As energy codes are adopted, the required efficiency levels may have a
determining factor on the ability to offer an incentive, since the baseline efficiency option
moves closer to the highest efficiency option for any given measure. Increases in baseline
efficiencies result in less kWh and/or therm savings per measure installed.
Conversely, at times these impacts work in the opposite manner and provide more opportunity for
increasing incentive levels. For example, an increase to the overall avoided cost per kWh or therm would
result in a higher UCT ratio. Likewise, an adjustment to the savings value that results in more savings per
measure would also provide the opportunity for a higher incentive. When these adjustments occur,
Avista determines if an incentive revision is appropriate.
Sources Used to Determine Savings Values
Avista uses several resources for determining the claimed savings values for programs, projects, and
individual measures. The table below illustrates the hierarchy used by Avista to determine the prevalent
value to use when multiple savings sources are available.

Engineering Calculated: Avista utilizes customer-specific energy use and savings for calculating
incentives for site specific projects. The information used to perform calculations comes directly from
the customer and/or their contractor/vendor. Data collected may include prevalent information from
Engineering Calculated
Impact Evaluation
Regional Technical Forum
Other Known Sources
Idaho Energy Efficiency Incentive Methodology Page 5

existing equipment specs, nameplate data, hours of operation, setpoints, building automation trend logs
when available, etc. Engineering Calculated projects will continue to develop UES specific to the
customers site location and improvements.
Impact Evaluation: As part of our annual Evaluation, Measurement and Verification (EM&V) process,
Avista’s contracted, independent third-party evaluator may adjust UES values that Avista used in its
program year. Any adjustments come in a form of “recommendations” from the EM&V vendor. Based
on a given recommendation, Avista may update the UES value in the following program year. This
adjustment would be applicable to the Company’s Residential and Commercial prescriptive (rebate)
programs.
Regional Technical Forum: Avista uses values from the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) to inform
incentive values for prescriptive measures throughout its portfolio. These values are informed by
consistent and reliable program achievements of efficient technologies or actions throughout the
Northwest and are frequently updated based on observed changes in measure performance, technology
adoption, and codes and standards.
Other Known Sources: When no other sources of savings values are available, Avista may utilize UES
values or the energy savings calculation methodology from alternative sources such as other utility TRM
workbooks and values or preliminary results from similar programs. This approach relies on the EM&V
process to evaluate or “prove” that the UES values are appropriate for Avista’s service territory and are
expected to be adjusted upon program evaluation.
Process for Evaluating Existing Rebate Levels
Before the start of each program year, Avista reviews its incentive levels to determine if an adjustment
is required. This approach takes into consideration inputs from internal and external sources, including
those mentioned in the prior section above.
Step 1: Update Avoided Cost and UES Values
Based on the most recent IRP, Avista will update the avoided cost. This impacts the overall “strength” of
1 kWh or 1 therm of conservation.
Based on the source of the UES value, Avista will review and update the UES values. This results in a
change to the 1st year kWh or therm savings value. This determines the overall conservation achieved
per measure.
Step 2: Update Forecasted Admin Costs
The portfolio is update with new projections for labor, implementation, and third-party costs.
Step 3: Test for Changes to Cost-Effectiveness
Based on the updated UES values and avoided costs, Avista estimates the cost-effectiveness per
measure, per program and for the overall portfolio. For measures that have a UCT lower than 1.0, Avista
further investigates the issue. Options to address a failing UCT may include adjustments to the UCT
formula costs components:
1. Reviewing the alignment of allocated administrative costs for appropriateness
2. Lowering Incentive levels
Idaho Energy Efficiency Incentive Methodology Page 6

3. Take no action and monitor program cost-effectiveness on an annual basis
The course of action for any given measure depends, in part, on the extent to which a falling UCT will
impact the UCT of the overall program portfolio. In the event that Avista learns of a UCT that is dropping
more rapidly or further than expected for a measure or set of measures with significant influence on
overall cost-effectiveness of the portfolio, Avista will take swift action to correct the issue by lowering
incentive levels, not necessarily waiting for the next annual rebate evaluation cycle.
Step 4: Other Indicators
Program Performance
Avista reviews the customer participation of each measure to determine if an increased incentive would
result in a higher throughput. Avista reviews the historic throughput and incentive levels to determine if
the resulting data informs a relationship between incentive changes and customer participation.
Market Conditions
Avista reviews market conditions and any cost barrier indicators to determine if the current rebate
amounts are sufficiently incenting customers to patriciate in energy efficiency programs. Market
conditions may include the total cost of equipment installation, technology saturation and maturity, and
when possible, aligning incentive levels with neighboring utilities.
Comparison to Other Utilities
On an annual basis, Avista will also compare its residential offerings to those of other utility companies
within the region to identify programs that may be under or over incenting. While this step may not
result in incentive level changes, it provides additional perspective to our program’s composition and
identifies areas where adjustments could be made.
Addressing Programs with Cost-Effectiveness below 1.0
When a program’s cost-effectiveness is or falls below 1.0, Avista will monitor the program and work with
its Idaho Energy Efficiency advisors to determine if a rebate adjustment is needed or if the program
should instead be concluded. Avista will assess the impact the program has on the portfolio level cost-
effectiveness and the conservation achieved by the program to determine next steps.
Calculation of Incentives for New Measures
In general, Avista bases its incentive/rebate calculation on a cents per kilowatt hour and dollars per
therm basis. Energy savings are then used to determine the incentive Avista will provide to ensure the
probability that the measure will have a UCT of 1.0 or higher and that the incentive value does not
exceed 100% of the incremental cost between the baseline option and the efficient option being
installed.
For the purposes of developing a new measure, Avista typically begins with an incentive that is based off
70% of the incremental cost and $0.23/kWh or $3.50/Therm. Setting the incentive back from the upper
limits provides some protections to ensure that the measure will be cost-effective in the future if an
impact evaluation finds that the savings value was overstated.
Idaho Energy Efficiency Incentive Methodology Page 7

Low Income Programs
Avista designs its low-income energy efficiency program with the intent to provide customers with
solutions to address their energy burden by helping make the energy used in their homes more
affordable. Avista maintains a list of deemed measures that the CAP agency can fully fund with an
annual budget of $875,000. Measures may include insulation, HVAC, Lighting along with Health and
Safety related projects. By fully funding several measures that are traditionally supported by the
Department of Energy weatherization program along with others that are beneficial to Avista’s service
territory, the costs associated with each project is higher and has historically resulted in UCT less than
1.0. Avista continues to monitor the low income program and will seek out adjustments to improve the
cost effectiveness of the program when possible.
Questions
For any questions, please contact the following:

Nicole Hydzik
Director, Energy Efficiency
[e-mail]
509 495-8038

Ryan Finesilver
Energy Efficiency Manager
[e-mail]
509 495-4873

2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices
APPENDIX G – 2021 EXPENDITURES BY PROGRAM
Energy-Efficiency Program Electric Natural Gas Total
Energy-Efficiency Incentives
Low-Income
Low-Income $ 423,973 $ 222,746 $ 646,719
Health and Safety $ 49,222 $ 69,770 $ 118,992
Residential
ENERGY STAR Homes $ 20,000 $ 3,800 $ 23,800
HVAC $ 103,839 $ 1,162,362 $ 1,266,201
Multifamily Direct Install $ 110,710 $ 0 $ 110,710
Fuel Efficiency $ 201,900 $ 0 $ 201,900
Shell $ 71,766 $ 55,712 $ 127,478
Water Heat $ 5,590 $ 216,100 $ 221,690
Appliances $ 5,590 $ 2,530 $ 8,120
Multifamily Weatherization $ 11,023 $ 8,993 $ 20,015
Commercial/Industrial
Site-Specific $ 996,932 $ 0 $ 996,932
Compressed Air $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Grocer $ 725 $ 0 $ 725
Food Services $ 220 $ 28,100 $ 28,320
Green Motors $ 4,259 $ 0 $ 4,259
HVAC $ 0 $ 17,966 $ 17,966
Multifamily Market Transformation $ 890,123 $ 0 $ 890,123
Motor Control HVAC (VFD)$ 7,850 $ 0 $ 7,850
Shell $ 1,375 $ 1,416 $ 2,791
Exterior Lighting $ 550,711 $ 0 $ 550,711
Interior Lighting $ 649,136 $ 0 $ 649,136
Energy-Efficiency Incentives Total $ 4,104,944 $ 1,789,495 $ 5,894,439
Market Transformation
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance $ 557,659 $ 157,375 $ 715,034
Brio Eastside Market Transformation $ 87,233 $ 0 $ 87,233
Market Transformation Total $ 644,891 $ 157,375 $ 802,266
Other Programs and Activities
General Implementation $ 1,566,938 $ 425,531 $ 1,992,469
Idaho Research and Development $ 186,307 $ 0 $ 186,307
Pilot Programs $ 72,912 $ 31,277 $ 104,190
EM&V/CPA $ 187,909 $ 42,971 $ 230,880
Other Programs and Activities $ 2,014,066 $ 499,779 $ 2,513,845
Grand Total $ 6,763,901 $ 2,446,649 $ 9,210,550
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices
APPENDIX H – 2021 ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACTIVITY BY PROGRAM
Energy-Efficiency Program
Electric Natural Gas
Participants
Evaluated
Savings
(kWh)
Utility Cost Participants
Evaluated
Savings
(Therms)
Utility Cost
Low-Income
Weatherization 67 Homes 28,834 $ 151,580 72 Homes 1,620 $ 108,812
Fuel Conversions 32 Units 109,381 $ 460,830 - Units 0 $ 0
HVAC 5 Units 15,081 $ 62,745 25 Units 1,531 $ 148,367
Water Heat 0 Units 0 $ 0 10 NA 66 $ 36,634
Outreach/Giveaways 32 HHS 191 $ 956 - HHS 0 $ 0
Health and Safety 21 0 $ 49,222 26 0 $ 69,770
ENERGY STAR Refrigerator 1 Units 16 $ 705 - Units 0 $ 0
Low-Income Total 153,503 $ 726,038 3,217 $ 363,583
Residential
ENERGY STAR Homes 22 Homes 72,093 $ 43,960 6 Homes 670 $ 4,076
HVAC 239 Furnace,
Tstat 323,274 $ 176,705 3,717 Furnace,
Tstat 212,647 $ 1,230,267
Water Heat 26 Units 30,726 $ 9,642 562 Units 41,972 $ 229,601
Fuel Conversions 50 Furnaces,
Water Heat 586,226 $ 359,619 - Furnaces,
Water Heat - $ 0
Multifamily Direct Install 121 Units
(Measures)118,613 $ 155,623 - Units
(Measures) - $ 0
Shell 130 Windows,
Insulation 219,690 $ 179,111 370 Windows,
Insulation 18,214 $ 66,420
Appliances 152 Washer/
Dryer 13,420 $ 8,056 68 Washer/
Dryer 253 $ 2,597
Multifamily Weatherization 25 Units
(Measures)49,193 $ 35,059 16 Units
(Measures)2,301 $ 10,345
Residential Total 1,413,235 $ 967,775 276,057 $ 1,543,307
Commercial/Industrial
Site-Specific 174 Projects 5,470,488 $ 1,282,706 - Projects - $ 0
Compressed Air - Units - $ 0 - NA - $ 0
Multifamily Market
Transformation 5 Projects 711,593.00 $ 989,860 - Projects - $ 0
Grocer 3 Projects 7,443 $ 867 - Projects - $ 0
Food Services 21 Projects 977 $ 253 21 Projects 14,480 $ 103,680
Green Motors 8 Motor
Rewinds 23,986 $ 6,578 - NA - $ 0
HVAC 15 Units 56,210 $ 11,908 16 Units 5,885 $ 61,287
Shell 3 Projects 2,547 $ 1,766 3 Projects 360 $ 5,000
Prescriptive Lighting 499 Projects 5,669,622 $ 1,514,671 - NA - $ 0
Commercial/Industrial Total 11,942,866 $ 3,808,611 20,725 $ 169,968
Grand Total 13,509,604 $ 5,502,423 300,000 $ 2,076,859
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices
APPENDIX I – COST-EFFECTIVENESS TABLES
Electric
2020-21 Combined Cost-Effectiveness Tables
Total Portfolio
Cost‐Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 22,006,918 $ 14,320,309 1.54
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 18,417,778 $ 10,671,962 1.73
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 35,670,127 $ 11,009,248 3.24
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 18,309,141 $ 38,981,188 0.47
Residential
Cost‐Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 7,954,360 $ 4,455,564 1.79
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 6,320,137 $ 2,837,861 2.23
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 12,943,343 $ 3,028,998 4.27
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 6,320,137 $ 14,369,909 0.44
Low-Income
Cost‐Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 1,304,264 $ 1,120,179 1.16
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 508,283 $ 1,314,445 0.39
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 1,529,744 $ 625,558 2.45
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 399,645 $ 2,024,366 0.20
Commercial/Industrial
Cost‐Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 12,748,295 $ 8,744,566 1.46
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 11,589,359 $ 6,519,656 1.78
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 21,197,039 $ 7,354,692 2.88
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 11,589,359 $ 22,586,913 0.51

2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices
2021 Electric Cost Effectiveness
Total Portfolio
Cost‐Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 8,349,163 $ 7,554,710 1.11
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 6,778,064 $ 5,453,202 1.24
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 15,934,301 $ 6,157,230 2.59
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 6,728,843 $ 17,331,781 0.39
Residential
Cost‐Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 2,334,452 $ 1,805,380 1.29
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 1,467,936 $ 967,775 1.52
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 3,737,848 $ 1,368,023 2.73
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 1,467,936 $ 4,175,204 0.35
Low-Income
Cost‐Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 389,481 $ 587,932 0.66
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 196,283 $ 676,816 0.29
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 731,308 $ 335,089 2.18
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 147,061 $ 984,151 0.15
Commercial/Industrial
Cost‐Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 5,625,230 $ 5,161,398 1.09
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 5,113,845 $ 3,808,611 1.34
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 11,465,145 $ 4,454,119 2.57
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 5,113,845 $ 12,172,425 0.42

2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices
2020 Electric Cost Effectiveness
Total Portfolio
Cost‐Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 13,657,755 $ 6,765,599 2.02
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 11,639,714 $ 5,218,760 2.23
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 19,735,826 $ 4,852,018 4.07
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 11,580,299 $ 21,649,408 0.53
Residential
Cost‐Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 5,619,907 $ 2,650,184 2.12
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 4,852,201 $ 1,870,086 2.59
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 9,205,496 $ 1,660,975 5.54
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 4,852,201 $ 10,194,705 0.48
Low-Income
Cost‐Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 914,783 $ 532,247 1.72
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 311,999 $ 637,629 0.49
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 798,437 $ 290,469 2.75
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 252,584 $ 1,040,215 0.24
Commercial/Industrial
Cost‐Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 7,123,065 $ 3,583,168 1.99
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 6,475,514 $ 2,711,045 2.39
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 9,731,894 $ 2,900,573 3.36
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 6,475,514 $ 10,414,488 0.62
2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices
Natural Gas
2020-21 Combined Cost-Effectiveness
Total Portfolio
Cost‐Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 5,460,921 $ 8,511,432 0.64
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 5,315,028 $ 4,260,030 1.25
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 13,192,101 $ 7,972,953 1.65
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 5,160,449 $ 13,730,580 0.38
Residential
Cost‐Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 4,805,785 $ 7,312,760 0.66
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 4,805,785 $ 2,971,943 1.62
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 11,652,599 $ 7,173,135 1.62
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 4,805,785 $ 11,792,224 0.41
Low-Income
Cost‐Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 377,023 $ 857,752 0.44
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 231,130 $ 951,727 0.24
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 919,674 $ 671,513 1.37
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 76,551 $ 1,105,913 0.07
Commercial/Industrial
Cost‐Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 278,112 $ 340,921 0.82
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 278,112 $ 336,361 0.83
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 619,828 $ 128,305 4.83
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 278,112 $ 832,444 0.33

2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices
2021 Natural Gas Cost-Effectiveness
Total Portfolio
Cost‐Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 2,629,603 $ 4,346,572 0.60
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 2,483,710 $ 2,007,089 1.24
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 6,221,173 $ 4,059,208 1.53
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 2,413,940 $ 6,508,537 0.37
Residential
Cost‐Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 2,270,583 $ 3,844,791 0.59
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 2,270,583 $ 1,543,307 1.47
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 5,682,281 $ 3,750,981 1.51
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 2,270,583 $ 5,776,091 0.39
Low-Income
Cost‐Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 249,432 $ 280,125 0.89
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 103,539 $ 293,813 0.35
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 292,267 $ 209,058 1.40
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 33,769 $ 363,334 0.09
Commercial/Industrial
Cost‐Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 109,588 $ 221,655 0.49
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 109,588 $ 169,968 0.64
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 246,625 $ 99,169 2.49
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 109,588 $ 369,111 0.30

2021 Idaho Annual Conservation Report Appendices
2020 Natural Gas Cost-Effectiveness
Total Portfolio
Cost‐Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 2,831,318 $ 4,164,861 0.68
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 2,831,318 $ 2,252,942 1.26
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 6,970,928 $ 3,913,746 1.78
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 2,746,509 $ 7,222,043 0.38
Residential
Cost‐Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 2,535,203 $ 3,467,969 0.73
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 2,535,203 $ 1,428,636 1.77
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 5,970,318 $ 3,422,155 1.74
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 2,535,203 $ 6,016,132 0.42
Low-Income
Cost‐Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 127,591 $ 577,627 0.22
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 127,591 $ 657,913 0.19
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 627,407 $ 462,455 1.36
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 42,782 $ 742,579 0.06
Commercial/Industrial
Cost‐Effectiveness Test Benefits Costs Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Cost (TRC)$ 168,525 $ 119,266 1.41
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$ 168,525 $ 166,393 1.01
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$ 373,203 $ 29,136 12.81
Ratepayer Impact (RIM)$ 168,525 $ 463,332 0.36
Sandpoint, Idaho