20040815DSM 2004 Annual Report.pdf

HECEiVEO iYlL:J
f 't"H 1=q
'~ '-.." ".
,E'
I'Hl, " , 1\"" "'"
l. HtH t1 ttr~
' .
t.AI "4~
" "".
ii-.""
" .
i.. it,
r i
~.::.-
c~ (' n FA1;.
-,'-
fr-' (: ~
j ,
II;
March 2004
It? C
-,-
I;-t! 1--
IDAHO POWER
An IDACORP Company
IDAHO
POWER"
An IDACORP Company
Demand-Side Management
Annual Report
March 2004
To request additional copies,
please write or call
Darlene Nemnich
Idaho Power Company
O. Box 70
Boise 83707
[phone]
Printed on recycled paper
---'
DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW.................................................... 1
DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT TERMS ........................................................... 3
CUSTOMER PROGRAMS
................................................... ... ......
................ ...... 4
DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAMS ........................................................................... 4
A. Programs for Residential Customers .................................................................. 4
ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS ......................................................................... 6
A. Programs for Residential Customers .................................................................. 6
B. Programs for Commercial Customers...............................................................
C. Programs for Industrial Customers ......................................"...........................
D. Programs for Irrigation Customers................................................................... 19
MARKET TRANSFORMATION ........
......................... ....... .......... """"'" ........... ..
~..... 21
A. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ............................................................. 21
EDUCATION, SMALL PROJECTS AND TRAINING PROGRAMS ......................
A. Small Project/Education Funds......................................................................... 23
B. Northwest Building Operator Training............................................................. 24
ENERGY EFFICIENCY ADVISORY GROUP ACTIVITIES ................................
A. Energy Efficiency Advisory Group Recommendations ................................... 27
LOOKING AHEAD .......................................................................................... 31
DATA T AIJ~ES ............................................................................................... 32
2003 DSM PROGRAM ACTIVITY ............................................................................ 32
HISTORICAL DSM PROGRAM ACTIVITY............................................................ 33
DSM FINANCIAL FACTORS .................................................................................... 36
'" '" ,""", "'" " " '"'" '" "', """""'' ,,,," '""" ",,"""""", '" " ,"""
2003 was a year of increasing activity and policy development in demand-side
management (DSM) at Idaho Power. Four major DSM programs were initiated:
Manufactured Home Energy Check-ups, Energy Efficient Manufactured Home
Incentives, Industrial Efficiency and Irrigation Efficiency. Idaho Power conducted four
pilot programs: Air Conditioner Cycling Demand Response, the window air conditioner
rebate program (Trade In, Trade Up to ENERGY ST AR(ID), AirCare Plus and the quick-
start phase of the ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest Program. The Energy Efficiency
Advisory Group (EEAG) met four times and provided valuable input to the process.
Idaho Power completed a 2003-2005 Demand-side Management Plan that outlines for the
first time in many years the management philosophy and direction for DSM. A major
effort to develop DSM options for the Idaho Power 2004 Integrated Resource Plan began
at the end of 2003. Finally, Idaho Power added two new full-time staff and has
established accounting and reporting procedures to facilitate the ongoing growth in DSM
activity.
Idaho Power worked closely with the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (Alliance)
and will use the research and infrastructure developed by the Alliance in local programs.
The ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest Program, the Manufactured Home Energy
Check-ups and the Industrial Efficiency Program will rely heavily on the Alliance
work. The Alliance s efforts in the Pacific Northwest impact Idaho Power s customers
by providing behind-the-scenes market changes as well as providing leverage to Idaho
Power local programs.
2003 is the third year of a five-year agreement between Idaho Power and the Bonneville
Power Administration s Conservation and Renewable Discount Program (BPA C&RD).
Idaho Power directs the C&RD funds to programs that serve lower-income residential
customers.
In 2003, Idaho Power realized savings of 5 912 MWh and 189 kW of summer peak
reduction from its energy efficiency and demand response programs. Savings from
market transformation efforts are reported by the Alliance and are summarized later in
this document.
During the course of the year, Idaho Power spent $2 865 112 promoting energy
efficiency, including payments of $1 274 936 to the Alliance, $707 379 for programs
funded through the Idaho Tariff Rider (Rider), and $310 652 on BPA C&RD programs.
The Rider funding in 2003 totaled $2 629,798, while funding from the BP A for C&RD
programs totaled $515 180. Table 1 details DSM expenditures by program.
Table 1. - Expenditures for Energy Efficiency in 2003
Program Category
Idaho Tariff Rider
ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest
AC Cycling Pilot
Trade In Trade Up to ENERGY STAR
CFL Lighting Coupon Program
NWBOA School Building Operator Training
Air Care Plus Pilot
Industrial Efficiency Program
Irrigation Efficiency Program
DSM Peak Reduction Study
Energy Efficiency Advisory G roup Meetings
Small Project! Education Funds
DSM Analysis & Accounting
Misc. Expenditures
Total
SPA Conservation & Renewable Discount (C&RD)
Manufactured Home Energy Check-Ups
Energy Efficient Manufactured Home Incentives
Supplemental LlW A
Other C&RD Administration
Total
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA)
NEEA Idaho
NEEA Oreg
Total
Low Income Weatherization Assistance (LIWA)
LlW A - Idaho
LlW A - Oregon
Total
Oregon Programs
Oregon Residential Weatherization (Schedule 78)
Oregon Commercial Audits (Schedule 82)
Total
Other DSM Costs
Total DSM costs included in general operatin~enses
Total DSM Expenditures
Utilit Cost
597
234 252
687
305,683
48,853
364
303
975
321
099
100
105
041
707 380
183 653
319
895
39,785
310,652
217 590
346
274 936
228,834
255
251 089
000
000
317 055
865 113
* Work completed in 2003 will be paid in 2004.
AC - Air Conditioning
Alliance - Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
BP A - Bonneville Power Administration
C&RD - Conservation and Renewable Discount Program
CFL - Compact Fluorescent Lamp
DSM - Demand-Side Management
EEAG - Energy Efficiency Advisory Group
HV AC - Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning
IED - Idaho Energy Division
IPUC - Idaho Public Utilities Commission
LIW A - Low-Income Weatherization Assistance
NWBOA - Northwest Building Operators Association
PTCS - Performance Tested Comfort Systems
Rider - Idaho Tariff Rider
DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAMS
A. Programs for Residential Customers
Air Conditioning Cycling Pilot
Active Dates:
Target Customers:
Participants:
Utility Costs:
Savings in kWh:
Savings in kW:
March 2003 - Ongoing
Homes in Boise and Meridian with air conditioning
204
Total Actual Pilot Program Costs = $275 645
See discussion below
159 kW
Description
March 2003 the Idaho Public Utilities Co!l1~TIrission (UC) issued Order No. 29207
and approved a request by Idaho Power to conduct a two-year Air Conditioning Cycling
Pilot Program. The Program is a voluntary plan for residential customers that enables
Idaho Power to directly address summer peaking requirements by reducing some of the
air conditioning load which is one of the primary loads contributing to the summer peak.
Idaho Power s primary goal of the AC Pilot Program is to assess the effectiveness of air
conditioning control on reducing peak load. Specific objectives include:
Assess effect of control on customer satisfaction and comfort and retention
Develop analysis model for measuring peak load reduction
Gain operating experience in managing program
Test equipment
Approximately 200 households were selected from about 750 applications for the first
year of the Program. Cycling commenced on June 18, 2003 and continued on a random
schedule for 26 events until August 25 , 2003. The approximate total cost for the first
year of the Program was $275 645 ($234 252 of Rider dollars and $41 393 of Idaho
Power labor costs) and the budgeted amount was $389,600.
The single greatest factor that impacted the Program was a thermostat firmware
malfunction that was not discovered and diagnosed by the manufacturer until two-thirds
of all thermostats had been installed in participants' homes. This equipment malfunction
necessitated a thermostat recall and caused a series of issues that delayed installation
inconvenienced participants, and resulted in implementing fewer cycling days than
originall y planned.
Results
Based on the results of the first year s data, the Program does produce a
substantive and measurable effect of approximately 0.78 kW reduction per
participant in AC load during cycling periods, with a larger increase of 1.07 kW
reduction per participant during cycling when the outside temperature is 1000 or
greater. 'This reduction in AC load during cycling results in participants shifting
AC usage to non-cycling periods. In year one of the Program this resulted in a
small net increase in kWh usage of 0.4 kWh per participant during a cycling day.
These values may change when combined with year two results.
The participants in year one tended to be older, conservation-conscious, and lived
mainly in 4 zip codes in Boise and Meridian. As a group they average less energy
consumption in the summer than the average Idaho Power customer with air
conditioning.
About 74% of participants experienced little or no discomfort from cycling, and
overall average home temperature increase was 1-2 degrees over the four-hour
cycling period.
Customer surveys taken before and after the cycling season indicate high levels of
customer satisfaction on measures including information provided, installation
process, customer service and overall program management.
Next Steps
Work is proceeding on participant recruitment, product manufacturing, customer service
training, and installation for year two of the Program, which will add an additional 300
participants in 2004. The Program schedule provides for installation to be complete by
early May to allow additional time prior to cycling for troubleshooting and final testing.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS
A. Programs for Residential Customers
CFL Lighting Coupon Program
Active Dates:
Target Customer:
Participants:
Utility Costs:
Savings in kWh:
Savings in kW:
Through June 2003
Residential and small commercial customers
663
$314 641
596 150 kWh
411 kW
Description
In early 2003, Idaho Power initiated a second phase of the Compact Fluorescent Lamp
(CFL) Lighting Coupon Program that followed a successful retail-based coupon program
conducted in 2002. This second phase leveraged an opportunity to work with a large
retailer, Costco , who had not participated in the first phase of the Program. Both the
Boise and Twin Falls Costco stores were part of this Program. The contractor for this
Program, Ecos Consulting, worked with Costco to make sure a wide range of ENERGY
ST AR CFL product was available. They arranged an automatic price reduction
promotion - in effect, a form of "paperless" coupon. Rebates per bulb ranged from $1 to
$2 per bulb depending upon the kind of bulb sold.
The Program kick-off was held during Earth Day weekend. The Program contractors
developed a consumer educational brochure that was available to Costco customers
during the promotion. Costco marketed the promotion through its own venues , and Idaho
Power issued a press release announcing the Program.
Results
In 2003 , as part of the second phase of the CFL Lighting Coupon Program, over 48,000
CFLs were sold with incentives through the Costco promotion. This phase of the
Program proved to be very cost-effective because a high volume of bulbs was sold with a
low coupon value and very little promotion. Idaho Power also completed a component of
the Program that provided CFLs free of charge to Community Action Agencies for
distribution to low-income customers. 2 000 bulbs were distributed in this manner.
Next Steps
Idaho Power completed the CFL Lighting Coupon Program by late spring 2003. Ecos
Consulting presented its final report August 1 , 2003. Idaho Power will continue to
provide information to our customers periodically in bill stuffers and on the web
encouraging the purchase and appropriate placement of ENERGY STAR CFL bulbs.
ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest "Quick Start"
Active Dates:
Target Customers:
Participants:
Utility Costs:
Savings in kWh:
Savings in kW:
September 2003 - Ongoing
New homebuyers and residential builders
N/A
$13 597
N/A
N/A
Description
The ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest Program is a new, regionally coordinated
initiative supported by the Alliance, electric and gas utilities, state energy organizations
builders, trade allies and other related organizations to build and sell energy efficient
homes in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana. Leading with the nationally
recognized brand of ENERGY STAR, the Program provides significant assistance to
builders with increased marketing, ally training, awards, and cash incentives to support
the construction of homes that are 30% more energy efficient than current Idaho building
codes and standards. Idaho Power is partnering with the Idaho Energy Division (IED)
and Alliance to provide consumer marketing, builder incentives, and subcontractor
training to expand the existing ENERGY STAR Program.
Idaho Power s primary objective with this Program is to reduce future peak summer
demand caused by inefficient residential building envelope construction practices and AC
usage, especially in capacity-constrained high-growth service territory in the Treasure
Valley.
As this is a new program, a number of issues must be resolved and processes and
procedures developed to begin enrolling builders, educating consumers, training
subcontractors, and ultimately building new homes. These issues include:
Final determination of the exact specification in Idaho for r-values, HV AC
equipment and installation procedures for ENERGY STAR certification.
Transition from existing ENERGY STAR specification. The IED currently
operates a statewide energy efficient homebuilding program whose specification
is different from the Northwest specification included in this regional program.
When and how this specification changes for the builders is still under
negotiation.
Verification and quality assurance. The IED contracts with local individuals
(Home Performance Specialists) who currently provide technical assistance and
independent verification of energy efficient materials and installation methods to
builders. How their role will change and how verification will be performed is
under discussion among all the partners.
Amount of dollar incentive to be paid to builders. Idaho Power has contracted
with Ecotope to determine the demand savings that can be cost-effectively
reimbursed to builders.
...----
Idaho Power has been actively working with lED, the Alliance, local builders and Home
Performance Specialists to discuss these issues, propose alternatives and solutions , and
move the process forward.
Next Steps
The "Fast Track" timetable anticipates these issues will be resolved over the winter 2004
and a consumer marketing campaign will begin in the spring to coincide with the Ada
County Parade of Homes consumer event in April and May.
:)
Energy Efficient Manufactured Home Incentives
Active Dates:
Target Customers:
Participants:
Utility Costs:
Savings in kWh:
Savings in kW:
January 2003 - Ongoing
New manufactured homebuyers
$37 319
227,434 kWh
Not measured in C&RD Programs
Descri pti on
In 2003, Idaho Power launched a program to encourage manufactured home buyers to
purchase energy-efficient Super Good Cents homes. The BPA's C&RD Program funds
this effort. The goal of the Program is to help buyers purchase Super Good Cents homes
and to encourage salespeople to discuss energy efficiency. Customers who purchase a
Super Good Cents home and site it in Idaho Power s service territory are eligible for a
$300 rebate. In addition, the salesperson receives a $75 incentive.
Given that the BPA funds this Program, the EEAG has received updates but has not
offered recommendations. To date, there have been no customer or industry concerns
about the Program. Idaho Power has partnered with the Northwest Energy Efficiency
Manufactured Homes Program and the lED to generate interest in the Program and
confirm Super Good Cents certification of each home.
Next Steps
Interest in the Program has been steady. In 2004, Idaho Power will develop a marketing
plan for the Program to increase participation. In addition, an extra incentive for an
ENERGY STAR-qualified home (using either a heat pump or a heat recovery system)
will be introduced. The amount of the incentive to be paid is currently being evaluated.
Trade In, Trade Up to ENERGY STAR Pilot
Active Dates:
Target Customers:
Participants:
Utility Costs:
Savings in kWh:
Savings in kW:
July 2003
Residential customers with room air conditioners
113/99
687 (additional costs paid by the Alliance)
14,454 kWh
11.67 kW
Descri pti on
The Trade In, Trade Up to ENERGY STAR promotion was offered to Idaho Power by
ENERGY ST AR Home Products Program as a pilot funded by the Alliance. The pilot
program was held on July 12 2003 at two retailers in the Treasure Valley. Customers
were encouraged to bring in their old, inefficient room air conditioner and replace it with
an efficient ENERGY STAR unit. As an incentive, customers who both traded-in an old
unit and traded-up to an ENERGY STAR unit were eligible for a $30 mail-in rebate from
Idaho Power and an in-store $30 discount, $10 of which was underwritten by Idaho
Power.
Idaho Power set the following goals for the project:
Test methods for attracting retailers and reaching customers
Evaluate cost-effectiveness of promotion
Reduce summer peak
During the pilot, all of these goals were met. Findings from each area are discussed
below. After developing projections for an event held throughout the service territory, a
full program was rejected because it cannot be designed in a cost-effective manner.
Results
The ENERGY STAR Home Products Program recruited Nampa Appliance & TV and RC
Willey for this project. Other retailers showed considerable interest but were unable to
commit due to limited stock on hand, local promotional restrictions or limited advance
notice of the promotion. It was clear that retailers are interested in programs of this type.
Newspaper and radio advertisements along with a direct mail piece were used to generate
customer interest. Publicity included radio interviews and announcements, television and
newspaper coverage and information on Idaho Power s web site. Retailers were supplied
with a variety of promotional material to display prior to the event as well. In total, Idaho
Power estimated that more than 13 000 000 customer impressions were generated during
the course of the promotion. In a survey completed by participating customers, about
half of the customers sited a paid advertisement as the way they learned about the
promotion.
The promotion generated 113 trade-in units and 99 ENERGY STAR unit purchases.
Less than 70% of eligible rebates were requested. Idaho Power issued 67 customer
rebates and 62 retailer rebates. These rates are surprisingly low given that customers and
retailers received a reminder call prior to the deadline for submitting rebates.
Idaho Power s expenses were limited because of the Alliance s financial commitment to
the promotion. Idaho Power s budget for the project was $15 000. Actual costs were
687 , including $2 630 for incentives and $3 706 for program management staff. Cost-
effectiveness must be based on projected costs of a full program rather than actual costs
affiliated with a pilot. A budget for a full program projected a $108 - $135 per unit cost
depending on the number of participating retailers and customers. This per unit cost was
then measured against the savings numbers and showed that a future promotion would
not be cost-effective.
Savings numbers are based on conservative estimates that assumed a measure life of
years, 990 annual operating hours , a coincident factor of 0.8 and lifetime measure
impacts rather than only first-year impacts. The following savings were calculated for
the pilot:
Energy savings
Annual savings per unit - 146 kWh
Total Program savings (over 15 years) - 216 633 kWh
Summer peak savings
Annual savings per unit
- .
12 kW
Program peak reduction - 11.67
Given that new ENERGY STAR units are only 10% more efficient than their non-
qualifying counterparts, it is difficult to expect significant savings from this promotion.
These limited savings compared to the high per unit cost discussed above render this
project not cost-effective.
Next Steps
The pilot promotion results were presented to Idaho Power management and the EEAG.
It was agreed that, while a promotion of this nature is appealing for many reasons, it
should not be undertaken. Cost-effectiveness is one of the top evaluation criteria and
renders this project undesirable at this time. Other learnings from the project, including
marketing techniques, partnership opportunities and program evaluation methods can be
used in other energy efficiency programs.
Manufactured Horne Energy Checkups
Active Dates:
Target Customers:
Participants:
Utility Costs:
Savings in kWh:
Savings in k W:
October 2002 - December 2003
Manufactured and mobile home residents
420 homes
$183 653
602,723 kWh
Not measured in C&RD Programs
Descri pti on
Idaho Power launched a pilot program in October 2002 to provide duct sealing and
additional efficiency services to customers living in manufactured homes. The services
were free to customers and included the following:
Duct testing and sealing according to Performance Tested Comfort System
(PTCS) specifications endorsed by the BP A
2 CFL bulbs
2 furnace filters along with replacement instructions
Hot water temperature test
Energy efficiency materials.
The Program was managed under contract by Climate Crafters, an Alliance supported
non-profit in northern Idaho. Climate Crafters relied on local HV AC dealers in Payette
and Pocatello to market and perform the services. Upon completion of the pilot in May
2003, Idaho Power authorized Climate Crafters to continue work in Payette and Pocatello
through the end of 2003.
The goal of the pilot was to test the viability of providing duct sealing and energy
efficiency services to our customers using an outside contractor. Key elements to
evaluate included:
Customer interest in and satisfaction with the Program
Contractor acceptance PTCS standards and affiliated technology
Need for duct sealing in manufactured homes
Ability to reach customers in a cost-effective manner
The pilot was successful in meeting these goals, laying the foundation for a full rollout of
the Program. The goal for the remainder of 2003 was to serve customers in the pilot
areas in a professional and efficient manner while developing a program for the entire
serVIce area.
Results
Customer interest in the Program was high once the services offered were understood.
Customers found it hard to believe it was free with no future obligation.
Customer satisfaction with the Program was extremely high. Voluntary survey
responses indicated an overwhelming agreement that the services were well
performed and appreciated.
Contractor acceptance of the PTCS standard proved challenging. Only one of the
three contractors wanted to continue working in the Program after the pilot. Duct
sealing of this nature proved difficult to make profitable for traditional HV AC
businesses that rely heavily on the sales and installation of equipment rather than just
the servicing of that equipment. An alternate approach, using insulation and
weatherization contractors, will be used in the future.
The need for duct sealing is apparent. In the homes tested and sealed to PTCS
standards, an average of 65% reduction of air leakage was achieved. Of all homes
tested, less than 10% met PTCS standards without sealing.
Reaching customers in manufactured home parks was not difficult. The challenge
was effectively reaching other eligible customers and scheduling the work in a cost-
effective manner.
Homes Served
Test + Seal Homes
CFLs
2003
420
331
822
766
$ 183 653
$ 229,183
602 753
Furnace Filters
Costs
C&RD Credits
Annual kWh Savings
Next Steps
Approval to expand the Program to the entire service area was received in 2003 and a
request for proposal was sent out to prospective program managers. Ecos Consulting, in
partnership with Delta- T and Energy Solutions, was selected to run the project. Program
expansion is underway and Idaho Power expects to serve an additional 1 500 homes in
2004 and early 2005.
Low-Income Weatherization Assistance (LIWA)
Table 2. Low-Income Weatherization Assistance in 2003
265
294
Utility Cost
501
187
129,449
45,530
362
$278 029
22,255
$300 284
Agency
Canyon County Organization on Aging, Inc.
Eastern Idaho Special ~ervices Agency, Inc.
El-Ada Community Action Agency, Inc.
South Central Community Action Agency, Inc.
Southeastern Idaho Community Action Agency
Idaho Subtotal
Malheur Council on Aging (Oregon)
Total
Weatherization Jobs
Description
Since 1989, Low-Income Weatherization Assistance has been a public-purpose program
to make energy services more affordable to low-income customers. Idaho Power provides
grants to local non-profit agencies participating in state-run weatherization programs in
Idaho and Oregon to supplement federal funding of weatherization projects. The agencies
recruit candidates and qualify households for the Program using the state s eligibility
requirements. The state programs are administered in Idaho by the Department of Health
and Welfare, Bureau of Benefit Program Operations, and in Oregon by the Department of
Human Resources , State Housing & Community Services Depart~ent.
For all weatherization jobs in Oregon and those in Idaho funded by the C&RD, the
dwellings must be electrically heated and all measures must provide cost-effective
electricity savings. For the remaining jobs in Idaho, the Program is fuel-blind and allows
some health and safety measures. Idaho Power typically pays 50% of the cost of
qualifYing measures plus a $75 administration fee per dwelling.
Results
LIW A activity by agency and state is shown in Table 2. Included in the 265 jobs
completed in Idaho, 57 electrically heated homes were weatherized using $49 895
provided through the C&RD from the BP A. The 57 jobs funded through the C&RD save
an estimated 230 850 kWh per year. The remaining 208 jobs resulted in an estimated
842,400 kWh savings per year. 29 weatherization jobs were completed in Oregon in 2003
and saved an estimated 117,450 kWh per year.
The Program also funds weatherization of buildings occupied by tax -exempt groups. In
2003 , LIW A provided $15 225 to help three nonprofit organizations in Idaho: the Idaho
City Senior Center, the Christian Retirement Center in Boise, and the Pregnancy Crisis
Center in Twin Falls.
:)
Oregon Residential Weatherization (Schedule 78)
Description
This statutory program requires the annual notification of all residential customers in
Oregon to inform them how to obtain energy audits and financing for energy
conservation measures. To qualify for an Idaho Power audit or financing, customers must
have electric space heat. The Program offers loans at 6.5% interest or cash payments of
25% of the cost-effective portion of recommended measures. Loans for measures that are
not cost-effective are also available at a higher interest rate, but the maximum total loan
amount is $5 000 per dwelling, and loans are subject to credit approval. The maximum
cash payment is the installed cost of the measures excluding labor by the owner, up to
000 per dwelling.
Results
In 2003, there were 28 inquiries regarding residential audits, and 16 audits were
performed. In addition, 4 cash rebates totaling $1 057 were paid in 2004 for work
completed in 2003. The total cost of energy conservation measures completed in 2003
was $4 765 and associated annual savings amounted to 31 875 kWh. The Idaho Power
also received cash payments totaling $943 on uncollectible accounts. Idaho Power does
not record kWh savings from a project until payment is made.
All audits were for, single-family homes, and none of the participants were identified as
being low-income customers. Idaho Power does not estimate the energy savings resulting
from the audits. This year, the company will again notify all residential customers of this
Program and honor all requests for audits and financing from qualified customers.
B. Programs for Commercial Customers
AirCare Plus Pilot
Active Dates:
Target Customers:
Participants:
Utility Costs:
Savings in kWh:
Savings in kW:
May 2003 - October 2003
Small commercial customers with rooftop units
31 units
364
976 kWh
Description
Idaho Power joined with the Alliance and its contractor, Portland Energy Conservation
Inc, to operate a pilot designed to save energy and peak through a premium operation and
maintenance service of HV AC rooftop units for commercial customers. The AirCare
Plus Pilot Program provided operation and maintenance servicing of rooftop heating and
cooling units targeting units with economizers. Idaho Power participated in this pilot in
order to determine whether this kind of program would help reduce summer peak and
provide a desirable service to small and medium commercial customers.
A goal of the Program was to determine if the economizers in the rooftop units were
functioning properly and were being serviced routinely. There has been a lack of
diagnostic tools and testing equipment in the service industry for the testing and
performance of the economizer. Normally, if economizers are setup at all it is by the
factory or the original installer and the settings are never checked. The AirCare Plus tool
also offers a comprehensive comparison for the customer to decide on further unit
servicing, retrofitting economizers and unit replacement along with a detailed inventory
of their rooftop units.
Results
Three HV AC vendors were trained, two in Boise and one in Twin Falls. A total of 31
HV AC rooftop units were serviced, 25 in Boise and 6 in Twin Falls. The total cost of the
Program for 2003 amounted to $5 764, $3 364 was paid with Rider dollars and $2 400
were Idaho Power labor costs. Energy consumption for past billing periods on select
units that were monitored for several weeks before and after the servicing were provided
by Idaho Power with the customers' consent.
A typical service would cost approximately three hundred dollars and took about three
hours to perform. Idaho Power provided a $100 incentive per unit.
Customer acceptance was varied. Existing service contracts, lqw energy costs, high
replacement and repair costs and extreme temperatures during program months were just
some of the issues incurred. In order to insure that summer peak reduction potential was
measured, Idaho Power offered to pay for additional units to be monitored as part of the
Alliance s evaluation plan. Stellar Processes was hired by the Alliance to do the on-site
monitoring of participating units before and after units were serviced. Some units that
were not serviced were also monitored; In Idaho Power s service territory, 11 units were
monitored. Stellar Processes reported actual savings of an average of 1096 kWh/unit
which was consistent with estimated savings of 998 kWh/unit. Peak savings data was
inconclusive. However, there was a wide variation of savings that rendered predictable
savings unreliable at this time.
Next Steps
There may be regional efforts to look at what can be further concluded from this research.
Because of the high number of rooftop HV AC units in the Idaho Power service territory
and the large impact they have on the summer peak, Idaho Power will monitor
developments and may participate with further research in this area.
Oregon Commercial Audit (Schedule 82)
Description
This statutory program requires that all commercial customers in Oregon be notified
every year that information about energy saving operations and maintenance measures
for commercial buildings is available and that commercial energy audit services can be
provided, normally at no charge. Customers using more than 4 000 kWh per month may
receive a more detailed audit but may be required to pay a portion of the costs.
Results
In 2003 , there were 30 inquiries about commercial audits, and 21 audits were performed.
Employees conducted 10 audits, and EnerTech Services carried out 11 audits on behalf of
the company at a cost of $4 000. The Idaho Power does not monitor which audit
recommendations are implemented and does not estimate energy savings for this
Program.
This year, the company will again notify all commercial customers of this Program and
provide audit services to qualified customers who request them.
C. Programs for Industrial Customers
Industrial Efficiency Program
Active Dates:
Target Customers:
Participants:
Utility Costs:
Savings in kWh:
Savings in kW:
October 2003 - Ongoing
Customers with a Basic Load Capacity over 500 kW
None
303
Descripti on
The primary purpose of this Program is to acquire peak kW and kWh savings from
projects at industrial customer sites and assist industrial customers. to reduce energy costs.
The Program was marketed to 280 qualifying customers. Customers are required to
identify a project applicable to their own facilities, provide sufficient information to
Idaho Power to establish a basis for a viable conservation project and complete an
application. The customer also must allow for on-site power monitoring where practical
and enter into an incentive agreement. Idaho Power will then review submittals to
determine kWh and kW savings and whether the proposal meets other program
requirements. It may take up to two years for an industrial customer to select a project
budget for it, assemble the project information, allow Idaho Power to analyze it, execute
an agreement and implement the project.
Idaho Power provides engineering analysis of their project, financial assistance, energy
audit assistance, demonstration programs, workshops, newsletters and expert advice.
Results
There were six projects submitted in 2003 that are in various stages of processing. Two
projects were determined to be viable by the end of the year and formal agreement
signing is in progress. One project is estimated to save 184 000 kWh annually and 40
peak kW with a financial incentive of $17 519. The other project is expected to save
832,187 kWh annually and 90 peak kW with a financial incentive of $74 703.
Once the Program is at full capacity, the goals are to obtain approximately 5 625 000
kWh and 640 peak kW savings per year at a cost of $565 000 per year through the
participation with a broad cross-section of industrial and large commercial customers.
Customers have indicated wide acceptance of the program design and are working toward
providing the necessary information to have a viable project.
Distribution Efficiency Initiative Pilot
Descri pti on
The Distribution Efficiency Initiative encourages the operation of the distribution system
at a lower average voltage, when possible, to reduce consumption of various end-use
loads. This research project, developed by the Alliance, involves multiple utilities and
technologies to evaluate the cost effectiveness of different approaches. This project will
also assess the potential effects of this effort by quantifying the achievable energy
savings and demand reduction. This approach also has a direct demand response
component.
Beginning in 2004, Idaho Power will assist Alliance in the research and development
phase of this pilot. The research and development phase will consist of an extensive load
research and benefit study. Idaho Power s contribution to this phase will include:
Assisting in developing customer selections and making customer contacts.
Installation of Home Voltage Regulator units.
Installation of meters.
The Alliance plans to collect meter data for 12 months. At the end of the data collection
period the Alliance will evaluate the data ~s well as conduct a participant survey.
The second phase of this pilot involves the implementation of demonstration projects.
Idaho Power s role in this second phase will include:
T11.stallation of meters.
Setting voltage regulation line drop compensation settings.
Procuring and installing capacitors and voltage regulators.
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCAD A) installations and
improvements (optional)
Through this pilot, the Alliance and Idaho Power expect to determine the energy savings
and demand reduction potential through improved voltage regulation providing lower
average voltages while maintaining or improving service quality.
D. Programs for Irrigation Customers
Irrigation Efficiency Program
Active Dates:
Target Customers:
Participants:
Utility Costs:
Savings in kWh:
. Savings in kW:
September 2003 - Ongoing
New systems and existing systems being modified
$11 190
792 kWh
18kW
Description
The Irrigation Efficiency Program is an incentive program for agricultural irrigation
customers to install more efficient irrigation systems. The Program is available to both
existing and new customers. Modified systems are reviewed by Idaho Power Agriculture
Representatives to determine savings. The amount of the incentive to the customer is
calculated by multiplying the kWh savings by $.10 or the kW reduced by $200
whichever is greater. The total incentive is limited to a cap of $5 000 or no more than
25% of the total costs for existing systems and $3 000 or no more than 10% of the total
costs for a new system.
The Program will provide customers with information and education through annual
workshops across our service territory. Idaho Power works with University of Idaho
Extension System, the Natural Resource Conservation Service and the IED to provide
these workshops to customers. Idaho Power Agriculture Representatives provide
analysis, energy audits and expert advice to our irrigation customers. To be a direct
participant in this Program the customer must identify a project on their system, provide
sufficient information to Idaho Power to establish a basis for a viable conservation
project and complete an application. The customer also needs to enter into an incentive
agreement with Idaho Power.
This Program was promoted to customers through a direct mailer to irrigation customers.
Also, Idaho Power Agriculture Representatives met with all agricultural irrigation
equipment dealers and described the Program to them and left them with program
brochures. The cost of the brochure and mailing was $3 883. The Program has
generated a lot of customer interest. Each of Idaho Powers Agriculture Representatives
has spent a great deal of time talking to customers about projects they are thinking of
doing.
Results
Two payments were made prior to the end of 2003. An additional nine contracts were
signed but not paid by the end of 2003. Total expenditures for the Program in 2003 is
$11 190 including $8 975 from Rider funding and $2 215 from Idaho Power labor.
This is an energy efficiency program for irrigation customers, therefore the savings from
this Program will occur during the summer. Most projects that will make an irrigation
system more efficient will also reduce the demand of the irrigation system. Idaho Power
calculates energy savings for this Program by looking at each project specifically. The
systems can range from very big to very small. Savings are calculated at each metered
service point.
MARKET TRANSFORMATION
A. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
Idaho Power accomplishes market transformation programs in its service territory by
being a member of the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (Alliance) and working to
coordinate Alliance activities in Idaho. The Alliance is a regional group whose mission
is to catalyze the Northwest marketplace to embrace energy-efficient products and
servIces.
In 2003, after six years of existence, the Alliance initiated a retrospective evaluation to
determine whether it had transformed enough markets to justify the costs of the Alliance.
An ad hoc corrimittee, that included members both internal and external to the
organization, led the retrospective. Two primary finding of the study were that the
Alliance has been successful at transforming, or contributing to the transformation of
markets and that the benefits of the Alliance have exceeded costs. The study concluded
that the regional approach of the Alliance is an asset and even greater leverage in
program implementation can be gained in the future.
In 2003 , Idaho Power paid $1 274 936 to the Alliance on a system basis. Idaho s share of
the payments was $1 217 590 (95.5%) and Oregon s was $57 346 (4.5%). These amounts
do not include other costs to participate in the Alliance, such as employees' time and
travel that were absorbed by the company in its general operating expenses.
In Idaho, funding for the Idaho Power s participation in the Alliance was authorized
through 2004 by Order No. 28333 in Case No. IPC-99-13. The Oregon Public Utility
Commission has also approved the company s expenditures for the Alliance for 2003.
Preliminary estimates reported by the Alliance indicate that Idaho Power s share of
regional market transformation kWh savings for 2003 is between 1.9 and 2.5 MWa.
Idaho Power relies on the Alliance to report the energy savings and other benefits of the
Alliance s regional portfolio of initiatives. Highlights of the Alliance s activities in Idahoin 2003 include:
The Alliance partnered with Idaho Power for the Trade In, Trade Up to ENERGY
ST AR Pilot Program where more than 100 Idaho Power customers turned in their
old room air conditioners.
The Alliance conducted the AirCare Plus pilot with assistance from Idaho Power
where 31 commercial HV AC rooftop units were provided a premium operating
and maintenance service in order to determine savings and marketability of the
servIce.
The Alliance s ENERGY STAR Residential Lighting Program provided the
backbone for Idaho Power s CFL Lighting Coupon Program.
The BetterBricks day lighting advisors worked with the design team of
Albertson s and succeeded convincing their to include energy savings features in
all future stores.
The Alliance co-funded a study with University of Idaho, Idaho Potato Growers
Association and Cascade Engineering to study the effect of using variable speed
drives on potato storage facilities. Preliminary results show energy savings and
reduced potato mass loss.
The breadth of the Alliance portfolio can be found at www .nwalliance.org.
EDUCATION, SMA~~ PROJECTS AND TRAINING PROGRAMS
A. Small Project/Education Funds
In order to be able to respond to research requests, educational opportunities and worthy
small projects that are not eligible under other programs, Idaho Power, with support of
the EEAG, set aside two funds: the Small Project Fund and the Education Fund. Each
was initially funded with 2% of the Rider funding which results in approximately
$54 000 available for each fund. In 2003, $2,400 was spent from the Small Project fund
and $2 700 from the Education Fund. There are several projects that were obligated but
not funded.
Small Project Fund Projects paid in 2003
Envinta, One-2-five Energy Diagnostic, joint assessment with the Alliance
As part of industrial market research, Alliance offered to partially fund 20 Envinta
audits in the Pacific Northwest. Idaho Power agreed to co-fund audits on two of their
customers. Findings of all 20 audits will be used by Alliance to structure their final
Industrial Sector Strategy. The two companies who agreed to participate were Swift
& Company in N amp a and Tyson Foods in Boise. Both companies have been audited
and final reports have been returned.
Total Cost: $2,400 ($1 200 per audit)
....
T , .~ector: mausrna.t
Small Project Fund Projects obligated but not paid in 2003
Solar for Schools, Castleford School District
Idaho Power agreed to contribute money from this fund to upgrade the energy
efficiency of the Castleford School so that it could qualify to participate in the Solar
for Schools project. The two measures identified were upgrading lighting in the
cafeteria and installing vending misers in campus vending machines. Idaho Power
agreed to pay $1 106 for these measures.
Total Cost: $1 106Sector: Commercial
Foothills Environmental Education Center
Idaho Power has agreed to contribute money to the Foothills Environmental
Education Facility for the installation of day lighting building features and other
energy efficiency measures. Idaho Power agreed to contribute $5 000 toward this
project. In addition, Idaho Power has provided approximately $10 000 worth of
photovoltaic panels to be used at the site.
Total Cost: $5 000Sector: Commercial
New Head Start Building
Idaho Power agreed to pay $2 698 for the installation of a high-efficient, SEER 13 air
conditioner at the new Heat Start building in Garden City.
Total Cost: $2 698Sector: Commercial
Education Fund Projects paid in 2003
Integrated Design Workshop
Idaho Power sponsored with the Alliance an Integrated Design Workshop held in
Boise on September 22 2003. This workshop focused on strategies for high
performance buildings and featured Tom Paladino and Mark Frankel. Idaho Power
provided a $50 scholarship to any Idaho Power customer who wished to attend.
There were 54 attendees.
Total Cost:
Sector:
700
Commercial
Education Fund Projects obligated but not paid in 2003
Pump System Assessment Workshop
Idaho Power sponsored with Alliance a Pump System Assessment Workshop held in
Twin Falls on September 30 2003. This workshop focused on improving the
efficiency of pumping systems both on the farm and in industrial settings. Idaho
Power provided a $70 scholarship to any Idaho Power customer who wished to
attend. There were 30 attendees.
Total Cost: $2 240Sector: Agricultural and Industrial
Scholarship for Energy Management Certification at Northwest Energy Education
Institute
Idaho Power offered to provide two $500 scholarships to any Idaho Power customer
seeking an Energy Management Certification from the Northwest Energy Education
Institute, University of Oregon. The Energy Management Certification is an
advanced certification program that requires the student to implement an energy
saving project and measure the results. This offer was for the class session held in the
summer of 2003. There was no one interested in this training.
B. Northwest Building Operator Training
Description
For the second year in a row, Idaho Power has teamed up with lED and the Northwest
Building Operators Association (NWBOA) to provide energy efficiency training for
building operators from public and private schools, universities, and colleges within
Idaho Power s service territory. In 2002, Idaho Power sponsored Level I training for 26
Idaho school building operators.
The 2002 NWBOA Training was determined to be very successful based on the School
Building Operator Training Survey Results prepared by McFain & Associates Research
Inc. in May 2003. The survey revealed several very positive responses.
100% of the participants reported that they were satisfied with the course.
83% of respondents indicated that they would likely attend additional training.
83 % reported that their schools are now more energy efficient than they were one
year ago.
66% reported their schools are more comfortable in terms of heating and cooling
than they were one year ago.
Annual energy savings resulting from the 2002 training were conservatively estimated to
be 750 MWh based on billing data and regional savings data reported by the Alliance.
Estimated savings associated with the training show the effort to be cost effective.
Members of the EEAG recommended that Idaho Power attempt to more accurately
quantify the energy savings that results from the 2003 NWBOA Training.
Results
In 2003 Idaho Power again sponsored the Level I training and based on the response from
2002 attendees, added a Level II training option. Building operators must hold a Level I
certification, or take a challenge test, in order to enroll in the Level II certification course.
The Level I Training covers energy conservation techniques, HV AC and Air Systems
introduces automatic controls fundamentals, and covers energy efficient lighting
fundamentals. Level II training covers energy efficient operation of HV AC systems at an
advanced level as well as energy management strategies and conservation methods.
Idaho Power paid training registration fees ($400 for Level I and $550 for Level II) as
well as lodging and meals for Level I and Level II training using Rider funds. The total
cost of the 2003 training is expected to be $50 250, with $11 768.66 paid in 2003 and the
remaining balance of the 2003 training costs will be paid in 2004. The participating
school districts were required to cover any other costs associated with attending the
training.
Both levels of training were held at the Red Lion Hotel Downtowner in Boise. Level I
training was conducted November 12 14 and 18, 19. Thirty students registered for the
Level I training and twenty-eight actually attended the course. Level II training was held
December 10 12 and 16 18. Due to the overwhelming interest for the Level II
training, the course had to be split into two separate sessions. Twenty-seven building
operators registered for Level II training, fifteen operators attended Level II training in
December of 2003 and 12 attendees are scheduled to attend training in January of 2004.
In response to the EEAG recommendation that Idaho Power more accurately quantify the
energy savings , each attendee at the 2003 Level I and II training was asked to fill out a
questionnaire. Each attendee was provided a list of all their Idaho Power metered service
points and asked to provide square footage estimates, energy fuels used, and months of
operation for each associated building that they operate. As a result of this information, it
is estimated the average attendee will save approximately 25 MWh annually for a total of
075 MWh annual savings for the 2003 attendees. Very few schools districts that were
represented at the training hold school year round. As a result, the summer peak reduction
resulting from this training is expected to be low relative to the non-summer demand
reduction that the training will provide.
In addition to the energy savings resulting in bill reductions , the school districts are
expected to receive additional benefits from the training in the form of increased comfort
in the heating and cooling months. Idaho Power expects that this training will continue to
provide a high level of customer satisfaction among this customer segment while
providing cost-effective energy savings.
In 2003 the Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) met January 9, April 2, July 9
and October 22. In the meetings , Idaho Power provided a review of the Rider funding
and expenses, provided updates on on-going programs and projects, requested
recommendations on new program proposals and provided contextual information to the
group on DSM issues.
Three new members were added to the group in 2003, these include: an IPUC staff
member, an Idaho Power employee from Power Supply department and a regional
technical efficiency expert. These new members were added in anticipation of the
EEAG providing guidance in integrating DSM in the 2004 Idaho Power Integrated
Resource Plan. Meeting minutes and other meeting materials are provided to all EEAG
members, including IPUC staff, and are available upon request.
A. Energy Efficiency Advisory Group Recommendations
Following is a review of the direction provided to Idaho Power by EEAG for major
program or research expenditures and general policy or operational issues. General
recommendations or those not involving Rider expenditures are covered in-the meeting
minutes. (Note: January 9, 2003 meeting activities were reported in the January 30
2003 Annual Demand-Side Management Report and will not be repeated here.
Irrigation Efficiency Program
Idaho Power presented a proposal for an Irrigation Efficiency Program to the EEAG
during the April 2, 2003 meeting. Idaho Power received the following recommendations:
Th~ general consensus of the EEAG was that Idaho Power should implement the
Irrigation Efficiency Program.
Idaho Power kicked off this Program September 1 2003
. EEAG members generally supported a higher budget in the first year of the
Program.
In the event that program funding is a limiting factor, Idaho Power will revisit the
issue again with the EEAG.
The EEAG recommended that Idaho Power proactively market this Program.
Idaho Power has sent a tailored brochure to all irrigation customers and through
s Agriculture Field Representatives are proactively working with customers on
this Pro gram.
The EEAG suggested an independent evaluation be completed on this Program
after a couple of years of operation.
Idaho Power, when developing it s overall evaluation plan, will determine an
evaluation scheme for this Program.
The EEAG was concerned that the Program was available to only agricultural
irrigation systems not all irrigation systems.
Idaho Power is keeping this agricultural requirement because other types of
systems (golf courses, cemetery, etc) are substantially different and may need to
be dealt with in a different program.
There was a comment not to limit customer size to those who have at least 5 Hp.
Idaho Power modified the minimum size requirement in the Program. In order to
participate a customer must save at least 200 kWhs.
AirCare Plus Pilot Program
Idaho Power presented a proposal for the AirCare Plus Pilot Program to the EEAG during
the April 2, 2003 meeting. This pilot was proposed and managed by the Alliance, with
Idaho Power being a local utility sponsor. Idaho Power received the following
recommendations:
The general consensus of the EEAG was that Idaho Power should go forward
with the Program.
Idaho Power participated in the Program summer and fall of 2003.
Trade In. Trade Up
In a May 10 2003 email to each EEAG member, Idaho Power distributed information
about an opportunity to participate with the Alliance in a room air conditioner rebate
pilot. The email requested comments on whether the Company should participate in the
pilot.
A few EEAG members sent responses and they all encouraged Idaho Power to
participate in the Program.
Idaho Power proceeded with the Program.
Industrial Efficiency Program
On July 9,2003 , Idaho Power presented to the EEAG a proposal for the Industrial
Efficiency Program and received the following recommendations:
Allow both new and existing customers in the Program
Idaho Power will allow both new and existing customers into the Program.
Examine whether to spend more of the budget on education, and to make money
available for audits and education.
Idaho Power will explore education, audit and incentives available from other
agencies, particularly lED's Industries of the Future and the Alliance
Provide a sign-up bonus to customers that could accelerate their projects or
provide a bonus to customers whose projects are designed to reduce summer peak
Idaho Power does not feel there is an advantage to providing a "quick sign-up
bonus to customers. Given that the Program at this time is on afast track to be
implemented it would be difficult to provide the resources to administer this
option. Additionally, it is not felt the customers would respond to the amount of
money that would be available for a bonus. Alternatively, Idaho Power will
explore ways to incent projects that demonstrate peak reduction
. A couple of suggestions were made to ensure that Idaho Power spread the money
across both large and small customers.
Idaho Power, through its marketing of the Program, will be sure that all eligible
customers get information about their opportunity to participate in this Program.
EEAG members provided mixed a recommendation on whether to not pay an
incentive for savings under one year payback.
Idaho Power feels that customers should be willing to fund projects under a one-
year payback on their own. Lowering that criterion may increase free ridership.
Idaho Power will keep the one-year payback criteria.
Don t provide incentives required by Idaho code
Idaho Power will explore the current requirements of the new commercial code
and how our incentives will work around the code
Recommend to go ahead with the Program
Idaho Power implemented this Program in the fall of 2003.
NWBOA Training Survey
On July 9, 2003 , Idaho Power presented the results of a survey given to participants
last year s NWBOA training. During the discussion the EEAG provided the following
recommendation:
The EEAG recommended that Idaho Power consider repeating the NWBOA
training in 2003.
Idaho Power sponsored a second round of NWBOA training in 2003 that included
both Levell and Level II training.
The EEAG suggested Idaho Power expand the offering of training to include all
schools: K-, colleges and universities.
Idaho Power offered this training to building operators of colleges and
universities.
Distribution Efficiency Initiative Program
On October 22, 2003, Idaho Power presented a proposal for both Phase I and Phase II of
the Distribution Efficiency Initiative Program. The EEAG made the following
recommendati ons:
The EEAG expressed a general consensus for moving forward with Phase
Idaho Power is working with the Alliance to complete Phase
The EEAG requested an update of the project status after Phase I was complete
before proceeding with Phase II.
Although both phases are intertwined, Idaho Power will provide information as it
becomes available as to the results of Phase
AC Cycling Program
Presentations were made to this group in January, April, July and October 2003 regarding
the Program. During the October meeting, Idaho Power made a proposal to include
switches as well as thermostats in the program design of the second year of the Program.
The EEAG had the following guidance:
. A preference to review 2003 findings before deciding on 2004 configuration was
made.
Because of the fast timeline needed for 2004 decisions, 2003 findings will not be
complete before the need to make a decision.
. EEAG expressed a general consensus to move ahead with this Program.
Idaho Power is proceeding with implementation of this Program.
ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest
The EEAG has received presentations regarding this Program in July and October 2003
and has provided the following recommendations to proceed with the "Fast Track"
timetable of activities.
It was suggested that the Community Acti0n Partnership Association could help
with this Program in the various jurisdictions.
Idaho Power will explore this option.
It was also suggested that Idaho Power look at the desirability of providing
incentives for both a Seasonal Energy Efficiency Rating (SEER) of 12 and 13.
As Idaho Power works with the regional partners on this Program this option will
be evaluated.
. EEAG expressed a general consensus to move ahead with this Program.
Idaho Power is proceeding with implementation of this option.
General Policy Issues
The EEAG indicated that they generally support a "soft goal" of sector equity,
meaning that money coming in from a particular sector should mostly be spent on
programs in that sector.
Idaho Power has generally followed this recommendation in setting goals and
budgets for new programs. Idaho Power provides information to the EEAG with
this information.
2004 will be another year of increasing DSM activity at Idaho Power. With existing
programs and pilots planned, the company estimates MWh savings of 6 155 and summer
peak reduction of at least 1.3 MW in 2004. Summer peak reduction continues to be a
primary target. The company also anticipates that through DSM design and delivery that
customer satisfaction will increase.
It is anticipated that this summer will be the second year of the AC Cycling Pilot and the
first year of an Irrigation Peak Clipping Pilot Program. Both of these demand response
pilots will produce a final report and recommendations at the end of the year. In addition
a major body of work in 2004 will be the evaluation of DSM options in the 2004
Integrated Resource Plan.
Idaho Power has established specific action items to accomplish in 2004. These, as
outlined in the 2003-2005 DSM Plan, include:
Complete Peak Demand Reduction study
Estimate summer peak value for all programs
Develop evaluation approach
Explore the renewal of the Alliance
Develop and document policies and procedures
Continue to fill staffing needs
Explore the calculation of environmental benefits of DSM on Idaho Power
system
Effectively conduct quarterly EEAG meetings.
Idaho Power is committed to implementing cost-effective DSM programs as part of its
resource portfolio to improve customer efficiency and satisfaction, to pursue stewardship
of our natural resources, and to provide balanced value to all stakeholders. Through
focused implementation practices, DSM will allow Idaho Power to capture indirect
benefits such as improved system utilization and better relationships with our customers
and regulators.
20
0
3

D
S
M

PR
O
G
R
A
M

A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
20
0
3
I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

DS
M

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
Co
s
t
s
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
No
m
i
n
a
l

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d
Co
s
t
s
20
4
27
5
64
5
26
9
,
68
0
15
9
.
66
3
31
4
64
1
46
4
05
9
59
6
,
15
0
41
0
.
ID
/
O
R
31
9
79
,
39
9
22
7
,
4
3
4
26
.
13
,
59
7
59
7
68
7
49
2
14
,
4
5
4
11
.
05
1
ID
/
O
R
42
0
18
3
,
65
3
18
3
65
3
60
2
72
3
68
.
(e
)
20
8
22
8
13
4
48
3
,
36
9
(f
)
25
5
33
5
10
2
64
3
11
.
01
6
03
0
ID
/
O
R
49
,
89
5
10
6
,
91
5
22
3
,
59
1
25
.
01
6
03
4
76
4
06
1
97
6
02
1
03
3
(g
)
30
3
30
3
(c
)
19
0
71
0
36
,
79
2
18
.
4
02
9
06
5
00
0
00
0
(h
)
85
3
85
3
1 ,
07
5
00
0
12
2
.
7
0.
0
1

0
01
0
(I
)
10
0
10
0
(j)
13
,
87
9
20
8
,
03
6
74
6
,
52
7
91
2
,
76
3
67
5
.
18
9
.
No
t
e
s
:
(a
)

A
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

t
o

t
h
e

2
0
0
3

S
u
m
m
i
t

B
l
u
e

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

NC

Cy
c
l
i
n
g

s
t
u
d
y
,

t
h
e

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

w
a
s

.
78

k
W
/
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

a
n
d

a
n

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

i
n

e
n
e
r
g
y

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

o
f

.
4

k
W
h

p
e
r

c
y
c
l
i
n
g

e
v
e
n
t
.
(b
)

E
c
o
s

C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g

F
i
n
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t

o
n

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

E
n
e
r
g
y

S
t
a
r

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

4

b
u
l
b
s

p
e
r

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

f
o
r

a

t
o
t
a
l

o
f

5
0
65
0

b
u
l
b
s
.

(
7
1

k
W
h
/
y
r

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

p
e
r

b
u
l
b
)
(c
)

2
0
0
3

e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s

w
e
r
e

f
o
r

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

s
t
a
r
t
-
u
p

o
n
l
y
.

N
o

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

w
e
r
e

p
a
i
d

i
n

2
0
0
3
.
(d
)

P
o
r
t
l
a
n
d

E
n
e
r
g
y

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

I
n
c
.

F
i
n
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t

o
n

t
h
e

p
i
l
o
t

a
s
s
u
m
e
s

9
9
0

c
o
o
l
i
n
g

h
o
u
r
s
.
(e
)

T
h
i
s

O
r
e
g
o
n

s
t
a
t
u
t
o
r
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

r
e
s
u
l
t
e
d

i
n

4

j
o
b
s

t
o
t
a
l
i
n
g

$
1
0
5
6
.
92

t
h
a
t

w
e
r
e

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d

i
n

2
0
0
3

a
n
d

w
i
l
l

b
e

p
a
i
d

i
n

2
0
0
4
.
(f
)

E
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

i
s

n
o
t

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

t
h
e

I
d
a
h
o

L
l
W
A

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.

T
h
i
s

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

i
s

f
u
e
l
-
bl
i
n
d

a
n
d

a
l
l
o
w
s

s
o
m
e

h
e
a
l
t
h

a
n
d

s
a
f
e
t
y

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
.
(g
)

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

r
e
b
a
t
e
s

c
o
v
e
r
e
d

a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y

1
/
2

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

c
o
s
t

t
o

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

3
1

u
n
i
t
s
.

P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

i
s

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

a
s

1
0
9
6

k
W
h
/
y
e
a
r

p
e
r

u
n
i
t
.

(
$
2
5
0
0

w
i
l
l

b
e

p
a
i
d

i
n

2
0
0
4

f
o
r

w
o
r
k

d
o
n
e

i
n

2
0
0
3
)
(h
)

O
r
e
g
o
n

s
t
a
t
u
t
o
r
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.

T
h
e

c
o
m
p
a
n
y

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

m
o
n
i
t
o
r

w
h
i
c
h

a
u
d
i
t

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d

a
n
d

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(I
)

N
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t

E
n
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

A
l
l
i
a
n
c
e

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

a
t

.
5
k
W
h
/
S
q
.
Ft.

o
f

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

p
e
r

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

w
i
t
h

a

c
a
p

a
t

5
0
,
00
0

S
q
.
Ft.
(j
)

I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g

f
o
r

5
4

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s

a
n
d

2

a
u
d
i
t
s
.
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

D
e
m
a
n
d

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
AC

C
y
c
l
i
n
g

P
i
l
o
t
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
CF
L

L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g

C
o
u
p
o
n

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
En
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
d

H
o
m
e

I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
EN
E
R
G
Y

S
T
A
R

N
e
w

R
e
s
i
d
.

C
o
n
s
t
.
EN
E
R
G
Y

S
T
A
R

R
o
o
m

A
C

P
i
l
o
t
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
d

H
o
m
e

E
n
e
r
g
y

C
h
e
c
k
-
Up
s
Or
e
g
o
n

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

W
e
a
t
h
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

(
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

7
8
)
Lo
w
-
In
c
o
m
e
Lo
w

I
n
c
o
m
e

W
e
a
t
h
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

(
L
l
W
A
)
Lo
w

I
n
c
o
m
e

W
e
a
t
h
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

(
L
l
W
A
)
BP
A

S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
l
W
A
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Air

C
a
r
e
+

P
i
l
o
t
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

A
u
d
i
t
s
Or
e
g
o
n

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

A
u
d
i
t
s

(
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

8
2
)
Sc
h
o
o
l

B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

O
p
e
r
a
t
o
r

T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
Sm
a
l
l

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
!

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

F
u
n
d
s
To
t
a
l
s
St
a
t
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
ID

BP
A

o
f

Pa
r
t
i
c
i
-
Ri
d
e
r

C
&
R
D

pa
n
t
s
No
t
e
s
To
t
a
l
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
($
/
k
W
h
)
($
/
k
W
h
)
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Li
f
e
(y
e
a
r
s
)
(a
)
(b
)
05
1
* A
v
e
r
a
g
e

d
e
m
a
n
d

=

A
n
n
u
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

I

8
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
**

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

f
o
r

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

t
h
a
t

t
a
r
g
e
t

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
I-
I
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
A
~

DS
M

P
R
O
G
R
A
M

AC
T
I
V
I
T
Y
. I

d
a

ho
P

;
;
;
;
;
'
Hi
;
t
;
;
'
;i
~
;
'
I'"
'
i)
'
s
i
~
"
N
"
W
W
_
m
~
rM
.
.
m
.
.
w
_
.
.
w
"
.
.
m
"
"
Tm
m
"
.
.
.
.
w
.
.
P'"
Q..
g~
~
.
~~
,
!~
Y
J
!
Y
-
,
w
?.
g
J
!
l
w
:"
.
.
..
"
w
,
J"
"
'
-
'
"
W
"
"
"
"
"
"
~
"
"
,
M
"
O
~

~.
.
,
'..
m
.
w,,
'
wu
,
.
,"
"
"
"
"
.
"_
"
~9
.
~~
.
","
",
.
.
v
~
w
.
w"
"
"
"
,
.
""
"
-
-
"
,
,w
.
w.
.
w
Ye
a
r
;..
,
.
.
"
'
M
'
_
_
"
.
'"
"
'
""
,
.
,.
.
.
-
=
.
,..
.
.
.
.
.
......
.'M
m
.
...,"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
W
"
""
-
m
'
"
'
"
'
~
"
"
"
W"
"'W
"
-
_
"
"
"
"
'~
W
"
"
"
"
U
'
,~
,

"_
_
"
'
O
W
M
,
W
.
~~
.
.
~~
~
.
~!
~
~
~
.
.
'?
~
.
'!
'
~
.
~~
.
.
.
~..
~~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
'
"
-
~
.
.
.
.
.
u
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
_
.
I
A
C

Cy
c
l
i
n
g

P
i
l
o
t

20
0
3
Nu
m
b
e
r
of

P
a
r
t
i
c
i
pa

n
t
s
w"
'
'"
,
,
.
*,
"
'
w..
.
.
,
o
,
,
,
,.
"
W
..
'
v..
.
.
m
m
,
.
.
m
m
"
"
.
,,.
.
.
.

W
""
"
"
"
"
"
.
' "
"
'
WM
,
"
W
.
W'._-
"
.
'
m
.
"w
~
,
"
"
W
"
.
W"
M
"
"
-
'
_
'

.
'"
m
.
To
t
a
l
r~
~
'
~~
.
~:~
i
'
~I
.
~
~
~
~
~
r
~
'
~~
y
~
~
~
~
~
:
~
~
:
:
'
m
m
m
m
"
,
"
.
.
"
"

.
...
,
.
.
.
.
..,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
C
F
L

Li
g
h
t
i
n
g

C
o
u
p
o
n

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
""
"
"
"
"
'
-
.
"
"
"
"
("
m
,
w
'
WM
'
-
"
"
_
~
"
-
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
.
.
'
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
, ''"
.
""
,
"
.
W"
"
'
.
.
'
.
Wm
m
'
W..
.
.
. ~

w
w
.
. '
W
'
"
'
_
"
,
w
m
"
.
...
m
,
w
.
.
.
,
.
'.
.
w
m
.
.
.
.
.
.
m
.
.
.
.
w.
.
.
.
_
"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_,
"
~
'
W
'
"

-,,
"
,
.
o
w
,
,
"
"
,
!
E
n
e
r
g
y

Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

P
a
c
k
e
t
s
20
0
1
r'
"

"
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
...
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
20
0
2
,.
.
"
.

,
. 'W'.' '
.'
.
w "
'w"
,
,
,
_
"
,
m

"
W
"
"
-~
.
'm
,
.
w,,
'
m
"
"
"
"
'
m
'
,.
.

W "
"
"
'
m
m
'
m
"
"
w
.
.
W
.
",'

.
.
"
v
"
w
.
"M
"
""
'
.

w..
.
Ut
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t
s
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
""
"
'
r-
"
-
"
-
"
"
-
"
U
"
'
"
-
I-
"
"
'
T:
:
;
;
:
:
;
~
~
-
:
~
~
-
Co
s
t
s

Sa
v
i
n
g
s

Co
s
t
s

"W
'
"
Su
m
m
e
r

w,.
.
_
,
.
.
w
.
.
.
.
.
,
w
.
.
"
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
"
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A~
r
a
g
e

Pe
a
k

Me
a
s
u
r
e

To
t
a
l

De
m
a
n
d
*

De
m
a
n
d
*
*

Li
f
e

Ut
i
l
i
t
y

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

E
n
d
-

(k
W
)

j
rs
t
..
,

($
/
k
W
h
)

($
/
k
W
h
)

no
~
~
.
15
9
.
10

!
(
a
)
""
"
"
"
,
w
"
"
59
:
'
""

"
"
"
"
"
"
'
""
"
1"
'
i)
,
"
"
"w

.
,w
.
.
w
.
...
.
t.
.
,
"
,
.
.
.
w
w
"
.
.
.
.
w
.
.
.
.
..,
.
...
,
.
,"
,
"
"
'
-

'
..w
,
.
..
,
,
=
.
.
w
.
.
.
..w
'
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
Co
s
t
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
(k
W
h
)
(k
W
a
)
27
5
64
5
",_
.
w"
.
.
.
-..
_
-
,
.
.
.
.
"
.
27
5
,
64
5
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
w
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
9
,
68
0
~"
,
-
"
,
-
,
.
.
.
,
.
..
_
,
.
.
.
.
w
"
.
.
W
'
26
9
,
68
0
26
,
13
5
,~
.
w
"
,
~"
,
""
,
"
W
.
.
"
18
3
,
65
3
!..
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
\.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
01
2

!
0
.
01
5
...
.
.
..
.w..
..
.
.
-
,"
,
.
.
...
..,
.
...
.
.
.
"
"
.
.
.
.
.
...
",.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
..
.
.
"
.
.
.
",
"
w
.
",.
.
w
,
.
...
01
4

1
0
.
02
1
0:
0
1
'
3"
"
"
"
1'"

o~
o
1
8
"
"
"
"
"
1'"

"
"
'
(b
j
"
" .
,.
"
-
"
-
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
-
T'"
'
W
"
"
"
"
"
w
"
~
~
w
"
"
'
"
"
"
'
rw
"
'
"
"
"
"
'
w
"
'
"

-
"
"
"
03
5

!
0
.
03
5

""
"
"
"
"
"
'
\
"
""
"
""
"
"
"
1"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
00
5

:~
~
~
"
L,~
"
w
"
m
02
7
.
j
02
3

i ,
"
,
,
'
U
,

"
"
"
"
0:
0
2
3
"
"
1"
"
..
.
,
.
""
.
.
.
.
.
w
,
""
"
"
'
w
"
"
"
"
"
"
'
"
24
3
05
4

3
,
29
9
,
65
4

3
7
6
.
31
'
64
"
1
"
"
"

,
...
,.."""
,
.
"'.
w.
.
.
.
.
.
,_
.
.
.
.
..W
.
..
.
"
"

"
"
"
"
w-
-
,
w
"
.
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
""
"
"
,w
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
,
,

"
"
"
W
.
.
.w
"
"
.
w"
"
"
,
,
~

,
.
.
.
.
'
,..
w
"
,
"
"
"
w
.
...
.
.
.
,
l.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'~
=
~
:
.
.
~..~~
.
.
.

"
"
'
"
.
.
.
.
~..
~,
.
55
7
69

1
6
,
89
5
,
80
4

7
8
7
.
""
,
"
"
'
..w
.
.
w
.
""
"
"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
'
.
.
.
"
"
"
"
"
'
"
",
.
"..
_
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_.
.
,
~"
,
'
...
"
"
"
"
-
,
-
"
-
"
.
,..
.
,
.
.
,,,
,
'
,"
'
~
"
.
,,"
,
,
w
W
.
.
'
..
"
w
o
W
"
"
,
.
...
.
.
_
'
,.
.
,
_
.
.
_
,
..w
.
""
"
"
",'' -
"
.
.
w
.
.
~
"
,
"
"
"'W
"
,
'
w,.
'
-
'
,
",'
-
,
""
.
'w
w
.
",c
,
w
.
.
"
-
"
'
"
'
.
W"
"
"
"
"
'
W
"
"
"
.
87
,
17
5

8
7
,
17
5

4
0
5
,
12
5

4
6
.
...
.
.
'.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,..
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
--
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
92
5

4
91
0

4
91
0

1
5
5
,
75
7

1
7
.
"'.
"
"
"
W
.
""
"
"
'
W
.
.
To
t
a

1
0
,
53

9
2
08
5

5
6
0
,
88
2

64
.
l:
~
e
r
~~
.
.
.
.
.

3
~
~:
:
~
i
E
N
E
R
G
Y

S
T
A
R

N
e
w

Re
s
i
d
.

C
a
n
s
t
.

20
0
3

1
3
,
59
7

1
3
,
59
7
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
;..
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
To
t
a
l

1
3
,
59
7

1
3
59
7
""
"
'
m
.
'"
,
.
_"
,
"
01
1

...
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
,..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
\..
.
.
.
01
1

i
,"
,
w
,
w
"
"
"
'
.
""
.
""
"
""
"

W
"
"
"
'
."
"
W
"
"
"
"
"
.
t..
.
.
.
1
2
05
1
"
"

"
OB
a
'
-~
~
"
,
w
.
""
~
J..
.
.
""
,
.
..
,
.
",.w.
.
"
.
.
_
-
,
,
.
.
.
..
.
..
w
,..
.
..
_
.
.
w
.
.
.
",.
.
..,
.
.
.
..
.
"
"
'
~"
"
"
"
"
'
N
.
.
...
.
w
m
.
.
'
w
.
11
.
71

12

0
.
05
1
;
0
.
08
0
1.
.
.

.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20

0
.
08
4
!
0
.
08
4
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(c
)

""
'
..
"
"
,
w
"
(d
j
W
'

I
..
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.I
.
.
..,
.
,.
.
.
...
_
.
.
.
.
,
-
_
w
_
,
.
.....
.
"
.
.
.
w
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"
~
"
.
.
.
~~
~
~
,
~:,
:~
~
,
~~
7
~L
.
.
.
~:
.
.
=~
:
~
~
~
_
~~
4
9
2
'
"

"
""
'
1"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
'
45
4
'
"

.
.
.
.
.
.

"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
7"
'
"
68
7
10
,
49
2
1"
'
-
"
"
"
"
"
"
-
"
14
;
'
45
4
'

"
~
"
-
-
f:
7
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.

.
.
.
.
L.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
,
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
...
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
,
13
5

i
2
5
,
98
9
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
E
N
E
R
G
Y

S
T
A
R

R
o
o
m

A
C

Pi
l
o
t
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
d

H
o
m
e

E
n
e
r
g
y

C
h
e
c
k
-
Up
s
20
0
2
...
_
,
~
.
.
.
.
W
,
-_
.
.
w
,
20
0
3
...
-
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
...
..
.
.
.
To
t
a
l
'.
.
.
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
'
"
Or
e
g
o
n

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

W
e
a
t
h
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

(
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
..w
.
",w
.
...
"
.
w,.w'.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
w
"
"
~
"
""
"
"
"
w
.
""
,
"'~
"
"
"
'"
"
.
,..
.
.
.
.
"
"
.
",.
_."
.
,..
_
.
.
_
~
.
.
.
w
"
.
.
.
.
.
w
.
.
.
","
.
.
"
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
_
.
"..
.
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
'
"
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
'..w
"
""
.
.
.
.
...
.
w,
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
~
,
w
.
...
.
.
,,,
w
,
"
,
,
,
.
.
.
w
-
-
.
...
.
...
.~"
m
.
".
.
_,_
-
-
'
~
_
.
"W
_
"
.
"m
'
M
~
"
"
"
.
W"
'

'
...
.
.
"
.
.
"
.~
m
_
'
"
,
"
'
To
t
a
l
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
""
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"

.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
..-
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
23
,
97
1
...
.
.
.
.
.
"
"
w
.
.
...
.
.
.
30

0
.
07
6

0
.
06
8
""
"
,
"
"
"
-
,
-
"
~
"
w
""
'
~
30
"
'
w
,
w
,
,
.
"

'
m
"
'
O:"
O3
3
"
"
"
"
'
r"
'
-
"
37
5
"
'
W
l"
"
'-
~
'
-
"
"
"
'
""
"
"
)"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
'
"1
"
"
""
"
"
'
"
o:
'
1i
j
9
~
-
'
r~
h
~
"
(e
)
h
h
"
......
.
""
"
"
"
"
"
'
1.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~~
=
'
:=
:
~
t
:
:
:
~
:
~
:
=
=
~
~
.
.
~~
~
~
~
~
J
.
.
~~
:
~
:
:
'
:::
:

~
:
:
J
18
3
,
02
5
...
.
t..
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
02
8

!
0
.
02
8
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
.
"
"
"
"
"
"

.
.
...
.
.
M..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
._
,
.
.
71
.
20
9
,
78
8
51
7
11
6
""
"
""
"
"
"
'
h
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
63
3
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"..
.
.
~.
.
::,
~~

~g
~
'

~,
~
.
.
'i1
.

~
6
,
~ .
.
~ .
~~
,
~~
!
:
,
~:
6
~

~

~
~
.

~
2
~
~
L
~
~
_
~:
~
~
~
5
.
.
.
~~
!
~
* *

S
u
m

m

e

r
~
~
~
~
"
~~
"
t;t
.
.
~~
.
.
~w
,
,
~~
E
?
,
,
~~
~
.
.
!~
!
_
!?
!
5
?
~
!
~
~
~
.
.
~c
:
t
.
.
.
!
~
,
II
;
J
!:
:
!
"
~~
,
~.,
!::
~
_
E~
~
~
,
!~
5
:
i
.
.
~
,
!~
,
'2
,
~w
"
"
-
,
,
,
,
-
""
"
"
"
,
""
"
"
"
"
"
,
,"
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,.
.

.
.
,
.
.
...
.
......
.
.
.
.
"
.
.
.
,
.
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
,
,
"
"
""
'
W
"
"
"
"
"
;"
,
w
,
""
,m'm
"
'
~
W
"
'
m
"
,
'
""
~
"
""
'
"
'

'
.
","
.
m..
.
'w
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
_
,
"
,
w

'
.."
,
"
i
1
1
,
65
3
...
.
.
..
.
..
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...""
"
"

.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,"
,
w
.
..w
.
""
.
.
.
.."
'
.
.
_
.
'_
.
,.
.
.
.
.
.
m"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
m
,

hm
'
.
""
,
""
,"w
.
"
"
Id
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l

DS
M
P
r

o
~~
~
!T
I
m
,
~~
,
!i
,
~
,
~~
Y
"
m
QJ
,
u
0
3
""
M
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
,
,
~
"
,
"
"
"
UM
"
'
O_
'
-
-
'
" ~
.

~
.
()
.
gr

C
l
I
1
1
S
,
.
.w
.
"
"
.
.
~
,
"
"
'
-~
,
"
.
.
_
-
~
_
.
."
.
.
_
"
.

.
""
.
""
'
,
..
.
"
Lo
w
-
In
c
o
m
e
""
"
"
.

"
'
","
'_"
,
"
_
M
"
,
_
,
"
.
",-
-
-
-
-
,
,
~
-
-
"
"
"
"
'
W
'
W
.

m
.
--"
"
"
"
'
m"
_
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
"
"
,
"
.
.
,
,
,
w
,
"
,

"
,
,
"
.
..
.
.
.
.

~
'
'O
'
'W
.
'"
,
"
'
-,
"
Lo
w

I
n
c
o
m
e

We
a
t
h
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

Id
a
h
o
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,.
.
.
.
.
,..
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..,
.
.
.."
.
.
.

"
'
.."
'
"
...
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. ."
,
.
.
.
.
.. '.,

.
W,"
.WN
.
" .,o
w
.
'. w.
"
"
'
.
.
'
.
.
W
.
.
_
_
.
.
'
.
.
.
.
o
W
"
w
"
.
__
"
'
.
.M
.
'
o
W
,
.
w.
"
"
"
.
~,"
.
w,"
o
w
"
.

m
o
W
_
'
_
O
_
_
M
~
.
_,"
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
, ,
,
w-
w
"
,
"
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
w
m
.
""
.
.
w
.
w
.
.
W
.
.o
-

.
...
"
.
. .
.
.
'w

"
"
_M
~
O
'
.
.
"
.
m
-

.
.
.
.
..W
,
'W
'
-
'
W,"
.
.
.
~
'
"

_.
,
.
.
w
,
"
"
w
m
,
o
W
_
-

"O
W

W
H
.
WW
'
W
"
"
w
.
.
m
'
.
"
_
'
_
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
--
.
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
Lo
w

I
n
c
o
m
e

W
e
a
t
h
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

O
r
e
g
o
n
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
...
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
N....
.
.
...
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
...
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.

..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. "
"
"
"
"
"
m..
w
.
.
"
.
,W
,
,
N
.
.
'
',.
. "
'
W
.
'..

.
,
.
.
W
.
W..
W..o~
"
'
,"
o
~
-
"
.
.
'
'o
w
.
w. ~'.
,

,
w
-
'
m"
'
,,'
,,.
.
w
,
,
i"
'
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
.
.
.
.
"
"

.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
".
.
.
.
.
.
,
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.,.
.
.
"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
""
"
"
" "
.
ww
_
'
~
"
mm
,
.
"o
W
.
.
"
"
'
N
.
.
.
.
N
"
"
.
_'_
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'
W
"
W"
'
,
"
o
~
"
.
.
.
.
.
,
_
.
.
~
-
"
w
.
w..
w
.
.
.
.
~
,
m
"
.
.
'
BP
A

S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
l
W
A
tw
'
"
.
.
.
.
,
.
-..

,
"
,
.
w"
"
"
,
'
.
.
"w

.
,
w..
.
.
.
.
"
"
.
m..
_
.
.
"
_
N
"
'
_
.
...
.
.
-
-
-
-
.
.
-
.
.
.
'
"
,

--
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
"
,
"
o
.
.
'
m
m
_
-
.
.
'

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
w
.
.
,

"
..
.
w
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
,.
'
,
"
,
"
' .
.
W
'
..."
"
.
w..
,
.

"
"
""
"
.
.
,
"
'
_
W
.
"_
.
mo
w,"
,
m
m
_
,
_
"
"
"
"

,.
.
.
m
m
.
.
W
.
.
O
.
.
W
.
W"
...
""
'
_
W
"
"
.
.
.
.
.
o
.
.
o
,
,
,
,
m
,
.
..w
m
m
,
.
_"
"
"
.
""
.
.
,
"
,
,
,
"
W
,
"
.
.
w
,
-
,
,
~
,
,
"
'
"W

"
'
W
m
_
.
W,
"
'
"..
.
...
.
.
.wW
"
_,
_
.
m
.
.
w
.
..w
m
"
"
"
"
"
.
.
,
,
_
,
.
.
.
.
.
"M
'
~
.
.
. .
.

. ."',
"
"
.
"
,W
.
W"
'
"

u..
.
.
u
_
,
"
'
.
.
m
,
"
"
_
~
"
-
,
"
"
"
"

.."
u
o
w
.
.
.
~
"
"

-
,
,
-
'
...
.
"

'
.
",
"
m
u
,
"
W
,
,
"
w
'
:-
"
"
'
fl
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
'
Ye
a
r
Nu
m
b
e
r
of

P
a
r
t
i
c
i
pa

n
t
s
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
Co
s
t
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
(k
W
h
)
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Li
f
e
JY
!
:
,
~:
o
J
.
.
.
.
.
"
1
,
"
.
.
.
.
.

"
,
'
~m
_
m
N
.
,w
.
.
.
'
M..
.
W
o
"
'
"

.
_"
-
-
~
.
._
.
.
_
.
...
.
.
~
.
.
"
...
...
,
,
,
.
Ut
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t
s
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
20
0
33
1
12
6
23
1
35
2
69
2
,
04
8
""
,
,
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
'
49
2
13
9
w.
.
w
,
.
W..
.
.
.
,.
.
.
.
.
.
'
'"
"
"
,
"
"
,
_
"
w

.
.
...
.
"
w
.
.
w
m
.
""
.
,m
'
""
,
,
.
,w
,
,
"
m
"
22
8
,
13
4
48
3
36
9
...
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
,..
.
.
.
.
......
.
.
.
.
.
""
'
U"
"

"'"
To
t
a
l
',.
""
W
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
1 ,
66
7
55
7
w..
m
"
"
,
O
m
W
U
.
.
.
W
.
..
.
"
'
"',W
w
.
.
'
20
0
1
,
1
7
9
60
,
4
1
2
.
6
8
32
3
.."
w
.
.
.
'
,"
U
'
...
,."
.
20
0
2
1 0
2
64
3
i
"
"
"
"
23
1
;
3
7
"
S
"
'
r"
"
"
"
L-.
,"
w
"
.
.
""
.
",.
.
,
""
,
_
_
w
w
m
.
~'m
"
"_
o
'
i
3
1
1
34
7

'
10
6
,
91
5

2
2
3
,
59
1
22
5
;
r
7
c
y
",w
"
"
w
.
.
o
M
w
"
"
'
S3
4
'
;9
3
S
"
'
"-
-
"
"
"
"
.
.
.
"
,
-
'
w
.
'W
.
,,
,
,
"
.
20
0
3
wm
w
.
.
m
,

..m
.
ta
l
To
t
a
l
!1
.
.
u
~,.
!,
.
'W
"
""
W
'
w,..,
.
...
",
.
m,
.~.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
w
.
...
,,"
W
'
"
""
"
"
'
W"
-
'
..w
,
w
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
",.
.
.
.
.
W"
'""
w
.
...
.
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

20
0
3
,..
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"
.
.
N
'
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
"

m
.
.
"',
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
'
"
.
.
.
N
'
"
,
,
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
.
.
.
.

"
"
-"
"
"
'
.
."
.
.
""
"
To
t
a
l
""
"
"
'
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
.."
"
O
,
"
"
.
.
.
.
.
.
",
.
.
,.
.
.
,"
_
.
.
.
w
.
.."
.
.
w
,
.
...
.
....
.
,
.
.
,
u
"
"
,,
"
.'W
,
",.
""
"
_
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
m
N
~
'
m
.
.
.
.
.
_
w
'
""
,
,
"
'
wm
m
'
.
......
w,...,
""
,
at
i
o
n

a
n
d

A
u
d
i
t
s
..
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
..
.
..
"
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
'
,
""
"
"
"
"
"
'
.
.
"
'
.
.
"
'
"
Or
e
g
o
n

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

A
u
d
i
t
s

(
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

8
2
)
".
.
' .
.
'
' m
"
"
.
...
m
'
..
"
'
"

"..
m
o
~
.
.
.
u

H"
"
.
,

m,
."m
"
"
,
,
~
.
.
-
,
,
"
_
'
m
"

",
"

.
.
.
.
.
.
'
~N
"
"
"
'
.
.
"
,
.
.
.
W
.
...
.
.
'

o"
,
.
.
'
_u
.
..m
.
_"
,
_
.
",.
.
.

""
W
.
.
.
...
...
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
,.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,..
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
,
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
"
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
"
'
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
""
"
"
"
"
W
,
,
"
'W
'
.

,
.
,.
,
'm..
w
.
.
.
.
.

"
.
"..

'
...
, '
.... W
.
m"
,
"

wu
m
.
",m
.
~"
'
.

w,
"
,
~"
,
u
o
-
"
o
'
W
"
"W

,
_
"
o
'
...
,
"
W"
"
"
'
W
.

m"
"
.
. W
N
"
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
...
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
Su
m
m
e
r
Av
e
r
a
g
e

Pe
a
k
De
m
a
n
d
*

De
m
a
n
d
*
*
(k
W
a
)

(k
W
)
No
m
i
n
a
l

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d
Co
s
t
s
...
""
W
.
.
'
..
"
w
w
"
"
"
.
30
3
...
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
..
.
"
.
.
.
,..
"
.
.
.

..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
m
.
.
.
.
.
.
"
"
'
30
3
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
-
"
.
...w,
w
"
"
,
".o
V"
,
,
,
'
,,"
m
.
,.
.
,
,
'
.
w,
"
"
"""
"
'
"
~
'

"
M
'
'W
_
'
o
W
.
...
.
.
"
,,
"
"..
,..
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,w
.
.
w
.
.
w
.
.
.
w..
w
m
.
W'.
" .
,,
"
"
'
w.
m
.
.
"
,
""
'
"
19
0
_.
.
.
'

...
w
"
,
,
"
.
.
.
.
.
o
.
.
_
m
o
~
m
_
'
w
.
""
'
.
"
19
0
..m
m
m
m
"
""
"
"
"
,
w..
.
w..
_
,
,
.
.._
M
'
...
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
"
.

Ut
i
l
i
t
y
($
/
k
W
h
)
To
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
($
/
k
W
h
)
En
d
-
no
t
e
s
..
.
..
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
"
'"

.
.
.
.
...
.
,
.
,..
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..'
w."
.
.
.
"
W
.
W"
'
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
...
.
,,"
,
c
,
,
""
'
o
w
"
m
.
'w
o
'
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
",,
~
.
.
.
,
w
.
,~
w
"
W
"
,
"
.
.
.
.
~
o
.
.
.
.
.
_
,
w
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
w"
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
W..
w
o
'
...
.
-'O
,
""
-
"
'
20
0
1
..
.
.
m
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'
.
.
.
.
.
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
'
.
' w
.
.
m
.
.
m
W
o
W
.
.
..
_
-
"
"
.
.._
w
.
..
o
W
.
W"
"
,
'W
"
"
"
""
"
"
oW
.
...
.
"
,
.
...
'_
.
m
o
W
.
...
.
.
.
.
-
.
-.
.
...
."..
.
mw
,
.

.
11
.
""
"
"""
"
.
.
.
"
"

.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
26
.
(k
W
a
)
18
.
.w
,
""
"
W
"
~
"
"
..
O
"
"
"
"
"
"

__
w
m
'
"
.
.
w
"
.
.
.
m
W
"
,
'
2
1
8
.
20
0
2
20
0
_W
o
.
.
o
.
W"
'
-"
~
o
~
"
"
,
" .
.
.
.
.
'
,o
w
_
,
"
'.'
"
"
,
w
o
w
"
"
"
"
_
,
,
,
,.,
.

.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"
.
.
.
..
.
.
,
.
,.
.
.
"
"
""
"
"
,
"
'
0
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
00
0

4
,
w.
.
,
~
.
.
.
w~
'
_"
_
n
,
,
m
w
"
W
.

'
",o
.
oW
o
W
.
.
"
,
.
.m
.
.
"
.
.
'
w..
w
_
20
0

9
,
20
0
...
.
.
~
"
w
,
w
.
.
.
,,
"
~
_
.
_,

.
,..
,..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
".
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
-
.
.
.
.
...

.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
,..
.
.
..
N
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
""
"
t;
.

"
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
'
de
m
a
n
c
j
"
"
;
;
;
;
"
'
An
n
u
a
i

E
n
e
r
g
y

T
S
7
6
0

an
n
u
a
l

ho
u
r
s
..:
.
"
"
"
,
::"
:.
.
""
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
..

_
~"
,
w
'
m
"
'
"

ww
o
"
"
.
.
.
.
.

...
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~..
_
,
.
.
.
.
.

-_
.
.
.
,
.
-
O
W
U
'
"
"
"
'
"
'
.
""
'
W
.
!::
:
=
:
,
~..
~~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
,
:!
?
~
i
i
i
~
6
:
~
0
:!
,
~..
!:
.
~
,
P~
~
,
~~
:
,
!~
E
"
E~
~
~
~~
~
~
_
!..~~
~
m
!~
E
.
!1
,
!,.
.
.
.
.
T.
T
.
~
~
E
~
~
~
.
.
.
E~
,
~..
!~
~
!
1
.
.
.
..
m
u
.
.
w"
.
.
"
,
w
Lw
w
o
.
.
.
.
.
"
"
.
.
.
.
.
w
,
w
o
.
.
,
,
~
.
,
,
,
w
.
.
.
.
.
w
m
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.,.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1.
.
.
w..
"
,
.
.."
.
.
.
.
",_
w
.
..
.
.
_
...
,
t.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,..
.
o
o
.
.
w
.
..
.
-
.
..
"
"
,
.
,
.
w.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
w
.
.
.
_
.
"
.
.
.
L"
,
w
.
,.
.
.
.
"
,
.
..,
.
.
.
.
30

0
.
02
8

I
0
.
...
.
.
.
..
.
..
.
.
;,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
02
6

j

0
.
04
9
...
.
.
.
Jw
,
"
,
w
,
.
..
m
.
w"
"
w
.
.
.
01
6

I
0
.
03
0
02
2

o:
o
4
f
.
.
.
t..
.
,w
"
.
"..
.
w
.
..
.
.w_
'
wu
.t.
.
.
.
..o
o
.
",.
.
.
.
",~
,
,
_
.
01
3

!
0
.
02
7
oW
o
W
"
'
"
o.
O
1
"
e"
"
"
'
ro
W
"
"
O:'
O3
4
"
w
o
W
To
w
o
W
'
-
.
..
.
w.
-
,
.
-,.
.
w
o
.
.
.
w
.
,..
.
.
.
.
...
.
",.
.
.
.
,
.
,-
.
.
.
--
.
.."
w
w
o
o
.J
m
,
.
m,-
,
.
..
J
01
4

I
0
.
03
0
($
/
k
w
i
l
j
"
"
'
T
"
'
(s
/
i
(
y
r

(g
)
'
,
"
m
"
--
-
-
-
-
L
~
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
(f
)
um
.
.

w"
'
.
(c
)
,
"
"
'
",
.
.
.
.
w
w
.
\..
_
w
.
.
w
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
w.
.
.
.
.
.
"
02
9

0
.
06
5
:O
2
9
w
w
.
r"
-
"
'
O:
~
O6
5
"
"

,.
.
.
,
"
"
.
.
'
00
'
.
...

..,
.
.
,
.~
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
..
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
...
(h
)

...
w..
.
.
m
"
,
_
_
.
..
.
L..
.
_'m
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"
.
.
.
.
.
.
,..
w
_
"
+
.
w..
w
,
.
.,
,
.
.
00
"
"
'
/
(I)
W
'
,
"
w
,
(
-"
'
-.
.
,
'"
"
"
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

,
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
oW
"
'
o
W
,
+
,
.
.
"
.
w..
w
.
.
.
",
w
.
.
w
.
.
.
-
.
.
,..
H'.
...
J.
.
;-
.
,
.
.
.
,.
!
...
.
:
:
:
,
t:
~
~
,
:::
.
.
:
'
..
:
:
:
J
,..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'
w
"
"
"
"
""
,
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
.
.
"
"
"
"
"
'
"

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
""
"
'
..
.
.
.
.

..
.
.
Id
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l

DS
M
~
,
~.
.
9E
~
~
"
,
,
~~
.
.
!
~
.
.
~
~
~..
y',
,
~Q
,
Q~
~
:w
.
.
QQ
.
.
.."
w
Pr
o

r
a
m
s
Nu
m
b
e
r
of

P
a
r
t
i
c
i
pa

n
t
s
...
..
.
W
~
'
'W
_
"
.
Ye
a
r
"..
..w
.
..
.
.
m
.
..,
.
.
,
.
.
w,..._
"
,
w
,
-
.
...
.
.
.
.
W"
,",'
y
.
,..
.
.
.
.
.
_"
~
'
.."
.
;..
.
.
_..
.
w
.
_,_
.
.
"
.
.
.
...
.
"
,
"
,
~
-
,
.
.,.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
w
.
.
.
.
.
.
W
.
u..
.
..w
.
.
,..
m~
.
.
,
~
w
_
.
:
S
c
h
o
o
l

Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g

O
p
e
r
a
t
o
r

T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
w. '..
"

.
.
_"
"
"
"
"
,
"
.
W..
_
_
w
w
.

,..
.
w
,
-
,

w
~
.
,. --

,
"
W

..,
,
_
u
,
-

,
_
w
.
.

,
.
.
.
.
.
,..
w
_
-
~
'
...
.

.
.
W
.
.
'
..
.
.

,
,
_
'
-
_
.
ww
.

.
...
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
w
.
...
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.

"
'
""
"
""
"
"

.
.
..
,
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.....
"
Sm
a
l
l

Pr
o
j
e
c
t
l

Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

F
u
n
d
s
20
0
3
To
t
a
l
r"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
'
"
""
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
'
"
.
.
...

.
.
.
...
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
!
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
No
m
i
n
a
l

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d
Co
s
t
s
Co
s
t
s
Ut
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t
s
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
Co
s
t
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
-"
.
.
.
.
.
ww
.
.
w
.
""
"
""
,
"
'
-
'
,w
,
_
.
Su
m
m
e
r
An
n
u
a
l
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pe
a
k
Me
a
s
u
r
e
To
t
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
De
m
a
n
d
*
De
m
a
n
d
*
*
Li
f
e
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
En
d
-
(k
W
h
)
(k
W
a
)
(k
W
)
(y
e
a
r
s
)
($
/
k
W
h
)
($
/
k
W
h
)
no
t
e
s
,_
.
.
_
,
_
w
_
.
~."
,
,
-
,
-
-

W_
W
,
_"
,
'
-
'
.
w.
.
_
.
...
.
,

"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
1"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
36
,
08
4
48
,
85
3
84
,
93
7
01
0
01
0
01
0
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
01
0
01
0
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"

"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
'
10
0
(k
)
""
"
W
"
,'.
.
.
..w
'
"
",,
"
"
"
""

"
'
.
'u
,
.
""
'
""
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
10
0
56
1
42
8
...
.
.
.
.
.
......
.
.
..
,
.
.
,..
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
...
.
.
,..
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
62
9
,
.,_
.
..-
-
-
,
"
W'-
_
'
12
4
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
"
.
.
.
.,.
.
.
.
.
52
6
.
67
1
.
25
0
.
6
.
,
""
"
"
'"

"
"
"
"
"
"
"
'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
,..
.
.
,
28
1
35
8

$
10
,
96
7
04
7
18
9
.
18
9
.
-_
.
.
,
.
.
_
,
w
.
.
"
w
.
.
"
.
'.,
w
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
,..
...
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
..
"
"
"
"
'
,
,
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
.
.
"
"
'
"

"
.
.
"
"
'
""
"
"
"
"
'
""
'
w
"
"
"
,
,
"
'
,
,

,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_w
,
.
w_
-
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
W.
.
w
.
...
.."
.
.
"
.

_
.
-
"
'
W
"
.
.
.
.
.
w
.
""
"
"
"
'
".,
"
w"
"
"
"
,
'
.
.
.
.
.
"
"
,
.
.
.

-"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
.
"
"
"
"
"
"
"

.
.
,
.
.
.

"
"
"
"
"
w
"
"
"
"
"
"
w
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
.
.
.
.
""
"
"
"
'
"

"
"
"
"
"
"
',
,
'
w
_
"
"
"
"
-
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
'
"
""
"
"
'
.
.
.
"
"
"

"
,
.
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
""
.
"
..
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
,
.
...
.
.
.,.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..,
.
.
.
.
...
.
,..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
~.
.
.
.
~~
~
~
~
~
~
=
=
~
l
=
'
::~
:
:
"
'
~=
~
:
~
"
"
:~
:
~:
:
~
:
:
.
.
.
.
..

.
=~
=
=
'
=~
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
En
'
(i
"
n
o
i
e
'
"
i;-
:
,
~
,
"
,
.
....-w
,
.
,w
m
.
w,.
...
.
.
.
.
,"
,
.
.
,
.
"m
.
W"
.
~"
"
.
""
~
'
""
,
.
.
_
,
_
m

l
'
-"
'
w
"
"
""
,
"
"
""
'
"
(a
)

A
c
c
o
r
d
'
i
i
,
'
io
t
h
e
'
20
0
3
'
Su
m
m
i
t

B
l
u
e

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

A/C

Cy
c
'
ii
n
g

s
f
i
i
d
y
;
"
'
th
e

a
v
e
r
a
g
e
"
'
su
m
m
e
r
"
pe
a
k
"
'
re
d
u
'
Ci
T
o
n
w
a
s
"
:i
e
f
k
w
/
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

a
n
d

a
n

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

i
n

e
n
e
r
g
y

co
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

o
f

.
4

k
W
h

p
e
r

c
y
c
l
i
n
g

I
b)

E
c
o
s

C
o
n
s
u
H
T
;
:
'
:
;
g
F
i
'
;
:
'
:
;
a
r
R
e
p
o
r
t
'
o;
:
'
:
;
"
'
id
a
h
o
"
"
Po
w
e
r
"
En
e
r
g
y
St
'
a
r
'
Re
s
i
a
e
n
t
r
a
r
I
T
g
h
t
T
n
g
'
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
"
re
p
o
"
rt
e
d
w
4"
'
bu
i
6
s
w
pe
r
"
p~
i
r
t
i
c
T
p
a
n
C
'
(7
'
f
k
W
h
/
y
r

sa
\
A

n
g
s

pe
r

b
u
l
b

)
ww
w
.
.
.
.
.
~
) '
26
0
"
3
'

'
ex
p
e
i
l
'
dir
u

-
re
s
"

w
e
r
e
'

f
o
r
"
pr
o
g
r
a
m
w
st
'
ar
t

-

u
"
p "
'
0 n

l
y:
"
'
No
"
"
In
C
'
e
n
H
v
e
s
"
we
r
e
-
pa
l
a
"
Tn
"
'2
0
6
3

.

w
_
-
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
,
-
."
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"
"
'
"

..
.
.
_
.
.

...
.
-
,

"
'
.
""
"
"
-
"
dj
"
Po
'
i1
i
a
n
d
'
En
e
r
g
y
C
o
n
s
e
i
V
d
t
i
o
n
"
nc
'
Fi
i
l
a
i
'
"
Re
p
o
i
t
"
o
n
'
ih
e

p
i
l
o
t

a
s
s
u
m
e
s

9
9
0

c
o
o
l
i
n
g

h
o
u

.
.
.
.
..
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
,..
.
.
)
I
n
'
20
6
3
'
"
th
l
s
"
"
Or
e
g
o
n
"
st
'
3
:
t
l
i
t
o
r
y
p
"
io
g
r
a
m
"
re
s
l
i
f
i
e
d
"
I;:
'
:
;
'
"
jo
b
s
"
'
to
t
a
l
i
n
g

$
1
0
5
6
.
92

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d

i
n

2
0
0
3

t
h
a
t

w
i
l
l

b
e

p
a
i
d

i
n

2
0
0
4
.
-.
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
~
.
.
.
,
w
w
w
'
m
m
'
"
'
w
_
"
"
.
.
_,
.
st
l
m
a
t
e
(
f
f
o
'
ih
e
"
j"
d
a
h
o
'
pr
o
g
r
~
i
m
:
"
'
Th
i
s
"
pr
o
g
r
a
m
"
Ts
'
"
fu
e
i
~
b
i
T
n
d
"
'
an
d
'
ai
i
o
w
s

s
o
m
e

h
e
a
l
t
h

a
n
d

s
a
f
e
t
y

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
.
'"

.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
,
.
(g
)

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

r
e
b
a
t
e
s

c
o
v
e
r
e
c
J
"
'
"
a
p
'
pr
o
x
i
'
m
a
t
e
l
y
W
17
2
"
"
ih
e
m
to
t
a
l
c
'
os
t
"
fo
'
-
se
n
A
'
ce
'
3T
'
li
n
i
t
s
"
Pa
r
t
I
C
f
p
a
n
f
'
s
a
;
;
A
n
g
s
'
ls
"
ai
c
u
f
a
f
e
c
f
'
a
s
"
T6
9
6
'
i(
W
h
7
y
e
a
r

p
e
r

u
n
i
t
:
-
'
($
2
5
0
0
"
wil
T
b
e

p
a
i
d

i
n

2
0
6
4
"
f
o
r
"
wo
r
k
"
(j
o
r
i
'
e
'
Til
w
26
6
3
)
(~
L
~

,
~~
~

!
~
-
~~

~
~
!

~
~
,
!~
!

~

!~
~
~
L
~
~

?
_
Vi
~
~:~
P
"
~~
9
~
~
~
,

~~
,
,
~
2
~
~

!
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
~
,
~.
.
.
'
~
!
,
...
~

~
~
:
~
~
,
~~
'
~I
:
I
:
~
:
"

:
"
'
~"
"
:,,
'

~
.
.
:::
:
:
:
.
:::

,
: :
:
:
:
~
I
.
.
.
:
,
,
:
~
'
:~
'
::
"
:::

~
,
::'
::,
:.
.
.
:
I
'
:~
:
L
~
~
:
~
,
::
~
n
~
:
:
~
:
~
,
~ "
'
...
:
.
.
.
J
:
'
~..
.
:
,
,
'

::
.
.

:
:
~
~
~
=
'
. .
.
.
,
.
.

. .
.
.

..
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
.

'
1'"

. .
...
. .
. .
..

.
.
.
.
:,
,
~,

:
.
.
.
,
(i
)

O
r
e
g
o
n

s
t
a
t
u
t
o
r
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.

T
h
e

c
o
m
p
a
n
y

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

m
o
n
i
t
o
r

w
h
i
c
h

a
u
d
i
t

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d

a
n
d

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

sa
\
A
n
g
s

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f'N
o
r
t
'

hw
e
s
i

'
Ei
l
'
er

g
y
'
Ef
f
l

C
T
e
'
nc
Y
'
AI
i
'
i
a
n
c
'
es
i
r
i
T
i
'
a
r
e
s

"
eil
'
er
g
y
"
"
a\
.
r
n
g
s
"
a:r
~
kW
h

7
s

q
:
r
=
t
:
w
'
oT
I
j

"
l
j
'
il
d
i
n
g
'
pe
'
ra
H
o

n
w
i;
'
er
"
pa
r
t

I
C
T
p

'
an

f
w
l
i
i
l
'
a:

"
ca
p
"
'
at
"
S

6
;
0
9

q
:

~
9
'
:' ~r
'
:. ...
..
.

,.,
~
'
"

mw
n

.
j
in
i
n

f
o
r

5
4
':l
~~
f
3
.
.
.
d2
'
~d
i
~
...
...
'
::
:
...
"
.."
'"

.
.
..
.
.
.

.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.

"
"
""
"
"
"
"
'
W
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
'
"

"
"
'
..

.
...
.
,
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
..
.
.
,
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
""
"
"
"
"
'
"

'
...
.
'
,w
.
"..
'
""
,
wW
.
...
w..
o
.
.o
.
.
.
,
'
oW
n
W
o
W
'
.
",w
.
...
..'..W
.
""
'
,
,
"
'
,
,
'
w
'
,
.
.
,
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
,
,
"
"
'
"
W..
.
.
.
, 'W"
"
'
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
'
.
...
.
w
"
"
,
.
.
'
',"
"
"'.
.
.
.
~
.
W'W
.
w."
,
w
.
' _
W
.
W.
.
.
w
.
..
.
.
"

"
W
o
W
.
w"
"

W
.
'W
.
_
~
"

.
.
,~
,
-
""
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
""
"
""
"
"
"'"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
m
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
..,
.
.
.
...
.
.
.

.
,
.
.
.
...
.
.
,
.
..
,
.
.,.
...
...
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
m"
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
ge
'
de
m
a
n
d
;
'
)\n
n
u
a
f
E
n
e
r
g
y

18
7
6
0

an
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s

"
"
"
"
"
'
-
-
"
"
"
"
'n
.
""
-
.
.
,
"
"
"

.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
..
.~..
~
~
.

~
~
T
'
~~
~
~
,
,
'
~~
i
j
i
:
~
~
~
,
.
.
i
.~.,
.
.
.

~
.
~P
.
.
?~
,
~~
.
.

!?
E
.
.
.

p'
~
?
'
Q
~
~
~
.
~..

.
~~
.
~~
.

.
.
~~
.
~~
.
.
.

~
.
~ .f!
1
.
.
'
!
1
.
.
,
~ .~.
.
P~
.
~~
.
.
E
~

~
~
?
5
.
1?
~
~
:
.
::'
~.
.~~
=
r
:
:
:
'
::
:
=
'
~..:..:..
'
::
.
:~
'
:..
. i
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
""
"
_
"
'
N
.
~W
"
~
W
.
.."
,
"
.
.
t..
.
.
.
""
.
.
.
"
.
""
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
'
"

.
.
.
.
.
.
n
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
,.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
"'"

"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
.
"
,
, .
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
~..
.
.
w
_
.
.
.
.
.

'
~w
n
_
w
.
,"
.
.
"
"
"
'
W
_
"
'
"

n
"
,
.
.
w
,
.
..W
.
""
"
.
W"
,
,"
w
"
"
,
"
"
"
,
_
'
nw
.
.."
"
"
"
'
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
'
.
.
"

,'.
.
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
.
""
"
'
-
"
"
"
"
'
"
"
"
,
'
w
"
"
'
,
'
""
'
"
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.....
.
.
.
.
...
"
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
......
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'"
.
.."
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
m,
~
w
.
.
.
.

",,
-
~
"
"
.
w,
.
.
.
.
.
~
~
.
.
"
"
.
w.
',.
.
.
'
",_
.
w
.
.
M
,
.
W.
w
"
.
......
.

.
N
.
.."
'
,
"
'
...
.
.
.
."
"
.
'
"
'
,
,',
,
w
_
_
.

"
'
"
,
",.
""
,
.
..
,
w
.
.
.
.
,.,
'
m
.
w,.
W"
.
.
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
...
.
.
.
,.
.

"
""
"
"
"
'
"

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
,

.
,.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
...
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.

"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
'
.
.
.
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
'
"

.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
......
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
..
'
W,-
"
"
"
.
,"
.
"N
.
'W
"
,
W"
.w,,
,.

"
"
"'.
,"
W
"
'
.
.
W_
.
"
"
"
...
.
.
m
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
,
.
.
.
,..
.
.
.
."
.

.
"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

,
.
...
...
.
.
.
.
"
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,.
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
""
"
.
,"
"
,
"
,
"
,
_
,
.
.
_
"
m
.
.
.
.
"
,
.
mm
'
.
w"
,
-
-
"
,
"
DSM FINANCIAL FACTORS
""----_._~.,,. _----~--~- ----
Financial Factors for Demand-Side Management
t-...
..,-- "----- '
1-.'-""""" - ""-'
;-"""""'--"""" -- '... ---,-..,..-- .""-
f""
"...." """..".. "'---
1---""" """-"---'-'-T""" """""""
"""""'-""
r"""'-""""-""~"""r .-......-..
,...
""m_"
"'- ')"'--"'-'--';-"" """,-"-.....,...-............................-......,-....---,...._,-~,__~~~--,........_-_.,--~--"'--"..--..--...,_.................,......,.._..,-__.~,-~._~- ~..-
""-'-.-------1-"-"'-'
...::.::..:..:::.
::~:r.
::""""~:~":"""""'~"":""':"'--""'-----"""""""""""""",,"
"_m,
..-. ,..-----...
J____m..__.l_......-__....._,L____- .___,_1,......_._._....1..._,...._......__1_.....___,_1__,......_--..
Present Value Factor (PVF) for years = Adjustment Factor x (1 - ((1 + Rate) 1\ -n)) + Rate
~--, -'
lR~~iT~~ou~I~ate Nomi'2~1 Rate) + (1 + Escalation Rate)) - 1
"".............-...."..."-' .......-., ,..........
?'!1.'!l.!...~~J~~!~,
':'.~....
C?.~.
?..~,.,
:= om ':l,i:i.I....'!l.~.~J..
:":...~?~,
':l.i:i..I
...
!!'!1,
~~..,
Escalation Adjustment Factor = (1 + Escalation Rate) 1\ Escalation Timing Factor
---- -_....'--' .. --'
IAdju"'tm'ent-ctor =!Nomin-aTAdjustm ctor +EscalatTon'Adjustmeni"Factor
---"
~I12~g f~9jO~;""~e -61~~,_
~:~
Le~~i~~Jor~'n~!Y..~6~tY), ~!?r~~~~!~~,.. bfj!~~i~dJan nu 2~Y d~~~:-ancrC?f~~!!1.~p~r
~~~,,..--'-"..""-""""