20100316DSM 2009 Report.pdf

BEFORE THE
Idaho Public Utilties .
Offce of the s CommISSion
RECE I v~~ta'Y
MAR 152010
Boise, Idaho
IDAHO PUBLIC UTiliTIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-10-09
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
ATTACHMENT NO.3
DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT
2009 ANNUAL REPORT
.~\..,
This document printed on recycled paper.
Idaho Power Company Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents............................................ ........................................................................................ i
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................ iii
List of Figues............................................... ........................................................................................ iv
List of Supplements .............................................................................................................................. iv
Glossary of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................... v
Executive Summary. ..... ................ ...... ......... .... ......... ...................... ... ......... ............ ........ ....................... 1
Introduction.................................................................................................................. ......................... 3
Demand-Side Management Programs.........................................................................................3
Demand Response Programs .. .... ...... .... ...... .... ............... ......... ...... ........ ....... ......... ...................... 5
Energy Effciency Programs ..... ......... .... ......... ......... ...... ....... ........ ... ........... ........ ... ............... ...... 6
Market Transformation............. ............ ...... .... ......... ...... ....... ................. .... ............. ............. ....... 6
Other Programs and Activities.................................................................................................... 6
Program Performance ....... .......... ........... .... ............ ........ ....... ............. ..... ........... ..... ... .... ..... ........ 7
2009 Activities.................................................................................................................... ....... 8
Energy Effciency Advisory Group......... ... ............ ....... ..... ... ...... ........... ..... ....... ...... ........ ........... 9
Northwest Power and Conservation Council's Sixth Power Plan ...............................................10
Smart Meter Project. .... ..... ...... ..... .......... .... ............. ...... ........ .... ......... ..... .......... ...... ....... ............11
Regulatory Initiatives.................................................................................................................... . .11
DSM Expenditures and Funding......................................................................................................12
Future Plans ....................................................................................................................................12
Program Evaluation...................................................................................................................12
Customer Satisfaction.................................................................................................................. .. .13
Cost-Effectiveness ........ .... ..... ..... ....... ......... ....... .......... ........... ........ ........ .... ......... ... ...... ....... .... .......14
DSM Annual Report Strcture .......... ....... .... ............... ............ ... ..... ........ ..... ........... ....... ..... ............15
Residential Sector Overview................................................................................................................ .17
Description...... ...... ........ ........... ........ ........... .......... ...... ....... .... .... ..... ....... ...... .... ....... ........ ................17
Programs... ............. ....... ........ ............ ....... ... ........... ..... .......... ..... .... .............. ........... ..... .... ......... ......17
AlC Cool Credit ........................................................................................................................19
Ductless Heat Pump Pilot......................................................................................................... .23
Energy Efficient Lighting .... ... .... ....... .... ......... ........ ....... ........ ............ .... ............ ..... ....... ..... .......26
Energy House Calls ........ .... ..... ........... ............ ........ ............... ............... ...... ..... ...... ......... .... .......30
ENERGY STARiIHomes Northwest.........................................................................................34
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page i
Table of Contents Idaho Power Company
Heating & Cooling Effciency Program.....................................................................................38
Home Improvement Program ....................................................................................................43
Home Products Program............................................................................................................45
Oregon Residential Weatherization ...........................................................................................48
Rebate Advantage ... ..... ... .... ............................ ..... ... .............. ..... .... ...... ........ ........... ..... .... ..... ....50
See Ya Later Refrigerator. ................................ ................... .... ........ .......... ...... .... ..... .... ...... .......53
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers ..................................................................57
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers.......................................................................60
Commercial/Industrial Sector Overview................................................................................................ 65
Description......................................................................................................................................65
Programs.........................................................................................................................................65
Building Effciency ...................................................................................................................68
Custom Effciency......................... .............. .............................................................................. 71
Easy Upgrades...........................................................................................................................75
FlexPeak Management ..............................................................................................................81
Holiday Lighting Program.........................................................................................................84
Oregon Commercial Audits .......................................................................................................87
Irrigation Sector Overview ....................................................................................................................89
Description......................................................................................................................................89
Programs.........................................................................................................................................89
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards....................................................................................................91
Irrigation Peak Rewards ............................................................................................................95
Market Transformtion ...... ........ .... ............................. ... ..... ............ ...................... ............... .... ......... ..1 0 i
Northwest Energy Effciency Allance ..........................................................................................101
NEEA Activities......................................................................................................................101
Commercial and Industrial NEEA Activities in Idaho........................................................l 0 1
NEEA Funding........................................................................................................................1 03
Other Programs and Activities............................................................................................................l 05
Residential Energy Effciency Education Initiative ....... .............. .................................. ..... ............105
Easy Savings Program.. .... ................ ................ ......... ...... ..... ... .... ..... ... .............. .... ........ .... ............107
Commercial Education Initiative...................................................................................................l 08
Local Energy Effciency Funds .. ............... ... ......... ..... ..... ......... ............ ..... ........ ...... ...... ..... ...........109
Students for Energy Effciency.. ....... ............ ... ....... ..... ..... ......... ....... .... .......... ....... .................. ..... .11 0
Energy Effciency Education......................................................................................................... i 10
Page ii Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Table of Contents
Regulatory Initiatives................................................................................................................... .......1 i i
Energy Effciency Rider ........ ........................... ..... .... ... .... ... ...... .......... ........ ........... ... ........ ..... .111
Fixed-Cost Adjustment Pilot .. ... ............................ .... ... ...... ................. .... ..... ............ ............... i 11
Performance-Based DSM Incentive Pilot ...................................................................................... i 12
Enhanced Commitment... ....... ..... .......... ......................... ... ....... .... ......... ..... ..... .... .... ............. ......... ...... i 15
Broad Availability of Effciency and Load Management Programs ...............................................115
Building Code Improvement Activity........................................................................................... .116
Pursuit of Appliance Code Standards ............................................................................................116
Appliance Standards Assessment .... ................. ..... .... ...... ....... ......... ........... ... .......... ......................1 16
Continued Expansion ofDSM Programs Beyond Peak-Shaving/Load-Shifting Programs..............117
Third-Party Verification................................................................................................................118
Promotion of Energy Effciency through Electricity Rate Design ..................................................119
Idaho Power's Internal Energy Effciency Commitment.... ..... .......... .......... .... ........ ............. ........ ..120
Appendices .........................................................................................................................................121
Appendix 1. Idaho Rider, Oregon Rider, BP A, and NEEA Funding Balances......... ............ ..........123
Appendix 2. 2009 DSM Expenses by Funding Source (Dollars) ...................................................124
Appendix 3. 2009 DSM Program Activity ....................................................................................125
Appendix 4. DSM Expense and Performance 2002-2009 .............................................................128
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.
Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
OF TABLES
2009 DSM, Sectors, Programs, Operational Type, and Energy Savings......... ......... ..... .... 7
2009 Program Sector Summary and Energy Usage ......................................................... 8
2009 Funding Source and Energy Impact......................................................................12
2009 Residential Program Summary ......... ......... ........ ... .... .... ...... .... ............ ..... ... ...........17
Energy Effcient Lighting Energy Savings .. .... .......... ..... ........ ..... .... ................. ..............28
2009 Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customer's Individual Measure
Breakdown .. .... ...... ........ .............. ....... ..... .... ................. .... ......... .... ........... ......... ........... .62
2009 Commercial/Industrial Program Summary.............................................................65
Custom Effciency Anual Energy Savings by Measure.................................................73
2009 Irrigation Program Summary .................................................................................89
Option Incentives...........................................................................................................96
Total Program Daily MW Reduction Using Realization Rates .......................................98
Analyzed Appliances and Code Implementation Status................................................ i 17
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page iii
Table of Contents Idaho Power Company
Table 13.
Figure 1
Figue 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Appliance Standard Potential Savings-Idaho Statewide. ...... ................... ........ ..... ... ...117
LIST OF FIGURES
DSM Expense History 2002-2009 (Milions of dollars) .................................................. 4
Anual Demand Response Reduction 2004-2009 (MW)...... ...... .......... ... ..... ........... ........ 4
Anual Energy Savings 2002-2009 (MW) .................................................................... 5
Percent of Customers Whose Needs are Met or Exceeded by Idaho Power's
Energy Effciency Efforts ................. ...................... ........ ......................... ............... .......14
How Customers Heard about the See Ya Later Refrigerator Program........ ......... ..... .......56
LIST OF SUPPLEMENTS
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Supp lement 2: Evaluation
NEEA Market Effects Evaluations (included on compact disc with Supplement 2)
Page iv Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Glossary of Acronyms
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
aMW-Average Megawatt
AlC-Air Conditioning
ASHRA-American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
AMI-Advanced Metering Infrastructure
B/C-Benefit Cost
BCA-Building Contractors Association
BCASWI-Building Contractors Association of Southwestern Idaho, Inc.
BOP-Builder Option Package
BOMA-Building Owners and Managers Association International
BP A-Bonneville Power Administration
BSU-Boise State University
CAP-Community Action Partnership
CAP AI-Community Action Partnership Association ofIdaho, Inc.
CBSA-Commercial Building Stock Assessment
CD-Compact Disc
CFM-Cubic Feet per Minute
CEE-Consortium for Energy Efficiency Inc.
CEI-Çontinuous Energy Improvement
CEL-Cost-Effective Limit
CFL-Compact Fluorescent Lamp/Light
CHQ-Corporate Headquarters (Idaho Power)
CIS-Customer Informtion System
CO2-Carbon Dioxide
COP-Coeffcient of Performance
CR-Customer Representative
CSR-Customer Service Representative
CVR-Conservation Voltage Reduction
DEER-Database for Energy Effciency Resources
DEI-Distribution Efficiency Initiative
DHP-Ductless Heat Pump
DOE-U.S. Department of Energy
DSM-Demand-Side Management
EEAG-Energy Effciency Advisory Group
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page v
Glossary of Acronyms Idaho Power Company
EEBA-Energy and Environmental Building Association
ETO-Energy Trust of Oregon
F-Fahrenheit
F AQs-Frequently Asked Questions
FCA-Fixed-Cost Adjustment
GMPG--reen Motors Practice Group
HEM-LLC-Home Energy Management-LLC
H&CE-Heating & Cooling Effciency Program
HQ-High Output
hp-Horsepower
HPS-Home Performance Specialist
HSPF-Heating Seasonal Performnce Factor
HV AC-Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IDL-Integrated Design Lab
lEA-Industrial Efficiency Allance
IECC-International Energy Conservation Code
IOER-Idaho Offce of Energy Resources
IPUC-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
IRP-Integrated Resource Plan
kW-Kilowatt
kWh-Kilowatt-hour
LDL-Lighting Design Lab
LED-Light-Emitting Diode
LEED-Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LEEF-Local Energy Effciency Funds
LIHEAP-Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
MOU-Memorandum of Understanding
MHAFB-Mountain Home Air Force Base
MPER-Market Progress Evaluation Report
MW-Megawatt
MWhMegawatt-hour
NAHB-National Association of Home Builders
NEEM-Northwest Energy Effcient Manufactured Housing Program
NEEA-Northwest Energy Effciency Alliance
Page vi Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Glossary of Acronyms
NEMA-National Electrical Manufactuers Association
NPCC-Northwest Power and Conservation Council
ODOE-Gregon Department of Energy
OPUC-Public Utility Commission of Oregon
OSV-Gn-Site Verification
PCT -Participant Cost Test
PECI-Portland Energy Conservation, Inc.
PLC-Power Line Carrier
PNUCC-Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee
PTAC-Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner
PTCS-Performnce Tested Comfort System
PTHP-Packaged Terminal Heat Pump
QA-Quality Assurance
RA-Resource Action Programs
RFP-Request for Proposal
RTF-Regional Technical Forum
Rider-Idaho Energy Effciency Rider and Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
SEE-Students for Energy Effciency
SEER-Seasonal Energy Effciency Rating
SIR-Savings Investment Ratio
S02-Sulfur Dioxide
SRVBCA-Snake River Valley Building Contractors Association
TRC- Total Resource Cost
UC-Utility Cost
VHO- Very High Output
WAQC-Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page vii
Idaho Power Company Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Idaho Power and its customers benefited from another year of increased energy and demand savings as
well as enhanced activities in energy effciency education and customer outreach. Demand-Side
Management (DSM) activities throughout 2009 focused not only on increasing savings and overall
program participation, but improving customer satisfaction and energy effciency awareness. Through
program innovation and new technologies, the company's DSM portfolio of programs and energy
savings opportunities expanded.
In 2009, the results of Idaho Power's quarterly customer relationship survey showed steady
improvement over recent years. The percentage of customers who have a positive perception of
Idaho Power's energy efficiency efforts has continued to grow, with a 44 percent increase in positive
customer perception from 2003 to 2009.
Overall annual energy savings from Idaho Power's energy effciency activities increased 7.8 percent in
2009 to 148,256 megawatt-hours (MWh), including savings from the Northwest Energy Efficiency
Allance (NEEA). This is more than enough energy to supply over 11,000 average homes in
Idaho Power's service area. Demand reduction for Idaho Power's demand response programs more than
tripled, from 61 megawatts (MW) in 2008 to 218 MW in 2009. This is larger than the capacity of any of
Idaho Power's peaker plants near Mountain Home. The savings exclusively from Idaho Power's energy
effciency programs in 2009 increased by 23 percent, while the expenditures increased by 28 percent.
Total expenditures on DSM-related activities increased from approximately $21 milion in 2008 to
$35 million in 2009.
The pursuit of all cost-effective energy effciency is a primary objective for Idaho Power.
Energy effciency provides economic, operational, and environmental benefits to the company and
its customers. Idaho Power achieves energy savings and demand reduction through energy effciency
programs, demand response programs, market transformtion activities, and other activities.
Enhancement of programs and offerings helps ensure that customers have opportunities to paricipate
in programs and manage their energy usage.
Program offerings enhanced in 2009 included the expansion and modification of the Irrgation Peak
Rewards program and the addition of the FlexPeak Management demand response program. A new
program, See Ya Later Refrigerator, was launched. Idaho Power participated with NEEA in the
Ductless Heat Pump (DHP) Pilot and the Consumer Electronics Initiative. The company continued
expanding its Smart Meter Project in 2009 by installing Advanced Meter Infastructure (AMI), which
augments Idaho Power's energy efficiency and demand response efforts.
The Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report provides a review ofthe company's DSM activities
and finances throughout 2009, outlines its plans for DSM activities, and satisfies the reporting
requirements set out in the Idaho Public Utilities Commission's (IPUC) Order Nos. 29062 and 29419.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 1
Executive Summary Idaho Power Company
This page left blank intentionally.
Page 2 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Introduction
INTRODUCTION
Idaho Power's Demand-Side Management (DSM) 2009 Annual Report provides a review ofthe financial
and operational performance ofIdaho Power's DSM activities and initiatives for the 2009 calendar year.
These programs provide a wide range of opportnities for all customer classes to become informed
about energy-use characteristics and reduce their energy consumption.
Idaho Power's two main objectives for DSM programs are to achieve all cost-effective energy efficiency
resources in order to meet the electrical system's energy and demand needs and to provide all
Idaho Power customers with programs and inormation to help them manage their energy usage.
The company achieves these objectives through the development and implementation of programs with
specific energy and demand savings, and through outreach and education endeavors. When possible,
Idaho Power implements identical programs in its Idaho and Oregon service areas.
Customer participation in Idaho Power's energy efficiency and demand response programs continues to
increase, as do energy savings and demand reduction. The energy savings exclusively from
Idaho Power's energy effciency programs in 2009 was 132,443 MW, a 23 percent increase over the
107,484 MWh energy savings in 2008. Demand reduction for the demand response programs
substantially increased in 2009. Combined, the Irrigation Peak Rewards, FlexPeak Management, and
AlC Cool Credit programs resulted in an estimated summer peak reduction of 218 MW, which is more
than three times the 61 MW reduction achieved in 2008.
Demand..Side Management Programs
The programs within Idaho Power's energy efficiency and demand response portfolio are offered to
four major customer sectors: residential, commercial, industriaL and irigation. The commercial and
industrial energy effciency programs are made available to customers in either sector. The sector is
referred to as the commerciai/industrial sector in this report.
Idaho Power categoried its DSM activities in four categories: demand response, energy effciency,
market transformation, and other programs and activities.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 3
Introduction Idaho Power Company
Figures 1-3 show the historical growth in expenditures and energy savings from 2002 to the present.
Figure 1 DSM Expense History 2002-2009 (Milions of dollars)
$4.00
$35.00
íi $30.00c
.2
~ $25.00
i
~ $20.00
CIQ.)(W $15.00:i(/C $10.00
$5.00
$0.00
$34.85
2002 2003 200 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure 2. Annual Demand Response Reduction 2004-2009 (MW)
~;lco~:ii:
&i:cia
ECIC
250
218
200
150
100
50
6
o
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Page 4 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Introduction
Figure 3. Annual Energy Savings 2002-2009 (MWh)
160,000
!1 Market Transformation (NEEA)
140,000-J:Idaho Power Program Savings3:120,000::-
IIC)100,000c':;
CI
en~80,000C)..
CDCw 60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Note: 2009 market transformation (NEEA) savings are preliminary.
Demand Response Programs
Demand response programs are designed to reduce participant electricity loads at specific times ofthe
day and year when electricity is normally in short supply. The need for these programs continues to
increase. Idaho Power set its all-time system peak of3,214 MW on Monday, June 30, 2008, at 3:00 p.m.
The new, all-time winter system peak of2,528 MW was set on Thursday, December 10,2009, at 8:00
a.m. The summer peak in 2009 was 3,031 MW set on Wednesday, July 22 at 8:00 p.m.
The 2009 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) load forecast projects peak hour load wil grow at an average
annual rate of 53 MW, or 1.5 percent, and average system load wil grow at 13 average megawatt
(aMW), or 0.7 percent, over the 20-year planning period. The goal ofIdaho Power's demand response
programs is to reduce the system summer peak demand, thus reducing the need for acquiring higher
cost, supply-side alternatives, such as gas turbine generation. Demand reduction through demand
response programs is achieved using load control devices installed on customer equipment or manual
load reduction provided by the customer.
The measure of program performance is the number ofMW of reduced electrical demand during peak
periods. In 2009, Idaho Power offered three demand response programs, FlexPeak Management for
commerciai/industrial customers, the AlC Cool Credit program for residential customers, and the
Irrgation Peak Rewards program for irigation customers. The FlexPeak Management program was new
in 2009. The Irrigation Peak Rewards program was changed in 2009 to enable the load reduction to be
dispatchable, which increased the participation and load reduction potential of the program.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 5
Introduction Idaho Power Company
Energy Efficiency Programs
Energy effciency programs focus on reducing energy usage by identifying homes, buildings,
equipment, or components where energy-effcient design, replacement, or repair can yield energy
savings. These programs are applicable to all customer sectors. Project measures range from entire
building construction to simple light bulb replacement. Savings from these programs are measured in
term of reduced kilowatt-hour (kWh) usage, or MW usage for larger projects. These programs usually
supply energy benefits throughout the year. Idaho Power's energy effciency offerings include programs
in residential and commercial new construction (lost opportunity savings), residential and commercial
retrofit applications, and irigation and industrial systems improvement or replacement.
Transformation
Market transformtion is a method of achieving energy savings through engaging and influencing large
national and regional companies and organizations. These organizations are in a position to impact the
design of energy usage in products, services, and practices that affect electrical power consumption.
Idaho Power achieves market transformtion savings primarily through its participation in NEEA.
Idaho Power also supports market transformation accomplished by appliance or building code
modifications or enforcement.
Other Programs and Activities
Other programs and activities represent a range of small projects that are typically research-,
development-, and education-oriented. This category includes the Residential Energy Effciency
Education Initiative, the Easy Savings Program, the Commercial Educational Initiative, the Local
Energy Efficiency Funds (LEEF), and the Students for Energy Effciency (SEE). These programs enable
Idaho Power to offer support for projects and educational opportnities not normally covered under
existing programs.
Page 6 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Introduction
Table 1 provides a list of the DSM programs and their respective sectors, operational category, the state
in which each was available in 2009, and energy savings.
Table 1. 2009 DSM, Sectors, Programs, Operational Type, and Energy Savings
Program by Sector Operational Type
Residential
AlC Cool Credit ...... ... ............. ...... ................... ................ Demand Response
Ductless Heat Pump Pilot....... .... ....... ...... .................. ...... Energy Effciency
Energy Effcient Lighting ...... ...... ................. ....... ....... ....... Energy Effciency
Energy House Calls......................................................... Energy Effciency
ENERGY ST AR(8 Homes Northwest...................... .... ...... Energy Effciency
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program..... ...................... '" Energy Effciency
Home Improvement Program ....................... ... ........ ......... Energy Effciency
Home Products Program .......................... ...... ................. Energy Effciency
Oregon Residential Weatherization .................................. Energy Effciency
Rebate Advantage........................................................... Energy Effciency
Residential Energy Effciency Education Initiative ............. Other Programs and Activities
See Ya Later Refngerator ................................................ Energy Effciency
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers .......... Energy Effciency
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers ............... Energy Effciency
Commerciallndustrial
Building Effciency................. .... ....... ........ ........ ........ ....... Energy Effciency
Commercial Education Initiative ............ .... ......... ... ........... Other Programs and Activities
Easy Upgrades................................................................ Energy Effciency
FlexPeak Management......... .......... ...................... ........... Demand Response
Holiday Lighting Program................................................. Energy Effciency
Oregon Commercial Audits..... ......................................... Energy Effciency
Custom Efficiency ... ..... .................................................... Energy Effciency
Irrigation
Irrigation Effciency Rewards............................................ Energy Effciency
Irrigation Peak Rewards........ ...... ......... ............. ....... ........ Demand Response
All Sectors
Northwest Energy Efficiency Allance..... ............... ....... .... Market Transformation
State Savings
I DfOR 38.5 MV
I DfOR 409 MVh
I DfOR 13,411 MVh
I DfOR 929 MVh
I DfOR 706 MVh
I DfOR 1,275 MVh
ID 1,339 MVh
I DfOR 1,638 MVh
OR 3 MVh
I DfOR 247 MVh
I DfOR nfa
IDfOR 1,133 MVh
I DfOR 4,679 MVh
ID 212 MWh
I DfOR 6,146 MVh
I DfOR nfa
I DfOR 35,172 MVh
ID 19.3 MV
I DfOR 142 MWh
OR nfa
I DfOR 51,836 MVh
IDfOR 13,158 MVh
IDfOR 160.2 MW
I DfOR 15,813 MVh
Prog Penormance
In 2009, energy savings increased, as compared to 2008, for the residential, commercial, industrial,
and irigation sectors by 19 percent, 26 percent, 26 percent, and 12 percent, respectively. The residential
sector savings increased to 25,980 MWh, the commercial sector savings increased to 41,460 MW,
the industrial sector increased to 51,836 MWh, and the irigation sector increased to 13,158 MW.
Additional energy savings continue to be realized through market transformation partnership activities
with the NEEA.
Customer participation increased in nearly every existing program during the year. The number of
projects completed under the Easy Upgrades program increased from 685 projects in 2008 to
1,224 projects in 2009. Projects completed under the Building Effciency program increased from
60 to 72. As a result of the downturn in the housing market in 2009, the number of homes incented in
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 7
Introduction Idaho Power Company
the Rebate Advantage program decreased. However, participation in the AlC Cool Credit program
increased by 50 percent to approximately 30,391 participants.
A few individual programs were big contributors to the overall energy savings. The Custom Efficiency
program accounted for 39 percent ofIdaho Power's energy savings from programs, resulting in
51,836 MWh of savings. The Easy Upgrades progrm in the commercial sector provided 27 percent,
or 35,172 MW, energy savings. In the residential sector, the Energy Effcient Lighting program saved
13,411 MWh, accounting for 10 percent ofthe overall energy savings from Idaho Power's energy
efficiency programs.
Table 2 shows the 2009 annual energy savings, percent of energy usage, number of customers,
and aMW savings associated with each of the DSM program categories. The table also provides a
comparison of the 2009 contribution of each sector in terms of weather adjusted energy usage and its
respective size in number of customers. Unless otherwise noted, all energy savings presented in this
report are measured or estimated at the customers' meter, excluding line losses.
Table 2. 2009 Program Sector Summary and Energy Usage
Energy Effciency Program ImpactCal
Eney Average Peak Load
Direct Savings Energy ReductionExpenses (MWh) (aMW) (MW)(bl
Residential ............................................. $5,465,842 25,980 3.0 39.6
CommerciaL........................................... $4,707,295 41,460 4.7 26.7
IndustriaL................................................ $6,061,467 51,836 5.9 6.7
Irrgation ................................................. $2,293,896 13,158 1.5 163.6
Market Transformation .......................... $968,263 15,813 1.8 nla
Other Programs and Activities .............. $5,870 10 0.0 nfa
TotaL.................................................... $19,502,632 148,256 16.7 236.6 13,948,256 100.0% 489,923
(a) Energy, Average Energy, and expense data have been rounded to the nearest whole unit, which may result in minor rounding differences.
(b) Includes peak load reduction from both demand response and energy effciency programs.
Secor Total
(MWh)
5,294,557
3,867,536
3,136,405
1,649,758
Idaho Power System Sales
Percentage
of Energy
Usage
38.0%
27.7%
22.5%
Number of
Customers
11.8%
406,631
64,349
125
18,818
2009 Activities
During 2009, Idaho Power continued to expand the programs that began with the 2004 and 2006 IRPs.
In addition to the DSM programs identified in the IRP, Idaho Power continued to offer other energy
efficiency programs that began prior to the 2004 IRP. In 2009, Idaho Power implemented two new
residential energy efficiency programs. The Attic Insulation Pilot was renamed Home Improvement
Program, and the Home Weatherization Pilot became the Weatherization Solutions for Eligible
Customers program. The See Ya Later Refrigerator program was added. Additionally the company
participated in two new projects in conjunction with the NEEA, the DHP Pilot, and the Consumer
Electronics Initiative included in the Home Products Program. Idaho Power also initiated a new demand
response program for commercial and industrial customers, the FlexPeak Management program, and
expanded the Irrigation Peak Rewards program.
In December 2009, Idaho Power fied the 2009 IRP with the IPUC and the Public Utility Commission of
Oregon (OPUC). Both energy effciency and demand response program efforts were considered
increasingly important resources in the 2009 IRP. Next to distributed generation, the company's demand
response programs are the least-cost resource for meeting summer peak loads over the 20-year IRP
Page 8 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Introduction
planning period. Demand response program efforts are forecasted to provide 367 MW of peak reduction
by summer 2012. New energy efficiency programs are also forecasted to have a significant impact on
system loads over the planning period, with an additional 127 aMW of energy from new program efforts
at a levelized cost per kWh ranging between 3 cents to just under 7 cents. The combined forecasted
system reduction for all energy efficiency programs, which includes curently operating programs and
new, planned commitments, is estimated at just under 54 aMW by 2012 and wil exceed a cumulative
380 aMW of average energy reduction by the end of the 20-year planning period.
From late 2008 through the end of2009, Idaho Power was involved in several regulatory activities
concerning the prudency ofDSM expenditures. These activities were based in Idaho and were primarily
concerned with the expenditures of funds collected through Idaho Rate Schedule 91, the Energy
Effciency Rider (Rider). In Idaho Power's 2008 rate case, Case No. IPC-E-08-1O, Idaho Power
requested that the IPUC find that its 2002-2007 expenditures on DSM programs and initiatives, funded
by the Rider, were prudently incurred. Total Rider expenditures during the period were approximately
$33 million. The IPUC deferred a determination on the prudency ofthe expenditues pending additional
information to evaluate the programs' effectiveness. In February 2009, Idaho Power and the IPUC staff
fied a stipulation in that case, establishing the prudency of a portion of the Rider funds the company
spent during the 6-year period. The IPUC subsequently issued Order No. 30740 on March 6,2009,
finding that "approximately $18.3 milion in energy effciency expenditures for 2002-2007 as prudent to
be just, reasonable, and in the public interest." The stipulation approved by the IPUC also required
Idaho Power to file a pleading with the commission seeking a prudency determination for the balance of
Rider funds spent during 2002-2007.
On April 1, 2009, Idaho Power filed an application in Case No. IPC-E-09-09, requesting the IPUC find
the remaining $14,657,971 in 2002-2007 Rider expenditures to be prudently incured expenses.
Following the fiing ofthe company's application, the IPUC staff and Idaho Power continued to discuss
ways to evaluate the effectiveness ofthe company's DSM programs. On October 5, 2009, the IPUC staff
hosted a DSM evaluation workshop, facilitated by an evaluation consultant retained by the commission,
to discuss appropriate levels of objective and transparent evaluation ofDSM programs by Idaho utility
companies. As a result ofthe workshop and follow up discussions, Idaho Power and the IPUC staff
agreed to term for a comprehensive utility annual DSM report, as set forth in a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU). The MOU provides terms for Idaho Power to manage, plan, evaluate, and report
its DSM activities to the IPUC. In addition, IPUC staff and the company signed a stipulation agreeing
that the remaining balance of $ 14,657,971 Rider funds spent durg 2002-2007 were prudent
expenditures. On January 25,2010, Idaho Power fied a motion to approve the stipulation. In this fiing,
Idaho Power specifically requested that the IPUC confIrm that the $14,657,971 in Rider expenditures the
company made between 2002 and 2007 were considered prudent and that the IPUC provide feedback if
it so chooses regarding the DSM evaluations and prudency determinations discussed in the MOU.
Throughout these proceedings, IPUC staff did not suggest that any of the prior expenditures by
Idaho Power were imprudent, only that some programs had not yet been sufficiently evaluated.
A copy ofthe MOU is included in Supplement 2: Evaluation. At the time of publishing this report,
an order on Case No. IPC-E-09-09 has not been issued.
nergy Efficiency Advisory G up
Formed in 2002, the Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) provides input on formulating and
implementing energy effciency and demand reduction programs funded by the Rider. Curently,
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 9
Introduction Idaho Power Company
the EEAG consists of 14 members from across Idaho Power's service area and the Pacific Northwest.
Members represent a cross-section of customers, including individuals from the residential, industrial,
commercial, and irigation sectors, as well as representatives for seniors, low-income individuals,
environmental organizations, state agencies, public utility commissions, and Idaho Power.
In 2009, the EEAG met three times, February 19, June 11, and October 20. Conference calls were held
on January 8, January 9, December 16, and December 17. Durg the meetings, Idaho Power requested
recommendations and discussion on new program proposals, marketing methods, and specific measure
details; provided a status ofthe Rider funding and expenses; updated ongoing programs and projects;
and supplied information on DSM issues in general. Idaho Power relies on input from the EEAG to
provide a customer and public interest review of energy efficiency and demand response programs and
expenses. The minutes from the 2009 EEAG meetings are included in Supplement 2: Evaluation.
In addition to the EEAG, Idaho Power solicits fuher customer input through meeting directly with
stakeholder groups in the residential, commercial, indutriaL and irigation customer sectors.
Idaho Power has also enhanced its relationships with trade allies, trade organizations, and regional
groups committed to increasing the use of energy efficiency programs and measures to reduce
electricity load.
During 2009, Idaho Power continued its contractual participation in, and funding of NEE A.
NEEA's efforts in the northwest impact Idaho Power's customers by encouraging regional market
transformation. Idaho Power collaborated with NEEA on the development ofthe NEEA 2010-2015
business plan. Idaho Power also continues to help fud and participate in the Regional Technical Forum
(RTF) and uses the results from the RTF's research in program development and cost-effectiveness
analysis. In 2009, Idaho Power paricipated on the Northwest Energy Effciency Taskforce (NEET).
Northwest Power and Conservation Cou Power Plan
On Februar 10, 2010 members ofthe Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC or the
council) adopted the NPCC's 6th regional power plan, the Sixth Power Plan. The plan identifies a
five-year, regional energy-saving target of 1,200 aMWand calls for 5,900 aMW of cost-effective
effciencies by 2030. Idaho Power along with the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), NEEA,
other Northwest power delivery companies, and interested stakeholders paricipated in workshops and
meetings to help determine what would be included in the plan.
After discussions with the NPCC statT Idaho Power agreed that a range of achievable energy savings
exists, and that 1,100 aMW would be a reasonable lower threshold with an expected case of 1,200
aMW. Idaho Power also agreed that the Sixth Power Plan action should include a "regional check-in"
with appropriate target adjustments after two years, due to the uncertainty surrounding the achievability
of energy-savings potential as laid out in the plan.
In November, Idaho Power submitted comments on the NPCC's Sixth Power Plan. Idaho Power's
comments included supporting the level of uncertainty that the council included in its planning, and the
inclusion of wind integration and transmission in the plan, and reinforced the comments ofthe Pacific
Northwest Utilities Conference Committee (PNUCC) regarding the depiction of future power costs in
the plan. Regarding energy effciency, Idaho Power commended the NPCC and its staff on promoting
Page 10 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Introduction
aggressive steps toward energy efficiency in the region and described Idaho Power's methods of
encouraging energy efficiency and accounting for savings.
Idaho Power has a stated commitment to pursue all cost-effective energy effciency, even though
Idaho Power's methods of achieving its energy efficiency targets may differ from those proposed by
the NPCC.
Smart Project
In 2009, Idaho Power began the curent Smart Meter Project by installing Advanced Meter
Infrastructure (AMI). The Smart Meter Project wil enhance Idaho Power's energy effciency efforts in
several ways. Hourly data is being collected by these meters and can be viewed by customers via the
Internet. This wil enable customers to more wisely manage their use of electricity. Customer hourly
energy data and monthly demand data will help to evaluate energy efficiency and demand response
programs. Idaho Power wil continue to expand its use ofthe power line communications technology to
dispatch demand response programs. As of February 2010, Idaho Power had installed 166,685
residential Smart Meters and 21,931 small commercial Smart Meters as part of the Smart Meter Project.
These were primarily installed in the Treasure Valley. In addition to those numbers, about 27,600 Smart
Meters have been in service in the Emmett and McCall areas from the 2004 AMI pilot project. To date
the company has completed 37 of the approximately 134 substation installations, which is 28 percent of
the total to be installed. By the end of2011, most ofIdaho Power's service area wil be converted to
Smart Meters.
Regu Initiatives
Idaho Power believes there are three essential components of an effective regulatory model for DSM
1) the timely recovery ofDSM program costs, 2) the removal of financial disincentives, and 3) the
availability of financial incentives. Idaho Power, in conjunction with the IPUC and the members of the
environmental community, has worked toward creating a financial and regulatory environment
supportive of utility DSM resource acquisition. This collaborative effort has succeeded in implementing
regulatory mechanisms to address the fIrst two components. Since 2002 in Idaho and 2005 in Oregon,
Idaho Power has recovered its DSM program costs through a Rider. In 2009, Idaho Power fied to make
permanent a FCA mechanism designed to remove the financial disincentives ofDSM implementation.
Despite efforts to create a performance-based incentive mechanism, a satisfactory model has not been
found that all parties can support. The company wil continue to evaluate potential mechanisms to
provide performnce-based earning opportunities. Idaho Power is optimistic that this effort will lead to a
sustained environment supportive of plans to pursue all cost-effective energy effciency opportunities
while balancing its shareowners' financial objectives.
In response to these regulatory mechanisms, Idaho Power has committed to enhancing its efforts toward
promoting DSM and energy effciency in several key areas, including a broad availability of effciency
and load management programs, building-code improvement activity, pursuit of appliance code
standards, expansion ofDSM programs beyond peak-shaving/load-shifting programs,
and third-party verification.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 11
Introduction Idaho Power Company
DSM Expenditures and Funding
Funding for DSM programs in 2009 came from several sources. The Idaho and Oregon Rider funds are
collected directly from customers on their monthly bils. In June 2009, the Idaho Rider was increased
from a rate of2.5 percent of base rate revenues to 4.75 percent. The Oregon Rider is curently at 1.5
percent of base rate revenues with monthly caps on the residential and irigation customers' Rider
charges. On March 5,2010, Idaho Power filed with the OPUC to increase the Oregon Rider from
1.5 percent to 3.0 percent and to eliminate the monthly caps on the residential and irigation bils.
Energy effciency and demand response-related expenses not funded through the Rider funds, including
costs for administration and overhead, are included as part ofIdaho Power's ongoing operation and
maintenance costs. Total DSM expenses funded from these sources were slightly under $35 milion in
2009.
Table 3 provides a summary ofthe 2009 expenses and energy savings by each funding category.
Table 3. 2009 Funding Source and Energy Impact
Funding Source
Idaho Rider ................................ ............................................................................................
Oregon Rider..........................................................................................................................
SPA.......................................................................................................................................
Idaho Power Sase Rates ...... ..... ............ ...... ... ........ ............................. ........... ........ ........ .... ....
Total......................................................................................................................................
Expenses
$31,821,464
1,433,866
42,485
1,548,951
34,84,766
MWh Savings
139,726
3,851
n/a
4,679
148,256
Plans
Many ofIdaho Power's DSM programs are selected for implementation through its biennial IRP.
The IRP is a public document that details Idaho Power's strategy for economically maintaining the
adequacy of its power system into the future. The IRP process balances risk, environmental, economic,
and other considerations in developing a preferred portfolio of future resources that meet the specific
energy needs ofIdaho Power and its customers. In 2010, Idaho Power plans to continue to increase
participation, energy savings, and demand reduction from existing energy effciency and demand
response programs. Additionally, the company wil add measures as identified in the 2009 IRP to its
existing programs and continue to expand its efforts in energy effciency education. Idaho Power also
plans to expand the FlexPeak Management program as defined in its contract with EnerNoc, Inc.,
the third-party demand response aggregator who administers this program.
In 2010, Idaho Power wil collect additional data, improve its data storage systems, enhance its progrm
evaluation, and refine its reprting to satisfy the requirements of the MOU signed by the IPUC and
Idaho Power. The company wil also develop systems and enhance its market data analysis in order to
more effectively market its programs. This wil provide more effective target marketing and promote
programs more efficiently.
Program Evaluation
Program evaluation is an important facet ofIdaho Power's DSM operational activities. Idaho Power
relies on evaluation by third-party contractors, internal analyses, and regional studies to ensure the
ongoing cost-effectiveness of programs through validation of energy savings and demand reduction.
The results ofIdaho Power's evaluation efforts are used to enhance or initiate program changes. In 2009,
Page 12 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Introduction
Idaho Power developed a comprehensive evaluation plan for its energy efficiency and demand response
programs. The evaluation plan is included in Supplement 2: Evaluation. Although the evaluation plan is
expected to be used for scheduling evaluations, the timing of specific program evaluations wil be based
on considerations of program needs, evaluation timing, and other relevant regional studies.
The company commenced evaluations for several programs and measures during 2009, including
Building Effciency, Easy Upgrades, ENERGY STARiI Homes Northwest, AlC Cool Credit, Irgation
Peak Rewards, and the Home Improvement Program. Idaho Power has several programs scheduled for
evaluation in 2010, including Custom Efficiency, Building.Efficiency, Easy Upgrades, Irrigation
Effciency Rewards, Home Products, Rebate Advantage, and Energy House Calls.
As par of its evaluation efforts, Idaho Power is actively participating in several regional studies to
identifY and promote emerging technologies that may further enhance opportunities for existing program
expansion and new program deployment. Examples include 1) the Distribution Effciency Initiative
(DEI), which is a study managed by NEEA to determine efficient ways to design and operate
distribution feeders through voltage regulators; 2) a regional study to evaluate the energy savings
potential ofDHPs; and 3) research to measure the impacts oflight-emitting diode (LED) lighting. Other
regional analyses in which Idaho Power actively participated include the Commercial Building Stock
Assessment (CBSA) and market progress evaluations.
Customer
Customer satisfaction is a key consideration in Idaho Power's program design, operations,
and management. Idaho Power uses sureys, focus groups, stakeholder input, and input from the EEAG
and Idaho Power field personnel to assess and monitor customer satisfaction. This information and input
aids in the design and modification of programs and assists in program marketing and management
throughout the life of each program.
In 2009, the results ofIdaho Power's quarterly customer, relationship survey showed steady
improvement over recent years as the percentage of customers who have a positive perception of
Idaho Power's energy effciency efforts has continued to increase. Customers' positive perception of
Idaho Power's energy efficiency efforts increased from 39 percent in early 2003 to 56 percent in late
2009. This represents a 44 percent increase in positive customer perception. Idaho Power continues to
expand its customer satisfaction measurement activities, which enable Idaho Power to identifY
actionable areas for improvement. Figue 4 depicts biannual growth in the number of customers who
indicated Idaho Power met or exceeded their needs concerning energy conservation efforts encouraged
by Idaho Power.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 13
Introduction Idaho Power Company
Figure 4. Percent of Customers Whose Needs are Met or Exceeded by Idaho Power's Energy Efficiency Efforts
60%
i
I i
~%!
!~¡~. .,
:,, ..-411 ..-I~.---.~~.~¡.I
i~!"'r'.
-
i
i
Ii
i¡
I
-
¡
I
I
I
,
i
I
i
I
iI
I
50%
"CGl"C
3l 40%u)(W..0
lí::30%
II
"CGlGlZ
ë 20%GleGla.
10%
0%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2003 2003 2004 200 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009
12 Month Averag
Several sureys measured customer satisfaction with programs in 2009. The sureys also provide
guidance for program modification, marketing, and evaluation. Survey results are presented in the
following program sections of this report: Energy House Calls, Heating & Cooling Efficiency (H&CE)
Program, Easy Upgrades, FlexPeak Management, Irrgation Peak Rewards Program, and Residential
Energy Efficiency Education Initiative. The Building Efficiency program also conducted a
post-occupancy surey in 2009.
An important measure of customer satisfaction is the retention rate of participants in ongoing programs.
A review of utility service agreement end dates indicated less than 1 percent of AlC Cool Credit
participants canceled enrollment due to dissatisfaction with the program in 2009, while approximately
10 percent of paricipants left the program because of moving. The Irrigation Peak Rewards and the
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards programs have continued with a high level of participation.
Idaho Power programs have ongoing customer satisfaction measurements as a follow-up to the
application process. For example, Easy Upgrades provides an ongoing, Web-based customer survey for
its participants. Results of these surveys indicate general satisfaction and help guide program
improvement and marketing efforts. After each session of the Energy Efficiency and Green Living
Series, Idaho Power requests attendees fill out a customer feedback form rating the program. The H&CE
Program provides an opportunity for customer and contractor feedback through sureys. Customer
satisfaction, regarding the Custom Effciency program, is planned to be assessed in 2010.
Cost-Effectiveness
Idaho Power considers cost-effectiveness of primary importance in the design, implementation,
and tracking of energy effciency and demand response programs. In the past, most ofIdaho Power's
Page 14 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Introduction
energy effciency programs were preliminarily identified through the IRP planning process. Because of
Idaho Power's diversified portfolio of programs, most ofthe new potential for energy effciency in the
Idaho Power service area in the 2009 IRP is based on additional measures rather than new programs.
The process in the IRP remains the same for determining if additional measures should be adopted as it
was for program inclusion. Specific programs or potential energy-savings measures are screened by
sector to determine if the levelized cost of these programs or measures is less than supply-side resource
alternatives. Iftheyare shown to be less costly than supply-side resources from a levelized cost
perspective, the hourly shaped energy savings is subsequently included in the IRP as a resource.
Prior to the actual implementation of energy efficiency or demand response programs, Idaho Power
perform cost-effectiveness analysis to assess whether a specific potential program design wil be
cost-effective from the perspective ofIdaho Power and its customers. Incorporated into these models are
inputs from various sources in order to use the most curent and reliable information available.
When possible, Idaho Power leverages the experiences of other companies in the region, or throughout
the country, to help identify specific program parameters.
Idaho Power's goal is that all mature programs have benefit/cost (B/C) ratios greater than 1.0 for both
the total resource cost (TRC), utility cost (UC), and participant cost test (PCT) tests at the program level
and the measure level, except in cases where there is interaction between measures. Idaho Power may
choose to launch a pilot or a program to evaluate estimates or assumptions in the cost-effectiveness
analysis. Following implementation of a program, cost-effectiveness analyses are reviewed as new
inputs from actual program activity become available, such as actual program expenses, savings,
or participation levels. If measures or programs are determined to be not cost-effective after
implementation, the program or measures are reexamined and modified based on input from the EEAG.
Appendix 4 contains the UC and TRC B/C ratios using actual cost information over the life of the
program through 2009. These B/C ratios are provided as a measure of cost-effectiveness for all
Idaho Power energy effciency or demand response programs currently being offered where energy
savings and demand reduction are realized. A complete description ofIdaho Power's methodology,
input assumptions, sources, and results is found in Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness.
DSM Ann Structure
The structure ofIdaho Power's Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report has changed from
previous years primarily because of the new reporting requirements included in the MOU with the IPUC
staff A copy ofthe MOU is found in Supplement 2: Evaluation.
This main Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report document remains similar to previous years,
organized primarily by customer sector categorized by residential, commercial/industrial, and irigation.
The sector description is followed by information regarding programs in that sector. Each program
description includes a chart containing 2009 and 2008 program metrics in tabular formt, followed by a
general description, 2009 activities, cost-effectiveness, customer satisfaction/evaluation, and 2010 plans.
This year, each program section contain more detailed information than in previous years in relation to
program changes and the reasoning behind those changes, including details on cost-effectiveness and
evaluation. Following the sector and program sections ofthe report are descriptions ofIdaho Power's
activities in market transformation, other programs and activities, and Idaho Power's regulatory
initiatives. The appendices following the written sections contain tabular informtion on the 2009
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 15
Introduction Idaho Power Company
expenses and savings and supply historic informtion for all energy effciency programs and demand
response activities at Idaho Power.
Appendices 1-4 remain generally unchanged in form and contain financial, energy and demand savings,
and levelized costs and program life B/C ratios from the UC and the TRC perspectives. Documents
added this year are in the form oftwo supplements and an attached compact disc (CD).
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness contains detailed cost-effectiveness informtion by energy savings
measure. Provided in Supplement 1 are the B/C ratios from the UC, TRC, and PCT perspectives.
Supplement 2: Evaluation contain Idaho Power's evaluation plans, duplications of completed program
evaluation reports, research reports, and reports done by Idaho Power or third-parties. A CD containing
market progress evaluation reports (MPER) provided by NEEA is attached to Supplement 2.
Page 16 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector
RESIDENTIAL SECTOR OVERVIEW
ption
Idaho Power serves over 406,000 residential customers in its Idaho and Oregon service areas.
The population of the Idaho Power service area is over one milion people. During 2009, Idaho Power
added 2,258 residential customers, making it the second consecutive year oflower-than-normal growth
within the company's service area. This growth was down from the 3,736 residential customers added in
2008. A sluggish regional and national economy and few new housing starts were the main drivers in
this downward trend. In 2009, the residential segment represented 38 percent ofIdaho Power's total
electricity usage and contributed 46 percent of total revenue for the company.
Several positive things happened in 2009. Idaho Power's service area experienced mild temperatues
over the course ofthe summer. As a result of these mild temperatures and the effective dispatching of
demand response programs, the company did not set a peak load record event during summer 2009.
Idaho Power did, however, set a new winter peak record of2,528 MW on Thursday, December 10,
2009, at 8:00 a.m.
Programs
Table 4. 2009 Residential Program Summary
Total Costs
Program Participants Utiity Resource
Demand Response
A/C Cool Credit............................................................ 30,391 homes $3,451,988
Total........................................................................................................................................ $3,451,988
Energy Effciency
Ductless Heat Pump Pilot ............................................. 96 homes $202,004
Energy Effcient Lighting................................................ 549,846 bulbs $1,207,366
Energy House Calls....................................................... 1,266 homes $569,594
ENERGY STAR'" Homes Northwest........................... 474 homes $355,623
Heating & Cooling Effciency Program ......................... 349 homes $478,373
Home Improvement Program........................................ 1,188 homes $321,140
Home Products Program............................................... 9,499 appliancesffixtures $511,313
Oregon Residential Weathenzation .............................. 1 home $7,644
Rebate Advantage......................................................... 57 homes $49,525
See Ya Later Refrigerator ............................................. 1,661 refngeratorsffreezers $305,402
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers .... 437 homesfnon-profits $1,294,862
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers ......... 41 homes $162,995
Total........................................................................................................................................ $5,465,841
Notes:
See Appendix 3 for notes on methodology and column definitions.
Totals may not add up due to rounding.
$3,451,988
$3,451,988
$451,605
$1,456,796
$569,594
$498,622
$764,671
$550,148
$844,811
$8,410
$93,073
$305,401
$2,146,218
$162,995
$7,852,34
Savings
Annual Peak
Energy Demand
(kWh) (MW)
nfa
409,180
13,410,748
928,875
705,784
1,274,829
1,338,876
1,638,038
2,907
247,348
1,132,802
4,678,815
211,720
25,979,920
38.5
38.5
nfa
nfa
nfa
1.1
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
1.1
Programs available to residential customers include one demand response program, 12 energy effciency
programs, and an energy effciency educational initiative. The demand response program AlC Cool
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 17
Residential Sector Idaho Power Company
Credit had over 30,000 customers enrolled as ofthe end of2009. During 2009, this program was
expanded into Idaho Power's Pocatello service area. The residential efficiency programs include Energy
House Calls, Rebate Advantage, ENERGY STARiI Homes Northwest, Oregon Residential
Weatherization, Home Products, Energy Effcient Lighting, Weatherization Assistance for Qualified
Customers (WAQC), and Heating & Cooling Effciency. Additionally, three new programs and a pilot
were implemented in 2009. The Attic Insulation Pilot retrofit program was renamed the Home
Improvement Program, and the Home Weatherization Pilot became the Weatherization Solutions for
Eligible Customers. The See Ya Later Refrigerator program and the DHP Pilot were added to the
residential portfolio.
Idaho Power continued to increase its participation in the number of retail and community outreach
events during 2009. Many ofthese events were parnerships with community retailers, including
Home Depot, Lowes, Albertsons, and Wal-Mart. The company also participated in home and garden
shows, the Parade of Homes, a library education series, and other community events across its
service area.
Presentations to community groups and businesses were another emphasis during the year.
Idaho Power customer representatives (CR) made approximately 100 presentations to civic and
community groups, including chambers of commerce, school boards, service organizations,
and businesses. These partnerships and outreach activities created specific opportunities for the
company to share the importance of energy effciency and give customers information and options
about paricipating.
Idaho Power conducts the Burke Customer Relationship survey each year. Fifty-one percent of
residential survey respondents in 2009 indicated Idaho Power is meeting or exceeding their needs with
information on how to save energy or reduce their bil. Fifty-four percent of residential respondents
indicated Idaho Power is meeting or exceeding their needs with encouraging energy effciency with its
customers. Overall, 38 percent ofIdaho Power residential customers surveyed in 2009 indicated
Idaho Power is meeting or exceeding their needs in offering energy effciency programs.
Page 18 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-A1C Cool Credit
Ale
Participation and Savings
Participants (homesia)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Peak Reduction (MWia)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Leveliz.ed Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
Idaho/Oregon
2003
2008
20,195
n/a
25.5
$2,922,985
$45,405
$988
$2,969,377
n/a
n/a
1.09
1.09
(a)Program participation and demand reduction reflect enrollment as of July 31st. Year-end enrollment in the program
was 32,151 homes.
AlC Cool Credit is a voluntary, dispatchable demand response program for residential customers.
Using communication hardware and software, Idaho Power cycles participants' central air conditioners
(AlC) on and off via a direct load control device installed on the AlC unit. Participants receive a
monthly, monetary incentive for participating in the program during the summer season. This program
enables Idaho Power to reduce system peaking requirements during times when summer peak load
is high.
Individual radio-controlled or power line carrier (PLC) switches are installed on customers' AlC units.
These switches allow Idaho Power to cycle customers' AlCs during a cycling event. As Idaho Power's
Smart Meter project expands across its service area, more new switches wil be PLC switches that will
allow broader participation. Under this program, Idaho Power may cycle paricipants' AlCs for up to 40
hours each month in the months of June, July, and August. In return, paricipants receive a $7 per-month
credit on their Idaho Power bil during July, August, and September.
2009
In 2009, the program expanded beyond Ada County, Canyon County, Emmett valley, Payette area,
and Twin Falls area into the Pocatello area. It expanded its presence on the Mountain Home Air Force
Base (MHAFB) housing from 351 to 522 total participants. Cycling event hours continued to be in
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 19
Residential Sector-AIC Cool Credit Idaho Power Company
three-hour periods, pinpointing the peak time with less potential impact on participants. There were only
seven cycling events in 2009, all in July.
Summer 2009 temperatures were milder than the previous year. This resulted in fewer high-demand
days, so there was less need for cycling to reduce demand. Generally, the need for cycling starts near the
end of June when temperatures rie. Idaho Power's all-time peak of 3,214 MW was on June 30, 2008.
With high temperatures milder in 2009, there was less need for Ale. Lower average temperatures also
improve a home's ability to cool natually overnght and retain less heat the following day.
July is typically the warmest month, especially toward the last two weeks of the month. July 2008 had
high temperatures ranging from 84° Fahrenheit (F) to 102°F, with five days in the 80s, 25 days in the
90s, and one day over 100°F. July 2009 had high temperatures ranging from 77°F-106°F, with two days
in the 70s, four days in the 80s, 21 days in the 90s, and four days in the 100s. Although July 2009 had
some higher temperatures, these were in a relatively short period, and the month also had some much
lower temperatures than the previous year. The seven cycling events took place in July 2009 in this
short, high-temperature period.
August tends to be cooler than July, and August 2009 was milder than August 2008. August 2008 had
20 days with temperatures above 90°F, while August 2009 had only 16 days in this range. In addition to
the difference in weather, the economic conditions may have also influenced customers to use less
power, thus reducing the need for cycling.
Marketing approaches during 2009 covered a range of methods. Initial marketing to the Pocatello area
was in the form of a simple, direct-mail letter. The response was positive at 6.13 percent, with
1,361 customers enrolling from the mailing of22,218 letters. Another successful marketing piece was a
letter accompanied by a card made from recycled paper and embedded with flower seeds. Customers
were urged to sign up for the program and then plant the card and enjoy the flowers. The letter resulted
in a 2.6 percent response rate, with 4,170 customers enrolling from a mailing of 160,286 letters.
Idaho Power employees visited large businesses, providing program information to the businesses.
Idaho Power in-house AlC Cool Credit promotions attcted further program signups from
Idaho Power employees.
The Smart Meter intallations brought two opportunities to market the AlC Cool Credit program.
The fist was to advertise the program on the back of the door hanger left at the customer's home when a
Smart Meter was installed. This generated sign-ups and added to the general awareness ofthe program.
The second opportunity provided new areas for switch installation as the Sma Meter area expanded
into areas previously unavailable due to no, or limited, paging reception for the radio-controlled
switches.
A cause-related marketing approach involved partering with both the Idaho Foodbank and Southeast
Oregon Regional Food Bank to provide an additional reason for signing up for the program. During a
"limited time offer," a $20 contribution went to the food bank in the participant's location for enrolling
in the AlC Cool Credit program. The winter promotion, from October 2008-February 2009, resulted in a
total of$38,120, equal to 114,360 meals, for the Idaho Foodbank, and $1,020, equal to 5,100 pounds of
food, for the Southeast Oregon Regional Food Bank.
Page 20 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-A1C Cool Credit
The call center customer service representative (CSR) pilot that began in 2008 was continued into 2009.
The CSRs received training in signing up new AlC Cool Credit participants at the point of contact when
an Idaho Power customer initiates or transfers his/her account by phone. This resulted in 169 sign-ups in
2008 and 199 in 2009. The project has expanded from the initial five CSRs to nine trained CSRs.
An outreach project included an Idaho Power specialist and a heating, ventilation, and AlC (HV AC)
journeyman providing AlC Cool Credit switch training for field technicians ofHV AC companies.
Technicians learned about the direct load control device installed on participating Idaho Power
customers' AlC units. Increasing the HV AC technician's knowledge of switch boxes contributes to
positive customer relations between the customer and the technician servicing the AlC Cool Credit
program participant's AlC unit.
Cost~Effectiveness
The benefit/cost (B/C) analysis for the AlC Cool Credit program is based on a 20-year model that uses
fmancial and DSM alternative costs assumptions from the 2006 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP).
As published in the 2006 IRP, for peaking alternatives, such as demand response programs, a 162 MW
simple-cycle combustion turbine is used as a cost basis. Idaho Power's cost~effectiveness model,
representing the program over a 20-year period, is updated annually with actual benefits and costs. The
benefits are based on peak reduction and shifted energy use. Begining in 2010, financial inputs and
alternative costs wil be based on the 2009 IRP, as fied with the IPUC and OPUC on December 30,
2009. Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness contains details on the cost-effectiveness assumptions and data.
Satisfaction and Evaluations
In 2009, Idaho Power commenced an impact evaluation ofthe AlC Cool Credit program. Run-time data
loggers were installed by the company's switch installation contractor on a random sample of
participating customers' AlC units to collect data. The company also collected indoor air temperature on
a sub-sample of participants to assess impacts of cycling on home comfort.
Once the data was collected and downloaded by Idaho Power, the company hired a third-party
consultant, Paragon Consulting Services, to perform an analysis of the load-reduction impacts attributed
to the program. Results ofthe study vary significantly. In some areas, including MHAFB, demand
reduction from the program was well above 1.0 kilowatt (kW) per unit. In other areas, the analysis
shows a variety of demand-reduction results that are less than 1.0 kW per unit. As indicated by the
evaluation report found in Supplement 2: Evaluation, "Paragon considers the results ofthe
2009 AlC Cool Credit Program to be inconclusive regarding its potential as a cost-effective resource
(sic). There were several factors that resulted in modest demand reduction results during 2009."
Among the factors cited in the report were the mild summer of2009, and the level of precision based on
the sample size was not significant enough to identify conclusive results.
The original sample size of more than 100 data points was affected by an overwrite function in the data
loggers that was unkown to Idaho Power when they were installed. This caused the loggers to rollover
and discard collected data, resulting in a much smaller sample than was originally expected.
Additionally, according to the data, some units appeared to begin cycling one hour before the event was
scheduled, which could be due to a time-stamp error on the data collected by some of the loggers.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 21
Residential Sector-AIC Cool Credit Idaho Power Company
Idaho Power substantiated the load-reduction capability ofthe AlC Cool Credit program by examining
system load data. This analysis is described in the 2009 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report found
in Supplement 2: Evaluation. On July 16,2009, the estimated Idaho Power system peak would have
been approximately 3,000 MW without any demand response. By subtracting the load reduction
provided by Irrigation Peak Rewards and FlexPeak Mangement, the remaining load reduction value of
29 MW is assumed to be due to AlC Cool Credit. This amount of demand response is consistent with
previous analyses of the program.
Due to the results of the 2009 evaluation, Idaho Power contracted with Paragon Consulting Services to
develop a detailed plan to evaluate the impacts of the AlC Cool Credit program. Idaho Power wil use
the evaluation plan for future evaluations ofthe program.
2010 Strategies
As Smart Meters are intalled in those areas where the paging signal is unavailable, the AlC Cool Credit
program wil be able to expand. Idaho Power wil continue to distribute AlC Cool Credit program
information by using the technicians who intall new Smart Meters in 2010. The technicians wil leave a
door hanger with AlC Cool Credit program information on the customer's doorknob after completing
their installation work.
The 2010 program target is to reach 40,000 total participants. Once the target is achieved, the company
wil continue AlC Cool Credit marketing and promotion to determine if saturation has been achieved or
if it is possible to increase participation.
Based on the recommendations of Paragon Consulting Services' evaluation report, Idaho Power is
planning to change its strategy for AlC cycling events. The strategy wil be to divide the switches into
groups based on geographic location and expected normal temperatures. One group wil be the Pocatello
area, which will have a cycling strategy of 60 percent. A second group wil be the Payette and Twin
Falls areas, with a cycling strategy of 50 percent. The third group wil be the Boise/Mountain Home
area. This group wil have two cycling options, depending on the forecasted temperature. The norml
cycling strategy wil be 50 percent, and for days forecasted to be 103°F or above, the cycling strategy
will be 40 percent. When temperatures are lower, customers wil not use their AlC as much, or their AlC
will be shut off Idaho Power can then cycle at a higher percentage oftime to achieve a greater demand
reduction without interfering with customers' comfort leveL.
Page 22 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-Ductless Heat Pump Pilot
Ductless Pump Pilot
Participation and Savings
Participants (homes)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Peak Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
4.11
1.49
Idaho/Oregon
2009
2008
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Description
Idaho Power joined the Northwest DHP Pilot project in 2009 and implemented the pilot throughout its
service area. The goal of the pilot was to promote the DHP technology as an energy-saving alternative
for customers who primarily heat their homes with electric heating. Other goals were to determine how
much electricity this technology saves in order to validate a deemed-savings number and to obtain
customer satisfaction and behavior patterns regarding the technology. Idaho Power offered customers a
$1,000 incentive to participate.
Though the official pilot recruitment period concluded at the end of2009, field-monitoring on selected
homes throughout the Pacific Northwest, biling data analysis and other evaluations wil continue
through 2011.
Activities
Idaho Power chose to target 100 participants for the Northwest DHP Pilot. As participation levels neared
the 100-application limit, the company announced to contractors that Idaho Power would accept
additional applications through September 4,2009. Idaho Power received over 130 applications.
Along with other utilities in the region, Idaho Power decided to continue the pilot and is accepting
applications beyond the initiall 00 customer level to maintain the valuable momentum created in the
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 23
Residential Sector-Ductless Heat Pump Pilot Idaho Power Company
marketplace among contractors and customers. In 2009, the RTF provisionally deemed the energy
savings from DHP conversions based on regional climate zones. These savings are expected to be used
until the final results of the regional DHP Pilot and evaluation is complete in 2012.
Idaho Power promoted the pilot to customers through an article in its monthly residential customer
newsletter, Customer Connection, and by sending direct mail letters to targeted customers based on
several factors, including energy usage and length of time in the home. The company also marketed
the pilot to employees through an article in the employee newsletter, and to contractors by calling
and visiting with them to inform them ofthe pilot.
In September, Idaho Power participated on a panel at a one-day workshop in Portland, Oregon.
This event brought together HV AC contractors, HV AC manufactuers, distributors, utilities, and energy
efficiency organizations to share experiences from pilot participation to date, and to learn more about
DHP technology, sales, and marketing strategies.
Cost~E.ffect¡veness
With participation in the Northwest DHP Pilot, Idaho Power helped contribute to the regional effort to
estimate savings for ductless systems. Among the 96 installations in 2009, 13 sites in Idaho Power's
service area were selected for detailed site-monitorig ofthe energy usage. Until the end ofthe
monitoring phase of the project is completed and savings estimates by climate type are produced,
the cost-effectiveness models are based on provisionally deemed savings provided through research
done by the RTF.
A $60,000 expense made to NEEA to support the regional research effort was excluded from
cost-effectiveness analysis models to differentiate the company program efforts from the payments that
were part of the Northwest DHP Pilot. Only company administration and marketing costs were
allocated across the 96 projects that were paid in 2009. The installation costs submitted on incentive
application forms were used to estimate customer costs on a per-unit installation price basis. The median
incremental cost-per-unit was $3,600 across the 96 installations in 2009. For a detailed list of
provisional deemed savings by climate type and associated cost-effectiveness assumptions, see the
DHP section in Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness.
Customer Satisfaction and E.valuations
Quality assurance (QA) on-site verifications (OSV) were conducted by a NEEA contractor as part of the
regional pilot. The regional pilot targeted 10 percent of completed installations. Nine DHP Pilot projects
in Idaho Power's service area were inspected by NEEA's contractor to ensure projects complied with
program requirements. The QAs proved beneficial for customers, contractors, and Idaho Power.
For example, customers were shown how to operate their systems correctly, the contractors were able to
review the installation requirements of the DHPs, and Idaho Power was able to observe the QA process.
While Idaho Power did not gather written customer satisfaction surveys this year, several customer
responses were gathered orally. Based on the feedback customers shared via telephone calls or from
QA visits, customers are pleased with their systems.
Page 24 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-Ductless Heat Pump Pilot
Idaho Power is continuing its participation in the Northwest DHP Pilot and evaluation. This extensive
evaluation effort is designed to provide a technical evaluation ofDHP technology as a retrofit
opportunity, measure achievable energy savings, assess market response, and provide a process
evaluation of the pilot program.
A DHP Market Research Report was completed by NEEA in 2008 and provided indications of the
current market for DHPs in the Northwest. The first MPER wil be made available by NEEA in 2010.
2010 Strategies
Idaho Power will offer a revised version of the 2009 DHP Pilot to residential customers in 2010.
Changes to the eligibility requirements reflect the fact that some research requirements needed for the
official regional pilot are no longer needed in the future. In addition, some of the changes are based on
information learned from the QA inspections, including eliminating the requirement that customers must
have lived in their home for a minimum length oftime and the home was a primary residence, and
adding a requirement for installation of exterior line set covers. New home construction does not
qualify.
DHPs are a great opportunity for customers to heat their homes more efficiently and to use less energy,
but the finding, and marketing to customers in the types of electric homes that work best with a DHP is
a challenge. Also, because DHPs are considered an emerging technology in Idaho, the profie of a
typical participant wil be essential for future targeted marketing. Marketing plans for 2010 wil include
demographic profiing of all participants using market segmentation software. Since it would be less
effcient and more costly to mail marketing materials to a broad cross-section ofIdaho Power's
customer base, the company wil market only to customers who match the unique demographic profie
from the analysis.
Idaho Power wil continue to market the pilot using direct-mail letters to the targeted groups, as well as
by placing articles in the monthly residential newsletter. Written surveys wil be sent to customers who
participate in the pilot in 2010. The final pilot evaluation report is expected to be available in 2012.
The regional DHP Pilot project team will provide limited QA inspections for the region in 2010.
Idaho Power will investigate augmenting the regional QA inspection with its own QA inspections.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 25
Residential Sector-Energy Efficient Lighting Idaho Power Company
Energy Efficient lighting
Participation and Savings
Participants (CFL bulbs)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Peak Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Effciency Rider
Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utilty Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility BenefiUCost Ratio
Total Resource BenefiUCost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
Idaho/Oregon
2002
2008
436,234
14,309,444
n/a
$1,011,850
$6,242
$200
$1,018,292
$0.011
$0.013
2.96
2.67
Description
ENERGY STARiI qualified compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) are an alternative to standard
incandescent light bulbs, and result in saved money, energy, and time. Bulbs come in a variety of
wattages, colors, and styles, including bulbs for three-way lights and dimmable fixtures. ENERGY
STAR bulbs use up to 75 percent less energy and last up to 10 times longer than incandescent bulbs.
Using energy-effcient lighting helps preserve energy resources and the environment.
The Energy Effcient Lighting program strives for residential energy savings through the replacement of
less effcient lighting with more effcient technology. According to research performed by NEEA,
the average older home has 38 light bulbs. New homes have an average of77 light bulbs. Changing
these bulbs represents a low-cost, easy way for all customers to achieve energy savings.
2009 Activities
Two promotions, one for spiral bulbs and the other for specialty bulbs, were held during 2009.
Idaho Power continued to ru an independent retailer promotion focusing on spiral bulbs priced at about
99 cents per bulb. Fluid Market Strategies (Fluid) managed this promotion. The program was set to end
at the end of 2008. Idaho Power issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) in December 2008 to run a similar
promotion. Three companies responded to the RFP. Fluid was chosen based on their marketing
experience and pricing. Fluid and Idaho Power extended the 2008 promotion through June 2009 to allow
Page 26 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-Energy Efficient Lighting
for development of a new contract, the promotion coordintion, and the completion of the new
manufacturer arrangements. The new promotion began in July 2009. One highlight of the new
promotion was rotating point-of-purchase materials. Four sets of marketing pieces were developed to
coordinate the campaign. To keep the promotion fresh, the sets wil be rotated throughout the 2009 and
2010 year.
Idaho Power paricipated in the BP A Change a Light promotion focusing on specialty bulbs. Portland
Energy Conservation, Inc. (PECI) managed this promotion, which was extended several times
throughout 2009 and, therefore, ran the entire year.
For both the spiral-bulb and specialty-bulb promotions, there were some carryovers of savings from
2008. Anual savings are counted in the year in which incentives have been paid. Therefore,
the November and December sales often carr into the next year.
Both PECI and Fluid provided enhanced field support as part of their promotions. Contractor staff from
these two organizations visited stores on a regular schedule to check pricing, stock, and signage.
The result was better visibility of Idaho Power's promotions.
The coupon-based marketing promotion identified in the Demand-Side Management 2008 Annual
Report was not pursued due to limited distribution options and data security concerns around
safeguarding customer information.
Additional 2009 program activities included direct install, in-store events, and new marketing materials.
Idaho Power has a small direct-install program, whereby bulbs are given directly to customers at
approved venues. The idea is that, if given a free bulb, customers might try CFLs for the first time or be
encouraged to replace additional lamps. The guidelines for approved venues and the direct-install effort
have been developed to ensure customer fairess.
During 2009, Idaho Power paricipated in 18 in-store events with large and small national retailers.
In-store events were designed to communicate directly to customers at the point of sale. Idaho Power set
up tables with light displays at the entrances of stores and was available to answer questions about
CFLs.
Idaho Power rewrote two marketing/education pieces distributed to customers at events. The Change a
Light Tips brochure was redesigned to add more information and graphics explaining color temperatue,
bulb shapes, and wattage conversions. The Energy Smart Security Lighting brochure was redesigned to
help educate customers on energy-effcient lighting for outdoor areas and was distributed at
National Night Out events.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 27
Residential Sector-Energy Efficient Lighting Idaho Power Company
Table 5 describes the energy savings and the number of CFL bulbs contributed by each segment of
the program.
Table 5. Energy Efficient lighting Energy Savings
Promotion Description
2008 Change a Light Spiral.. ................ 99i spiral bulbs
2008 Change a Light Specialty.. ........... Specialty bulbs in "big-box"
stores
2009 Change a Light SpiraL................ 99i single-pack spiral bulbs
2009 Change a Light Specialty............. Specialty bulbs in .big-box.
stores
Direct Install .................. ........... .............. Bulbs given direcUy to
customers
Total...........................................................................................................................................................................
Contractor Timeframe
Fluid 2008 carrover
BPA/PEGI 2008 carryover
Fluid 2009
BPA/PEGI 2009
nla 2008
Bulbs sold kWh
20,836 508,201
65,231 1,590,984
241,358 5,886,714
221,541 5,403,385
880 21,463
549,846 13,410,748
The Energy Effcient Lighting program has been in place since 2002 under a variety of names,
promotions, and methods of delivery. In 2002, Idao Power worked with Ecos Consulting to launch a
coupon-based CFL lighting program. The results of this promotion are detailed in the Final Report
Idaho Power Company ENERGY STARiI Residential Lighting Program, completed by Ecos Consulting
in 2003. Due to the high volume of bulbs sold and very little administration overhead, the program was
cost-effective. The assumptions were based on regional values used by the NPCC's RTF. According to
the RTF, the annual savings were deemed at 71 kWh-per-CFL with a measure life of six years.
The coupon program ended in 2003; however, the lighting program continued over the years with the
company's participation in various regional promotions. With Idaho Power's continued partnership with
NEEA and BP A, the company has been able to offer energy-saving opportties to residential
customers under such promotions as Savings with a Twist and Change a Light. Since 2006, Idaho Power
has used the regional 32.8 kWh savings per bulb established by BP A. These promotions were
determined to be cost-effective and have been documented through numerous studies conducted
regionally by NEEA, BPA, and the RTF.
In 2009, the RTF approved de-rating CFL savings by approving a 37 percent storage rate to replace
the 12 percent removal rate and 5 percent take-back assumption in the savings calculation. This change
impacted only CFLs delivered through retail channels and not direct installs or non-retail based
rebate programs. As a result, savings for CFLs delivered via retail channels were reduced from
32.8-24.4 kWhyear. For detailed cost-effectiveness assumptions, metrics, and sources,
see Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness.
Satisfaction and Evaluations
In 2009, a MPER was completed by KEMA, Inc., for NEEA regarding consumer lighting initiatives to
advance awareness and use ofCFLs. This report concluded that the market for CFLs continued to make
progress in the Northwest and that regional CFL sales, availability, and diversity had increased. A copy
of this report is included in NEEA Market Effects Evaluations on the CD located in Supplement 2:
Evaluation.
Page 28 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-Energy Efficient Lighting
2010 Strategies
No major changes are expected to be made to the Energy Efficient Lighting program in 2010.
Idaho Power plans to continue in-store promotions for buy-downs and markdowns of bulbs.
The spiral-bulb promotion with Fluid wil ru through December 2010. The specialty-bulb promotion
with BP A wil run through December 2010 and may be extended beyond. Idaho Power wil continue to
distribute limited quantities of bulbs directly to customers at approved public energy effciency events
and continue to participate in in-store educational events. The company wil monitor the market and
emerging technologies.
The Energy Independence 2007 Act requires, by 2012-2014, all light bulbs use 30 percent less energy
than today's incandescent bulbs. The phase-out wil start with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012 and end
with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014. By 2020, a Tier 2 would become effective requiring all bulbs to be
at least 70 percent more effcient, effectively equal to today's CFLs.
Under the Act, CFLs wil be one of the options for customers. The market is unlikely to change
immediately for several reasons. First, the effciency standards are phased in over several years starting
in 2012. The 75-watt bulbs must meet the standards by 2013 and 60-watt bulbs by 2014. Second, many
specialty bulbs, such as reflectors, globes, and three-way bulbs are exempt from the law. Third, an
incandescent bulb or other bulb technology that is 30 percent more effcient could satisfy the law;
however, CFLs are 75 percent more effcient.
LED light bulbs are on display at many major retailers. It is important to note that an ENERGY STAR
specification is not in effect for LED replacement bulbs. Therefore, the quality of the bulbs may vary
considerably. Until an ENERGY STAR specification is implemented, Idaho Power does not plan to
promote these products for the residential market. Once an ENERGY STAR qualification is developed,
Idaho Power wil evaluate the price, availability, and savings to see if a program should be offered.
Idaho Power wil continue to monitor trends and developments in LED technologies. Because an
ENERGY STAR qualification exists for LED fixtures, Idaho Power offers an incentive for these under
the Home Product Program.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 29
Residential Sector-Energy House Calls Idaho Power Company
Energy House Cal
Participation and Savings
Participants (homes)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Peak Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Effciency Rider
Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
2.07
2.07
Idaho/Oregon
2002
2008
1,099
883,038
n/a
$48,992
$35,388
$0
$484,379
$0.045
$0.045
Description
The Energy House Calls program helps manufactued and mobile home owners with electric heat reduce
electricity use by improving the home's effciency. This energy effciency program provides free
duct-sealing and additional effciency measures to Idaho Power customers living in Idaho or Oregon in a
manufactured or mobile home using an electric fuace or heat pump.
Leaking duct systems can lose as much as 70 percent of the air intended for heating or cooling in a
home. Ducts operate under pressure, which results in similar air losses from either a one-square-inch
hole in ductwork or a 25-square-inch hole in a wall that is not under pressure. Overall system effciency
can be reduced by 30 percent due to heat loss from the average duct system.
Services and products offered through the Energy House Calls program include duct testing and sealing
according to Performance Tested Comfort System (PTCS) Standards set by the RTF and adopted by the
BPA; installation of five CFL bulbs; providing of two furnace filters, along with replacement
instructions; water heater temperature test for proper setting; and distribution of energy effciency
educational materials for manufactued-home occupants. The value of the service to the customer is
dependent on the complexity of the repair. The typical cost range ofthe average service call is $300 to
$350. Idaho Power provides the customer with the contractor contact information. Customers access the
service by directly callng one of the recognized, certified contractors specially trained to provide these
services in their region.
Page 30 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-Energy House Calls
Program delivery is under contract with Ecos Consulting, a company with experience managing and
supplying duct-sealing service programs. Ecos Consulting coordinates the contractors performing local
weatherization and energy efficiency services.
Activities
Idaho Power renegotiated the contract with Ecos Consulting for continuing delivery of the
Energy House Calls program during 2009. Energy House Calls serviced 1,266 manufactured homes
during 2009, resulting in over 928,000 kWh savings. QA was conducted on 5 percent ofthe homes
serviced in the program.
The original intent for 2009 was to focus marketing efforts primarily on the Treasure Valley area due to
decreasing demand and the perceived satuation in other areas toward the end of2008. However,
analysis of the program demonstrated that participation remained fairly constant the fist part of the year
in areas outside the Treasure Valley. As.a result, the company continued to market in these
lower-participation locations, including the eastern and southern regions and in Oregon.
The campaign included a bil stuffer sent to all residential customers in specific areas and a
Customer Connection article to all Idaho Power residential customers. These additional marketing
efforts did not initially create a great inux of additional participation, but it did allow Idaho Power to
reach customers who may have not been targeted directly in the past. The bil insert was sent in August,
and the Customer Connection article went out in September in an effort to increase participation in all
areas to meet the program's annual energy-savings goals and to educate customers on the benefits of
duct-sealing. These additional marketing efforts may generate additional participation during
winter 2010.
Cost..Effectiveness
Savings for Energy House Calls are primarily based on the savings of duct-sealing in electric homes.
The savings vary by climate zones within the company's service area. Variations of savings also occur
because of differing types of heating and cooling equipment in the homes where the measures are
installed. Additionally, up to five CFL bulbs are directly installed in the homes at the time that the duct
work is done. All reported energy savings for both duct-sealing and directly installed CFL's are deemed
and published by the RTF.
In fall 2009, the cost-effectiveness analysis was re-evaluated at the measure level by climate zone using
the 2009 IRP alternative costs. The results indicated the program was cost-effective in all climate zones.
Historically, less than 5 percent of the program's projects have occurred in the warmer Treasure Valley
area and about 95 percent in the cooler, more cost-effective areas. This new analysis enabled
Idaho Power to market the program in all climate zones equally. A sensitivity analysis was also
performed to determine if an increase in the third-party contractor administration fees would affect the
cost-effectiveness of the program. It was determined that a 10 percent increase in administration fees
may cause the projects in warmer areas to be non-cost-effective. For more detailed information about the
cost-effectiveness savings and assumptions, see the Energy House Calls section in Supplement 1:
Cost-Effectiveness.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 31
Residential Sector-Energy House Calls Idaho Power Company
Customer Satisfaction and Evaluations
In an Idaho Power survey conducted in 2009 with non-participants, dermed as those who have received
direct-mailletters, but have elected to not paricipate, it was determined the company's direct marketing
efforts needed reevaluation. Idaho Power sent out 871 surveys and received 266 responses, resulting in a
31 percent response rate. The following are the results ofthe question "What would prevent you from
participating in a free duct-sealing program for electrically heated home?" The survey participants were
asked to check all that apply, thus the totals do not equal 100 percent:
· Forty percent stated, "I don't have electric heat in my home."
· Nineteen percent stated, "I don't understand the program"
· Fifteen percent stated, "I don't trst 'free' offers."
· Twelve percent stated, "I'm concerned it won't be convenient to schedule an appointment."
· Seven percent stated, "I don't want strangers in my house."
· Four percent stated, "I don't thin my home needs the service."
Based on the feedback from the surey, Idaho Power continued its direct-mail campaign by redesigning
and mailing a solicitation letter with a more conversational tone that is more customer-friendly.
Verbatim comments from a recent Burke Customer Relationship surey showed that customers prefer
this type of tone as opposed to a more traditional, business-oriented tone. Idaho Power performed an
analysis in 2009 to identify homes that were likely electrically heated manufactured homes. Based on
results ofthis analysis, the letter was sent to customers who have not paricipated in the program in
Idaho and Oregon.
To monitor QA, third-party audits are conducted in 5 percent ofthe homes served. Ofthe 51 homes
inspected in 2009, nine homes received a "fail," requiring the contractor to retur to the home to remedy
the situation. Based on the review of the "failed" homes by an Ecos Consulting representative, nine
homes out of 51 is considered an adequate failure rate. The number of homes and the reasons these
homes were given a non-passing rating include:
· Reduction variance greater than 20 percent higher or lower than the contractors' readings.
In these cases, the technicians were instructed to have their manometers recalibrated.
.Two had crossover duct work touching the soiL. The contractors returned to the home and
secured them.
Three had too much mastic applied at the registers. The inpector removed the mastic from the
problem registers. The responsible technician is no longer working for the contractor.
On one large job, the contractor was required to return to the home and properly finish the job.
One job had crossover inulation hanging down, and the contractors missed an opportnity to
seal more ends. The contractors retued to the home to complete the repairs.
.
.
.
The Site Inspection Summary Report conducted by Ecos Consulting is included in
Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Page 32 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-Energy House Calls
2010
Plans for the upcoming year include continuing the direct-mail campaign to all ofthe Idaho Power
service area to improve participation, particularly in the eastern and southern regions and in Oregon.
Because not all manufactured homes may be correctly identified in Idaho Power's Customer
Information System (CIS), the company wil continue to explore low-cost methods of marketing this
program to all residential customers believed to have electrically heated manufactured homes. This form
of marketing may yield additional word-of-mouth promotion to new, potential program participants.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 33
Residential Sector-ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest Idaho Power Company
EN RGY STARCI Homes Northwest
Participation and Savings
Participants (homes)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Peak Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider
Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
Idaho/Oregon
2003
2008
254
468,958
1.0
$294,579
$6,388
$1,094
$302,061
$0.048
$0.059
1.59
1.26
ENERGY STARiI Homes Northwest is a regionally coordinated initiative supported by a partnership of
Idaho Power, NEEA, and Energy Inspectors to improve energy-efficient construction practices for new,
single-family homes. This program results in summer peak reduction and, additionally, targets the
reduction in energy usage accomplished by increasing the effciency of residential building envelope
and air delivery system.
The ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest residential construction program builds homes that are at least
20 percent more energy effcient than those built to standard Idaho code. The program specifications for
ENERGY STAR Homes are verified by independent, third-party home performance specialists (HPS)
and are certified by the Energy Inspectors, an organization based out of Salt Lake City, Utah that
conducts the certification inspections for Idaho and the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
The homes are more efficient, comfortable, and durable than standard homes constructed according to
local building codes.
Homes that earn the ENERGY STAR label include six required specifications. The specifications found
in all ENERGY STAR qualified homes are I) effective insulation, 2) high-performance windows,
3) tight construction and sealed ductwork, 4) energy-effcient lighting, 5) ENERGY STAR qualified
appliances, and 6) effcient heating and cooling equipment.
Page 34 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest
Builders involved in ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest receive up to a $400 incentive per home built
to the Northwest Builder Option Package (BOP) standards in Idaho Power's service area. Builders who
enter their homes in a Parade of Homes receive a $1,000 incentive to encourage builders to construct
ENERGY STAR homes and enter those homes in future Parade of Homes.
The Idaho Power program collaborates with many local entities for program management, such as
ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest and builders. A large part ofthe program's role in 2009 was
conducting education and training activities for residential, new construction industry partners.
2009 Activities
Although the 2009 housing market was in a severe downturn throughout the Idaho Power service area,
474 ENERGY STAR homes were certified. This number reflects the most homes ever certified in the
Idaho Power service area in a single year. Idaho Power believes the increase in certifications during
2009 is due to builders understanding the value in building to ENERGY STAR standards.
Idaho Power conducted numerous ENERGY STAR promotional activities during 2009. The company
presented energy efficiency awards at the Building Contractors Association of Southwest Idaho
(BCASWI) Parade of Homes awards banquet and presented certificates of accomplishment at the
Snake River Valley Building Contractors Association (SRVBCA) Parade of Home awards banquet.
The company maintained a presence in the building industry by supporting the Building Contractors
Associations (BCA), throughout Idaho Power's service area. Specifically, the company participated in
the SRVBCA Builder's Expo, the Magic Valley Builders Association Parade of Homes, the BCASWI
Parade of Homes, SRVBCA Parade of Homes, the Home Depot Contractors show, and the
Idaho Building Contractors Association Convention.
Media campaigns were used as a method to potentially heighten awareness of the ENERGY STAR
Homes Northwest program. The ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest program specialist was a guest on
the The HomeFix Show with Joe Prin on 580 KIDO AM, discussing the benefits and values of the
ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest program for both builders and potential homeowners.
Other marketing projects involved adding a message about this program to residential customers'
electric bil. These bil messages encouraged Idaho Power customers to visit ENERGY STAR qualified
homes in their local Parade of Homes events. An ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest program bil
stufer sent information to all residential customers in the Idaho Power service area.
In spring 2009, Hubble Homes signed a contract to become a 100 percent ENERGY STAR builder.
Hubble Homes is the first production builder in Idaho to commit to building 100 percent ENERGY
STAR homes and was a large factor in the program's success in 2009. Idaho Power, Northwest
ENERGY STAR, and Hubble Homes participated in a cooperative media campaign to kick-offthis
milestone. The campaign consisted of radio and television advertisement, co-branded marketing
materials, and an ENERGY STAR Builder Expo that advertised Hubble Homes as a 100 percent
ENERGY STAR builder.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 35
Residential Sector-ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest Idaho Power Company
A special event included the St. Jude Dream Home kickoff and groundbreaking. The Dream Home wil
be a certified ENERGY STAR National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) green home and wil be
a net-zero energy home. This home wil be raIDed off to benefit the St. Jude Children's HospitaL.
Idaho Power sponsored the Houses That Work and Indoor Air QualityNentilation Strategy Workshop,
in cooperation with the Energy and Environmental Building Association's (EEBA). This workshop
featured a nationally recognized building scientist brought in by EEBA. The event was conducted in
cooperation with Northwest ENERGY STAR.
Cost-Effectiveness
In 2008, the Idaho residential building code was implemented based on the 2006 Interntional Energy
Conservation Code (IECC). In 2007, in anticipation of this change, the cost-effectiveness analysis for
the ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest program was refreshed. Due to the improved building code,
reductions were made to the incremental energy savings associated with the electric portion of building
a new home to the specifications required by the program. These reductions were based on an analysis
provided by a third-party consultant, Ecotope, Inc. The cost-effectiveness analysis in 2008 resulted in
Idaho Power reducing the incentive paid to contractors building an ENERGY STAR home from $750 to
$400 in order to maintain cost-effectiveness.
Under the current residential building code, Ecotope estimated that a typical home constructed under the
ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest program would result in incremental energy savings of
approximately 1,400 kWh. The inputs used for calculating the cost-effectiveness ofthe program in 2009
remain unchanged.
The detailed inputs for the cost-effectiveness ofthe program are included in Supplement 1:
Cost-Effectiveness. In 2010, Idaho Power wil use the results from recent evaluations of the ENERGY
STAR Homes Northwest program to make changes to the program if appropriate.
Customer Satisfaction and Evaluations
In the past, through the involvement ofthe Idaho Offce of Energy Resources (IOER), QA was
performed by the HPS. The HPS worked with builders to ensure that the constructed home complied
with the Northwest BOP. Along with verifying the installation of building components and equipment
through on-site inspections, prior to being qualified, the home had to pass a blower door test, air duct
leakage test, and combustion back draft tests.
In May 2009, Energy Inspectors became the organization responsible for certifying homes to
ENERGY STAR specifications. Energy Inspectors also took over the QA duties that ensure constructed
homes comply with the Northwest BOP. In Oregon, the Oregon Offce of Energy continues to certify
ENERGY STAR homes. Approximately 10 percent of homes certified in the ENERGY STAR Homes
Northwest program are reviewed for QA puroses.
Idaho Power participated with NEEA throughout 2009 to evaluate the ENERGY STAR Homes
Northwest program. This comprehensive impact evaluation is based on a sample of ENERGY STAR
qualified homes built from 2006-2007 compared with new homes built during 2004-2005 that were not
constructed under the program. Key components of the study included a market chaacteriation,
Page 36 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest
lighting logger analysis, and estimation of energy savings through biling analysis and building
simulation modeling. The fmal report ofthis evaluation wil be made available by NEEA in 2010.
Also in 2009, NEEA completed a MPER on the ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest program to identify
market share attainment and market progress in the new home market. The fmal copy of this market
effects evaluation is included in NEEA Market Effects Evaluations, on the CD in Supplement 2:
Evaluation.
Strategies
In 2010, Idaho Power plans to continue marketing efforts, including assisting existing builders in
moving unsold ENERGY STAR homes inventory with print advertising and continuing to educate
consumers, realtors, and appraisers about the benefits and features of ENERGY STAR homes to help
sell ENERGY STAR homes. Results wil be influenced by the housing market's potential
improvements.
The company wil participate in the St. Jude Dream Home Give Away. A cooperative media campaign
to promote the ENERGY STAR and energy efficiency features of this home is currently being planned.
This campaign will include a bil stuffer in June.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 37
Residential Sector-Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program Idaho Power Company
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program
Participation and Savings
Participants (homes)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Peak Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider
Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Le"elized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
Idaho/Oregon
2007
2008
359
561,440
n/a
$466,094
$6,959
$498
$473,551
$0.073
$0.092
1.61
0.91
Description
The H&CE provides incentives for the purchase and proper installation of qualified heating and cooling
equipment and services to residential customers. Ths program has been available to Idaho customers
since September 2007 and Oregon customers since August 2008.
The objective ofthe H&CE Program is to acquire kWh savings. Cash incentives are provided to
residential customers and HV AC contractors who install eligible equipment and services. Until April 30,
2009, the eligible measures included air source heat pumps, open-loop water source heat pumps,
evaporative coolers, central AlCs, and central A/C and heat pump tue-ups. The issue of removing AlC
and tune-ups from the program was presented to the EEAG durig conference calls on January 8 and 9,
2009, and discussed at the February 19, 2009, EEAG meeting.
After April30, 2009, central AlC and all tue-ups were removed from the program as a result of
cost-effectiveness analysis. Participating HVAC companies were required to perform all installations
and services, with the exception of evaporative coolers, which could be self-installed. This essentially
changed the program to a heat pump and evaporative cooler program while maintaining installation
requirements for heat pumps.
Page 38 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program
2009
Toward the end of2008 and early 2009, the company reviewed the calculated cost-effectiveness
analysis for the H&CE Program and updated the cost-effectiveness analysis with actul expenses from
2008. The results ofthis analysis showed that some measures were not cost-effective, which resulted in
the removal of the measures mentioned above.
In response to the 2008 contractor feedback, and after evaluating the cost-effectiveness of doing so,
Idaho Power increased the participating contractor incentive. This change resulted in additional
contractor participation. The program sponsored 12 contractor training classes on the proper sizing and
installation of heat pumps, in which more than 100 contractors participated.
Various marketing activities occurred during 2009. Bil messages on residential customer bils were sent
throughout the spring and summer. Bil inserts were used twice during the year. An article about the
H&CE Program was included in the company newsletter, Customer Connection. The program was
promoted at various home and garden shows and at other community events, such as the Idaho
Green Expo.
To build and maintain relationships with participating contractors, the program specialist visited several
participating contractor shops throughout the year to promote the program, check for program
understanding, and offer support. The program performed random OSVs to verify what was submitted
on the paperwork is what was installed at customers' sites. Overall, OSV results were good; however, a
few contractors had not installed the required sensor to lock-out strip heat above a certain outdoor
temperature. The program continues to work with contractors to help them understand why this
requirement is in the program.
The H&CE Program's list of measures and incentives during 2009 include:
· Air source heat pump customer incentives for replacing an existing air source heat pump with a
new air source heat pump are $200 for minimum effciency 8.2 Heating Seasonal Performance
Factor (HSPF), and $250 for minimum effciency 8.5 HSPF.
· Customer incentives for replacing an existing electric, oil, or propane heating system with a new
air source heat pump are $300 for minimum effciency 8.2 HSPF, and $400 for minimum
effciency 8.5 HSPF. Homes with oil or propane heating systems must be located in areas where
natural gas is not available.
· Incentives for customers or builders for new construction installing an air source heat pump in a
new home are $300 for minimum effciency 8.2 HSPF, and $400 for minimum efficiency
8.5 HSPF.
· Open-loop water source heat pump customer incentive for replacing an existing air source heat
pump with a new open-loop water source heat pump is $500 for minimum effciency
3.5 Coeffcient of Performance (COP).
· The customer incentive for replacing an existing electric, oil, or propane heating system with a
new open-loop water source heat pump is $1,000 for minimum efficiency 3.5 COP. Homes with
oil or propane heating systems must be located in areas where natual gas is not available.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 39
Residential Sector-Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program Idaho Power Company
· The incentive for customers with new construction installing an open- loop water source heat
pump in a new home is $1,000 for minimum effciency 3.5 COP.
· The evaporative cooler customer incentive is $150.
Cost~Effect¡veness
At the end of2008, the fist full calendar year of the program, the cost-effectiveness ofthe measures
offered by the program was re-examined. This analysis demonstrated that the central AlC measures
incenting effcient equipment and quality installation above and beyond code were not cost-effective.
Also, the inclusion of commissioning or tune-ups for both AlC and heat pumps was reevaluated.
Originally, the inclusion of these measures, even though new codes in Idaho minimized potential
savings, was to support and promote quality installation in the company's service area. Savings for
proper sizing and installation of an AlC unit with a seasonal energy effciency rating (SEER) of
13 (energy code threshold) were determed to be 312 kWh on anual basis through analysis done in
2006 by PECI, Inc. AlC that met a SEER 14 or SEER 15 accounted for additional savings of 46 kWh
and 334 kWh respectively above and beyond the savings for proper sizing and intallation with slightly
lower savings for new construction situations.
The results of the fIrst year of operation of the program showed that these measures were not
cost-effective due to low savings and high training and education expenses. Commissioning or tune-ups
for central AlC and heat pumps were also determined to be not cost-effective due to high free ridership
and low annual savings. Contractors in many cases were offering the tune-up incentives to customers
already on maintenance agreements. After discussions with EEAG members, the decision was made to
discontinue these measures but to allow AlC incentives to continue until April 30,2009, to allow for
effective communication of program changes between Idaho Power CRs, program managers,
HV AC contractors, and customers. The resulting program measures focused on heat pumps and
evaporative coolers.
During 2009, through quality control assessments and interaction with contractors, the company
determined that many contractors in Idaho Power's service area were sizing heat pumps based on
cooling load, or in some cases, relying on the size ofthe existing system being replaced.
The consequence was that many systems were being undersized for heating load. This impacted the
potential heating savings. Ecotope, Inc., who had done the previous heat-pump modeling for the
program, was asked to evaluate savings based on the undersizing contingent that was occurring in the
marketplace. Ecotope also used data collected from previous program participants to update other
assumptions in their modeling, including the level of weatherization and size ofthe home.
Three categories of house sizes were chosen and included 1,350 square feet, 2,200 square feet,
and 2,688 square feet. Differing levels of weatherization were created and included old, weatherized,
and new. Levels of weatherization were estimated based on prior customer participation data and used
for their savings simulation modeL. The old category old signified that the home was relatively
uninsulated, while weatherized homes were typically fully weatherized, and the new category meant that
the home was built to mid-1990's specifications or newer. Previously, heat pump savings simulations
were based on the assumption that all homes were smaller than 1,350 square feet and well-insulated.
The results of the analysis were adopted from the evaluation of savings, and it was decided to use
conservative savings, reduced for the potential of contractors to under-size systems for heating load.
Page 40 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program
The complete list of analysis and recommendations in the evaluation memorandum titled Heat Pump
Sizing Specifcations and Heat Pump Measures Savings Estimates is included with the annual report
fiing of evaluation documents found in Supplement 2: Evaluation. As a result of the inclusion of some
non cost-effective measures in the first year of operation, the program life B/C from the TRC
perspective is stil slightly under one, however, the B/C rations for 2009 from the UC, TRC, and PCT
perspectives are all greater than one. Detailed views ofthe assumptions used for cost-effectiveness in the
H&CE Program are found in Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness.
Evaluations
Periodic satisfaction sureys were mailed to 167 customers who participated in the program during
2009. Sixty-nine percent, or 115, of sureys mailed to customers were returned. Of those who answered
the question, 80 percent of the customers said they heard about the program "from their contractor."
When asked ifthe H&CE Program incentive influenced their purchasing decision, 60 percent said "yes."
The majority of customers answered the program was "easy to participate in," and 90 percent responded
that they were "very satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" with the program. The majority of respondents
said they ''would'' refer the program to a friend or relative. Complete results of the survey are located in
Supplement 2: Evaluation.
A contractor surey was conducted in 2009, with 65 e-mailed surveys sent out to participating and
non-participating contractors. Nineteen contractors responded to the surey. Eighteen stated that they
participated to some degree in the program in 2009, and one reported they did not. The one company
that did not participate said they did not because they were too busy. Sixty-two percent of contractors
said they were "very likely" to install heat pumps to meet program requirements regardless of the
incentive.
The majority of contractors said their company realized at least "some" benefits from participating in the
H&CE program in 2009 and they would be "likely" to participate in the future.
The reasons were varied as to what benefits they received from participating in the program. Contractors
said it helped them to increase sales, to intall equipment that is more effcient, and to ensure quality
installation.
Reasons why some of the contractors said they did not benefit from the program were related to the
paperwork required by the program and the contractor's inability to convince customers to upgrade to
more efficient equipment to meet program specifications.
Contractor recommendations for Idaho Power included continuing the program, continuing promoting
dealers, considering opening up the program to closed-loop heat pump systems, providing ongoing
training, and making the program more user-friendly. One contractor commented, "Thank you for
providing the program. I believe it has a huge impact in the education of the public as to proper sized
and installed equipment. (sic)"
For ongoing QA, Honeywell Inc., is the third-pary contractor responsible for performing OSV.
Approximately five percent ofthe projects completed in the H&CE Program are inspected by
Honeywell. In 2009, Honeywell complete OSVs on 38 installations. Ofthese 38 installations, 95
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 41
Residential Sector-Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program Idaho Power Company
percent, or 36 intallations, were either compliant or were brought into compliance. Of the remaining
two projects that had difficulty passing the OSV, only one ultimately received an incentive payment.
Strategies
During the fourth quarter of2009, an Idaho Power project team reviewed the H&CE Program
requirements to see ifany changes were needed for 2010. The project team evaluated the 2009 project
submittals to determne what levels of airflow were being achieved by contractors on new heat-pump
installations. Overall, the higher airflow levels are available to be achieved as compared to the tune-up
projects formerly included in the program. Additionally, program staff incorporated input from
contractors regarding increasing the airflow requirement. The team determined that the minimum
airflow cubic feet-per-minute (CFM) per ton should be raised. Effective February 1, 2010, the minimum
airflow will increase from 325 CFM per ton to 350 CFM per ton.
Feedback was received during the last half of2009 from participating contractors regarding the
program's requirement on heat pump equipment sizing. Several contractors were concerned with the
program sizing requirement, which is to size heat pumps to within ~ ton of dominant load.
The company commissioned Ecotope, Inc., to review actual project submittal information for
the 2009 projects and review the kWh savings being claimed by the program. Based on the analysis
performed by Ecotope, Inc., Idaho Power adjusted the energy savings for projects in the program to
conform with the analysis results.
During 2010, Idaho Power will market the program through articles in the monthly
Customer Connection newsletter and direct-mail letters to targeted group of customers.
The program wil continue to offer contractor training for those who wish to become participating
companies. In addition, heat pump-controls classes wil be offered early in 2010. Idaho Power wil
continue to monitor customer and contractor satisfaction and solicit contractor feedback on the program.
Page 42 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-Home Improvement Program
Home 1m Program
Participation and Savings
Participants (homes)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Peak Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider
Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utilty Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
4.12
2.61
Idaho
2008
2008
282
317,814
n/a
$123,454
$0
$0
$123,454
$0.029
$0.037
Description
The Home Improvement Program, formerly the Attic Insulation Pilot, was launched on June 1,2009.
This program was added to Idaho Power's residential energy effciency programs offerings based on the
energy savings found through the pilot carried out during the summer and fall of2008. Idaho Power
contracted with Ecotope, Inc., a third-party contractor, to revise the energy-savings estimates based on
results of the Attic Insulation Pilot. As well as helping reduce energy use throughout the year, this
program also impacts the reduction of summer peak demand. The program pays an incentive of 15 cents
per square-foot to Idaho residential customers in the Idaho Power service area for the addition of attic
insulation professionally installed after June 1,2009. Any insulation contractor can provide this service
and there is no preferred contractor list associated with this program.
Specific program qualifications are required to receive the incentive. Only existing, single- family homes
qualify for an incentive. This includes duplexes and townomes with the attic area over conditioned
space. Homes must have central AlC or be electrically heated. Only attic insulation installed over
conditioned space qualifies for an incentive. Insulation must be professionally intalled by an insulation
contractor. Incentives are paid on added attic insulation up to an R-50. New insulation must increase the
R-value by R-I0 or greater.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 43
Residential Sector-Home Improvement Program Idaho Power Company
2009 Activities
Insulation contractor open houses were held throughout the Idaho Power service area in May 2009 to
introduce contractors to the program. During the open houses, contractors were trained on program
specifications and expectations. The open houses were held in Boise, Nampa, Pocatello, and Twin Falls.
A Customer Connection article introducing the program to Idaho Power customers was sent in the
May 2009 biling statements. In addition, an informational bil stuffer was sent to Idaho residential
customers in the July 2009 biling statements. The bil stuffer resulted in an increased volume of calls
regarding program details and opportunities for further customer education regarding the program.
A media campaign featuring print and radio ads was conducted in Salmon in August 2009.
The Home Improvement Program paid 1,188 incentives paid during 2009, surassing the 2009 goal of
1,000 incentives paid.
Cost~Effectiveness
Savings assumptions for the attic insulation measure were established in accordance with the 2008 pilot
and a savings simulation model by Ecotope, Inc. Their model work analyzed homes with and without
the duct work in the attic area of the home and focused on cooling energy savings benefits from
increased attic insulation. The simulation model also provided results where the duct work in the home
is not sealed, which lessens the energy-savings benefits. A 2,200 square-foot home was used as a
prototype home size similar to ENERGY STARiI homes.
The results indicated that, on average, a home with sealed ductwork in the attic would save 1,247 kWh
annually while a home with unsealed ductwork would realize anual energy savings ofl,127 kWh.
Homes with no ductwork in the attic would save only 328 kWh based on cooling savings only. During
2010, Idaho Power wil assess the impact of individual climate zones, electric heat savings, and the
presence of duct-work in participants' homes.
Customer Satisfaction and Evaluations
Approximately 10 percent of projects in the Home Improvement Program are reviewed for QA purposes
by third-party contractors. Idaho Power plans to monitor participation and is collecting data that wil
provide the basis for an overall impact evaluation and process evaluation. This program is scheduled to
be fully evaluated in 2011 once enough program informtion, such as biling data, is available for the
evaluation to proceed.
Strategies
Plans for the upcoming year include a targeted direct mailing in March 2010 to approximately 70,000
customers throughout Idaho Power's service area. An informational bill stuffer is being planned for
July 2010. A print campaign is planned for fall 2010.
Page 44 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-Home Products Program
Home Products Program
Participation and Savings
Participants (appliances)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Peak Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility BenefiUCost Ratio
Total Resource BenefiUCost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
2.72
1.59
Idaho/Oregon
2008
2008
3,034
541,615
n/a
$245,219
$5,541
$100
$250,860
$0.044
$0.082
The Home Products Program, formerly the ENERGY STARiI Appliance Program, provides an incentive
payment to residential customers for purchasing ENERGY STAR qualified appliances, lighting, or other
products. ENERGY STAR is a governent-backed program designating products as energy effcient.
Appliances and products with ENERGY STAR must meet higher, stricter efficiency criteria than federal
standards. ENERGY STAR washers must have a Modified Energy Factor of 1.72 or greater and a
Water Factor of8.0 or lower, the minimum qualifications for an ENERGY STAR qualified
clothes washer.
The ENERGY STAR Appliance Program rolled out on April 1,2008 for the company's Idaho
customers and on May 21, 2008, for Oregon customers. Subsequently, to qualify, the washer must have
been purchased after April 1 , 2008, for customers in Idaho and after May 21, 2008, for customers in
Oregon.
With the addition of ENERGY STAR qualified refrigerators, ceiling fans with light kits, light kits,
and light fixtures, the expanded ENERGY STAR Appliance Program was renamed Home Products
Program and launched on August 1, 2008.
Initially, the clothes-washer incentive was the only product offered under the original program.
Curent offerings and related incentives include clothes washers ($50), refrigerators ($30), light fixtures
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 45
Residential Sector-Home Products Program Idaho Power Company
(up to $15 per fixture), ceiling fans with light kits, or ceiling fan light kit attachments (up to $20 per
fixture). Program participation is a simple process for customers. The customer completes the brief
incentive application, submits it with a copy ofthe sales receipt, and ifthe purchase qualifies, receives
an incentive check in the maiL.
Marketing of the Home Products Program to customers occurs primarily through retail outlets.
Idaho Power provided information to store managers and employees through training sessions at store
staff meetings and through periodic visits by Idaho Power representatives. Collateral materials, such as
program brochures with application tear-off form, were distributed to nearly 100 retail stores.
In addition, program modifications were delivered via letters sent directly to store managers.
Retail salespeople also assisted in promoting the program to their customers. Information gathered from
a series of six questions on the customer incentive application form indicated salespeople are a proven,
effective avenue for marketing the program.
Idaho Power promoted the program directly to residential customers via bil stuffers, community
promotions, Idaho Power field statT and other outreach activities. Durg 2009, bil stuffers detailing
the program were mailed to all residential customers, one durig the summer and one during the
holiday season.
In addition, static-clings-small, sticky decals-were created and distributed to retailers for placement
on qualifying clothes washers and refrigerators. The prominent focus for using clings was to highlight
the respective incentive amounts.
An addition to the Home Products Program, in parership with NEEA, was initiated in 2009 to provide
an incentive to retailers who sell flat screen televisions that are 30 percent more energy efficient than the
minimum ENERGY STAR standard (ENERGY STAR +30 percent). NEEA managed all aspects of the
program, while Idaho Power, along with other Northwest utilities, provided funding. Idaho Power's
funding amount was based on a percentage of the population of Idaho Power's residential customers
compared to all customers in the Northwest. The incentives are paid to the retailer rather than
the customer.
The purpose of paying incentives to retailers and manufacturers rather than the end consumer was
intended to drive the manufacture, distribution, and promotion of more energy-effcient consumer
electronics at the retail leveL. This mid/upstream incentive model is potentially powerful in changing
markets when incentive dollars are small per product, but has a high volume of sales. Only the retailers
who signed contracts with NEEA wil be involved; however, nearly all retail stores in Idaho Power's
service area wil have the opportunity to paricipate.
The Home Products Program exceeded the targets for 2009. Idaho Power paid 9,499 incentives during
2009, resulting in 1,638,038 kWh of savings. Incentives were issued for 6,181 clothes washers,
2,878 refrigerators, 408 light fixtures, 30 ceiling fans, and two light kits.
Page 46 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-Home Products Program
In the preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis, Idaho Power identified clothes washers as the only
cost-effective measure to offer in the Home Products Program. Idaho Power's savings and cost
assumptions were derived from information provided from the NPCC's RTF. The data from the RTF
included the measure life of 14 years, per-unit energy savings as a weighted average of combined Tier I
and Tier II ENERGY STAR qualified clothes washers of 192 kWh, weighted incremental cost of$104,
and net-to-gross factor of 0.8. To calculate the value of the energy savings, Idaho Power used load
shapes provided in the Demand-Side Management Potential Study conducted by Nexant, Inc. Detailed
cost-effectiveness assumptions, metrics, and sources are located in Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness.
Since the launch of the program, the analysis has been updated with each new product offering to
determine cost-effectiveness based on updated ENERGY STAR requirements and revised
incremental costs.
Customer Satisfaction Evaluations
On each incentive application, six customer- and product-related questions are asked. The information
collected will be used to evaluate the program going forward. A process evaluation ofthe Home
Products Program wil take place during 2010.
Strategies
Based on 2009 successes, the marketing strategy for 2010 will remain similar with only minimal
adjustments and updates as needed. The Home Products Program wil cross-promote with other
Idaho Power programs and develop promotional materials. Idaho Power wil continually review
potential products for addition to the program during 2010 and beyond.
The partnership with NEEA regarding the flat screen television incentives wil continue in 2010.
Idaho Power plans to take a more active role in promoting the NEEA electronics initiative. Marketing
for the program wil take the form of educational pieces, as opposed to "take action" promotions, since
the customer receives no monetary incentive for the purchase.
Similar to the clings created this year for clothes washers and refrigerators, Idaho Power wil create
collateral material for light fixtures and fans comparable to those created in 2009. Because clings cannot
be placed directly on these products, the company wil instead use floor clings and floor mats in 2010.
The company wil investigate new products to include in the program. If additional measures are added,
Idaho Power wil redesign the current brochure.
In 2009, Idaho Power investigated out-sourcing the application processing to a third-party vendor.
With the program's popularity and high volume, it had become impractical for the company to keep up
with the current demand on an ongoing basis. After incorprating the third-party processing cost
assumptions into the analysis, the program was determined to remain cost-effective. Following a
competitive RFP process, a vendor was selected to process the applications and payments for the
program. Idaho Power is curently in contract negotiations with the vendor.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 47
Residential Sector-0regon Residential Weatherization Idaho Power Company
Oregon Residential Weatherization
Participation and Savings
Participants (homes)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Peak Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Effciency Rider
Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
Oregon
1980
2008
3
22,196
n/a
$0
$1,908
$5,509
$7,417
$0.025
$0.096
nla
nla
Description
Idaho Power offers free energy audits for electrically heated customer homes within the Oregon service
area. This is a statutory program offered under Oregon Rate Schedule No. 78. Upon a customer's
request, an Idaho Power representative visits the home to analyze it for energy effciency. An estimate of
costs and savings for specific measures is given to the customer. Idaho Power offers financial assistance
for a portion ofthe costs for weatherization measures, either as a cash incentive or with a 6.5 percent
interest loan.
2009 Activities
During the month of June, Idaho Power sent every Oregon residential customer an informational
brochure about energy audits and home weatherization financing. A total of33 Oregon customers
responded. Each ofthe 33 customers retued a card from the brochure indicating interest in a home
energy audit, weatherization loan, or incentive payment. Twenty-three audits and responses to customer
inquiries to the program were completed.
Idaho Power issued one rebate totaling $425.29 for 2,907 kWh savings. The rebate and related savings
was for ceiling insulation. There were no loans made through this program during 2009. Five customer
responses were directed to Cascade Natural Gas because their heating source was gas. Four customers
canceled their request.
Page 48 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-Gregon Residential Weatherization
The Oregon Residential Weatherization program is a statutory program as provided for in Oregon Rate
Tariff No. 78. The cost-effectiveness of this program is defined within this tariff. Page 4 of Tariff No. 78
lists the measures that are always determined to be cost-effective and the required measure life cycles
for specific measures. This tariff also includes the cost-effective limit (CEL) for measure lives of7, 15,
25, and 30 years. In 2009, the only project competed under the Oregon Residential Weatherization
program was a ceiling insulation program. The required CEL for insulation is $1.19 per annual kWh
saved, and the actuallevelized cost of energy savings is 20 cents from the UC perspective and 22 cents
TRC perspective, resulting in this program being considered cost-effective in 2009.
Plans for the upcoming year include notifying customers in their June bil about the program.
Idaho Power wil complete requested audits and fulfill all cost-effective rebate and loan applications.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 49
Residential Sector-Rebate Advantage Idaho Power Company
Rebate Advantage
Participation and Savings
Participants (homes)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Peak Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider
Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utilty Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
5.71
2.30
Idaho/Oregon
2003
2008
107
463,401
n/a
$79,547
$11,341
$0
$90,888
$0.012
$0.025
Description
Idaho Power customers who purchase a new, all-electric, ENERGY STARiI qualified manufactured
home and site it in Idaho Power's service area are eligible for a $500 rebate through the Rebate
Advantage program. Salespersons receive a $100 incentive for each qualified home that they sell.
In addition to offering financial incentives, the Rebate Advantage program promotes and educates
buyers and retailers of manufactured homes about the benefits of owning energy-efficient models.
The Northwest Energy Effcient Manufactured Housing Program (NEEM) establishes quality control
and energy efficiency specifications for qualified homes. NEEM is a consortium of manufacturers and
state energy offces in the Northwest. In addition to specifications and quality, NEEM tracks the
production and on-site performance of ENERGY STAR qualified manufactured homes.
The Rebate Advantage program helps Idaho Power customers with the initial costs associated with
purchasing a new, energy-effcient ENERGY STAR qualified manufactured home. This enables the
homebuyer to enjoy the long-term benefit of lower electric bils and greater comfort provided by these
homes. In addition, Idaho Power encourages sales consultants to discuss energy effciency with their
customers during the sales process.
Page 50 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-Rebate Advantage
Activities
During 2009, Idaho Power paid 57 incentives on new manufactured homes. The slow economy had a
dramatic effect on all types of housing and contributed to a lower number of incentives than expected.
Eight ofIdaho Power's approximate 22 participating dealerships closed in 2009, many of which
contributed to the applications in prior years.
New Rebate Advantage marketing materials were developed during the year, including a set of
seven call-out cards, a direct-mail solicitation letter, and an article in the Customer Connection
publication. The call-out cards identify the benefits of specific areas of the manufactured home and were
placed in ENERGY STAR qualified model homes in 2009. The Customer Connection article was
included in the late summer publication sent to all Idaho Power customers. The direct-mail letter was
created to explain the Rebate Advantage program in greater detaiL. Additionally, Idaho Power CR visited
each of the dealerships at least four times during 2009, answering questions and distributing materials.
ENERGY STAR manufactured home ratings are used to determine the energy savings ofthis program.
These savings vary by heating and cooling zone in which the home wil be placed. In addition to varying
by climate zone, savings also vary depending on whether the customer purchases a home with or
without central AlC or if a heat pump or forced air furnace is chosen. No changes in cost-effectiveness
assumptions occurred durg 2009 and no manufactured home code changes have occured that would
require a shift in baseline effciency standards. For detailed lists of savings by climate and housing
options, see Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness.
Satisfaction and Evaluations
Idaho Power did not conduct any surveys or research in 2009. Two surveys were conducted in late 2008,
which helped shape and guide 2009 marketing efforts. Idaho Power was more involved with marketing
the program in 2009 by directly educating the customer through call-out cards, inormational articles,
and direct-mail letters, rather than generally relying on salespeople to promote the program. A process
evaluation of the Rebate Advantage program is scheduled for 2010.
Strategies
Idaho Power plans to continue the Rebate Advantage program in 2010, explore new marketing methods,
and promote the program using internal resources and externally at the dealership leveL. CRs wil
enhance relationships with dealerships by visiting each dealership quarterly, offering program support,
answering questions, and distributing materials. The involvement of local Idaho Power personnel
interacting with the local dealers reemphasizes the importance of promoting the benefits of ENERGY
STAR qualified homes and products. Idaho Power wil continue to explore additional marketing
strategies aimed directly at the end-consumer, such as the direct-mail letter developed in 2009 that is
being sent to Idaho Power customers in spring 2010. The direct-mail letter wil be sent to specific
customers using the Claritas PRIZM segmentation methodology matched with company customer
information. Several approaches are being studied, including profiing those that may be potential
customers such as those who live in apartments or are curent renters. Another analysis wil be to assess
the differing demographics between rural customers and those who live in more populated areas to
understand the different customer profiles. The last approach wil be to understand the demographic
profie of those who have already made the choice to participate in the program. Targeted and focused
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 51
Residential Sector-Rebate Advantage Idaho Power Company
marketing wil be key to maintaining or increasing program participation and delivering the appropriate
message in the materials used. Idaho Power wil track the effectiveness of this letter by cross-referencing
the applications received against the list of customers who were mailed letters.
Page 52 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-See Ya Later Refrigerator
See Va later Refrigerator
Participation and Savings
Participants (homes)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Peak Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs Ratios
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
Idaho/Oregon
2009
2008
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.95
1.95
The See Ya Later Refrigerator program, previously the Refrigerator Recycling Program during the
planning phase in 2008, was launched on June 1,2009. The program acquires energy savings through
the removal ofrefrigerators and stand-alone freezers in residential homes throughout Idaho Power's
service area, focusing on secondary and spare units commonly found in basements and garages.
Customers receive a $30 incentive check mailed after the removal ofthe unit. Although all qualified
units are collected, the program is targeting older, extra units for maximum savings, with a program
target of achieving up to 2.8 milion kWh in energy savings annually.
Prior to program launch in 2009, Idaho Power studied the cost-effectiveness and evaluated different
mechanisms for ruing a refrigerator recycling program. Idaho Power explored using a third-party
contractor to manage the program as well as a company-managed option using community recycling
programs. The third-party option was chosen, with input from EEAG, as it provided for better
verification of savings and ease of participation. Not all community recycling programs offer the same
level of customer support or price structure. The third-party option ensured the program would be
available geographically to all customers, and all customers would receive the same service.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 53
Residential Sector-8ee Ya Later Refrigerator Idaho Power Company
2009 Activities
Program development occured durg the first half of2009 and included securing a vendor contract,
developing the program, and creating the internal tracking systems and processes. An RFP for the
third-party vendor was issued in January 2009. There are two major companies that provide this
program for utilities nationwide. One contractor, JACO Environmental, Inc. (JACO), responded to the
RFP. In February 2009, JACO was selected to conduct the program for Idaho Power. This contractor
delivers utility refrigerator recycling programs throughout the nation, including many Northwest utilities
and could leverage its experience and systems to implement Idaho Power's program.
Idaho Power contracts with JACO to provide most services for this program. Idaho Power provides
participant confiration, supp lemental marketing, and internal program administration. Marketing
activities included a combination of public relations events to launch the program. Media was invited to
witness the removal of a unt from a customer home. On-going marketing included newspaper ads,
bil inserts, Customer Connection articles, Web site content, promotion at events, and word-of-mouth.
JACO provides customer service, unit pickup, unit recycling, reporting, marketing assistance,
and incentive payments. Customers call the JACO customer service center regarding program questions
and scheduling of unit collections.
JACO crews pick up units from customers' homes then transport, dismantle, and ship the units to the
final recycler. JACO issues the incentive payments to customers and tracks the unit information at the
account leveL. JACO contracts with Runyon, Saltzman & Einorn (RS&E), a marketing fir, to provide
marketing support. RS&E has experience marketing utility refrigerator recycling programs nationwide
and brings expertise and proprietary market research to Idaho Power's program.
CostwEffectiveness
The cost-effectiveness model for the See Ya Later Refrigerator program is based on the assumption that
682 kWh of annual savings would be achieved over an average eight-year remaining measure life of a
decommissioned refrigerator or freezer. The corresponding gross savings cited by Nexant, Inc., in the
Idaho Power Demand-Side Management Potential Study is 1,948 kWh. The 682 kWh is a realized
savings estimate per unit of35 percent of the 1,948 kWh savings and accounts for the potential that an
estimated 65 percent of recycled units are primary and secondary refrigerators that may be replaced by
customers, which translates into minimal savings for those customers. Data collected for each unit
picked up in 2009 include customer-reported reason for removal, location of unit, primary use of unit,
and unit replacement plans indicated that approximately 50 percent of units were at risk of being
replaced by the customer. Although the 50 percent reported number is not as high of a replacement rate
as Nexants assumption of 65 percent, the data collection did support the reporting of a net, or realized,
annual savings number for refrigerator recycling instead of a gross savings.
Another unique cost-effectiveness consideration for the See Ya Later Refrigerator program was whether
to estimate and include costs incured by customers participating in the program. While all customers
wil have their own unique set of circumstances that wil determine the cost oftheir time to participate in
the program, Idaho Power initially modeled the program at $60 per customer to account for lost work
time and wages required to accommodate the appointment to pick up the unit. Based on the flexible
pick-up times and the wide range of customer circumstances, the customer costs are now assumed to be
Page 54 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-8ee Ya Later Refrigerator
zero for annual reporting. Detailed cost-effectiveness of assumptions and sources are found in
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness.
Customer and Evaluations
JACO tracks unit statistics for each unit collected, including information on how the customer heard
about the program and when the customer enrolled. Unit statistics about the unit collected include the
age of the unit, the location it is housed, and other data, which help to refine Idaho Power's assumptions
regarding cost-effectiveness.
Results of the 2009 unit data showed that 27 percent of units the program picked up were stand-alone
freezers, and 73 percent of the units were refrigerators. Fifty-six percent of the units were secondary,
23 percent primary, and 21 percent were unown. Forty-eight percent of customers intend to replace
the unit removed; however, national data show that 44 percent of units that are displaced or discarded
are used elsewhere. The average vintage of units collected was 1980, with 67 percent ofthe units
manufactured between 1965 and 1990, generally the least efficient years of manufactue.
The program reclaims or recycles up to 95 percent of the components of each unit collected. In 2009,
this translated into over 226,170 pounds of materiaL. Reclaimed materials may include oils or
refrigerants that can be distiled and then reused.
JACO and Idaho Power also track data related to the marketing effectiveness ofthe program.
For example, enrollments peaked during July and August, in association with the July bil inert and the
August Customer Connection newsletter article.
Results of customer tracking information indicate 41 percent of customers report learing of the
program through the July bil inserts. A portion of these customers reporting bil inserts may also be
referring to the article appearing in the Customer Connection newsletter issued in August, which is an
insert to the bil as well. Seventeen percent of customers report learning of the program through a friend
or neighbor. Other word-of-mouth activities, such as events and utility personnel, account for an
additional 2 percent of signups. Although appliance retailers also refer customers to the program,
Idaho Power does not pursue this marketing channel because a retailer sellng a new unit wil usually
pick up and recycle the old one. Newspaper advertisements comprise 10 percent of enrollments. Eighty
percent of customers who enroll use the 1-866 telephone number. Twentypercent use the online
enro llment form.
Data on the timing of customer enrollments demonstrates the value of ad hoc marketing activities.
A spike in enrolments appears on October 19. Closer examination of these enrollments reveals nearly
50 percent were from the Canyon County area. The Idaho Power CRs in that area reported giving a
presentation to the local health department the day before. It is likely this spike in enrollments is a direct
result of this outreach.
Idaho Power uses the customer information that JACO and the company collect to target future
marketing efforts and increase effectiveness of marketing while reducing the cost. Figue 5 indicates
information sources and percentage of responses regarding the 1,661 customers reporting hearing about
the program through particular sources. The category "Other" includes sources such as utility company
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 55
Residential Sector-8ee Va Later Refngerator Idaho Power Company
Web site, community event, electric utility offce, marketing services, repeat customer, truck ad,
Web Internet search, Web Internet advertisement, and unkown sources.
Figure 5. How Customers Heard about the See Va Later Refngerator Program
Utility newsletter
2%
Radio
advertising
2%
2010 Strategies
Idaho Power plans to continue implementing the program and managing the contract with JACO.
Program marketing wil use proven venues, such as bil inserts, customer newsletters, print ads, and
Web banner ads on newspaper Web sites. The company will add additional marketing as
opportunities arise.
The media plan for 2010 includes newspaper ads, bil inserts, customer newsletters, including the
Customer Connection and the AIC Cool Credit Newsletter pending space available, and print ads.
Digital media-pay-per-click ads wil be on Google all year. The company wil continue promotion at
energy effciency and community outreach events and on the Idaho Power Web site.
Page 56 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-WACO
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
Participation and Savings
Participants (homes/non-profits)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Peak Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Effciency Rider
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Leveliz~d Costs
Utilty Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility BenefiUCost Ratio
Total Resource BenefiUCost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
Idaho/Oregon
1989
2008
452
4,138,142
n/a
$0
$0
$1,419,475
$1,419,475
$0.026
$0.033
2.64
1.80
Description
The W AQC program provides funding for the installation of cost-effective weatherization measures in
qualified owner-occupied and rental homes that are electrically heated. In 2009, qualified households
included those with incomes up to 160 percent of the federal poverty level guidelines. Enhancements
enable qualified families to maintain a comfortable home environment, while saving energy and money
otherwise spent on heating, cooling, and lighting. Participants receive energy effciency education to
help save energy in their homes. Funding is also provided for the weatherization of buildings housing
nonprofit organizations that serve special-needs populations.
WAQC is modeled after the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Weatherization Program. The DOE
program is managed through Health and Human Services offces in Idaho and by the Oregon Housing
and Community Services in Oregon. Idaho Power, in conjunction with Community Action Partnership
(CAP) agencies in the Idaho Power service area, serves as the administrator ofW AQC. Federal funds
are allocated to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare and Oregon Housing and Community
Services, then to CAP agencies based upon United States Census data of qualifying household income
within each CAP agency's geographic area. The CAP agencies oversee local weatherization crews and
contractors, providing implementations that improve energy efficiency of the homes. WAQC allows
these state agencies to leverage their federal weatherization dollars and serve more residents by
supplementing federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) weatherization funds.
Homes receiving Idaho Power funding must be electrically heated.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 57
Residential Sector-WAQC Idaho Power Company
Energy-saving home measures provided by this program include windows, doors, wall insulation,
ceiling insulation, floor insulation, infiltration, ducts, water heaters, pipes, furnace tune-ups, fuace
modification, funace replacement, and CFLs. Consistent with the State ofIdaho Weatherization
Assistance Program, Idaho Power offers several measures that have costs, but do not save energy or
savings cannot be measured. Included in this category are health and safety, vents, furnace repair,
and home energy audits. Health and safety measures are necessary to ensure weatherization activities do
not cause unsafe situations in a customer home or compromise a household's existing indoor air quality.
Other non-energy savings measures are allowed under this program in order to help facilitate the
effective performance of those measures yielding energy savings.
Energy saving nonprofit building measures provided by this program include windows, doors, wall
insulation, ceiling insulation, floor insulation, infiltration, ducts, water heaters, pipes, furnace tune-ups,
furnace modification, furnace replacement, and CFLs. Nonprofit building measures that have costs,
but do not save energy or savings cannot be measured, are health and safety, vents, funace repair,
and home energy audits.
For more details on the WAQC program, view the most recent regulatory report, Weatherization
Assistancefor Qualifed Customers 2008 Annual Report, April 1,2009, located in
Supplement 2: Evaluation.
2009 Activities
During 2009, CAP agencies weatherized 423 electrically heated homes in Idaho and 10 in Oregon,
totaling 433 weatherized homes. Anual energy savings were 4,431 MW for Idaho and 114 MWh for
Oregon. W AQC funded the weatherization of four buildings housing nonprofit organizations that serve
special needs populations in their Idaho communities. The annual energy savings from the nonprofit
weatherization was 132 MWh.
Cost~Effectiveness
During an initial audit of a potential home, the auditor completes an energy savings audit program
known as EA4 (Energy Audit 4). The EA4 audit program is used by state weatherization programs and
approved for use by the U.S. DOE. The EA4 compares effciency of measures prior to weatherization to
the efficiency after the proposed improvement, which is then translated into a savings to investment ratio
(SIR). If the EA4 computes a SIR of 1.0 or higher, where the energy savings benefits ofthe measures
outweigh the cost ofthe project, the CAP agency is authorized to complete that energy-saving measure.
In addition to the individual measure SIR, the entire home weatherization job is required to show a SIR
of 1.0 or higher. The whole job SIR accounts for measures that preserve the life of the energy-saving
measures, but provide no actual savings. Cost-effectiveness details are located in Supplement 1:
Cost-Effectiveness. For further details regarding WAQC, the most recent program report, Weatherization
Assistance for Qualifed Customers 2008 Annual Report, dated Aprill, 2009, is located in
Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Satisfaction and Evaluations
The Idaho Power program specialist participated in the Idaho state peer review process, which
involved peer agency weatherization crews within the state reviewing homes weatherized by each of
Page 58 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-WACO
the agencies. Results show all CAP agency weatherization departments are weatherizing in accordance
to federal guidelines.
2010 Strategies
Idaho Power wil continue program management ofWAQC. The company is involved with the Policy
Advisory Council, which serves as an oversight group for weatherization activities in Idaho. Through
this forum, Idaho Power participates in the weatherization policy for the State ofIdaho.
Idaho Power funding helps CAP agencies leverage their federal American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act funding as well as their U.S. DOE weatherization funds.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 59
Residential Sector-Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers Idaho Power Company
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers
Participation and Savings
Participants (homes)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Peak Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Effciency Rider
Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resouræ Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resouræ Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
Idaho
2008
2008
16
71,680
n/a
$51,670
$0
$1,138
$52,807
$0.055
$0.050
1.76
1.80
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers is an energy effciency program designed to serve
Idaho Power residential customers who are slightly above poverty level and, therefore, do not financially
qualify for the company's larger weatherization program, WAQC. The program mirors WAQC. The
installation of energy efficiency measures and repairs are allowed as long as the improvements have a
SIR of 1.0 or higher or that ensure the savings due to interaction between measures. The amount spent
on each home is limited to an annual average per home. Homes considered for this program will be
electrically heated and either owned or rented. Ifrented, the landlord's permission is needed, backed
with an agreement of not increasing the unit's rent for a minimum of two years.
Idaho customers eligible for this program earn income just above the federal poverty level, which is
adjusted annually. They typically do not have expendable income to participate in other residential
energy effciency programs and live in similar housing as W AQC customers.
2009
The 2009 program started in March with Home Energy Management-LLC (HEM-LLC), the contractor
who adminsters the program throughout Idaho Power's southern region. The total budget for the
program was $200,000, which includes a 10 percent administrative fee for HEM-LLC. Qualifying
guidelines for the year were between 161 percent and 250 percent of the federal poverty leveL.
Page 60 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers
By year-end, HEM-LLC weatherized 41 electrically heated homes of eligible Idaho Power customers,
at no cost to the customer. Energy savings achieved was 211,720 kWhyear, with an average home
saving 5,164 kWhyear. Total costs were $160,078, with an average job production cost of$3,549.
Nineteen single-wide manufactured homes and 22 single-family homes were weatherized in 2009.
Marketing ofthe program was done several ways without additional costs to the program. HEM-LLC
advertised the program in Idaho Power's southern region by creating a program flyer that employees
distributed throughout mobile home parks and at specific property management realtor offces.
The flyers were also handed out at community events like the third annual CAP event and at events
where HEM-LLC had a booth. Flyers were also left with previous customers who spread informtion
about the program to families and friends who might qualify. Word-of-mouth became a good marketing
strategy for the program in 2009.
Cost-Effectiveness
During an initial audit of a potential home, the auditor completes an energy-savings audit program
known as EA4. The EA4 audit program is used by state weatherization programs and approved for use
by the U.S. DOE. The EA4 compares effciency of measures prior to weatherization to the effciency
after the proposed improvement, taking into consideration the condition of the home as well as quality
and type of construction. If the EA4 computes a SIR of 1.0 or higher, HEM-LLC is authorized to
complete that energy-saving measure. In addition to the individual measure SIR, the entire home
weatherization job project is required to show a SIR of 1.0 or higher. The project SIR includes measures
that preserve the life of the energy-saving measures but provide no actual SIR.
Idaho Power CRs in the southern region verify installed measures in homes of participating customers
using actual job sheets submitted by HEM-LLC. In addition to the job screening done by the agency,
Idaho Power also assesses cost-effectiveness, looking at the UC test of each measure that is allowed as
part of the contract with HEM-LLC, which currently includes windows, doors, inulation, venting,
infiltration, ducts, health and safety measures, water heater, pipes, furnace repair, fuace replacement,
and CFL installation. The cost-effectiveness testing is consistent with standard methodology used in
other programs, though no deemed measures savings are used in the analysis as actul average annual
savings are calculated for each measure. The actual average annual savings estimates are considered
more accurate than a deemed number because of the number of inputs that are applied from the EA4
data analysis. The fial savings numbers per measure and a complete list of cost-effectiveness
assumptions can be reviewed in Supplement 1: Cost-effectiveness.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 61
Residential Sector-Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers Idaho Power Company
Production costs totaled $145,526.39 in 2009. Table 6 shows the program's measures, instances
installed, kWh savings and the cost of measures.
Measure Instances installed
Table 6. 2009 Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customer's Individual Measure Breakdown
Windows....................................................................... 16
Doors............................................................................ 11
Wall Insulation......................................... ...................... 5
Ceiling Insulation ............... .... ....... ...... .... ....... ........... ..... 30
Floor Insulation.............................................................. 29
Venting.......................................................................... 21
i nfiltration ...................................................................... 16
Ducts ............................................................................ 18
Health and Safety.......................................................... 35
Water heater ................................................................. 14
Pipes............................................................................. 14
Furnace repair............................................................... 9
Furnace replacement..................................................... 5
CFL install. .......... ........ ... ........... ...... ... .... .... ...... ........ ..... 41
Audit invest................................................................... 41
Total...................................................................................................................
kWh Savings
16,671.00
8,474.73
8,094.94
49,379.35
46,854.45
0.00
21,713.75
27,190.75
0.00
2,905.42
1,921.32
0.00
21,947.04
6,566.96
0.00
211,719.71
Cost of measures
$11,656.81
$5,894.41
$1,800.44
$29,869.37
$34,286.94
$1,823.48
$6,764.65
$7,111.15
$8,723.88
$657.44
$3,183.15
$2,501.79
$20,927.07
$1,159.36
$9,166.45
$145,526.39
Satisfaction and Evaluations
Ofthe 41 participants, 37 provided written positive feedback. Four customers provided no feedback to
the program. All customers who did provide feedback also included positive remarks about
Idaho Power's contractor, HEM-LLC.
An elderly woman and disabled spouse living in a single family home wrote, "I would like to thank
Idaho Power for insulating our home. We have overhead electric heat and I'm sure this wil help reduce
our power bil in the future and we will have a much warmer home this winter. (sic)" She also
commented that the crew was very professional and polite.
A young mother with children reported, "We appreciate the time and care to assist home owners who
need the help that Idaho Power has provided for the community."
A family of four said, "We appreciate what Idaho Power did for our home and we would like to express
our appreciation by saying thank you! We could not have done this ourselves due to our financial stance,
so thank you very much. (sic)"
A single elderly woman said, "Thank you for the great job you did on my home. I could never had been
able to pay for it myself Thank you again."
Page 62 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers
The parents of a small family said, "I would like to sincerely thank Idaho Power and HEM-LLC for
choosing our home to make more energy effcient. I have a five-year-old diabetic and we can greatly use
our savings."
Of the customers in homes weatherized through the program, 24 reported an elderly customer living in
the home, and 17 reported either being disabled or that a person living in the home was disabled.
2010 Strategies
Idaho Power plans to continue offering this program in the southern area in 2010. HEM-LLC is under
contract to weatherize 40 homes in Idaho Power's southern region service area with an annual average
cost of$4,500. Eligible customers wil include Idaho Power customers who heat their homes electrically
and earn an income between 175 percent and 250 percent of the federal poverty leveL. Customers who
are either purchasing or renting their homes may be eligible. Idaho Power plans to save an average of
6,000 kWh per weatherized home per year for a total energy savings of240,000 kWh annually.
As in 2009, identification of potential participants wil be made through several means. Energy
Assistance/LIHEAP applicants at CAP agencies who do not meet income qualifications are sent denial
letters. HEM-LLC employees wil use this list of denied customers at CAP agencies to market the
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers program. HEM-LLC wil again distribute flyers
explaining the program and qualifying guidelines to customers heating their homes with electricity
provided by Idaho Power in the southern region. As of mid-January 2010, HEM-LLC reports having a
list of customers interested in the program and wil begin interviewing immediately.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 63
Residential Sector-Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers Idaho Power Company
This page left blank intentionally.
Page 64 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Commercial/lndustrial Sector
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SECTOR OVERVIEW
Descri
The commercial and industrial sector consists of over 64,000 customers. In 2009, new commercial
customers increased by 224, an increase of 0.3 percent. The energy usage of the commercial customers
varies from a few kWh each month to several hundred thousand kWh per month. Commercial customers
represent approximately 27.7 percent of biled sales. Industrial customers and special contract customers
are Idaho Power's largest individual energy consumers. The approximately 125 industrial customers
account for about 22.5 percent ofIdaho Power's system sales.
Programs
Table 7. 2009 Commercial/Industrial Program Summary
Total Costs Savings
Program Participants
Demand Response
FlexPeak Management ....................................... 33 sites
Total...............................................................................................................
Utility Resource
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak
Demand
(MW)
$528,681
$528,681
$528,681
$528,681
n/a 19.3
19.3
Energy Effciency
Building Efficiency............................................... 72 projects $1,327,128
Easy Upgrades .................................................... 1,224 projects $3,325,505
Holiday Lighting ................................................... 32 projects $33,930
Custom Effciency................................................ 132 projects $6,061,467
Total............................................................................................................... $10,748,030
Note: See Appendix 3 for notes on methodology and column definitions.
$2,356,435
$10,076,237
$72,874
$10,848,123
$41,459,875
6,146,139
35,171,627
142,109
51,835,612
93,295,486
1.3
6.1
n/a
6.7
14.1
Three major programs targeting different energy efficiency projects are available to
commerciai/industrial customers in the company's Idaho and Oregon service areas. Easy Upgrades
offers a menu oftypical retrofit measures with prescriptive incentive amounts for lighting, HV AC,
motors, building shell, plug loads, and grocery refrigeration. These energy-saving measures give
customers the option of personally choosing the best selections for incorprating energy efficiency into
their business. The Building Effciency program is available for new construction projects and large
remodels. These projects typically capture lost-opportty savings. This program continues to be
successful, incorporating qualified energy-savings improvements for lighting, cooling, building shell,
and energy control options. Participants in the Building Efficiency and Easy Upgrades programs can
receive incentives of up to $100,000 per site per year for any approved, completed projects. The Custom
Efficiency program offers financial incentives for large commercial and industrial energy users
undertaking more complex projects to improve the effciency oftheir electrical systems or processes.
Incentive levels are 70 percent of the project cost or 12 cents per kWh for first-year savings, whichever
is less.
The Holiday Lighting program encourages commercial customers to purchase more effcient LED
holiday lights. Idaho Power continues to offer the Oregon Commercial Audits program to medium- and
small-commercial customers.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 65
Commercial/Industrial Sector Idaho Power Company
In 2009, Idaho Power launched FlexPeak Management, a demand response program offered to
Idaho commercial and industrial customers. Idaho Power contracted with EnerNOC, Inc., a third-part
aggregator, to reduce peak demand at critical times. EnerNOC, in tu, contracts directly with
Idaho Power's commercial and industrial customers to achieve demand reduction.
A new energy effciency measure, Green Rewind, was made available to Idaho Power's agricultural,
commercial, and industrial customers in 2009. The sectors' combined 40 Green Rewind motors
achieved a total savings of229,285 kWh in 2009, with 13 commerciai/industrial sector motors
contributing 33,399 kWh and 27 irigation sector motors contributing 195,886 kWh.
This measure maintains the motor's original effciency and ensures an efficient use of electricity to run a
motor. If a Green Rewind is not performed, the motor is typically rewound to a lower effciency, or the
owner replaces the motor with an effcient design approved by the Energy Policy Act or a
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) PremiumiI effcient design. In July 2007,
the RTF approved the Green Motors Practices rewinding as an energy effciency measure and approved
a table of deemed savings.
,
A contract was established in March 2009 with the Green Motors Practice Group (GMPG), a non-profit
organization that pioneered Green Rewinds, via a process that ensures that industry best-practices are
used when motors are rewound.
Eleven service centers in Idaho Power's service area have the necessary equipment and training to
perform Green Rewinds. An estimated 1,200 motor rewinds are occurrng annually within these service
centers. Curently, five service centers have signed on as GMPG members. GMPG also wil expand the
number of service centers participating in the GMPG's Green Motors Initiative, leading to market
transformation and additional southern Idaho and eastern Oregon kWh savings.
Motor service centers are paid $2.00 per horsepower (hp) for each NEMA Standard hp-rated motor
between 15 and 5,000 hp that receives a verified Green Rewind. The GMPG requires all service centers
to sign and adhere to the GMPG Anual Member Commitment Quality Assurance agreement.
The GMPG follows up with quality check and QA.
Also in 2009, Idaho Power contracted with the Integrated Design Lab (IDL) in Boise to accomplish the
following specific tasks. The IDL created an Energy Use Index database from Idaho Power customers.
They analyzed the quality of commissioning services in the Treasure Valley, identified training
opportunities, and reported results to Idaho Power in January 2010. The IDL developed and provided
17 educational sessions for the local design community. Additionally, the IDL organized a building
simulation users group and facilitated nine monthly meetings to help promote and enhance the local
simulation skils. They conducted a post-occupancy evaluation to study customer satisfaction with
technology incentives through the commercial energy effciency programs and reported results to
Idaho Power in January 2010. In addition, the IDL evaluated and reported on the curent market
conditions for system sizing of package rooftop HV AC units, identified energy-savings potential
associated with right-sizing, and developed educational material from the results. The IDL identified and
reported on key energy efficiency resources, events, and technologies through monthly newsletters and
blogs. Lastly, the IDL performed measurement and verification analyses on four measures offered in the
Building Effciency program.
Page 66 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Commercial/Industrial Sector
Other customer satisfaction research-by-sector includes the Idaho Power quarterly customer relationship
surveys that ask questions about customer perceptions related to Idaho Power's energy efficiency
programs. In the 2009 surveys, 54 percent of Idaho Power large commercial and industrial customers
surveyed in 2009 for the Burke Customer Relationship survey indicated Idaho Power was meeting or
exceeding their needs in offering energy effciency programs. Forty-six percent of surey respondents
indicated Idaho Power was meeting or exceeding their needs with information on how to save energy or
reduce their bil. Sixty-two percent of respondents indicated Idaho Power was meeting or exceeding
their needs with encouraging energy efficiency with its customers. The results from surveying
Idaho Power's small business customers indicated that 36 percent ofthese customers said that
Idaho Power was meeting or exceeding their needs in offering energy effciency programs.
Forty- five percent of survey respondents indicated Idaho Power was meeting or exceeding their
needs with inormation on how to save energy or reduce their bil. Forty-nine percent of respondents
indicated Idaho Power was meeting or exceeding their needs with encouraging energy efficiency with
its customers.
Plans are underway in 2010 to review the lighting programs offered to commerciai/industrial sector
customers. The review is intended to analyze program changes that would enhance the current lighting
options available to customers. Potential changes would include a more seamless application process for
customers. Additional program changes would focus on internal process improvements.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 67
Commercial/Industrial Sector-Building Efficiency Idaho Power Company
Building Effciency
Participation and Savings
Participants (projects)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Peak Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
Idaho/Oregon
2004
2008
60
6,598,123
1.0
$1,006,025
$47,550
$1,434
$1,055,009
$0.017
$0.028
2.68
1.76
Description
The Building Efficiency program enables customers in Idaho Power's service area in Idaho and Oregon
to apply energy-efficient design features and technologies that would otherwise be lost opportunities for
savings to their projects. The program offers a menu of measures and incentives for lighting, cooling,
building shell, and control-effciency options. Customers involved in the construction of new buildings
or construction projects with significant additions, remodels, or expansions can receive incentives up to
$100,000. Commercial and industrial customers taking service under, or who wil take service under,
Schedule 7 (Small General Service), Schedule 9 (Large General Service), Schedule 19 (Large Power
Service), or special contract customers are eligible to participate. Program marketing is targeted at
architects, engineers, and other local design professionals.
Through the Building Efficiency program, Idaho Power is a primary sponsor ofthe Boise IDL, which
provides technical assistance and training seminars to local architects and designers. Much of this
activity is coordinated and supported through NEEA's BetterBricksiI program. The Building Effciency
program sponsors the biannual BetterBricks awards held in October in Boise.
2009 Activities
In 2009, Idaho Power eliminated the Premium Performnce Windows incentive due to lack of interest
and participation. In its place, the Exterior Window Shading incentive was implemented, which
Page 68 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Commercial/lndustrial Sector-Building Efficiency
customers had shown interest in previously. Idaho Power also updated the incentive payout for Demand
Controlled Ventilation. It is now paid on the flow rate of outside air controlled by the carbon dioxide
(C02) sensor, resulting in a lesser incentive. Formerly, it was based on the rated cubic feet per minute
(CFM) of the unt. This change was made to ensure the cost-effectiveness of the measure.
Fourteen measures are offered through this program and include reduced power density lighting,
daylight photo controls, occupancy sensors, high efficiency exit signs, premium effciency HV AC units,
additional unit effciency bonus, effcient complex cooling systems, air-side economizers, reflective roof
treatment, high performance windows, window shading, energy management control system,
demand-control ventilation, and variable speed drives.
The Building Efficiency program completed 72 new construction, major renovations, and major
additions projects in 2009, resulting in 6,146,139 kWh in energy savings. Idaho Power paid $1,070,224
in incentives for completed projects in 2009.
To calculate energy savings, the Building Effciency Program measures the incremental efficiency of
each measure over a code or standard practice installation baseline. Savings are calculated through
two main methods. When available, savings are calculated using actual measurement parameters for
both the measure at code and at efficiency.
The other method for calculating savings in the program is based on industry standard assumptions
when precise measurements are not available. Because the measures are being installed in new
buildings, there is no baseline of previous measureable kWh usage in the building. Therefore, industry
standard assumptions from regional and national sources including the RTF, the Database for Energy
Efficiency Resources (DEER), and the Consortium for Energy Effciency, Inc. (CEE), are used to
calculate the savings achieved over how the building would have used energy absent of efficiency
measures.
Building Efficiency incentives are based on a variety of methods depending on the measure type.
Incentives are calculated mainly through a dollar-per-unit equation, using square footage, tonnage,
operating hours or kW reduction as the unit being used.
The basic assumptions for cost-effectiveness of the Building Efficiency program are unchanged from
previous DSM annual reports. In 2010, Idaho Power plans to review energy-savings impacts from recent
evaluation activities to identify if changes to input assumptions are appropriate. Complete measure level
details for cost-effectiveness for the Building Effciency program can be found in Supplement 1:
Cost-Effectiveness.
Customer Satisfaction and Evaluations
In 2009, Idaho Power contracted with the IDL to provide some evaluation research with regard to the
Building Effciency program. Building Effciency underwent an impact evaluation process to provide
measurement and verification of four measures offered in the program. These measures were daylight
photo controls, air-side economizers, energy management control system, and demand-control
ventilation. These measures were selected for evaluation because the calculated energy savings were less
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 69
Commercial/Industrial Sector-Building Efficiency Idaho Power Company
certain than other measures offered in the program. The measurement and verification reports are
attached in Supplement 2: Evaluation.
In their analysis of air-side economizers, the IDL determined that impacts of intalling the measure
results in energy savings of approximately 446 kWh per year per ton. For daylight photo controls,
the IDL's analysis resulted in energy savings of approximately 51 percent durg the study period.
The IDL's study of energy management systems indicates that this measure saves an estimated 1.49 to
2.43 kWh per square-foot annually.
The IDL report on the demand-control ventilation measure identified opportties for Idaho Power to
enhance the energy-savings impact through increased efforts to educate mechanical engineers, building
operators, code officials, and building commissioning.
Idaho Power plans to review the IDL's evaluations and wil make appropriate program changes
as needed. The Building Effciency program is scheduled for a process evaluation in 2010.
The IDL also performed a post-occupancy evaluation ofthe program. The post-occupancy evaluation
was undertaken to gather useful information about occupant satisfaction related to energy effciency
measures. This study utilized an online survey tool where respondents answered questions relating to
environmental satisfaction. Results of the study indicate that some measures offered in the Building
Effciency program significantly increase environmental satisfaction among building users, while other
measures do not result in as high of levels of environmental satisfaction. The fial report of this
evaluation is included in Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Strategies
In 2010, Idaho Power will evaluate program changes or modifications to be implemented beginng
2011. Code changes for 2011 and how they wil impact the measure savings wil be evaluated along
with the current participation levels for each measure. Idaho Power wil incorporate customer and
customer service feedback to simplify incentive payment calculations and potentially add more options.
Page 70 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Commercial/lndustrial Sector-Custom Efficiency
Efficiency
Participation and Savings
Participants (projects)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Peak Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Effciency Rider
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility BenefiUCost Ratio
Total Resource BenefiUCost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
Idaho/Oregon
2003
2008
101
41,058,639
5
$3,948,617
$86,858
$10,196
$4,045,671
$0.011
$0.043
5.37
2.05
Description
The Custom Effciency program targets energy savings through the implementation of customized
energy effciency projects at customers' sites. The program is an opportity for commercial and
industrial customers in Idaho and Oregon to lower their electrical usage and receive a fmancial incentive
by completing energy-effcient projects. Incentives reduce customers' payback periods for projects that
might not be completed otherwise. Program offerings include training and education on energy
efficiency, energy-auditing services for project identification and evaluation, and fmancial incentives for
project implementation.
Interested customers submit applications to Idaho Power for potential projects that have been identified
by a third-pary consultant, Idaho Power, or by the customer as applicable to the facility. Idaho Power
engineers work with customers and vendors to gather suffcient information to support the
energy-savings calculations.
Project implementation begins after Idaho Power reviews and approves an application, followed by the
fmalization ofthe term and conditions ofthe applicant's and Idaho Power's obligations. In some cases,
large, complex projects may take as long as two years to complete.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 71
Commercial/Industrial Sector-Custom Efficiency Idaho Power Company
2009 Activities
The Custom Efficiency Program remains largely unchanged in 2009. Incentive levels for the Custom
Efficiency program remain at 70 percent of the project cost, or 12 cents per kWh first-year savings,
whichever is less.
Key components in facilitating customer implementation of energy effciency projects are facility
energy-auditing, customer technical training, and education services. Because the lin between energy
audits and the completion of projects is historically significant, Idaho Power continued expanding the
number of contractors available for customer-scoping audits to six companies in 2009. Selection of
engineering firms is based on the firm's expertise in all major equipment areas and their ability to
provide resources for customers throughout Idaho Power's service area.
Technical training and education continue to be important in helping Idaho Power industrial customers
identify where they may have energy effciency opportities within their facilities. A total of five
technical training classes were completed in 2009. Topics included compressed air, fan systems, pump
systems, and refrigeration. The level of attendance at these classes remains high with an average of
approximately 24 customers in attendance at each workshop.
The Custom Effciency program has achieved a high service area penetration rate. Through 2009,
approximately 51 percent of the large power service customers had submitted an application for a
project. Idaho Power engineers have met with another 34 percent ofthe customers to discuss energy
efficiency programs as well as opportunities within customer facilities.
A total of 132 projects were completed in 2009 by 87 companies, including 16 Oregon projects from
eight different companies. Program energy savings increased in 2009 by 26 percent over the prior year,
from 41,059 MWh to 51,836 MWh. Completed projects increased by 31 percent in 2009. To ensure
good customer service and facilitate program growth, Idaho Power added a third engineer to the
Custom Effciency program staff in 2009.
The minimum project size requirement increased from an annual 20,000 kWh to 100,000 kWh in 2008.
This change was expected to reduce the number oflighting projects submitted through the Custom
Effciency program in 2009. Ninety-six lighting projects were completed in the Custom Effciency
program during 2009, an increase of38 projects over 2008. Many of these projects were already
submitted in 2008 under the smaller minimum project size requirement and completed in 2009.
As stated in the sector overview, a new energy efficiency measure, Green Rewind, was made available
to Idaho Power's Custom Efficiency customers in 2009. This measure maintains the motor's original
effciency and ensures an effcient use of electricity to ru the motor. There were 13 Green Rewind
motors in the commercial/industrial sector in 2009.
Table 8 shows the Custom Effciency program's annual energy savings by end-use, number of projects,
and kWh saved.
Page 72 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Commercial/Industrial Sector-Custom Efficiency
Table 8. Custom Effciency Annual Energy Savings by Measure
Program Summary By Measure
Lighting.......................................................................................................
Fan.............................................................................................................
Compressed Air ......... .... .................. ......................................... ............... ...
Pump..........................................................................................................
Refrigeration.............................................................................................. .
Other..........................................................................................................
Total..........................................................................................................
Number of projects
88
4
7
8
11
14
132
kWh saved
25,450,177
378,542
6,322,925
2,328,948
8,933,009
8,388,612
51,802,213(8)
(a)Does not include Green Rewinds
The application process requires inputs that include costs of materials and labor to install energy. saving
equipment and energy use before and after measure intallation. Payback is calculated with and without
incentives along with the estimated dollar savings for installing energy effciency measures. As projects
progress, any changes are used to re-calculate energy savings and incentives before the incentives
are paid.
Customer Satisfaction Evaluations
Each project in the Custom Efficiency program is thoroughly reviewed to ensure that energy savings
are achieved. The energy savings are calculated by Idaho Power engineering staff or a thid-party
consultant. The verification process requires that end-use measure information and project costs
are collected.
On many projects, and especially larger and more complex projects, Idaho Power or a third-party
consultant conducts on-site power monitorig and data collection, before and after project
implementation. The measurement and verification process ensures achievement of projected energy
savings. Verifying applicants' information confirms that demand-reduction and energy-savings are
obtained and within program guidelines. If changes in scope take place in a project, a recalculation of
energy savings and incentive amounts occurs, based on the actual installed equipment.
The measurement and verification reports provided to Idaho Power include verification of energy
savings, costs, estimates of measure life, and any final recommendations to ensure the persistence
of savings.
In 2009, NEEA completed a MPER on the Industrial Efficiency Alliance (lEA). This report quantifies
market penetration of Continuous Energy Improvement (CEI), utility support ofCEI, and energy
savings associated with the lEA effort. This report is included in the CD NEEA Market Effects
Evaluations included with Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Idaho Power plans to conduct a process evaluation of the Custom Effciency program in 2010.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 73
Commercialllndustrial Sector-Custom Efficiency Idaho Power Company
Because the customers who participate in the Custom Effciency program are some ofIdaho Power's
largest customers, program managers or major customer representatives (MCR) solicit customer
satisfaction feedback for the Custom Effciency program. This is authenticated in customers' willngness
to participate in the Custom Effciency program posting the customer's Success Stories on the
Idaho Power Web site. At the end of2009, there were six Success Stories posted. An example of an
upcoming posting in 2010 is the success story regarding a Custom Effciency project completed during
2009. Idaho Power provided Boise State University (BSU) with a $47,608 incentive in 2009 for energy
effciency upgrades. The energy-saving upgrades reduces BSU's costs and saves approximately $12,659
in electric bills per year. The estimated total savings of the project was 393,603 kWh per year. BSU's
architectural and engineering services project manager said, "Idaho Power and their energy efficiency
staff are great to work with. The incentive check we received from them gave us the opportunity to do
things we couldn't have done otherwise."
2010 Strategies
In 2010, Idaho Power plans to continue expanding the Custom Effciency program through a number of
activities. These activities wil include direct marketing ofthe Custom Effciency program by
Idaho Power MCRs to inform the customers of the Idaho Power energy effciency programs available
and ways the customer can reduce energy costs. In addition, Idaho Power wil continue to provide site
visits and energy audits for project identification; technical training for customers; funding for detailed
energy audits for larger, complex projects; and delivery ofNEEA sponsored energy improvement
practices to customers.
Page 74 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Commercial/Industrial Sector-Easy Upgrades
Easy Upgrades
Participation and Savings
Participants (projects)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Peak Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
Idaho/Oregon
2006
2008
685
25,925,391
5
$2,922,340
$52,556
$17,364
$2,992,261
$0.013
$0.043
6.16
1.97
The Easy Upgrades program began in 2007 and has continuously increased participation and energy
savings since that time. The objective ofthe program is to encourage commercial and industrial
customers in Idaho and Oregon to implement energy efficiency retrofits by offering incentives up to
$100,000 per site. Eligible measures cover a variety of energy-saving opportunities in lighting, HV AC,
motors, building shell, plug loads, and grocery refrigeration. Although Easy Upgrades is designed to be
"easy" for Idaho Power's customers, it is one ofthe company's largest and most complex programs,
containing 143 separate measures. A complete listing of the measures offered through the Easy
Upgrades program is included in Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness.
Idaho Power commercial or industrial customers taking service under Rate Schedule 7 (Small General
Service), Rate Schedule 9 (Large General Service), Rate Schedule 19 (Large Power Service),
and special contract customers are eligible. Potential participants fist assess their energy-saving
opportunities by talking with their equipment supplier, contractor, or Idaho Power service
representative. For projects with expected incentive payments of more than $1,000, applicants must
submit a preliminary application prior to initiating the project. In that case, the customer or contractor
completes the preliminary application form and submits it with relevant worksheet(s) describing the
location and planned scope oftheir project. Upon Idaho Power's review and acceptance, the preliminary
application allows a customer to collect an incentive if the project is completed within 90 days.
For smaller projects with expected incentive payments ofless than $1,000, customers may elect to skip
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 75
Commercial/lndustrial Sector-Easy Upgrades Idaho Power Company
the preliminary application and just submit their final application for payment. These projects must have
been completed no more than six months prior to submitting their application for payment. Under the
Easy Upgrades program, incentive payments may be made to the customer's contractor, however the
customer must specifically assign the payment to the contractor in the application process.
Since the Easy Upgrades program began, Idaho Power has made a commitment to its trade allies and
contractors to attempt to alter this program only every two years. The company's trade allies or
contractors are significant partners in making this program successfuL. They are the primary marketing
agent, often completing the form necessary for the customers to receive incentives, and encourage
customers to energy-efficient equipment whenever possible. If the contractors can depend on program
stability with consistent timing between progrm changes, they can more effectively promote the
program and maintain high credibility with customer. Since 2009 was Easy Upgrade's third year,
Idaho Power made significant changes in contrast to offerings during 2007 and 2008. The modifications
to the program occurred in four major categories: 1) program rules, 2) lists of eligible measures,
3) incentive levels for some measures, and 4) application form. Program changes took effect in
January 2009.
Regarding changed program rules, only projects completed within the past six months are now eligible
for incentives. The rules for waste disposal companies have changed, resulting in the companies not
being eligible for pass-through payments. The measures in five categories were modified, with several
measures being added based on information from program participants; feedback from customers,
contractors, and trade alles; or due to technical or product changes. These measure changes were in
lighting, HVAC, building shells, plug load, and grocery refrigeration.
Lighting
Lighting projects with high output (HO) and very high output (VHO) lamps are not eligible for the
"delamping" bonus. Low wattage T8 lamps, 30 watts (W) or less, were added to the available measures.
Four- or six-lamp T5 HO fixtures were split into two, distinct measures to allow for different incentive
levels. The metal halide lighting measures were re-categoried, auto-off switch incentives were
combined into one measure, and CFL measures were added for larger wattage lamps and hard-wired
fixtures.
HVAC
The efficient Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner (PTAC), Packaged Terminal Heat Pump (PTHP),
automated control system optimization reprogramming, and lodging room AlC occupancy controls were
added to the list of available measures.
Building Shells
Insulated roll-up doors were added and high-speed automatic doors, restricted to cold storage facility
applications, were added to the program.
Page 76 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Commercial/Industrial Sector-Easy Upgrades
Plug Load
One, two, and three door commercial solid-door refrigerators and commercial solid-door freezers
options were added to the program. High efficiency ice makers were added with two different incentive
levels based on capacity. They were split at greater or less than 200 pounds per day.
Grocery Refrigeration
Grocery refrigerator measures were modified with two changes, incentives for electronic fluorescent
ballast for refrigerated case lighting were discontinued and LED lighting for refrigerated cases was
added to the available measures.
Incentive levels were adjusted for measures in five categories, lighting, HVAC, building shell,
plug load, and grocery refrigeration. The incentives were changed to make them more closely align
to the same measures offered in custom projects where the actual costs and savings are used to
calculate the incentives or to be consistent with the savings calculated using the hours-of-use or
savings-per-square- foot as supplied on customer applications. Specific measure and incentives
are included in Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness.
Based on input from customers, trade allies, and program staff, changes were made to some of the
application forms and procedures. The Idaho Power Web site was modified to make incentive
applications easier and more streamlined for customers and program staff. Additionally, the Lighting
Savings/Incentive Calculator was revised to help customers and potential participants determine the
benefits and payback period of potential lighting projects.
Enhancements were made to the Web site, including the addition of an auto-response e-mail address
function. Through this function, customers and potential customers can obtain basic program
informtion. Program marketing during 2009 continued to consist of distributing program brochures,
flyers, and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), and promoting the program to Idaho Power's
trade alles.
Presentations were made to various business and professional groups. Idaho Power sponsored events,
including the Building Owners and Managers Association International (BOMA). The Easy Upgrades
program was promoted at other events including the Commercial Real Estate Symposium, American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRA) technical conference,
and the Idaho Energy & Green Building Conference.
Two sets of trade ally workshops were offered again in 2009. Each set included one workshop per
Idaho Power region. The five January workshops focused on the program changes from 2008 to 2009.
The fall series of workshops focused on reviewing customer and trade ally feedback.
Cost-Effectiveness
When the program was launched in 2007, Idaho Power offered a menu of incentives for 129 retrofits
measures designed to save energy in lighting, HV AC, motors, building shelL plug loads, and grocery
refrigeration. Idaho Power used two methods to calculate kWh savings impacts for program measures.
When valid data was available and applicable to Idaho Power's service area, Idaho Power used
deemed-saving values on a per-measure leveL. These savings were compiled from a variety of sources
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 77
Commercial/Industrial Sector-Easy Upgrades Idaho Power Company
around the region, including established sources such as RTF and CEE, as well as the Lighting Design
Lab (LDL), PECI, National Grid, United Iluminating, and Entergy Corporation. For measures in which
deemed savings were not available, Idaho Power calculated savings using engineering estimates on a
per-measure level using specific inputs, such as building operating hours, square footage, kW reduction,
tonnage size, or other appropriate unit measure. For the majority oflighting measures, the energy
savings were calculated based on 3,000 operating hours. Cooling measures were calculated using 700
operating hours.
As highlighted in the 2009 Activities section, the program experienced several changes in 2009 with
modifications in each ofthe categories as well as addition and removal of several menu items. To date,
Easy Upgrades offers incentives on 143 measures. For a majority ofthe measures, deemed savings have
been updated with data provided in the Demand-Side Management Potential Study from Nexant.
In anticipation of program changes scheduled to be made in 2011, Idaho Power plans to analyze each
measure for cost-effectiveness and look into ways to simplify the program's processes and reporting in
2010. This wil include updating savings and cost assumptions, and taking into consideration the
upcoming federal changes in lighting standards. For the curent detailed cost-effectiveness assumptions,
metrics, and sources, see Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness.
Satisfaction Evaluations/Results
As part ofthe ongoing evaluation process, surveys were solicited from program participants a few weeks
after sending their incentive payments in order to collect customers' feedback on the program and the
products they installed. Almost 60 percent ofthe 400 paricipants in the Easy Upgrades program in 2009
who responded to a customer surey said they learned about the program "from a contractor, supplier,
or vendor." Another 20 percent of these customers indicated they leared about the program "from an
Idaho Power employee."
When asked a series of questions about their experience with Idaho Power and the Easy Upgrade
program, 73 percent "strongly agreed" that Idaho Power staff provided accurate and helpful information;
79 percent "strongly agreed" that Idaho Power staff treated them in a fair and friendly manner;
53 percent "strongly agreed" that the Easy Upgrade incentive application forms were easy to follow;
76 percent "strongly agreed" that their application was processed in a timely manner; 80 percent
"strongly agreed" that they received excellent service from Idaho Power; and 81 percent "strongly
agreed" that their experience with Idaho Power employees was positive.
Almost 70 percent of customers said that the energy-savings upgrades made to their facility were
performing "very well," and another 29 percent said their equipment was performing "good."
Seventy-nine percent of participants also said they were "very likely" to recommend the Easy Upgrades
program to others, and 76 percent said they "strongly agree" that they received an excellent value from
Idaho Power through the Easy Upgrades program.
In 2009, Idaho Power designed and administered an electronic surey for trade alles. Since contractors
and other trade allies are the catalyst for the Easy Upgrades program, it was important to develop a trade
ally survey to gather various perspectives regarding the program. Mid-year, Idaho Power created a
special, one-time survey for the trade alles, comprised of electrical contractors, equipment suppliers,
mechanical contractors, and energy consultants.
Page 78 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Commercial/Industrial Sector-Easy Upgrades
The Easy Upgrades Trade Ally Survey was sent electronically to 256 different trade allies that have been
involved in the Easy Upgrades program. Eighty-five ofthose contractors responded to the
surey, resulting in a 33 percent response rate. Almost one-third of the respondents said that less than 10
percent of their commercial projects qualified for the Easy Upgrade incentive. Eleven percent said that
over 75 percent of their commercial projects qualified for Easy Upgrades incentives.
When asked how often the Easy Upgrades incentive allows the contractor to influence clients purchasing
decisions, only 24 percent said "always" and 56 percent said "occasionally." When trade allies were
asked what barriers exist that prevents their customers from participating in the Easy Upgrades program,
almost 68 percent said the biggest barrier was that the customer lacked the necessary up- front capital to
invest in the equipment.
Trade allies were asked a series of questions about what they thought the impact to their customers
would be ifIdaho Power did not offer the Easy Upgrades program. Forty-two percent said it was
"very likely" and 37 percent said it was "somewhat likely" that clients would postpone or cancel their
projects. Seventy-six percent said it was "very likely" the clients would keep using less~effcient,
existing equipment. Forty percent said it was "very likely" and 43 percent "somewhat likely" that
customers would purchase less expensive or less energy-effcient equipment. Thiry- five percent said it
was "very likely" and 34 percent said it was "somewhat likely" that customers would not change their
projects at alL.
Overall satisfaction with the Easy Upgrades program among these trade allies was very high, with
73 percent indicating "very satisfied" and 22 percent indicating "somewhat satisfied." Ninety-three
percent of the trade allies said they were "very likely" to recommend the Easy Upgrades program to
future clients, and 7 percent said they were "somewhat likely" to recommend the program.
Copies of these surveys and survey results can be found in Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Another study that was conducted on the Easy Upgrades program was a post-occupancy evaluation
completed by the IDL. The post-occupancy evaluation was undertaken to gather useful information
about occupant satisfaction related to energy effciency measures. This study utilized an online survey
tool where respondents answered questions relating to environmental satisfaction. Results ofthe study
indicate that some measures offered in the Easy Upgrades program significantly increase environmental
satisfaction among building users, while other measures do not result in as high of levels of
environmental satisfaction. The fmal report of this evaluation is included in Supplement 2: Evaluation.
A process evaluation is scheduled for the Easy Upgrades program in 2010.
Strategies
Only minor changes wil be made to the Easy Upgrades program in 2010 in anticipation of the changes
planned for 2011. Based on curent analysis for 2009, there are 10 measures offered under the
Easy Upgrades program that appear to be not cost-effective from the TRC perspective. Four of these
measures were new in 2009 and six were identified in the Potential Study conducted by Nexant, Inc., as
warranting further analysis. These measures are window shading, flat panel LCD displays, occupancy
sensor controls, high-effciency coin-operated washers without electric water, air-cooled multiplex
systems, and evaporative-cooled multiplex systems. Although only eight ofthese measures were used by
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 79
Commercialllndustnal Sector-Easy Upgrades Idaho Power Company
customers in 2009 and comprised less than 1 percent ofthe incented measures, their cost-effectiveness
requires further analysis. Six measures offered in this program appear to have incentive costs greater
than the incremental costs. Actual incremental costs for these measures are diffcult to obtain and the
most recent available incremental costs for these measures are from the Potential Study conducted by
Nexant, Inc. The incremental costs in the Nexant study are based on regional information. Further
research is needed to determine the actual incremental costs applicable to Idaho Power's service area.
As stated earlier, Easy Upgrades program revisions are generally conducted every other year and are
scheduled for 2011. The company plans to complete a program evaluation and assessment in 2010.
Through customer research, Idaho Power has received feedback from customers, contractors,
and company customer representatives. They recommend keeping the program relatively unchanged for
two years to promote participation and provide program consistency.
Page 80 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Commercial/Industrial Sector-FlexPeak Management
lexPeak Management
Participation and Savings
Participants (sites)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Peak Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Leveli~ed Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
Idaho
2009
2008
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.11
1.11
FlexPeak Management is a voluntary demand response program targeting Idaho Power's industrial and
large-commercial customers that are capable of reducing their electrical energy loads for short periods
during summer peak days. The program became available to the company's Idaho customers in
May 2009. The program objective is to reduce the demand on Idaho Power's system during peak times
through customers' voluntary electrical-use reduction. The program is active June 1 to August 31,
between the hours of2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on non-holiday weekdays. Customers receive notification of
a demand-reduction event two hours prior to the start of the event, and events wil last between two to
four hours.
In November 2008, EnerNOC, Inc., was selected through a competitive RFP process to implement the
program. Idaho Power entered into a five-year contract with EnerNOC in February 2009. In May 2009,
the IPUC approved the contract in Order No. 30805.
EnerNOC is responsible for developing and implementing all marketing plans, securing all participants,
installing and maintaining all equipment behind Idaho Power's meter used to reduce demand, tracking
participation, and reporting results to Idaho Power. Idaho Power initiates demand response events by
notifying EnerNOC, who then supplies the requested load reduction to the Idaho Power system.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 81
Commercial/Industrial Sector-FlexPeak Management Idaho Power Company
EnerNOC meets with prospective customers to identify their potential to reduce electrical energy load
during active program hours without negative impact to their business operations. Customers enroll in
the program by entering into a contract with EnerNOC. EnerNOC then installs energy-monitoring
equipment at the customer site, simulates a demand response event to ensure customer satisfaction and
performance, and officially enrolls the facility in the program.
Each week, EnerNOC commits a demand-reduction level in MW to Idaho Power that EnerNOC is
obligated to meet in a demand-reduction event. EnerNOC is subject to penalties for failing to reach the
committed MW reduction.
When Idaho Power anticipates the need for capacity, it notifies EnerNOC ofthe date and time ofthe
event. Idaho Power has access to near real-time energy-usage data and can continually monitor the
success of the demand-reduction event in aggregate. Customers can also continuously monitor their
demand-reduction performance using their individual, near real-time energy-usage data.
2009 Activities
The first customers enrolled in the program and EnerNOC committed their first reduction amount of
0.30 MW by the second week on June 2009. By the end ofthe season, EnerNOC had enrolled
22 customers across 33 facility sites and had committed to a maximum weekly reduction of 15.2 MW.
Idaho Power called eight demand response events. In each case, EnerNOC successfully exceeded the
committed MW reduction. All events occurred in July, and the highest hourly reduction achieved was
17.1 MW, which exceeded the target reduction for the summer of 2009 of 2 MW.
Cost~Effectiveness
In the intial cost-effectiveness analysis, Idaho Power estimated that the commercial demand response
program would be cost-effective, both from the UC and TRC perspectives, begining in year two
(2010). Year one ofthe program was viewed as a ramp up year. It was projected that the TRC B/C ratio
in year one would fall below 1.0, but that building the program foundation would contribute to a
cost-effective program in ensuing years.
EnerNOC's initial goal was to achieve 2 MW of demand reduction, and the cost-effectiveness analysis
indicated that, under normal circumstances, the program must reach 15 MW for the value in demand
savings to be greater than program costs and for the program to be cost-effective.
Lower expenses and higher demand reduction contributed to the program's cost-effectiveness.in year
one. Program administration costs were one-third of what was originally projected. Despite the late start,
EnerNOC experienced a higher paricipation rate than what was originally expected. This resulted in
higher demand reductions than were assumed in the original cost-effectiveness analysis. Most notably,
the assumption in the cost-effectiveness analysis was that EnerNOC would achieve the exact MW
demand reduction they committed to provide to Idaho Power. In actuality, EnerNOC achieved a much
greater reduction than the committed MW reduction.
The actual cost of the program in 2009 was $528,681. In the remaining years of the contract,
the program is expected to be cost-effective with a projected contract life B/C ratio of 1.11 from the
TRC perspective.
Page 82 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Commerciallindustnal Sector-FlexPeak Management
Customer Satisfaction and Evaluations
EnerNOC conducted a customer satisfaction survey after the test event in July, and while only a few
customers were enrolled by then, the results were positive. On a scale of one to ten, ten being the
highest, all four ofthe four customers responded with a ten when asked how likely they would be to
recommend the program to others. All 22 customers who enrolled and participated in the 2009 season
continued to be enrolled to participate in 2010.
2010 Strategies
EnerNOC plans to conduct a post-season customer satisfaction survey for the 2009 season in the fist
quarter of201O. The results of which will be made available to Idaho Power. Idaho Power filed with the
OPUC in March 2010 to make the program available to its Oregon customers. Idaho Power wil
continue to evaluate the best use of the program in order to meet the program objectives, maximize the
benefit to Idaho Power's system, and refine internal criteria to call demand-reduction events.
In 2009, Idaho Power completed a preliminary report on the FlexPeak Management program.
This report provides initial results of the program durig the first year of operation. A copy of this report
is included in Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 83
Commercialllndustrial Sector-Holiday Lighting Program Idaho Power Company
Holiday hting Program
Participation and Savings
Participants (projects)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Peak Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider
Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Cost&-AII Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
3.18
1.37
Idaho/Oregon
2008
2008
14
259,092
n/a
$28,782
$0
$0
$28,782
$0.014
$0.035
Description
The overall goal of the Holiday Lighting Program is to encourage customers to purchase more effcient
LED holiday lights. Although the incentive is available only to commercial customers, the program is
useful as a means of introducing all Idaho Power customers to the advantages of LED lighting. In doing
this, Idaho Power is rapidly helping mae LED lighting the preferred choice when it comes to replacing
existing holiday lights. LED lighting has now become readily available at most stores supplying holiday
lighting to both commercial and residential markets. Along with spreading the message of LED
lighting's energy effciency, Idaho Power also inform customers about the safety benefits and longer
product life that lead to a reduction in waste through LED usage.
2009 Activities
For the third year, Idaho Power offered an incentive for commercial customers to replace holiday
lighting with higher~effciency LED lighting. The incentives were 10 cents for each mini-incandescent
bulb and 30 cents for each C7 or C9 bulb. Customers tued in their old bulbs to the recycling partner
and received a receipt for the number of bulbs turned in. In 2009, there were four recycling partner sites
located across southern Idaho and one site in eastern Oregon. After the customers purchased new bulbs,
they submitted their receipt for their new purchase and the receipt from the recycling partner to
Idaho Power for their incentive to be processed.
Page 84 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Commercial/Industrial Sector-Holiday Lighting Program
Two trends influenced the program participation growth in 2009. One trend was participants turned in
old lighting for recycling early in the holiday season, then purchased replacement lights at a discounted
price after the holiday season for use in future years, thus getting more bulbs for a lower price in
calendar year 2010. Another trend was participants spending only the amount equaling the incentive
payment for replacement bulbs. It is speculated that the participants' holiday displays are getting
smaller. Energy savings decreased in 2009. The decrease may be explained with the curent economy.
Possibly, the Holiday Lighting Program participants were not going to spend more out-of-pocket money
than they were going to receive incentives for and took actions to decrease their expenses.
The largest 2009 program participant was the City of Cascade, which is estimated to save nearly
70,000 kWh per year. In Boise, the Idaho Botanical Garden enlarged their Winter Garden Aglow
holiday display, retiring over 60,000 incandescent lights and replacing them with nearly 32,000 LED
lights. Signage at the Botanical Garden again promoted the energy and safety benefits of LED lights.
It is estimated that over 35,000 visitors attended the event.
Cost-Effectiveness
Savings estimates were computed for both commercial-grade LED C7/C9 and mini bulbs, based on the
review of manufacturing specifications of the LED C7/C9 bulbs that indicated that they use 5 watts less
per bulb over a comparable incandescent C7/C9 bulb. LED mini-bulbs were calculated to have .41 watts
of reduction per bulb. With an assumed 12 hours of use daily, seasonal savings per bulb were estimated
to be 2.9 kWh for C7/C9 bulbs and .24 kWh for mini-LEDs. In early 2008, incremental customer costs
were calculated by averaging per bulb differences between commercial grade LED and incandescent
equivalents across nine on-line retailers and averaged 72 cents for C7/C9 and 30 cents for mini-bulbs.
The market analysis and savings calculations supported incentive levels of 10 cents for each
mini-incandescent bulb, and 30 cents for each C7 or C9 bulb. In 2010, Idaho Power plans to continue
research into the costs and savings associated with this program. Being a relatively new technology,
the costs of LED's may be decreasing. Current economic conditions have likely change the way in
which participants invest in holiday lighting. Many ofthe participants now only spend the amount of the
incentive on new lights resulting in no incremental costs. With no incremental costs, the measure is
cost-effective. Idaho Power also believes this program has many additional benefits beyond avoided
electricity costs that are diffcult to calculate. This program facilitates spilover benefits because ofthe
educational opportnities available for all customers. This program is only available to commercial
customers yet it may influence the residential market resulting in greater savings with no UCs. Complete
cost-effective model assumptions and analysis are included in Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness.
Customer Satisfaction and Evaluations
Customer satisfaction indications come from a number of sources, including anecdotal comments from
customers. The head of horticulture at the Idaho Botanical Garden in Boise described the impact of
Idaho Power's Holiday Lighting program on his organization during the Idaho Botanical Garden's
annual Winter Garden Aglow, which is held each year during the winter holiday season. In an e-mail
correspondence dated January 28,2010, he wrote:
Winter Garden Aglow plays a critical role in our revenue stream, making up 20 percent of earned
revenue for 2009. Our lights would go out without it. As you know, LED lights cost up to three
times more than incandescent with a far greater life expectancy. I have estimated over the years
we had to replace 25 percent or more of our incandescent lights every year; not very sustainble
as the garden grows and the need to increase the number oflights in our display. Not only does
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 65
Commercial/Industrial Sector-Holiday Lighting Program Idaho Power Company
Idaho Power's rebate program support us in our efforts to convert our light display to a longer
lasting product, we save dollars on our energy bil and are more sustainable as an organization,
which fits into our mission of education and sustainability in the landscape. We hope
Idaho Power continues to offer this program. We really consider Idaho Power a part of Winter
Garden Aglow; you have been there since we plugged in the first 15,000 lights and attracted
1,500 visitors to the present 300,000 lights and 35,000 visitors and growing. Our 'Thanks to
Everyone at Idaho Power,' we couldn't do it as well as we do without your support.
2010 Strategies
Many ofthe same marketing approaches wil be used in 2010 to increase customer participation.
These promotional methods include providing materials in advance to chambers of commerce, business
and professional organizations, and participating trde allies. Idaho Power plans to continue to
coordinate with municipalities and the Idaho Botanical Garden to support their LED-display efforts.
A Holiday Lighting Program bil stuffer wil be sent in the fall of2010 to promote the program. As the
market acceptance of LED holiday lighting increases and if the economy improves, Idaho Power
anticipates increased participation in the program.
Page 86 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Commercial/Industrial Sector-Oregon Commercial Audits
Oregon Commercial Audits
Participation and Savings
Participants (audits)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Peak Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resouræ Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
Oregon
1983
2008
o
n/a
n/a
$0
$0
$58
$58
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Description
The Oregon Commercial Audits program identifies opportities for commercial building owners to
achieve energy savings. This is a statutory program offered under Oregon Rate Schedule No. 82.
Through this program, free energy audits provide evaluations and educational services to customers.
Anual mailings to each customer in the commercial sector communicate program benefits
and offerings.
2009 Activities
Idaho Power sent out its annual mailing to approximately 3,300 Oregon commercial customers in
August 2009. Customers were notified ofthe availability of no-cost energy audits and the Idaho Power
publication Saving Energy Dollars. Forty-one customers requested an audit, with 21 audits completed
by Idaho Power and 20 audits completed by a third-party contractor. Requested and completed audits
included ten customers requesting only conservation materials and not a physical audit. Six of the
customers having physical audits requested publications.
EnerTech Services, the third-party energy-auditing contractor, delivered Idaho Power effciency
program information to customers having audits conducted. During the delivery of information,
EnerTech Services discussed maintenance and effciency opportnities that may be available to meet
customer needs. For example, a Jordan Valley school furnace could not adequately heat the downstairs
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 87
Commercial/Industrial Sector-Oregon Commercial Audits Idaho Power Company
portion of the elementary schooL. Simultaneously, the same furnace was overheating the upstairs portion
ofthe elementary schooL. EnerTech Services identified this as an effciency problem and a
money-saving opportunity. The customer's primary concern was a comfort problem caused by improper
air delivery. EnerTech Services suggested an effciency measure that solved the problem and that the
customer quickly adopted.
Cost-Effectiveness
As stated above, the Oregon Commercial Audits program is a statutory program offered under Oregon
Rate Schedule No. 82. Since the required parameters of the Commercial Energy Audit Program are
specified in Schedule No. 82, and the company abides by these specifications, this program is deemed to
be cost-effective. Idaho Power claims no energy savings from this program.
Customer Satisfaction and Evaluations
Anecdotal comments from customers are indicators of customers' satisfaction with Idaho Power energy
effciency programs. The business manager with the Jordan Valley School District 3 summarized the
school district's experience with the Oregon Energy Audits program. In an e-mail correspondence dated
February 16, 2010, she wrote:
Jordan Valley School District had a very short time line to apply for a lighting retrofit and
window replacement grant through the Oregon Deparment of Energy. We contacted
Idaho Power and a team was on site the next day completing the energy audit. A consultant was
also brought in by Idaho Power to complete the energy savings worksheet to complete the
application. In addition, Idaho Power employees recommended that a contractor be brought in to
study air flows and balancing at the elementary schooL. Idaho Power's commitment to the Oregon
Energy Audits Program has greatly aided our school district in cutting energy costs in the future.
This wil free up more dollars for educating our children.
Strategies
In 2010, Idaho Power's audit contractor wil continue to introduce participants to energy effciency
through lighting and HV AC system maintenance by suggesting customers seek alternatives that are
more effcient as they support and replace their existing equipment. EnerTech Services wil continue to
help customers identify projects that save energy and help meet the customers' other needs, such as
improving space comfort. The audit process wil continue to be used as a way to introduce customers to
Idaho Power incentive programs available.
Page 88 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Irrigation Sector
IRRIGATION SECTOR OVERVIEW
The irigation sector is comprised of agricultural customers operating water-pumping or water-delivery
systems to irigate agricultural crops or pasturage. The end-use equipment primarily includes
agricultural irigation pumps and center pivots. This customer group does not include water pumping
for non-agricultural puroses, such as irigation oflawns, parks, cemeteries, golf courses, or domestic
water supply.
In 2009, the maximum number of active customers was 18,818 system-wide. Irrgation customers
accounted for 1,649,758 MWh's of energy usage and approximately 750 MW of peak demand in 2009.
This sector represented about 12 percent ofIdaho Power's total electricity usage and about 23 percent of
peak demand.
Prog
Table 9. 2009 Irrigation Program Summary
Program Participants
Total Costs Savings
Peak
Annual Deand
Utilty Resource Energy (kWh)(MW)
$9,655,283 $9,655,283 nfa 160
$9,655,283 $9,655,283 nfa 160
$2,293,896 $6,732,268 13,157,619(a)3.4
$2,293,896 $6,732,268 13,157,619 3.4
Demand Response
Irrigation Peak Rewards .................... 1,512 service points
Total.............................................................................................
Energy Effciency
Irrigation Effciency Rewards ............. 887 projecs
Total.............................................................................................
(a) See Appendix 3 for notes on methodology and colum definitions.
Idaho Power curently offers two programs to the irrgation sector: 1) Irrgation Peak Rewards, a
demand response program designed to decrease peak demand, which included the new dispatchable
demand response option added in 2009; and 2) Irrgation Effciency Rewards, an energy efficiency
program designed to encourage replacement or improvement of ineffcient systems and components.
Added this year was a new energy effciency measure, Green Rewind, which is a measure that ensures
the motor's original effciency is maintained if it is rewound at an approved service center.
Energy usage for this sector has not grown significantly in many years; however, there is substantial
yearly variation in demand due primarily to the impact of weather on irigation needs. There are about
200 to 300 new service locations added each year. The new locations are typically smaller systems that
are only pressurizing water.
Each year, the company conducts a customer relationship survey. Overall, 49 percent ofIdaho Power
irigation customer sureyed in 2009 for the Burke Customer Relationship survey indicated Idaho Power
was meeting or exceeding their needs in offering energy effciency programs. Fifty-six percent of surey
respondents indicated Idaho Power is meeting or exceeding their needs with inormation on how to save
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 89
Irrigation Sector Idaho Power Company
energy or reduce their bilL. Sixty-two percent of respondents indicated Idaho Power is meeting or
exceeding their needs with encouraging energy effciency with its customers.
Page 90 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Irrigation Sector-Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
Irrigation Effi Rewards
Participation and Savings
Participants (projects)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Peak Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
Idaho/Oregon
2003
2008
961
11,746,395
3
$1,878,960
$193,276
$31,466
$2,103,702
$0.026
$0.073
3.78
1.16
The Irrigation Effciency Rewards program encourages energy-efficient equipment use and design in
irrigation systems. Qualified irigators in Idaho Power's Idaho and Oregon service area can receive
fmancial incentives and reduce their electricity usage. Incentives for the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
program help the customer recover a portion ofthe costs of intallation ofa new, more effcient
irigation system and energy-effcient improvements to an existing irigation system.
Two separate options help meet the needs for major or minor changes on new or existing systems.
The Custom Incentive Option addresses extensive retrofits of existing systems or new irigation systems,
providing component upgrades and large-scale improvements. For new systems, the incentive is
25 cents per first-year kWh saved above standard installation methods, not to exceed 10 percent oftotal
project cost. For existing system upgrades, the incentive is 25cents per first-year kWh saved or $450 per
kW demand reduction, whichever is greater, but not to exceed 75 percent ofthe total project cost.
The qualifying energy efficiency measures include any hardware changes that result in a reduction of the
pumping hp requirement or hours of operation.
Idaho Power reviews, analyzes, and makes recommendations on each application. On each completed
project, before final payment, all project information is re-evaluated. Prior usage history, actul invoices,
and, in most situtions, post-usage demand data, is available to verify savings and incentives.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 91
Irrigation Sector-Irrgation Efficiency Rewards Idaho Power Company
The Menu Incentive Option covers a significant portion of the costs of repairing and replacing specific
components that help the irigation system use less energy. This option is designed for systems in which
small maintenance upgrades provide energy savings from eleven separate measures. These measures
include 1) new flow control nozzles; 2) replacement of worn brass or plastic nozzles; 3) rebuilt or new
impact sprinklers, 4) rebuilt or new wheel-line levelers; 5) new low pressure or rotating-type sprinlers;
6) new low pressure regulators; 7) new drain, riser caps, and gaskets; 8) new wheel- line hubs; 9) new
pivot gooseneck and drop tube; 10) leaky pipe repair; and 11) new center pivot base boot gasket.
Incentives vary based on specific component replacement.
Payments are calculated on predetermined average kWh savings per component. Idaho Power reviews
and analyzes each proposal for a system or component modification, determining and verifying the
energy savings.
The Green Rewind program enables customers to maintain the motor's original effciency and ensures
an efficient use of electricity to ru the motor. Motor service centers are paid $2.00 per hp for each
National Electrical Manufacturers (NEMA) Standard hp-rated motor between 15 and 5,000 hp that
receives a verified Green Rewind. In July 2007, the RTF approved the Green Motors Practices
rewinding as an energy effciency measure and approved a table of deemed savings.
In addition to incentives, the program offers customer education, training, and irigation-system
assessments. Idaho Power agricultural representatives sponsor, coordinate, conduct, and present
educational workshops for irigation customers, providing expert informtion and training across
Idaho Power's service area. Energy audits, conducted by Idaho Power agrcultual representatives,
evaluate prospective customers' potential savings. Agricultural representatives from Idaho Power also
engage agricultural irigation equipment dealers in training sessions, increasing awareness of the
program and promoting it through the irigation equipment distribution channels. Marketing efforts
include direct mailings, advertisements in agricultural publications, and agricultual trade show
participation. Idaho Power's agrcultural representatives are funded approximately 30 percent by the
Riders and 70 percent from base rates.
2009 Activities
No changes were made to the basic structure of the program during 2009. The incentives and program
rules stayed the same as they were in 2008. However, Idaho Power continued to market the program by
varying the location of workshops and offered new presentations to irigation customers.
A contract was established in March 2009 with the GMPG, a non-profit organization that pioneered
Green Rewinds, via a process that ensures that industry best practices are used when motors are
rewound. In Idaho Power's service area, there are curently five motor rewind shops that are signed up
with GMPG to provide Green Rewinds. Durig the October 2009 EEAG meeting, Idaho Power briefly
described the NEEA Green Rewind program. With support from EEAG, the company added Green
Rewind as a measure for the Irrigation Effciency Rewards program.
In 2009, Idaho Power provided ten workshops promoting the Irrigation Effciency Reward program
throughout the service area. Approximately 250 customers attended workshops in Blackfoot, Aberdeen,
Burley, Gooding, Twin Falls (3), Glenns Ferry, Nampa, and Payette. Idaho Power also had an exhibitor
Page 92 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Irrigation Sector-Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
booth at regional agricultural trade shows, including the Eastern and Western Idaho Agriculture Expos,
the Agri Action Ag show, and the Idaho Irrigation Equipment Association show and conference.
Ofthe 887 irigation effciency projects completed in 2009, 744 were associated with the Menu Option
and provided 8,580 MWh of energy savings and 1.7 MW of demand reduction. The Custom Option
provided 143 projects, of which 81 were new irigation systems and 63 were on existing systems and
provided 4,382 MWh of energy savings and 1.7 MW of demand reduction for the year. Also during
2009, irigation customers contributed 195,886 kWh of energy savings from 27 motors participating in
the Green Rewind Measure.
At the end of each year, Idaho Power reviews all program payments, summarizes data, and calculates
the cost-effectiveness of the program. Each application under the Custom Incentive Option received by
Idaho Power undergoes an evaluation process to ensure energy savings wil be achieved through a
customers' participation in the program. In order to estimate the effectiveness of a project, Idaho Power
uses a service points previous five years of electricity usage history and, based on the specific equipment
to be installed, calculates the estimated post-installation energy consumption ofthe system.
The company also verifies the system design through aerial photographs, maps, and field visits by
Idaho Power agrcultural representatives to ensure the system is used in the manner the application
described. Each application under the Menu Incentive Option received by Idaho Power also undergoes
an evaluation process to ensure savings are achieved. Payments are calculated on predetermined average
kWh savings per measure. In some cases, the energy savings estimated in the Menu Incentive Option are
adjusted to reflect how the components are actually being used.
and Evaluations
As part ofa survey sent at the end of the 2009 irigation season to all customers participating in the
Irrigation Peak Rewards program, two questions were aimed at the Irrgation Efficiency Rewards
participants. Fifty-six percent of respondents indicated that they were participants in the Irrgation
Efficiency Rewards program. Forty-two percent also indicated that they had attended one ofthe
company's ten irigation workshops that were conducted across Idaho Power's service area during
winter 2009.
In 2009, Idaho Power joined with representatives from BPA, the Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO),
the RTF, and Rocky Mountain Power to form an RTF subcommittee to review deemed measures for
irrigation hardware applications. One ofIdaho Power's puroses of working with the subcommittee was
to explore different ideas for energy savings validation, measurement and verification studies, and/or
evaluation efforts. Idaho Power participated in four meetings and conference calls with the RTF
subcommittee during 2009. At the January 5,2010, meeting, the subcommittee presented its findings,
and the RTF agreed upon the methodology for calculating the deemed irigation hardware measures.
The RTF included that utilities should make appropriate adjustments to the inputs for calculating energy
savings for unique service area characteristics. The RTF's decision stated that the deemed irigation
measures should be reviewed in 13 months.
In 2010, Idaho Power plans to perform a process evaluation of the program. The company also plans to
conduct a billing analysis of participants in the Irrgation Efficiency Rewards program to fuher verify
the impacts of the program. Consistent with the RTF's decision previously described, Idaho Power wil
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 93
Irrigation Sector-Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Idaho Power Company
review the energy savings ofthe program once it has been process-evaluated and other regional studies
are made available.
2010
A modification regarding the time frame in which irigation components are eligible for an incentive
wil be made for all menu payments staring in 2010. Previously, the company provided incentives on
eligible energy effciency measures in the Menu Incentive Option as long as the customer provided
purchase invoices to the company showing that the measures were intalled after the program's
inception in November 2006. Going forward, the new eligibility states that customer invoices must be
provided to the company no later than one year after the purchase date of the equipment. During the
October EEAG meeting, members expressed their support regarding these changes and advised the
company to move forward with the proposed modification.
Marketing plans for 2010 include conducting five-seven irigation, customer-based workshops and
three-five training sessions for irigation dealers and manufactuers. These workshops and training
sessions enable discussions between Idaho Power representatives, the company's customers,
and irigation dealers, while continually educating them about the program and ways to participate.
Each year, workshops are conducted in different local areas. Subjects and presentations are updated to
offer new ideas.
Page 94 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Irrigation Sector-Irrigation Peak Rewards
Irrigation
Participation and Savings
Participants (service points)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Peak Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
Idaho/Oregon
2004
2008
897
n/a
35
$1,373,855
$17,570
$40,415
$1,431,840
n/a
n/a
1.50
1.50
Idaho Power's Irrigation Peak Rewards program is a voluntary program available to all Idaho and
Oregon agricultural irigation customers. In exchange for a financial incentive, irigation customers
allow switches to tun off pumps at participating locations during peak electrical load on hot, sumer,
weekday afternoons. The greatest demand for electricity occurs at the time when farmers are pumping
water to their fields and customers are using AlC to cool their homes and businesses. Through this
program, Idaho Power has been successful in reducing peak electrical load, which is driving
Idaho Power's need for new resources.
In 2009, the program was active from June 15 to July 31. All Idaho Power irigation customers taking
service under Schedule 24 in both Idaho and Oregon chose between three options: 1) the Electric Timer
Option, 2) an Automatic Dispatch Option that allows Idaho Power to remotely turn participants' pumps
off or 3) a Manual Dispatch Option designed for large service locations with 1,000 hp or greater that
allows participating customers, after being notified by Idaho Power, to choose which pumps to manually
tum off during summer peak hours.
Participants in the Electronic Timer Option can choose to have all irigation pumps on a single, metered
service point turned off one, two, or three times per week. Interrptions occur from 4:00 p.m. to
8:00 p.m., and Idaho Power determes the specific weekday or weekdays to schedule the interrption of
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 95
Irrigation Sector-Irrigation Peak Rewards Idaho Power Company
all pumps at each service point. Installation fees between $250 and $500 are applied to participating
service locations less than 75 hp.
For customers participating in the Automatic and Manual Dispatch Options (on-demand load control
events), dispatchable load control events could occur up to four hours per day, up to 15 hours per week,
but no more than 60 hours per season. For 2009, dispatchable load control events could happen between
2:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays only. A control device attached to the customer's individual pump
electrical panels allows Idaho Power to remotely control the pumps. Installation fees between $500 and
$1,000 were applied to paricipating service points with less than 30 hp.
A customer's incentive appeared as a bil credit that summed the demand credit and energy credit
applied to a customer's monthly bils for the calendar months of June and July in 2009. All customer
incentives participating in the Electric Timer, Automatic Dispatch, or Manual Dispatch Options are
calculated using Idaho Power meter biling data. The demand credit is calculated by multiplying the
monthly biling kW by the demand-related incentive amount for the interrption option selected by the
customer. The eiiergy credit is calculated by multiplying the monthly biling kWh usage by the
energy-related incentive amount for the interrption option selected by the customer. Installation fees
and incentives determined from interval meter data for service points classified as large service locations
are completed through manual adjustments. Incentives offered are listed in Table 10.
Table 10. Option Incentives
Option Demand Credit
($ per biling kW)
Energy Credit
($ per biling kWh)
Timer Option Incentives
One Weekday ..............................................................................
Two Weekdays.............................................................................
Three Weekdays ..........................................................................
Automatic & Manual Dispatch Options Incentives .................................
$3.15
$4.65
$4.65
$4.65
plus
plus
plus
$0.002
$0.007
$0.031
Under the rules of the Automatic and Manual Dispatch Options, participants have the ability to opt out
of dispatch events five times per service point. Each opt-out incurs a fee of$0.005 per kWh based in the
current month's biling kWh, which may be pro-rated to correspond with the dates of program operation
and are completed through manual bil adjustments.
2009 Activities
A major change in the demand response program occuredin 2009. This change expanded the dispatch
capability ofIdaho Power to reduce system demand durig critical summer peak load events.
The Irrgation Peak Rewards program, originally identified as a resource in 2004, was transitioned to act
primarily as a direct load control or dispatch progrm. In prior years, demand reduction through the
program was controlled with only programmed timers that provided demand reduction from irigation
pumping systems from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays in June, July, and August. Options added to
the program in 2009 allowed direct load control or dispatch capabilities to match demand response
resources with actual system peaks. The change in the program has increased the program's peaking
resource capacity from its previous range of34 to 37 MW to a forecasted impact of260 MW at program
Page 96 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Irrigation Sector-Irrgation Peak Rewards
maturity in 2012. Actual demand reductions from the revised program wil depend on the level of
irigation customer participation.
The Irrigation Peak Rewards program, which included the Automatic and Manual Dispatch Options,
was filed with the IPUC on November 10,2008, and approved by the IPUC on January 14, 2009.
The program was approved in Oregon by the OPUC on February 25,2009. Idaho Power offered the
program to all agricultural customers receiving service under Irrigation Rate Schedule 24 in 2009.
During winter 2009, Idaho Power began program marketing strategies. Ten progrm workshops were
sponsored across Idaho Power's service area, and Idaho Power staff participated in five agriculture
shows. New program offerings were presented, and demonstrations ofthe new dispatch demand
response option were provided.
In February 2009, over 6,000 customer mailings were sent to all eligible Idaho Power irigation
customers. The mailing included a program explanation, a program application, the program's incentive
structure, a listing ofthe customer's eligible service points, and a potential incentive estimate for each
program option, based on the customer's 2008 usage. Additionally, one-on-one training with
Idaho Power agrculture representatives familiarized customers with the new technology and
program details.
Idaho Power experienced great interest in the program and installed all ofthe available control devices,
which totaled 1,274 by the end of the season. Program participation exceeded the number of available
devices. After July 31, 2009, when more devices became available, 51 additional devices were installed.
The Irrgation Peak Rewards dispatch load control system experienced a number of different issues that
affected Idaho Power's ability to fully realize its load-shedding potentiaL. These problems included cell
phone signal strength issues, satellite network problems, device programming issues, and control circuit
wiring problems. While not all these problems were avoidable, lessons were learned as the problems
were analyzed and solutions determined. For more details, refer to the December 2009 Irigation Peak
Rewards Program Report located in Supplement 2: Evaluation.
In 2009, the program achieved a maximum peak load reduction of approximately 160 MW. Six percent,
or 374 ofthe eligible customers, chose to participate in the program. Almost 9 percent, or 1,512 of the
eligible metered service points, were enrolled in the program. Ofthe 1,512 enrolled service points,
382 were enrolled in the Electric Timer Option and 1,130 were enrolled in the Automatic and Manual
Dispatch Options.
Idaho Power attempted to distribute the Electric Timer Option paricipating service points evenly
throughout each weekday, based on cumulative demand-reduction potentiaL. However, due to
service-point size variability, enrollment requests by customers, enrollment opt-outs, and other
variables, the load reduction cannot be exactly balanced. All participants in the Automatic and Manual
Dispatch Options were grouped into five regional areas to be dispatched on each scheduled event day.
Table 11 shows the MW reduction achieved daily on a week-by-week basis.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 97
Irrgation Sector-Irrigation Peak Rewards Idaho Power Company
Table 11. Total Program Daily MW Reduction Using Realization Rates
Monday
1.3
1.3
12.6
12.6
12.6
.11.2
Tuesday
1.2
1.2
12.1
12.1
12.1
Wednesday
1.3
1.3
12.6
12.6
12.6
Thursday
1.3
1.3
Friday
1.2
1.2
11.6
11.6
June 15-19 ........................................................................
June 22~26........................................................................
June 29-July3 .................. ................... ......... ............... .......
July 6-10 ...........................................................................
July 13~17..........................................................................
July 20-24..........................................................................
July 27-31
(')Shaded cells are days when dispatch events occurred
13.2
Cost-Effectiveness
The benefit/cost (B/C) analysis for the Irrigation Peak Rewards program is based on a 20-year model
that uses fiancial and DSM alternative costs assumptions from the IRP. As published in the 2006 IRP,
for peaking alternatives, such as demand response programs, a 162 MW simple-cycle combustion
turbine is used as a cost basis. Idaho Power's cost-effectiveness model representing the program over a
20- year period is updated anually with actual benefits and costs. The benefits are based on peak
reduction and shifted energy use. In 2009, the updting ofthe cost-effectiveness model resulted in a
utility B/C ratio of 1.50. Begining in 2010, fiancial inputs and alternative costs will be based on the
2009 IRP as filed with the IPUC and OPUC on December 30,2009.
Customer Satisfaction Evaluations
In 2009, Idaho Power completed a review of the program and included the results ofthis analysis in the
2009 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report, dated December 1,2009. This report provides details of
program implementation, process changes, participation, and the demand-reduction impacts of the
program. The program report is located in Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Idaho Power conducted a customer satisfaction surey, Idaho Power Peak Rewards Program Follow-Up
Surey, from November 4 to November 19,2009. The purpose of the survey was to solicit feedback
regarding the program. The 10-question survey was mailed to all 374 customers enrolled in the
Irrigation Peak Rewards program during summer 2009. During the two week period, 129 participants
responded, yielding a 34 percent response rate. Almost 90 percent of the responding participants were
either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the program. Nearly 5 percent ofthe respondents
indicated dissatisfaction with the program, for a variety of reasons related to details of program
operation and other considerations.
The survey provided informtion regarding the acreage and crops irigated by the pumps participating in
the program, how well electricians provided information about the functionality ofthe control devices,
and what would prevent a customer from participating in the program in the future. It also provided an
opportity for the participants to make suggestions on how Idaho Power could improve the program
and provide better information. Approximately 94 percent ofthe respondents indicated they were either
very likely or somewhat likely to participate in the Irrgation Peak Rewards program in the futue.
Page 98 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Irrigation Sector-Irrigation Peak Rewards
This survey wil allow Idaho Power to modifY its marketing strategies, educational opportunities, and
program offerings to better suit customers' needs. Complete survey results are in the 2009 Irrigation
Peak Rewards Program Report found in Supplement 2: Evaluation.
A few modifications will be made in the program for the 2010 irigation season. The program was
reviewed by Idaho Power to determine if changes were needed to ensure beneficial use ofthe load
reduction. In addition, Idaho Power reviewed a number of potential change ideas with the Irrigation
Pumpers Association to see what changes would maintain the positive customer satisfaction. As result of
Idaho Power's internal review and input from the Irrgation Pumpers Associations and the EEAG,
the 2010 program will be changed in the following ways. The season wil be changed to June 15 to
August 15, Saturdays wil be added as a potential interrption day, the time frame for possible
interrptions wil be 1 :00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., and large service locations using greater-than 1000 hp wil
use a base kW from the prior 24 hours before each event for incentive calculations.
Based on the results ofthe 2009 Irrgation Peak Rewards customer survey, Idaho Power wil improve
the program application, rewrite the program brochure to clarify the program information, and expand
the number of presentations provided at agricultural commodity meetings.
Idaho Power wil continue to market the program similar to 2009. New in 2010, to streamline the
application process, customers that were in the program in 2009 do not have to re-sign-up to be in the
program for 2010. It is expected that the program wil continue to grow in 2010 due primarily to the
success ofthe program in 2009.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 99
Irrigation Sector-Irrigation Peak Rewards Idaho Power Company
This page left blank intentionally.
Page 100 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Market Transformation-NEEA
MARKET TRANSFORMATION
Energy Efficiency Alliance
NEEA encourages and supports cost-effective market transformation efforts in Idaho, Oregon,
Washington, and Montana. Through partnerships with local utilities, NEEA motivates marketplace
adoption of energy-saving services and technologies and encourages regional education and marketing
platforms. NEEA provides training and marketing resources across residential, commerciaL and
industrial sectors. Idaho Power accomplishes market transformation in its service area through
membership and coordinated activities with NEEA.
NEEA performs several MPERs on various energy effciency efforts each year. In addition to the
MPERs, NEEA provides market research reports for energy effciency initiatives throughout the Pacific
Northwest. Each of the reports that are applicable to Idaho is included in the NEEA Market Effects
Evaluations on the CD in Supplement 2: Evaluation.
NEEA
Commercial and Industrial NEEA Activities in Idaho
NEEA continued to provide support for commercial energy efficient activities in Idaho in 2009.
This included partial funding of the Boise IDL and local BetterBricksiI trainings and workshops.
Idaho Power's commercial programs, Building Effciency and Easy Upgrades, are designed to leverage
NEEA, BetterBricks, and the Boise IDL activities.
In 2009, NEEA completed two MPERs on the BetterBricks initiative. BetterBricks is a comprehensive
commercial sector energy effciency initiative designed to stimulate demand for energy effciency in
commercial markets. These reports are located in the NEEA Market Effects Evaluations on the CD in
Supplement 2: Evaluation.
The fIrst MPER's objective was to collect data from BetterBricks activities and quantify energy savings
associated with those activities. This report indicates that approximately 2.08 aMW of energy has been
saved between 2005 and 2008, and a significant amount of additional energy savings from the
BetterBricks initiative wil occur in the next three to five years.
The second MPER documents the overall progress of NEE A's commercial sector market transformation
initiative. Some ofthe key fidings ofthis evaluation document that BetterBricks continues to raise
awareness of best practices for energy effciency and that BetterBricks appears to be achieving good
penetration into target markets.
In the industrial sector, NEEA continued the lEA. The lEA is a multi-year strategic effort designed to
improve energy effciency in two regional industries considered heavy energy users, 1) the food
processing and 2) the pulp and paper industries. With its large number of food processing customers,
Idaho Power considers participation in lEA valuable.
Participants achieve cost savings through the adoption of energy-effcient business practices. The lEA
provides expert support, resources, and services, providing companies with the training and tools for
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 101
Market Transformation-NEEA Idaho Power Company
making energy effciency a core business value. Participants are asked for a commitment to a
CEI program, which has the potential to increase production capacity, improve equipment reliability,
and reduce operating costs and energy use by 5 percent to 20 percent. This effort is supported by
providing technical knowledge for individuals, organizations, and manufacturing companies
collaborating on energy effciency implementation. lEA members include the BPA, regional utilities, the
ETO, the Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE), and the IOER.
The fifth Market Progress Evaluation ofthe lEA was completed by the Cadmus Group, Inc., in
May 2009. Results from the report indicate that the region's food processing market appears to be
adopting energy management efforts focusing on CEI. According to the report, on a regional basis,
nearly 20 percent ofthe target market is implementing CEI. Additionally, the Northwest Food
Processors Association has set goals for decreasing energy intensity by 25 percent over the next ten
years. Utility support and promotion ofCEI are key aspects ofthe initiatives implementation strategy.
According to the MPER, the current economic landscape wil continue to impact companies' abilities to
invest in major capital projects aimed at reducing energy use. However, data indicates the market is
open to both capital and non-capital approaches to curailing energy use and costs. A copy of the
evaluation is in Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Training activity in 2009 included five industrial workshops co-sponsored by the lEA, Idaho Power,
and others. Topics focused on pumps, compressed air, and industrial refrigeration.
Another NEEA research effort in the commercial and industrial sectors is the CBSA. The CBSA is a
comprehensive study to characterize the physical and energy-use characteristics of commercial facilities
in the Pacific Northwest. Along with this study, Idaho Power contracted with the Cadmus Group to
over-sample buildings in Idaho Power's service area. The over-sample was designed to gather more
detailed information to enhance program planning in the commercial sector. Idaho Power provided data
and assisted the contractor in reviewing the commercial building characteristics in Idaho Power's
service area.
Distribution Efficiency Initiative
From 2008 through 2009, Idaho Power paricipated with other northwest utilities in NEEA' s DEI project
study.
In 2008, the remote end-of-feeder control of the station transformer load-tap changer project was
changed from a pilot project to a permanent installation. In addition, studies began to identify additional
locations to implement the techniques identified in the pilot study. The initial phase wil include
locations that can be converted with minimal or no capital expenditures. Future phases wil be those
locations that require more extensive resources to implement.
In 2008, DEI Calculators, which are Excel-based tools, were completed and presented to the RTF.
These calculators include a manager's tool that provides high-level results and an engineer's tool that
allows users to develop multiple scenarios and compare results. These tools were developed to be used
primarily by smaller utilities that mayor may not have the resources to do the analysis necessary to
implement a DEI-based project.
Page 102 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Market Transformation-NEEA
Project for 2009
The DEI project in 2009 was referred to as the Conservation Voltage Reduction (CVR) program.
Starting in early June 2009, CVR was applied to nine substation transformers in seven different
substations affecting 32 distribution feeders. These substations were chosen because studies showed the
voltage could be reduced by 1 percent to 2 percent with no detrimental effects on customers and with no
capital improvements required on the feeders. Voltage reduction was achieved by modifying the settings
in the Load Tap Changer in the substation transformer. This resulted in approximately 3,300 MWh
saved and reduced the summer peak demand by approximately 1 MW.
Residential NEEA Activities in Idaho
NEEA continues to provide support for the ENERGY ST ARiI Homes Northwest program offered by
Idaho Power. NEEA offers technical assistance, funding for certifications, and builder and market
support. In 2009, NEEA contracted with ECONorthwest to complete a MPER on the ENERGY STAR
Homes Northwest program. This report is included in the NEEA Market Efects Evaluations that is
included on the CD located in Supplement 2: Evaluations.
In 2009, NEEA launched a Consumer Electronics Initiative. Idaho Power contributed $160,000 to this
multi-year effort, which included manufacturer support and consumer marketing for ENERGY STAR
televisions that are 30 percent more effcient than baseline ENERGY STAR models. Eligible models
and point-of-purchase marketing collateral were placed in Idaho Power's service area in fall 2009.
Energy savings are being tracked by NEEA and wil be reported to utilities in 2010.
Idaho Power also participated in a NEEA sponsored DHP Study in 2009. Detailed information about this
project is provided in the DHP Pilot description in this Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report.
The first MPER on the DHP Pilot wil be made available in 2010.
In 2009, a MPER was completed by KEMA, Inc. for NEEA regarding consumer lighting initiatives to
advance awareness and use of CFLs. This report concluded that the market for CFLs continued to make
progress in the Northwest, and that regional CFL sales, availability, and diversity had increased. A copy
of this report, NEEA Market Effects Evaluations is located on the CD included with Supplement2:
Research and Evaluation Reports.
Other NEEA Activities in Idaho
Each year, NEEA underwrites the Idaho Energy Conference through a contract with the Association of
Idaho Cities.
NEEA Funding
In 2005, Idahö Power began the first year ofthe 2005-2009 contract and funding agreement with
NEEA. Per this agreement, Idaho Power committed to fund $1.3 milion annually in support of NEE A 's
implementation of market transformation programs in Idaho Power's service area. Of this amount in
2009, 74 percent was funded through the Idaho and Oregon Riders, and 26 percent was funded by a
credit accumulated durg the previous contract period.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 103
Market Transformation-NEEA Idaho Power Company
In 2009, Idaho Power paid $968,263 to NEEA. The Idaho jurisdictional share ofthe payments was
$919,850, while $48,413 was paid for the Oregon jurisdiction. Other expenses associated with NEEA
activities, such as administration and travel, were paid by Idaho Power.
Preliminary estimates reported by NEEA indicate that Idaho Power's share of regional market
transformation MWh savings for 2009 is 15,813 MW, or 1.8 aMW. Idaho Power relies on NEEA
to report the energy savings and other benefits of NEE A's regional portfolio of initiatives. For further
information about NEEA, visit their Web site at www.nwalliance.org.
Page 104 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Other Programs and Activities
OTHER PROG AND ACTIVITIES
Energy Efficiency Education Initiative i
i
Idaho Power recognizes the value of general energy efficiency awareness and education in creating
behavior change and customer demand for, and satisfaction with, its programs. The Residential Energy
Efficiency Education initiative's goal is promoting energy efficiency to the residential community
sector. This goal is achieved by creating and delivering educational programs that increase
Idaho Power's energy effciency program paricipation and result in energy effcient and
conservation-oriented behaviors and choices.
The Residential Energy Efficiency Education initiative distributed energy effciency messages through a
variety of communication methods during 2009. Increased customer awareness of energy-saving ideas
was accomplished via distribution of approximately 14,500 copies ofthe 96-page book 30 Simple
Things You Can Do To Save Energy, a joint publishing project between Idaho Power and
The Earthworks Group. The book was published to Idaho Power's Web site and translated into Spanish
during 2009.
Throughout 2009, Idaho Power continued to provide weekly energy efficiency messages each Saturday
morning on the The HomeFix Radio Show on 580 KIDO AM. This radio show is the
number-one-ranked Saturday morning show amongst adults ages 25 years and older in the Boise Metro
market. Additionally, energy effciency messages aired on KIVI- TV's Green Living television program
throughout the spring and early summer.
In addition to these activities, Idaho Power was one of the sponsors ofthe second annual Idaho Green
Expo in July. As part ofIdaho Power's commitment to the Expo, the company distributed
5,500 re-usable shopping bags with the message "Reduce Your Use" to the more than 15,000 people
who attended the 2009 Expo. Idaho Power's educational message at the Expo was about the importance
of reducing energy use between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on hot summer afternoons. Idaho Power
discussed the impact summer peak has on the electrical system and rates, and suggested specific ways
Idaho Power customers could reduce their bils and help delay the need for additional generation
resources by reducing their use during peak hours. The Expo built a model green home that provided
hands-on education for Expo attendees, and Idaho Power provided educational and energy effciency
program signage, metering equipment, and other power-related equipment to emphasize the
energy-efficient characteristics of sustainable building.
Idaho Power further increased its energy effciency presence in the community by providing program
informtion at special events. The company participated in more than 28 events durg 2009.
Additionally, the field staff serving throughout Idaho Power's service area gave dozens of energy
efficiency presentations. The Customer Relations and Energy Effciency department provided
21 presentations on Idaho Power's energy efficiency programs and energy-saving ideas to businesses,
schools, and community organizations. Eight of these presentations were part ofthe 2009 Energy
Effciency & Green Living Series. This series expanded to Pocatello and Twin Falls in 2009, with
two sessions held at the PortneufDistrict Library in Chubbuck and two sessions at the College of
Southern Idaho. The Twin Falls classes were co-sponsored by the College of Southern Idaho's
Sustainability CounciL. Four sessions were conducted at the Boise Public Library in downtown Boise.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 105
Other Programs and Activities Idaho Power Company
This year's topics were titled Cooking Up Savings At Home; Simple Changes Make Cents; Get Your
Ducts in a Row; Smart Grid 101; I Hate My Bonus Room; and Confessions ofa Green Geek.
The eight sessions combined attracted 173 participants. The Residential Energy Effciency Education
initiative collected participant evaluations at the 2009 Energy Effciency & Green Living Series.
The survey retur rate was 67 percent and contained many favorable comments such as "Very good
class, I am interested in attending more classes about energy effciency," and "Great! Thanks!
My expectations were exceeded!" or "Well worth the time," and "Well put together! I liked the variety
and the 'real' personal approach." The majority of respondents indicated they "strongly agreed" that the
information was useful and met their expectations, and 84.6 percent of respondents indicated they
"definitely would" or "probably would" recommend the class to family and friends. Results of the
2009 Energy Effciency & Green Living Series surveys are included in Supplement 2: Evaluation.
The company provided speakers and other support for the annual Water Awareness Week, a training for
public school teachers held in June. The theme was The Water-Energy Nexus. Discussion focused on
how water use and electrical generation go hand-in-hand and how preservation or shortage of either
resource impacts the other.
During 2009, Idaho Power improved the company's educational program for public school fourth
through sixth-grade students. The name was changed from Simple Ways to Save Energy to The Power to
Make A Diference to better reflect the program's content and to motivate the students to action.
The 45~minute presentation focuses on energy-effcient actions within this age group's ability.
Development of educational materials included tranlation of the Practical Ways to Manage Your
Electricity Bil brochure into Spanish. The educational materials wil be distributed through appropriate
channels to the company's Spanish-speaking customers. Idaho Power created educational content for
PowerWise, a one-page energy effciency newsletter made available upon request to the company's
corporate customers as well as through Idaho Power's Web site. Additionally, two PowerPoint
presentations with documentation and speaking notes were developed for use by the company's energy
effciency staff and field staff, one on residential programs and one on energy~saving ideas. In 2009,
these presentations were also used effectively by community organization representatives to present
information to their local communities regarding the value of energy efficiency and ways to save energy
and money.
The Residential Energy Efficiency Education initiative provided energy effciency tip content in
response to media inquiries and for various Idaho Power publications, such as the Green Power
Newsletter, the AlC Cool Credit Newsletter, the High Bil1/iered Rate customer letters, and the
Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) door hangers.
Idaho Power sponsored two general education efforts durg the year. The first was the publication of
the 2009 Energy Effciency insert for use in The Idaho Statesman in June. The inert presented
Idaho Power's Energy Efficiency Programs, introduced the new tax credits for residential energy
effciency improvements, discussed the reasons why energy effciency is important, and offered energy
effciency tips regarding landscaping and reducing use durig summer peak. The s.econd campaign
began in late November and early December. It promoted Energy Effcient Gift Giving ideas through
various print media and bil inserts to help educate people on summer peak, what it is, and why it is
important.
Page 106 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Other Programs and Activities
During 2010, the intiative's goals are to increase program paricipation and promote education and
energy-saving ideas that result in energy-effcient and conservation-oriented behaviors and choices.
Plans for 2010 include distributing Spanish versions of the book 30 Simple Things You Can Do To Save
Energy. Idaho Power wil also partner with the Idaho Commission for Libraries, A vista, and PacifiCorp
to provide Kil-A-Watt meters to libraries throughout Idaho for lending to library patrons. These meters
wil be packaged with educational materials and instructions on how to use the meter to perform a basic
home audit. Additional energy effciency presentations wil be developed and made available for
corporate and community outreach. The Idaho Power Web site wil be expanded to include a section on
educational resources. Additionally, the Residential Energy Effciency Education Initiative wil lead an
effort to streamline and automate the process of responding to requests for Idaho Power's support at
community events. This Event Outreach process wil provide more consistency and equity in
determining which events the company participates in and wil ultimately capture data that wil assist
Idaho Power in quantifying the effectiveness ofthe company's outreach efforts.
Easy Savings Program
As a result of Rate Case Order No. 30772, Idaho Power committed to fund energy effciency education
for customers receiving energy assistance through the federal LIHEAP. Case No. IPC-E-08-10 clarified
that $125,000 be paid to CAP agencies in the Idaho Power service area on a pro-rated basis. In addition,
the target for the educational information is families who heat their homes with electricity provided by
Idaho Power.
In 2009, Idaho Power and Community Action Partership Association of Idaho, Inc. (CAPAI), formed a
group to design an educational program for special needs customers who would not be prioritized for
weatherization services. The group consisted of members from IPUC, CAP AI, a CAP agency,
and Idaho Power who met through 2009. In June, group members met with potential vendors. Resource
Action Programs (RA) was selected due to their experience and knowledge providing similar services
in other states. CAP AI signed a contract with RAP for provision of the Easy Savings Program. As
directed by the IPUC, the program is funded from customer rates.
The Easy Savings program provides a kit containing 10w-cost/no-cost energy saving items to be
distributed during the energy assistance/ LIHEAP application appointment with customers requesting
assistance with Idaho Power bils.
The primary target for the program is households applying for energy assistance who do not contain
members who qualify for weatherization prioritization, such as elderly or disabled individuals
and families with children under age six.
Kit items include:
· CFLs
· Hot water temperature card and refrigerator thermometer
· Rope caulk and outlet draft stoppers
· Kitchen faucet aerator and high effciency showerhead
· LED nightlight and reminder magnets for the laundr
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 107
Other Programs and Activities Idaho Power Company
· Quick Start Guide to intallation
· Sixteen-question survey
All educational materials are printed in English and Spanish. Returned surveys wil be used to track
effectiveness of the program.
Two main desired outcomes ofthe Easy Savings Program are to reduce the energy burden for energy
assistance/LIHEAP applicants and to educate recipients about saving energy in their homes in order to
reduce energy usage and to allow hands-on experience while intalling low-cost measures.
Commercial ucation Initiative
Idaho Power continued its Commercial Education initiative, launched in spring 2008. The main
objectives ofthis initiative are to educate commercial customers about energy efficiency, increase
paricipation in existing commercial energy efficiency and demand-reduction programs, enhance
customer satisfaction, and reduce energy use. The key item identified in 2008 was the need to develop
methods using Idaho Power CRs, trade allies, and marketing mailings to deliver meaningful information
to individual customers' building, equipment, and operational needs. In 2009, Idaho Power continued
educating customers about energy effciency and addressed ways of changing customer practices and
behaviors.
Idaho Power provides informtion designed to support effciency measures with rapid retu on
investment for particular market segments. Identification of appropriate and cost-effective measures is a
result of customer site visits. The site visits enable Idaho Power to address each customer's unique
priorities, facility, and financial sitution, resulting in energy effciency recommendations pertinent to
the customer's facility. Site visits additionally serve as field-staff training for future site visits.
Customers' energy effciency objectives are addressed in various ways. Equipment Efficiency
Specification Sheets focusing on effciency opportnities using common equipment confguations were
developed in 2009. Idaho Power became familiar with local practices through the site visits and created
a menu of opportunities unique to each site. A measure designed, analyzed, and deemed effective in one
market, such as condenser heat reclaim for pre-heated water in restaurants, may not be cost-effective in
the Idaho Power service area. Due to lower energy prices in the company's service area practices,
such as purchasing low-cost cooling equipment with each piece of equipment having its own dedicated
indoor condensing unit, rather than a multi-unit serving condensing system, is more cost-effective.
The initiative continued helping commercial customers, trade allies, field staff professional
organizations, and community organizations indentify common problems and energy efficiency
opportnities. Potential solutions and ideas were addressed through networking with energy information
sources, such as E Source, Idaho Power, trade alles, and customers. Measures identified that fit specific
customer needs include demand-control ventilation, installation of economiers, and thermostat setbacks
of building conditions through building automation. For example, a very high number of customers have
adopted the practice of running HV AC system fans at all times. This is a very ineffcient practice with a
very large following. Another common practice with heat pump owners is to perform overly aggressive
thermostat setbacks that require less efficient electric resistance heat stris for the heated space to
recover from the thermostat setback. Although it is always the aim to identify and have the customer
Page 108 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Other Programs and Activities
adopt recommendations with the greatest benefit, reductions in usage of one-third ofthe kWh in HV AC
have been accomplished with changes solely to operating behavior.
The education initiative staff delivered eight presentations for professional organizations in 2009,
including the United States Green Building Council (USGBC), and International Building Operators
Association (IBOA). An additional 19 program presentations were made for commercial businesses and
business organizations including Food Services of America (FSA).
In 2010, the initiative wil continue site visits, use of Equipment Efficiency Specification Sheets with
customers, presentations at professional conferences, and site walk-throughs. Idaho Power plans to
capitalize on effective customer projects by creating success stories documenting customers' energy
effciency processes. All methods are used to encourage customers and contractors to increase adoption
of effciency measures and participation in energy effciency programs. Idaho Power plans to identify
potential behavior-only reduction efforts by sending out a mailer asking customers to describe how they
have reduced usage through behavior.
Local Efficiency Fu
The purose ofLEEF is to provide modest funding for short-term projects and activities that do not fit
within other categories of energy effciency programs, but that stil provide energy savings or a defined
benefit to the promotion of energy effcient behaviors or activities.
In 2009, Idaho Power sponsored three LEEF projects. Two projects resulted in direct savings, and one
training project promoted long-term building design changes. The Two Rivers Homeowners Association
received funds to assist in the replacement of36 water pump timers used in the subdivision's many
water featues. These pumps were running continuously unless manually shut down and the addition of
programmable timers allowed the subdivision to reduce both energy use and demand. LEEF funds paid
$2,950 for an estimated 162,595 kWh of savings.
Education funds within LEEF were used to sponsor four classes in an 18-week course for the National
Sustainable Building Advisor Program. These five- and seven-hour courses were also sponsored by
NEEA and by the IDL, where the classes are held. Two ofthe four sponsored courses occurred in
December 2009, 1) Climate Responsive Energy Design and 2) HVAC, Domestic Hot Water; Day
lighting. The remaining two sponsored courses, 1) Day lighting; Electric Lighting and 2) Healthy,
Energy Efficient Buildings are planned for fist quarter 2010.
Alternative Energy Solutions received funds to manage the installation of an outside air economizer
system on a walk-in cooler at small market in Nampa. In lieu of using the mechanical refrigeration
system, when the outside air was cool enough, it was introduced directly to maintain the cooler
temperature. Evaporator fan controls were installed to cycle fans off when the cooling set point was met.
These fans ran 24 hours a day previously. LEEF funds paid $900 toward these improvements for an
estimated 10,130 kWh savings annually. Through this project, Idaho Power gained valuable insights and
is applying successful aspects of this project to other customer facilities.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 109
Other Programs and Activities Idaho Power Company
Students for Energy Efficiency
According to the Idaho Energy Plan, the best path to ensuring a reliable, low-cost energy supply
involves energy conservation and the integration of renewable energy sources. Idaho Power created the
SEE program to give Idaho students the opportity to participate in energy assessments of their schools
and use science and math skills to evaluate and make recommendations where energy improvements can
be implemented. The program was implemented in autu 2009.
Funding for the SEE program comes from the IPUC Order No. 30760, dated March 27, 2009, directing
Idaho Power to spend $500,000 dollars over a two-year period with a mission ofpromoting energy
education and effciency to students within Idaho Power's Idaho service area. The order directed the
appropriate disposition of the proceeds from the sale of Idaho Power's sulfu dioxide (S02) emission
allowances in calendar year 2007 for development and implementation of an energy education program.
There are two primary initiatives, one is a high school program and the other is an elementary program
focused on sixth grade students. For high school students, the project is designed as a "learning lab"
where students gain a better understanding of energy, how it is measured, and how to use it more
effciently. The elementary program provides students with a tool kit and exercises that the sixth graders
work on in their classroom, as well as take home exercises to work on with their families. During the
2009-2010 school year, over 1,200 students are paricipating in both programs.
The SEE programs promote targeted educational standards that reinforce the Idaho Department of
Education Content Standards for Science. The four main topics addressed are: 1) defining energy,
2) identifying how energy is used, 3) describing energy measurement methods, and 4) determining how
energy can be used more effciently.
Schools participating in the SEE program provided benefits to their communities in reduced energy
demand and reduced operating costs. Evaluations by program participants wil be conducted following
the completion ofthe students' assessment reports, presentations, and participation. Idaho Power plans
to continue to offer these student programs again during the 2010-2011 school year to Idaho students in
the Idaho Power service area.
Energy Efficiency Education
At the end of2008, Idaho Power created an energy efficiency presentation to educate students about the
efficient use of energy in their homes. The program targets fourh- to sixth-grade student audiences.
During 2009, the Idaho Power community education team conducted over 60 classroom presentations
across Idaho Power's service area. The original title ofthe presentation was Simple Way to Save Energy.
Later in the year, it was renamed The Power to Make a Diference. Idaho Power is planning to make
some revisions and additions to the presentation.
During 2009, Idaho Power community education and customer representatives conducted over
35 presentations and programs regarding energy effciency to senior centers within the company's
service area. The energy effciency presentation titled, The Power to Make a Diference, demonstrated
the importance of energy effciency in the community. The other component of educational outreach
was reviewing energy efficiency program options as well as low- and no-cost ways for customers to
save energy and money in their homes or businesses.
Page 110 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Regulatory Initiatives
REGULATORY INITIATIVES
Idaho Power believes there are three essential components of an effective regulatory model for DSM:
1) the timely recovery ofDSM program costs, 2) the removal of financial disincentives, and 3) the
availability of financial incentives. Since 2002, Idaho Power has recovered its DSM program costs
through the Rider. To address the removal of financial disincentives and to explore financial incentive
mechanisms, Idaho Power tested the effects ofa FCA and a Performnce-Based DSM incentive as part
of a three-year, two-pilot initiative. The two pilots were operated on a limited basis in Idaho to allow for
a thorough evaluation to be conducted prior to a broader application ofthe financial mechanisms. 2009
was the third year of the FCA pilot, and Idaho Power concluded that this mechanism worked as
intended. In October, the company fied an application with the IPUC to make the FCA mechanism
permanent.
The Performnce-Based DSM Incentive pilot proved more diffcult and challenging. Due to technical
diffculties associated with goal-setting and performance measurement under the pilot mechanism,
Idaho Power recommended termination of the pilot, effective January 2009. In 2009, Idaho Power
conducted a number of workshops to explore other fiancial incentive mechanisms, and the
investigation of an appropriate avenue is stil under way. These mechanisms are discussed in more detail
below.
E
In 2009, under IPUC Order No. 30814, the Idaho Rider, Schedule 91, was increased from 2.5 percent to
4.75 percent of base revenues effective June 1. Funding from the Oregon Rider, Schedule 91,
is currently at 1.5 percent of base revenues with montWy caps on residential and irigation customers'
bils. On March 5,2010, Idaho Power filed Advice No. 10-03 requesting that the OPUC increase the
Oregon Rider to 3.0 percent and eliminate the monthly caps on residential and irigation base rates.
An effective date of June 1, 2010 was requested.
..Cost Adjustment Pilot
Under the FCA, rates are annually adjusted up or down to recover or refund the difference between the
fixed costs authorized by the IPUC in the most recent rate case and the fixed costs that Idaho Power
actually received the previous year through energy sales. This mechanism removes the financial
disincentive that exists when Idaho Power invests in DSM resources. The FCA Pilot was limited to the
residential and small commercial classes in recognition ofthe fact that, for these customers, a high
percentage of fixed costs are recovered through energy charges. Confining the pilot to the residential and
small commercial classes allowed the tre-up mechanism to be tested on a limited basis to minimize any
unintended consequences.
During the three-year period in which the FCA, Schedule 54, has been in effect as a pilot rate
mechanism, Idaho Power has made strong progress toward improving and enhancing its efforts to
promote energy effciency and DSM activities. During the term ofthe FCA Pilot, the company has
increased the number ofDSM programs it offers and substantially increased both its investment in DSM
activities and the MWh savings obtained via DSM. Results from the first two years of the pilot indicate
that the true-up mechanism is working as intended and operating to mitigate the unintended adverse
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 111
Regulatory Initiatives Idaho Power Company
effects ofDSM by ensuring that the fixed costs the IPUC authorized the company to recover are being
recovered via the FCA mechanism.
The mechanism has proved to be fair to both the company and its customers by providing a refund in
one year when average usage per customer increased and a surcharge in the next when average usage
per customer decreased. The mechanism has also proven to be reasonable since the individual customer
bil impacts, as both surcharges and refunds, have been relatively small. On October 1,2009, the
company filed an application with the IPUC to convert the FCA to an ongoing and permanent rate
schedule. This case, No. IPC-E-09-28, is ongoing. The three-year FCA Pilot ended December 31,2009
per Order No. 30267.
On March 13,2009, Idaho Power filed an application to implement FCA rates reflecting 2008 actual
data. According to the application, the average energy use per residential customer decreased in 2008.
Idaho Power collected approximately $1.3 milion less for its fixed costs than was established in the
agreed-upon residential FCA formula. The application also indicated that the small commercial class
saw a decrease in per-customer energy use during 2008. This means Idaho Power under-collected
approximately $1.4 milion of its fixed costs for this customer class.
On May 29,2009, the IPUC issued Order No. 30827 directing Idaho Power to collect the net FCA of
$2.7 milion and to distribute the rate adjustment equally across both residential and small commercial
customers. This action resulted in a rate surcharge of 0.0529 cents per kWh, effective June 1,2009,
through May 31, 2010, for all residential and small commercial customers. In March 2010, Idaho Power
will file an application to implement FCA rates reflecting 2009 actual data.
Performance--Based DSM Incentive Pilot
To complement the FCA Pilot, Idaho Power tested the effects ofa Performance-Based DSM Incentive
mechanism. On March 12,2007, the IPUC issued Order No. 30268 authoriing the implementation ofa
Performance-Based DSM Incentive Pilot that allowed Idaho Power to retain a portion of the fmancial
benefits resulting from DSM activities when energy savings targets are exceeded or be subject to a
penalty if savings are under-performed. During the pilot period, the incentive mechanism was applied
only to the ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest program. The original pilot duration was three years,
2007-2009.
On March 14,2008, Idaho Power filed the results of the first year ofthe pilot mechanism in the
Performance-Based Demand-Side Management Incentive Pilot Performance Update. According to the
final ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest program results for 2007, Idaho Power estimated the program
achieved a market share of 5 percent. This value is within the market share dead-band established for
2007 at 5.0 percent to 7.0 percent, and, therefore, Idaho Power was not eligible for a performance
incentive nor was Idaho Power subject to a penalty.
On March 11,2009, Idaho Power filed the results ofthe second year of the pilot mechanism in the
Matter of the Application of Idaho Power Company for the Authority to Implement Modifications to the
Performance-Based Demand-Side Management Incentive Pilot Program, Application for Case
No. IPC-E-09-04. According to the fmal ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest program results for 2008,
Idaho Power estimated the program achieved a market share of 6.2 percent. This value is within the
market share dead-band established for 2008 at 5.0 percent to 9.8 percent, and, therefore, similar to the
Page 112 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Regulatory Initiatives
results of2007 program year, Idaho Power was not eligible for a performance incentive nor was
Idaho Power subject to a penalty.
Through this pilot process, Idaho Power and IPUC staff worked closely on many technical difficulties of
how to fairly determine program performnce in order to attibute an incentive or penalty. For example,
it was diffcult to find solid dependable metrics to calculate the actual percentage of ENERGY STAR
homes built each year compared to total homes built in the market. There was difficulty in determining
the allocation costs when there were both electricity and gas savings achieved. And there were
uncertainties about savings per home across service area climate zones. With much effort, Idaho Power
and IPUC staff was able to work through these issues. However, there were other events that made the
continuation ofthis pilot challenging. In mid-2008, the Wells Fargo Idaho Construction Report, which
was used as a basis for market share calculation, was discontinued. The bottom fell out ofthe Idaho new
home construction market due to national and regional recession. Due to these and other unanticipated
challenges confonting the pilot, Idaho Power recommended termination ofthe pilot. On May 14, 2009,
in Order No. 30806, the IPUC approved pilot program termnation effective January 1, 2009, with no
incentives payments or penalties for Idaho Power for 2007 and 2008.
Despite the challenges during the two years ofthe Pilot's operation, Idaho Power still believes that a
regulatory model that includes a performance-based earings opportunity for Idaho Power is essential to
creating an environment supportive ofthe acquisition of all cost-effective DSM. A properly designed
performance incentive mechanism can be an effective means to properly align customers' energy
effciency goals with the financial goals ofthe company's shareowners. While this regulatory model
represents the ideal, its implementation is both diffcult and controversiaL. Idaho Power is not aware of a
jurisdiction where a performance incentive is workig to everyone's satisfaction.
Following the discontinuation of its Performance-Based DSM Incentive Pilot program, Idaho Power
scheduled a series of three workshops to discuss the development of a broader fiancial incentive
mechanism for its energy effciency programs. With the company's usual customer and environmental
groups in attendance along with representatives from the Regulatory Assistance Project and the IOER,
the workshops were intended to generate discussion around desired incentive mechanism characteristics,
with hopes of arriving at a preferred design for future implementation.
Throughout the workshop process, the company discussed with participants the various aspects of
potential designs and developed a forecast model to predict the financial impact of implementing
different mechanisms. Financial modeling results were presented to workshop participants who then
provided feedback and suggestions for modifying the proposed mechanisms. Through this iterative
process, the company and participants were able to discuss their views on the qualities of a sound
mechanism while reviewing the expected financial impact of mechanism characteristics.
While the workshops facilitated productive discussion regarding the views of interested parties in this
matter, at the close of the final session, the group had not reached a consensus regarding an optimal
mechanism design. The company wil continue to evaluate potential performance-based energy
efficiency earnings opportunities; however, no proposal has been developed at this time. Idaho Power
ultimately intends to use the information and experience gained during the operation of the pilot to
develop a performance-based incentive mechanism that can be applied to the entire portfolio of
DSM programs.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 113
Regulatory Initiatives Idaho Power Company
This page left blank intentionally.
Page 114 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Enhanced Commitment
ENHANCED COMMITM
As part ofthe FCA implementation process, Idaho Power is committed to enhancing its efforts toward
promoting energy effciency. Idaho Power's overall DSM performnce last year is an indication of this
commitment. In 2009, the energy savings from Idaho Power's DSM energy effciency programs
increased 23 percent over 2008 levels while expenditures increased 28 percent. In several other key
areas, Idaho Power actively pursued numerous, additional opportunities to promote energy effciency,
including, but not limited to:
· Broad availability of efficiency and load management programs
· Building-code improvement activity
· Pursuit of appliance code standards
· Continued expansion ofDSM programs beyond peak-shaving/load-shifting programs
· Third-party verification
· Promotion of energy effciency through electricity rate design
· Idaho Power's internal energy efficiency commitment
Broad Avai of Efficiency and load Management Programs
In 2009, Idaho Power again broadened the portfolio of programs offered to customers. For example,
a demand response option is now available to three customer sectors, residential, irigation,
and commerciai/industriaL. Also, programs continue to add service areas where they are available to
customers and continue to add new measures for customer participation. This expansion of programs
and offerings helps to ensure that more customers each year have the opportunity to paricipate in
programs. This, in turn, helps customers manage their energy usage. The specific programs added,
modified, or expanded in 2009 include:
· AlC Cool Credit expanded the program offering area into the Pocatello area.
· Idaho Power implemented the DHP Pilot throughout the service area in order to promote a new
promising technology in the residential sector.
· The Home Improvement Program, formerly the Attic Insulation Pilot, was launched on June 1,
2009 and surassed fIrst year targets.
· The Home Products Program expanded by offering a new incentive to retailers who sell flat
screen televisions that are 30 percent more effcient than current ENERGY STARiI standards.
· A new program, See Ya Later Refrigerator, was launched. The program removes secondary and
spare refrigerators and stand-alone freezers in residential homes.
· Based on a successful 2008 pilot, the Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers was
offered as a permanent program in southern Idaho in March 2009.
· Idaho Power launched FlexPeak Management, a demand response program offered to
commercial and industrial customers.
· In March 2009, the Irrgation Effciency Rewards and Custom Effciency programs added
Green Rewinds, a new best-practices motor rewind service. Idaho Power contracted with GMPG
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 115
Enhanced Commitment Idaho Power Company
to offer this service. This is a good example of a measure that applies to different customer
sectors and provides peak demand savings as well as energy savings.
· The Irrigation Peak Rewards program expanded the dispatch capability during critical summer
peak load events by offering customers the choice of a Timer Option, an Automatic Dispatch
Option, or a Manual Dispatch Option.
Building Code Improvement Activity
Through Idaho Power's funding ofthe NEEA and codes-related efforts, Idaho Power assists in
increasing energy effciency requirements in Idaho's building codes. Idaho Power has two key roles
once the codes are adopted, 1) informing the design community of code changes and 2) modifying
Idaho Power energy effciency programs to reflect the new codes. Idaho Power is currently preparing to
assist in the process of adopting the 2009 IECC. It is expected the 2009 IECC is expected to be adopted
in 2011.
Pursuit of Appliance Code Standards
The following study and recommendations were conducted as part of the 2009 IRP planning process.
Appliance Standards Assessment
Idaho Power contracted with Quantec, LLC, in 2007 to conduct a study ofthe potential energy savings
and costs associated with enacting appliance energy efficiency standards in Idaho similar to the
standards enacted in Oregon during 2007. The intent of the evaluation was to provide information
regarding the costs and potential for energy savings that would occur if the appliance standards enacted
by Oregon were applicable in Idaho. In addition, the evaluation provided information and an analytical
base to promote new or additional appliance standards in Idaho. The study also addressed the concern
that higher standards already in place in Washington and Oregon would increase the potential ofless
effcient equipment being marketed and sold to Idaho residents.
Unlike a potential study, Idaho Power's Appliance Standards Assessment did not address the creation of
corresponding cost-effective utility programs that would capture the savings discussed in the report.
Some basic qualitative information about the level and type of effort required to conduct an appliance
standards development program were considered as part ofthe report, while detailed programmatic
recommendations were beyond the scope ofthe report. The energy-savings shown in the report are
similar in methodology to the technical potential savings defined in a typical energy effciency potential
study, where it is assumed that every available measure or appliance is replaced. Table 12 shows the
ten appliances that were considered for the study and their status in neighboring states. Table 13
summarizes the total savings forecast if standards were enacted, adopted, and allowed to penetrate the
marketplace over 20 years throughout Idaho.
Page 116 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Enhanced Commitment
Table 12. Analyzed Appliances and Code Implementation Status
Appliance
Oregon
Enacted Effective
2005 2008
2005 2007
2005 2007
2007 2009
2007 2009
2007 2009
2007 2009
2007 2009
2007 2009
2007 2009
Sector
Metal halide lamps/fixtures....................... Commercial
Incandescent reflector lamps......... ........... Commercial
Exernal power supplies........................... Commercial/Residential
Bottle type water dispensers....... ............. Commercial
Hot food holding cabinets.......... ....... ........ Commercial
Walk in refrigerators and freezers............. Commercial
Compact audio products (CD players) ...... Residential
DVD players and recorders...................... Residential
Portable electric spas/hot tubs.. ............... Residential
Residential furnace fans........... ....... .... ..... Residential
Neighboring States
Washington California
Enacted Enacted
Enacted Enacted
Enacted Enacted
Enacted
Enacted
Enacted
Enacted
Enacted
Enacted
Table 13. Appliance Standard Potential Savings-Idaho Statewide
Sector
Commercial.. ........ ....... ................ ........ ........... ..... .............. ...............
Residential... ............... ................ ............ ........ ....... ......... .......... .......
Overall .............................................................................................
Total Estimated
Energy Savings (MWh)
56,916
221,893
278,809
Total Estimated
Demand Savings (MW)
12
31
43
Based on the findings, Quantec recommended that the State ofIdaho consider developing and adopting
Idaho appliance standards for the fIrst nine appliances shown in Table 12. In addition, Quantec
recommended specific alternatives be investigated for the possibility of increasing the efficiency of
fuace fans. Quantec also recommended the State ofIdaho examine the options and monitor progress in
setting standards for general service incandescent and metal halide fixtures.
To support the development of effciency standards, Quantec also recommended that Idaho Power and
other entities in Idaho identify priorities for conducting research and develop the data needed for such
efforts. Expanding current collaborative efforts would leverage existing resources and minimize the
need for additional resources.
At the state level, Quantec recommended the State of Idaho invest in the capability required to research
and adopt standards for the appliances analyzed in the study. In addition, the State ofIdaho could
investigate the option of developing a regulatory framework similar to California's that would recognize
utilities' efforts dedicated to effciency standards similar to how utility energy effciency acquisition
programs are treated.
Contin Expansion of DSM Programs Beyond
Peak~Shaving/Load ifting Programs
In 2009, Idaho Power continued to broaden energy effciency education, promotion, and communication
efforts.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 117
Enhanced Commitment Idaho Power Company
The residential sector's, two publications, 30 Simple Things You Can Do To Save Energy and Practical
Ways to Save Energy, were translated into Spanish. Over 14,500 book copies ofthe 30 Simple Things
were distributed, and it was published on Idaho Power's Web site. In addition to continuing the weekly
energy effciency message on The HomeFix Show with Joe Pri, Idaho Power in 2009 aired energy
effciency message on KIVI-TV's Green Living television program throughout the spring and early
summer. Idaho Power expanded its sponsorship role in the second annual Idaho Green Expo in July,
increased the number of energy effciency presentations at community organization and events,
and again sponsored the Energy Effciency and Green Living Series held at the Boise Public Library.
There were two general education efforts during the year, an energy effciency insert in to
The Idaho Statesman in June and a promotion of Energy Effcient Gift Giving during the holidays.
In 2009, Idaho Power and CAP AI formed a group to design an educational program for special needs
customers who would not be prioritized for weatheriztion services. The Easy Savings Program provides
a kit containing low-cost/no-cost energy saving items to be distributed during the energy assistance/
LIHEAP application appointment with customers requesting assistance with Idaho Power bils.
For the commercial and industrial market sector, Idaho Power developed Equipment Effciency
Specification Sheets focusing on energy effciency opportities using common equipment
configuations. Also, Idaho Power sponsored four classes in an 18-week course for the National
Sustainable Building Advisory Program held in conjunction with the IDL.
This year, Idaho Power created a new program, SEE. This program gives Idaho high school students the
opportunity to participate in energy assessments oftheir schools and to use science and math skils to
evaluate and make energy improvement recommendations. Twenty schools participated in this program
in 2009.
Third Verification
Idaho Power uses third-party consultants to verify that program specifications are met; for evaluation,
measurement and verification of the amount of energy savings achieved; and to obtain data on energy
effciency, demand response measures; and programs. Copies ofthe reports from third-parties are found
in Supplement 2: Evaluation and in the CD attached in Supplement 2.
The company funds and participates in the RTF. The RTF is an advisory committee that was established
in 1999 to develop standards for verifYing and evaluating savings from energy effciency programs and
measures. Idaho Power uses the RTF as a source for informtion on programs and measures and uses the
RTF databases to provide deemed savings for some energy efficiency measures.
In 2008, Idaho Power contracted with Nexant, Inc., to assess the market potential for DSM activities in
Idaho Power's service area. For this study, Nexant developed spreadsheet models estimating DSM
potential as economic conditions and end-use measure assumptions change. Nexant provided a fial
document in 2009. The information provided by the potential study was included in the 2009 IRP.
Idaho Power contracted with Ecotope, Inc., to provide energy savings estimates for the Attic Insulation
Pilot. At the conclusion of the pilot, Idaho Power sought Ecotope's expertise to update the estimated
energy savings impacts ofthe program based on revised assumptions from the pilot. With these updated
energy-savings estimates, the cost-effective program continued under the name Home Improvement
Page 118 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Enhanced Commitment
Program. Idaho Power also contracted with Ecotope to review the energy savings associated with the
H&CE Program. The updated analysis provides energy savings based on actual program results.
The ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest program regularly uses contractors for third-party verification,
ensuring that each ENERGY STAR qualified home is built to ENERGY STAR standards. A consultant,
Energy Inspectors, then certifies each ofthese homes as an ENERGY STAR home in Idaho. The ODOE
is the certifying organization in Oregon.
The Energy House Calls program contracts with third-party experts to perform QA on 5 percent of
homes serviced by the program. These contractors visit the site within approximately one month of
the energy house call and verify that the energy effciency measures were performed to program
specifications.
The H&CE Program has a third-party QA contractor. Honeywell, Inc., performs OSVs on
approximately 10 percent of completed jobs. Since 2005, the AlC Cool Credit program contracted with a
third-party installation contractor, Honeywell, Inc., for installation of radio-pager controlled switches on
participants' AlC units. To ensure customer satisfaction, this contractor perform QA inpections on
installations and makes follow-up phone calls to recent switch recipients. Honeywell submits weekly
reports to Idaho Power program staff on inspections, follow-ups, and results. In 2009, the AlC Cool
Credit program was evaluated by a third-party contractor.
Throughout 2009, Idaho Power participated with NEEA to conduct several third-party evaluations.
These studies include evaluation of the DHP Pilot, impact evaluation of ENERGY STAR Homes
Northwest, and many market effects evaluations in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors.
In the commercial sector, Idaho Power participated in NEEA's CBSA, updating the original study from
2003, which is used for identifying and verifying commercial building stock characteristics in the
Pacific Northwest. Idaho Power contracted with the Cadmus Group for this study, requesting an
over-sample ofIdaho Power's service area to obtain a statistically valid building sample for program
planning puroses.
Idaho Power contracted with the Boise IDL to provide several evaluation functions, including
measurement and verification. Under this contract, an evaluation has been completed on certain
measures in the Building Efficiency program. Other studies completed by the IDL include an energy-use
index, a study on right-sizing of commercial rooftop HVAC systems, and a post-occupancy evaluation.
Idaho Power expects to work closely with IDL to study other commercial sector programs in the futue.
Prom of Energy Efficiency through Electricity Rate Design
In February, 2009, under IPUC Order No. 30722 in Case E-IPC-08-1O, Idaho Power implemented rate
structures designed to encourage energy effciency for customers in all major rate classes. These rate
structures reflect a policy of gradually moving all customers into rates designed to provide customers
with cost-based price signals, encouraging the wise and effcient use of energy. Residential customers
pay mandatory seasonal, tiered rates. The tiered rate design encourages customers to manage their
personal energy usage and monthly bil because the price they pay increases the more they use.
Large commercial and industrial customers have seasonaL mandatory time-of-use rates. The rate
structure includes three time-of-use blocks during the summer season with the highest rate falling on
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 119
Enhanced Commitment Idaho Power Company
weekdays from 1 :00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. An additional on-peak biling demand rate is also in effect durig
the peak hours. Irrgation customers have load-factor pricing that encourages customers to increase the
load utilitization of their systems.
In July 2009, as part of General Rate Case UE 213, Idaho Power proposed rates for Oregon customers
that mirrored the Idaho rates described above. Again, these rate-change proposals were driven by the
explicit Idaho Power objective of providing customers with cost-based price signals, which encourage
the wise and effcient use of energy.
Idaho Power's Internal Energy Efficiency Commitment
Idaho Power's continued commitment toward promoting energy effciency extends beyond encouraging,
incenting, and educating its customers. In 2009, The Long Valley Operations Center received
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold certification for the new operation
facility in Lake Fork, Idaho, constructed in 2008. It is the first facility built by Idaho Power to use an
integrated approach to maximize expertise and coordination throughout the process. The energy-saving
measures include utilization of day lighting extensively to light the facility, light sensors wherever
possible to reduce the electric load of lighting, and under-floor HV AC.
As part ofIdaho Power's continual retrofitting of the corporate headquarters (CHQ), Idaho Power
completed retrofitting the entire third floor in 2009. The project included intalling T-5 lighting that uses
60 percent less energy than old lighting packages and light harvesting near the exterior walls. Shorter
53" wall panels are used for cubical partitions, allowing more daylight and reducing lighting costs.
Further retrofits included installing occupancy and vacancy sensors in all enclosed offce and meeting
spaces, installing low-flow toilets and auto sin faucets in the restrooms, and intalling new blinds that
are 60 percent opaque with a horiontal range of motion that never need to be closed.
In 2009, T-5 Lighting upgrades with occupancy sensors were intalled at the Mini-Cassia Operations
Center. Center heaters interlocked to overhead doors in the garages were installed at the Mini-Cassia
Operations Center, the Payette Operations Center, and the Canyon Operations Center. In approximately
60 percent ofIdaho Power's operations centers, HV AC upgrades were completed.
Beginning in 2008, the company began retrofitting its auditoriums in the CHQ with T -5 lighting with
new controls. In 2009, this project was completed.
Page 120 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Appendices
ApPENDICES
This report includes four appendices. Appendix 1 contains financial information for 2009, showing the
begining balance, ending balance, and the expenditures for the Idaho and Oregon Rider, BP A funding,
and NEEA payments and credits. Appendix 2 also contains financial information showing expenses by
funding source for each ofIdaho Power's energy effciency programs or activities. Appendix 3 shows
participation, UC, TRC, energy and demand savings, measure life, and levelized costs for Idaho Power's
curent energy efficiency programs and activities for 2009. Appendix 4 shows similar data as
Appendix 3, but also includes data for past years' program performance, B/C ratios from the utility
perspective, and from the TRC perspectives for active programs.
Additional information is contained in the supplements provided in separate documents in two formts.
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness contains copies of cost-effectiveness metrics and results. Supplement
2: Evaluation contains copies of various third-part evaluations and reports. A CD is attached in
Supplement 2 and contains copies of NEEA Market Effects Evaluations. A searchable, linked table with
the title, study manager, evaluation type, and other information included with each supplement.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 121
Appendicies Idaho Power Company
This page left blank intentionally.
Page 122 Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Appendices~Appendix 1
Appendix 1. Idaho Rider, Oregon Rider, BPA, and NEEA Funding Balances
2009 Beginning Balance............. .................... ....................... ... ...... ........... ...... .......... ........... ............. ....
2009 Funding plus Accrued Interest .......................................................................................................
Total 2009 Funds ................................................................ .....................................................................
2009 Expenses ....... .............................. ...................... ..... ... .......... ... .... .............. ..... ...... ..... ....................
2009 Year-End Balance................................ ............................................................................................ $
26,045,264
22,102,946
(31,821,464)
8,518)
2009 Beginning Balance............... ................. ....................... ................... ....... ........... ............. .......... ..... $
2009 Funding plus Accrued Interest .......................................................................................................
Total 2009 Funds ................................................................ ................................................................ .....
2009 Expenses .................................. ... ..................... ...... ........... .......... ............. ....................................
2009 Year-End Balance...... .................. ..... ............... .... ............................ ........... .......... ..... ...................... $
196,827
370,267
567,094
(1,433,866)
(866,772)
Total Funding and Accrued Interest October 2001-Decmber 2008 ........................................................ $
2009 Funding plus Accrued Interest.. ................................ ........................... ....... ....................... ............
Total Funds May 2002-December 2009................................................................ ...................................
Total Expenses~lnception through December 2008...............................................................................
2009 Expenses (a) . .......................... ....... ............ ..... .... ... ..................... ........... ......... ....... .... .............. .....
Total BPA Funded Expenses...................................................................................................................
2009 Year-End Balance............................................................................................................................ $
3,159,042
236
3,159,278
1
(3,159,278)
o
2009 Idaho Power Contractual Obligation.......... ........... ...... ....... .............. .... ............ ........ .......... .............
Credit Applied to 2009 Contractual Obligation ....................... ......... ... ...... ..... ... ..... .... ....... ... .....................
Interest Credit Applied to 2009 Contract Obligation (b) ... ....... .......... ..... .......... ....... ........... ...... ..................
Total 2009 Cash Payments by Idaho Power............................................................................................
Credit Balance
Beginning Balance Funds Held by NEEA.. ............ ....... .... ....... ............... ............ ..... ............ ................. ...
2005-2008 Credit Applied to Contract Obligation ............... ......................... ...... ............... .... ...................
2009 Credit Applied to Contract Obligation................ ....................................... ......... ............. ........... .....
2009 Year-End Balance............................................................................................................................
$1,300,000
(6,142)
968,263
(2,115,
1,789,558
325,595
$0
(a) The 2009 SPA expenses were for two Solar 4R Schools projects that Idaho Power committed to pay pnor to the suspension of SPA
funding in 2007. These projects were scheduled for completion in 2008 but were delayed to 2009.
(b) The first quarter invoice for the Idaho Power 2009 contractual obligation to NEEA was processed in December 2008 with the amount
scheduled to be amortized over the first quarter. Interest credit of $5,061 was immediately recognized in 2008.
Demand-Side Management 2009 Annual Report Page 123
Appendices-Appendix 2 Idaho Power Company
Appendix 2.2009 DSM Expenses by Funding Source (Dollars)
Sector/Program Idaho Rider Oregon Rider SPA Idaho Power Total Program
Energy Effciency/Demand Response
Residential
AlC cooi Credit................................................................$3,305,814 $144,622 $0 $1,552 $3,451,988
Ductless Heat Pump Pilot..............................................192,264 9,740 0 0 $202,004
Energy Effcient Lighting.. .... ............ ...... .... ....... ....... ........1,190,065 17,300 0 1 $1,207,366
Energy House Calls ......................... ..... .... .............. .........479,174 90,420 0 0 $569,594
ENERGY STAR'" Homes Northwest..............................348,829 5,928 0 866 $355,623
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program............................458,216 20,032 0 125 $478,373
Home Improvement Program ..........................................321,140 0 0 0 $321,140
Home Products Program .................................................498,980 12,283 0 50 $511,313
Oregon Residential Weatherization ................................0 6,359 0 1,285 $7,64
Rebate Advantage .... ......... ..............................................43,954 5,571 0 0 $49,525
See Ya Later Refngerator ...............................................297,587 7,815 0 0 $305,402
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customer ......0 0 0 1,294,862 $1,294,862
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers ...........160,459 0 0 2,536 $162,995
CommerciaUlndustrial
Building Effciency............................................................1,300,466 26,323 0 339 $1,327,128
Easy Upgrades ................................................................3,213,388 108,533 0 3,584 $3,325,505
FlexPeak Management. ......... ......... ...... ..... ..... ................528,681 0 0 0 $528,681
Holiday Lighting ...............................................................33,673 257 0 0 $33,930
Oregon Commercial Audits .............. ................... ....... .....0 20,732 0 0 $20,732
Custom Effciency..... ...................... .................................5,816,305 236,910 0 8,252 $6,061,467
Irrigation
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards ............... .................. .........2,112,391 152,134 0 29,371 $2,293,896
Irrigation Peak Rewards ..................................................9,131,929 451,673 0 71,681 $9,655,283
Energy Effciency Total....................................................29,433,315 1,316,632 0 1,414,504 $32,164,451
Market Transformation
NEEA...............................................................................919,850 48,413 0 0 $968,263
Consumer Electronics Initiative.......................................160,762 0 0 0 $160,762
Market Transformation Total............................................1,080,612 48,413 0 0 $1,129,025
Other Programs and Activities
Residential
Residential Energy Efficiency Education Initative .........183,143 9,430 0 1,080 $193,653
Commercial
Commercial Education Initiative .....................................114,516 5,962 0 106 $120,58
Other
Solar 4R Schools (a) ...... ........... ................ ... ....................0 0 42,485 37 $42,522
Energy Effciency Direct Program Overhead..................146,007 8,353 0 10,597 $164,957
Local Energy Effciency Funds........................................5,622 248 0 0 $5,870
Other Programs and Activities Total..............................449,288 23,993 42,485 11,820 $527,586
Indirect Program Expenses
Residential Overhead.. ........... ........... .... ..... .... .................112,984 5,949 0 0 $118,933
Commerciallindustnal/lrngation Overhead .....................139,101 7,369 0 0 $146,470
Energy Effciency Accounting and Analysis. ..................600,870 31,357 0 124,604 $756,831
Energy Efficiency Advisor Group ..................................3,434 180 0 0 $3,614
Special Accounting Entres (b) .. ............................... ........1,860 (27)0 (1,977)$(144)
Indirec Program Expenses Total....................................858,249 44,828 0 122,627 $1,025,704
Totls...................................................................................$31,821,464 $1,433,866 $42,485 $1,54,951 $34,846,766
(a)Residual BPA Conservation Rate Credits
(b~008 Expenses reversed in 2009
Page 124 Demand-Side. Management 2009 Annual Report
Id
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
-
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

3
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

3
.

2
0
0
9

D
S
M

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Ut
i
l
t
y
(
b
)
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

P
e
a
k

R
e
w
a
r
d
s
Fle
x
P
e
a
k

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
30
,
3
9
1

h
o
m
e
s

$
3
,
4
5
1
,
9
8
8
1,
5
1
2

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

p
o
i
n
t
s

$
9
,
6
5
5
,
2
8
3
33

s
i
t
e
s

$
5
2
8
,
6
8
1
$1
3
,
6
3
5
,
9
5
2
He
a
t
i
n
g

&

C
o
o
l
i
n
g

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
.
.
.
Ho
m
e

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ho
m
e

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
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

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Re
b
a
t
e

A
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Se
e

Y
a

L
a
t
e
r

R
e
f
r
i
g
e
r
a
t
o
r
We
a
t
h
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
o
r
Qu
a
l
i
f
i
e
d

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

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

S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r
El
i
g
i
b
l
e

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
="
"
"
"
=
,
.
~
"
"
~
Se
c
t
o
r

T
o
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

$
5
,
4
6
5
,
8
4
1

$
7
,
8
5
2
,
3
4
3

2
5
,
9
7
9
,
9
2
0
Le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

2
0
0
9

I
R
P

a
n
d

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
(b
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(e
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
(d
)

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

w
h
e
r
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

M
W

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
e
d
.

D
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

1
3
%

p
e
a
k

l
o
s
s

a
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
.
Af
C

C
o
o
l

C
r
e
d
i
!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Du
c
t
l
e
s
s

H
e
a
t

P
u
m
p

P
i
t
o
!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
En
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
c
i
e
n
t

L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
En
e
r
g
y

H
o
u
s
e

C
a
l
l
s
EN
E
R
G
Y

S
T
A
R
'
"

H
o
m
e
s

N
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
96
54
9
,
8
4
6
1,
2
6
6
47
4
34
9
1,
1
8
8
9,
4
9
9
1 57
1,
6
6
1
43
7
ho
m
e
s
bu
l
b
s
ho
m
e
s
ho
m
e
s
ho
m
e
s
ho
m
e
s
ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
l
f
i
x
t
u
r
e
s
ho
m
e
ho
m
e
s
re
f
r
i
g
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
l
f
r
e
e
z
e
r
s
ho
m
e
s
/
n
o
n
-
p
r
o
f
i
s
41
ho
m
e
s
$2
0
2
,
0
0
4
$1
,
2
0
7
,
3
6
6
$5
6
9
,
5
9
4
$3
5
5
,
6
2
3
$4
7
8
,
3
7
3
$3
2
1
,
1
4
0
$5
1
1
,
3
1
3
$7
,
6
4
4
$4
9
,
5
2
5
$3
0
5
,
4
0
2
$1
,
2
9
4
,
8
6
2
$1
6
2
,
9
9
5
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
(
e
)
$3
,
4
5
1
,
9
8
8
$9
,
6
5
5
,
2
8
3
$5
2
8
,
6
8
1
,,
=
=
=
,
~
$1
3
,
6
3
5
,
9
5
2
$4
5
1
,
6
0
4
$1
,
4
5
6
,
7
9
6
$5
6
9
,
5
9
4
$4
9
8
,
6
2
2
$7
6
4
,
6
7
1
$5
5
0
,
1
4
8
$8
4
4
,
8
1
1
$8
,
4
0
9
$9
3
,
0
7
3
$3
0
5
,
4
0
2
$2
,
1
4
6
,
2
1
8
$1
6
2
,
9
9
5
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
(k
W
h
)
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
Su
m
m
e
r
Pe
a
k
De
m
a
n
d
(
d
)
(M
W
)
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Li
f
e
nl
a
nl
a
nl
a 18 5 20 25 18 25 15 25 25 8 25 25 13
No
m
i
n
a
l

L
e
v
e
l
l
z
e
d
Co
s
t
s
(
a
)
Ut
i
l
t
y
($
/
k
W
h
)
To
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
($
/
k
W
h
)
nl
a
nl
a
nl
a
40
9
,
1
8
0
13
,
4
1
0
,
7
4
8
92
8
,
8
7
5
70
5
,
7
8
4
1,
2
7
4
,
8
2
9
1,
3
3
8
,
8
7
6
1,
6
3
8
,
0
3
8
2,
9
0
7
24
7
,
3
4
8
1,
1
3
2
,
8
0
2
4,
6
7
8
,
8
1
5
1.
1
nl
a
nl
a
nl
a
nl
a
nl
a
nl
a
21
1
,
7
2
0
1.
1
$0
.
0
3
1
$0
.
0
8
6
$0
.
0
2
0
$0
.
0
2
4
$0
.
0
5
2
$0
.
0
5
2
$0
.
0
3
9
$0
.
0
5
5
$0
.
0
3
4
$0
.
0
5
4
$0
.
0
1
9
$0
.
0
3
2
$0
.
0
3
1
$0
.
0
5
1
$0
.
2
0
3
$0
.
2
2
3
$0
.
0
1
5
$0
.
0
2
9
$0
.
0
4
1
$0
.
0
4
1
$0
.
0
2
1
$0
.
0
3
5
$0
.
0
5
9
$0
.
0
5
9
=,
,
'
~
"
$0
.
0
2
3
$0
.
0
3
3
De
m
a
n
d
-
S
i
d
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

2
0
0
9

A
n
n
u
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t
Pa
g
e

1
2
5
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
-
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

3
Id
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

3
.

2
0
0
9

D
S
M

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

7
2

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Ea
s
y

U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s

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

1
,
2
2
4

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Ho
l
i
d
a
y

L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

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

3
2

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

A
u
d
i
t
s

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

4
1

a
u
d
i
t
s
Se
c
t
o
r

T
o
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Cu
s
t
o
m

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

(
1
)

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

1
3
2

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
~_

"
"
~
'
"
,
"
'
'
'
'
'
"
.
,
'
'
=
w
=
'
H
Se
c
t
o
r

T
o
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
-

-
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

R
e
w
a
r
d
s
(
2
)

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

8
8
7

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
-,
-
-
'
'
'
Se
c
t
o
r

T
o
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
Su
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k
De
m
a
n
d
(
d
)
(M
W
)
No
m
i
n
a
l

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d
Co
s
t
s
(
a
)
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Li
f
e
12 12 10
nf
a 12 12 12
Ut
i
l
t
y
($
/
k
W
h
)
$0
.
0
2
4
$0
.
0
1
1
$0
.
0
3
1
nf
a
$0
.
0
1
3
$0
.
0
1
3
$0
.
0
1
3
8 8
$0
.
0
2
6
$0
.
0
2
6
To
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
($
!
k
W
h
)
$0
.
0
4
3
$0
.
0
3
2
$0
.
0
6
6
nf
a
$0
.
0
3
4
$0
.
0
2
4
,-
,
~
'
"
$0
.
0
2
4
$0
.
0
7
7
$0
.
0
7
7
Ut
l
l
t
y
(
b
)
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
(k
W
h
)
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e

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

$
1
9
3
,
6
5
3

$
1
9
3
,
6
5
3
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e

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

$
1
2
0
,
5
8
4

$
1
2
0
,
5
8
4
(a
)

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
j
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

2
0
0
9

I
R
P

a
n
d

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
(b
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(e
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
(d
)

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
e
d

w
h
e
r
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

M
W

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
e
d
.

D
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

1
3
%

p
e
a
k

l
o
s
s

a
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
.
(1
)

C
u
s
t
o
m

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

1
4

G
r
e
e
n

M
o
t
o
r
s

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

t
o
t
a
l
i
n
g

3
3
,
3
9
9

k
W
h

o
f

a
n
n
u
a
l

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
,

b
u
t

n
o
t

i
n

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

t
o
t
a
l
s
.
(2
)

I
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

2
7

G
r
e
e
n

M
o
t
o
r
s

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

t
o
t
a
l
i
n
g

1
9
5
,
8
8
6

k
W
h

o
f

a
n
n
u
a
l

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
,

n
o
t

c
o
u
n
t
e
d

i
n

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

t
o
t
a
l
s
.
(3
)

S
a
v
i
n
g
s

a
r
e

p
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

b
y

N
E
E
A
.
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
(
c
)
$1
,
3
2
7
,
1
2
8
$2
,
3
5
6
,
4
3
5
6,
1
4
6
,
1
3
9
$3
,
3
2
5
,
5
0
5
$1
0
,
0
7
6
,
2
3
7
35
,
1
7
1
,
6
2
7
$3
3
,
9
3
0
$7
2
,
8
7
4
14
2
,
1
0
9
$2
0
,
7
3
2
$2
0
,
7
3
2
nf
a
$4
,
7
0
7
,
2
9
5
$1
2
,
5
2
6
,
2
7
8
41
,
4
5
9
,
8
7
5
-~
-
$6
,
0
6
1
,
4
6
7
$1
0
,
8
4
8
,
1
2
3
51
,
8
3
5
,
6
1
2
~'
"
,
'
'
.-
$6
,
0
6
1
,
4
6
7
$1
0
,
8
4
8
,
1
2
3
51
,
8
3
5
,
6
1
2
",=
"''
'
,
,
=
$2
,
2
9
3
,
8
9
6
$6
,
7
3
2
,
2
6
8
13
,
1
5
7
,
6
1
9
~$2
,
2
9
3
,
8
9
6
$6
,
7
3
2
,
2
6
8
13
,
1
5
7
,
6
1
9
1.
3
6.
1 7.
4
6.
7
6.
7
3.
4
3.
4
Pa
g
e

1
2
6
De
m
a
n
d
-
S
i
d
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

2
0
0
9

A
n
n
u
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t
Id
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
-
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

3
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

3
.

2
0
0
9

D
S
M

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
(
c
)
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
(k
W
h
)
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
Su
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k
De
m
a
n
d
(
d
)
(M
W
)
No
m
i
n
a
l

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d
Co
s
t
s
(
a
)
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Ut
i
l
t
y
(
b
)
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Li
f
e
Ut
i
l
t
y
($
!
k
W
h
)
To
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
($
!
k
W
h
)
So
l
a
r

4
R

S
c
h
o
o
l
s

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

$
4
2
,
5
2
2

$
4
2
,
5
2
2
DS
M

D
i
r
e
c
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

O
v
e
r
h
e
a
d

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'

$
1
6
4
,
9
5
7

$
1
6
4
,
9
5
7
Lo
c
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y

F
u
n
d
s
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,

1

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

$
5
,
8
7
0

$
4
,
2
7
4
To
t
a
l

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

D
i
r
e
c
t

E
x
p
e
n
s
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,

$
3
3
,
8
2
1
,
0
6
2

$
5
3
,
2
4
9
,
9
7
9
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

E
x
p
e
n
s
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

$
1
,
0
2
5
,
7
0
4

$
1
,
0
2
5
,
7
0
4
To
t
a
l

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

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

$
3
4
,
8
4
6
,
7
6
6

$
5
4
,
2
7
5
,
6
8
3
Le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

2
0
0
9

I
R
P

a
n
d

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
(b
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(e
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
(d
)

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

w
h
e
r
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

M
W

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
e
d
.

D
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

1
3
%

p
e
a
k

l
o
s
s

a
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
.
(4
)

S
o
l
a
r

4
R

S
c
h
o
o
l
s

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

u
s
e
d

r
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

S
P
A

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

R
a
t
e

C
r
e
d
i
t

f
u
n
d
s

f
o
r

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
.
10
,
3
4
0
14
8
,
2
5
6
,
0
1
8
nl
a
nl
a
23
6
.
6
De
m
a
n
d
-
S
i
d
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

2
0
0
9

A
n
n
u
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t
Pa
g
e

1
2
7
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
-
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
Id
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
2
-
2
0
0
9
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
Sa
v
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

D
e
m
a
n
d
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Le
v
i
l
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

(
0
)
Pr
o
g
r
a
m

L
i
f
e
Be
n
e
f
i
t
l
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
s
(
b
)
An
n
u
a
l
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pe
a
k
Me
a
s
u
r
e
To
t
a
l
To
t
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
En
e
r
g
y
i
e
)
De
m
a
n
d
(
f
)
Li
f
e
Ut
i
l
t
y
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
To
t
a
l
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
l
Y
e
a
r
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Ut
i
l
t
y
(
C
)
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
(
d
)
(k
W
h
)
(a
M
W
)
(M
W
)
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
($
/
k
W
h
)
($
/
k
W
h
)
Ut
i
l
t
y
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Al
C

C
o
o
l

C
r
e
d
i
t
20
0
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
4
$2
7
5
,
6
4
5
$2
7
5
,
6
4
5
0.
0
20
0
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
0
$2
8
7
,
2
5
3
$2
8
7
,
2
5
3
0.
5
20
0
5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2,
3
6
9
$7
5
4
,
0
6
2
$7
5
4
,
0
6
2
3.
1
20
0
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5,
3
6
9
$1
,
2
3
5
,
4
7
6
$1
,
2
3
5
,
4
7
6
6.
3
20
0
7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
,
6
9
2
$2
,
4
2
6
,
1
5
4
$2
,
4
2
6
,
1
5
4
12
.
2
20
0
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
,
1
9
5
$2
,
9
6
9
,
3
7
7
$2
,
9
6
9
,
3
7
7
25
.
5
20
0
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
30
,
3
9
1
$3
,
4
5
1
,
9
8
8
$3
,
4
5
1
,
9
8
8
38
.
5
To
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
$1
1
,
3
9
9
,
9
5
4
$1
1
,
3
9
9
,
9
5
4
1.
0
9
1.
0
9
,,-
-
",'
'
'
Fl
e
x
P
e
a
k

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
20
0
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
33
$5
2
8
,
6
8
1
$5
2
8
,
6
8
1
19
.
3
To
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
$5
2
8
,
6
8
1
$5
2
8
,
6
8
1
1.
1
1
1.
1
1
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

P
e
a
k

R
e
w
a
r
d
s
20
0
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

5
8

$
3
4
4
,
7
1
4

$
3
4
4
,
7
1
4
20
0
5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

8
9
4

$
1
,
4
6
8
,
2
8
2

$
1
,
4
6
8
,
2
8
2
20
0
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

9
0
6

$
1
,
3
2
4
,
4
1
8

$
1
,
3
2
4
,
4
1
8
20
0
7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

9
4
7

$
1
,
6
1
5
,
8
8
1

$
1
,
6
1
5
,
8
8
1
20
0
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

8
9
7

$
1
,
4
3
1
,
8
4
0

$
1
,
4
3
1
,
8
4
0
20
0
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

1
,
5
1
2

$
9
,
6
5
5
,
2
8
3

$
9
,
6
5
5
,
2
8
3
To
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

$
1
5
,
8
4
0
,
4
1
8

$
1
5
,
8
4
0
,
4
1
8
Co
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

2
0
0
9

I
R
P
,

a
n
d

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
(b
)
P
r
o
g
r
a
m

l
i
f
e

b
e
n
e
f
i
t
/
c
o
s
t

r
a
t
i
o
s

a
r
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

f
o
r

a
c
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

o
n
l
y
.
(c
)
T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)
T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
(e
)
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
/
8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
.
(f
)
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

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

r
e
d
u
c
e

l
o
a
d

o
r

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

s
e
a
s
o
n
.

P
e
a
k

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

i
s
re
p
o
r
t
e
d

a
t

t
h
e

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

l
e
v
e
l

a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g

1
3
%

p
e
a
k

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s
e
s
.
(1
)
U
t
i
l
t
y

c
o
s
t

r
e
s
t
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

$
3
2
0
,
3
0
9

i
n

p
r
i
o
r

h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l

r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

t
o

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

a
l
l

f
u
n
d
i
n
g

s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
(2
)
P
e
a
k

M
W

a
c
h
i
e
v
e
d

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

m
i
d
-
w
e
e
k

l
o
a
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
.
(3
)
P
e
a
k

M
W

a
c
h
i
e
v
e
d

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

e
q
u
a
l
l
y

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d

w
e
e
k
l
y

l
o
a
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
.
5.
6
40
.
3
31
.
8
37
.
4
35
.
1
16
0
.
2
(1
)
(2
)
(3
)
1.
5
0
1.
5
0
Pa
g
e

1
2
8
De
m
a
n
d
-
S
i
d
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

2
0
0
9

A
n
n
u
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t
v
.~"0C
Q)0.
1:
~:sc
Q)0.0.c:
;;Ctt0.
Eoü..
~D.o.itt"0
-
-g:Ji::¡i:oÜ-
enoo
~NooN
Q)()i:
CO
E~
.g
Q)0-
"Ci:
CO
Q)
CJi:
Q)0-XW
~en
Cl
~
.~
"CC
Q)C.C.c(
Q) ~2..-
:: &!i: -
E ~
01 (,o ;:It ~cQ)ai
Q)
~
~ g
i- g¡
It
~
:5
Ul
ûio(,'t
~.~
..
~~
! ...co r~i- g¡ ~It ~
_ ~:2
s:: 5:o._~1-5~
f ~
¡i t! ~Il- CDQ) .. )-:E ~
~~~II ¡; 5:CI i:::Q. CI ~o
'tCII
i:
~ 5
'C ;¡C c,Il~
Ul CI
01 Itc.:;
III/
ClO;01-;: ~E ei ¿~ ~ ~c( w
- ;:II oi::
~ lD ~~il~
~o(,
~i-
~Q)
~::oUl
~
Ul
1:IIQ,
'ut:
:.
(0 01
gs g¡
g g
8 ~ó 0~ ~
co co.. ..
o Clco co.. ..0) r:
~ ~
LO ino Cl(0 CQ
ìõ ~
~ ;
~ ~
g g
~ SN N~ 4l
~ :§
:Q
a:c.
E::ci
î
01
""..
....~
.. ..o Clo Cl
g g
.. ..
g gó 0~ ~
I' I'
NoÓ
tõ lñI' ..
i. iñLO in.. ..
LO inLO inI' ..~ ~
:g :gI' ..~ ~
LO inN N0) enÑ Ñ
tl~
álci
§'~ 'ü:; æ8l g¡ ;. ~tio:ocu ~O!o:: N c: No i- w i-
1O..O~I,('~coo~oooo~~gggggggg
NVI'CON..OCQoog8oo~~gggggggg
I' I' I' I' I' I' 10 in
co ONN('('('VNI'CO~iaÓ Ó Ó Ó Ó
~ t;
0) (' 0
~ ¡g ie
-- Ñ C".. .. v
..CQN
CQ01N
Uloic:
'S:11Ul;.
eiCDc:CD
-gii::'õ11
Ul
~
CD
:§
enN..
.!!
Ul
E~
ec.
CDUlc:oc.
~
"0c:11
~"0
Š
Q)0)ttD.
c:oñ::
e
"0c:11ECD"0~
IIci
g
~Ul~
IIc.
æEE::Uloic:'C::"0
Ul
.§Ü::
e
"0c:11
ECD"0
~::
~
E
t:o0.
æ
ëã:JCCc:
enooN..C
Q)E
Q)0)ttCtt:2
Q)"0c:i"0CttE
Q)a
~c
coc.Eoü..
Q)~
&.o.c
CO
32
~
.~"'C
Q)c.
î
.~"'C
Q)c.c.c:
-."0
Q):ic::.c:oÜ--
0)ooN
INooN
Q)()c:
CO
E..
.g
Q)0-
"0c:
CO
Q)enc:
Q)0.XW~enc:
-.
.~"c(IQ.Q.c(
:õ
-UloCD -
!: 16..~
E -
E :g010o~.. ¡¡
Q. CDcCDa:
Ul
ûíoo
'C
~.~
..
~~_ ....
-0l' =š0""I- gi~~~
- ;:::J!:= š
1-0 ;~::~
l! ~
¡ -S ~
:g :: :e:¡ ~
~~-l'æŠCD E:2Q. CD ~
Q
'CCl'
E
~ l5
i: ::c ul'~
Ul CDOI~C.~
t/
CD_01-;: S2E ~:E~ ~ ~c: w
- ;:l' oi:?
~ ¡ s:
.. if ~
~oo
~I-
CD
~
~ S
I- gi~
~
5
;;
-CD
~::
J
~
5
Ulël'Q.'ü
1:l'Q.
..
~f01o
à:
1. ~
..oN
..oN
NM~..~m~N~~~~õ88~~Sggggggggg
NM~..~m~Nm~~~õ88~~Sggggggggg
000000000NNNNNNNNN
o....omcoo~OONNOO__..
ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci
~~~R;~~~~m .. .. .. N co 0 co ~~~~ië~gg~~co~"'..cocom~
M ~ ~ 0 -- ID m v Gi
~ ~ ~ ~ R ~ ~ m MCl~11~li~ië~li~~(f ;; ~ ~ ~ (f ;¡ ~ ~I
~¡¡
t
I~O~NmvNi~~R~~m~ilÔ lÔ ~ cD ~ ai ÑI~~M~V¡g~i(f (f (f (f (f (f £!I
I
M co~ ..o 0cD i-N co(f ;;
~~~mmg~~~~.._coèõ..q"!ot~
~8g~~~¡gg~~~~~~~~
d
q: ~ ~
~ i E
¡I¡~: c:
~ I ~: )- üí
Jii'~ ~l' w..
Õ z 151-1 w z
1
Ul
=æü
Q)Ul::o:i::
~i:W
cocom..m~..~~~~~~:gggggggg
M~cocoCXmCl~~8~~8;:ggggggg
~~~~~~inNNNNNNN
~mcoco--
ci ci ci ci ci
~ ~ 0 .. ~ cooo~ooo
ci ci ci ci ci ci
l:io
C";;
Q)"0::Õ.5OONvCXvCl enOO~MIlCO~ §~~~~~:6M'f~~C;~~R~"3M fso
"0i:I'
..m~
C";;
M ~
~ ~
lÔ 0)~ 0M 0(f £!
~ ~co 0~ ~
m v
g ~
ai lÔco ..
;¡ ;¡
..cooNoM(f
e i;
~ ~
;g~~~¡:~N ~ ,., N v ~
~
C'
mia..
uiCli:.~
en::
2'
Q)i:Q)
-g
üí::~
en
J;
Q)
:§
..
.!
enE~
~
Q)en
§a.
~
"0i:I'
EQ)"0
~i:o~::
~
en"0i:
.2
Q)
lß..I-
aieni:Q)
~i:o
2.~
1:oc.
~
(i::ccc:
0'ooN-C
Q)
E
Q)0'
COC
CO~
Q)"'i:i"'i:
CO
E
Q)o
i:
~
-g.c
i:o
-g
M
"8::
~::0-Q)en.c::en
en"0i:.2
~a.
~o!!I'
1go
~
:5
o('..
Q)0'
COQ.
Id
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
-
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
2
-
2
0
0
9

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Sa
v
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

D
e
m
a
n
d
Pr
o
g
r
a
m

L
i
f
e
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Le
v
i
l
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

(
a
)
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
s
(
b
)
An
n
u
a
l
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pe
a
k
Me
a
s
u
r
e
To
t
a
l
To
t
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
En
e
r
g
y
(
e
)
De
m
a
n
d
(
f
)
Li
f
e
Ut
i
l
t
y
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
To
t
a
l
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
N
e
a
r
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Ut
i
l
t
y
(
C
)
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
1
d
)
(k
W
h
)
(a
M
W
)
(M
W
)
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
($
/
k
W
h
)
($
/
k
W
h
)
Ut
i
l
t
y
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
He
a
t
i
n
g

&

C
o
o
l
i
n
g

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
20
0
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
$1
7
,
4
4
4
$1
7
,
4
4
4
20
0
7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
$4
8
8
,
2
1
1
$4
9
4
,
9
8
9
1,
5
9
5
0.
0
0
18
$2
7
.
3
4
4
$2
7
.
7
1
0
20
0
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
35
9
$4
7
3
,
5
5
1
$5
9
9
,
7
7
1
56
1
,
4
4
1
0.
0
6
18
$0
.
0
7
3
$0
.
0
9
2
20
0
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
34
9
$4
7
8
,
3
7
3
$7
6
4
,
6
7
1
1,
2
7
4
,
8
2
9
0.
1
5
18
$0
.
0
3
4
$0
.
0
5
4
To
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
71
2
$1
,
4
5
7
,
5
8
0
$1
,
8
7
6
,
8
7
5
1,
8
3
7
,
8
6
5
18
$0
.
0
7
1
$0
.
0
9
1
1.
6
1
0.
9
1
Ho
m
e

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
20
0
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
2
$1
2
3
,
4
5
4
$1
5
7
,
8
6
6
31
7
,
8
1
4
0.
0
4
25
$0
.
0
2
9
$0
.
0
3
7
20
0
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1,
1
8
8
$3
2
1
,
1
4
0
$5
5
0
,
1
4
8
1,
3
3
8
,
8
7
6
0.
1
5
25
$0
.
0
1
9
$0
.
0
3
2
To
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1,
4
7
0
$4
4
4
,
5
9
4
$7
0
8
,
0
1
4
1,
6
5
6
,
6
9
0
25
$0
.
0
2
1
$0
.
0
3
3
4.
1
2
2.
6
1
Ho
m
e

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
20
0
7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

$
9
,
2
7
5

$
9
,
2
7
5
20
0
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

3
,
0
3
4

$
2
5
0
,
8
6
0

$
4
6
8
,
0
5
6

5
4
1
,
6
1
5

1
5
20
0
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

9
,
4
9
9

$
5
1
1
,
3
1
3

$
8
4
4
,
8
1
1

1
,
6
3
8
,
0
3
8

1
5
To
t
a
L
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

1
2
,
5
3
3

$
7
7
1
,
4
4
8

$
1
,
3
2
2
,
1
4
2

2
,
1
7
9
,
6
5
3

1
5
(a
)
L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

2
0
0
9

I
R
P
,

a
n
d

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
(b
)
P
r
o
g
r
a
m

l
i
f
e

b
e
n
e
f
i
U
c
o
s
t

r
a
t
i
o
s

a
r
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

f
o
r

a
c
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

o
n
l
y
.
(C
)
T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)
T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
(e
)
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
/
8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
.
(f
)
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

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

r
e
d
u
c
e

l
o
a
d

o
r

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

s
e
a
s
o
n
.

P
e
a
k

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

i
s
re
p
o
r
t
e
d

a
t

t
h
e

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

l
e
v
e
l

a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g

1
3
%

p
e
a
k

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s
e
s
.
$0
.
0
4
4
$0
.
0
3
1
$0
.
0
3
5
$0
.
0
8
2
$0
.
0
5
1
$0
.
0
6
0
2.
7
2
1.
5
9
De
m
a
n
d
-
S
i
d
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

2
0
0
9

A
n
n
u
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t
Pa
g
e

1
3
1
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
-
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
Id
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
2
-
2
0
0
9

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
N
e
a
r
Sa
v
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

D
e
m
a
n
d
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Ut
i
l
t
y
(
C
)
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
(k
W
h
)
Av
e
r
a
g
e
En
e
r
g
y
(
e
)
(a
M
W
)
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Li
f
e
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
Pr
o
g
r
a
m

L
i
f
e
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
s
(
b
)
Le
v
i
l
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

(
a
)
To
t
a
l
Ut
i
l
t
y
($
/
k
W
h
)
To
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
($
/
k
W
h
)
Ut
i
i
t
y
To
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Pe
a
k
De
m
a
n
d
(
f
)
(M
W
)
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
(
d
)
Or
e
g
o
n

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
We
a
t
h
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
20
0
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
To
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
-$
6
6
2
$2
3
,
9
7
1
4,
5
8
0
0.
0
0
25
$0
.
0
1
0
$0
.
3
8
9
(8
)
-$
9
4
3
(9
)
4
$1
,
0
5
7
$1
,
0
5
7
4
$6
1
2
$3
,
6
0
8
7,
9
2
7
0.
0
0
25
$0
.
0
0
6
$0
.
0
3
4
$4
,
1
2
6
$4
,
1
2
6
(1
0
)
1
$3
,
7
8
1
$5
,
5
8
9
9,
9
7
1
0.
0
0
25
$0
.
0
2
8
$0
.
0
4
2
3
$7
,
4
1
7
$2
8
,
7
5
2
22
,
1
9
6
0.
0
0
25
$0
.
0
2
5
$0
.
0
9
6
1
$7
,
6
4
4
$8
,
4
1
0
2,
9
0
7
0.
0
0
25
$0
.
2
0
3
$0
.
2
2
3
37
$2
3
,
0
3
3
$7
5
,
5
1
3
47
,
5
8
1
25
$0
.
0
3
7
$0
.
1
2
3
(1
2
)
$0
.
0
0
8
$0
.
0
1
0
$0
.
0
0
9
$0
.
0
1
0
$0
.
0
1
0
$0
.
0
1
2
$0
.
0
1
5
$0
.
0
1
3
$0
.
0
2
2
$0
.
0
3
4
$0
.
0
3
2
$0
.
0
2
7
$0
.
0
2
1
$0
.
0
2
5
$0
.
0
2
9
$0
.
0
3
2
5.
7
1
2.
3
0
Re
b
a
t
e

A
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
20
0
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

7
3

$
2
7
,
3
7
2

$
7
9
,
3
9
9

2
2
7
,
4
3
4

0
.
0
3

4
5
20
0
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

1
0
5

$
5
2
,
1
8
7

$
1
7
8
,
7
1
2

3
3
2
,
5
8
7

0
.
0
4

4
5
20
0
5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

9
8

$
4
6
,
1
7
3

$
1
5
8
,
6
2

3
1
2
,
3
1
1

0
.
0
4

4
5
20
0
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

1
0
2

$
5
2
,
6
7
3

$
1
4
0
,
2
8
9

3
3
3
,
4
9
4

0
.
0
4

4
5
20
0
7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

1
2
3

$
8
9
,
2
6
9

$
1
8
2
,
1
5
2

5
5
4
,
0
1
8

0
.
0
6

4
5
20
0
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

1
0
7

$
9
0
,
8
8
8

$
1
7
9
,
8
6
8

4
6
3
,
4
0
1

0
.
0
5

4
5
20
0
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

5
7

$
4
9
,
5
2
5

$
9
3
,
0
7
3

2
4
7
,
3
4
8

0
.
0
3

2
5
To
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

6
6
5

$
4
0
8
,
0
8
8

$
1
,
0
1
1
,
9
5
5

2
,
4
7
0
,
5
9
3

2
5
Co
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

2
0
0
9

I
R
P
,

a
n
d

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
(b
)

Pr
o
g
r
a
m

l
i
f
e

b
e
n
e
f
i
t
/
c
o
s
t

r
a
t
i
o
s

a
r
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

f
o
r

a
c
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

o
n
l
y
.
(c
)
T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)
T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
(e
)
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
/
8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
.
(n
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

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

r
e
d
u
c
e

l
o
a
d

o
r

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

s
e
a
s
o
n
.

P
e
a
k

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
at

t
h
e

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

l
e
v
e
l

a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g

1
3
%

p
e
a
k

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s
e
s
.
(8
)
U
t
i
l
t
y

C
o
s
t

r
e
p
o
r
t
s

r
e
v
e
r
s
a
l

o
f

$
2
,
7
7
8

a
s
s
e
t

f
r
o
m

2
0
0
1

e
x
p
e
n
s
e
,

t
h
i
s

a
m
o
u
n
t

i
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

i
n

l
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

c
o
s
t

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.

I
n

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,

U
t
i
l
t
y

c
o
s
t

a
l
s
o

r
e
p
o
r
t
s

f
u
n
d
s

s
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
l
y

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d

o
n

b
a
d

l
o
a
n
wr
i
t
e

o
f
f

e
x
p
e
n
s
e
.

T
h
e
s
e

f
u
n
d
s

a
r
e

e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

a
n
n
u
a
l
l
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

c
o
s
t

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
(9
)

U
t
i
l
t
y

c
o
s
t

r
e
f
l
e
c
t
s

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d

f
u
n
d
s

o
n

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

b
a
d

l
o
a
n

w
r
i
t
e

o
f
f
s
.
(1
0
)
U
t
i
l
t
y

c
o
s
t

r
e
f
l
e
c
t
s

o
n
l
y

a
u
d
i
t

a
n
d

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

c
o
s
t
s
,

t
h
e
r
e

w
e
r
e

n
o

f
u
r
t
h
e
r

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

i
n

2
0
0
6
.
(1
2
)
U
t
i
l
t
y

c
o
s
t

r
e
s
t
a
t
e
d

i
n

2
0
0
6

f
r
o
m

$
3
7
,
3
1
9

t
o

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

t
o
t
a
l

e
x
p
e
n
s
e
.
Pa
g
e

1
3
2
De
m
a
n
d
-
S
i
d
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

2
0
0
9

A
n
n
u
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t
Id
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
-
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
2
-
2
0
0
9

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Sa
v
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

D
e
m
a
n
d
Pr
o
g
r
a
m

L
i
f
e
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Le
v
i
l
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

(
a
)
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
s
(
b
)
An
n
u
a
l
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pe
a
k
Me
a
s
u
r
e
To
t
a
l
To
t
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
En
e
r
g
y
(
e
)
De
m
a
n
d
(
!
)
Li
f
e
Ut
i
l
t
y
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
To
t
a
l
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
l
Y
e
a
r
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Ut
i
l
t
y
(
C
)
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
(
d
)
(k
W
h
)
(a
M
W
)
(M
W
)
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
($
/
k
W
h
)
($
/
k
W
h
)
Ut
i
l
t
y
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Se
e

Y
a

L
a
t
e
r

R
e
f
r
i
g
e
r
a
t
o
r
20
0
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1,
6
6
1
$3
0
5
,
4
0
2
$3
0
5
,
4
0
1
1,
1
3
2
,
8
0
2
0.
1
3
8
$0
.
0
4
1
$0
.
0
4
1
To
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1,
6
6
1
$3
0
5
,
4
0
2
$3
0
5
,
4
0
1
1,
1
3
2
,
8
0
2
8
$0
.
0
4
1
$0
.
0
4
1
1.
9
5
1.
5
We
a
t
h
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r
El
i
g
i
b
l
e

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
20
0
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
$5
2
,
8
0
7
$4
8
,
1
6
2
71
,
6
8
0
0.
0
1
25
$0
.
0
5
5
$0
.
0
5
0
20
0
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
$1
6
2
,
9
9
5
$1
6
2
,
9
9
5
21
1
,
7
2
0
0.
0
2
25
$0
.
0
5
9
$0
.
0
5
9
To
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
57
$2
1
5
,
8
0
2
$2
1
1
,
1
5
7
28
3
,
3
9
9
25
$0
.
0
5
9
$0
.
0
5
8
1.
7
6
1.
8
0
Win
d
o
w

A
l
C

T
r
a
d
e

U
p

P
i
l
o
t
20
0
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
99
$6
,
6
8
7
$1
0
,
4
9
2
14
,
4
5
4
0.
0
0
12
$0
.
0
5
1
$0
.
0
7
9
To
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
99
$6
,
6
8
7
$1
0
,
4
9
2
14
,
4
5
4
12
$0
.
0
0
5
$0
.
0
8
2
WA
Q
C
-
I
d
a
h
o
20
0
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

1
9
7

$
2
3
5
,
0
4
8

$
4
9
2
,
1
3
9
20
0
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

2
0
8

$
2
2
8
,
1
3
4

$
4
8
3
,
3
6
9
20
0
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

2
6
9

$
4
9
8
,
4
7
4

$
8
5
9
,
4
8
2

1
,
2
7
1
,
6
7
7

0
.
1
5

2
5
20
0
5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

5
7
0

$
1
,
4
0
2
,
4
8
7

$
1
,
9
2
7
,
4
2
4

3
,
1
7
9
,
3
1
1

0
.
3
6

2
5
20
0
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

5
4
0

$
1
,
4
5
5
,
3
7
3

$
2
,
2
3
1
,
0
8
6

2
,
9
5
8
,
0
2
4

0
.
3
4

2
5
20
0
7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

3
9
7

$
1
,
2
9
2
,
9
3
0

$
1
,
7
5
7
,
1
0
5

3
,
2
9
6
,
0
1
9

0
.
3
8

2
5
20
0
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

4
3
9

$
1
,
3
7
5
,
6
3
2

$
1
,
7
5
5
,
7
4
9

4
,
0
6
4
,
3
0
1

0
.
4
6

2
5
20
0
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

4
2
7

$
1
,
2
6
0
,
9
2
2

$
1
,
9
3
7
,
5
7
8

4
,
5
6
3
,
8
3
2

0
.
5
2

2
5
To
t
a
!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

3
,
0
4
7

$
6
,
4
8
8
,
0
7
8

$
9
,
5
0
6
,
3
5
4

1
4
,
7
6
9
,
3
3
2

2
5
e)
L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

2
0
0
9

I
R
P
,

a
n
d

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
(b
)
P
r
o
g
r
a
m

l
i
f
e

b
e
n
e
f
i
t
/
c
o
s
t

r
a
t
i
o
s

a
r
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

f
o
r

a
c
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

o
n
l
y
.
(c
)
T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)
T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
(e
)
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
/
8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
.
(f
)
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

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

r
e
d
u
c
e

l
o
a
d

o
r

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

s
e
a
s
o
n
.

P
e
a
k

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

i
s
re
p
o
r
t
e
d

a
t

t
h
e

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

l
e
v
e
l

a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g

1
3
%

p
e
a
k

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s
e
s
.
(1
2
)
T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

r
e
s
t
a
t
e
d

i
n

2
0
0
5

t
o

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

f
e
d
e
r
a
l

f
u
n
d
i
n
g

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

b
y

C
A
P

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
.

2
0
0
2
-
2
0
0
3

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

n
o
t

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

d
u
e

t
o

i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

f
u
e
l

t
y
p
e
s
.
$0
.
0
2
9
$0
.
0
3
3
$0
.
0
3
7
$0
.
0
2
9
$0
.
0
2
5
$0
.
0
2
1
$0
.
0
3
4
$0
.
0
5
0
$0
.
0
4
5
$0
.
0
5
6
$0
.
0
4
0
$0
.
0
3
2
$0
.
0
3
3
$0
.
0
5
0
(1
2
)
2.
6
5
1.
8
2
De
m
a
n
d
-
S
i
d
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

2
0
0
9

A
n
n
u
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t
Pa
g
e

1
3
3
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
-
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
Id
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
Sa
v
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

D
e
m
a
n
d
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Le
v
i
l
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

(
0
)
Pr
o
g
r
a
m

L
i
f
e
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
s
(
b
)
An
n
u
a
l
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pe
a
k
Me
a
s
u
r
e
To
t
a
l
To
t
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
En
e
r
g
y
(
e
)
De
m
a
n
d
(
f
)
Li
f
e
Ut
i
l
t
y
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
To
t
a
l
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
N
e
a
r
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Ut
i
i
t
y
(
C
)
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
(
d
)
(k
W
h
)
(a
M
W
)
(M
W
)
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
($
/
k
W
h
)
($
/
k
W
h
)
Ut
i
l
t
y
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
WA
Q
C
-
O
r
e
g
o
n
20
0
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
31
$2
4
,
7
7
3
$4
7
,
2
2
1
68
,
3
2
3
0.
0
1
25
$0
.
0
2
7
$0
.
0
5
1
20
0
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
$2
2
,
2
5
5
$4
2
,
3
3
5
10
2
,
6
4
3
0.
0
1
25
$0
.
0
1
6
$0
.
0
3
1
20
0
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
$1
3
,
4
6
9
$2
5
,
4
5
2
28
,
4
3
6
0.
0
0
25
$0
.
0
3
5
$0
.
0
6
7
20
0
5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
$4
4
,
3
4
8
$5
9
,
4
3
94
,
2
7
9
0.
0
1
25
$0
.
0
3
5
$0
.
0
4
7
(1
3
)
20
0
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
$3
0
,
6
9
4
$4
1
,
7
0
0
42
,
1
0
8
0.
0
0
25
$0
.
0
5
4
$0
.
0
7
4
20
0
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
$4
3
,
8
3
$7
4
,
0
4
8
73
,
8
4
1
0.
0
1
25
$0
.
0
4
0
$0
.
0
6
8
20
0
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
$3
3
,
9
4
0
$4
6
.
5
1
3
11
4
,
9
8
2
0.
0
1
25
$0
.
0
2
3
$0
.
0
3
1
To
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
0
$2
1
3
,
3
2
1
$3
3
6
,
7
1
2
52
4
,
6
1
2
25
$0
.
0
3
1
$0
.
0
5
0
2.
1
9
1.
3
9
WA
Q
C
-
B
P
A

S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
20
0
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

7
5

$
5
5
,
9
6
6

$
1
1
8
.
2
5
5

3
1
1
,
3
4
7

0
.
0
4

2
5
20
0
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

5
7

$
4
9
,
8
9
5

$
1
0
6
.
9
1
5

2
2
3
.
5
9
1

0
.
0
3

2
5
20
0
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

4
0

$
6
9
,
4
0
9

$
1
0
5
,
0
2
1

1
2
5
,
9
1
9

0
.
0
1

2
5
To
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

1
7
2

$
1
7
5
,
2
7
0

$
3
3
0
,
1
9
1

6
6
0
,
8
5
7

2
5
Co
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

2
0
0
9

I
R
P
.

a
n
d

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
(b
)
P
r
o
g
r
a
m

l
i
f
e

b
e
n
e
f
i
t
l
c
o
s
t

r
a
t
i
o
s

a
r
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

f
o
r

a
c
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

o
n
l
y
.
(C
)
T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)
T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
(e
)
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
/
8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
.
(f
)
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

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

r
e
d
u
c
e

l
o
a
d

o
r

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

s
e
a
s
o
n
.

P
e
a
k

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
at

t
h
e

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

l
e
v
e
l

a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g

1
3
%

p
e
a
k

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s
e
s
.
(1
3
l
r
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

r
e
s
t
a
t
e
d

i
n

2
0
0
5

t
o

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

f
e
d
e
r
a
l

f
u
n
d
i
n
g

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

b
y

C
A
P

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
.

2
0
0
2
-
2
0
0
3

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

n
o
t

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

d
u
e

t
o

i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

f
u
e
l

t
y
p
e
s
.
(1
4
)

B
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g

i
n

2
0
0
5
,

B
P
A

f
u
n
d
s

w
e
r
e

n
o

l
o
n
g
e
r

a
p
p
l
i
e
d

t
o

C
A
P

a
g
e
n
c
y

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
;

B
P
A

e
x
p
e
n
s
e

i
n

s
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t

y
e
a
r
s

i
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e

s
t
a
t
e

e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
.
$0
.
0
1
3
$0
.
0
1
7
$0
.
0
4
1
$0
.
0
2
0
$0
.
0
2
8
$0
.
0
3
6
$0
.
0
6
2
$0
.
0
3
8
(1
4
)
Pa
g
e

1
3
4
De
m
a
n
d
-
S
i
d
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

2
0
0
9

A
n
n
u
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t
-.
.~"0C
CDa.a.
1UJ
.~"0C
CDa.a.c:
~cma.
Eoü..
~oa.o.im:g
-"0
Q)::c:+:c:oÜ-.
0)ooN
INooN
~c:
ro
E
.g
Q)ii
"0c:ro
Q)(fc:
Q)c.xW
~
eno
-t
.~'tC
CDQ.Q.c:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 0 (l "! ~l..N~(lcoi
~ ~ â â ~Illl;~01
u; i. ~I
~ ~ ~IlI lI 0!
~iÑi
I
: I
Ii
¡ i~ ~ :1ii fi ~10lII - ll: I, c:::2 ¥ ¡. Eël ff ~ ¡¡!:3~~~ gig:gg~~~ ::g::~~: ÌÕü~~~~~~~~~~l æ~~~~S ~~ i-;i i-w ~l~
I
ê:g
Gl -~ ãi
.. 0:
E -
E :g
gigIt ~CGlai
Gl(,
J! 500
i- g¡
0:
~5
~
Gl ~~ ..
=ott :J::o :si- g¡~
0: -
l/
'ûou"Gl~
~
_ ~:2J!:= ;:0-;,t-5~
Gl.. II
; .! rott .- aiGl .. )-:E -
.l 'b~tt :¡;:Gl E:2a. Gl-e
"Ctt
E
i! 5"'=C (,tt -ä
l/ GlOl 0:c.~
UJ
Gl"OI-~~E 01..Gl li "":. c ~c( w
ii fj:i
ê li s:
~ if ~
~ouli-
~CD
~:J
!
~
~
5
l/ëtti:'ü
1:tta.
C"C"ocilI
..NocilI
o..
ooci
(l
Si
~
~ ~ ;g lI 5i
~ ~ ~
i. lI vilI 0
""
coto..
ClcoN
onC'oc:o
NNOCO("C':g~g~gSgggggg
o (" Ng g gj
g g g
C'~
g
~~~~~sgggggg
i. (" ..000
ci ci cilI lI lI
o..NNNNNN., ., ., ., ., ..N N N.. .. ..
~ 2 ~ a ~
i
I
i
,
i
I~""I':gico~~co;
rñ as ., p)~ Sl ~ ~
i. i. i. viN C" co
co i.
ci .. cO
COCONi.Ooa("1'1'ciocicici 0) co Ni. 0) 0ci C\ ..
coI'en
C"C'
~i~g'~NgN ..~ N ., .,.. t ,. ó~I'OO ~N vi..
~ ~i. ..
cô cD
N~~m~;:;co ., 1-- to (' v ..
cô C' C' 0 .. cD ~~g'!~~~~lI ~~~~
~ Cf~ "".
~ ;¡
.. ..C" ..lI I'lI
""~egig~~N g :ß ~., co C\
I'
Ø!..
..~..
I
;1
i
;
Cl..
cv
Cl
Sc:01
i. co I'gj ig ~
g g g
N..oc:01
¡
lNI.. ¡
I
"" .. 0o gj ~
ci ci c:lI ~ 0
uiOlC~ ~ ~ .~
II;:
~
li"ai
ûí::'5tt
II
~C" No 0
ci ci
ai§
ai"::Õ
.5:C\ 0' .. (/0)005
â ~ ~ ~
~ ~ e ~
ãi(,"Ctt
~ ~ ~
"ai1:o
~
.!!
IIE
~
Ec.
aiII
5c.
~"Ctt
Eai"
.E
5
t5::"0ai.."Ctt
Eai"0""
ii0.
i.('""
CDC)ma.
g
æII""ttaic.
li
~::II
gi'C::"
IICo
t$::
~
1:oa.
CD0:
m:JcCc:
0)ooN-C
CDE
CDC)mcm~
CD"0
ü5i"0Cm
E
~
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
-
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
Id
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
2
-
2
0
0
9

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Sa
v
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

D
e
m
a
n
d
Le
v
i
l
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

(
a
)
Pr
o
g
r
a
m

L
i
f
e
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
l
o
s
(
b
)
An
n
u
a
l
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pe
a
k
Me
a
s
u
r
e
To
t
a
l
To
t
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
En
e
r
g
y
(
e
)
De
m
a
n
d
(
f
)
Li
f
e
Ut
i
l
t
y
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
To
t
a
l
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
l
Y
e
a
r
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Ut
i
l
t
y
(
C
)
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
(
d
)
(k
W
h
)
(a
M
W
)
(M
W
)
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
($
/
k
W
h
)
($
/
k
W
h
)
Ut
i
l
t
y
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Or
e
g
o
n

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

A
u
d
i
t
s
20
0
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
$5
,
2
0
0
$5
,
2
0
0
20
0
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
$0
$4
,
0
0
0
20
0
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
$0
$0
20
0
5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
$5
,
4
5
0
$5
,
4
5
0
20
0
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
20
0
7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
$1
,
9
8
1
$1
,
9
8
1
20
0
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
$5
8
$5
8
20
0
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
$2
0
,
7
3
2
$2
0
,
7
3
2
To
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
65
$1
2
,
6
8
9
$1
6
,
6
8
9
(1
6
)
,'"
,
"
"
'
,
=
=
=
""
'
v
.
'
~
"
_
"
'
"

'
'
'
'
,
,
"
"
=
=
=
,
,
=
v
=
=
=
'
'
'
,
'
'
,
,
~
~
~
~
~
~
Or
e
g
o
n

S
c
h
o
o
l

E
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y
20
0
5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
$8
6
$8
6
20
0
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
$2
4
,
3
7
9
$8
9
,
7
7
1
22
3
,
3
6
8
0.
0
3
12
$0
.
0
1
2
$0
.
0
4
4
To
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
$2
4
,
4
6
5
$8
9
,
8
5
8
22
3
,
3
6
8
12
$0
.
0
1
2
$0
.
0
4
6
Cu
s
t
o
m

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
20
0
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

$
1
,
3
0
3

$
1
,
3
0
3
20
0
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

1

$
1
1
2
,
3
1
1

$
1
3
3
,
4
4
1

2
1
1
,
2
9
5

0
.
0
2

1
2
20
0
5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

2
4

$
1
,
1
2
8
,
0
7
6

$
3
,
6
5
3
,
1
5
2

1
2
,
0
1
6
,
6
7
8

1
.
3
7

1
2
20
0
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

4
0

$
1
,
6
2
5
,
2
1
6

$
4
,
2
7
3
,
8
8
5

1
9
,
2
1
1
,
6
0
5

2
.
1
9

1
2
20
0
7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

4
9

$
3
,
1
6
1
,
8
6
6

$
7
,
0
1
2
,
6
8
6

2
9
,
7
8
9
,
3
0
4

3
.
4
0

3
.
6

1
2
20
0
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

1
0
1

$
4
,
0
4
5
,
6
7
1

$
1
6
,
3
1
2
,
3
7
9

4
1
,
0
5
8
,
6
3
9

4
.
6
9

4
.
8

1
2
20
0
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

1
3
2

$
6
,
0
6
1
,
4
6
7

$
1
0
,
8
4
8
,
1
2
3

5
1
,
8
3
5
,
6
1
2

5
.
9
2

6
.
7

1
2
To
t
a
L
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

3
4
7

$
1
6
,
1
3
5
,
9
0
9

$
4
2
,
2
3
4
,
9
6
9

1
5
4
,
1
2
3
,
1
3
3

1
2
(a
)
L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

2
0
0
9
1
R
P
,

a
n
d

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
(b
)
P
r
o
g
r
a
m

l
i
f
e

b
e
n
e
f
i
/
c
o
s
t

r
a
t
i
o
s

a
r
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

f
o
r

a
c
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

o
n
l
y
.
(e
T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)
T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

Id
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
(e
)
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
/
8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
.
(f
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

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

r
e
d
u
c
e

l
o
a
d

o
r

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

s
e
a
s
o
n
.

P
e
a
k

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

a
t

t
h
e
~e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

l
e
v
e
l

a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g

1
3
%

p
e
a
k

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s
e
s
.
(1

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

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

a
u
d
i
t

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

a
n
d

t
h
u
s

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
.

A
u
d
i
t

e
x
p
e
n
s
e

n
o
t

i
n
v
o
l
v
i
n
g

o
u
t
s
i
d
e
co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s

a
r
e

b
o
o
k
e
d

t
o

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
.
$0
.
0
5
8
$0
.
0
1
0
$0
.
0
0
9
$0
.
0
1
2
$0
.
0
1
1
$0
.
0
1
3
$0
.
0
1
2
$0
.
0
6
9
$0
.
0
3
3
$0
.
0
2
4
$0
.
0
2
6
$0
.
0
4
4
$0
.
0
2
4
$0
.
0
3
1
5.
3
7
2.
0
5
Pa
g
e

1
3
6
De
m
a
n
d
-
S
i
d
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

2
0
0
9

A
n
n
u
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t
Id
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
-
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
2
-
2
0
0
9

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Sa
v
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

D
e
m
a
n
d
Pr
o
g
r
a
m

L
i
f
e
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Le
v
i
l
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

(
0
)
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
s
(
b
)
An
n
u
a
l
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pe
a
k
Me
a
s
u
r
e
To
t
a
l
To
t
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
En
e
r
g
y
(
O
)
De
m
a
n
d
(
f
)
Li
f
e
Ut
i
l
t
y
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
To
t
a
l
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
l
Y
e
a
r
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Ut
i
l
t
y
(
C
)
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
1
d
)
(k
W
h
)
(a
M
W
)
(M
W
)
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
($
/
k
W
h
)
($
/
k
W
h
)
Ut
i
l
t
y
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

E
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y
20
0
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
$4
1
,
0
8
9
$5
4
,
6
0
9
36
,
7
9
2
0.
0
0
0.
0
15
$0
.
1
0
6
$0
.
1
4
1
(1
6
)
20
0
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
33
$1
2
0
,
8
0
8
$4
0
2
,
9
7
8
80
2
,
8
1
2
0.
0
9
0.
4
15
$0
.
0
1
4
$0
.
0
4
8
(1
7
)
20
0
5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
38
$1
5
0
,
5
7
7
$6
5
7
,
4
6
0
1,
0
1
2
,
8
8
3
0.
1
2
0.
4
15
$0
.
0
1
4
$0
.
0
6
2
20
0
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
55
9
$2
,
7
7
9
,
6
2
0
$8
,
5
1
4
,
2
3
1
16
,
9
8
6
,
0
0
8
1.
9
4
5.
1
8
$0
.
0
2
4
$0
.
0
7
3
(1
8
)
20
0
7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
81
6
$2
,
0
0
1
,
9
6
1
$8
,
6
9
4
,
7
7
2
12
,
3
0
4
,
0
7
3
1.
4
0
3.
4
8
$0
.
0
2
4
$0
.
1
0
3
20
0
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
96
1
$2
,
1
0
3
,
7
0
2
$5
,
8
5
0
,
7
7
8
11
,
7
4
6
,
3
9
5
1.
3
4
3.
5
8
$0
.
0
2
6
$0
.
0
7
3
20
0
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
88
7
$2
,
2
9
3
,
8
9
6
$6
,
7
3
2
,
2
6
8
13
,
1
5
7
,
6
1
9
1.
5
0
3.
4
8
$0
.
0
2
6
$0
.
0
7
7
To
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3,
2
9
6
$9
,
4
9
1
,
6
5
4
$3
0
,
9
0
7
,
0
9
5
56
,
0
4
6
,
5
8
2
8
$0
.
0
2
6
$0
.
0
8
3
3.
7
8
1.
1
6
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g

O
p
e
r
a
t
o
r

T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
20
0
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

7
1

$
4
8
,
8
5
3

$
4
8
,
8
5
3

1
,
8
2
5
,
0
0
0

0
.
2
1

5
20
0
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

2
6

$
4
3
,
9
6
9

$
4
3
,
9
6
9

6
5
0
,
0
0
0

0
.
0

5
20
0
5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

7

$
1
,
7
5
0

$
4
,
4
8
0

4
3
4
,
1
6
7

0
.
0
5

5
To
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

1
0
4

$
9
4
,
5
7
2

$
9
7
,
3
0
2

2
,
9
0
9
,
1
6
7

5
Co
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

2
0
0
9

I
R
P
,

a
n
d

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
(b
)
P
r
o
g
r
a
m

l
i
f
e

b
e
n
e
f
i
t
/
c
o
s
t

r
a
t
i
o
s

a
r
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

f
o
r

a
c
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

o
n
l
y
.
(c
)
T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)
T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
(e
)
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
/
8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
.
(f
)
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

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

r
e
d
u
c
e

l
o
a
d

o
r

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

s
e
a
s
o
n
.

P
e
a
k

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
at

t
h
e

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

l
e
v
e
l

a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g

1
3
%

p
e
a
k

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s
e
s
.
(1
6
)

R
e
s
t
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

$
1
1
,
1
9
0

i
n

p
r
i
o
r

r
e
p
o
r
t
s
.
(1
7
)

O
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
l
y

r
e
p
o
r
e
d

e
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

a
c
c
r
u
e
d

a
m
o
u
n
t
s
,

r
e
s
t
a
t
e
d

h
e
r
e

t
o

a
l
i
g
n

w
i
t
h

a
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g

r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
(1
8
)

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

l
i
f
e

i
s

w
e
i
g
h
t
e
d

l
i
f
e

(
b
a
s
e
d

o
n

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
)

o
f

c
u
s
t
o
m

o
p
t
i
o
n

(
1
5

y
e
a
r
s
)

a
n
d

m
e
n
u

o
p
t
i
o
n
s

(
5

y
e
a
r
s
)
.
(1
9
)

O
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
l
y

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

e
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

a
c
c
r
u
e
d

a
m
o
u
n
t
s
,

2
0
0
3

r
e
s
t
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

$
3
6
,
0
8
4
;

2
0
0
4

r
e
s
t
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

$
4
8
,
8
5
3
.
$0
.
0
0
6
$0
.
0
1
4
$0
.
0
0
1
$0
.
0
0
7
$0
.
0
0
6
$0
.
0
1
4
$0
.
0
0
2
$0
.
0
0
7
(1
9
)
De
m
a
n
d
-
S
i
d
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

2
0
0
9

A
n
n
u
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t
Pa
g
e

1
3
7
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
-
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
Id
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
2
-
2
0
0
9

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
Le
v
i
l
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

(
a
)
Sa
v
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

D
e
m
a
n
d
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
g
r
a
m

L
i
f
e
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
s
(
b
)
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
l
Y
e
a
r
Ut
i
l
t
y
(
C
)
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
20
0
5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
To
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
20
0
5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
To
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
DS
M

D
i
r
e
c
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

O
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
20
0
7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
To
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
$3
,
4
9
7
$4
.
6
6
3
$2
6
,
8
2
3
$7
2
,
7
3
8
$1
2
0
.
5
8
4
$2
2
8
,
3
0
5
$2
1
,
5
5
2
$2
4
,
3
0
6
$8
,
9
8
7
-$
1
,
9
1
3
$5
2
,
9
3
2
$5
6
,
9
0
9
$1
6
9
.
9
1
1
$1
6
4
.
9
5
7
$3
9
1
,
7
7
7
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
(
d
)
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
(k
W
h
)
Av
e
r
a
g
e
En
e
r
g
y
(
e
)
(a
M
W
)
Ut
i
l
t
y
To
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Pe
a
k
De
m
a
n
d
(
f
)
(M
W
)
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Li
f
e
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
To
t
a
l
Ut
i
l
t
y
($
/
k
W
h
)
To
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
($
/
k
W
h
)
$3
,
4
9
7
$4
,
6
6
3
$2
6
,
8
2
3
$7
2
,
7
3
8
$1
2
0
,
5
8
4
$2
2
8
,
3
0
5
$4
3
,
9
6
9
$2
4
,
3
0
6
$8
,
9
8
7
-$
1
,
9
1
3
$7
5
,
3
4
9
$0
(a
)
L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

2
0
0
9

I
R
P

a
n
d

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
(b
)
P
r
o
g
r
a
m

l
i
f
e

b
e
n
e
f
i
t
/
c
o
s
t

r
a
t
i
o
s

a
r
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

f
o
r

a
c
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

o
n
l
y
.
(C
)
T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)
T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
(e
)
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
/
8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
.
(f
)
P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
e
d

f
o
r

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

t
h
a
t

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

r
e
d
u
c
e

l
o
a
d

o
r

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

s
e
a
s
o
n
.

P
e
a
k

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

i
s
re
p
o
r
t
e
d

a
t

t
h
e

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

l
e
v
e
l

a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g

1
3
%

p
e
a
k

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s
e
s
.
Pa
g
e

1
3
8
De
m
a
n
d
-
S
i
d
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

2
0
0
9

A
n
n
u
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t
Id
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
-
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
2
-
2
0
0
9

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
Sa
v
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

D
e
m
a
n
d
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
g
r
a
m

L
i
f
e
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
s
(
b
)
Le
v
i
l
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

(
a
)
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
l
Y
e
a
r
Ut
i
l
t
y
(
C
)
Ot
h
e
r

C
&
R
D

a
n
d

C
R
C

S
P
A
20
0
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
To
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
""
"
"
~
"
"
-
"
"
"
=
~
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
20
0
5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
To
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.,
"
"
.
.

"
"
=
,
~
~
~
~
~
'
'
'
'
'
'
So
l
a
r

4
R

S
c
h
o
o
l
s
20
0
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

$
4
2
,
5
2
2

$
4
5
,
5
2
2
To
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

$
4
2
,
5
2
2

$
4
5
,
5
2
2
(a
)
L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

2
0
0
9

I
R
P
,

a
n
d

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
(b
)
P
r
o
g
r
a
m

l
i
f
e

b
e
n
e
f
i
/
c
o
s
t

r
a
t
i
o
s

a
r
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

f
o
r

a
c
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

o
n
l
y
.
(C
)
T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)
T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
(e
)
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
/
8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
.
(f
)
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

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

r
e
d
u
c
e

l
o
a
d

o
r

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

s
e
a
s
o
n
.

P
e
a
k

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

i
s
re
p
o
r
t
e
d

a
t

t
h
e

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

l
e
v
e
l

a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g

1
3
%

p
e
a
k

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s
e
s
.
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
$5
5
,
7
2
2
$6
7
,
0
1
2
$1
0
8
,
1
9
1
$1
0
1
,
1
7
7
$1
2
4
,
9
5
6
$3
1
,
6
4
5
$6
,
9
5
0
$4
9
5
,
6
5
4
$7
,
4
9
8
$5
6
,
7
2
7
$1
5
0
,
9
1
7
$1
9
3
,
6
5
3
$4
0
8
,
7
9
5
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
(
d
)
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
(k
W
h
)
Av
e
r
a
g
e
En
e
r
g
y
(
e
)
(a
M
W
)
Ut
i
l
t
y
To
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Pe
a
k
De
m
a
n
d
(
f
)
(M
W
)
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Li
f
e
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
To
t
a
l
Ut
i
l
t
y
($
/
k
W
h
)
To
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
($
/
k
W
h
)
$5
5
,
7
2
2
$6
7
,
0
1
2
$1
0
8
,
1
9
1
$1
0
1
,
1
7
7
$1
2
4
,
9
5
6
$3
1
,
6
4
5
$6
,
9
5
0
$4
9
5
,
6
5
4
$7
,
4
9
8
$5
6
,
7
2
7
$1
5
0
,
9
1
7
$1
9
3
,
6
5
3
$4
0
8
,
7
9
5
De
m
a
n
d
-
S
i
d
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

2
0
0
9

A
n
n
u
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t
Pa
g
e

1
3
9
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
-
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
Id
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
2
-
2
0
0
9

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
l
Y
e
a
r
Sa
v
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

D
e
m
a
n
d
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
g
r
a
m

L
i
f
e
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
s
(
b
)
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
Le
v
i
l
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

(
a
)
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Ut
i
l
t
y
(
C
)
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
(
d
)
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
(k
W
h
)
Av
e
r
a
g
e
En
e
r
g
y
(
e
)
(a
M
W
)
Ut
i
l
t
y
To
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Lo
c
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

F
u
n
d
s
20
0
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
To
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Pe
a
k
De
m
a
n
d
(
f
)
(M
W
)
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Li
f
e
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
To
t
a
l
Ut
i
l
t
y
($
/
k
W
h
)
To
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
($
/
k
W
h
)
56
$5
,
1
0
0
$5
,
1
0
0
0
$2
3
,
4
4
9
$2
3
,
4
4
9
2
$1
4
,
8
9
6
$2
6
,
7
5
6
78
,
0
0
0
0.
0
1
10
$0
.
0
2
4
$0
.
0
4
2
48
0
$3
,
5
9
$3
,
5
9
19
,
0
2
7
0.
0
0
7
$0
.
0
0
9
$0
.
0
0
9
1
$7
,
5
2
0
$7
,
5
2
0
9,
0
0
0
0.
0
0
7
$0
.
1
3
5
$0
.
1
3
5
2
$2
2
,
7
1
4
$6
0
,
1
0
0
11
5
,
9
3
1
0.
0
1
15
$0
.
0
1
9
$0
.
0
4
9
1
$5
,
8
7
0
$4
,
2
7
4
10
,
3
4
0
0.
0
0
12
$0
.
0
6
4
$0
.
0
4
7
54
2
$8
3
,
0
0
8
$1
3
0
,
6
5
8
23
2
,
2
9
8
10
$0
.
0
4
6
$0
.
0
7
2
NE
E
A
20
0
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
To
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
$1
,
2
8
6
,
6
3
2
$1
,
2
8
6
,
6
3
2
12
,
9
2
5
,
4
5
0
1.
4
8
$1
,
2
9
2
,
7
4
8
$1
,
2
9
2
,
7
4
8
11
,
9
9
1
,
5
8
0
1.
3
7
$1
,
2
5
6
,
6
1
1
$1
,
2
5
6
,
6
1
1
.
13
,
3
2
9
,
0
7
1
1.
5
2
$4
7
6
,
8
9
1
$4
7
6
,
8
9
1
16
,
4
2
2
,
2
2
4
1.
8
7
$9
3
0
,
4
5
5
$9
3
0
,
4
5
5
18
,
5
9
7
,
9
5
5
2.
1
2
$8
9
3
,
3
4
0
$8
9
3
,
3
4
0
28
,
6
0
1
,
4
1
0
3.
2
7
$9
4
2
,
0
1
4
$9
4
2
,
0
1
4
30
,
2
8
8
,
1
6
9
3.
4
6
(2
0
)
$9
6
8
,
2
6
3
$9
6
8
,
2
6
3
15
,
8
1
2
,
6
5
2
1.
8
1
$8
,
0
4
6
,
9
5
3
$8
,
0
4
6
,
9
5
3
14
7
,
9
6
8
,
5
1
0
w=
'
"
,
'
=
w
.

"
,
'
"
.
,
"
"
,
'
,
"
"
,
.
"
"
,
'
'
'
'
'
=
=
=
~
~
~
~
'
'
'
~
,
,
$1
6
0
,
7
6
2
$1
6
0
,
7
6
2
$1
6
0
,
7
6
2
$1
6
0
,
7
6
2
Co
n
s
u
m
e
r

E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c

I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
20
0
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
To
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(a
)
L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

2
0
0
9

I
R
P
,

a
n
d

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
(b
)
P
r
o
g
r
a
m

I
.
i
f
e

b
e
n
e
f
i
U
c
o
s
t

r
a
t
i
o
s

a
r
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

f
o
r

a
c
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

o
n
l
y
.
(C
)
T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)
T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
(e
)
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
/
8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
.
(f
)
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

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

r
e
d
u
c
e

l
o
a
d

o
r

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

s
e
a
s
o
n
.

P
e
a
k

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

i
s
re
p
o
r
t
e
d

a
t

t
h
e

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

l
e
v
e
l

a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g

1
3
%

p
e
a
k

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s
e
s
.
(2
0
)

S
a
v
i
n
g
s

a
r
e

p
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

N
E
E
A
.
Pa
g
e

1
4
0
De
m
a
n
d
-
S
i
d
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

2
0
0
9

A
n
n
u
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t
Id
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
-
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
2
-
2
0
0
9

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
N
e
a
r
Sa
v
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

D
e
m
a
n
d
Pr
o
g
r
a
m

L
i
f
e
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Le
v
l
l
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

(
a
)
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
s
(
b
)
To
t
a
l
To
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
$1
,
9
3
2
,
5
2
0
$2
,
3
6
6
,
5
9
1
16
,
7
9
1
,
1
0
0
1.
9
2
0.
0
$2
,
5
6
6
,
2
2
9
$3
,
1
2
5
,
5
7
3
18
,
6
5
4
,
3
4
3
2.
1
3
0.
0
$3
,
8
2
7
,
2
1
2
$4
,
8
6
0
,
9
1
2
19
,
2
0
2
,
7
8
0
2.
1
9
6.
6
$6
,
5
2
3
,
3
4
9
$1
0
,
3
8
3
,
5
7
8
37
,
9
7
8
,
0
3
5
4.
3
4
44
.
3
$1
1
,
1
7
4
,
1
8
1
$2
0
,
9
5
0
,
1
1
1
67
,
0
2
6
,
3
0
3
7.
6
5
44
.
4
$1
4
,
8
9
6
,
8
1
6
$2
6
,
1
2
5
,
1
0
5
91
,
1
4
5
,
3
5
7
10
.
4
0
58
.
5
$2
0
,
2
1
3
,
2
1
5
$4
4
,
6
0
1
,
2
7
1
13
7
,
7
7
2
,
4
6
9
15
.
6
7
74
.
9
$3
3
,
8
2
1
,
0
6
2
$5
2
,
9
2
5
,
8
9
5
14
8
,
2
5
6
,
0
1
8
16
.
6
9
23
6
.
6
$9
4
,
9
5
4
,
5
8
3
$1
6
5
,
3
3
9
,
0
3
7
53
6
,
8
2
6
,
4
0
4
20
0
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
DS
M

O
v
e
r
h
e
a
d

a
n
d

O
t
h
e
r
In
d
i
r
e
c
t
20
0
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-l

2
0
0
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
0
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
To
t
a
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
$1
2
8
,
8
5
5
-$
4
1
,
5
4
3
$1
4
2
,
3
3
4
$1
7
7
,
6
2
4
$3
0
9
,
8
3
2
$7
6
5
,
5
6
1
$9
8
0
,
3
0
5
$1
,
0
2
5
,
7
0
4
$3
,
4
8
8
,
6
7
5
(2
1
)
(2
1
)
(a
)
L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

2
0
0
9

I
R
P
,

a
n
d

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
(b
)
P
r
o
g
r
a
m

l
i
f
e

b
e
n
e
f
i
t
/
c
o
s
t

r
a
t
i
o
s

a
r
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

f
o
r

a
c
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

o
n
l
y
.
(C
)
T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)
T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
(e
)
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
/
8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
.
(f
)
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

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

r
e
d
u
c
e

l
o
a
d

o
r

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

s
e
a
s
o
n
.

P
e
a
k

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

i
s
re
p
o
r
e
d

a
t

t
h
e

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

l
e
v
e
l

a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g

1
3
%

p
e
a
k

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s
e
s
.
(2
1
)

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

a
n
d

i
n
d
i
r
e
c
t

e
x
p
e
n
s
e

w
a
s

n
o
t

s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

a
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

p
e
r
i
o
d
.
De
m
a
n
d
-
S
i
d
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

2
0
0
9

A
n
n
u
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t
Pa
g
e

1
4
1
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
-
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
Id
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
2
-
2
0
0
9

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
Sa
v
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

De
m
a
n
d
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Le
v
i
l
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

(
a
)
Pr
o
g
r
a
m

L
i
f
e
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
s
(
b
)
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
l
Y
e
a
r
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
(
d
)
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
(k
W
h
)
Av
e
r
a
g
e
En
e
r
g
y
,
e
)
(a
M
W
)
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Ut
i
l
t
y
(
C
)
Pe
a
k
De
m
a
n
d
(
f
)
(M
W
)
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Li
f
e
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
To
t
a
l
Ut
i
l
t
y
($
/
k
W
h
)
To
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
($
/
k
W
h
)
Ut
i
i
t
y
To
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
20
0
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

$
2
,
0
6
1
,
3
7
5
20
0
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

$
2
,
5
2
4
,
6
8
6
20
0
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

$
3
,
9
6
9
,
5
4
9
20
0
5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

$
6
,
7
0
0
,
9
7
3
20
0
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

$
1
1
,
4
8
4
,
0
1
3
20
0
7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

$
1
5
,
6
6
2
,
3
7
7
20
0
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

$
2
1
,
1
9
3
,
5
2
0
20
0
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

$
3
4
,
8
4
6
,
7
6
6
To
t
a
l

20
0
2
-
2
0
0
9

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

$
6
3
,
5
9
6
,
4
9
2
,e
)
L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

2
0
0
9

I
R
P
,

a
n
d

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
,b
)
P
r
o
g
r
a
m

l
i
f
e

b
e
n
e
f
i
t
/
c
o
s
t

r
a
t
i
o
s

a
r
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

f
o
r

a
c
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

o
n
l
y
.
(c
)
T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)
T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
(e
)
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
/
a
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
.
(f
)
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

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

r
e
d
u
c
e

l
o
a
d

o
r

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

s
e
a
s
o
n
.

P
e
a
k

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

i
s
re
p
o
r
t
e
d

a
t

t
h
e

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

l
e
v
e
l

a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g

1
3
%

p
e
a
k

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s
e
s
.
Pa
g
e

1
4
2
De
m
a
n
d
-
S
i
d
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

2
0
0
9

A
n
n
u
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t