20140317DSM 2013 Supplement 2.pdf

March 15, 2014
2013 ANNUAL REPORT
SUPPLEMENT 2:
Demand-Side Management
Evaluation
Printed on recycled paper
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2013 Annual Report Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... i
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... i
Evaluation and Research Summary .............................................................................................................1
Evaluation Plan ............................................................................................................................................2
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group Minutes ...............................................................................................3
NEEA Market Effects Evaluations ............................................................................................................35
Integrated Design Lab Evaluations ............................................................................................................37
Research/Surveys .....................................................................................................................................267
Evaluations ...............................................................................................................................................501
Success Stories .........................................................................................................................................865
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers 2012 Annual Report .............................................873

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. 2013 NEEA Market Effects Evaluations ...........................................................................35
Table 2. 2013 Integrated Design Lab Evaluations ...........................................................................37
Table 3. 2013 Research/Surveys ....................................................................................................267
Table 4. 2013 Evaluations ..............................................................................................................501
Table 5. 2013 Success Stories ........................................................................................................865
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2013 Annual Report Page 1
EVALUATION AND RESEARCH SUMMARY
Idaho Power considers program evaluation an essential component of its demand-side-management
(DSM) operational activities. In accordance with the 2010 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) staff, the company contracts with third-party
contractors to conduct impact, process, and other evaluations on a scheduled and as-required basis.
Third-party contracts are generally awarded using a competitive bid process and are managed by
Idaho Power’s Strategic Sourcing department. In some cases, research and analysis is conducted
internally and managed by Idaho Power’s Customer Relations and Analysis team within the Customer
Relations and Energy Efficiency (CREE) department. Third-party evaluations are specifically managed
by the company’s Energy Efficiency Evaluator.
Idaho Power uses industry-standard protocols for its internal and external evaluation efforts,
including the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency—Model Energy Efficiency Program Impact
Evaluation Guide, the California Evaluation Framework, the International Performance Measurement
and Verification Protocol, the Database for Energy Efficiency Resources, and the Regional Technical
Forum’s (RTF) evaluation protocols.
The company also supports regional and national studies to promote ongoing cost-effectiveness of
programs, validation of energy savings and demand reduction, and the efficient management of its
programs. Idaho Power considers primary and secondary research, cost-effectiveness analyses,
potential assessments, impact and process evaluations, and customer surveys, important resources in
providing accurate and transparent program savings estimates. Recommendations and findings from evaluations and research are used to continuously refine its DSM programs.
In 2013, Idaho Power completed six program process evaluations and one program impact evaluation
using third-party contractors. TRC Energy Services was selected to conduct process evaluations for the
Energy Efficient Lighting, Heating & Cooling Efficiency, and ENERGY STAR® Homes Northwest
programs. Johnson Consulting Group was selected to perform process evaluations for the WAQC and Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers programs. Opinion Dynamics was retained to provide a
process evaluation of the Easy Upgrades program. ADM Associates was chosen to provide an impact
evaluation for the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program.
The company also initiated four primary research/survey projects in 2013 using third-party contractors.
Hansa GCR provided non-participate research across all sectors; Market Decisions conducted customer research for the Custom Efficiency program; and ADM Associates developed technical resource
manuals for the Easy Upgrades and Building Efficiency programs. The Custom Efficiency research
report and technical resource manuals will be included in the Demand-Side Management 2014 Annual
Report: Supplement 2.
Final reports from all evaluations, research, and surveys completed in 2013 and an evaluation schedule are provided in this supplement. The evaluation schedule is intended to be used as a guide and may be
changed periodically based on need, timing, or other relevant factors.
Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 2 Demand-Side Management 2013 Annual Report
EVALUATION PLAN

Impact Process Other Impact Process Other Impact Process Other Impact Process Other Impact Process Other
Ductless Heat Pump Pilot
Energy Efficient Lighting 
Energy House Calls 
ENERGY STAR® Homes Northwest 

Home Improvement Program 
Home Products Program 
Rebate Advantage 

Residential Energy Efficiency Education Initiative 
Shade Tree Project 
Home Energy Audit 
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers 
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers 
Building Efficiency 
Custom Efficiency  
Easy Upgrades 
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards  
A/C Cool Credit  
FlexPeak Management  
Irrigation Peak Rewards   
Customer Relations and Energy Efficiency 2010–2014 Program Evaluation Plan
20132012
Commercial/Industrial Programs
Residential Programs
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program
See ya later, refrigerator®
2014
Demand Response Programs
Irrigation Programs
2010 2011
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2013 Annual Report Page 3
ENERGY EFFICIENCY ADVISORY GROUP MINUTES
The following pages include minutes from EEAG meetings held February 7, May 23, September 18,
and November 14, 2013.
Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 4 Demand-Side Management 2013 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.
1
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Minutes dated February 7th, 2013
Present:
Catherine Chertudi–City of Boise, Public Works Dept. Don Sturtevant–Simplot(On Phone)
Ken Robinette–South Central Comm. Action Partnership Lynn Young–AARP
Stacey Donohue–Idaho Public Utilities Commission John Chatburn–Office of Energy Resources
Ben Otto-Idaho Conservation League Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Tami White–Idaho Power Todd Schultz*-Idaho Power
Tom Eckman–Northwest Power & Conservation Council
Not Present:
Nancy Hirsh–Northwest Energy Coalition
Kent Hanway–CSHQA

Guests and Presenters*:
Pete Pengilly*–Idaho Power Cory Read–Idaho Power
Gary Grayson–Idaho Power Diana Echeverria–Idaho Power
Sheree Willhite–Idaho Power Billie McWinn–Idaho Power
Dennis Merrick–Idaho Power Celeste Becia*-Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen-Idaho Power Roberta Renee-Idaho Power
Quentin Nesbitt-Idaho Power Denise Humphreys-Idaho Power
Cheryl Paoli-Idaho Power
Becky Arte-Howell-Idaho Power
Dave Thornton-Idaho Power
Mindi Shodeen-Idaho Power
Todd Greenwell-Idaho Power
Shelley Martin-Idaho Power
Nikki Karpavich-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Donn English-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Patti Best-Idaho Power
Bridgett Hanna-Idaho Power
Darlene Nemnich-Idaho Power
Andrea Simmonsen-Idaho Power
Chris Pollow-Idaho Power
Bryan Lanspery-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Shirley Lindstrom-NW Power & Conservation Council
Jim Madarieta-Idaho Power

Recording Secretary:
Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Convened at 9:35 am
Todd had the members and guests introduce themselves. He informed the group as to where we would meet in the
event of an emergency. The minutes were reviewed and there were no changes. One member commented that the minutes were very well done. Todd let everyone know that Theresa Drake would not be in attendance due to
illness. The confidentiality statement that was sent out to the members prior to the meeting was discussed. Idaho
Power thinks that it is prudent to have this statement imbedded in the email correspondence with members and it
2
will be a part of the meeting from now on. The memo from the July 2012 meeting with edits was passed around to
all the members for a later discussion. Todd went over meeting discussion topics that were sent in prior via email.
These topics will be discussed throughout the day.
9:45am—Regulatory Update-Tami White
Idaho Power filed for a temporary suspension of two demand response programs; A/C Cool Credit and Irrigation
Peak Rewards. FlexPeak was not included in that filing because Idaho Power is still under contract with EnerNOC. Idaho Power has requested to have the order by March 1st. There was a pre-hearing settlement
workshop on February 6th and Tami stated that she felt it went well. She couldn’t speak much about it since the
terms of the settlement are confidential. One member stated that he felt that the workshop had a good structure to find a short term solution quickly but also to set up a process to come up with a long term solution. Another
member stated that Idaho Power is much easier to work with than another utility. He is please with the progress so far and felt it went very well. He complimented everyone involved and stated that the give and take was very constructive. During the discussion of the Custom Efficiency Filing (slide 5) one member stated that this package
of filings is an interesting way to have Energy Efficiency make business sense. There are not a lot of utilities that
have this same package of filings. Idaho Power is stepping outside the box and other utilities in the region are watching to see what happens. The Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) staff has been good at thinking
broadly about these things. It’s been a good process to go through. Tami agreed and talked about the economic dispatch of demand response. Todd stated that he liked that a number of the EEAG members are engaged and involved with the demand response filings.
9:56 am—Evaluation Activities, Financial Update-Pete Pengilly
Pete stated that a lot of the information that he is presenting is not final and will not be final until the annual report
is filed. The financials are pretty close and he doesn’t think there will be many changes. The savings and cost-
effectiveness are still being worked on. Pete presented appendix 1 and stated that the January end of month balances are unavailable at this time because the books do not close until the 10th of the month. The Oregon Rider
is not collecting enough to overcome the negative balance. He is working on how to increase funding in Oregon
and to figure out what the course of action will be for Idaho. Tami stated that evaluation is being done for both Oregon and Idaho prior to the spring filings and IPUC staff will be notified. Pete stated that the Custom
Efficiency Incentives year-end balance includes accrued interest and shows the complete picture if the filing gets
approved. One member asked if the NEEA payment is included in rider expenses. Pete stated that 95% of the NEEA balance comes from the Idaho rider and 5% comes from the Oregon rider. Another member asked if
irrigation demand response in Oregon is treated the same as Idaho. Pete stated that all demand response incentives
are in the Oregon Rider. Tami clarified that in Idaho, demand response incentives are in the PCA and in Oregon they come from the rider. One member asked if the PCA is in Oregon. Pete stated that yes there is one; it’s similar
to the Idaho PCA but also different. Pete presented appendix 2 and stated that all expenses are shown by program/funding source. This layout may change for the annual report. The “Idaho Power” account is a little deceptive in that it includes Custom Efficiency incentives, demand response incentives, actual O&M expenses
and disallowance for A/C Cool Credit. From an accounting perspective it’s not entirely accurate but this group had asked to see all of the expenses. Tami asked if this was the table that one of the members requested to have a savings column. Pete answered that he thought about putting that in, but savings are not final yet and throughout
the year the savings change, but may do that going forward. One member stated that maybe showing quarterly savings would work. Avista does monthly expenses and savings but he hasn’t followed up on how accurate it is.
Another member asked what the Comprehensive Lighting Pilot is. Todd answered that Idaho Power participated
in a pilot with NEEA. It was a way to try and transform the market from the trade allies doing one for one change out to a whole design layout change with a higher incentive.
Pete presented the slides for the 2010-2013 evaluation schedules. In 2010 there were a lot of process evaluations
completed. In 2011-2012 it was mostly impact evaluations and for 2013 more process evaluations will be done.
3
The majority of these evaluations are done by outside evaluators. There are multiple Requests for Proposals
(RFP’s) sent out. When those come back, they are reviewed to determine who the best evaluator would be based
on quality, price, and innovative ideas. Pete presented the slides showing results of each program evaluated.
Building Efficiency-The Variable Speed/Frequency Drive measure is a challenge for all programs. One member
stated that VFD’s in an irrigation application depends on your crop and how you farm. With a VFD, you can shut
off all the sprinklers and not blow up a main line. He has several of them but it takes a few years of running them to determine the energy savings. In a manufacturing setting the savings might be more clear-cut than in irrigation.
Easy Upgrades-The VFD and HVAC measures account for 80% of the difference between realization and
savings. Gary stated that ADM will be helping with formulas for determining deemed savings. One member stated that the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) is currently working on a calculator for VFD and fans to help
achieve savings. This is an issue that most utilities have and that is why it has been targeted as high priority for standardization. It’s hard with these because you never really have a baseline because the measurements are done after the VFD has already been installed. Pete stated that there is a follow up contract with ADM to review all the
measures.
See ya later, refrigerator- Most utilities in this region contract with JACO so there is a lot of data that the RTF uses. One member stated that the savings for the refrigerators have been updated and are good for 2 years. The
savings are slightly lower which is to be expected because there are younger refrigerators in the market.
WAQC-The preliminary report states that the EA4.6 estimating tool overstates the savings. One member stated that he was surprised that the tool overestimates savings. DNR International was the one that approved the EA4.6
for the Department of Energy to use. Gary stated that they did approve the tool but this tool doesn’t take into consideration cooling loads and interactive effects of the measures. One of the recommendations is to use the EA5
tool because it allows for some tweaking for our specific weather zone. One member stated that he thinks a lot of
the auditors are looking for heat load and not cooling load. Another member asked if we will be able to get some estimate of additional cooling that was added to offset the savings. Gary said that is being worked on and the 2011
data is being looked at.
Heating & Cooling Efficiency-This program had a 94% realization rate. A few of the recommendations from Cadmus do not align with what Idaho Power believes to be prudent. The company isn’t ignoring these
recommendations; some just aren’t an option at this time. The on-bill financing isn’t a realistic option for the
company. Having an online application system is something that might happen down the road but right now the IT department is stretched because they are working on the new billing system. The earliest that it could be
implemented is 2014. One member asked what method Cadmus used, did they do a billing analysis and how did
they determine that savings were reasonable. Gary stated that there wasn’t any billing analysis. The data that was collected on the homes was lined up with the assumptions in the SEEM model.
Boise City Audit- There was a correction on this slide. The “2.4 reduction in electricity consumption” should read “2.4% reduction in electricity consumption.”
A/C Cool Credit Process & Research Evaluations-These evaluations are snapshots in time and a lot of their
recommendations have already been addressed. This information is still relevant for running this program in the future. PECI determined that the AMI data can be used to assess demand reduction. The 1.09 kW per unit peak day reductions were a considerable savings from the previous year’s study
Irrigation Efficiency Research- Idaho Power currently has a draft of the evaluation. The company is trying to determine the savings for the menu program. One member asked how many irrigation programs like this are in the
region. Another member answered that wherever there is large irrigation load there will be programs like this.
Quentin stated that Rocky Mountain Power has a similar program and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
4
offers it to Co-Op utilities. A member of the audience stated that the 2011 Annual Report indicated that demand
response programs had impact evaluations done in 2012. Pete stated that they were done, but done in house.
FlexPeak is done once a year and so is Irrigation Peak. Not having had any events called for Irrigation Peak makes it hard to do an impact evaluation but we can see what might have happened if an event had been called.
10:55am-Break
11:05am-Residential Presentation-Celeste Becia-Celeste stated that the savings numbers are preliminary until the annual report comes out in about 6 weeks. The savings numbers in the Residential Program History slide
(slide 2) do not include WAQC or Weatherization Solutions savings.
A/C Cool Credit-This program had 13 events in 2012. Most of the cycling events were higher than 50%. There were a few more customer dropouts but also saw that customers were able to handle the heavy cycling events.
One member asked Celeste to explain the cycling. Celeste stated that the cycling percentage applies to the entire event which is 3 hours. So if a customer is cycled at 75% that means that for ¾ of an hour they are without air conditioning.
Boise City Audit- There was money left over after the original 650 audits were completed so an additional 226
audits were completed. Most of the audits were completed in the spring of 2011. The chart at the bottom of the slide (#4) refers to all of the homes audited. The age of the homes overlap so they don’t really add up to 100%.
Based on the Total Resource Cost (TRC) Test and the Utility Cost Test (UCT) being over 1%, that allowed us to perform audits on electrically heated homes. The majority of the money came from ARRA funds which allowed us to do audits on gas heated homes as well. One member asked what was included in the audit. Celeste stated
that it included blower door test, visual inspection of crawl space and attic, and gathering data on the home and how it uses energy. The auditors have HERS or BPI certification.
Ductless Heat Pump Pilot- This pilot performed at a steady pace for 2012. There are currently 60 contractors
participating. The strategy for 2013 is focused on awareness campaigns for contractors, wholesalers, and consumers.
Energy Efficient Lighting-About 2/3 of residential energy savings comes from lighting. The potential study still
targets lighting for energy savings, good news for the near term.
ENERGY STAR® Homes-In 2012, 396 out of the 410 homes fit a townhome design with an average size of 925
sq ft. Town houses will not have the same energy use or savings as a standard footprint home, the energy savings
would be three times what you see. This is the reason the goal for 2013 was set at 100 homes. Idaho Power wants to see how the savings of the 396 town home style homes add up to the 100 single non attached homes.
Energy House Calls-The target numbers for 2013 won’t change from 2012. Managing this program is low cost
so we would like to keep it going in some form even though it’s reaching saturation. One member asked if Idaho Power has gone and talked to the community leaders that may have participated in this program to be a
spokesperson and encourage others to participate. Celeste stated that park managers have been approached.
Another member stated that most of these parks have a no solicitation policy so going door to door is prohibited. A member of the audience asked how we keep track if a house has participated in the past. Celeste answered that
the contractor verifies whether or not the home has been in the program.
Heating & Cooling Efficiency-This program includes evaporative coolers. 141 applications were received in 2012. Contractors who want to participate in this program must meet NEEA qualifications standards. There were
6 new participating contractors added in 2012. One member asked how many total contractors currently participate. Todd Greenwell answered that there are now 45. Celeste stated that there is some challenge to keep
these contractors participating and the customer reps will periodically visit with them to keep them engaged.
5
Home Improvement Program-There was a lot of changes to the program in 2012. For 2013 an energy efficient
window measure will be added. This program is still not available in Oregon, but there are alternatives available
for customers there. One member asked if there is a state tax credit for duct sealing, insulation, and windows and if so, that could be helpful to mention in regards to marketing this program. Diana Echeverria stated that
Corporate Communications is well aware of these and will be incorporating them in marketing materials going
forward.
Home Products Program- The incentive for clothes washers will be removed from this program. We don’t want
to surprise customers in June when it’s no longer available, but we don’t want to push people to buy washers
either. Will take some creative marketing, key word advertising. The goal is to make people aware that it will be going away so if they were thinking about purchasing a washer, now might be the time to do it.
Oregon Residential Weatherization-Idaho Power offers financial assistance for a portion of the costs for weatherization measures, either as a cash incentive or with a 6.5% interest loan. No loans were made through the program in 2012. This program is an alternative to the Home Improvement Program for Oregon customers. This
program is under statute so it will always be available to customers in Oregon. Out of the 8 homes weatherized, 5
implemented weatherization measures, mostly attic insulation.
Rebate Advantage-Incentive amounts have increased for 2013: $1000 incentive to customers and $200 for
salesperson. The slide says $500 but that is a mistake. There has been some difficulty finding a regional database that tracks which manufactured homes get qualified for ENERGY STAR®. One member stated that Brady Peeks and Tom Hewes manage those databases. The houses have a NEEM number and if they have been certified, that
number will be on house somewhere.
Energy Efficiency Education-The Energy Efficiency Guides are about 8 pages and are inserts in local
newspapers. They are available for use at trade shows. These guides are no longer dated. They are topical and
timely, but are also relevant for about 1 year to 18 months. There were 171 outreach activities in 2012 which includes presentations, trainings, and events. Two of Idaho Power initiatives will be funded through Energy
Efficiency Education, the shade tree program and the educational kits.
See ya later, refrigerator- The savings for this program look close to what was expected. The 10,000th unit was collected. We are anticipating this program to be around for several more years but that will depend on what the
potential is.
Student EE Kits-As mentioned earlier, this will be part of the education program. Idaho Power would like to get this into classrooms in April. This is not budgeted as a long term program but as education. One member asked if
savings will be tracked for this. Celeste stated that there will be some savings mostly from lighting. There will be
some water savings as well. Another member asked if there will be an opportunity for the family to ask for follow up from Idaho Power. Denise Humphreys answered that there is an accordion tear up sheet with the program
information and they can mail that back to Idaho Power for more information or a follow up visit.
Weatherization Assistance- There is no energy savings listed on the slide. This program used newer energy analysis EA5 where Weatherization Solutions used the EA4 model for estimating savings. Idaho Power is waiting
to get the evaluation results before publishing the savings numbers.
Weatherization Solutions-This program along with Weatherization Assistance is still being evaluated. Typically customers fall just outside the eligibility cusp for the federal program or are just outside of the Weatherization for
Qualified Customer (WAQC) program, so they can take advantage of this program. Most of Idaho territory has been covered. This program is not in Oregon yet.
6
There are a few new projects for 2012. $120,000 is budgeted for Home Audits. The shade tree pilot has about
$20,000 budgeted. The incentive portion of that is about $5000. Patti Best is working on development of the
outlines of the program. One member asked if there is any information on the Window incentives. Becky Arte-Howell stated that the company’s website has been updated and the incentive is $2.50/sq ft
12:00 Lunch
1:03pm- Meeting Reconvened
1:04pm-Commercial Update-Todd Schultz
Todd started the discussion by saying that the success of the commercial programs comes from the folks that
work on these programs day in and day out. Todd reminded everyone that just like the residential programs, all of the savings numbers for the commercial programs are preliminary.
Custom Efficiency program- This program is at 84% of target for projects and 55% of target for savings. In 2012 a very large chilled water savings project was completed. The targets for 2012 were down slightly from previous years which could possibly be attributed to the economic landscape. It was also an election year which
affects investment in new projects. Todd introduced Randy Thorn and had him address the group about an
upcoming project. Randy informed the group of ROCEE, Refrigerator Operator Coaching for Energy Efficiency. There will be 6 trainings and they will be held at various facilities where operators can learn best practices and
how other businesses are doing things. They will be able to monitor what is implemented along with earning some incentives. This training will start in the Treasure Valley and if successful will move to the eastern regions. One member asked if this project is teaching companies how to operate their equipment. Chris Pollow answered that it
is a low cost/no cost behavioral change and a way to optimize efficiencies. Randy also spoke about the Small Industrial program. This offering is tied to the impact evaluation and will work with trade allies. He hopes to have
this up and running in the second quarter. The Strategic Energy Management will get more into behavioral
aspects and will be a good opportunity for an upcoming EEAG webinar or conference call. In the past 12 months Idaho Power has filled 171 seats for NEEA’s industrial trainings, more than everyone else in the region.
Easy Upgrades Program-The number of projects in 2012 increased 6% and savings increased 7% over 2011.
Lighting spans other commercial programs-Custom Efficiency and Building Efficiency. In 2011 there were 8 trade ally workshops. 3 of these trainings were technical trainings and 2 out of those 3 qualified for continuing
education credits. There were a total of 362 participants. There were 75 trade ally visits. Todd introduced Shelley
Martin to the group to address some recommended changes to the program. The program will allow T8 to reduced wattage T8 to receive an incentive. Idaho Power, along with 3 other utilities participated in a comprehensive
lighting pilot with NEEA. Idaho Power has not seen the evaluation. The company does see value in this pilot and
the deeper savings of comprehensive lighting retrofits. The company is looking at what can be done to achieve this but in the meantime we will be offering incentives for decommissioning fixtures. One member mentioned that
the Integrated Design Lab (IDL) is a great resource for lighting. They did some research on people’s perception of light. He asked if Idaho Power will take advantage of this resource. Todd stated that Idaho Power has a contract with the IDL which includes foundational services. If a contractor wants to look at day lighting they can utilize
the resources available there. Shelley spoke to the group about some changes with the non-lighting portion of Easy Upgrades. There are not specific measures identified, but based on some comments from the impact evaluation, Variable Speed Drives, Energy Management Systems, processes and procedures, and evaluating if we
need to look at the incentive structure. There are currently about 100 non lighting measures. Phase I of the Office of Energy Resource (OER) school projects have been completed. The incentive money for Phase I was held back
and that money will fund Phase II. One member stated that OER will be retrofitting additional schools in each of
the utilities service territories. Those will start in about 2-3 months. There are 5 schools left under the stimulus funding that will be wrapped up soon. A member of the audience asked where the funding comes from for schools outside of Idaho Power’s service territory and if incentive dollars from Idaho Power go towards funding schools
outside of the service territory. The same member answered that funding comes from ARRA funds and that
7
incentive dollars have to be used in the utilities service territory where the funds came from. These funds can only
be used for electrical upgrades.
Building Efficiency-There was a 33% increase in projects and a 74% increase in energy savings over 2011. One thing to keep in mind is that new construction is multiyear projects. One member asked if the new Zion’s Bank
Building is part of this program. Sheree Willhite answered that yes it is. This program had an impact evaluation
and there was a small calculation error in three of the measures that contributed to 85% error. Another issue was a stacking effect of interactive measures. Out of 84 projects, only 9 had this issue. There were some projects that
had this stacking effect that had positive impact that we are not counting savings so it might counteract the
negative impacts. Idaho Power is partnering with NEEA and BOMA in the Kilowatt Crackdown project. The goal is to get 30-50 commercial office buildings to participate in scoping audits. This will be a visible project that
should help drive more projects into the Building Efficiency and Easy Upgrades programs. The participants are not competing for monetary prizes but rather bragging rights and recognition from other businesses. Idaho Power is getting closer to evaluating incentives on multi-family housing. This could also be another great topic for a
webinar or conference call. Currently, Idaho Power has 11 task contracted with the IDL. There is outreach and
education. Simulation seminars, lunch and learns, and foundational services. At the College of Western Idaho, a project with 700,000 kWh savings was just finished earlier this year. One member asked about the problems
associated with multi-family housing such as landlord and tenant issues. Is there anything Idaho Power is doing to mitigate those issues? Todd stated that the thinking is to get in on these projects at the new construction or remodel level. Another member asked if ductless heat pumps were being considered. Sheree answered that those
are being evaluated.
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards/Irrigation Peak Rewards-The Irrigation Peak Rewards program wasn’t
dispatched last summer and there is a pending case to suspend it for 2013. The Irrigation Efficiency program saw
a 3% increase of completed projects in 2012 vs. 2011. Quentin and Dennis spend a lot of time talking to trade allies at workshops and trade shows. The research done by the University of Idaho is complete and a copy of the
final report was just received. The information from that report will be shared with the Regional Technical Forum
(RTF).
FlexPeak Management-This demand response program will run in 2013. Idaho Power has a contract with
EnerNOC that will expire in about a year from now. This program was called 4 times in the summer of 2011. It
was called on the peak day with a calculated 30 MW energy reduction at the meter. Every customer on a weekly basis nominates their energy reduction. On average 104% of committed reductions are achieved. Idaho Power’s
downtown office building participates in this program by nominating 100 kW per week. One member stated that
with this program, businesses might be able to learn what areas in their building they can target to reduce energy usage. If they don’t notice when things are off during an event, there might be a way to keep these things off
permanently. Billie responded that some businesses have noticed that and are implementing changes based on the results.
1:55pm-Break
2:04pm- Conservation Voltage Reduction-Phil Anderson
Todd introduced Phil Anderson to the group. Phil is a leader in the planning department. As he gave an outline of presentation, one member asked if she would notice voltage reduction in her home. Phil stated that you might
notice an incandescent light dim slightly but you wouldn’t notice a CFL. Most utilities tend to operate in the upper half of the range which is 114v-126v. Studies have shown that if voltage is lowered by 2-4% you can
achieve 1-3% reduction on energy and demand. Implementing CVR would mean operation at the lower half of the
range (114v-126v). Urban feeders are the prime candidates because they are shorter in length. The longer lines have more voltage drop. There was some discussion on whether Idaho Power has heard from customers on those feeders. Phil stated that there have been 3 customer complaints. 2 of those complaints were problems on their end
and the other customer had some load growth and they saw excessive voltage drop. One member asked if that was
8
3 out of 29,000 customers. Phil stated that there could have been more, but only heard from 3 people. To do more
feeders at this point would require a system upgrade, changing equipment, etc. Costs are being assessed to see if
making changes would be cost effective. One member stated that the reason he wanted to discuss this was to encourage Idaho Power to continue looking at this. A lot of little savings can have a big impact and customers
don’t really have to participate. Another member stated that most of the efforts to make CVR work would require
more money invested in equipment and raising rates. He was happy that this presentation addressed the issue of why this wouldn’t work for irrigation feeders. He stated that new construction might benefit more from CVR,
where you don’t have to go back and retrofit. Another member asked if CVR is factored into the decision making.
Phil stated that no, CVR is looked at for existing feeders and not for future needs. There are cost effectiveness issues, a conductor is expensive. Another member stated that she is aware of many utilities doing CVR more for
system maintenance. Another member asked if the savings from this is mostly heating. Phil answered that most of it is from resistance heating such as incandescent lighting.
Sheree Willhite addressed the group regarding building codes. She attended a meeting of the building code board
on where it was discussed whether or not to implement the 2012 building codes. Some of the amendments of the
code are fire sprinkler code, lowering the air changes per hour, and envelope requirements. One member stated usually each iteration of code change increases efficiency by 12%, which means upgraded codes can decreases the
cost of running a home. Builders are very good at pushing back on these codes. Building codes can set the baseline for energy savings. Having homeowners as well as Idaho Power support code changes can help push these changes through legislature. Both Sheree and Todd stated that Idaho Power works to help advance energy
codes. Sheree stated that there is educational efforts and also working with architects and engineers on code adoption.
Todd stated that one member had wanted to discuss NEEA but he had to leave early. Idaho Power is continuing
its work with NEEA and is working on some large initiatives with them. A member of the audience stated that he would like to see a detailed plan on what the company will do to replace the benefits it receives from NEEA. One
member stated that NEEA provides a lot of impact with building codes. Another member stated that it also
provides residential savings especially with lowered alternate costs. One member related an experience that a large grower had with NEEA. It was a study being done by NEEA, but they did not do a good job communicating
with the crew what they needed them to do. He stated that maybe NEEA needs a little tune up.
Todd addressed one member’s suggested edits to the brainstorming memo from August 3, 2012. There was discussion among the group about whether or not to incorporate the edits. The general consensus was that these
edits should be made. A new copy will be sent out to the members. Todd asked the group to think about agenda
items for the next meeting. One member stated that there should be a new member representing Oregon and maybe for the next meeting we review EEAG charter.
3:42-Meeting Adjourned

1
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Minutes dated May 23rd, 2013
Present:
Catherine Chertudi–City of Boise, Public Works Dept. Ben Otto-Idaho Conservation League
Ken Robinette–South Central Comm. Action Partnership Todd Schultz*–Idaho Power
Stacey Donohue–Idaho Public Utilities Commission Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Nancy Hirsh–Northwest Energy Coalition Kent Hanway-CSHQA
Tom Eckman–Northwest Power & Conservation Council Tami White*–Idaho Power

Not Present:
Don Sturtevant–Simplot
John Chatburn–Office of Energy Resources
Lynn Young–AARP
Guests and Presenters*:
Pete Pengilly*–Idaho Power Cory Read–Idaho Power
Diana Echeverria–Idaho Power Theresa Drake–Idaho Power
Gary Grayson–Idaho Power Andrea Simmonsen–Idaho Power
Roberta Rene–Idaho Power Cheryl Paoli-Idaho Power
Zach Harris–Idaho Power Patti Best-Idaho Power
Nikki Karpavich-Idaho Public Utilities Commission Quentin Nesbitt-Idaho Power
Donn English-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Todd Greenwell-Idaho Power
Randy Thorn-Idaho Power
Billie McWinn-Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen-Idaho Power
Dave Thornton-Idaho Power
Dr. Howard Neibling, P.E*-University of Idaho
Celeste Becia*-Idaho Power
Dennis Merrick-Idaho Power
Harry Douglass-Engineering Intern-Idaho Power
Sheree Willhite-Idaho Power
Chris Pollow-Idaho Power
Mindi Shodeen-Idaho Power

Recording Secretary:
Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Convened at 9:30 am
Todd opened the meeting with housekeeping items and a safety topic. The members and guest gave introductions. The meeting minutes from February were reviewed. Stacey Donohue stated that there are no minutes for the
IRPAC meetings, so not sure that they are a critical piece of the EEAG meetings. Ben Otto and Tami White stated that they find the minutes useful for refreshing their memory. Donn English would like to have the names of members noted in the minutes rather than just “member.” Todd Schultz stated that the minutes keep everyone
accountable and on track. There was some discussion regarding the confidentiality statement that he emailed and handed out at the meetings. Tami stated that the primary reason for the confidentiality statement is due to
financial information and SEC requirements. There are very strict rules around disclosure of financial information
that concern insider trading rules. Todd stated that during the Demand Response discussion last year, it was noted
2
that Idaho Power would be long on resources which could have had financial implications if that information had
been released to the financial community. Kent Hanway stated that since EEAG is a public meeting it seems like
a contradiction. Pete Pengilly stated that it is a timing issue. After this quarter it is no longer confidential. Diana Echeverria addressed the group about the article for Connections and stated that she may have a few questions for
some of the members and informed them that she would like to get a few pictures of the group.
9:48 Regulatory Update-Tami White
Tami informed the group that there will be a new member joining us at the next meeting. Her name is Brittany
Andrus from the Oregon Public Utilities Commission. Tami wanted to address some concerns that Stacey had
about EEAGs feedback. Tami stated that Idaho Power values the feedback received from members of this group. The Company’s decision to file to request authorization to temporarily suspend two of its demand response
programs was made after the December 14th conference call with EEAG and Tami was in meetings with Company management where she was asked, “What is the feedback from the EEAG?” Idaho Power has reached out to Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) staff attorney to set up dates for demand response workshops.
FlexPeak could not be suspended because Idaho Power is still in contract with EnerNOC. In the filing Idaho
Power talked about working with the contractor to reduce costs. An amendment was filed and it will cap the weekly MW of nominated DR at 35 MW, reduce the amount of dispatch hours available from 60 to 30 and event
days from 20 to 10, and reduce the amount that Idaho Power pays EnerNOC per kW. This will save approximately $500,000 in program expenses in 2013. The A/C Cool credit and Irrigation Peak Rewards programs have stipulations. For the A/C Cool Credit program, if customers call to have a device removed, but
then sign up later at the same service point, they will have to pay an $85 installation fee. Kent asked what kind of outreach is being done with the marketing group for those being affected by these changes. Tami stated that letters
are being mailed this week to A/C Cool Credit customers explaining the stipulation. Roberta Rene stated that the
website will also be updated. Todd stated that letters were sent out to irrigation customers last week. Dennis Merrick and Quentin Nesbitt also held customer workshops this past spring. A third letter will be sent out soon.
Ben Otto stated that he has been very involved with this case and it’s really about how the company values
demand response. Will all of the programs be on the table at the workshops? Tami stated that they will all be discussed during the workshops. Ben stated that he wanted all of the members to keep in mind that these
programs are much bigger now than when they started. A different structure is now needed for these programs for
the long term.
Idaho Power received IPUC staff and Party comments yesterday regarding the Custom Efficiency filing. The
comments are supportive of the Company’s request for an accounting order. We are now waiting for the
Commission order.
10:07 Financial Update-Pete Pengilly
Pete presented the Idaho Rider, Oregon Rider and NEEA funding balances slide. Currently the Idaho Rider has a positive balance and the Oregon balance is negative. The numbers for the Custom Efficiency account will not match the filing because of the interest. These balances are as of the end of April since the books don’t close until
the middle of the month. The NEEA column is just payments. Ben asked if the interest on the Custom Efficiency is based on what Idaho Power was asking for and not the 1%. Pete stated that yes that is correct.
On the Expense by Funding Source through April slide, the total expense column will match the previous slide.
The Non-Rider column is a melding of various accounts such as O&M and the regulatory asset accounts. Donn asked what the $465 amount was for in that column. Pete stated that it is an accounting adjustment from 2012 to
2013. Stacey stated that she didn’t realize there were non-Rider amounts for Weatherization Solutions. Celeste
stated that those amounts are mostly labor. The program specialist is base rate funded. Pete stated that if a position existed prior to the rider account being created, those positions continue to be paid out of base rates. Pete stated that Nancy had requested in the past to have savings on these slides. That information is hard to get so the savings
3
numbers are unofficial. Ben stated that even an estimate of savings would be helpful. The group understands that
all these numbers are estimates and won’t hold you to them.
10:18 Energy Efficiency Program Performance and 2013 IRP-Pete Pengilly
Annual EE savings slide includes NEEA and its savings for each year, not cumulative. Slide 3 is similar to the
previous slide but it breaks out NEEA savings. These are preliminary number that will be finalized later in the
summer. Stacey Donohue commented that when she heard that Idaho Power no longer needed NEEA she thought it was because the savings from NEEA has declined, but now that Idaho Power is no longer seeing the energy
savings it once did, it would seem that there could be some benefit from NEEA. Theresa Drake answered that
there are definitely pieces and parts that the company would like to procure in the future, but there are some services that the company doesn’t need or see value in. Tom asked if Idaho Power will be participating in
NEEA’s planning of the next business cycle. Theresa answered that Idaho Power will actively participate in the current funding cycle. The company has had two separate meetings with NEEA’s strategic planning group to let them know what Idaho Power would like to see in terms of design for the next funding cycle. Tom stated that it
would be beneficial for members of EEAG to understand what offerings from NEEA that Idaho Power does and
does not find value in.
During the discussion of slide 6 (Annual EE Savings by Segment) Donn asked if the peak savings in 2010 for
residential was due to stimulus funding. Celeste answered that was part of it, but it could also be attributed to lots of lighting and Weatherization Solutions was started that year. Cory added that lighting was a large portion but savings have been cut because of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). Ben said that it might be
nice to see the number of customers reached. Tom also said he would like to see the number of participants. Pete stated that it is published in the annual report, but that could be something we could add for EEAG.
On slide 10 (EE Levelized Total Resource Cost) the top two programs show a cost increase because of reduced
savings. Because of the nature of energy efficiency, it’s the first year’s savings over time, discounted to today’s dollar. Levelized benefit over the life of the measure. Costs are first year cost. Cory stated that it is similar to a
mortgage payment. Ben asked Tom if this is similar to what he sees in other utilities. Tom answered that the
trends are the same. Commercial and industrial is inexpensive whereas residential, pilot programs and residential low income are more expensive. Pete stated that this slide only shows electricity benefits, no other benefits are
included.
There was some discussion on Slide 14-(EE Achievable Potential by Customer Segment). This slide shows what was put in for the IRP for energy. The information came from the potential assessment that was shown to the
group in the past. Energy efficiency is the first resource. Cory stated that 2012 was taken out. Their models
included 2012 but since it was removed, we started at 2013. Ben asked how the savings for 2012 compared to the model. Cory answered that it lined up because of how far in we were, we were able to calibrate 2012. Tom stated
that it looks like 2012 achievements are higher than 2013 potential achievements. Cory stated that it is because the new avoided costs were entered. The benefits are half of what they are. Pete stated that this isn’t all cost-effective measures, this is just achievable. There was a lot of discussion around potential, ramp rates and avoided costs.
Tom stated that he is reluctant to agree with this slide. The math doesn’t seem right especially with what was achieved in the past. Stacey stated that having this discussion within EEAG could help the company if some of these larger residential measures are going away. Donn also stated that it seems odd that this group can’t have a
conversation about avoided cost and run some preliminary calculations. In other advisory groups this conversation has been going on for the last 2 years. Tom commented that contingency planning would be beneficial especially
if so many residential programs/measures are going to experience issues. Having this discussion before we hit that
wall would be a good thing. Pete stated that there is a process that the company goes through. Theresa stated that the IRP is filed in June. Having this discussion after the official IRP is submitted made sense and the next EEAG meeting is in August. Stacey stated that she appreciates that the company was planning to discuss this in August,
but this is bigger than a one meeting issue. The general consensus from the group is that these discussion need to
4
start happening sooner rather than later. Nancy suggested maybe having a webinar between now and the next
meeting where this issue can be discussed further.
10:57 Break
11:10-Non-Participant Survey-Jenn Falco/Hansa
Kathy stated that in 2010 Idaho Power conducted process evaluations on several residential programs. Those
evaluations recommended that Idaho Power conduct some non-participant surveys on the programs. In 2012 a request for proposal (RFP) was issued for the Non-Participant survey. She introduced Jenn Falco from Hansa, the
company that performed the survey. Jenn explained the research goals and objectives of the survey. They
conducted a very intensive phone based survey. Stacey asked if demand response participants were included in the survey. Cory answered that because a pure sample was needed and customers usually don’t differentiate
between demand response and energy efficiency, DR participants were removed from the sample.
On slide 10 (Barriers & Benefits) Nancy asked if participants were asked if they did any home improvements or purchased energy efficient items on their own. Jenn answered that those types of questions were not asked. Stacey
asked if these were multiple choice or open ended type questions. Jenn answered that it was structured on a 0-10
scale on how likely you were to participate. The series of questions asking why don’t you participate were an either/or type choice. Tom asked if there were any plans to look at the social demographics and consumption
usage of the participants. Cory answered that Idaho Power has the 3rd party demographic data, billing data, and level pay participation and can track based on that. Tom also asked if past participation can be tracked. Cory stated that he went back 7 years and if the customer had participated in another program like Easy Upgrades or
irrigation they were removed from the survey. Nikki Karpavich asked if age related information was obtained. Jenn stated that an age range was asked for residential customers. Kent asked how they were able to find the right
person to survey for the commercial programs. Jenn stated that the participant was asked what their functional
duty in the company was. Most often for small companies the business owner was surveyed and for the larger companies the facility manager was surveyed.
On slide 11(Changing the Game) Ben asked if these were open ended or were there options for participants to
pick from. Jenn stated that there was a list of options for them to choose from. Then it was asked what the most preferred method of communication is. Tami asked if there had been an option for bill insert or direct mail. Jenn
answered that those options were provided it was just that the bill insert rose to the top. Nancy commented that
maybe the bill insert was high because that’s what customers have received over the years and are used to seeing them. Stacey stated this might be their preferred method of communication but it may not motivate them.
On slide 18(Benefits: Most and Least Important) Customer made it clear that they want clear and simple
messaging to encourage participation in the programs. Stacey asked if there were any questions that asked about non-energy benefits. Jenn stated the goal was different in this study so those types of questions were not asked.
On slide 19 (Likelihood to Participate in EE Programs) Tom wanted to know if customers were asked if they had done anything on their own outside of Idaho Power. Jenn stated that no question like that was asked. Stacey commented that customers who had undertaken measures on their own without being incented by Idaho Power
would be a great population to talk to.
On slide 35(Likelihood of Irrigation Customer to Participate in EE Programs) Sid asked if the irrigators were questioned about the amount of horsepower they had. Jenn answered that they didn’t ask specifically about
horsepower, but rather what type of system they had, amount of acreage, and number of pumps. Sid stated that customers could have very large systems with small bill and vice versa depending on the system. He also stated
that he asks irrigators if they participate in the irrigation programs. Some of the irrigators say they don’t because
they don’t see any improvements. He carries a tool that measures water so he can show them that they can make
5
improvements. Nancy stated that talking to neighbors is what gets people engaged and it is the most effective
way, it’s a more personal approach and would be beneficial in every customer segment. Kent stated that the
messaging needs to be looked at. Being able to show customers how participating in these programs can affect their bottom line of savings. Have a way to show a return on investment would be very effective. He then asked
what Idaho Power will be doing with this information to change their marketing messaging. Todd Schultz stated
that three different workshops have be conducted that included the marketing department, market segment coordinators, customer reps, and program managers to develop action plans
12:10pm Lunch
12:57 Meeting Reconvened
12:58—Dr. Howard Neibling, P.E-Evaluation of Sprinkler Irrigation System Components in Southern Idaho
Quentin Nesbitt introduced Dr. Neibling and gave a background on the reason behind the research. This research was done last summer and they were looking specifically at menu items. Howard stated that the work he does
helps irrigators to make the best use of the water they use. He showed numerous slides of inefficient irrigation
systems and explained the issues that can be caused from worn nozzles, too much pressure, and leaks.
After the presentation Kent Hanway asked if Quentin could give the group an idea of the cost involved to improve
these systems and is this something that Idaho Power can help with. Quentin stated that the Menu program can help improve these systems. This research confirms that this program is viable and backs up the savings that the company is claiming. Dr. Neibling stated that one of the intangible benefits is helping farmers become aware and
encourage them to make changes before they say that it needs it. It changes the focus of their vision and improves some inefficient systems even when it’s not obvious. Stacey noted that it seems like these problems are system or
design based. Are these issues addressed on the Menu Program or is it only in the Custom program? Quentin
stated that it is not addressed in the Menu program but nozzle replacement is encouraged. Donn asked if this research is going to be used toward quantifying the non-energy benefits. Quentin stated that a committee has been
convened with the Regional Technical Forum (RTF). Since these items are small in savings, the RTF approach
was a small savers option. Howard mentioned in his research that non-energy benefits are there but quantifying them is a bigger research project. We will be filing changes this fall. Tom thanked Idaho Power and Dr. Neibling
for doing this research. The RTF had enough reliable information to get savings but didn’t meet all of their
criteria. With the small amount of savings it didn’t warrant the additional money to get that additional research.
2:00—Commercial Update-Todd Schultz
The program savings numbers up to May 10th are still unofficial. The total savings on all programs are down
about 50% from last year at this time. There are a lot of projects still coming through the Easy Upgrades program but they are smaller projects. Nancy Hirsh asked Todd if he knew how many of the Easy Upgrade applications
were repeat customers from last year or the year before. Todd answered the he didn’t know the percentage but a lot of the projects are lighting which are new customers. The amount of projects a customer has participated in is tracked in a database. Todd spoke to the group about the Refrigeration Operator Coaching for Energy Efficiency
(ROCEE) training that was launched in April of 2013. Kent asked who was conducting the trainings. Todd stated that Cascade Engineering is leading this training. There are currently 8 participating facilities and another 5 that are sending operators to training. After the training has been completed, the operators will become certified.
On slide 5 (CE Slide) there was some discussion about the self directed option. Tom stated that it is a great way to motivate customers to use the money because if they don’t use it in 3 years, they lose it. Puget Sound Energy has
had great success with this model. Nancy asked what the proposal would be for the self directed option. Todd
stated they would target customers that haven’t done projects yet and talk to them about the self directed option.
6
The target for Building Efficiency is 9500 MWh for 2013. Two new buildings in downtown Boise have
applications submitted and will be paid on in 2013. Through the Kilowatt Crackdown, an office space in Boise
had an extensive scoping audit where a control problem was discovered. The business was able to go back to the company that installed it and have it repaired while still under warranty. Todd showed a slide of a building that is
being remodeled by CHSQA. They are renovating old warehouse space and working towards LEED platinum
certification. Kent said that they hope it will be a good model of energy efficiency to demonstrate to others. Ken asked if Banner Bank in downtown Boise is participating in the Kilowatt Crackdown. Todd stated that they are
and even though they are a LEED certified building, there is still opportunity there. Nancy commented that she
was thinking about closing the gap from where Idaho Power is now compared to a year ago to achieve the same savings numbers. Are there additional items that will be used to get more participation? Todd answered that the
key will be to look at getting customers who have previously participated re-engaged. Continuing with scoping audits to see where there might still be potential. Nancy stated that Idaho Power could look at a new incentive approach. Instead of paying an incentive, buy the savings from customers. A 10 year contract could be set up
where you incent the customer to continue saving energy over time. This would only work for the larger facilities. It could be a different way to approach these customers. Donn asked if this would be a check or a bill offset. There might be some issues with FERC if a check is cut as opposed to a credit on their bill. Nancy stated she
would look.
In 2012 the T-12 standards changed but incentives will continue through 2013. We would like to get EEAG’s input on whether or not to continue offering the incentives for 2014. Kent Hanway stated that for customers it’s
the easiest way to introduce them to the Easy Upgrades Program. He recommends continuing the T-12 incentives for 2014. Tom stated that Avista had great success with giving customers a deadline. Kent also stated that the
federal government has 179D deductions that could be used in conjunction with the deadline given to push
customer towards retrofits.
3:00—Residential Update-Celeste Becia
Celeste passed out two new slides for savings. Overall energy savings are trending higher. Home Improvement
savings are lower due to no longer allowing gas heated homes to participate. In the Home Products program, washers were discontinued at the end of the first quarter. Energy Efficient lighting savings is up 54%. A/C Cool
Credit has seen a decline because marketing of the program stopped last fall. Donn asked if customers have
requested their switches be removed since the program was suspended. Celeste answered that there have been some, but none since the order. Nancy asked if there have been any changes in marketing the residential programs
since the units in the programs are lower this year vs. last year. Diana answered that it is not necessarily a direct
correlation of more or less aggressive marketing, but rather eligibility requirements on some of the programs have changed and now there is a smaller customer base that can participate in these programs.
One of the things Idaho Power has done to minimize costs for A/C Cool Credit is to leave switches on homes that have been vacated by prior participants. Once it becomes occupied, we are letting the new owners know what it is and giving them the option for removal. Kent asked if Idaho Power is asking them to join the program. Celeste
answered that the new homeowner is not asked to join.
Nancy asked if the Home Products program will still be cost effective with the new avoided costs. Celeste stated that it becomes increasingly hard when more and more new products are energy efficient. We could have an
active program with inactive measures. Tom stated that Idaho Power might need to find a different way to market these products. A $5 incentive won’t really move people to purchase a product. Celeste stated that Patti Best has
been involved in a retail initiative that looks at what other products are out there where we can buy down the price
at the manufacturer level.
Weatherization Solutions had an evaluation last year and it showed a very low realization rate. Ken asked if the evaluation was based on billing data or energy audit. Gary answered that the evaluation was of the software used
along with billing data. Ken also inquired if the firm that evaluated it was the same one that approved the software
7
for the Department of Energy (DOE) nationally. Gary stated that it was approved for use by the DOE but the DOE
didn’t request things like cooling load. Ken asked if it included health & safety benefits. Gary stated that it
included just the energy benefits. Stacey needed some clarification between what D & R stated in the Idaho Power evaluation and what was approved the audit form for the DOE. The discrepancy might be that the DOE didn’t ask
for the interactive effects and cooling load. Pete stated that D & R did not determine cost effectiveness, but rather
the determined savings. The cost effectiveness was based on Idaho Powers cost from the Utility Cost or Total Resource Cost so health and safety would be added to total cost.
A process evaluation will be conducted on both Weatherization Solutions and Weatherization Assistance for
Qualified Customers this summer. Celeste asked the group for any feedback or suggestions on whether Idaho Power can do something more specific to Idaho in determining cost effectiveness for these programs. Are there
better audit tools out there? She also asked if the group if they thought it made sense to evaluate them separately or the same. Ken stated that if using the same tool then they could be evaluated the same. Nancy stated from a cost effectiveness standpoint it would make sense to combine the evaluations. Tom stated that there are lots of
types of tools but what’s fundamental is calibration of the tool. The problem is if the customer is using
supplemental fuels then there is no simulation tool to determine the actual electrical heating savings elements. Celeste stated that the results of the evaluation will not be combined; each program will have its own report.
Celeste passed around the Student EE Kits that have been distributed this spring. A different vendor will be used this fall and surveys from the teachers will be analyzed to determine which one to use going forward. The Home Energy Audits will be conducted throughout Idaho Power’s service territory for electrically heated homes only.
The Shade Tree Pilot will be launched this October. Nancy stated that Ben Otto, who had to leave for the afternoon, wanted her to express his enthusiasm for this project. There should be lots of non energy benefits
associated with this. Celeste spoke to the group about the Oregon Energy Kits, the Snow Creek condo roof
upgrade and ENERGY STAR© Dryers. Todd then recapped the discussion around avoided costs, integrated resource plan and NEEA. These topics may require an additional meeting. The next EEAG meeting is August 20th
which conflicts with several members’ schedules. Tom asked to have a Doodle Poll sent out to reschedule that
meeting. It’s likely the next meeting will be held in September. Todd thanked everyone for their participation today.

4:00 Meeting Adjourned

1
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG)
Minutes dated Sept 18th, 2013
Present:
Kent Hanway-CSHQA Brittany Andrus–Oregon Public Utility Commission
Ken Robinette–South Central Comm. Action Partnership Lynn Young–AARP
Stacey Donohue–Idaho Public Utilities Commission John Chatburn–Office of Energy Resources
Nancy Hirsh–Northwest Energy Coalition Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Tami White–Idaho Power Ben Otto-Idaho Conservation League
Todd Schultz*–Idaho Power

Not Present:
Tom Eckman–Northwest Power & Conservation Council
Catherine Chertudi–City of Boise, Public Works Dept.
Don Sturtevant–Simplot
Guests and Presenters*:
Pete Pengilly*–Idaho Power Cory Read–Idaho Power
Kathy Yi*–Idaho Power Theresa Drake–Idaho Power
Shelley Martin–Idaho Power Andrea Simmonsen–Idaho Power
Diana Echeverria–Idaho Power Lynn Tominaga-Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Ken Miller–Snake River Alliance Quentin Nesbitt–Idaho Power
Bev Barker–Idaho Public Utilities Commission Patti Best–Idaho Power
Becky Arte-Howell-Idaho Power Cheryl Paoli-Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen-Idaho Power Billie McWinn-Idaho Power
Chris Pollow-Idaho Power Todd Greenwell-Idaho Power
Sheree Willhite-Idaho Power Randy Thorn-Idaho Power
Roberta Renee-Idaho Power Amanda Richards-Honeywell
Nikki Karpavich-Idaho Public Utilities Commission Donn English-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Jim Madarieta-Idaho Power Bryan Lanspery-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Darlene Nemnich-Idaho Power Robert Everett-Idaho Power
Dennis Merrick-Idaho Power Mindi Shodeen-Idaho Power
Recording Secretary:
Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Convened at 9:45 am
Todd opened the meeting with housekeeping and a safety topic. The members and guests gave introductions. The minutes from May 23rd were reviewed. Tami White had some changes to the minutes from the May 23rd meeting
that were discussed with the group. The May 23rd meeting minutes will be updated and re-sent to the group. Ben stated that it was helpful to have the names in the minutes. All members of EEAG agreed that they would like the
minutes sooner rather than later.
2
9:55 EEAG Topics-Todd Schultz
Todd went over the topics that were sent in by members. These items will be addressed throughout the day with
most of the topics being covered in the presentations.
10:00 Regulatory Update-Tami White
Tami gave the group a brief overview of the filings that were approved to temporarily suspend two of the Demand
Response (DR) programs and modify the other DR program. Workshops were held during the summer of 2013. Tami gave the group an overview of what took place at each of the 5 workshops. The purpose of the workshops
was for stakeholders to get together to discuss changes and options for the DR programs. In Idaho, the group was
able to reach an agreement that will be filed with the IPUC. Tami was unable to talk about the terms of the settlement as it is confidential until it is filed, but she did say that if the terms are approved it will allow for the
continuation of DR in 2014.
Ben stated that he was a big advocate of these workshops. No one got everything they wanted, but that is the nature of compromise. He was happy with the outcome. In the long term he stated he thought the structure will be
more stable. He appreciated that Idaho Power hosted and being able to talk with all of the stakeholders and learn
about their wants and needs was an interesting process.
Sid stated that it was a good way to learn what each stakeholders needs were. He was pleased with the outcome of
the workshops. He also stated that he thought it was better than what the outcome would have been if the workshops were held at the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) because it allowed for a better compromise. He stated that it was a pleasant experience, and he would participate in it again. He appreciated the
IPUC allowing Idaho Power Company (IPC) to host. Todd stated that he appreciated the education that took place. DR is very complex and touches many aspects of the company and this process made things clearer and
highlighted the complexities of the programs. Ben commented that what is being done here in Idaho with DR can
be informative as well as an example for others in our region.
Tami presented to the group that Idaho Power is contemplating an Oregon filing. There are two rider accounts in
Oregon, one of which collects 1.5% of base rates for the solar program. Currently this account is collecting more
than what is needed. The Energy Efficiency (EE) Rider is collecting 3% of base rates and is currently not collecting enough. The filing would be to increase the EE Rider to 4% and decrease the Solar Rider to .5%,
which will have zero rate impact on the customer. The filing would also request to transfer some of the funds in
the solar rider account to the EE rider account, to help relieve the under-collected balance in the EE rider account . Ben asked for a refresher on what the solar rider account is for. Tami stated that it is to fund a variable incentive
rate for customers’ solar projects output in Oregon. Currently Idaho Power is capped at 400 kW and currently
there is 323 kW installed. Nancy stated that maybe an alternative to reducing the fund would be to increase the cap. Tami stated that the cap comes from an Oregon statute, but that she would check on that. Part of the reason
for the over-collected status in the solar rider account is that when the program first started, customers received a Variable Incentive Rate (VIR) of $.55/kWh and over time that has been reduced to $.285/kWh. Nancy asked if the money in the Solar Rider account would just sit there if it’s not being used. Tami stated that yes it would just sit
there. Pete stated that part of the reason why there is a surplus in this account is that the forecast was initially based on that $0.55/kWh and some of the projects that were scheduled never came to fruition.
10:30 DSM Evaluation-Pete Pengilly for Gary Grayson
Pete informed the group that Gary couldn’t be here today so he will be giving this presentation. If there are questions that he can’t answer, he will defer those for later. The first few slides were an overview of how
contractors are selected by Idaho Power for evaluations. Ben asked for clarification on what is meant by the
“cycle” of evaluations. Pete stated that it refers to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was signed by IPC and the IPUC. The commission asked IPC to perform evaluations on a 3 year cycle.
3
During slide 5 (Irrigation Efficiency Rewards) Nancy asked if the term “new” and “existing” referred to
participants. Pete stated that it referred to systems. The Engineering Project Leader added that “existing system”
referred to someone needing to update a pump, for instance. New refers to designing a new system efficiently. Stacey asked what the baseline is. The Engineering Project Leader answered that it is based on what the dealers
are installing for customers without using our program. There was some discussion around flood irrigation to
protect aquifers around the state. Stacey asked if the impact evaluation will be evaluating individual measures or on a program level basis. Pete stated that it will be both. The Menu option will be evaluated by measure. The
Engineering Project Leader added that the Menu option is measured with deemed savings from the Regional
Technical Forum (RTF). Pete stated that the results of this evaluation should be available before the end of the year.
The evaluations for ENERGY STAR® Homes, EE Lighting and Heating & Cooling Efficiency (H&CE) programs are all being done by one contractor. If a survey has already been conducted that meets the needs of the evaluation, we will use that. Idaho Power is very sensitive to customer survey fatigue. The H&CE contractors
will be surveyed for that evaluation as well as IPC Customer Reps. Nikki asked if realtors are being surveyed for
the ENERGY STAR® Homes program. Pete stated that he wasn’t sure, but will get back to her on it. Stacey asked if there were any preliminary results. Pete stated that these evaluations are happening right now, so no
results yet.
There are some key findings from the Weatherization Program evaluations but we don’t have the complete report yet. Stacey asked in regards to the program operating efficiently and effectively if that is just IPC or if it includes
the CAP Agency as well? Pete answered that it is both IPC and the CAP Agency. Stacey stated that it was her understanding that the savings estimates from EA4 were a little rough, she asked for clarification on what is
meant by granularity, what information is missing. The EE Analyst answered that there is a ton of information
being collected on every home, but it is not in a readily usable file to give to the contractor. No data is lost, but depending what version the data is in determines what can or can’t be extracted. Ben stated that maybe that bullet
on the slide isn’t really that there is no granularity but rather just not accessible. The Program Specialist stated
that information is not sent in on every job and put into the database so going thru the information is time consuming. Nancy stated that should be a key thing to fix. This data could be fed into the database for residential
building stock assessment. Ben commented that by the end of 2013 all the program will have had evaluations.
What “next steps” will be taken to further use the information gathered from these evaluations? He encouraged the company and members of EEAG to really use this information and think about ways to improve these
programs. Pete agreed. Parts of the Program Specialist’s goals are to look at these reports and pinpoint what we
can do to improve. Nancy stated that other utilities have a checklist of all the suggestions that come from evaluations. IPC could do this and it can be reviewed once a year with EEAG. Stacey commented that IPC has
done a really good job at taking the suggestions of the evaluations and implementing them. It might be worthwhile to think about whether or not the company needs to jump into the evaluation cycle again.
An Idaho Power Regulatory Analyst came into the meeting to address an earlier question Nancy asked earlier
about whether the cap for solar in Oregon is based on an Oregon statute. The Regulatory Analyst stated that the 25MW was allocated amongst the three Investor Owned Utilities (IOU)’s in Oregon from the legislature. The 400 kW is Idaho Power’s allocation of the 25MW. Stacey asked if other utilities are having the same issue of extra
funds. The Regulatory Analyst stated that he doesn’t know the status of the other IOU’s solar rider accounts funding.
10:55 Break
11:05 Programs Update-Todd Schultz
Commercial Program Update
4
Todd stressed that these savings numbers are preliminary. It was another successful year for FlexPeak
Management. It was dispatched 3 times during the summer. Participation levels have stayed consistent. Right now
we are just managing the pipeline in the Custom Efficiency program. Ben asked if those projects are in the works. Todd answered that they are projects that we have approved applications for. Keep in mind that with these
projects it’s all about timing. Customers who did large projects last year aren’t doing them this year. Stacey said it
might be more useful to track on a three year average. It appears that 2013 is being compared to a banner year in 2012 which makes it seem like you aren’t doing as well. Todd stated that the program specialists look at every
year and determine what they think they will actually achieve. Nancy stated that this meshes with the customer
survey that was done where the commercial sector feedback was that they were interested in the programs, but didn’t know there were any. Have you used that survey data to try and reach customers differently? Todd
answered that program specialists are working with trade allies. They are definitely paying attention to that survey data. Todd spoke about the Refrigerator Operator Coaching for Energy Efficiency (ROCEE) training and asked Kent to discuss his impression of the report out session. Kent stated that from an operator standpoint they are
seeing great results. They are tracking their energy use and sharing lessons learned with other operators. Slide 5 is a screen shot of the software that the commercial customer uses for this program. The cumulative energy savings is about 300 kWh. Ben asked what the percentage of savings on this would be. The Engineering Project Leader
stated that is screen shot is just over a two month time frame and is one of the smaller customers. He thought the target across the board was about an 8- 8.5% savings. Ben asked if IPC is seeing that 8.5% savings. The Engineering Project Leader stated that this is a two year program so customers are still implementing changes and
are being followed up with.
Todd spoke about the Waste Water EE Cohort program. It will be the same model as ROCEE and a Senior
Engineer will be heading that up. Ben stated that waste water is very expensive for municipalities so this is not
only good for energy efficiency but good for the smaller municipalities. The savings for this won’t be claimed until the incentive is paid at year one which will be around April/May of 2015. Nancy stated that some savings
will be from measures while other will be behavioral changes. There is a lot of work being done to measure
persistence of savings and hope IPC can work with the IPUC to count those behavioral change savings even though you’re not paying incentives so that you can get credit for those. Stacey asked if these are the kinds of
savings that would be affected by the weather. The Program Specialist stated that weather is taken into account on
the model.
There are currently 40 commercial buildings in Boise participating in The Kilowatt Crackdown. These customers
have had their energy audits and now have their playbooks on activities that they can do to reduce their energy
consumption. Hopefully they will budget for capital improvements for 2014. Stacey asked if each participating building has a sign to put up. Todd stated that a few have requested it but not as many as we had thought. The
Marketing Specialist stated that there is a banner but the City of Boise has restriction on signage. The City requires a lot of paperwork to fill out in order to put one up.
A commercial building in Boise has been selected as a pilot project in The Existing Building Renewal (EBR)
initiative aimed at deep renovations targeted to save 30-50% energy savings. This will be in coordination the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) and there should be a press release about the Boise pilot out in the next few weeks. Todd talked about the IDL and the current 12 tasks that have been put together for research,
support services, and education and outreach. Kent stated that for the commercial sector the IDL is a great resource. They are able to push the limits and help where maybe customers’ budgets can’t support a project.
Trade ally outreach has been a strong focus this year for Easy Upgrades. Construction has picked up in the region
and contractors are directing their energy on new construction. Ben asked if the company is encouraging trade allies to use energy efficient measures during construction of the new buildings. The program specialist gave an example of a new construction project in the design phase that was directed to the Building Efficiency program.
5
The Irrigation Efficiency Program numbers are strong this year and are exceeding targets. The Menu program is
driving the savings. Nancy asked if there would be a future conflict for this program if there is a push towards
flood irrigation vs. sprinkler irrigation. The Engineering Project Leader answered that with the current program if irrigators want to put in sprinklers we want them to work with us. We’re not getting people to switch, but it could
impact future participation. Stacey stated that it is interesting for IPC that Menu is driving the program savings
where at Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) it is the opposite. That utility just filed to have its menu options suspended because it’s not cost effective. The Engineering Project Leader stated that RMP’s program is different
than IPC. Their programs pay on the same measures but it was an exchange program they ran it through the
dealers where IPC pays the customer and it’s a cost share program.

Residential Program Update
The residential programs numbers are also preliminary. Some of the numbers for 2013 have been recalculated by the Regional Technical Forum (RTF). Home Improvement numbers are down due to only allowing electrically
heated homes to participate. Home Products numbers are down because washing machines were taken out of the
program in March. The savings for the SYLR program is lower because the RTF changed the savings numbers but we have actually picked up more units this year than last year.
The number of projects is down in the Home Improvement program because some of the contractors do not want to be involved with the duct sealing even though it’s a requirement of the program. The Program Specialist explained that the contractors just want to install the insulation. They aren’t grasping the importance of duct
sealing and air sealing. Ben asked how IPC can get the contractors to be more engaged in the program. Ken stated that increasing the amount of the incentive for duct sealing could help. Those contractors that are in the home
performance business will take the extra time needed to seal before blowing insulation. It’s a cost and time factor
for these contractors. Insulators don’t touch duct work, its two different trades. Todd stated that the program specialist will be working with specific contractors to address some of these specific issues. Ben stated that maybe
this program needs a design change since it’s so hard to find residential energy savings. John asked what kind of
confidence the company has that these contractors are actually fulfilling the requirements of this program, that they really are doing duct sealing before the insulation is installed. The Program Specialist stated that quality
assurance is performed on a random sample of 10% of the projects.
The Shade Tree demonstration project was launched today. There will be 250 trees distributed. Customers will enroll online now through Arbor Day and then will pick up their tree at events held at local nurseries. The
Program Specialist will demonstrate the programs on-line tools during the lunch break.
The Home Energy Audit Program is slated to launch during the 1st quarter of 2014. The details are currently being worked on. There will be a good educational aspect to this program. Nancy asked what the cost of the audit will
be. The Program Specialist stated that the value of the audit is around $300-$400 but the cost to the customer will be about $100.
The WAQC & Weatherization Solutions program is finalizing the process evaluation and currently there is a
Request for Proposal (RFP) for software options. Stacey stated that there has been a lot of talk about changing the audit tool and moving away from the EA4 and EA5 to use something different. Ken stated that it is a little more complicated than that since the tool is approved by the Department of Energy (DOE) and to transfer data between
two different software tools would be difficult. The Program Specialist stated that maybe the EA4 and EA5 could be part of the RFP. Stacey stated that Tom did mention that any audit tool would work as long as they are
calibrated.
12:05 Lunch
6
Meeting Reconvened at 1:05 pm
In an earlier email, Stacey requested that the group talk about what types of emerging technologies are out there.
Todd opened it up to everyone as a roundtable discussion. Stacey brought up smart thermostats. There currently is a lot of publicity on these items. Programable themostats are evolving at a very fast pace, and keeping abreast of
the changing landscape is a good idea. LED lighting for residential application was another topic brought up. The
prices for these have been dropping, so having a pilot program or doing some research to identify savings might be worthwhile. The group also brought up behavioral based programs and would like to further explore some of
those issues. The term NEST was brought up in reference to the programmable thermostats. Tami asked what that
term meant. Ben stated that it is the name of the company that makes them. The Program Specialist for the H&CE program spoke to the group about programmable thermostat technologies.
1:30 Financial Update-Pete Pengilly
Pete presented Appendix 1 and Ben asked if there was an estimate of where we will be at the end of the year. The Financial Analyst answered that the forecast with August actual hasn’t been done but the estimate is that it’ll be
$4 million liability (collected status) at the end of the year. Pete stated that the Financial Analyst is in the process
of updating the longer term forecast. By the next EEAG meeting there should be a firmer forecast assuming we have resolution with the DR filing. Nancy stated that it gets to the gap of economic and achievable potential.
Rather than grow the liability, how can we do more. We need to figure out a way to drive customer participation in the programs. Stacey stated that it might be a good time for pilot programs.
The Custom Efficiency column on Appendix 2 looks like there are still funds in that account, but it’s reversed in
the total at the bottom. Ben asked if these numbers will change at the end of the year. Pete stated that historically the Custom Efficiency incentives are paid out towards the end of the year depending on customer’s fiscal
calendars.
1:40 Cost Effectiveness-Pete Pengilly/Kathy Yi
Pete asked the group before he started why we care about cost effectiveness. John stated “it’s because you are
spending my money.” Pete also added that IPC wants to make sure that customer’s money is spent wisely. Cost
effectiveness is done once a year. If there is something that comes up, we will look at it, but typically we look at the programs on an annual basis. This analysis is based on the 2013 alternative cost from the Integrated Resource
Plan (IRP). We received those in late May based on the preferred portfolio and it was filed with the commission
in June.
For the measure cost-effectiveness, the savings were updated with recent RTF assumptions. For the program
cost-effectiveness, 2012 program actual was used with only the alternative costs updated. Ben stated that deemed
savings could change halfway through the program year and the company isn’t penalized in typical prudency regulations. The company can’t be expected to know something might happen in the future. Pete stated that
typically we do make our decisions at the beginning of the year and don’t change things mid way through. The company hasn’t been penalized by the Commission; however, when we do our analysis in January and the savings have changed, it would be imprudent to claim the higher savings. For example, when the RTF updated clothes
washer savings, they were removed from the program in March of this year. The MOU doesn’t say that all of our programs need to be cost effective, but if they aren’t then we need to inform why they aren’t and what we are doing about it.
Slide 3 (Cost-Effectiveness Tests) is a summary of the three different types of tests. Nancy asked if this slide showed what is looked at on the TRC because there is more line loss, risk reduction benefits and O&M. Pete
stated that some of these might bleed over into the cost side. Line losses are incorporated into everything.
7
Slide 4 (2011 vs. 2013 Alternative Costs) shows the impact of the carbon assumptions coming in later. If we keep
some measures that have a five year measure life, it doesn’t see benefits now, but could later.
On slide 5 (2012 Program Cost-Effectiveness) Nancy asked if cost effectiveness is done on Ductless Heat Pump as a pilot or program. Pete stated that it’s done like any other program. The reason it’s called a “pilot” is that the
RTF is still grappling with the savings.
Slide 7(Ductless Heat Pump Pilot) shows preliminary analysis from the RTF. If a customer has wood heat and they add a DHP then there is a negative electrical savings because they use their DHP more than wood. The RTF
is looking at quantifying savings from other fuels to use in the TRC.
On Slide 8 (Energy Efficient Lighting) Stacey asked if specialty bulbs were a large part of the savings. The program specialist answered that most of the savings still come from CFL’s, not the specialty bulbs.
Slide 9(Energy Star® Homes) show that the single family homes are all cost effective in all heating and cooling zones. Nancy stated that making sure multi-family homes are looked at since a lot of new building is in this style of home. There needs to be a way to make these cost effective.
On slide 10 (Heating & Cooling Efficiency) Ben asked if there is a reason that median costs aren’t used for cost
effectiveness. Pete answered the average hasn’t been an issue but it has been exacerbated right now. The median should reflect what’s more representative. John asked if we do closed loop heat pumps. Pete answered that they
have never been found cost effective due to the high price. John also stated that from an environmental stand point the open loop doesn’t seem like a good idea. The Program Specialist answered that the open loop heat pumps have an ejection well that the water gets dumped into; it doesn’t just go onto the ground. Kent asked if
building codes for next year are being looked at. As these codes start to change and the bar is raised, it will affect programs. Pete stated that it is on the radar. Ben stated that it has been helpful to have IPC be involved in the code
discussions.
On slide 16 (Other programs) there was some discussion regarding Non Energy Benefits (NEB’s) for WAQC and Weatherization Solutions. Ken asked if there was a way that NEB’s would be incorporated into these two
programs. He gave some examples of NEB’s: Health and Safety measures, lead based paint, repairing non-
working systems will show an increase in energy usage, family size, resistant heat to heat pump, electrical upgrades, the new ventilation requirements. A lot of these factors should be noted when doing evaluations. There
should be an adder or deduction to help prove the cost effectiveness of the measure. Stacey stated that she thought
the Health & Safety aspect has been addressed; she didn’t think it was a problem at all in the cost effectiveness analysis. Ben stated that there are a lot of things that companies do that benefit society, and he thinks this is one
area where you do your best to be cost effective but it should be kept even if it isn’t cost effective. Theresa asked
if other Idaho utilities are seeing these changes. Stacey answered that this isn’t just an IPC struggle. Other utilities are grappling with it. Ken gave some examples of how his agency is working with local hospitals to help identify
potential households that might be having health issues due to inefficiencies in the home that can be fixed. A member of the audience asked what the difference was between WAQC and Weatherization Solutions. Pete answered that with the Weatherization Solutions, IPC pays for 100% of costs. The homes that participate in
Weatherization Solutions are typically in better shape.
Pete asked the members of EEAG for feedback on this issue of Cost-Effectiveness. Pete stated that he had just come back from an evaluation conference that explained how expensive Net to Gross (NTG) is to research and
there is still a lot of debate surrounding it. Most of the NTG that IPC uses comes from Nexant which sourced the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Database for Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER). Stacey stated
that Avista uses 100% NTG and then uses the net as a program management tool. Under the measure vs. program
analysis discussion, Nancy pointed out that dropping a measure because it isn’t cost effective right now but might
8
be later will keep people from participating in the program. John stated that the company should make sure that
there are measures that any socio-economic class can participate in.
Avoided costs are primarily driven by natural gas. The price can be forecasted but not the demand. It’s traditionally very volatile.
How do you know when a program has run its course? An example of this would be the LED Christmas Light
program. After a while, there wasn’t much uptake because the market had been transformed and that is all that was available for customers to purchase. Donn commented that a lot of the bullet points on slide 17 have merit.
He offered caution before moving forward on any of them other than the 10% conservation adder. Stacey stated
that she was ok with a 100% NTG.
Pete wanted to open up the dialogue on revisiting MOU with the group. Donn and Stacey 100% agree that it
needs revisiting. Nancy would like to figure out a forum for discussing this issue. Ben stated that it would be helpful to get these resolved in the next year. Theresa asked if it would be beneficial to have the other IOU’s get together for consistency. Stacey stated that she would need to talk to the commission staff but maybe setting the
sideboard with the MOU and allow for different IOU’s to have their own preferences. Stacey didn’t think we
should nail down every tiny detail in the MOU and allow for the utilities to work out those details. Some consistency is good, but there is no need to dictate every detail. John stated that being able to compare utilities is
not the reason for consistency. Nancy added that it should be to strive towards a level playing field for customers across all utilities. Stacey stated that the MOU needs to address certain language that each program should have a goal of cost-effectiveness. We could change that language to state that the default test could be the Utility Cost
Test (UCT). Ben stated that Utah uses the UCT and they have lots of EE programs. Stacey added that after speaking to a representative at that utility, they state that there were no negative consequences by just using the
UCT. It is a test that values what the utility values. Nancy added that the incentive amounts in Utah are lower
which has an impact on customer participation rates. She said that just using the UCT could have a negative impact and she wasn’t ready to agree to just using that test only. Ben stated that all of these tests look at things a
certain way and liked the idea of the UCT because it looked at the utility system. Stacey said that by making the
UCT the threshold instead of the TRC then you would be using all tests together. You wouldn’t have to worry about the NEB’s and you could really focus on the program. Pete thanked everyone for their feedback. The next
EEAG meeting is Nov 14th and we can either have further discussion on this matter then or schedule something
for sooner. Ben encouraged convening sooner than Nov 14th. Theresa asked if this is just an IPC issue or an IOU in Idaho issue. Donn stated that it is broader than just an IPC issue. Theresa asked Pete to recap the planned next
steps. Pete stated that these alternative costs are still preliminary. The goal today is to not determine cost
effectiveness, but to look at how we’re analyzing cost effectiveness.
3:26 Break
3:40 Wrap Up-Todd Schultz
Todd directed the group’s attention to the parking lot items on the flip chart. Stacey wanted to discuss the idea of IPC co-funding a program with Intermountain Gas. Could there be a way to design a program that would achieve
gas and electric savings with the administrative and incentive costs split between the two utilities. This might be a way to come up with a program where measures are cost effective for gas heated homes. Donn stated that most of IPC customer complaints are that there are no programs available to gas heated homes. Nancy stated that
Seattle City Lights and Puget are looking into co-funding a joint program. Pete stated that IPC has talked with the local gas company in the past about co-funding but the discussion didn’t materialize into further developments.
Theresa gave an update on CEERI. It was clarified that CEERI is more of a forum; it’s not a legal entity. IPC
visited with BSU’s research director and we are having high-level conversations with them to explore potential research activities. We will meet with them again in October. Smart Thermostats may be an example of the type
9
of research activity we can explore with them. We have chosen to talk with BSU individually rather than an
overarching entity. John stated that the “I” in CEERI stands for Initiative not Institute.
Theresa stated that IPC is participating with NEEA and there is discussion on what we’d like to see in the next business plan. We have asked NEEA to look at different funding models in order to bring value for IPC
customers. When the contract was submitted to the IPUC, the original order had language that said they approved
the contract but not without some reservations. The Order stated that Rider funds are provided by customers and are not unlimited and that IPC must demonstrate that customers receive tangible benefits from them. The
company takes that to heart. Donn stated that he interpreted the statement in the order as “being cost effective”
and nowhere has he seen that NEEA is not cost effective. Ben stated that NEEA’s goal is market transformation. If IPC isn’t going to participate in NEEA or CEERI, what else will IPC do to achieve market transformation?
Donn stated that he still hasn’t heard what IPC does not like about NEEA and without NEEA what is IPC’s plan? Nancy would like to see all of NEEA’s programs and see where they aren’t cost effective or where they haven’t provided benefit to IPC customers. Funding NEEA is expensive, but it has a lot of value. John stated that from his
perspective, he is less interested in what IPC doesn’t like about NEEA but how the company will spend those
dollars in Idaho in the future to benefit IPC customers.
Stacey added that NEEA provides savings that no utility can accomplish on their own. Market transformation
can’t be done by a single utility. A single utility can’t influence the Wal-Marts of the world which type of TV they put on their shelves. IPC cannot get the savings that NEEA provides. NEEA is sowing the seeds so that IPC can get the uptake later. A Marketing Specialist gave a personal experience of working with NEEA. From a
marketing perspective it has been frustrating and time consuming. NEEA’s marketing doesn’t usually apply to our specific service territory. She hasn’t found value from NEEA on a marketing level. Tami stated that IPC does see
value in NEEA but the company is looking for a funding model that pays for things that Idaho Power finds the
most value in for its customers, like market transformation. Stacey stated that in theory that sounds great, but it doesn’t work that way for regional initiatives. The RTF just talked about this issue. Only wanting to pay for
certain measures encourages free ridership. Tami also stated that it’s not only about being cost effective but also
the prudent use of funds. Donn asked if IPC was anticipating filing a case to ask the IPUC for permission to stop funding NEEA. Tami stated no, the company is not planning to file a request for permission to not fund NEEA.
Stacey added that up until this point IPC has asserted that NEEA is cost effective and now IPC is saying that it
isn’t. John said that just because something is cost effective doesn’t mean that you have to do it. But the company might need to find something else that is equal or better.
Donn stated that it’s hard to get staff support on something when IPC hasn’t brought a plan to the table. IPC
hasn’t said what they are going to do with the 3 million as a replacement for what NEEA provides. Ben stated that if the company can get market transformation somewhere else for less money than great. Todd thanked everyone
for their time and comments. Stacey added her thanks to IPC for showing the preliminary savings and evaluations. She appreciates seeing the ideas the company has on how to handle the alternative costs.
4:20 Meeting adjourned.
1
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Minutes dated November 14th, 2013
Present:
Catherine Chertudi–City of Boise, Public Works Dept. Don Strickler–Simplot
Ken Robinette–South Central Comm. Action Partnership Lynn Young–AARP
Stacey Donohue–Idaho Public Utilities Commission John Chatburn–Office of Energy Resources
Nancy Hirsh–Northwest Energy Coalition Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Darlene Nemnich*–Idaho Power Kent Hanway-CSHQA
Ben Otto-Idaho Conservation League
Brittany Andrus-Public Utility Commission of Oregon
Quentin Nesbitt*–Idaho Power

Not Present:
Tom Eckman–Northwest Power & Conservation Council

Guests and Presenters*:
Shelley Martin–Idaho Power Cory Read–Idaho Power
Gary Grayson–Idaho Power Theresa Drake–Idaho Power
Roberta Rene–Idaho Power Diana Echeverria*–Idaho Power
Cheryl Paoli*–Idaho Power Bill Shawver-Idaho Power
Pete Pengilly*-Idaho Power Ken Miller-Snake River Alliance
Patti Best*-Idaho Power Becky Arte-Howell-Idaho Power
Denise Humphreys-Idaho Power
Amanda Richards-Honeywell
Bryan Lanspery-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Andrea Simmonsen-Idaho Power
Billie Jo McWinn-Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen-Idaho Power
Celeste Becia-Fluid Market Strategies
Jim Madarieta-Idaho Power-
Chris Pollow-Idaho Power
Nikki Karpavich-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Mindi Shodeen-Idaho Power
Dennis Merrick-Idaho Power
Sheree Willhite-Idaho Power
Randy Thorn-Idaho Power
Todd Greenwell-Idaho Power
Kevin Winslow-Idaho Power
Recording Secretary:
Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Convened at 9:40am
EEAG members introduced themselves along with the members of the audience. Quentin went over the EEAG topic lists. The marketing and cost effectiveness items will be covered in presentations today. Quentin explained
that Todd is on a temporary 6 month assignment to help implement the new Customer Relationship and Billing (CR&B) system and to help work on process improvements for customer calls and hold times. Quentin will be taking over Todd’s duties temporarily. Ben commented that because the business of Energy Efficiency is very
important, Idaho Power would want to make sure that it is staffed appropriately. Stacey commented on the email that Tom sent regarding the conservation potential study (CPA) and wanted to know if that was going to be
2
discussed during the meeting today (Idaho Power refers to their study as Energy Efficiency Potential study). Pete
stated that he didn’t feel it was appropriate to discuss Tom’s email since he wasn’t present. That email was
received yesterday so there wasn’t much time to dig into the specifics of it before the meeting to include it in any of today’s material. Several members encouraged discussion on Tom’s email despite his absence.
There was a discussion around the subject of NEEA and what Idaho Power’s (IPC) plans are going forward.
Stacey stated that she didn’t realize that IPC was still waiting for the funding mechanism. She also wanted to know how the company was going to spend $3 million a year if the company does not fund NEEA. Theresa stated
that the subject of NEEA was not part of today’s agenda. There are several different funding mechanisms and
models on a parking lot list and NEEA is looking at those. Stacey asked if IPC can provide options to help NEEA come up with a business plan. Theresa stated that IPC feels that NEEA has the in house expertise to decide what
is sustainable and that they should take charge of those issues. IPC has provided NEEA with high level options. Brittany stated that she still wants IPC to provide details of what the company does and doesn’t find valuable with NEEA. Theresa acknowledged that the group has requested this but that the company is not at a point to have that
discussion right now. Nancy stated that the utilities involved with Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) have
asked for ala carte options in the past but they have never gone that direction. BPA found that it undermines the overall framework of NEEA. The concept seems attractive, but when you put it into practice, there is a breakdown
from the institution that provides those services. John stated that he wants to make sure that the savings from NEEA benefits Idaho customers and not just somewhere in the region. Stacey said that NEEA can report savings based on the purchaser’s zip codes on sales receipts. Idaho Power reports NEEA savings allocated by its funding
share but the savings based on the sales receipts would exceed the savings that Idaho Power currently reports. Ben stated that the benefits for Idaho are a primary focus, but there are other benefits for Idaho that happen throughout
the region. The efficiency that happens in Oregon eventually benefits Idaho. NEEA can influence market
transformation and what customers ultimately purchase at retail stores. Nancy asked if a cost benefit analysis has been done by IPC. Theresa stated that level of analysis has not been done.
10:11am—Regulatory Update-Darlene Nemnich
Darlene gave a high level overview of the Demand Response (DR) Workshops that were held during the summer. A settlement agreement was filed in Idaho on Oct 2nd and the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) issued an
order on November 12th approving the settlement agreement. Nancy commented that it was a great effort by IPC
and stakeholders to keep the DR programs. She asked if a risk reduction benefit was considered when the programs were valued since there is a risk benefit for not needing to buy fuel during a peak period. Quentin
answered that the simple answer is no. Ben stated that 60 hours of avoided energy costs were captured. Quentin
added that those 60 hours included shifted energy which is the difference between peak and non-peak. Ben added that these DR Workshops were a great example of how to address these issues. He stated that he was proud of the
outcome and all those involved should be proud of the results of the settlement. Stacey added that she thought IPC did a good job organizing, hosting and having a facilitator there to help keep things on target.
10:34—IPUC Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)-Pete Pengilly
Pete summarized what is currently in the MOU. There are two pieces; stipulation and attachment 1 which is IPUC Staff recommendations. Nancy asked if IPC has gone through the MOU provisions and created a checklist of items completed, not completed, lessons learned, and things in the MOU that need modification. Pete answered
that a checklist is done when the DSM Annual Report is put together. As for the other issues, those haven’t been dissected per se since it was signed by the other utilities and IPUC Staff. Ben stated that the level of discourse on
these issues is higher now than it was in 2009 so it might be a good time to revisit this document. Stacey stated
that some of the language around measuring cost-effectiveness and the evaluation cycle could also be looked at. Having a program evaluated every couple years might be constraining. It might be more valuable to take a year off from evaluating a program and do research instead. The net to gross should be looked at again too. Ben stated
that there is a lot of research and knowledge out there about non energy benefits (NEB) and those are something
3
that should be looked at as well. Pete stated that IPC doesn’t object to any of those things. Stacey said that she
would work on getting the ball rolling on revisiting the MOU.

11:05—Programs Update-Quentin Nesbitt
Not much time has passed since our last meeting, so the savings numbers will not be much different from
September’s numbers. We are hoping to see more projects come through for 2014 as there is a lot in the pipeline. Custom Efficiency is the largest program and drives much of the savings for the commercial sector. The Easy
Upgrades Program savings numbers have decreased. The Program Specialist for Easy Upgrades stated that
lighting has driven the savings for this program. She has been out talking to trade allies to get an idea of what’s going on in construction. Their work load has increased but it is on new construction projects as opposed to
retrofit work. Because the contractors are so busy with new construction, retrofit work is being pushed to the winter when new construction work typically slows down. The Program Specialist put on a Town Blitz in Pocatello where lighting audits were done. There were a lot of positive results and it sparked more interest in the
program. Ben asked if there was any earned media attention for this event. The Program Specialist stated that
there wasn’t any media for the event. She explained that in October IPC Customer Representatives contacted customers that they knew might be interested in doing lighting upgrades. On the Monday of the start of the blitz
there were 26 confirmed audits and by the end of the week there were a total of 50. There are some very large projects that have been identified and will likely be processed through the Custom Efficiency Program. The feedback from trade allies and customers was that this was an awesome event. The Program Specialist stated that
she will likely do a similar blitz in the Twin Falls area. Nancy asked of the 50 audits done, how many did the program specialist think will come through the pipeline. The Program Specialist answered that at least 20 out of
those 50 should come through at some point. She also stated that she will follow up with customers who had
audits but haven’t submitted them through the program. She will use that as a way to improve the process by getting customer feedback.
The Refrigeration Coaching for Energy Efficiency (ROCEE) program is going well. The savings for 2013 will be
reported in 2014. The Wastewater Energy Efficiency Cohort (WWEEC) is following the ROCEE model and currently 8 cities are targeted to participate. Catherine asked if any wastewater facilities have been targeted. The
Program Specialist answered that there are 4 signed up and IPC has received verbal confirmation from 6 others.
Some facilities can’t commit because they have large construction projects going on right now. Nancy stated that now would be the time to push those facilities that are in the middle of construction. Nancy also asked if any other
types of water energy efficiency is being done with the cities that are participating in the WWEEC program such
as low flow showerheads, as a compliment to this program. Quentin answered that wouldn’t be part of this program since we are working directly with the treatment plants. Pete also stated that IPC has partnered with City
Water in the past. Catherine added that a three party brochure was produced that was sent with customer bills. Kent stated that there have been significant mandates to treat wastewater. How has that impacted energy use at these facilities and how do you reduce energy usage when they are being pushed to do more? The Program
Specialist answered that part of the WWEEC workshops will talk about new construction and will take into account new requirements. The program will be recommending many different measures based on a scoping audit for each of the participating facilities. The Home Improvement Program savings numbers are down due to no
longer insulating gas heated homes. Incentives for upgrading windows have been added to the program for electrically heated homes. The Home Products program no longer incents washing machines which have brought
down the savings numbers. Ben stated that it’s pretty hard to buy an inefficient washer and asked if the company
looked into a washer recycling program. Maybe that is how you deal with rising baseline numbers and get these old models out of homes. John stated that it might be harder to get people to buy a new washing machine when their older model hasn’t broke down, there is no driver to get rid of it. Ben stated maybe incenting customer to get
rid of an old washer like the see ya later, refrigerator (SYLR) program might work.
4
11:47—Marketing presentation-Diana Echeverria
Diana introduced Roberta and herself and gave a brief background of their experience in marketing. Marketing
plans are created in August for the upcoming year and include budgets and strategies. During the Marketing Channels discussion, Diana showed a YouTube video on the Ductless Heat Pump. It highlights customers who
have had these installed in their homes. Stacey asked about the successes with direct mailings. Diana stated that
they talk to the Program Specialist
Stacey asked if a customer receives a direct mail about windows and they call into customer service would that
data collected to determine who inquired about programs. Diana stated that information is currently not tracked
but there are future plans to automate the marketing. The call center is targeted as a future marketing channel. Brittany asked if there is any co-marketing done within similar market segments, such as irrigation and
commercial. Quentin stated that within the irrigation program that has always been done where we talk about both programs. With other programs it might be different. That is good advice and we can look for opportunities to do that more. For the FlexPeak program Idaho Power Customer Reps are encouraged to accompany EnerNOC reps
when they conduct marketing and or program related customer visits. This gives the Idaho Power reps an
opportunity to discuss the other commercial programs that are available.
During the 2014 Marketing Activities slide there were a lot of suggestions from EEAG members about different
ways to partner with community groups. Ben suggested not focusing on conservation groups who are already on board but rather partner with the rotary clubs, churches and senior centers where you can reach a different demographic. Nancy added that there is a national group called Interfaith Power and Light that helps state based
groups. IPC might want to check if there is one in Idaho as it could be a potential resource. They provide materials and co-marketing materials. Nancy also stated that the non-participant survey showed that a large
number of people are still unaware of IPC’s programs, so it is good to see that the company is looking at new
avenues of marketing them. Lending institutions could also be a great avenue to market energy efficiency at the time of a home purchase. Catherine stated that the City of Boise partners with different Homeowner Associations
(HOAs) that offer classes to new homeowners. An energy efficiency component could be included in those
classes. Stacey stated that she likes the idea of partnering with the “unusual suspects.” She likes the idea of getting involved with the home buying process and in the new homeowner postcard.
12:15—Lunch-
Patti Best presented a slide show on the shade tree project and the results of the different events held at nurseries around the Treasure Valley.
1:16 Meeting Reconvened
1:18—Low Income Programs Quentin Nesbitt & Cheryl Paoli
The evaluations of both programs showed that savings were overestimated with the energy audit tool. The
evaluation was compared with billing analysis and showed that the savings weren’t there. IPC met with Community Action Partnership (CAP) and State Agency personnel to look for ways to improve both programs. IPC came back and reviewed options for another energy audit tool. Ken asked if the evaluation has been finalized.
One of the Evaluators stated that it is final but it is being reviewed internally. The results will be in the DSM Annual Report.
Stacey asked which two groups are being compared in the billing analysis. Is it the same customer pre and post?
The Energy Efficiency Analyst (EE Analyst) stated that the customer is compared to themselves pre and post but it’s aggregated on both ends. Ken asked if there is a metric to account for usage going up once a customer has had
weatherization and are now able to heat their homes. The EE Analyst stated that we can create a control group
using the audit tool data.
5
There was some discussion about the audit tools that are currently being used to measure savings of these
programs. Ken stated that the agencies using this audit tool are concerned that it is overestimating savings. There
was a lot of back and forth about the audit tool and calibrating the tool with updated savings. Nancy stated that we don’t want to presume that fixing the tool is all that is needed in order to save these Weatherization Programs but
it should be the first steps.
The process evaluation looked at non-energy benefits (NEB’s) of these two programs. Examples are when a heat pump is installed in a home that doesn’t have air conditioning and how to quantify the NEB’s. Stacey stated that,
for example, if you replace a non working furnace with a heat pump, then calibrating the baseline so it’s not zero
and move it up to what the average usage would have been if it was working.
Ken stated that there is a law that prohibits asking landlords to match project costs because it’s a state program.
They can ask them to voluntarily contribute to the cost. The program specialist stated that the landlords have to sign a waiver stating they will not raise rents on properties just because the upgrades were made. For the Weatherization Solutions program approximately 70% are senior citizens. Lynn stated that Social Security is the
only source of income for about 3 in 10 seniors so the NEB’s are a huge benefit for them. Lynn also pointed out
that these homes that are being upgraded are being lived in by seniors, but at some point down the road, someone else might occupy them and energy usage will go up. The savings might not be immediate, but eventually the
savings will be realized. Stacey stated that when they re-examine the MOU, there should be more emphasis on the NEB’s for these low income programs. Ken stated that his agency received a small grant from St. Luke’s to audit 50 homes of people with asthma to make their homes safer. Stacey stated that the Regional Technical Forum
(RTF) is doing research on the health benefits of reduced wood burning. Ken thanked IPC for bringing these issues of NEB’s to the table. We all have the same common concerns and want these programs to continue.
1:55—Cost Effectiveness-Pete Pengilly
Pete stated that the financial numbers are only updated by one month since our last EEAG meeting. Ben stated it would be nice to see what is being spent and the savings side by side. Pete then addressed the email that Tom
Eckman sent out on Nov 13th. IPC didn’t develop the penetration rates, a consultant for IPC did. They looked at
the Council’s rates and looked at historical ramp rates to come up with those penetration rates. In the table comparing Avista he looked at 2025 numbers, not 2033. Our study goes to 2032 and in 2032 it is a little higher.
The other utilities mentioned are in Washington and they are required to use the Councils cost-effectiveness and
penetration rates. Nancy stated that they can deviate if they do their own assessments. Pete stated that IPC consultants were told that when they do those studies for Washington they were to use the council ramp rates.
Nancy stated that the first chart on that email was more interesting. It shows a big gap between economic and
achievable and that is more concerning. It’s an issue that has been raised in the EEAG meetings for a long time. Pete stated that achievable is not a ceiling for IPC. Ben stated that this email from Tom gets the conversation
started so that we can address the assumptions and look at ways to change the ramp rate.
Ben stated that the intent is not to be critical of the IPC study, but more about the comparison to other studies and what is going on in the region. Stacey stated that IPC needs a well thought out strategic plan and then determine
the barriers and how to overcome them. Brittany stated that she would like to see the (CPA) explained in further detail at a future meeting.
Pete stated that few different scenarios were put together from the discussion during the last EEAG meeting and
they have been incorporated into this presentation. Stacey said that she would like to see the impact of savings if a large measure was dropped from a program. Nancy stated that she believes in keeping non cost effective measures
in a program because it might keep customers engaged in the program. Stacey stated that she supported having
some of these non cost effective measures bundled in order keep them cost effective. It needs to be a logical connection though, not something like refrigerators bundled with insulation. Ben added that a longer term look at avoided costs should be looked at. The goal is to find a lower cost resource. When we look at avoided cost, is the
avoided energy cost long or short term. Pete answered that its long term, its 20 years of hourly data. Pete
6
reminded the group that IPC is a growing system so savings will defer the building of a power plant. Ben stated
that maybe IPC should use more than just 2011 and 2013 numbers. If the company is going to average the
avoided costs, maybe put as many numbers as possible. Let’s make sure we are getting the avoided cost right before we start on these other things. Pete summarized the “take aways” from the conversation; the company
should look at measure impact and averaging avoided costs. Stacey stated that she likes the risk free discount rate
and averaging avoided costs. If you do that you should average what the actual avoided costs for are for those time periods. Nancy said that she thinks it’s a good step to take a look at ways to make the TRC more robust.
Brittany asked when these types of program changes would occur. Pete answered that any type of program change
usually takes place in the first quarter. Ben stated that this conversation is a perfect example of the purpose of EEAG. As a group, we are able to give suggestions in addressing these issues.
3:10-Break
3:23—Future Meeting Facilitation-Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin reminded the group of a discussion from last year about the possibility of using a facilitator. The
company wanted to revisit this topic again with the group. The company proposes to use Dune Ives who
facilitated our DR workshops this past summer. It would be for a specific term and then we would reevaluate after a few meetings. Sid stated that in his experience a facilitator does two things: keeps the meetings rolling and on
time and keeps people from arguing. The current way that this meeting functions is satisfactory. If a facilitator is hired the company has to pay them. Stacey stated that Sid made some good points and that Quentin has done a great job at this meeting today. It’s a lot of work to facilitate and organize a meeting and having a facilitator for
the short term could help with current IPC staff shortages. Lynn agreed with Sid that having an outside facilitator get up to speed on current issues could take some time, but she would leave it up to IPC to decide whether or not
to pay the extra expense of hiring a facilitator. Catherine expressed some concern that a facilitator might cut short
some of the great discussion just to keep the meeting from running over time. Brittany expressed how impressed she was with Dune during the DR workshops and how she helped crystallize some of the issues during that
process. Stacey also stated how Dune does a great job at articulating the conversation and getting everyone on the
same page and brings some accountability. She likes the idea of having a facilitator for a limited time. Ben stated that having a facilitator could help IPC be more engaged in the meetings instead of trying to offer ideas and run
the meeting too. Nancy stated that Dune facilitates the Puget Sound Energy Efficiency group. She has a long
background in energy so she would be a good fit. Another benefit to having a facilitator is there have been some issues that EEAG has brought up to IPC and the company has been slow in responding. A facilitator might keep
the company more accountable for the parking lot items and help shepherd responses to keep the conversation
moving forward. She stated that it is up to IPC to decide whether or not to hire a facilitator.
The general consensus from the group was that they will leave it up to the company to decide on whether or not to
hire a facilitator.
Nancy had a few topics to add to the list. She would like to have a discussion on behavioral savings and the science behind these types of programs. She just watched a webinar that discussed these types of programs and
would like to find out what the company is doing, if anything. Quentin asked the group if there were any changes or edits that needed to be made on the September meeting minutes. No one from the group had any changes.

3:45 Meeting Adjourned
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2013 Annual Report Page 35
NEEA MARKET EFFECTS EVALUATIONS
Table 1. 2013 NEEA Market Effects Evaluations
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed by Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type
80 PLUS Market Progress Evaluation #5 Residential Research Into Action NEEA Market Effects
2012–2013 Northwest Residential Lighting
Market Tracking Study
Residential DNK KEMA Energy and
Sustainability
NEEA Market Effects
2012 Stakeholder Perception Survey All OCR International NEEA Survey
Commercial Real Estate Program 2012 Impact Analysis Commercial Itron NEEA Impact
Comprehensive Commercial Lighting Initiative Pilot Evaluation Report
Commercial Heschong Mahone Group, Inc.
NEEA Market Effects
Consumer Electronics Television Initiative Market Progress Evaluation #2 Residential Research Into Action NEEA Market Effects
The Current State of Lighting Retrofit Programs and Standard Project Practices in
the Northwest Region
Commercial Heschong Mahone Group, Inc. NEEA Market Effects
Database of Northwest Manufacturers, Nurseries, and Wineries Commercial/Industrial Evergreen Economics NEEA Market Effects
Ductless Heat Pump Impact & Process Evaluation: Billing Analysis Report Residential Idaho Power NEEA Impact/Process
Ductless Heat Pump Impact & Process Impact & Process Evaluation: Field Metering Report
Residential Ecotope, Inc. NEEA Impact/Process
Emerging Technology Dryer Testing Residential Ecova NEEA Impact
Energy Baseline Methodologies for Industrial Facilities Industrial EnerNOC Utility Solutions NEEA Baseline
Energy Savings from NEMA Premium™ Electric Motors in the Northwest in 2012 Commercial/Industrial NEEA Market Effects
NEEA Heat Pump Water Heater Field Study Report Residential Fluid Market Strategies NEEA Market Effects
Hospital Healthcare Initiative 2012 Energy Savings Validation Commercial SBW Consulting NEEA Impact
Idaho Residential Energy Code Compliance Residential Cadmus Group, Inc. NEEA Baseline Compliance
Inventory of Commercial Energy Management and Information Systems (EMIS) for M&V Applications Final Report
Commercial Portland Energy Conservation Group, Inc. NEEA Market Effects
Laboratory Assessment of Sanden GES-15QTA Heat Pump Water Heater Residential Ecotope, Inc. NEEA Market Effects
Northwest Agricultural Irrigation Market Characterization and Baseline Study Irrigation Navigant Consulting, Inc. NEEA Baseline
Northwest Heat Pump Water Heater Market Test Assessment
Residential Evergreen Economics NEEA Market Effects
Northwest Regional Strategy for Commercial Lighting Energy Efficiency Commercial NEEA NEEA Market Effects
Regional Industrial Training Update Industrial NEEA NEEA Training
Residential Building Stock Assessment: Manufactured Home Characteristics and Energy Use
Residential NEEA NEEA Market Effects
Residential Building Stock Assessment: Multifamily Characteristics and Energy Use Residential NEEA NEEA Market effects
Review of ACE Model for High Efficiency TVs Initiative
Residential Evergreen Economics NEEA Market Effects
Understanding the Importance of Energy Residential Shelton Group NEEA Market Effects
Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 36 Demand-Side Management 2013 Annual Report
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed by Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type
Efficiency in the Home Purchase Process
Variable Rate Rooftop Unit Test (VRTUT) Report Residential New Buildings Institute NEEA Market Effects
Washington Residential Energy Code Compliance Residential Cadmus Group, Inc. NEEA Baseline Compliance

For NEEA reports, see the CD included at the back of this supplement.

Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2013 Annual Report Page 37
INTEGRATED DESIGN LAB EVALUATIONS
Table 2. 2013 Integrated Design Lab Evaluations
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed by Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type
2012 Building Simulation Market Assessment Commercial Integrated Design Lab Idaho Power Market Effects
2013 Building Metrics Labeling Commercial Integrated Design Lab Idaho Power Market Effects
2013 Daylight Demo Commercial Integrated Design Lab Idaho Power Demonstration
2013 Fall Lecture Series Commercial Integrated Design Lab Idaho Power Demonstration
2013 Heat Pump Calculator Commercial Integrated Design Lab Idaho Power Impact
2013 Lunch and Learn Commercial/Industrial Integrated Design Lab Idaho Power Demonstration
2013 Multifamily Incentive Residential Integrated Design Lab Idaho Power Literature Review
2013 Tool Loan Library Commercial/Industrial Integrated Design Lab Idaho Power EM&V
Residential Economizer Energy Impacts—2012 Technical Report
Residential Integrated Design Lab Idaho Power Impact

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 38 Demand-Side Management 2013 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.
building simulation
market assessment
2012
december 2013
created by: the university of idaho integrated design labfunded by: idaho power companyauthor: jacob dunn
Grahics by: ciera chaver

acknowledgements
forward
The practice of designing our built environment is moving forward
toward a more sustainable future, and building simulation plays
a critical role its realization. Certification programs and code
requirements have both created a market for building simulation
while proving that it can provide sincere value to the design process.
However, this relatively new skill set typically remains silo-ed
in the engineering discipline, and the current state of software
development impedes an integrated workflow between simulation
and design. Much room still exists for innovation with this relatively
new tool and its use between both architects and engineers.
Multiple indicators point toward building simulation’s growing
popularity in the architecture and engineering industries. In 2012,
the American Institute of Architects (AIA) produced a guide to
integrating energy modeling in the design process for both architects
and engineers alike1. Out of the 104 firms that have signed on to
the AIA 2030 Commitment, 57% of the gross square footage within
these firms’ portfolios used energy modeling to predict operational
energy consumption2. Above-code programs around the country
are embracing using energy simulation to comply with voluntary
programs. ASHRAE and other engineering organizations continually
produce rich design resources for building simulation such as
COMNET3, or have used simulation to create documents such as
the ASHRAE Advanced Energy Design Guides. Additionally, major
periodicals such as High Performance Buildings and GreenSource
Magazine routinely show both simulated and actual performance
data alongside centerfold-like architectural photography. Finally
and perhaps most importantly, clients are becoming more and more
attuned to how energy efficiency plays into their triple-bottom-line.
This enlightenment is evidenced by the fact that more than two-
thirds of Fortune 500 companies issued sustainability reports with
emission data in 2012.
Building simulation has the potential to redefine how we work by
making performance-based design a reality throughout the entire
design process. It is the key to link aesthetics with performance,
to provide a means for engineers and architects to work together,
and to achieve persistent energy savings in the built environment.
Simulation tools are developing at a rapid pace, and as the demand
increases for this skillset, will we be prepared to meet it?

Jacob Dunn - LEED AP
Architectural Simulation Specialist
Research Scientist for the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab
1AIA Guide to Integrating Energy Modeling into the Design Process http://www.aia.
org/practicing/AIAB097932
2Measuring Industry Progress Toward 2030, May 2012 - http://www.aia.org/
aiaucmp/groups/aia/documents/pdf/aiab094805.pdf
3Commercial Energy Services Network - http://www.comnet.org/

The University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) would like to thank all the members of the Building Simulation Users Group (BSUG),
its many guest lecturers, and all of the key staff between the UI-IDL and Idaho Power Company whose support, funding, and in-depth
knowledge of simulation have supported the development of this document. The UI-IDL would also like to thank all of the architecture and
engineering firms who volunteered their time to provide the information that made the infographics within this report possible.
acknowledgements
forward
The depth and breadth to which building simulation suffuses
our local architecture and engineering community was, at the
undertaking of this study, unclear. To remain both competitive
and progressive in the quickly evolving building industry, design
teams need insight into the market adoption of building simulation
to gauge their competitiveness. As building simulation becomes
more popular nationally and locally, measuring the trend of its
adoption involves understanding if, why, and how firms use
simulation in their practice. To understand this trend, the University
of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) surveyed architecture and
mechanical engineering firms that work predominantly within the
Boise area. The UI-IDL aggregated the results of the survey into
accessible infographics that describe how building simulation is
used by Boise firms in 2012. The sections of the report answer the
following eight critical questions and are separated by discipline:
1. How many firms participated? (pg 3-4)
2. Do firms use simulation? How? (pg 5)
3. What motivates firms to use simulation? (pg 6)
4. How many projects used simulation in 2012? (pg 7)
5. How many employees know simulation? (pg 8)
6. What energy simulation software programs do they know? (pg 9)
7. What daylight simulation software programs do they know? (pg 10)
8. Why don’t firms use simulation? (pg 11-12)
For an architect or engineer, this report provides insight into
their competitiveness within the local market in terms of building
simulation. The broad understanding of societal norms by a group
of people can often serve as the most effective motivational factor
for change. Thus, understanding how many firms use simulation
may provide the impetus to change the direction of a single practice.
The ultimate goal of this research is to report statistics about the
adoption of simulation in order to catalyze its widespread use as
a tool for designing high-performance buildings in the Boise area.
Finally, this market assessment serves as the first benchmark within
a trajectory of industry tracking. Additional assessments can be
conducted every 2-3 years to monitor how the use of building
simulation changes over time as it becomes more mainstream. The
territory of the study may also be extended in future assessments
to compare the entirety of the mountain west in states such as
Montana, Colorado, and Wyoming.
intro and intent pages 1-2
27 firms total
Engineering ArchitectureMulti-Disciplinary
61%30%9%
1_how many firms participated?
The UI-IDL received survey results from a total of 27 architecture and engineering firms in the Boise, area. Of these 27 firms, 61%
were architecture firms, 30% were engineering firms that included mechanical design services, and 9% were multi-disciplinary firms
that included both architectural and mechanical design services. The infographics throughout this report separate data between the
architecture and engineering disciplines based on color. Given the small distribution of mutli-disciplinary firms, their survey data was
combined with the architecture discipline’s for the creation of infographics in this study.
The market assessment includes most of the architecture and engineering firms in the Boise, Idaho area. Out of 31 architecture firms, 19
participated in the study, which equals 62% of the firm population. These 19 firms contain most of the employee population however,
as the remaining 12 firms were smaller practices. Adjusting for this, the survey represents 323 out of the 367 total local architecture
employees, or 88% of the local architecture population.
Number of
19
ArchitectureFirmsIn study:
Number of
8
EngineeringFirmsIn study:
Out of31
Boise firms,62%
Participated inThe study
Out of14
Boise firms,57%
Participated inThe study
Number of
323
ArchitectureEmployeesIn study:
Number of
202
EngineeringEmployeesIn study:
Out of216
Boise Engineers,93.5%
Participated inThe study
Out of367
Boise architects,88.0%
Participated inThe study
Of the 14 engineering firms in the Boise area, 8 participated in the survey, representing 57% of local engineering firms. However, the
study represents 202 out of 216, or 93.5% of the total engineering employee population. Capturing 88% and 93% of the respective
architecture and engineering employee populations constitutes a strong representative sample size for this research project.
It is important to note that sample populations are predictions only, and do not represent definitive firm populations derived from studies
or professional organizations. Boise firm population data was surprisingly hard to come by, so the UI-IDL executed a phone campaign
based on internet searches. Phone calls substantiated that the firms were still in business and determined how many full time equivalent
positions they employed. This included all staff dedicated to either the architectural or mechanical engineering practice, regardless of
whether or not they held a professional license.
pages 3-4
2_do firms use simulation?
The inner circle of the graphic shows that 42% of architecture firms and 92% of engineering firms use simulation to some extent in their practice. In the survey,
those firms were also asked to indicate how they used simulation. They were presented with three options and could choose one or all of the selections. This data is
represented within the outer circle of the graphic and reveals that architects primarily hire simulation services from either a mechanical engineer or third party. However,
out of the 42% of architecture firms that use simulation, 38% of the 42% conduct simulation in-house. Out of the engineers, a substantial 92% of firms use simulation
in some form. The predominance of energy simulation traditionally lies within the engineering discipline and so this large usage rate amongst engineering firms was
expected. Further exploration revealed that out of the 92%, all firms have in-house simulation capabilities, but 50% also share resources with another mechanical
engineering firm and 38% hire 3rd party consultants to help with simulation services. It is important to note that the outer circle percentages are based on the number
of selections made by the firms that use simulation, so their totals equal above 100 due to some firms selecting multiple services.
how?
Simulation done byMechanical engineer50%
42% firms use simulation
92% firms use simulation
8%Do not useSimulation
58%Simulationdo not use
100%Use simulationIn-house
38%Hire a3rd party
100%Simulation done byMechanical engineer
Hire a3rd party38%
Use simulation38%In-house
Engineering
-19 Firms-
-8 Firms-
Architecture
engineers: 20%
architects: 16%
engineers: 20%
architects: 20%
engineers: 7%
architects: 16%
Engineers: 17%
Architects: 12%
Architects:4%
Engineers: 7%
Engineers:4%
Engineers: 7%
Client requests it
LEED Certification
Sizing Equipment
Code Compliance
Incentive Verification
Energy Star Certification
Calculating energy savings
Life Cycle Cost Analysis
Utility
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8number of responses
% of total responses 0% 100%
engineers: 14%
Architects: 32%Used as a Design Tool
Engineers:4%
Firms that use building simulation cited the motivations for incorporating it into their practice shown in this infographic. The survey
presented the participants with 10 factors and allowed participants to choose one or all of the selections, as well as write in their own
motivational factors in an “other” input. The infographic shows the percentage distribution of the 25 architectural selections and the 29
engineering selections. Using simulation as a design tool and for LEED documentation were the two largest motivational factors for the
architecture firms. For engineering firms, requests by the client and LEED documentation served as the most important reasons for its
use.
3_what motivates firms to use sim?
pages 5-6
4_how many projects used sim in 2012?
The survey also asked firms how many of their total projects in 2012 utilized simulation and in what way. For architecture firms, 8.4% of the
total 1,163 projects used simulation in one way or the other. Out of these 98 projects, 77% used simulation for LEED documentation or code
compliance, while 54% used simulation to help design a higher performance building. This distribution does not equal 100% due to the fact that
some of the projects used simulation for both LEED documentation and for design assistance. On the engineering side, only 5.6% of the 995 total
projects in 2012 used building simulation. Of these 56 projects, 18% used simulation for LEED purposes and 63% used it for design assistance.
The numbers are counter intuitive, in that a higher percentage of architecture firms’ projects used simulation in general while a higher percentage
of engineering firms provided simulation services. The data also shows that the architecture practices’ use of simulation was still driven more by
LEED, while engineering simulation was more often used to improve building design.
8.4%5.6
of projects in 2012used simulation
100%50%50%0100%
1163 projects 995 projects
for?
77
%

l
e
e
d
54
%

d
e
s
i
g
n
18
%

l
e
e
d
63
%

d
e
s
i
g
n
100%
4_how many projects used sim in 2012?
Of the 525 combined employees in both disciplines of the study, 74, or 13.9% of the total were proficient in simulation. Broken down by
discipline, 7.7%, or 38 of the total architecture employees surveyed were proficient in at least 1 simulation program. Proficiency in this
context required using the program on at least 3 different projects. For engineering firms, 10% of the employees, or 38 engineers in total,
were proficient in using simulation programs. This graphic also shows the utilization of either energy or daylight simulation, within the
two separate disciplines. These metrics are further broken down into specific programs in the last two infographics of this report.
5_how many employees know sim?
7.7%3.4%
4.3%
10%8.5%
1.5%
daylightenergy
daylight
energy
out of 323 architectsout of 202 engineers
pages 7-8
6_which energy and daylight simulation
This market assessment studied both how many employees were proficient in simulation and which programs they use. The two
infographics display the distribution between software programs that 7.7% of local architects or 10% of local engineers can operate. The
statistics are also broken down by software type (i.e. energy or daylight simulation). Of the energy programs, eQUEST and OpenStudio
led the pack in the architecture community, while eQUEST, Train-Trace, and HAP were the programs of choice for engineering firms.
In terms of daylight simulation software, SkyCalc and 3ds Studio Max were the most utilized by architects. Skycalc is an advanced
calculation spreadsheet for toplighting and big box store applications, while 3ds Studio Max is taught in most architecture programs and
serves as a rendering program than can also conduct daylight analysis. Skycalc was the only daylight simulation program used by the
76%36%27%12%9%35%
Design
Builder EnergyPlus ies-ve
tranetrace hap Project
vasari comfen
9%
openstudio
41%41%9%
greenbuildingstudio
9%9%18%18%9%
11ArchitectsKnowEnergy
Out of323
Boise architects3.4%
Know energySimulation
Simulation
17
Out of202
Boise Engineers8.4%Know energySimulation
EngineersKnowEnergySimulation
energy simulation programs
Equest
therm heed ecotect beopt wufipassive
6_which energy and daylight simulation
1.5% of engineering employees capable of daylight analysis. Its ease of use as a spreadsheet calculator likely explains its widespread
adoption in both the architecture and engineering disciplines. For more information on the strengths and weaknesses of the programs in
this report, refer to the Department of Energy’s Software Tools Directory1.
1Department of Energy Software Tools Directory - http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/tools_directory/
programs do they know?
daylight simulation programs
RADIANCE AGI32 ECOTECT SPOT
3DSSTUDIOMAX
PROJECTVASARI
LUMEN
MICRO SIMERGY
11%11%11%5%37%100%
SKYCALC
21%5%
GREENBUILDINGSTUDIO
19ArchitectsKnowDaylight
Out of323
Boise architects4.3%
Know daylightSimulation
Simulation
3
Out of202
Boise Engineers1.5%Know daylightSimulation
EngineersKnowDaylightSimulation
pages 9-10
7_why don’t firms use simulation?
The survey asked the 43% of architecture firms and 8% of engineering firms in the study that did not provide simulation services to elaborate
on why this was the case. The firms could select one or all of the reasons from a list of 8 potential de-motivational factors. The infographic
breaks down this information by discipline, and ranks from left-to-right the most-to-least problematic aspects of simulation for the architecture
discipline. For the small amount of engineering firms that did not use simulation, they all cited the inability for energy simulation to
provide design services as their main rationale. However, not a single architecture firm listed this as a concern, which could point toward
the discrepancy in architectural and engineering simulation software. From the program-specific breakdowns earlier in this report, the
architecture firms used energy simulation programs that were more geared towards early conceptual analysis versus detailed HVAC design.
takes too longHoursTo execute
15%0%
Doesn't addValueTo projects
5%0%
Too muchTimeTo learn
24%0%
S.
PurchasingPROGRAMSToo expensive
19%0%
Doesn't provideDesignService
0%100%
Not requested byClients
19%0%
Difficult toIntegrateInto projects
14%0%
Isn't theObligationOf the architect
5%0%
?
7_why don’t firms use simulation?
The architecture firms listed steep learning curves, software program expense, and the lack of clients requesting simulation as the main
reasons for their reticence toward adoption. Those first two reasons are pretty straightforward, although the “not requested by clients” (19%)
and “doesn’t provide value to projects” (5%) perspective by the firm itself may relate most to the types of projects in the firm’s portfolio. Not
every project requires simulation, so the perceived “value” of simulation is highly dependent on the type of work commissioned by the client.
These responses may also be tied to the “takes too long to execute” (14.3%) response, which is a combination of the cost per hour of energy
analysis and the protracted time it takes to conduct a simulation study. Clients and architects would no doubt request building simulation
more or see more value in simulation if tool development increases the speed of simulation and reduces its cost.
takes too longHoursTo execute
15%0%
Doesn't addValueTo projects
5%0%
Too muchTimeTo learn
24%0%
S.
PurchasingPROGRAMSToo expensive
19%0%
Doesn't provideDesignService
0%100%
Not requested byClients
19%0%
Difficult toIntegrateInto projects
14%0%
Isn't theObligationOf the architect
5%0%
?
pages 11-12
takeaways
This market assessment provides a quick snapshot of the state of
building simulation within the local architecture and engineering
community of Boise, Idaho. For design professionals, it provides a
strong representation of how simulation is used and where their firm
resides in the local spectrum of simulation skillsets. For instance, if
your firm does not use simulation, the assessment communicates that
you lie within the 58% majority if you are an architecture firm, or within
the 8% extreme minority if you are an engineering firm. Additionally,
if you were an architecture firm interested in building in-house energy
simulation capability, you would be within the 15% of total architecture
firms in the study that do the same and would likely consider the
OpenStudio or eQUEST simulation programs.
Analyzing the data presented in this report, in conjunction with the
diffusion of innovation chart1, provides insights similar to the example
discussed above. In general, the different data points show that
adoption of simulation lies at different positions on the graph’s vertical
and horizontal axes. The data show that 42% of the architecture firms
and 92% of the engineering firms use simulation in some form. This
makes an architecture firm adopting simulation a member of the
“early majority” and an engineering firm a “laggard.” However, these
positions change by considering how firms use simulation. Out of all
the architecture firms in the study, the firms that use simulation in-
house (15%) could be considered “early adopters” and thus ahead of
the curve. For the engineering employees that know simulation, 35%
use the EnergyPlus and are part of the early majority of engineering
employees that use this new generation of simulation software.
In terms of market share, 7% of both architecture and engineering
projects use building simulation and fall on the graph as “early
adopters.” Taking this one step further, the 4% of the total amount
of projects that utilize simulation for design assistance, versus
documentation, fall even closer to the “innovators” mark. However,
given the issues mentioned previously with this metric, not all projects
require simulation which skews this position to some extent.
There are multiple reasons for the relatively low market share of projects
utilizing simulation. First, not all projects call for the use of simulation.
Generally, forward-thinking clients or code/certification requirements
served as the main motivation for both architects and engineering firms
alike. Regardless, projects that sought certification or aspired to aggressive
energy efficiency goals likely made up the minority of firm portfolios.
Using simulation simply to design better buildings was and still is on the
periphery of the professions, although it is promising that 34% and 14%
of all architecture and engineering motivational responses, respectively,
cited using simulation as a design tool. Additionally, simulation’s high
perceived cost, learning curve, and time-intensive execution contributed
to a quarter of the de-motivational factor responses.
This perceived low value proposition of using simulation will likely
become less significant as free tools like OpenStudio and EnergyPlus
become more user-friendly. The rise of BIM-embedded energy analysis
and the improvement of the BIM export process to simulation both have
the potential to redefine the high performance building design workflow.
This type of BIM integration may quicken the process of simulation while
making it easier for architects and engineers to collaborate over one
model. The data show that zero engineering employees and only a small
percentage of architecture employees can use BIM-integrated simulation
tools like Green Building Studio.
Rapid simulation tool development and the demand for energy efficient
buildings is expected to increase the number of local projects that use
simulation. As the market for simulation moves forward, reports such as
this one can track its development, break down useful data for the industry,
and hopefully speed up the adoption of building simulation overall.
For more information on building simulation, access to other simulation
resources, and to track the progress of this report and future benchmarking
efforts - please visit www.idlboise.com/bsug
1Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th edition). New York,
NY: Free Press
takeaways
diffusion of innovations
market share 100%
0%2.5%16%50%74%100%
innovators
early adopters
early majority late
majority
laggards
A - 42% of total architecure firms use simB - 92% of total engineering firms use sim
C - 15% of total architecture firms use in-house sim
a
B
d - 7% of projects in 2012 used simulatione - 4% of projects in 2012 used simulation
for designF - 35% of engineers that know simulation can use energyplus
c
de
pages 13-14
e d
F
A - 306 S. 6th Street, Boise ID 83702 P - 208.429.0220 E - [e-mail] W - www.idlboise.com

Report Number: 1301_001-01

2013 BUILDING METRICS LABELING
PROJECT PROGRESS
YEAR-END REPORT

December 23, 2013

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Authors:
Katie Leichliter
Julia Day
Alen Mahic

This page left intentionally blank.

Prepared by:
University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab | Boise
306 S 6th St. Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl

IDL Director:
Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg

Authors:
Katie Leichliter
Julia Day
Alen Mahic

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
JBK-110

Please cite this report as follows: Leichliter, K., Day, J., & Mahic,
A. (2013). 2013 Building Metrics Labeling: Project Progress
Year-End Report (1301_001-01). University of Idaho Integrated
Design Lab, Boise, ID.

DISCLAIMER
While the recommendations in this report have been reviewed for
technical accuracy and are believed to be reasonably accurate, the
findings are estimates and actual results may vary. All energy
savings and cost estimates included in the report are for
informational purposes only and are not to be construed as design
documents or as guarantees of energy or cost savings. The user of
this report, or any information contained in this report, should
independently evaluate any information, advice, or direction
provided in this report.
THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO MAKES NO
REPRESENTATIONS, EXTENDS NO WARRANTIES OF ANY
KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT
NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE WITH
RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO ANY RECOMMEDATIONS OR FINDINGS,
CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY
ADDITIONALLY DISCLAIMS ALL OBLIGATIONS AND
LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF UNIVERSITY FOR
DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DIRECT,
INDIRECT, SPECIAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES,
ATTORNEYS’ AND EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS
(EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBLITIY OF SUCH DAMAGES, FEES OR COSTS),
ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
MANUFACTURE, USE OR SALE OF THE INFORMATION,
RESULT(S), PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S) AND PROCESSES
PROVIDED BY THE UNIVERSITY. THE USER ASSUMES
ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR
DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE USE, SALE, OR OTHER
DISPOSITION BY THE USER OF PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S),
OR (PROCESSES) INCORPORATING OR MADE BY USE OF
THIS REPORT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN CONNECTION WITH THIS
REPORT OR THE INSTALLATION OF RECOMMENDED
MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN.

This page left intentionally blank.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Objective ............................................................................................................................................... 2
3. Background ........................................................................................................................................... 3
3.1. Literature Review .......................................................................................................................... 3
3.2. Work Prior to 2013 ....................................................................................................................... 3
4. 2013 Project Work ................................................................................................................................ 4
4.1. Cold Calling .................................................................................................................................. 4
4.2. Website Development ................................................................................................................... 5
4.2.1. Goals ..................................................................................................................................... 5
4.2.2. Development Process ............................................................................................................ 6
4.2.3. Major challenges ................................................................................................................... 7
4.2.4. Summary of Final Capabilities ............................................................................................. 8
4.2.5. Next steps for Future Development ...................................................................................... 9
4.3. Marketing and Visibility ............................................................................................................... 9
5. Future Work ........................................................................................................................................ 10
6. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 10
7. References ........................................................................................................................................... 11
8. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 12
8.1. Appendix A: Version 0.1 BML Sheet ......................................................................................... 12

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2013 Building Metric Labeling, Year End Report (Report #1301_001-01)

1. INTRODUCTION
Building energy performance disclosure is a growing trend across the nation and
worldwide, obvious by the growing number of jurisdictions mandating it in some form. The goal
of enacting disclosure mandates mainly lies in “conveying building energy consumption data to
real estate consumers, such as tenants, investors and lenders, who may save money by buying,
leasing or financing properties with lower energy costs” (Burr, Majersik, Zigelbaum, 2010).
However, by sharing building consumption data with a wider audience, especially during the
time of real estate transactions, it may be possible to transform the market toward having a
greater focus on energy efficiency by emphasizing the added value it brings. Ideally, this in turn
would further encourage efficiency upgrades in both high-performing and under-performing
buildings.
2. OBJECTIVE
The overall objective of the Building Metrics Labeling (BML) project is to promote
awareness of energy efficiency and energy use in buildings throughout the Boise and
surrounding markets by means of a graphical sheet, which displays multiple building metrics. By
developing a simple to read graphic sheet for inclusion in leasing packets to potential tenants or
owners, energy efficiency can be promoted during each sale or leasing period, highlighting the
building value due to these metrics. Initially, the project also aimed to teach brokers how to
develop the metrics without aid, for the continued use and updating of the graphical sheets.
However, for 2013, it was decided the development of a stand-alone web interface, that could
automatically generate or update the graphical sheets with only simple inputs by the user, would
be a better use of resources for the longevity of the project.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2013 Building Metric Labeling, Year End Report (Report #1301_001-01)

3. BACKGROUND
This project is the fruition of work initially conducted for Idaho Power Co., which
resulted in a white paper titled Building Energy Labeling, A Literature Review (Report 2010305-
01) (Acker and Van Den Wymelenberg, 2011). Work began for this project in 2012 with market
surveys and the development of the graphic sheet (Report 20110413-01) (Day, 2012). Both the
literature review and the 2012 work are discussed briefly in the following sections.
3.1. Literature Review
The paper that initially suggested this pilot project work, Building Energy Labeling, A
Literature Review (Report 2010305-01) (Acker and Van Den Wymelenberg, 2011), was
prepared by the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (IDL) and shared a few key findings.
One, there is evidence of a market shift to valuing energy efficiency in buildings, but market
forces alone are not sufficient to reach many national and local energy goals. Two, education and
increased awareness of energy use implications within the real estate community may be the
biggest barrier to successful implementation of energy reporting programs. Three, building
energy use disclosure is becoming a more common practice and is required in some jurisdictions.
3.2. Work Prior to 2013
The Building Metrics Labeling project was funded to begin work in 2011 under the name
Energy Use Intensity (EUI) Labeling. The project initially aimed to stimulate energy efficiency
awareness during the building leasing or purchase process, specifically for office buildings. A
metric labeling sheet was developed after interviewing multiple brokers about which metrics
were preferred and easiest to understand, as well as how the information should be displayed.
The final four metrics included both energy use and environmental quality metrics:

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
2013 Building Metric Labeling, Year End Report (Report #1301_001-01)

 EUI – Energy Use Intensity (kBtu/ft2-yr)
 ENERGY STAR® Score
 Walk Score®
 Access to Daylight
A total of 26 labeling sheets for 14 buildings and 6 individuals were created by the IDL,
with mostly positive feedback from users. Another goal of the 2012 work was to provide step-
by-step instructions for calculating the various metrics as well as document the effort required by
brokers to calculate the metrics without aid. However, while brokers valued the labeling sheets,
some commented that calculating metrics and filling out the sheet themselves would be too labor
intensive, which is what initially sparked the idea for an easy to use web-format. Lastly, some
widespread marketing efforts were made including an interview with the Idaho Business Review
as well as a radio program.
4. 2013 PROJECT WORK
The 2013 scope of work was focused toward the development of a web-based tool that
would enable users to develop the BML sheets easily and without outside intervention. The
majority of the 2013 budget and time were spent on this task alone; however, other progress was
made as well. Some follow-up with previous BML sheet users was done at the beginning of the
year to acquire feedback from brokers that had used the sheets in 2012, a few additional graphic
sheets were made when requested, and toward the end of the year, marketing and visibility
campaigns commenced.
4.1. Cold Calling
During the first few months of 2013, progress was made contacting BML sheet users for
feedback. A phone and/or email survey was prepared and delivered to some users from the
previous year. In general, brokers were satisfied with the graphic sheet and found it valuable, but
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 5
2013 Building Metric Labeling, Year End Report (Report #1301_001-01)

there was concern that the Boise market would not understand the reasoning behind disclosing
energy use. It became clear that a great deal of education and marketing were still needed in the
Boise area for the energy labeling and disclosure concept to gain traction and be successful.
However, 2013 efforts were largely focused on the website tool development so that a functional
tool could be implemented before the majority of marketing efforts began. In addition, a few
more updated BML sheets were created manually for three office buildings before the website
was fully functional. Many buildings that had participated the previous year were contacted, but
they were no longer interested in participating in the project due to busy schedules. It was noted
that cold calling was no longer effective, and that future marketing efforts should include
personal contact such as presentations at BOMA or other organizations, where the final BML
sheet product could be visible, to produce more positive results.
4.2. Website Development
The IDL began work on the website development as soon as the 2013 task began. It was
decided the work would be done in-house at the IDL for more control over the final product.
This also provided the opportunity for future upgrades, tweaks, and maintenance to be done
directly. Developing the website was the main means for reducing time and effort needed to
produce and update the BML sheets. After initial work and feedback on the BML project, it was
clear the process would need to be simplified for the project to gain the traction desired.
4.2.1. Goals
The specific goal of the web tool was to give users the capability to produce customizable
BML sheets in a PDF format in a self-directed manner. The tool was intended to be stand-alone
so that it did not require linkage to ENERGY STAR® Portfolio Manager. In addition, the web
tool was designed to be simple, require minimal inputs, and in a manner that could be easily
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 6
2013 Building Metric Labeling, Year End Report (Report #1301_001-01)

understood by the target prospective users, property managers, owners, and brokers. The web
tool would also need the capability to store the information so users could return and update data
easily.
4.2.2. Development Process
The development of the self-directed web tool began with a scoping process to assess the
coding requirements for the automated processing of the four metrics presented on the labeling
sheet. These include:
1. The remote access capabilities of the ENERGY STAR® Portfolio Manager website.
Data exchange between the BML tool and the Portfolio Manager website proved possible
at first, but became more restrictive after ENERGY STAR performed a major upgrade to
its back-end in July 2013, at the same time the BML tool was being developed.
2. The remote access to the Walk Score website. API access was free and simple to
obtain. The current query limit on the free API is 1,000 per day.
3. The calculation method for daylight availability of a given space. The goal here was
to simplify the calculation as much as possible. The current method takes the dimensions
of windows and skylights, along with the head-height of the windows, to calculate an
approximate percentage of daylit area within a space.
4. The composition of the graphic elements based on the values of the four labeling
metrics. This was done using Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG), which is an XML-based
vector image format that can be composed and edited in text-form. Using PHP, graphic
elements can be transformed and text altered as the metric calculations are performed by
the BML tool.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7
2013 Building Metric Labeling, Year End Report (Report #1301_001-01)

4.2.3. Major challenges
While the requirements outlined above in Section 4.2.2 each presented unique challenges
of their own, outlined below are a few items which took extra effort to resolve:
1. Portfolio Manager® Upgrade
During the development process, the Portfolio Manager website underwent a back-end
upgrade. Its scoping process had to be performed on the live test environment that was
made available by ENERGY STAR® during this time. It was possible to send and
retrieve data using the cURL library which made data exchange possible via PHP, the
server-side HTML-embedded scripting language commonly used to build websites.
However, once the upgrades were completed and the live Portfolio Manager environment
made available to the public, these data exchange capabilities included some unexpected
security measures and bugs. Given the circumstances, it was decided that manual input of
energy data would be the primary method used for the BML tool. This would include
three routes:
a) Input of energy data directly into the BML web tool.
b) Copy/paste energy data from spreadsheet into web tool.
c) Formatting energy data with a spreadsheet template and using the import function
of the BML web tool.
2. Labeling Sheet Creation
The handling of the labeling sheet graphics had to be automated in text-form via PHP
scripting. Each metric was calculated, their values inserted into the label graphics, and
then output to Scalable Vector Format (SVG) format. Lastly, the labeling sheet was
composed into a printable PDF which contains all the relevant property, space, and utility
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8
2013 Building Metric Labeling, Year End Report (Report #1301_001-01)

details, and other pertinent information such as the name of the preparer and the date that
the labeling sheet was generated.
3. Data Storage
Two types of storage were developed for the labeling sheets, both of which require the
user’s consent. When the labeling sheet PDF is generated, the tool saves a copy of the
PDF document on the server. At the same time, it will take a “snapshot” of the data that is
used to compose the PDF and save it in a separate SQL database, which can be filtered
and sorted as desired.
4.2.4. Summary of Final Capabilities
The website began review phases by the end of October 2013. Currently, the website is
running in beta mode, under Version 0.1. The terms and conditions are under final review, and
once they are uploaded, the website will go to final review. The projected live publish date of
Version 1.0 is slated for the end of January. Below is a summary of the final capabilities that will
be available with Version 1.0:
 Web tool access through www.idlboise.com/BML, log in required.
 Consistency of layout and functionality throughout all pages.
 Storage of multiple building properties with automatic rerouting to ‘Add new property’ if
none have been entered.
 Optional ‘Help’ on each page with graphics.
 Separate input areas for ‘Utilities,’ ‘Spaces,’ and ‘ENERGY STAR®’ Score.
 Options for inputting utility data manually, by copy/paste from Portfolio Manager
spreadsheet, or by uploading an excel template.
 Fuel type options of Electricity, Natural Gas, and Geothermal with links to Boise area
utility websites depending on choice.
 Automatic EUI calculation from utility data and building area inputs.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
2013 Building Metric Labeling, Year End Report (Report #1301_001-01)

 Automatic Daylighting calculation from space opening type and dimensions inputs.
 Automatic retrieval of Walk Score® from www.walkscore.com using building address.
 Simple ENERGY STAR score input field.
 Option to include any combination of the four metrics on final sheet.
 Separate sheet generated for each space input (if applicable).
 Sheet preview prior to download step.
 Website storage of data snapshot and PDF copy at each download with user permission.
 Suggested resources and links included.
 Automated error checking embedded in website with links to go update incorrect data.
4.2.5. Next steps for Future Development
The IDL hopes to launch a feedback program after the website has been implemented and
used for at least a few months, to gain guidance on the future direction and development of the
website and its capabilities. However, additional ideas have already been discussed by the IDL
and/or Idaho Power teams and they are listed below.
 Include an overall progress bar that would update at each step in the website
 Property transfer capabilities
 Instructional video/slides
 Simplified back-end data access for administrators
 Further automation for utility data input possibly directly from utilities
 Updated daylighting calculation for increased accuracy and less conservative values
 Optional inclusion of ‘Goal’ marks on BML sheet
4.3. Marketing and Visibility
For the 2013 scope of work, most activities outside of website development were delayed
with the understanding that resources marked for marketing and project implementation would
be better spent with the website completed. However, as the website neared completion, the
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10
2013 Building Metric Labeling, Year End Report (Report #1301_001-01)

project was discussed during at least three different community events. At the 10/9/13 Idaho
ASHRAE meeting, the BML project was included in a presentation about the capabilities and
roles of the IDL, with approximately 31 people in attendance. The official BML project debut
occurred at the reception for the 11/21/13 Fall Lecture Series event at Idaho Power, with 22 in
person attendees. Lastly, the BML sheets were a topic of discussion amongst the approximately
30 attendees of the 12/9/13 Central Addition Eco-District meeting and voted as one of the top
three ideas by the energy breakout group.
5. FUTURE WORK
With the website nearly finalized, project visibility, marketing, and implementation will
be the main focus of the 2014 scope of work. At this point, a general plan has been developed
however; details may change with feedback obtained during the implementation process.
6. CONCLUSION
Overall, progress during the 2013 task was good. Automation of graphical BML sheet
development by means of a self-directed web tool was achieved, as well as some marketing and
feedback efforts. With proper marketing and increased use and visibility of the BML sheets, a
greater focus on building energy efficiency may be realized in the Boise area market.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11
2013 Building Metric Labeling, Year End Report (Report #1301_001-01)

7. REFERENCES
Acker, B., Duarte, C., Van Den Wymelenberg, K., 2012. Building Energy Labeling, A Literature
Review (Report 2010305-01); Integrated Design Lab, University of Idaho, Boise, ID.
Burr, A., Majersik, C., Zigelbaum, N., 2010. The Future of Building Energy Rating and
Disclosure Mandates: What Europe Can Learn From the United States, Institute for
Market Transformation. Available at
http://www.imt.org/uploads/resources/files/7.5IEECBPaper33.pdf
Day, J., 2012. Energy and Environmental Quality Labeling Metrics (Report 20110413-01);
Integrated Design Lab, University of Idaho, Boise, ID.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 12
2013 Building Metric Labeling, Year End Report (Report #1301_001-01)

8. APPENDICES
8.1. Appendix A: Version 0.1 BML Sheet

Report Number: 1301_011-01

2013 DAYLIGHT DEMO
SUMMARY OF CLASS SCHEDULE AND EVALUATIONS
YEAR-END REPORT

December 20, 2013

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Authors:
Gunnar Gladics
Lauren Hemley

This page left intentionally blank.

Prepared by:
University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab | Boise
306 S 6th St. Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl

IDL Director:
Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg

Authors:
Gunnar Gladics
Lauren Hemley

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
JBK-110

Please cite this report as follows: Gladics, G., & Hemley, L.
(2013). 2013 Daylight Demo, Year-End Report (1301_011-01).
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab, Boise, ID.

DISCLAIMER
While the recommendations in this report have been reviewed for
technical accuracy and are believed to be reasonably accurate, the
findings are estimates and actual results may vary. All energy
savings and cost estimates included in the report are for
informational purposes only and are not to be construed as design
documents or as guarantees of energy or cost savings. The user of
this report, or any information contained in this report, should
independently evaluate any information, advice, or direction
provided in this report.
THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO MAKES NO
REPRESENTATIONS, EXTENDS NO WARRANTIES OF ANY
KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT
NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE WITH
RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO ANY RECOMMEDATIONS OR FINDINGS,
CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY
ADDITIONALLY DISCLAIMS ALL OBLIGATIONS AND
LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF UNIVERSITY FOR
DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DIRECT,
INDIRECT, SPECIAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES,
ATTORNEYS’ AND EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS
(EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBLITIY OF SUCH DAMAGES, FEES OR COSTS),
ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
MANUFACTURE, USE OR SALE OF THE INFORMATION,
RESULT(S), PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S) AND PROCESSES
PROVIDED BY THE UNIVERSITY. THE USER ASSUMES
ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR
DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE USE, SALE, OR OTHER
DISPOSITION BY THE USER OF PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S),
OR (PROCESSES) INCORPORATING OR MADE BY USE OF
THIS REPORT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN CONNECTION WITH THIS
REPORT OR THE INSTALLATION OF RECOMMENDED
MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN.

This page left intentionally blank.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Class Overview For Daylight Demo 2013Executive Summary ........................................................... 2
1.1. Daylight Harvesting Controls Systems: Part 1.............................................................................. 2
1.2. Daylight Harvesting Controls Systems: Part 2 - Hands on Commissioning ................................. 3
2. Chronology ........................................................................................................................................... 3
3. Training Overview (part 1 and part 2) .................................................................................................. 4
4. Cumulative Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 5
4.1. Daylight Harvesting Controls Systems: Part 1 Summary ............................................................. 5
4.1.1. Comment Highlights ............................................................................................................. 6
4.2. Daylight Harvesting Controls Systems: Part 2 Summary ............................................................. 7
4.2.1. Comment Highlights ............................................................................................................. 8
5. 2013 Feedback ...................................................................................................................................... 9

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2013 Daylight Demo, Year-End Report (Report #1301_011-01)

1. CLASS OVERVIEW FOR DAYLIGHT DEMO 2013EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab is currently fitted with three common
manufacturers’ daylight harvesting systems and varying daylight control strategies through work
previously funded through IPC 2010-2012 (TASK 1.8 – Daylight Harvesting Lighting Controls
Demonstration Suite). The primary objective of the daylight demonstration project was to use the
lab as a teaching space to continue education and training for electrical contractors surrounding
the daylight harvesting control systems already installed in the lab. The daylight photo-control
demonstration curriculum was adapted from an existing Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
(NEEA) project, which focused on both best practices and regional code requirements for
lighting control systems in commercial buildings. The intended audience was primarily
electrical contractors and installers, but architects, engineers, and lighting designers were also
targeted as a secondary focus. The curriculum covered applications of photo-control systems in
both new buildings and existing building alterations. The intent of the training was to provide
hands-on training for common photo-control system applications.
1.1. Daylight Harvesting Controls Systems: Part 1
Presenter: Gunnar Gladics
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The first section of the course was a two-hour lecture on lighting and controls, specifically
relating to daylighting. The session was delivered in a classroom-based format, with a
combination of material presentation, and discussion. Five major areas were covered during part
one. First, an introduction about lighting and energy efficiency, followed by a review of the
current code requirements for lighting energy efficiency using 2009 International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC) and ASHRAE 90.1 2007.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2013 Daylight Demo, Year-End Report (Report #1301_011-01)

1.2. Daylight Harvesting Controls Systems: Part 2 - Hands on Commissioning
Presenter: Gunnar Gladics
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The second part of the course was also two-hours, and this portion provided a more interactive
approach so that attendees could learn commissioning techniques and standards through
experience. Course attendees were shown three separate systems using different products and
different control methods. This included a lighting control panel using stepped switching, a
wireless relay using continuous dimming, and finally a full digital lighting management system
with a variety of control options.
2. CHRONOLOGY
JUNE
06/27 Class - Part 1 @ IDL
06/27 Class - Part 2 @ IDL
JULY 07/01 Class - Part 2 @ IDL
07/11 Class - Part 2 @ IDL
07/18 Class - Part 1 @ IDL
07/18 Class - Part 2 @ IDL
07/19 Class - Part 2 @ IDL
AUGUST 08/05 Class - Part 2 @ IDL
08/06 Class - Part 1 @ IDL
08/06 Class - Part 2 @ IDL
08/15 Class - Part 2 @ IDL
08/23 Class - Part 1 @ IDL
08/23 Class - Part 2 @ IDL
TOTAL CLASSES TAUGHT: 13
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
2013 Daylight Demo, Year-End Report (Report #1301_011-01)

Contractor
16%
Electrician
25%
Contractor &
Electrician
7%
Architect
9%
Engineer
4%
N/A
39%
3. TRAINING OVERVIEW (PART 1 AND PART 2)
ATTENDANCE:
44 TOTAL PARTICIPANTS
162 TOTAL CONTACT HOURS

PROFESSION OF ATTENDEES:
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR: 7
ELECTRICIAN: 11 ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR & ELECTRICIAN: 3 ARCHITECT: 4
ENGINEER: 2
N/A: 17

EVALUATIONS: 44
Average Scores: In general, today’s workshop was: 4.3
The Content of the workshop was: 3.4 Rate Organization: 4.5
Rate Clarity: 4.4
Opportunity for Questions: 4.6 Instructor’s Knowledge of Subject Matter: 4.8
Delivery of Presentation: 4.5
Scale: 1 Not Useful – 5 Very Useful
1 Too Basic – 5 Too Advanced** 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent

**Note: A score of ‘3’ is considered the best score for this particular scale. In the other scales shown, a rating of ‘5’ is considered
best.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 5
2013 Daylight Demo, Year-End Report (Report #1301_011-01)

Contractor
17%
Electrician
22%
Contractor &
Electrician
7% Architect
10%
Engineer
5%
N/A
39%
4. CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
4.1. Daylight Harvesting Controls Systems: Part 1 Summary
ATTENDANCE:
41 TOTAL PARTICIPANTS
82 TOTAL CONTACT HOURS

PROFESSION OF ATTENDEES: ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR: 7
ELECTRICIAN: 9
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR & ELECTRICIAN: 3
ARCHITECT: 4 ENGINEER: 2 N/A: 16

EVALUATIONS: 33 TOTAL
Average Scores: In general, today’s workshop was: 4.2
The Content of the workshop was: 3.5 Rate Organization: 4.4 Rate Clarity: 4.3
Opportunity for Questions: 4.4 Instructor’s Knowledge of Subject Matter: 4.7 Delivery of Presentation: 4.3
Scale: 1 Not Useful – 5 Very Useful
1 Too Basic – 5 Too Advanced** 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent

**Note: A score of ‘3’ is considered the best score for this particular scale. In the other scales shown, a rating of ‘5’ is considered
best.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 6
2013 Daylight Demo, Year-End Report (Report #1301_011-01)

4.1.1. Comment Highlights
Suggested Improvements:
 “Increased overview of systems”
 “Tie best practices with actual product specifications”
 “Explain lamp efficacy in a bit more detail”

Most Valuable:
 “Visionary – Usefulness of the technology and understanding the value of daylight
harvesting”
 “Closed loop vs. Open Loop Controls”
 “Design Criteria and code requirements for the daylighting systems”
 “The lighting control matrix and hardware vs. digital matrix”
 “Systematic overview of controls, design & application, case study, and showing
concepts in real space”

Professional Affiliations:
 IES, NAILD, BOMA, AIA, LEED, USGBC, NECA

Other trainings that would be useful:
 “2012 IECC code update class when it’s adopted in Idaho”
 “More hands on training”
 “Specific DLM on other control classes”
 “Architectural Daylighting/Lighting Design”

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7
2013 Daylight Demo, Year-End Report (Report #1301_011-01)

Contractor
17%
Electrician
27%
Contractor &
Electrician
8%
Architect
10%
Engineer
5%
N/A
33%
4.2. Daylight Harvesting Controls Systems: Part 2 Summary
ATTENDANCE:
40 TOTAL PARTICIPANTS
80 TOTAL CONTACT HOURS

PROFESSION OF ATTENDEES: ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR: 7
ELECTRICIAN: 11
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR & ELECTRICIAN: 3
ARCHITECT: 4
ENGINEER: 2 N/A: 13

EVALUATIONS: 37 TOTAL
AVERAGE SCORES:
In general, today’s workshop was: 4.4 The Content of the workshop was: 3.4 Rate Organization: 4.5
Rate Clarity: 4.5
Opportunity for Questions: 4.7 Instructor’s Knowledge of Subject Matter: 4.8
Delivery of Presentation: 4.7
Scale:
1 Not Useful – 5 Very Useful 1 Too Basic – 5 Too Advanced** 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent

**Note: A score of ‘3’ is considered the best score for this particular scale. In the other scales shown, a rating of ‘5’ is considered
best.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8
2013 Daylight Demo, Year-End Report (Report #1301_011-01)

4.2.1. Comment Highlights
Suggested Improvements:
 “Too much material covered in a short period for those new to the subject matter”
 “Use Calendar invites for class reminders instead of e-mail”
 “Both parts 1 & 2 were extremely useful. I feel confident to begin daylight Cx”

Most Valuable:
 “The case study example”
 “The class was a good introduction to lighting control technology”
 “Gunnar’s familiarity with the technology and knowledge of how to use it”
 “The hands on approach to the course”

Professional Affiliations:
 DPW, IBEN, IEA, ISEA, USGBC, ASHRAE, NEBB, BCA, AIA, NECA

Other trainings that would be useful:
 “The setup and commissioning of the system, just more of it”
 “Lighting Design”
 “Problems with occupancy sensors”
 “Maybe a more comprehensive (longer) class about commissioning. Also, how the
energy savings play into the equation – HVAC?”
 “Fume Hoods”

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
2013 Daylight Demo, Year-End Report (Report #1301_011-01)

5. 2013 FEEDBACK
For the most part, the trainings presented in 2013 were highly successful. However, there
were many lessons learned throughout the process that, if addressed, could greatly improve
future trainings. In general, the overall satisfaction with the program was high. Many individuals
felt that they left with useful new knowledge and skills. Participants consistently commented that
the hands-on portion was particularly useful for learning a new technique. Anecdotally, we also
heard that participants liked learning about the “other side of the job”. Electricians and
contractors were interested in the issues facing designers, and architects and engineers were
interested in understanding the challenges of installation and setup.

Report Number: 1301_003-01

2013 FALL LECTURE SERIES
“FROM ORIGINS TO OPERATIONS – ENVISIONING,
FINANCING, DESIGNING, AND OPERATING HIGH
PERFORMANCE BUILDINGS”
YEAR-END REPORT

December 30, 2013

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Authors:
Jacob Dunn
Lauren Hemley

This page left intentionally blank.

Prepared by:
University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab | Boise
306 S 6th St. Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl

IDL Director:
Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg

Authors:
Jacob Dunn
Lauren Hemley

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
JBK-110

Please cite this report as follows: Dunn, J., (2013). 2013Fall
Lecture Series Year-End Report (1301_003-01). University of
Idaho Integrated Design Lab, Boise, ID.

DISCLAIMER
While the recommendations in this report have been reviewed for
technical accuracy and are believed to be reasonably accurate, the
findings are estimates and actual results may vary. All energy
savings and cost estimates included in the report are for
informational purposes only and are not to be construed as design
documents or as guarantees of energy or cost savings. The user of
this report, or any information contained in this report, should
independently evaluate any information, advice, or direction
provided in this report.
THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO MAKES NO
REPRESENTATIONS, EXTENDS NO WARRANTIES OF ANY
KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT
NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE WITH
RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO ANY RECOMMEDATIONS OR FINDINGS,
CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY
ADDITIONALLY DISCLAIMS ALL OBLIGATIONS AND
LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF UNIVERSITY FOR
DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DIRECT,
INDIRECT, SPECIAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES,
ATTORNEYS’ AND EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS
(EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBLITIY OF SUCH DAMAGES, FEES OR COSTS),
ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
MANUFACTURE, USE OR SALE OF THE INFORMATION,
RESULT(S), PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S) AND PROCESSES
PROVIDED BY THE UNIVERSITY. THE USER ASSUMES
ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR
DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE USE, SALE, OR OTHER
DISPOSITION BY THE USER OF PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S),
OR (PROCESSES) INCORPORATING OR MADE BY USE OF
THIS REPORT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN CONNECTION WITH THIS
REPORT OR THE INSTALLATION OF RECOMMENDED
MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN.

This page left intentionally blank.

Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 1
2. Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 2
3. Session Attendance & Evaluations ........................................................................................................ 3
4. Summary Statistics .............................................................................................................................. 19
5. Scope of Work Deliverables ................................................................................................................ 24
6. Conclusions and Takeaways ................................................................................................................ 25

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) 2013 Fall Lecture Series, titled “From Origins to
Operations—Envisioning, Financing, Designing, and Operating High Performance Buildings,” included
four presentations at the Idaho Power Company’s headquarters in downtown Boise, Idaho. The theme
focused on a holistic approach to procuring high performance buildings and brought in a local, regional,
or national expert to speak about each of the four categories within the title. The four sessions
attracted 158 attendees for the live and remotely broadcasted presentations. Additionally, 2013
marked the first year in which the UI-IDL executed all of the audio video requirements internally for
streaming, recording, and posting the presentations online for on-demand viewing. The videos of each
session are housed on a UI-IDL specific YouTube channel and have aggregated 189 total views through
2013. Each speaker received high approval ratings from evaluations and this report documents all
survey responses and comments from both the physical and online participants. Overall, the four
presentations were well received, the new location was successful, and all lessons learned from 2013
will inform planning efforts for future 2014 and 2015 Fall Lecture Series events.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2013 Fall Lecture Series, Year-End Report (Report #1301_003-01)

2. OVERVIEW
The University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab’s (UI-IDL) 2013 repertoire of educational programs
included a free, publically available lecture series. This year’s Fall Lecture Series was designed to bring in
three to five local, regional, and national experts on energy efficiency to serve as guest lecturers. The
planning process included conducting a stakeholders’ outreach meeting to help guide the direction of
the series and inform its logistical structure; i.e. timeslot, length, format, etc. From this meeting, the
following topic theme emerged: “From Origins to Operations – Envisioning, Financing, Designing, and
Operating High Performance Buildings.” The theme’s goal was to provide a session for each part of the
high performance building procurement process. While each session focused on its constituent area,
the theme championed the universal concept of integrated design throughout the entire lecture series.
A primary focus was the need to approach designing and constructing high performance buildings with a
holistic attitude toward the entire process.
Each session featured a 1.5 hour lecture with questions, which also included live broadcasted webinars.
The architecture and engineering community was the target demographic for the series, although other
members of the design and construction community were also welcome to all topics. Table 1 below
shows the final four sessions and topic titles delivered for the 2013 Fall Lecture Series. Section 3.0
documents the details of each session and participants’ evaluation results.
Table 1 - 2013 Fall Lecture Series Topics and Dates
Date Title
10/03/2013 The Business Case for Green Developers
10/17/2013 Total Value Analysis – Capital Markets and Competitive Realities
10/24/2013 Moving Toward Net Zero: CIRS Case Study
11/21/2013 Findings from the Kilowatt Crackdown

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2013 Fall Lecture Series, Year-End Report (Report #1301_003-01)

3. SESSION ATTENDANCE & EVALUATIONS
TOPIC 1 TITLE:
The Business Case for Green Developers
DATE:
October 3, 2013
PRESENTER:
Ashley Lemon, AIA, Vice President of Design & Construction for ARES
MARKETING DESCRIPTION:
Kicking off the year’s lecture series in the “Envisioning” category, this presentation provided insight into
the economic viability and financial sense of green development. Ashley Lemon from ARES LLC
presented the developer’s perspective on the business case for high performance buildings. His talk
focused on three of the full-service development firm’s projects that exemplified the additional financial
value derived from LEED certification, energy efficiency, and sustainable design. As the market has
progressed and evolved, the business of green development has proven to strengthen both
environmental design and economic sustainability. Lemon shared his belief that sustainability in the
building business does not come at financially-nonviable cost premiums or under-performing assets. In
fact, he has found the opposite: Investments in green development produced high performing, earnings-
driven buildings --instead of typical real-estate commodities.

PRESENTER BIOGRAPHY:
With over 20 years of experience, Ashley Lemon has contributed to more than 3.5 million square feet of
built space in commercial, educational, retail, healthcare, and residential projects. He leads the design
efforts for all ARES LEED projects, and provides general oversight of project construction.
ARES is a nationwide, full-service developer, architect, construction manager, and property services firm
based in Golden, Colorado. The ARES group includes architects, engineers, contractors, construction
management specialists, finance specialists, property managers, real estate brokers, and support staff. A
recognized leader in build-to-suit user-effective workplaces, ARES focuses on building structures that are
sustainable, economical, efficient, and humanistic.
ATTENDANCE:
In Person: 34
Webinar: 10
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
2013 Fall Lecture Series, Year-End Report (Report #1301_003-01)

Figure 1 - Attendees by Profession (not including "not-specified")

ONLINE VIDEO HITS:
Total Viewers: 52
Idaho Viewers: 27 (51%)

AVERAGE EVALUATIONS:

Scale:
Overall, this workshop was: 4.6
The content of the workshop was: 3.3
Rate organization: 4.2
Rate clarity: 4.3
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.7
Rate instructor’s knowledge of subject matter: 4.7
Rate delivery of presentation: 3.8
1 Not Useful – 5 Very Useful
1 Too Basic – 5 Too Advanced
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
6%
6%
12%
23%
6%
17%
6%
18%
6%
education/student
volunteer
non-profit green building
developer/ urban design
landscape architect
architect
general contractor
mechanical engineer
engineer
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 5
2013 Fall Lecture Series, Year-End Report (Report #1301_003-01)

COMMENTS:

Attendee-suggested improvements for the instructor:
- “The instructor, Ashley Lemon, was exceptionally good; very personable, clear, to the point and
informative. His Q&A session was extremely helpful.”
- “Was very fast - could slow down when reviewing $ savings and productivity improvements. Also,
what is the business case for single family residences?”
- “One case study in much more detail would be better”
- “None; fantastic organization of the information and excellent information overall. Very clearly
presented and couched in great data. Every developer and design team in Boise should have been
in the room.”
- “Give us more examples”
- “The audience is prepared for even more details on analytics of data, cost benefits, etc.; energy
data as well as financial data”
- “Speak a bit louder. Please repeat the audience questions”
- “Voice volume”
- “Repeat audience questions before answering”

What attendees found most valuable:
- “Case studies”
- “Firsthand information on projects”
- “The information about costs. My bosses and the admin here believe that building green is too
costly. This presentation helped me bolster arguments against that belief.”
- “ROI concepts”
- “Case studies with real cost”
- “Great integration of cost analysis with design considerations. It was extremely valuable to get a
development perspective and understanding of design and effects of sustainable development on
users. Great technical expertise.”
- “Development model, case studies -- Financial modeling to look at sustainable paybacks”
- “I love case studies, especially those with real data and specific action recommendations”
- “Data on cost of green building”
- “Inspiration - very practical, great examples “
- “Case studies, Q&A”
- “Real examples and statistics from a developer’s point of view”
- “Showing the value of sustainable building”
- “Hearing the experience (real life) of a developer successfully developing green buildings”
The professional associations of which attendees are members:
- ASHRAE
- IBPSA
- USGBC
- AEE
- IES
- ASLA
- BOMA
- AIA
- NCARB

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 6
2013 Fall Lecture Series, Year-End Report (Report #1301_003-01)

Other types of training attendees would find useful:
- “Building simulation”
- “More from Ashley Lemon. Love to have him back in a couple years to talk about most recent
projects.”
- “More on financials”
- “Net zero energy buildings”
- “Historic preservation green restoration”
- “More on residential development economics”
- “More insight on how to approach/recognize/evaluate opportunities to be a part of green
building development”

WEBINAR-SPECIFIC EVALUATION QUESTIONS & COMMENTS (AVERAGE VALUES):

Scale:
How was the audio quality of the webinar?: 3.3
How was the video quality of the webinar?: 4.8
1 Poor – 5 Excellent
1 Poor – 5 Excellent

Attendee-suggested ways to improve the webinar experience:
- “Microphone did not consistently feed throughout audience questions”
- “It was excellent. It would be good to have access to the recorded presentation, thank you.”
- “This was the best webinar I've attended so I don't know how you could improve.”

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7
2013 Fall Lecture Series, Year-End Report (Report #1301_003-01)

TOPIC 2 TITLE:
Total Value Analysis -- Capital Markets and Competitive Realities
DATE:
October 17, 2013
PRESENTER:
Molly McCabe, Founder and President of Hayden Tanner
MARKETING DESCRIPTION:
Molly McCabe addressed the key aspects of her company’s total value analysis, as summarized in the
following. The market requires a vastly different business case for owners, one that looks at the total
value of sustainability and includes the full range of non-energy, as well as energy, benefits. Decisions
around sustainability need to quickly move beyond neat rows of check boxes (and simple payback) to
the messy complexity of real life. There exists a quantifiable suite of integrated payoffs at the property
level that accrue to both owner and occupants, as well as at enterprise and community levels. Change
happens when we are able to articulate the benefits in the context of this complexity and make this the
primary source of inspiration and the lever for action versus falling into the trap of easy black and white
answers. In this evolved business model, sustainability and deep retrofits effectively future-proof a
building against functional and economic obsolescence, while increasing the stability and predictability
of the income stream. The resulting methodology both quantifies and monetizes the results - at the
property, tenant, enterprise, and community levels - and looks to provide the means to fund it.
PRESENTER BIOGRAPHY:
Founder and president of Hayden Tanner, McCabe is a management consultant and strategic advisor to
global organizations and governmental agencies. Grounded in more than 20 years of experience in
commercial real estate and business consulting, she is an innovator in the field of finance, sustainability,
and the monetization of deep energy retrofits. She has a comprehensive and quantitative understanding
of the triple bottom line and takes a systems approach in cultivating practical solutions and strategies to
accelerate the emergence of resilient buildings and vibrant, sustainable cities.

McCabe is the author of the book Practical Greening: The Bottom Line on Sustainable Property
Development, Investment and Financing as well as several research reports. She is an active member of
the Urban Land Institute's (ULI) Responsible Property Investment Council and the Climate and Land Use
(CLUE) Advisory Panel, and is a Research Fellow for the Responsible Property Investing Center. Before
starting her entrepreneurial career, she spent several years in corporate America. Originally from San
Francisco, she now lives with her family in Northwest Montana.
ATTENDANCE:
In Person: 28
Webinar: 12
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8
2013 Fall Lecture Series, Year-End Report (Report #1301_003-01)

Figure 2 - Attendees by Profession (not including "not-specified")

ONLINE VIDEO HITS:
Total Viewers: 75
Idaho Viewers: 46 (61%)

AVERAGE EVALUATIONS: Scale:
Overall, this workshop was: 4.5
The content of the workshop was: 3.4
Rate organization: 4.6
Rate clarity: 4.6
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.5
Rate instructor’s knowledge of subject matter: 4.8
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.7
1 Not Useful – 5 Very Useful
1 Too Basic – 5 Too Advanced
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
17%
8%
17%
8%
33%
17%
education/student
volunteer
non-profit green building
interior design
architect
mechanical engineer
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
2013 Fall Lecture Series, Year-End Report (Report #1301_003-01)

COMMENTS:

Attendee-suggested improvements for the instructor:
- “Spend more time on net impact of cost savings slide”
- “Make sure speaker understands how to use the pointer”
- “Very well presented! “
- “Content and time of lecture was just right”
- “A bit fast - a lot to cover, but great!”
- “Be more clear on which building you're talking about. At one point, I thought you were talking
about a 20k square foot building that was saving $600k+ in energy cost annually, which is very
high.”

What attendees found most valuable:
- “Excellent slide show. I found the map of benchmarking states interesting and the comments
about owners wanting incentives (so true) but they [are] a small part of the savings in the big
pictures. Also how LEED/smart is a proxy for quality. I agree.”
- “Financial breakdown of benefits”
- “Case study demonstration”
- “Building the case for value-added proposition”
- “Molly is able to show the $ value of some intangibles, like tenant relation”
- “Productivity of employees to employers”
- “Detailed case studies”
- “Seeing a numerical value on sustainable design; learning how to make it economical and
realistic”
- “TVA details”
- “Looking beyond simple payback and how”
- “Switching from ROI to cap for valuation purposes”
- “Instructor's ability to shed light on a nebulous and complex topic (how to argue financially for
green buildings)”
- “Survey info and results of building occupants”
- “The concept of not looking at the ROI”

The professional associations of which attendees are members:
- NSPE/ISPE
- ASNE
- AIA
- NESEA
- USGBC
- ASHRAE
- IEMA
- AEE
- NCQLP
- IESNA

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10
2013 Fall Lecture Series, Year-End Report (Report #1301_003-01)

Other types of training attendees would find useful:
- “Continue this subject”
- “I work with building owners and decision makers buying, selling, and leasing space. Education
on property value and smart/green/LEED buildings is very beneficial. In addition, any seminars
[on] building management, smart renovation of existing space, incentives (because they are a
catalyst), etc... all help me help my clients.”
- “How to win over developers - key stats and strategies for presenting a green vision”
- “Working with building owners/developers to create sustainable development; convincing people
of its power and influence”
- “Molly should speak to BOMA and city!”

WEBINAR-SPECIFIC EVALUATION QUESTIONS & COMMENTS (AVERAGE VALUES):
Scale:
How was the audio quality of the webinar?: 4.1
How was the video quality of the webinar?: 4.0
1 Poor – 5 Excellent
1 Poor – 5 Excellent

Attendee-suggested ways to improve the webinar experience:
- “The name of the presenter on my screen was ‘Gunnar Gladics’ throughout - not Molly McCabe.
You may wish to correct this before posting it online.”
- “Webinar was great!”

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11
2013 Fall Lecture Series, Year-End Report (Report #1301_003-01)

TOPIC 3 TITLE:
Moving Toward Net Zero: CIRS Case Study
DATE:
October 24, 2013
PRESENTER:
Z Smith of Eskew + Dumez + Ripple
MARKETING DESCRIPTION:
We want to make buildings that provide for greater occupant comfort with lower energy consumption
and better environmental impacts. This talk profiled what’s been learned from a number of low-energy
and net-zero projects in climates as diverse as the Pacific Northwest and the Gulf South, for clients rich
and poor, farsighted and stubborn.

PRESENTER BIOGRAPHY:
Z Smith has been involved in nationally published sustainability research and design for the past ten
years. He has served as a project architect for carbon neutral, net-zero energy, and net-zero water use
buildings; and taught sustainable design courses at universities in the U.S. and Canada.

With training and experience in the fields of architecture, physics, information technology, and
renewable energy, Smith now serves as the director of sustainability and building performance at Eskew
+ Dumez + Ripple. He integrates his broad range of skills in lowering the environmental footprint of each
of the firm’s buildings, while continuing to help deliver projects on time and on budget. He brings an
approach of scientific rigor to green design in a wide array of community, educational, and institutional
projects; and brings tremendous added value through the reduction of energy consumption and,
subsequently, the reduction of energy bills.

In addition to his directorial role within the practice, Smith is also a frequent public speaker on
sustainable design issues, is chair of the USGBC Louisiana Chapter, and is an adjunct professor at the
Tulane School of Architecture.

ATTENDANCE:
In Person: 33
Webinar: 10
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 12
2013 Fall Lecture Series, Year-End Report (Report #1301_003-01)

Figure 3 - Attendees by Profession (not including "not-specified")

ONLINE VIDEO HITS:
Total Viewers: 54
Idaho Viewers: 25 (46%)

AVERAGE EVALUATIONS:

Scale:
Overall, this workshop was: 4.6
The content of the workshop was: 3.6
Rate organization: 4.8
Rate clarity: 4.7
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.4
Rate instructor’s knowledge of subject matter: 4.9
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.8
1 Not Useful – 5 Very Useful
1 Too Basic – 5 Too Advanced
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
15%
8%
15%
8% 15%
8%
8%
8%
15%
education/student
non-profit green building
developer/ urban design
planner
architect
operations
project manager
electric engineer
mechanical engineer
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 13
2013 Fall Lecture Series, Year-End Report (Report #1301_003-01)

COMMENTS:
Attendee-suggested improvements for the instructor:
- “Instructor talked a bit quickly but was so entertaining and animated it was hard to really mind”
- “Great speaker and delivery!”
- “So much too fast. Still understandable but a bit rushed. Presentation expand to 2+ hours.”

What attendees found most valuable:
- “Presentation provided a good overview; was interesting and lively; very energetic”
- “Opportunity for full life-cycle management of building design”
- “Real case studies”
- “Expanded my contemplation of more sophisticated sustainable approaches in my design work”
- “A realistic approach to energy efficient design”
- “The discussion of what makes a high performance building work versus not work after
construction. The “2/3 of what makes it work is NOT design” portion of the presentation was
brilliant; very helpful in understanding how to work with a team on operating these buildings and
troubleshooting; also, great balance between human comfort, good design, and technology in the
subject matter.”
- “Loved hearing about the various buildings and the plans of reality and the modeling versus living
building info”
- “Engaging narrative as well as information”
- “Fantastic presentation of state of the work; great case and example of data application”
- “The building in B.C.; the idea that we should want more than sustainability”

The professional associations of which attendees are members:
- APA
- AICP
- AEP
- NAEP
- IWRA
- AEE
- IFMA
- ASHRAE
- NCARB
- IEEE
- Idaho PE
- PMI
- LEED
- USGBC

Other types of training attendees would find useful:
- “Anything on efficiency or renewables”
- “Technical integration of simulation into practice”

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 14
2013 Fall Lecture Series, Year-End Report (Report #1301_003-01)

WEBINAR-SPECIFIC EVALUATION QUESTIONS & COMMENTS (AVERAGE VALUES):
Scale:
How was the audio quality of the webinar?: 2.4
How was the video quality of the webinar?: 4.2
1 Poor – 5 Excellent
1 Poor – 5 Excellent

Attendee-suggested ways to improve the webinar experience:
- Comments not included in this survey.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 15
2013 Fall Lecture Series, Year-End Report (Report #1301_003-01)

TOPIC 4 TITLE:
Findings from the Kilowatt Crackdown
DATE:
October 17, 2013
PRESENTERS:
Jack Davis and Katie Leichliter

MARKETING DESCRIPTION:
The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) conceived the Kilowatt Crackdown program, on behalf
of Idaho Power and the Northwest region, to offer the opportunity for community engagement and
competitive dynamics among commercial buildings, in regards to energy efficiency goals. The program
has demonstrated that through a process of benchmarking, goal-setting, scoping, implementation,
internal reporting and evaluation, energy savings and other non-energy benefits can be accomplished.
With a focus on operational recommendations, savings can be achieved at a relatively low cost. This
session summarized the goals and strategies of NEEA's Kilowatt Crackdown program, as well as
commonly found energy efficiency measures.

PRESENTER BIOGRAPHIES:
Jack Davis has over 18 years of experience in the energy, development, and marketing fields; and
manages JDM Associates' West Coast clients. He currently serves as NEEA's key program manager for
projects like the Kilowatt Crackdown. Advising clients on strategy development, program design and
implementation, and market based environmental initiatives; Davis’ work has led to innovative
programs and materials such as Carbon4Square, the Kilowatt Crackdown, the Green Building
Opportunity Index, the Deep Retrofit Playbook, and the High Performance Portfolio Framework. Davis
serves on the Urban Land Institute's (ULI) Responsible Property Investing Product Council and the ULI
Northwest Advisory Board. Davis has a Bachelor of Science in civil engineering from Texas A&M
University and a Master of Business Administration in marketing from the University of Minnesota.

Katie Leichliter is a research scientist at the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab in Boise. She
conducts energy efficiency field work, measurement, and verification as well as operational and
investment grade audits. Leichliter also conducts simulation research for energy efficiency in existing-
building renewal projects, and has developed stand-alone energy analysis tools. Leichliter graduated
with a Bachelor and Master of Science in mechanical engineering from the University of Idaho and spent
three years in a private mechanical design practice specializing in BIM, building simulation and HVAC
design. She serves on the board of governors of the Idaho ASHRAE Chapter.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 16
2013 Fall Lecture Series, Year-End Report (Report #1301_003-01)

ATTENDANCE:
In Person: 22
Webinar: 9

Figure 4 - Attendees by Profession (not including "not-specified")

ONLINE VIDEO HITS:
Total Viewers: 8
Idaho Viewers: 4 (50%)

AVERAGE EVALUATIONS: Scale:
Overall, this workshop was: 4.4
The content of the workshop was: 3.2
Rate organization: 4.6
Rate clarity: 4.6
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.7
Rate instructor’s knowledge of subject matter: 4.8
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.7
1 Not Useful – 5 Very Useful
1 Too Basic – 5 Too Advanced
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
20%
10%
10%
10% 10%
40%
education/student
volunteer
developer/ urban design
architect
electric engineer
mechanical engineer
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 17
2013 Fall Lecture Series, Year-End Report (Report #1301_003-01)

COMMENTS:
Attendee-suggested improvements for the instructor:
- “Both instructors are great communicators. Jack especially, when talking about competitions
psychology, was very engaging, animated, and interesting. His excitement about the subject
matter made him a fantastic presenter.”
- “More practical information”
- “For this audience, spend less time on real estate and more on operation and design fixer.”

What attendees found most valuable:
- “Examples”
- “Reinforced the value of commissioning; explained Kilowatt Crackdown and the psychological
foundation upon which it is based (interesting) and showed real examples of energy sinks in
existing buildings - all useful.”
- “That this was applied locally”
- “A very comprehensive overview of the crackdown motives and methods”
- “Katie's rundown of all the real-world issues in building operation was really enlightening and her
clear explanations of how to find and remedy operations problems made these things seem easy
to attack, thus easier to start.”
- “Insight into design errors that cause excessive energy use”
- “The result of the competition”
- “Katie's practical portion”
- “Photo examples of building infiltration problems; photo examples of typical building energy
wastes; marketing approach and competitions for building/cities/universities”
- “List of the top 6 operational fixer and top 13 U.S. issues. Green trends in CRE (but would like to
know more about why those particular entities are trending in)”
- “Findings from the field; the lecture should be more of Katie's content”

The professional associations of which attendees are members:
- AIA
- NESEA
- LEED
- USGBC
- AIA
- ASHRAE
- ASHRAE
- AIA
- NCARB
- ASHRAE
- IEEE
- USGBC

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 18
2013 Fall Lecture Series, Year-End Report (Report #1301_003-01)

Other types of training attendees would find useful:
- “A presentation directed toward building owners, developers, building management companies,
which shows them all the local resources of green project implications and the relative cost of
each consultant, retrofit, etc. I think they'd be surprised at how available and cost effective these
local resources are and having that information top of mind during projects may make them more
likely to use them.”
- “Retrofit of residential buildings for energy savings (This presentation aimed at single-family
homes)”
- “Rooftop tower, hands-on experience of all these photos”

WEBINAR-SPECIFIC EVALUATION QUESTIONS & COMMENTS (AVERAGE VALUES):
Scale:
How was the audio quality of the webinar?: 4.5
How was the video quality of the webinar?: 4.5
1 Poor – 5 Excellent
1 Poor – 5 Excellent

Attendee suggested ways to improve the webinar experience:
- “Was unable to hear questions for first 2 Q/A but sound was fine for the last”

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 19
2013 Fall Lecture Series, Year-End Report (Report #1301_003-01)

4. SUMMARY STATISTICS
This section extracts some of the most pertinent statistics from each session and aggregates them into
summary values across the entire series. This provides the ability to compare sessions against one
another, while gaining insight into the performance of the series as a whole.
Figure 5 below shows the in-person and remote attendees for each session. Additionally, the graph
includes two of the commercial sessions from the previously delivered 2012 lecture series. The graph
shows that average in-person attendance increased by roughly 143 percent for the 2013 series. Of the
four 2013 sessions, the “Findings from the Kilowatt Crackdown” topic had the lowest attendance. This
was probably due to the amount of time between Topic 3 (October 24) and Topic 4 (November 21). This
topic also targeted building owners and operators, which may have contributed to the slightly lower
attendance as compared to the sessions focused more on architects and engineers.
Figure 5- Attendees by Session

The UI-IDL undertook multiple marketing strategies to promote the 2013 lecture series. Figure 6 below
quantifies the effectiveness of these campaigns through a summation of how attendees learned about
the series. This question, however, was located on the back of the evaluation form given to each
attendee, so the overall sample size for this question (100) is slightly smaller than the total number of in-
person attendees (117). Generally, these strategies involved promoting the UI-IDL designed poster to
said outlets, as shown in
34
28 33
22 16
8
10
12
10
9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
T1: Business
Case
T2: Total
Value Analysis
T3: Moving
Towards Net
Zero
T4: Findings
from the
Kilowatt
Crackdown
2012 Skip
Laitner
2012 Heather
Burpee
Remote
In Person
at
t
e
n
d
e
e
s

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 20
2013 Fall Lecture Series, Year-End Report (Report #1301_003-01)

Figure 7.
Figure 6 – Marketing: How Attendees Heard About the Series for All Sessions

9
0
1
1
0
1
6
7
8
2
5
15
0 5 10 15 20
Other
SBSE List Serv
AIA Events Announcement
ASHRARE Newsletter
Idaho Business Review Email
CCDC Email Blast
Saw a Poster
Word of Mouth
USGBC newsletter
Facebook
IDL Website
IDL Newsletter
ASHRAE NEWSLETTER
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 21
2013 Fall Lecture Series, Year-End Report (Report #1301_003-01)

Figure 7 - Fall Lecture Series Marketing Poster

In addition to broadcasting a webinar of each topic, the UI-IDL also archived the recordings on a
YouTube channel dedicated to the lecture series. Figure 8 records the cumulative total of online video
hits by topic in 2013.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 22
2013 Fall Lecture Series, Year-End Report (Report #1301_003-01)

Figure 8 - Online Views by Session

The evaluations given to both the in-person and online attendees featured a question about the
“usefulness” of the session on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being very useful. Figure 9 shows that each session
had similar and very favorable ratings from the attendees.
52
75
54
8 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
T1: Business Case T2: Total Value
Analysis
T3: Moving Towards
Net Zero
T4: Findings from the
Kilowatt Crackdown
On
l
i
n
e

V
i
e
w
s

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 23
2013 Fall Lecture Series, Year-End Report (Report #1301_003-01)

Figure 9 - Average Usefulness Rating by Session (out of 5)

Finally, the last summary statistic reports the distribution of all attendees’ disciplines for the entire
series. It is important to note that 84 percent of all attendees who completed evaluations chose not to
specify their discipline. Figure 10 reports only the 16 percent of completed responses, and shows that
the most common disciplines were engineers (21 percent), architects (19 percent), and a tie between
developers/urban designers and students (13 percent). This breakdown was to be expected given the
broad theme of the series and also proved it reached a wide audience.
4.6 4.5 4.6 4.4
0
1
2
3
4
5
T1: Business Case T2: Total Value
Analysis
T3: Moving Towards
Net Zero
T4: Findings from the
Kilowatt Crackdown
Us
e
f
u
l
n
e
s
s

R
a
t
i
n
g

(
o
u
t

o
f

5
)

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 24
2013 Fall Lecture Series, Year-End Report (Report #1301_003-01)

Figure 10 - Audience Demographic Breakdown for All Sessions

13%
6%
10%
13%
2% 2% 2% 19%
2% 2%
2%
4%
21%
2%
Education/Student
Volunteer
Non-Profit Green Building
Developer/Urban Designer
Planner
Interior Design
Landscape Architect
Architect
Operations
General Contractor
Project Manager
Electric Engineer
Mechanical Engineer
Engineer
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 25
2013 Fall Lecture Series, Year-End Report (Report #1301_003-01)

5. SCOPE OF WORK DELIVERABLES
This section documents the agreed upon deliverables for this project under Task 1.3 of the master
agreement between the UI-IDL and Idaho Power Company (IPC). The descriptions below outline the
final status of the deliverable items.
 “Stakeholders’ meeting notes to determine sessions and dates/times (delivered)” – on May 3,
the UI-IDL conducted a meeting with 11 stakeholders to determine dates, times, and potential
meeting topics. Gunnar Gladics provided meeting minutes to IPC.
 “Coordinate for additional sessions for residential and USGBC (delivered)” – funding for
residential lectures did not come through from IPC; thus UI-IDL did not coordinate any
residential-focused sessions. However, UI-IDL did work with USGBC to plan three USGBC-
sponsored post-lecture series receptions at the nearby CTA Architects and Engineers. These
receptions allowed for additional face-time with the presenters and provided an outlet to
continue the night’s discourse. The UI-IDL also planned an IPC-sponsored post-lecture series
reception after the fourth and final session to help promote their “Building Metrics Labeling”
project.
 “List of mutually agreed upon topics, plans to market the sessions and marketing media
(delivered)” – topic themes and topics were agreed upon by both UI-IDL and IPC throughout
the planning process. Additionally, marketing strategies were covered in monthly reports and
the marketing poster was approved and edited by IPC staff before wide-scale dissemination.
 “Attendance sign-in sheets and evaluation forms from all sessions (delivered)” – these items
were placed on an FTP site for IPC to access on demand.
 “Provide/coordinate CEU’s for all sessions (delivered)” – the UI-IDL sought pre-course
approval from the AIA for all sessions. After the completion of each session, participants who
requested AIA credit were reported on the same website and awarded certificates of
completion.
 “Provide live feed to remote locations (1/2 delivered)” – during the planning process, both the
UI-IDL and IPC decided that coordinating distributed remote viewing locations/sessions
required too much time and too many resources to execute for the 2013 series. However, the
UI-IDL did provide a live webinar broadcast for each session that was publically and freely
available for everyone.
 “Provide online video access for future views and CEU’s (1/2 delivered)” – while the UI-IDL
recorded sessions and made them available on demand, integrating the ability to watch the
videos for CEU credits was explored but not executed. Building in this capability requires
extensive restructuring of the UI-IDL website and could be tackled in 2014. If the structure is
put in place in the future, CEU capability will be added to the 2013 videos.
 “Provide online registration (delivered)” – all web-based marketing allowed for online
registration for both the live, in-person lectures and the webinars.
 “Coordinate minor/major giveaways and refreshments with IPC staff (1/2 delivered)” – the
series provided minor giveaways to attendees who completed evaluations, while IPC provided
coffee, tea, and snacks for each session. Originally, a larger prize was going to be given away to
encourage attendance to multiple sessions. However, the idea was tabled for the 2014 lecture
series planning discussions.
 “Summary report including the topic, date, actual attendance, and evaluation
score/comments (delivered)” – included as this report.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 26
2013 Fall Lecture Series, Year-End Report (Report #1301_003-01)

6. CONCLUSIONS AND TAKEAWAYS
The UI-IDL views the 2013 Fall Lecture Series, “From Origins to Operations – Envisioning, Financing,
Designing, and Operating High Performance Buildings,” as a successful educational program. The series
featured four regional and national topic experts, and included the opportunity to integrate a local IDL
speaker in the fourth session about the Kilowatt Crackdown. The third session featured the director of
building performance and sustainability from a firm that won the AIA 2014 Firm of the Year Award.
Both live and online attendance increased dramatically in comparison to recent years, presumably due
to enhanced marketing and promotional efforts. Overall, 158 participants attended the 2013 Fall
Lecture Series and the online videos have been viewed 189 times. Participants provided generally
positive feedback and ranked all sessions as very useful and informative. This year also marked the first
time the series was held at the Idaho Power Corporate Headquarters building, which served as a good
location for the event.
Future planning efforts for the 2014 Fall Lecture Series will address items both documented in this
report and covered during the final team meeting between IPC and UI-IDL. This meeting outlined the
need to continually involve stakeholders in future planning efforts and to carefully coordinate with a
potential AVISTA 2014 lecture series. Overall goals for the 2014 series could include the reconfiguration
of order and frequency of speakers to ensure optimized attendance, re-visiting major giveaways to
motivate attendance, and ensuring a balance between local and national speakers.

Report Number: 1301_010-01

2013 HEAT PUMP CALCULATOR
DEVELOPMENT AND METHODOLOGY
TECHNICAL REPORT

December 31, 2013

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Authors:
Jacob Dunn
Katie Leichliter

This page left intentionally blank.

Prepared by:
University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab | Boise
306 S 6th St. Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl

IDL Director:
Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg

Authors:
Jacob Dunn
Katie Leichliter

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
JBK-110

Please cite this report as follows: Dunn, J., Leichliter, K. (2013).
R2013 Heat Pump Calculator – Development and Methodology
(Technical Report 1301_010-01). University of Idaho Integrated
Design Lab, Boise, ID.

DISCLAIMER
While the recommendations in this report have been reviewed for
technical accuracy and are believed to be reasonably accurate, the
findings are estimates and actual results may vary. All energy
savings and cost estimates included in the report are for
informational purposes only and are not to be construed as design
documents or as guarantees of energy or cost savings. The user of
this report, or any information contained in this report, should
independently evaluate any information, advice, or direction
provided in this report.
THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO MAKES NO
REPRESENTATIONS, EXTENDS NO WARRANTIES OF ANY
KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT
NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE WITH
RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO ANY RECOMMEDATIONS OR FINDINGS,
CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY
ADDITIONALLY DISCLAIMS ALL OBLIGATIONS AND
LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF UNIVERSITY FOR
DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DIRECT,
INDIRECT, SPECIAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES,
ATTORNEYS’ AND EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS
(EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBLITIY OF SUCH DAMAGES, FEES OR COSTS),
ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
MANUFACTURE, USE OR SALE OF THE INFORMATION,
RESULT(S), PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S) AND PROCESSES
PROVIDED BY THE UNIVERSITY. THE USER ASSUMES
ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR
DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE USE, SALE, OR OTHER
DISPOSITION BY THE USER OF PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S),
OR (PROCESSES) INCORPORATING OR MADE BY USE OF
THIS REPORT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN CONNECTION WITH THIS
REPORT OR THE INSTALLATION OF RECOMMENDED
MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN.

This page left intentionally blank.

Table of Contents
1. Glossary of Acronyms .......................................................................................................................... 2
2. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 3
3. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3
3.1 Literature Review ................................................................................................................................ 5
3.1.1 Literature Review – ASHRAE Energy Estimation Calculations ................................................. 5
3.1.2 Literature Review – Existing Tool Summary .............................................................................. 6
4. Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 9
4.1 Approach ............................................................................................................................................. 9
4.2 User Interface/Experience ................................................................................................................. 10
4.3 Internal and External Loads .............................................................................................................. 11
4.4 Load Calculation Engine ................................................................................................................... 14
4.4.1 Load Outputs .............................................................................................................................. 15
4.5 HVAC Equipment Consumption ...................................................................................................... 17
4.6 Capital Cost Estimates ...................................................................................................................... 19
4.7 High Performance Specifications ...................................................................................................... 20
4.8 Life Cycle Cost Analysis .................................................................................................................. 20
5. Future Development ............................................................................................................................ 22
6. Conclusion and Next Steps ................................................................................................................. 24
7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 25
A - Simulated Performance Curves ........................................................................................................ 25
B - Cost Data Table ................................................................................................................................. 27
C – Climate Data Dependent Cells ......................................................................................................... 28
D – Code Dependent Cells ..................................................................................................................... 29
8. References ........................................................................................................................................... 30

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

1. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
ASHRAE HOF – ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals
CEE – Consortium for Energy Efficiency
CFM – Cubic Feet Per Minute
DOE – Department of Energy
EERC – Energy Efficiency Research Center
FEMP – Federal Energy Management Program
HB – Heat Balance method
HEPESC – Heat Pump Energy Savings Calculator
UI-IDL – University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab
IPLV – Integrated Part Load Value
LCCA – Life Cycle Cost Analysis
NIST – National Institute of Standards of Technology
PTAC – Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner
PTHP – Packaged Terminal Heat Pump
RTS – Radiant Time Series method
TMY3 – Typical Meteorological Year
VAV – Variable Air Volume
VRF – Variable Refrigerant Flow
WSHP – Water Source Heat Pump

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) worked closely with Idaho Power Company’s
(IPC) efficiency team to develop a spreadsheet calculation tool capable of analyzing the energy savings
impacts from multiple heat pump technologies. The tool aimed for the ability to analyze a custom-input
project, and to apply energy estimation techniques that account for both the variable loads of a building
and the variable efficiencies of heat pump equipment. An initial literature review illuminated the lack of
freely available tools that can provide both custom load calculations and detailed equipment energy
estimations.
Now at the end of the tool development phase, the spreadsheet-based Heat Pump Energy Savings
Calculator (HePESC) meets these two criteria through building upon energy estimation techniques such
as the Annual Degree-Day Method and Bin Method iii. The tool utilizes the same equations as these
calculation methods, but accounts for detailed load variation through their application to hourly Typical
Meteorological Year (TMY) data and user-input schedules. Additionally, the UI-IDL ran multiple
EnergyPlus simulations to derive part load performance curves from regression analysis of load-to-
equipment consumption ratios. The spreadsheet applies these simulation-derived equations to its hourly
load calculations to account for the part load efficiencies. This allows the user to easily and quickly
analyze a wide variety of baseline and proposed system types by selecting the performance curves
available from the simulations. For future development, the tool can expand its scope of analysis by
adding additional performance curves from further simulation iterations.
In terms of outputs, the HePESC creates graphics that report heating and cooling loads, energy savings,
and energy cost savings by fuel type. It also conducts simplified first cost estimates based on system
type, which feeds into a life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) over the service life of the selected equipment.
While at the end of the first development cycle, the tool succeeds in its goal to provide a simple, but
powerful means for energy analysis that users can apply early in the design process. The spreadsheet
format and default inputs by building type help quicken the input process, while a macro-free
environment provides instantaneous results. All calculation engines and equations are transparent to users
to allow for custom manipulation of the spreadsheet or to provide further insight into the tool’s
calculation methodology.
Next steps may involve internal Alpha and 3rd party Beta testingi to ensure tool accuracy and usability.
Internal testing would revolve around comparisons to several existing project’s utility and simulation
data, while 3rd party testing would focus on calculation methodology and user interface.
3. INTRODUCTION
The University of Idaho (UI-IDL) has developed a series of simplified energy analysis tools with the
Idaho Power Company (IPC) support since 2011. The first generation of tools included the development
of spreadsheets that analyzed peak cooling load and compared it to the capacity of various passive natural
ventilation and thermal mass strategies. The second generation aimed for slightly deeper analysis that
calculated load and energy savings from passive solar and earth tube designs. The Heat Pump Energy
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

Savings Calculator (HePESC) serves as the third generation of these types of tools and aims to provide
comprehensive energy use and savings estimations according to a variety of heat pump technologies.
The UI-IDL developed all three generations of calculation tools in Microsoft Excel, with the ultimate goal
of executing analytics earlier in the design process by closing the feedback loop between input, analysis,
feedback, and iteration. This has led to the pursuit of quicker, easier, and more meaningful simulation
tools, whose ease of use could deliver simulation from the margins of the design process and into more
mainstream usage. At one end of the spectrum is the simple spreadsheet, and at the other is the timestep-
dependent, text-based environment of a powerful software engine. Combining the two in a fashion that
capitalizes on both of their strengths, being simple to use while still yielding meaningful results, could
effectively leverage simulation into a more widely accessible energy efficiency tool. This report
documents the development of a user-friendly, macro-free spreadsheet with embedded performance
curves derived from extensive simulation analysis. The resultant tool conducts sophisticated load
reduction and HVAC analysis on a custom-input building, with simple inputs from the user, thereby
making performance-based design process more achievable on more projects. While this tool can be used
to help design more efficient buildings, its applications range beyond design and into incentive program
development, manufacturer equipment testing, and academic teaching apparatus. The tool compares
different types of heat pumps to a wide variety of baseline mechanical systems, and has been referred to
as the Heat Pump Energy Savings Calculator (HePESC) during its development process.
The project team, which included the UI-IDL and the Idaho Power Company efficiency program
managers, discussed the scope of the tool extensively during its development. For the tool to be the most
effective, a balance between capability and usability was required. The tool is currently at the end of the
development phase and at the beginning of alpha testingi. It was designed with the following functionality
in mind:
 Load Calculations for the Boise Climate - other reference cities and climates can be simulated with simple manipulation of the weather file embedded within the spreadsheets.
 Single Zone Analysis – calculations are performed for a single zone, which requires judgment on how more complex buildings are modeled with the tool. For instance, the spreadsheet could be completed multiple times for distinct thermal zones, or an entire building can be modeled as a
single zone depending on what level of simplification is acceptable.
 Baseline and Proposed HVAC System Analysis – the tool can model the entire array of the
ASHRAE 90.1 2007 baseline systems at different system sizesii. For proposed systems, the team
was most interested in the ability to analyze heat pump technologies including air-source heat pumps, water-source heat pumps, and multi-zone VRF systems.
 Energy and Utility Cost Analysis – the HePESC provides estimates for annual energy end use, utility costs, and fuel split ratios.
 First Cost Analysis – the tool relies on some simple RSMeans cost estimating exercises, but calculates baseline, proposed, and incremental first costs based on heating and cooling
equipment only.
 Life Cycle Cost Analysis – a simplified life cycle cost analysis looks beyond simple payback at more advanced metrics that take into account both fuel and currency escalation rates. A cash
flow table shows total life cycle cost savings and present worth calculations over equipment service life analysis periods.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 5
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

3.1 Literature Review
The tool development process began with a literature review of the ASHRAE Handbook of
Fundamentalsiii (HOF) energy estimation techniques, followed by the exploration of currently free,
publically available tools developed by other firms or research institutions.
3.1.1 Literature Review – ASHRAE Energy Estimation Calculations
The ASHRAE HOF informed the hybrid load and calculation method used by the HePESC, based on a
variety of its energy estimation techniques. First, the “degree-day method” serves as a simple, steady
state model that provides an estimate of annual loads and energy consumption. This method is the
simplest process for energy analysis and can be the most appropriate when the building loads and HVAC
system efficiency remain constant. It is the most accurate when estimating the annual heating energy for
single-zone buildings dominated by skin and outdoor air losses.
All of the simple ASHRAE HOF techniques, including the degree-day method, rely on estimating a
balance point and using it in conjunction with a weather file to quantify the effect of climate on a specific
building. Equation 1 shows the annual degree-day equation and how the balance point per degree-days
value ( ) can be multiplied by the quotient of the total heat loss coefficient ( ) and system
efficiency ( ) to calculate yearly heating energy. A similar process can be followed for determining
annual cooling energy. Additional equations can be added account for economizer interactions and latent
heat gain. Equation 1 also shows the limitation of this method in that the heat loss coefficient and system
efficiency is assumed to remain constant over the year, which is rarely the case. Additionally, this
method assumes a constant balance point temperature, which varies over the course of the day, while
missing thermal inertia effects and the ability to model HVAC system control.
Equation 1 - Annual Degree-Day Equation for Heating

Where:
= yearly heating energy
= efficiency of the heating system
= number of degree days at a certain balance point
= heat loss coefficient

For many applications, ASHRAE recommends that the degree-day method should be avoided, since the
balance point temperature, the heat loss coefficient, and the efficiency of the systems typically vary over
time. This is especially true with heat pumps, whose efficiencies vary greatly with part load and outdoor
temperature. To address these issues, a “bin method” evolved out of the degree-day method. This more
advanced method evaluates separately the energy consumption over different temperature intervals, time
periods, and operational schedules. The name refers to the method of calculation, where consumption is
calculated for several temperature intervals and multiplied by the number of hours within this “bin.”
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 6
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

Equation 2 shows that the number of hours in the temperature bin ( is based on the difference
between a constant balance point and outdoor temperature ( . Breaking apart the analysis into
bins allows for variable conditions to be met, but increases the time and effort required to execute a more
detailed analysis. Furthermore, finding part load performance data for equipment can be challenging.
Performance curves must be developed for each system type or model number and applied to the
appropriate individual temperature bin.
Equation 2 - Bin Method Equation

Where:
= energy consumption for said bin
= number of hours in the temperature interval
bin centered on said temperature Ktot =
= efficiency of heating system at said bin
= balance point temperature in deg F
= outside air temperature in deg F

The HePESC tool uses the same energy balance equation as the bin method, but calculates loads on an
hourly basis. This allows the tool to calculate the balance point, heat loss coefficient, and internal loads
for every hour of the year according to custom user inputs and schedules. The result is the most detailed
bin method, or granularity, possible while automating calculations within the spreadsheet for speed and
ease. Additionally, the equipment efficiency is calculated and applied hourly for these variable conditions
and loads using performance curves derived from simulation. Section 4 describes these methodologies in
more detail.
3.1.2 Literature Review – Existing Tool Summary
The second phase of the literature review involved searching for existing tools that utilized these types of
energy estimation methodologies. The search was limited to tools that specifically analyzed heat pump
energy calculations and sizing procedures. The team studied nine different tools, all publically available
on the internet for no cost. Table 1 shows these nine tools, in addition to the HePESC, and whether they
meet 17 different criteria. Each criterion is described below:
 Year – the year the tool was “published” and made available.
 Excel Based – whether or not the tool is based in excel. Some tools were HTML websites, others were pieces of software that required downloading and installation.
 Residential Only – shows if the tool only models residential projects.
 Not Equipment Specific – designates if the tool models specific HVAC types, or if the user only
inputs a generic efficiency value.
 ASHP – shows if the tool can model air source heat pumps
 WSHP – shows if the tool can model water to air heat pumps
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

 Simplified Load Calculations – a simplified load calculation assumes a heating and cooling
load, typically by building type, instead of calculating the peak loads based on user inputs about the building in question.
 Detailed (hourly and specific) load Calculation – describes if the tool calculates project-specific hourly loads, i.e. supports user input of building envelope, geometry, operating characteristics, loads, etc.
 Simplified Energy Calculation – calculates energy by dividing the load by a constant equipment efficiency.
 Detailed Energy Calculation – provides energy calculations that take into account equipment part load efficiencies in some form.
 Provides Performance Levels – the tool provides a way to simulate different performance specifications for energy calculations such as low efficiency, code baseline, high performance etc.
 First Cost Analysis – the tool has the ability to calculate first costs of different building or HVAC configurations.
 Energy Cost Savings – calculates energy costs based on utility cost assumptions or inputs.
 Life Cycle Cost Analysis – combines energy savings calculations with first cost and utility
savings to conduct simplified life cycle cost analysis.
 Comparative – structures calculations to compare different cases against one another.
 Graphic Outputs – displays results in a graphic form.
 Existing Buildings – allows for the specification of existing building information and systems;
some tools only allowed for the analysis of new construction.

A wide variety of capabilities and functionality existed amongst the tools analyzed, although most tools
were based in excel. Some were very simple spreadsheets and others contained sophisticated macros and
calculation worksheets, or were housed completely on the web. Only three of the tools calculated specific
loads for a custom building, while most used very simplified assumptions to estimate energy savings.
These three tools used some form of the bin method to calculate detailed loads, although the exact method
used was hidden by the spreadsheet’s formatting and password-protected cells. Additionally, only four
tools provided detailed energy calculations taking into account part load conditions of heat pumps and
other system types. One tool calculated both detailed loads and used detailed energy calculations,
however, it only calculated the size of heat pumps and not energy consumption. Finally, any tool that
calculated a life cycle cost analysis utilized very simple assumptions and generally did not account for
inflation, fuel escalation, or maintenance costs.
Tools worth noting include tool number 1 in Table 1, developed by ENERGY STAR®, which was both
formatted well and performed life cycle cost analysis. However, it did not calculate loads specifically or
HVAC energy in a detailed manner. It does allow input of a wide variety of cities, but contains automated
assumptions for first costs and equipment efficiencies of both a conventional and ENERGY STAR®-
qualified air source heat pump units only.
Next, tool number 3 served as one of the three tools that calculated detailed energy calculations. It
accomplished this level of functionality by allowing the designation of two bins, off-peak and on-peak
hours, although no guidance was provided on how to define these values. The energy calculations
designated equipment efficiencies based on these two values, but the equations were not made available
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

to the user. Additionally, this tool does not contain user inputs for building characteristics or loads, and
only focused on mechanical equipment specification.
Tool number 5 from Puget Sound Energy, served as the only tool that allowed custom inputs for building
characteristics and detailed energy calculations. The spreadsheet included dropdown options for envelope
characteristics and other inputs. However, these calculations were intended to help size heat pumps for
residential projects only. Additionally, the assumptions and data for the different generic heat pump
capacities were housed within two unorganized and unformatted spreadsheet tabs.
Finally, the DOE FEMP tool provided analysis on a wide range of heat pump types and calculated fairly
detailed life cycle cost analysis, but failed to calculate loads for a user input building. It did, however,
compare existing HVAC to new heat pumps and took into account detailed energy calculations through
the specification of integrated part load value (IPLV). The tool also suggested default values for its
multiple user inputs. Finally, it calculated a wide range of metrics based on the user input case, a baseline
model, the FEMP recommended equipment performance level, and the best available heat pump.
Table 1 - Literature Review Comparison Matrix

#Tool Year Excel-Based
Residential
Only
Not
Equipment
Specific ASHP WSHP
Simplified
Load Calc
1 EnergyStar Tool 2008 x x x
2
Wis Energy Center -
Back of Envelope Calc x x x x
3
AZSFB Energy Usage
and Payback Calculator
x x x x x
4 John Cantor's Tool 2008 x x x
5
PSE Heat Pump Sizing
Calculator x x
6 DOE FEMP Calculator x x x
7
Nebraska Public Power
District x x
8 Sun Wind & Light Beta 2013 x x x
9 Heat Calc x x x
10 HPESC Tool 2014+x x x
Detailed Load Calc
(hourly and specific)
x
x
x
x
#Tool
Simplified
Energy
Calc
Detailed
Energy Calc
(part
load/perform
ance curve)
Provides
Performance
Levels
First Cost
Analysis
Energy
Cost
Savings LCCA Comparitive
Graphic
Outputs
Existing
Buildings
1 EnergyStar Tool x x x x x x
2
Wis Energy Center -
Back of Envelope Calc x x x
3
AZSFB Energy Usage
and Payback Calculator
x x x x
4 John Cantor's Tool x
5
PSE Heat Pump Sizing
Calculator x x
6 DOE FEMP Calculator x x x x x x x
7
Nebraska Public Power
District x x x x
8 Sun Wind & Light Beta x x x x x x
9 Heat Calc x x x x
10 HPESC Tool x x x x x x x
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

After the literature search, the team decided on the final format and capacity of the tool, shown as tool 10
in Table 1. The team chose an excel-based tool without macros to provide the widest accessibility
possible. The main goal included execution of both detailed, specific load and energy calculations.
Additionally, the tool aimed to allow the simulation of multiple HVAC system types at different
performance levels, which could feed into energy savings, utility cost savings, first cost, and life cycle
cost analysis. The tool can be used for either residential or commercial custom applications, although its
default values only reference commercial building types. Much effort was put into automating as many
of the default values as possible by building type to speed up the input process, without sacrificing
customizability through user overrides. The tool also has the ability to analyze existing building,
although baseline analysis is limited to ASHRAE 90.1 2007 baseline building types. Finally, the tool also
sought to provide rich graphic outputs as well as a fairly intuitive user interface. All background
equations, calculation engines, and methodology were to be transparent to allow for both education of the
user and the ability to customize or modify calculation methodology.
4. METHODOLOGY
4.1 Approach
The approach to creating this tool built upon existing ASHRAE calculation methodologies and integrated
their format into spreadsheets that leverage whole-building simulation when necessary. At its core, the
tool serves as the next step past the ASHRAE Annual Degree-Day and Bin Method energy estimation
techniques. However, the tool lies somewhere between the Bin Method and whole building simulation.
The hybrid nature of the tool provides value in it being substantially faster than whole-building
simulation, while still offering comprehensive analysis. Comprehensive analysis, in this context, includes
accounting for hourly load calculations, unique building geometry and operating characteristics, and
varying HVAC efficiencies.
The tool achieves this level of analysis through the following improvements to the modified bin method.
First, the tool utilizes a complete Typical Meteorological Yeariv (TMY) data file for load calculations.
The hourly weather information, in conjunction with the custom load and schedule inputs to automatically
calculate the building’s internal and external load balance, allows for calculated data on an hour-by-hour
basis. This provides the finest granularity of “temperature bins” according to the climate data and
operational schedule, but does not impact the speed or difficulty of conducting analysis.
As mentioned in the literature review, the bin method can utilized temperature data points to determine
HVAC equipment efficiencies based on part loads, and applied them to a wider range of temperature bins
for a more direct analysis of the project. However, this still required getting detailed performance data on
target HVAC equipment and calculating the correct efficiency based on the temperature bin range in
question. This can be a laborious task and the UI-IDL chose to use a different method to speed up the
specification process on the user end. The team ran EnergyPlus simulations on the DOE Commercial
Reference medium office building to calculate the performance curves under a variety of different HVAC
systems and conditions. The spreadsheet in turn uses this database of curves to calculate the energy
consumption of the project. Section 4.5 discusses this methodology in more detail.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

4.2 User Interface/Experience
By the end of the process, the tool provided a simple interface that automated the modified bin
calculation method through the application of TMY data. As mentioned previously, the macro-free
environment of the spreadsheet allows for the instant calculation of results, or a direct feedback loop
every time the user modifies an input. The HePESC spreadsheet format is organized into multiple tabs
with step-by-step instructions that lead the user through the calculations based on color coded cells that
designate user inputs, default values, cells that contain equations, hyperlinks, etc. Additional instructions
are supplied as comments within the spreadsheet, which appear when the user’s mouse is over the
applicable cell. Certain cells are locked to ensure they are not modified by the user, but do not require a
password to release protection. The first tab houses background information about the tool, a brief
description of all the steps and components of the spreadsheet, and a disclaimer about accuracy and
accountability. The different tabs of the spreadsheet oscillate between calculations and graphic reports,
and Figure 1 shows the results summary tab. This final tab contains a printable report on all major
components of the analysis, including EUI and cost savings graphs, and tabulated savings values and
percentages. The user also has access to all of the supporting tabs of the spreadsheet, which contain the
TMY weather file, all of the hyperlinked references used throughout the tool, and the load calculation
engine.
Figure 1 - HePESC Results Summary Tab

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

4.3 Internal and External Loads
The spreadsheet attempts to automate the input of loads and schedules through the auto-population of
multiple default values based on building type choice. The HePESC currently supports eight different
building types which load schedules based on DOE Commercial Reference buildings into the load
calculation engine. The spreadsheet also specifies default envelope insulation values and internal gain
minimums/maximums based on relevant ASHRAE 90.1 2007 requirements. The user can override these
values, but the default selections speed up the input process and serves as a good starting point for
analysis. The following sections describe each major component of the internal and external load
specification process, which begins with user input and ends with the output of heat transfer coefficients
used by the calculation engine discussed in Section 4.4.
Thermostat Setpoints:
Both the heating and cooling setpoints and setbacks utilize ASHRAE 90.1 2007 requirements as default
starting values. However, ASHRAE 90.1 2007 only specifies a minimum setback range of 5 degrees
Fahrenheit (°F), thus UI-IDL judgment determined the default setpoints based on typical values
encountered for a baseline new construction building, i.e. 72 °F for the heating setpoint with a 67 °F
setback, and 75 °F for the cooling setback with a 78 °F setback. An instructional note accompanies this
section and explains the origins of assumptions and how to override their values.
Schedules:
As part of the default specification process, the front end of the user interface displays a summary of the
general occupancy schedule based on building type for the weekday and weekend. If the user selects the
hyperlink to review the default schedules, the link opens the “Custom Schedule” tab, where they can view
all the fractional schedules used in the calculations in both table and graphic form. Figure 2 shows an
example of this section of the HePESC tool. At the left hand side of the image, a “Year Round” label
demarcates that these schedules represent the entire year. Currently, the spreadsheet only supports the
modification and input of annual schedules, although a set of “Summer” tables are included for the
institutional and educational building types.
Figure 2 - Default Schedule Tables Used in the Spreadsheet

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 12
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

Beyond this initial view of the default schedules, the tool supports specification of custom schedules. If
the user selects the “Custom Schedule?” option, the spreadsheet presents a link to an interface where they
can manipulate tables similar to Figure 2 above. The interface contains a set of instructions, default
typical starting values for easy manipulation, and a line plot that displays the profile of the schedule.
Envelope Specification:
The tool’s simplified interface does not take into account specific geometry and only supports the area
input of walls, roofs, and floors by orientation. The default insulation value of each wall area starts as the
code minimum requirement for steel-framed vertical walls in Climate Zone 5B. The walls automatically
reference this insulation value, but can be overridden based on user judgment or a hyperlinked reference
table of ASHRAE 90.1 2007 code U-Values. Similarly, the roof insulation value starts as the “insulation
entirely above deck” roof configuration option, while the floor insulation value begins with the
performance value of a “wood framed floor and other” designation, both for climate zone 5B. An option
exists to specify the floor as “slab on grade,” which activates an “F-Factor” input field. This value is
critical when calculating the heat loss coefficient for a slab on grade floor, as this requires a different
equation than the walls and roof. Equation 3 shows the heat transfer coefficient equation for the above-
grade components of the envelope, in addition to the equation used to calculate the U-value used for slab
on grade floors used in this equation.
Equation 3 - Heat Transfer Equation Comparison
Walls, Roofs, Regular Floors Slab on Grade Floors

Where:
= heat loss coefficient of the envelope (°F)
= insulation value (Btus/hr-sf °F)
= area (sf)

For the opaque envelope, the tool calculates heat loss similar to the method described above. However,
glazing heat gain relies upon the somewhat outdated ASHRAE Design Cooling Load Factor (DCLF)
method to calculate heat gain from conduction and solar gain based on glazing type, orientation, and
shading device. While this method is highly simplified from other methods such as the heat balance (HB)
method or radiant time series (RTS) method, the DCLF calculations can be easily incorporated into a
spreadsheet. The tool allows users to choose between four different glazing options that auto-populate the
glazing U-Value, which were reverse-engineered out of the tabular data for each glazing option. Next,
the user selects the interior and exterior shading type, and the spreadsheet calculates the DCLF based on
these values and glazing area/orientation. This process creates the heat transfer coefficients for the
glazing system that are required by the load calculation engine.
Occupant Heat Gains
The tool uses the default values for occupant per square foot from ASHRAE 62.1 2007 to calculate
occupant density, and uses a typical 250 Btu/hr heat gain rate for moderately active office workv.
Hyperlinks with references are available for the user to choose other occupant densities or heat gain rates
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 13
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

based building and activity type. The load calculation engine multiplies the sum of the sensible and latent
heat gain components by the fractional occupancy schedule to determine the hourly heat gain contribution
of occupancy. This structure between load and schedule is similar for most of the internal gains discussed
in this section.
Plug Load Heat Gains
The tool presents two options for calculating the heat gain contribution from plug loads. The first and
simpler method involves selecting an equipment power density for the entire space in question. The tool
then multiplies this value by the floor area of the space and the spreadsheet converts total watts to a
Btu/hr heat gain rate. The second method, referred to as the “Inventory Method” provides a link to a table
with the maximum input ratings and recommended heat gain values by equipment type. This allows the
user to specify the actual number of devices in the space and calculate a more detailed heat gain rate.
Electric Lighting Heat Gains
Similar to the plug load heat gain methodology, two pathways exist for the calculation of electric lighting
contribution to the building’s heat gain rate. The first does not include daylighting calculations and
requires only the input of a building-wide lighting power density, which the tool multiplies by the area of
the target space. The tool automatically populates a default value based on building type and the
ASHRAE 90.1 2007 Building Area Method. It also references the ASHRAE 90.1 2007 Space-by-Space
Method and includes a hyperlink for users if a more specific designation is required. This simplified
method also allows for the input of different ballast factors to modify the overall lighting power density
and heat gain rate of the lighting system.
The second pathway performs simplified daylight factor calculations based on side and/or top lighting
schemes. The tool automatically calculates the side-lighting contribution to the space using Equation 4
and the window area from previous inputsvi. For toplighting, the user must select the type of skylight
geometry which informs a specific daylight factor equation based on the skylight area and floor area, also
shown in Equation 4. Once the spreadsheet calculates the total projected daylight factor, the user selects a
new sensible heat gain from a reference table rate based on building type and daylight factor performance.
Equation 4 - Simplified Daylight Factor Equations
Side Lighting Daylight Factor Equation Top Lighting Daylight Factor Equations

Vertical Monitors

North-Facing Sawtooth

Horizontal Skylight

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 14
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

Outdoor Air – Ventilation
The tool calculates the outdoor air requirements based on the previously totaled number of people and the
default ASHRAE 62.1 ventilation area and occupant requirements by building type. The outdoor air
schedule is not in a format that the user can manipulate. Instead, the load calculation engine assumes a
%100 fractional schedule value anytime an occupancy schedule shows a fractional value above %10.
Once the tool calculates the total airflow rate in cubic feet per minute (CFM), this value is multiplied by a
heat gain constant of .99 to reach the total ventilation heat transfer coefficient.
Outdoor Air – Infiltration
The user can select between three different air-tightness designations that calculate different airflow rates
based on exposed exterior surface area. The UI-IDL based these values on research that observed
empirical results from NISTvii and the Army Core of Engineers, whose reports document the results of
multiple blowerdoor tests on a variety of commercial projects across different climate zones. The
spreadsheet converts these blower door values, measured in CFM/sf at 75 Pascals of pressure difference,
to leakage rates assuming the reference city’s average windspeed, elevation, etc. The tool then multiplies
this number by the area of the walls and roof to get the total leakage rate due to infiltration. Similar to the
outdoor air schedule, the user cannot affect the infiltration schedule. It automatically uses a “quarter on”
schedule during occupied times with outside air pressurization and a %100 value during unoccupied
periods.
4.4 Load Calculation Engine
The load calculation engine, housed within a dedicated tab in the HePESC spreadsheet, applies the heat
gain and loss coefficients by component to the TMY weather data on an hourly basis. It also multiplies
the internal heat gains and outdoor air losses by their previously defined fractional schedules. The tool
outputs the results of these calculations into two main forms, discussed later section 4.4.1.
First, the balance point serves as a critical value in any type of bin method process. It determines at
which temperature the respective bins, or hour in this case, will use which heat transfer coefficients.
Equation 5 shows the balance point equation utilized for the tool. Given its hourly nature, the tool can
also calculate balance point on an hour-by-hour basis to specifically account for the variable nature of
both heat gains ( ) and heat losses ( ) based on scheduling. This allows for the dynamic
calculation of both a heating and cooling balance point. The relationship between these values and the
hourly outside air temperature determine whether the building falls within heating mode, cooling mode,
or a free floating condition. These designations affect which coefficients the hourly calculations use for
the envelope and glazing, both of which change depending on heating or cooling. For instance, the
envelope heat gain coefficient does not include gains through the floor, while the heat loss coefficient
does not take into account solar loads. The variable balance point also allows for a more accurate
depiction of the load balance of the building and its relationship to outdoor temperature. Figure 3 reports
how the balance point varies throughout a typical summer and winter day given the calculation structure
of the load engine. On the summer day graph, the lines show the outside air temperature floating between
the two balance point temperatures, dipping below the heating balance point slightly, before rising above
the cooling balance point for most of the day.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 15
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

Equation 5 - Balance Point Equation

Where:
= indoor temperature setpoint (°F)
= the heat gains from the sun, occupants,
lights, and plug loads (°F)
= total heat loss coefficient of the building (Btu/hr-°F

Figure 3 - Balance Point Dynamics

4.4.1 Load Outputs
The tool presents the load calculation results to the viewer in two main formats: peak and hourly load
values. The peak load calculations relied on the heat transfer coefficients discussed previously in this
report, which are normalized according to temperature difference (Btu/hr-deg F). To determine the peak
load, the spreadsheet multiplies each component’s heat transfer coefficients by the difference between the
design day temperature of the reference city and the occupied setpoint specified by the user, as shown in
Equation 6. This provides a peak heating or cooling rate broken down by its constituent loads. Figure 4
below shows an example of the output as doughnut charts, which display both peak values and
breakdowns by component. Visualizing these types of distributions helps the user determine the sources
of each peak load and identify areas of opportunity for load reduction.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 16
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

Equation 6 - Peak Load Equations
Peak Heating Load =
–

Where:
= total heat loss coefficient (Btus/hr-°F) abs = absolute value
*peak load values in Btu/hr-sf
Peak Cooling Load =
–

Where:
= total heat gain coefficient (Btus/hr-°F)
abs = absolute value *peak load values in Btu/hr-sf

Figure 4 - Peak Heating (left) and Cooling (right) Distribution Charts

Next, the tool outputs the hourly load profile for the entire year, as shown in Figure 5. In the tool, a table
containing the distribution of heating versus cooling kBtus and fuel units accompanies the graphic output.
This graph, combined with the peak load doughnut charts in Figure 4, provides a comprehensive look at
the load characteristics of the building or space. These charts update automatically and instantly if any of
the user changes any of the previous envelope or load specifications.
Figure 5 - Hourly Load Profile Output

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 17
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

4.5 HVAC Equipment Consumption
Once the user specifies building characteristics, geometry, and other operating parameters, they can select
both a baseline and a proposed HVAC system type. The HePESC can model all eight ASHRAE 90.1
baseline system types and even includes additional all-electric system options. For the proposed systems,
the tool supports a variety of air source heat pumps, zonal water source heat pumps systems, and single
zone or multi-zone variable refrigerant flow heat pumps. The calculations include default heating and
cooling equipment sizing factors, but can be easily overridden. For system types whose efficiency
requirements vary by size, users can also select from a range of Btu/hr capacity ranges. However, this
requires judgment on the user’s part in how to select the representative size of the equipment based on the
thermal zoning of the building. Depending on the granularity of the zoning and the application of this
tool, the system may be left at a smaller size to represent multiple smaller pieces of equipment.
Alternatively, fewer larger units may also be specified depending on the project. This section of the tool
also reports the reference occupant density, a critical value in determining which performance curve to
use, and an efficiency table. This table provides the user with the cooling and heating SEER, COP, and/or
thermal efficiency of the selected baseline system.
Instead of using the annual degree-day or bin method equations as described in Section 3.1, this tool uses
a hybrid simulation method to account for part load and seasonal equipment efficiency calculations. This
method relies on using multiple EnergyPlus simulations to calculate the ratio of energy consumption to
load percentage. This relationship is then applied to the loads calculated by the spreadsheet to estimate
equipment energy consumption. This method allows the spreadsheet to leverage simulation and easily
provide equipment part load calculations at varying temperatures—critical specificity for heat pump
analysis.
To achieve this simulation hybrid approach, the team created simplified energy models in EnergyPlus
using the DOE Commercial Reference Building characteristics for the medium office prototype. Next, a
model was created for each baseline HVAC system for each system size according to the ASHRAE 90.1
2007 efficiency requirements. Finally, each HVAC system simulation included two different occupancy
densities to account for the variable outdoor airflow requirements. This range of parameters required the
creation of eight models for each of the eight baseline system types.
Once the team simulated each case, the tool used the following outputs to create the regressions that
informed the performance curves used in the spreadsheet. Figure 6 shows a scatter plot for a typical
system, which reports the load-to-peak equipment size ratio on the horizontal axis, and the equipment
consumption-to-peak capacity ratio on the vertical axis. The plots utilized linear regressions to produce
the best-fit equation, which defines the relationship between part load performance and equipment
consumption for that particular case. In all cases, these regressions produced strong R-squared coefficient
of determinations above 0.90. To calculate equipment energy consumption, the spreadsheet inputs its
load ratios into the best-fit equation, whose outputs represents the ratio of equipment consumption to peak
size. Finally, the calculations apply this ratio to the maximum equipment capacity based on the peak load
multiplied by the sizing values.
Figure 6 shows four colors and four regression lines. Each color represents heating versus cooling
energy, and whether or not the ancillary equipment consumption was calculated in the total, i.e. fans,
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 18
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

pumps, etc. While the team explored both sets of regressions, the team ultimately decided to use only the
regressions that included all equipment consumption. This captured the total energy used by the system
and its interaction with other equipment, but obscured the fuel splits. For instance the outputs of the tool
report heating energy as one value, which in this case includes both the gas-heating coil and fan energy
consumption. Thus, heating energy reported later in the spreadsheet carries with it a caveat of aggregated
equipment consumption.
Figure 6 - Heating and Cooling Regressions

Although the geometry and operating characteristics of the simulations are generalized, the performance
curves serve as reasonably accurate representations of the part load efficiencies of the simulated
equipment. Allowing access to a database of curves in the spreadsheet allows users to simulate a
multitude of HVAC systems and configurations both accurately and quickly. The spreadsheet contains 83
curves, which account for over 10 different system types. Appendix A contains a table that includes all of
the curves and both their R-squared and equation values.
Once the user specifies both system types and sizes, the tool produces two sets of reports. The first
compares the end use consumption breakdowns in kBtu for each case in a variety of ways. Figure 7
shows both a double-doughnut chart and stacked bar charts that break down end use distributions and
contribution to EUI. The second set of graphs focus on fuel split breakdowns and energy costs. Default
values are used for the average cost of electricity per kilowatt-hour and the average cost of gas per therm
based on IPC service territory for commercial projects, but users can override these values if other
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 19
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

information is available. The graphs show baseline, proposed, and savings values by both fuel type and
energy cost. These reports also communicate the energy versus cost distributions between the two cases to
show the impact of fuel-switching scenarios if applicable.
Figure 7 - Comparative Outputs

4.6 Capital Cost Estimates
After energy and utility cost savings, the tool provides some simplified first cost estimates that feed into
life cycle cost analysis later in the spreadsheet. It is important to note that these costs are based on
generalized estimations of fictitious projects and should not replace professionally procured cost
estimates. The tool aims only to understand incremental cost differences between different HVAC
system choices, so it calculates costs only for the mechanical heating and cooling equipment of the
building. The cost analysis does not incorporate information for the envelope, structure, finishes, and
other elements of the project. Cost values include materials and labor, including hard and soft costs
according to 2012 RSMeans Building Construction Cost Data referenceviii. These costs are broken down
into cost per Btu by system type and applied to the same peak capacity calculations used in the HVAC
equipment energy estimation. The tool reports the costs in terms of baseline, proposed, and incremental
values.
In some HVAC system cases, transferring the cost data from RSMeans proved to be straightforward. In
systems with zonal equipment contingent upon thermal zoning, such as the VAV and WSHP systems, the
team made multiple assumptions for costing purposes. For example, the number of VAV terminal units
serves as the main driver of cost for ASHRAE baseline systems 5-8. The number of VAV terminal units
is not as dependent upon the peak load, as is the case with other system types and plant equipment. Thus,
a general $5.00 VAV cost per square foot was aggregated from a variety of manufacturers’ dataix. The
tool applied this value to an assumed 450 square foot per ton rule of thumb to calculate $2,250 per ton, or
$0.1875/Btu. A similar logic was utilized for the reheat coil based on fuel type and whether or not fan-
powered boxes were required by code. These values, in addition to the cost per ton of the plant
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 20
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

equipment, equate to a $0.416/Btu multiplier for ASHRAE 90.1 2007 Baseline System 7. Refer to
Appendix B for a complete table of cost information by component.
Additionally, very little reference data exists for cost estimate information on multi-split VRF systems.
The team calculated the cost per Btu value of these systems by averaging three cost estimates provided by
general contractors or professional estimators on previous UI-IDL projects in 2013. These projects
ranged from a 30,000 square foot office building in Montana, to a prototypical 60,000 square foot net zero
office building in Idaho. Both the cost estimates and simulations only include air-cooled multi-split
systems that do not utilize inherent heat recovery and load sharing potential.
4.7 High Performance Specifications
Each proposed HVAC system designation contains an efficiency and cost specification for both a code
baseline and high performance system. The efficiency equipment values were based on the Consortium
for Energy Efficiency’s (CEE) commercial equipment specifications for AC, heat pump, and VRF
systemsx. These tables provide three tiers (0-2) of above-code efficiency values that help inform various
certification programs such as ENERGY STAR®. Figure 8 shows the different performance tiers for
VRF multisplit systems. The spreadsheet uses the highest available tier as the “high performance” option.
For first cost purposes, a general premium was added to the high performance equipment based on values
from RSMeans. This reference did not contain high performance premiums for most of the other system
types. Consequently, the team used expert judgment combined with manufacturing data used on previous
projects to determine an appropriate premium.
Figure 8 - CEE VRF Specification

4.8 Life Cycle Cost Analysis
The tool utilizes the previously calculated energy cost savings values and first cost estimates to produce a
simplified life cycle cost analysis. The simplification comes mostly from the lack of consideration for
maintenance costs per system. However, the analysis does calculate the life cycle cost based on
incremental first costs of the proposed HVAC system, its yearly energy savings, and inflation of both
currency and fuel prices. Equation 7 shows the Present Worth and Geometric Gradient equations used to
calculate the final life cycle cost savings. The present worth equation is used to provide information on
the annual savings or costs made over the analysis period in terms of future dollars, with fuel type
escalation only. The Geometric Gradient equation provides insight into these same values, although it
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 21
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

takes into account both fuel type escalation and currency inflation. This latter equation calculates the
total amount of money cumulatively saved over the analysis period in future dollars. The payback and
total life cycle cost analysis calculations use the Geometric Gradient equation and the initial cost of the
system to determine cash flow and deficit.
The rate of fuel escalation (1.24%) was calculated using the Energy Escalation Rate Calculator (EERC)
toolxi from the DOE for both electricity and gas averaged together for Idaho over a 20-year period. This
represents another simplification and future tool development should calculate fuel escalation separately
per fuel type. The same DOE tool also provided the inflation rate of currency at 3.6% over the same
period.
Equation 7 - Life Cycle Cost Analysis Equations
Present Worth (by year) Geometric Gradient (series present worth)
Where:
= annual savings
= present worth (in future dollars with fuel
escalation only)
= inflation rate of energy
= analysis period

Where:
= annual savings
= present worth
= inflation rate of money
= inflation rate of energy
= analysis period

Table 2 below shows the results of the life cycle cost analysis equations in a cash flow table between an
all-electric packaged rooftop system and a proposed packaged rooftop heat pump system. The table
reports the Present Worth (by year) column on a yearly scale, thus the analysis period ( ) for the equation always remains one. The Series Present Worth (over number of years) column calculates the cumulative
energy savings with both rates of escalation and uses the year column as the analysis period ( ). The net
deficit column subtracts each year’s present worth from the incremental capital cost of the HVAC system
to show the life cycle impacts over the analysis period. The length of the analysis period for the table automatically adjusts according to the service life of the proposed system. The service life values were
taken from the ASHRAE Service Life Databasexii, which catalogues observed equipment lifespans for a
variety of difference systems. For example, Table 2Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference.’s 14-year analysis period was determined by the mean equipment life of 1,295 actual air source heat pumps. The
table shows a present worth of $12,121 and a total life cycle savings of $6,445 with a 6 year payback for this particular analysis.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 22
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

Table 2 - Cash Flow Table

5. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
The tool currently features a complete analysis package for custom projects across multiple HVAC
system types. However, as the tool becomes further developed, the following areas serve as opportunities
for adding additional functionality.
Advanced Solar Load Calculations – the current ASHRAE DCLF strategy is a simple, but outdated
methodology. Ideally, the tool would be able to handle direct U-value and SHGC inputs instead of
selecting between simplified system configurations. The DCLF method was designed to calculate peak
loads and may be inaccurate when extracting a heat transfer coefficient and normalizing its peak value
according to temperature difference. Additionally, the current calculation engine and modified bin
method does not take into account solar gains during the wintertime, which artificially inflates heating
energy. In the future, a separate solar load engine could be added to the tool to provide TMY-dependant,
hourly solar load contributions based on geometry, shading factor, and detailed glass specifications. This
improvement could increase the accuracy of the solar load calculations and ultimately the HePESC’s load
and savings estimates.
Multi-Zone Analysis – as discussed earlier, the tool only allows the analysis of a single zone or building.
Depending on the complexity of the building’s floorplan and geometry, this may be inadequate. Multi-
zone analysis can be done indirectly by completing a separate spreadsheet for each zone, but this is not
ideal. Future versions could handle multiple zones housed within the spreadsheet, or even reorganize the
0 0 (5,675.83)$
1 1 929.48$ 929.48$ (4,746.35)$
2 2 952.53$ 1,773.92$ (3,901.90)$
3 3 964.06$ 2,630.70$ (3,045.13)$
4 4 975.58$ 3,467.95$ (2,207.88)$
5 5 987.11$ 4,286.13$ (1,389.69)$
6 6 998.63$ 5,085.68$ (590.15)$
7 7 1,010.16$ 5,867.01$ 191.18$
8 8 1,021.68$ 6,630.54$ 954.71$
9 9 1,033.21$ 7,376.68$ 1,700.85$
10 10 1,044.74$ 8,105.82$ 2,429.99$
11 11 1,056.26$ 8,818.35$ 3,142.52$
12 12 1,067.79$ 9,514.65$ 3,838.82$
13 13 1,079.31$ 10,195.09$ 4,519.26$
14 14 1,090.84$ 10,860.02$ 5,184.20$
15 ----
16 ----
17 ----
18 ----
19 ----
20 ----
Total 14,211.37$ 10,860.02$ 5,184.20$
Net Deficit (by
year)year Service Life
Present
Worth (by
year)
Series Present
Worth (over
number of years)
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 23
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

structure of the calculations to calculate both coincident and noncoincident loads for zone versus plant
equipment sizing, energy, etc.
LCCA Improvements – one major improvement to the life cycle cost analysis would include adding
maintenance costs by HVAC system type. However, these values can be hard to find. The same
ASHRAE program that created the Service Life Database is also working on a similar crowd-sourced
project that would provide empirical maintenance cost information for actual systems. The launch of this
new database could provide the data needed to make some simplified assumptions for maintenance cost
contributions to any LCCA.
Break Out Fan Energy Fuel Split – the current regression methodology takes into account total system
energy, which does not separate fuel splits between heating/cooling systems and their supporting
equipment. Breaking down end use energy by heating, cooling, plug loads, lighting, and misc. equipment
(fans, pumps, etc.), would be both more useful for the designer and lead to more accurate utility cost
estimates. To achieve this, regressions for both cases could be calculated simultaneously and subtracted
from one another to determine this equipment consumption split. The regressions and performance
curves already exist for both cases, but the calculation engine would need to be restructured to post
process the results of using both curves.
Adding More HVAC Systems – the current performance curve database was designed to be easily
expanded with the additional simulated performance curves. Additional curves could focus on adding
new systems altogether or system permutations such as heat recovery, demand controlled ventilation,
supply air temperature reset, and economizers control. Additionally, the “high performance” version of
each piece of equipment references the CEE specifications, but a “best in class” efficiency value could
also be included in new simulations.
Schedule Interface Improvements – Currently, the schedule interface tab only allows the manipulation
and creation of annual schedules, with the exception of the summer schedules for the education building
type. Allowing for seasonal schedules to be created would increase specificity to certain projects and
allow for more advanced control of loads scheduling and setpoint management. Additionally, the current
tool automates the outside air and infiltration schedule. These schedules could be added to the modules
that allow for custom manipulation with relative ease.
Add Contractor-Procured First Cost Estimates – the first cost estimates could be improved by hiring a
professional contractor or estimator to execute the costing exercises required for this type of tool. The
broad and fictitious nature of the analysis makes it difficult to create generalized costs for each system
type. A general contractor would possess the expertise and judgment necessary to create more accurate
figures with more reasonable cost assumptions.
Iterative Analysis – Currently, the tool only displays results for one baseline versus proposed analysis
case at a time. Future development could revolve around the archiving of past iterations, or the display of
multiple cases within the graphic outputs of the tool.
Other Climate/TMY Data – the tool contains instructions for modifying weather data, and Appendix C
includes detailed information on which cells need to be updated to analyze other climate zones. However,
future development could incorporate macro-based manipulation of climate data and streamline its
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 24
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

application to a wide variety of climate zones or reference cities. Additionally, the climate zone also
controls the default envelope specifications, which should also be revisited with the addition of macro-
functionality.
6. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS
The end of the development phase of this tool marked the creation of a unique contribution to the existing
pool of simplified energy calculation tools available. The HePESC provides the most comprehensive
ability to calculate loads and energy estimations out of the tools studied in the literature review.
Additionally, none of the tools leveraged simulation to provide detailed calculations for a range of
different system types and characteristics. No other tool had the ability to handle the custom input of
building loads, schedules, and envelope characteristics while outputting both peak load breakdowns and
hourly load profiles for the entire year. The design and structure of the tool’s interface and calculation
engines provide the opportunity to add more functionality and capability to the tool in the future. The
customizability, depth, and graphic output of this tool is beyond the capabilities of any public, freely
available heat pump energy calculator currently available.
The next steps include simultaneous alpha and beta testing of the current version of the tool. The UI-IDL
plans to use the tool and compare it to three internal projects that touch each proposed HVAC system
case. These projects range from existing buildings that have years of utility data for comparison, to new
construction projects with fully-developed EnergyPlus simulation data. The testing would compare utility
and simulation results to the loads and energy estimations of the HePESC tool. Additionally, a third party
engineering firm may also analyze the tool and provide recommendations on calculation methodology
and user interface. The firm would receive the complete spreadsheet that houses the tool and this report
as a pre-cursor to piloting the tool. Once the comparison studies were completed, revisions would be
made to the tool and a version 1.0 of the HEPESC could be released to the public.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 25
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

7. APPENDICES
A - Simulated Performance Curves
The following two tables report information about the equations gathered from the simulation-based
regression analysis. The tables contain the equation values depending upon the type of regression, i.e.
systems with an X2 value were non-linear regressions. Additionally, the last two columns describe the
nominal equipment efficiencies used to specify the simulation’s modeling parameters. The various
suffixes in the “system” column represent the size of the system modeled, followed by the two levels of
occupancy-designation. The former affects the minimum equipment efficiencies while the later changes
the ratio of outdoor air in the simulation.
Table 3 - Baseline System’s Simulation-Derived Performance Curves

Life Ccle
X2 X1 Constant X2 X1 Constant SEER COP SEER COP Therm Eff (%)Cost/ton Cooling Cost/ton HeatingYears
System 1 reg low 0 0.401944469 0.008255994 0 1.65721716 0.004663 3 3 80%0.102$ 0.02$ 27
System 1 reg med 0 0.441613225 0.007008934 0 2.18661045 0.007151 3 3 80%0.102$ 0.02$ 27
System 2 reg low 0 0.458762504 0.005075914 0 0.51341068 -0.00011 3 3 0.124$ -27
System 2 reg med 0 0.548805409 0.004254316 0 0.50187165 0.002454 3 3 0.124$ -27
System 3 sm low 0 0.42744609 0.109480706 0 1.31334115 0.039027 13 3.8 80%0.130$ 0.02$ 16
System 3 med low 0 0.495527912 0.108857195 0 1.31334115 0.039027 11.2 3.2824 80%0.111$ 0.01$ 16
System 3 lrg low 0 0.504453126 0.108836134 0 1.31334115 0.039027 11 3.2238 80%0.107$ 0.01$ 16
System 3 xlrg low 0 0.556473683 0.108070929 0 1.31334115 0.039027 10 2.907 80%0.090$ 0.01$ 16
System 3 sm med 0 0.353153731 0.123888551 0 1.28282005 0.043931 13 3.8 80%0.130$ 0.02$ 16
System 3 med med 0 0.411691609 0.124532392 0 1.28282005 0.043931 11.2 3.2824 80%0.111$ 0.01$ 16
System 3 lrg med 0 0.419004451 0.124724422 0 1.28282005 0.043931 11 3.2238 80%0.107$ 0.01$ 16
System 3 xlrg med 0 0.463130371 0.12510959 0 1.28282005 0.043931 10 2.907 80%0.090$ 0.01$ 16
System 3 sm low elec 0 0.42744609 0.109480706 -0.11593 1.10633475 0.039285 3.8 100%0.130$ 0.02$
System 3 med low elec 0 0.495527912 0.108857195 -0.11593 1.10633475 0.039285 3.2824 100%0.111$ 0.01$
System 3 lrg low elec 0 0.504453126 0.108836134 -0.11593 1.10633475 0.039285 3.2238 100%0.107$ 0.01$
System 3 xlrg low elec 0 0.556473683 0.108070929 -0.11593 1.10633475 0.039285 2.907 100%0.090$ 0.01$
System 3 sm med elec 0 0.353153731 0.123888551 0 1.050707 0.043073 3.8 100%
System 3 med med elec 0 0.411691609 0.124532392 0 1.050707 0.043073 3.2824 100%
System 3 lrg med elec 0 0.419004451 0.124724422 0 1.050707 0.043073 3.2238 100%
System 3 xlrg med elec 0 0.463130371 0.12510959 0 1.28282005 0.043931 2.907 100%
System 4 sm low 0 0.488621769 0.115147444 0 0.69088938 0.060197 13 3.8 7.7 2.257 0.172$ -14
System 4 med low 0 0.577012331 0.115236437 0.266946 0.43802102 0.062163 11 3.2239 3.3 0.153$ -14
System 4 lrg low 0 0.598694346 0.115341939 0.257684 0.45073852 0.062149 10.6 3.1066 3.2 0.149$ -14
System 4 xlrg low 0 0.669962855 0.115078483 0.257684 0.45073852 0.062149 9.5 2.7842 3.2 0.131$ -14
System 4 sm med 0 0.378135505 0.121836784 0.23854 0.58915811 0.069672 13 3.8 7.7 2.257 0.172$ -14
System 4 med med 0 0.447530161 0.123424492 0.368689 0.41678588 0.067549 11 3.2239 3.3 0.153$ -14
System 4 lrg med 0 0.464282123 0.124114537 0.359893 0.42843575 0.067693 10.6 3.1066 3.2 0.149$ -14
System 4 xlrg med 0 0.521495525 0.124741693 0.359893 0.42843575 0.067693 9.5 2.7842 3.2 0.131$ -14
System 5 reg low 0.498047 0.635780577 0.018422191 0 1.75782909 0.061175 3 80%0.351$ 0.02$ 20
System 5 reg med 1.298674 0.235922375 0.023417182 0 2.10209951 0.073341 3 80%0.351$ 0.02$ 20
System 6 reg low 0.259968 0.15939275 0.097751251 0 1.23870598 0.033894 3 100%0.568$ -$ 20
System 6 reg med 0.16773 0.195978462 0.089039638 0 1.38714983 0.039468 3 100%0.568$ -$ 20
System 7 reg low 0 0.778205069 0.016953851 0 1.78579944 0.056617 3 80%0.394$ 0.02$ 20
System 7 reg med 0 0.636542092 0.015539904 0 2.16149125 0.065195 3 80%0.394$ 0.02$ 20
System 8 reg low 0 0.645357979 0.014796117 0 1.39492425 0.027892 3 100%0.611$ -$ 20
System 8 reg med 0 0.543364884 0.007849633 0 1.85308502 0.03014 3 100%0.611$ -$ 20
system
Cooling_EPF Heating_EPF Cooling eff Heating Eff Cost Info
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 26
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

Table 4 - Proposed System's Simulation-Derived Performance Curves

X2 X1 Constant X2 X1 Constant SEER COP SEER COP Therm Eff (%)
ASHP sm low bl 0 0.488621769 0.115147444 0 0.69088938 0.060197 13 3.8 7.7 2.257 0
ASHP med low bl 0 0.577012331 0.115236437 0.266946 0.43802102 0.062163 11 3.2239 0 3.3 0
ASHP lrg low bl 0 0.598694346 0.115341939 0.257684 0.45073852 0.062149 10.6 3.1066 0 3.2 0
ASHP xlrg low bl 0 0.669962855 0.115078483 0.257684 0.45073852 0.062149 9.5 2.7842 0 3.2 0
ASHP sm med bl 0 0.378135505 0.121836784 0.23854 0.58915811 0.069672 13 3.8 7.7 2.257 0
ASHP med med bl 0 0.447530161 0.123424492 0.368689 0.41678588 0.067549 11 3.2239 0 3.3 0
ASHP lrg med bl 0 0.464282123 0.124114537 0.359893 0.42843575 0.067693 10.6 3.1066 0 3.2 0
ASHP xlrg med bl 0 0.521495525 0.124741693 0.359893 0.42843575 0.067693 9.5 2.7842 0 3.2 0
ASHP sm low hp 0 0.63004712 0.057146159 0.148276 0.60599828 0.058313 4.396 15 2.345
ASHP med low hp 0 0.752056362 0.05606367 0.284919 0.42341953 0.058373 3.3117 11.3 3.4
ASHP lrg low hp 0 0.770204233 0.055902659 0.265946 0.44876976 0.058365 3.1945 10.9 3.2
ASHP xlrg low hp 0 0.820527 0.043422225 0.27773 0.66114438 0.05876 3.0186 10.3 3.2
ASHP sm med hp -0.006543833 0.589038164 0.031420809 -0.34443 1.25968273 0.061093 3.5169 15 2.345
ASHP med med hp 0.09510802 0.578888543 0.031498875 0.182587 0.89104251 0.059499 3.3117 11.3 3.4
ASHP lrg med hp 0.159025947 0.572506537 0.031547962 0.109413 0.94222653 0.05972 3.1945 10.9 3.2
ASHP xlrg med hp 0.264272125 0.561998033 0.031628789 0.109413 0.94222653 0.05972 3.0186 10.3 3.2
WSHP sm low bl 0 0.650407717 0.016380988 0 0.8922934 0.005797 3.282 4.2 80%
WSHP med low bl 0 0.617873581 0.016352277 0 0.89250229 0.005793 3.517 4.2 80%
WSHP lrg low bl 0 0.726335951 0.011073362 1.08204 0.65371686 0.008034 3.517 4.2 80%
WSHP xlrg low bl 0 0.689695894 0.011037711 1.084388 0.65321004 0.008023 3.517 4.2 80%
WSHP sm med bl 0 0.617873581 0.016352277 0 0.89250229 0.005793 3.282 4.2 80%
WSHP med med bl 0 0.689695894 0.011037711 1.084388 0.65321004 0.008023 3.517 4.2 80%
WSHP lrg med bl 0 0.69758335 0.008306641 1.24126 0.50801016 0.01053 3.517 4.2 80%
WSHP xlrg med bl 0 0.670854051 0.006745509 7.137336 -0.0280302 0.011032 3.517 4.2 80%
WSHP sm low hp 0 0.492963045 0.016242936 0.047109 0.93868543 0.005927 4.85 5.4 80%
WSHP med low hp 0 0.552964644 0.016295028 0.055435 0.90188029 0.005909 4.103 4.6 80%
WSHP lrg low hp n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
WSHP xlrg low hp n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
WSHP sm med hp 0 0.54902006 0.010907722 1.17454 0.70549092 0.007995 4.85 5.4 80%
WSHP med med hp 0 0.616597003 0.010969426 1.135177 0.67165117 0.008011 4.103 4.6 80%
WSHP lrg med hp n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
WSHP xlrg med hp n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
VRF sm low bl 0 0.692918999 0.028466418 0 0.63673669 0.029672 3.27 3.3
VRF med low bl 0 0.698549739 0.028473963 0 0.63194124 0.029665 3.2239 3.3
VRF lrg low bl 0 0.713619888 0.028494155 0 0.64525167 0.029684 3.10668 3.2
VRF xlrg low bl 0 0.713619888 0.028494155 0 0.71088589 0.029779 3.10668 2.8
VRF sm med bl 0 0.656686814 0.018005206 0 0.81279064 0.034981 3.27 3.3
VRF med med bl 0 0.661448571 0.017973375 0 0.80648912 0.034949 3.2239 3.3
VRF lrg med bl 0 0.674192968 0.017888185 0 0.82397984 0.035039 3.10668 3.2
VRF xlrg med bl 0 0.674192968 0.017888185 0 0.91022716 0.035484 3.10668 2.8
VRF sm low hp 0 0.650619611 0.028409742 0 0.60760215 0.02963 4.19 3.3
VRF med low hp 0 0.688042919 0.028459885 0 0.61941377 0.029647 3.311 3.4
VRF lrg low hp 0 0.713619888 0.028494155 0 0.64525167 0.029684 3.194607 3.2
VRF xlrg low hp 0 0.725692668 0.028510331 0 0.64525167 0.029684 3.01875 3.2
VRF sm med hp 0 0.620915422 0.018244322 0 0.7745061 0.034784 4.19 3.3
VRF med med hp 0 0.652563251 0.01803277 0 0.79002727 0.034864 3.311 3.4
VRF lrg med hp 0 0.664545709 0.017952672 0 0.82397984 0.035039 3.194607 3.2
VRF xlrg med hp 0 0.684402575 0.017819938 0 0.82397984 0.035039 3.01875 3.2
system
Cooling_EPF Heating_EPF Cooling eff Heating Eff
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 27
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

B - Cost Data Table
Table 5 - Cost Data from RSMeans 2012

System Size Efficiency Level Cost per ton
for base unit
Cost per
BTU for
base unit
Cost per
ton for
heating
unit
(for non-
heat
pumps)
Cost per
BTU for
heating
unit
(for non-
heat
pumps)
Total Cost per
unit
combination
Total cost
per BTU
Notes
System 1 baseline 1,225.00$ 0.102$ 265.56$ 0.022$ 1,490.56$ 0.124$
System 2 baseline 1,485.00$ 0.124$ - -1,485.00$ 0.124$
< 65,000 btu/hr baseline 1,559.53$ 0.130$ 228.67$ 0.019$ 1,788.19$ 0.149$
> 65,000 and < 135,000 btu/hr baseline 1,334.51$ 0.111$ 153.00$ 0.013$ 1,487.51$ 0.124$
> 135,000 and < 240,000 btu/hr baseline 1,289.40$ 0.107$ 153.00$ 0.013$ 1,442.40$ 0.120$
> 240,000 + btu/hr baseline 1,074.56$ 0.090$ 153.00$ 0.013$ 1,227.56$ 0.102$
< 65,000 btu/hr baseline 2,059.53$ 0.172$ - -2,059.53$ 0.172$
> 65,000 and < 135,000 btu/hr baseline 1,834.51$ 0.153$ - -1,834.51$ 0.153$
> 135,000 and < 240,000 btu/hr baseline 1,789.40$ 0.149$ - -1,789.40$ 0.149$
> 240,000 + btu/hr baseline 1,574.56$ 0.131$ - -1,574.56$ 0.131$
< 65,000 btu/hr high performance 2,591.43$ 0.216$ - -2,591.43$ 0.216$
> 65,000 and < 135,000 btu/hr high performance 2,321.41$ 0.193$ - -2,321.41$ 0.193$
> 135,000 and < 240,000 btu/hr high performance 2,267.28$ 0.189$ - -2,267.28$ 0.189$
> 240,000 + btu/hr high performance 2,009.47$ 0.167$ - -2,009.47$ 0.167$
System 5 baseline 4,214.50$ 0.351$ 265.56$ 0.022$ 4,480.06$ 0.373$
System 6 baseline 6,820.50$ 0.568$ -$ -$ 6,820.50$ 0.568$
System 7 baseline 4,726.69$ 0.394$ 265.56$ 0.022$ 4,992.25$ 0.416$
System 8 baseline 7,332.69$ 0.611$ -$ -$ 7,332.69$ 0.611$
< 65,000 btu/hr baseline 1,614.00$ 0.135$ 265.56$ 0.022$ 1,879.56$ 0.157$
> 65,000 and < 135,000 btu/hr baseline 1,486.00$ 0.124$ 265.56$ 0.022$ 1,751.56$ 0.146$
> 135,000 and < 240,000 btu/hr baseline 1,432.67$ 0.119$ 265.56$ 0.022$ 1,698.22$ 0.142$
> 240,000 + btu/hr baseline 1,438.00$ 0.120$ 265.56$ 0.022$ 1,703.56$ 0.142$
< 65,000 btu/hr high performance 1,775.40$ 0.148$ 265.56$ 0.022$ 2,040.96$ 0.170$
> 65,000 and < 135,000 btu/hr high performance 1,634.60$ 0.136$ 265.56$ 0.022$ 1,900.16$ 0.158$
> 135,000 and < 240,000 btu/hr high performance 1,575.93$ 0.131$ 265.56$ 0.022$ 1,841.49$ 0.153$
> 240,000 + btu/hr high performance 1,581.80$ 0.132$ 265.56$ 0.022$ 1,847.36$ 0.154$
< 65,000 btu/hr baseline 0.540$ - -0.540$ without heat recovery
> 65,000 and < 135,000 btu/hr baseline 0.540$ - -0.540$ without heat recovery
> 135,000 and < 240,000 btu/hr baseline 0.540$ - -0.540$ without heat recovery
> 240,000 + btu/hr baseline 0.540$ - -0.540$ without heat recovery
< 65,000 btu/hr high performance 0.594$ - -0.594$ without heat recovery
> 65,000 and < 135,000 btu/hr high performance 0.594$ - -0.594$ without heat recovery
> 135,000 and < 240,000 btu/hr high performance 0.594$ - -0.594$ without heat recovery
> 240,000 + btu/hr high performance 0.594$ - -0.594$ without heat recovery
WSHP (boiler/cooling
tower)
Multizone-VRF
System 3
System 4
WSHP - RS Means
23.81.46.10.2220
This calc is based on
one unit of 5 tons
cooling costs $5350
(including tubing &
water source
connection of 20%)
PTAC-23.81.13.10.0240
(exactly), and used heat
Air Conditioner-RS
Means 23.74.33.10.1000 -
> (-8%) for heat
deduction
Typical increase of heat
pump vs air conditioner
is anywhere between
$400 to $800 for
upgrade. This calculator
uses $500 for baseline
and $600 for high
efficiency.
The "VAV System" has
no added cost as the
cost is in the VAV or
PFP Boxes.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 28
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

C – Climate Data Dependent Cells
Climate data-dependent information is housed mainly in the “TMY3 Data” tab within the HePESC’s
input and calculation tabs. This tab contains instructions on locations of weather data in the tool and
instructions on how to manipulate it to anlyze other cities or climates. This information is also included
directly within the tool.
1. “TMY3 Data” Tab / Cell D4 – change out the name of the reference city.
2. “TMY3 Data” Tab / Cell D6 – change the latitude of the target site, this number can typically
be found typically searching for the location on the internet.
3. “TMY3 Data” Tab / Cell D8 – this value represents the amount of vertical insolation that falls
on a vertical southern surface and is used for balance point calculations. This value can be found
for various reference cities at certain latitudes in the “Lookup Tables-Ref” tab as Figure X.
4. “TMY3 Data” Tab / Cell D11 – change the LBL factor the first three numbers of the site’s zip
code. The link to the EnergyStar table is included below the cell
(http://www.energystar.gov/ia/home_improvement/home_sealing/ES_HS_Spec_v1_0b.pdf)
5. “TMY3 Data” Tab / Cell D14 – modify the cooling design temperature according to the new
location.
6. “TMY3 Data” Tab / Cell D16 – modify the heating design temperature according to the new
location.
7. “TMY3 Data” Tab / Cell G23-8783” - to change out the .epw data in the tab, first download a
new EPW for the city closest to the target site from the Department of Energy’s EnergyPlus
weather data website:
(http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/weatherdata_about.cfm). The website will
provide the ability to download a zip file for most locations throughout the world. Once
downloaded, extract the contents of the zip file and open the .epw file in Excel. Once open,
select all of column A by selecting the A cell in the top lefthand corner of the spreadsheet. Next,
use the "text to columns" command in the "data" menu on top of the ribbon. Follow the wizard
and be sure to select the "deliminate with commas" option. Once completed, all the data should
be in separate cells. Select all cells by hitting control+A, copy the selection and use the "paste
values" special command to paste it into the "TMY3 Data" tab within cell A-16.
8. “Step 1 – Loads Input” / Cells C22, C31, and C32 – the default roof, floor, and vertical wall
U-value is currently based on climate zone 5B. These values need to be overridden if analysis
takes place in other sites within other climate zones. Additionally, the hyperlink to the
“LookupTables-Ref” tab and the ASHRAE 90.1 2007 Opaque Assembly Value table only
includes the tables for climate zones 5 and 6. Additional tables could be added from the
ASHRAE 90.1 to include the other climate zones.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 29
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

9. “Step 1 – Loads Input” / Cells J23-J31 – the design cooling load factor (DCLF) is
automatically calculated from the type of glazing configuration selected in cells H18 and H19.
These automated values reference the cooling design temperature, so these values would need to
be overridden according to Figure X by orientation in the “Lookup Tables-Ref” tab to account
for other climate locations.
D – Code Dependent Cells
As the HePESC is used over multiple code cycles or references, certain reference data may need to be
adjusted to account for changing code requirements. The following cells of data are contingent upon code
references and would warrant reconsideration if the tool’s lifetime spans across a new code cycle.
1. “Step 1 – Loads Input” Tab / Cell K2 – this cell calls out which code baseline references are used
throughout the spreadsheet.
2. “Step 1 – Loads Input” Tab / Cells C7, C8, C9, and C10 – these values are roughly based upon the
thermostatic setpoint and setback requirements for the code.
3. “Step 1 – Loads Input” Tab / Cell A18 – this cell hyperlinks to Table 17 - ASHRAE 90.1 envelope
reference tables. Cells C22, C31, C32, and K19 all reference these code-specific tables.
4. “Step 1 – Loads Input” Tab / Cell G22 – if the solar load calculations evolve into a method that is
more specific, the window specification input fields will likely be tied to code references.
Currently, only a variety of glazing systems can be modeled thus a code change would not
currently have an impact on this cell.
5. “Step 1 – Loads Input” Tab / Cell C37 – this cell hyperlinks to Table 11 – Code Occupancy
Requirements and uses ASHRAE 62.1 to determine maximum occupant densities.
6. “Step 1 – Loads Input” Tab / Cell G39 – this cell hyperlinks to Table 4 – Lighting Power Density
References which references ASHRAE 90.1 to determine lighting power density requirements by
building type.
7. “Step 1 – Loads Input” Tab / Cell C59 and C60 – these cells link to Table 11 – Code Occupancy
Requirements and uses ASHRAE 62.1 to specify area and occupant-components of outdoor air
ventilation.
8. “LookupTables-Ref” Tab – Cell C11 – Table 2 comprises all of the default values for various
internal gains according to building type. All of the values within the table would need to be
updated for a different code cycle.
9. “LookupTables-Ref” Tab – Cell B556 – Table 14 contains all of the simulation-derived
performance curves, whose baseline system curves are based on minimum efficiency
requirements from the current code. New simulations with updated efficiency values would
need to be re-run and added to the table.
10. “Energy Cost Results” Tab – Cell D90 and D91 – These two cells contain currency inflation and
fuel escalation rates. While these are not code-dependent, they should be adjusted annually as
well.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 30
Heat Pump Calculator Report – Development and Methodology (Report #1301_010-01)

8. REFERENCES

i "Test Design: Lessons Learned and Practical Implications." Proceedings from the 5th International Conference on
Software Testing and Validation (ICST). Software Competence Center, Hagenberg. 2008 ii Source: ASHRAE 90.1-2007. "Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings". Atlanta, Georgia, 2007.
iii ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals. Inch-Pound Editions 2013. Tullie Circle, N.E., Atlanta, GA.
iv EnergyPlus Weather Data Website.
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/weatherdata_format.cfm v Source: ASHRAE STANDARD 62.1-2007. "Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality". Atlanta, Georgia,
2007. vi Source: Reynolds, Stein. "Mechanical and Electrical Equipment for Buildings" Tenth Edition. Canada. John Wiley & Sons. Copyright 2006
vii Emmerich, et al. “Investigation of the Impact of Commercial Building Envelope Airtightness on HVAC Energy
Use.” National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce. 2005. viii RSMeans Building Construction Cost Data 2012
ix CT Mechanical Cost Reference Document. http://www.ctmechanicalwbe.com/pdfs/ctm_budgetpricing.pdf
x Center for Energy Efficiency Commercial Unitiary AC and HP Specification. http://library.cee1.org/content/cee-commercial-unitary-ac-and-hp-specification-0
xi US Department of Efficiency - Renewable Energy Federal Energy Management Program - Energy Escalation
Rate Calculator Tool. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/information/download_blcc.html
xii ASHRAE Service Life and Maintenance Cost Database. http://xp20.ashrae.org/publicdatabase/

Report Number: 1301_002-01

2013 LUNCH AND LEARN
SUMMARY OF TOPICS AND EVALUATIONS
YEAR-END REPORT

December 16, 2013

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Authors:
Gunnar Gladics
Lauren Hemley

This page left intentionally blank.
Prepared by:
University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab | Boise
306 S 6th St. Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl

IDL Director:
Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg

Authors:
Gunnar Gladics
Lauren Hemley

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
JBK-110

Please cite this report as follows: Gladics, G., & Hemley, L.
(2013). 2013 Lunch and Learn, Year- End Report (1301_002-01).
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab, Boise, ID.

DISCLAIMER
While the recommendations in this report have been reviewed for
technical accuracy and are believed to be reasonably accurate, the
findings are estimates and actual results may vary. All energy
savings and cost estimates included in the report are for
informational purposes only and are not to be construed as design
documents or as guarantees of energy or cost savings. The user of
this report, or any information contained in this report, should
independently evaluate any information, advice, or direction
provided in this report.
THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO MAKES NO
REPRESENTATIONS, EXTENDS NO WARRANTIES OF ANY
KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT
NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE WITH
RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO ANY RECOMMEDATIONS OR FINDINGS,
CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY
ADDITIONALLY DISCLAIMS ALL OBLIGATIONS AND
LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF UNIVERSITY FOR
DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DIRECT,
INDIRECT, SPECIAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES,
ATTORNEYS’ AND EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS
(EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBLITIY OF SUCH DAMAGES, FEES OR COSTS),
ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
MANUFACTURE, USE OR SALE OF THE INFORMATION,
RESULT(S), PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S) AND PROCESSES
PROVIDED BY THE UNIVERSITY. THE USER ASSUMES
ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR
DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE USE, SALE, OR OTHER
DISPOSITION BY THE USER OF PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S),
OR (PROCESSES) INCORPORATING OR MADE BY USE OF
THIS REPORT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN CONNECTION WITH THIS
REPORT OR THE INSTALLATION OF RECOMMENDED
MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN.

This page left intentionally blank.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Chronology ................................................................................................................................. 2
2. New Presentations Delivered in 2013 ......................................................................................... 3
3. Session Attendance & Evaluations ............................................................................................. 3
3.1 Daylight Performance Metrics from Human Studies and Annual Simulation ...................... 3
3.2 Architectural HVAC Integration Strategies .......................................................................... 4
3.3 Radiant System Design Considerations ................................................................................ 5
3.4 Daylighting in Buildings: Getting the Details Right ............................................................. 6
3.5 HVAC 101 and IECC 2009 ................................................................................................... 7
3.6 High Performance Classrooms .............................................................................................. 8
3.7 Deep Energy Retrofits: Operations and Maintenance ........................................................... 9
3.8 High Performance Envelopes- Air Barriers ........................................................................ 10
3.9 High Performance Retrofits ................................................................................................ 12
3.10 Demand Control Ventilation ............................................................................................. 13
3.11 Hybrid Cooling Strategies ................................................................................................. 14
3.12 Energy Plus/Open Studio Workflow ................................................................................. 15
3.13 Right Sizing of Existing HVAC Systems ......................................................................... 15
3.14 Operational Savings Opportunities ................................................................................... 17
3.15 Daylight in Buildings: Health, Productivity & Satisfaction .............................................. 18
3.16 Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump Systems ..................................................................... 19
4. Cumulative Analysis ................................................................................................................. 20
4.1 Profession of Attendees ....................................................................................................... 20
4.2 Profession Comparison Charts ............................................................................................ 20
4.3 General Comments .............................................................................................................. 21
4.4 Evaluation Comparison Charts............................................................................................ 22

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2013 Lunch and Learn, Year-End Report (Report #1301_002-01)

1. CHRONOLOGY

MARCH
3/12 Daylight Performance Metrics from
Human Studies and Annual Simulation
@ AIA Central Section

APRIL
4/16 Architectural HVAC Integration Strategies @ Construction Specifications
Institute 4/25 Radiant System Design Considerations @ Insight Architects
4/30

Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details
Right
@ Erstad Architects
MAY
5/6 HVAC 101 and IECC 2009

@ Erstad Architects
JUNE
6/6 High Performance Classrooms @ AIA Eastern Section
6/6 Architectural HVAC Integration Strategies @ AIA Eastern Section
6/11 Deep Energy Retrofits: Operations and Maintenance @ BRS Architects
6/13 High Performance Envelopes– Air Barriers @ Insight Architects 6/18 Architectural HVAC Integration Strategies @ ZGA Architects & Planners 6/26 High Performance Retrofits @ BRS Architects
JULY
7/23 Demand Control Ventilation @ DC Engineering
7/31 Hybrid Cooling Strategies

@ ZGA Architects & Planners
AUGUST
8/9 Energy Plus / Open Studio Workflow @ DC Engineering
8/13 Architectural HVAC Integration Strategies @ AIA Mountain Section 8/21 Right Sizing of Existing HVAC Systems @ ZGA Architects & Planners
SEPTEMBER
9/11 Operational Savings Opportunities @ Twin Falls IPC 9/12 Right Sizing of Existing HVAC Systems @ DC Engineering 9/17 Daylight in Buildings: Health, Productivity
& Satisfaction
@ Construction Specifications
Institute
OCTOBER
10/16 Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump Systems @ AIA Eastern Section
10/29 High Performance Envelopes– Air Barriers @ AIA Mountain Section

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2013 Lunch and Learn, Year-End Report (Report #1301_002-01)

2. NEW PRESENTATIONS DELIVERED IN 2013
DAYLIGHT METRICS FROM HUMAN STUDIES AND ANNUAL SIMULATION By Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg

HYBRID GROUND SOURCE HEAT PUMP SYSTEM
By Katie Leichliter
HIGH PERFORMANCE ENVELOPES- AIR BARRIERS
By Gunnar Gladics ARCHITECTURAL HVAC INTEGRATION STRATEGIES
By Jacob Dunn
ENERGY PLUS/OPEN STUDIO WORKFLOW By Jacob Dunn

DEEP ENERGY RETROFITS OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES
By Jacob Dunn or Katie Leichliter
OPERATIONAL SAVINGS OPPORTUNITIES
By Jacob Dunn
3. SESSION ATTENDANCE & EVALUATIONS
3.1 Daylight Performance Metrics from Human Studies and Annual Simulation
DATES AND LOCATIONS PRESENTED: March 12th AIA Central Section Presenter: Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg
OVERVIEW: The IES Daylight Metrics Committee recommended the first two daylight performance metrics
and design criteria derived from field research and annual simulation: Spatial Daylight Autonomy
and Annual Sunlight Exposure. This talk explained the basis for the metrics and how to utilize them in daylight and lighting design. Examples from real spaces informed an intuitive
understanding of the metrics and corresponding criteria. Also discussed were the capabilities of
simulation tools to generate them, the effect of assumptions about blinds operation, implications for daylight performance and visual comfort, and the limitations of the metrics.

ATTENDANCE:
March 12th: 45 Profession of Attendees: N/A
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
2013 Lunch and Learn, Year-End Report (Report #1301_002-01)

AVERAGE EVALUATIONS: No evaluations given.

COMMENTS:
N/A
3.2 Architectural HVAC Integration Strategies
DATES AND LOCATIONS PRESENTED: April 16th to Construction Specifications Institute
June 6th to AIA Eastern Section
June 18th to ZGA Architects & Planners August 13th to AIA Mountain Section
Presenter: Jacob Dunn
OVERVIEW: The relationship between architecture and mechanical systems design is often one of
neglect, dysfunction, and sometimes even abuse. It has not always been like this, nor does it have to be moving forward. Aesthetic meaning and design concept can be derived from the interdependent relationship between architecture and mechanical engineering, distribution
system and interior design, or even equipment and facade expression. Sometimes the most profound architectural moments are deeply informed by their integration with how the building delivers comfort to its occupants. A successful marriage of these concepts can even lead to
reduced energy bills, lower capital costs, and, most importantly of all, occupants who love the building. This presentation focused on breaking
ATTENDANCE: April 16th: 7 June 6th: 9
June 18th: 9 August 13th: 20 Profession of Attendees: 28 Architects, 1 Mechanical Engineer, 5 Other, 11 Not Specified
AVERAGE EVALUATIONS: Scale:
In general, today’s workshop was: 4.4 The content of the workshop was: 3.4
Rate organization: 4.5 Rate clarity: 4.6 Rate opportunity for questions: 4.7
Rate instructor’s knowledge of subject matter: 4.7 Rate delivery of presentation: 4.6
1 Not Useful – 5 Very Useful 1 Too Basic – 5 Too Advanced
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent

COMMENTS:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
- “Critical analysis to real world developer time cost”
- “For the introduction, explain what your purpose is. Maybe talk about CSU and its goals”
- “Fast pace. However, great passion”
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 5
2013 Lunch and Learn, Year-End Report (Report #1301_002-01)

- “Ask questions”
- “More time for additional buildings to be presented”
- “More discussion about how people accept the new design from comfort standpoint”
- “Maybe slow down a little”
What attendees found most valuable:
- “Information on current technologies, design, and direction of future design for higher performance buildings”
- “I liked the case study format”
- “Inspirational design ideas”
- “Case studies; in depth analysis on building”
- “Great insight into the integration of design and functionality of HVAC systems”
- “Discussion of active systems”
- “Net zero inspiration; great to see the good work that's being done”
- “Concept of integration of HVAC with architecture”
- “Case studies of integrated systems”
The professional associations of which attendees are members:
- AIA
- CSI
- BOMA
- USGBC
- NCARB
- CMA
- ULI
- ASHRAE
- LEED AP
- AISC
- IEEE
Other types of training attendees would find useful:
- “More of the same”
- “BIM, IPD projects”
- “Passive systems and net-zero components”
- “Resilience and reuse; retrofits and cost returns; business investments and optimum
payback/investment”
- “LED lighting”
- “Passive solar design”
3.3 Radiant System Design Considerations
DATES AND LOCATIONS PRESENTED:
April 25th to Insight Architects Presenter: Jacob Dunn OVERVIEW: Designing for radiant systems and thermally active surfaces represents a key opportunity for
integrated design and high performance buildings. While radiant systems can be inherently more
energy efficient than air-based systems, their success requires close collaboration between architects and engineers to ensure that the building facade reduces loads to levels achievable by
radiant systems. This integration between the disciplines has a direct relationship to
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 6
2013 Lunch and Learn, Year-End Report (Report #1301_002-01)

the performance of the system and comfort of the building, which is not always so closely related
in more typical forced-air systems. Key design decisions must be made early in the design
process to ensure the feasibility and performance of radiant systems down the road. A wide spectrum of configurations and types of radiant systems are available for designers, with each
having different strengths, capacities, and complexities according to their setup. This
presentation covered some general rules of thumb to consider for radiant systems, as well as provided an overview of the key architectural and engineering design decisions associated with
each system configuration.
ATTENDANCE:
April 25th: 5
Profession of Attendees: 2 Architects, 3 Not Specified AVERAGE EVALUATIONS: Scale:
In general, today’s workshop was: 5.0
The content of the workshop was: 4.5 Rate organization: 4.8
Rate clarity: 4.5
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.8 Rate instructor’s knowledge of subject matter: 5.0
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.8
1 Not Useful – 5 Very Useful
1 Too Basic – 5 Too Advanced 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
COMMENTS: Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
- “Maybe slow down a little, lots to digest so quickly”
What attendees found most valuable:
- “Very useful comparisons- graphics & descriptions”
- “Very informative presentation that was well presented”
- “Thorough knowledge”
The professional associations of which attendees are members:
- AIA
- USGBC
- NCARB Other types of training attendees would find useful:
- No comments.

3.4 Daylighting in Buildings: Getting the Details Right
DATES AND LOCATIONS PRESENTED:
April 30th to Erstad Architects Presenter: Julia Day

OVERVIEW: This is the second talk in a sequence intended to instruct on the process of creating high quality and comfortable daylit spaces, specifically focusing on getting the details right. After the
schematic design is formed to appropriately deliver daylight to the important surfaces within a space, there are several details that can make or break the overall success of the project. This presentation discussed several details, ranging from interior surface colors and reflectance to
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7
2013 Lunch and Learn, Year-End Report (Report #1301_002-01)

interior space layouts, furniture design, window details (including glazing specifications), and
shading strategies. The presentation introduced concepts of lighting control systems to ensure
that energy is saved from the inclusion of daylight.
ATTENDANCE:
April 30th: 6 Profession of Attendees: 3 Architects, 2 Interior Designers, 1 Not Specified
AVERAGE EVALUATIONS: Scale:
In general, today’s workshop was: 4.4 The content of the workshop was: 3.6 Rate organization: 4.8
Rate clarity: 4.8 Rate opportunity for questions: 4.8
Rate instructor’s knowledge of subject matter: 4.8
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.6
1 Not Useful – 5 Very Useful 1 Too Basic – 5 Too Advanced 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent COMMENTS: Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
- No comments
What attendees found most valuable:
- “Real photos and the proven examples - expressed a lot!”
- “Simple clarity and explanation, great overview”
- “Good photos, not nearly technical, easy to apply knowledge”
The professional associations of which attendees are members:
- ASID
- LEED AP
- USGBC
- IDI Other types of training attendees would find useful:
- “Temperature control/HVAC”
- “More specific info about daylighting (types of windows etc.)”
3.5 HVAC 101 and IECC 2009
DATES AND LOCATIONS PRESENTED: May 6th to Erstad Architects
Presenter: Brad Acker
OVERVIEW: This talk aimed at the fundamentals of HVAC systems. System types and terminology were
explained with emphasis on how they related to IECC 2009 section 503- Building Mechanical
Systems and ASHRAE 90.1. Basic and complex systems and concepts were outlined, such as demand control ventilation, air and water side economizers, two and four pipe hydronic systems,
heat pumps, chillers, boilers, cooling towers and variable air volume systems, and terminal devices.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8
2013 Lunch and Learn, Year-End Report (Report #1301_002-01)

ATTENDANCE: May 6th: 2
Profession of Attendees: 1 Architect, 1 Not Specified
AVERAGE EVALUATIONS: Scale:
In general, today’s workshop was: 4.5
The content of the workshop was: 3.5 Rate organization: 4.0 Rate clarity: 4.0
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.0 Rate instructor’s knowledge of subject matter: 4.0 Rate delivery of presentation: 4.0
1 Not Useful – 5 Very Useful
1 Too Basic – 5 Too Advanced 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent

COMMENTS:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
- “Graphs were great. I like the photos of the actual equipment a lot. Put it online for later review would be great”
- “Be a little more succinct with VAV info. Figure out how to explain in a nutshell since
it's only an overview” What attendees found most valuable:
- “Getting a better understanding of the different systems and how they work”
- “General info about HVAC systems; being able to communicate with mechanical
consultants easier” The professional associations of which attendees are members:
- USGBC
Other types of training attendees would find useful:
- No comments.
3.6 High Performance Classrooms
DATES AND LOCATIONS PRESENTED: June 6th to AIA Eastern Section
Presenter: Gunnar Gladics
OVERVIEW:
This session covered a variety of issues facing the design of a healthy, productive, and energy
efficient classroom environment. A quick look at the state of the last 50 years of school design gave an introduction to the problems faced by designers. This session looked at several case studies of high performance schools in the Northwest to address daylighting, natural ventilation,
and integration of mechanical systems. Each passive strategy was addressed in detail with regional examples and performance research.
ATTENDANCE: June 6th: 7 Profession of Attendees: 2 Architects, 1 Mechanical Engineer, 1 Other, 3 Not Specified

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
2013 Lunch and Learn, Year-End Report (Report #1301_002-01)

AVERAGE EVALUATIONS: Scale:
In general, today’s workshop was: 4.4
The content of the workshop was: 3.6
Rate organization: 4.0 Rate clarity: 4.2
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.6 Rate instructor’s knowledge of subject matter: 4.8 Rate delivery of presentation: 4.0
1 Not Useful – 5 Very Useful
1 Too Basic – 5 Too Advanced
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent

COMMENTS:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
- “Do not assume we are all familiar with the acronyms used, more definitions would be helpful”
- “Ask us questions”
- “Would like to have content more focused on broader issues of high performance
schools; too much focus on lighting” What attendees found most valuable:
- “Daylight patterns guide”
- “Case studies, lighting pattern options”
The professional associations of which attendees are members:
- AIA
- LEED
- AISC
- ASHRAE
Other types of training attendees would find useful:
- “Software suggestions for simulations”
3.7 Deep Energy Retrofits: Operations and Maintenance
DATES AND LOCATIONS PRESENTED:
June 11th at BRS Architects
Presenter: Katie Leichliter OVERVIEW: An often overlooked step of the integrated design process, operations and maintenance strategies
can make or break the efficiency of a high performance project. Through our existing building
research and consulting, the UI-IDL has experienced first-hand how important operations can be on the energy efficiency of all buildings. This lunch and learn topic revolved around presenting
the impact of operations on multiple building types and its effect on energy consumption,
simulation calibration, and occupant comfort. The talk also touched on some free resources developed by Better Bricks to aid building operators in understanding, diagnosing, and
maintaining their projects.

ATTENDANCE: June 11th: 10 Profession of Attendees: 7 Architects, 3 Not Specified

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10
2013 Lunch and Learn, Year-End Report (Report #1301_002-01)

AVERAGE EVALUATIONS: Scale:
In general, today’s workshop was: 4.1
The content of the workshop was: 3.9
Rate organization: 4.1 Rate clarity: 3.5
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.3 Rate instructor’s knowledge of subject matter: 4.3 Rate delivery of presentation: 3.8
1 Not Useful – 5 Very Useful
1 Too Basic – 5 Too Advanced
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
COMMENTS: Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
- “Lots of facts and small graphics that were hard to read and kind of skipped over”
- “Good content, but covered a lot in an hour”
- “More detail, narrower topic, focus on specifics”
- “Quick overview of acronyms & measurements to clarify what the units represent”
What attendees found most valuable:
- “References mentioned (DOE handbook, best practices manual, etc.)”
- “Awareness”
- “Real life examples”
- “Thanks for reiterating solutions to problem areas discovered in the photos of the case
studies” The professional associations of which attendees are members:
- USGBC
Other types of training attendees would find useful:
- “Solar/LED lighting integration”
3.8 High Performance Envelopes- Air Barriers
DATES AND LOCATIONS PRESENTED: June 13that Insight Architects
October 29th to AIA Mountain Presenter: Gunnar Gladics
OVERVIEW:
The building skin is a critical interface between occupant comfort and outdoor climatic
conditions. A high performance building requires a high performance envelope, one that responds to exterior environmental impacts at various times of the year. This session focused on the effects
that uncontrolled air flow has on energy, loads, and comfort. Both the envelope and mechanical
systems can allow great quantities of energy to escape in conventional design. Both examples of problems and solutions were shown and discussed.

ATTENDANCE:
June 13th: 4 October 29th: 18 Profession of Attendees: 10 Architects, 1 Interior Designer, 2 Other, 9 Not Specified

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11
2013 Lunch and Learn, Year-End Report (Report #1301_002-01)

AVERAGE EVALUATIONS: Scale:
In general, today’s workshop was: 4.2
The content of the workshop was: 3.5
Rate organization: 4.3 Rate clarity: 4.1
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.3 Rate instructor’s knowledge of subject matter: 4.6 Rate delivery of presentation: 4.3
1 Not Useful – 5 Very Useful
1 Too Basic – 5 Too Advanced
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
COMMENTS: Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
- “Perfect as is. Very well done! Seriously the best lunch and learn I have been to in a long
time.”
- “Graphs are difficult to read”
- “Hard to see details in slides; simplify and make details larger”
- “Larger graphics for room proportion”
- “It was a commercial-based presentation; a similar residential-based construction
presentation would be helpful”
- “Would love some example details of 'fixes' for leaks or examples of the way it should
have been detailed” What attendees found most valuable:
- “Idaho Power incentives and impact of air infiltration on mechanical systems”
- “All the various examples and combinations of addressing heating and cooling in current
architecture”
- “Good reminder that the architectural and engineering components of a project can be
better coordinated for efficiency as well as architectural expression”
- “Airflow control and crucial execution”
- “Air barrier- Moisture barrier”
- “Actual building examples”
- “Case studies/cost savings”
- “Practical actual examples”
The professional associations of which attendees are members:
- AIA
- USGBC Idaho
- LEED AP
- NAHB
Other types of training attendees would find useful:
- “Anything I could gear towards client benefits for building/design costs”
- “Discussion of materials used and methods”
- “Walk-through of residential project under construction at insulation phase”

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 12
2013 Lunch and Learn, Year-End Report (Report #1301_002-01)

3.9 High Performance Retrofits
DATES AND LOCATIONS PRESENTED:
June 26th at BRS Architects Presenter: Ery Djunaedy

OVERVIEW:
Our existing building infrastructure consumes tremendous energy resources. This provides an
opportunity for conservation on an expansive scale if progress can be made toward identifying a replicable technical and economic template for deep-energy renovations. Fundamentally, this is a
question of how today’s existing buildings operate currently, and how they will operate a generation from now. This lecture presented interim results of the development phase of an initiative that targets deep energy savings in retrofits of existing buildings into high performance
buildings. The session focused on medium (3-5 stories) buildings, which require a different approach to deep renovation when compared to high-rise buildings. For example, there is no big chiller replacement that can be used to leverage other energy efficiency measures. This session
discussed the Integrated Measure Packages (IMPs) for medium buildings that can be used to achieve deep energy savings. Two medium office buildings in the Northwest were used as
platforms for simulation-based investigations of these IMPs. This session presented simulation
work for the pilots, examples on how to respond to occupant’s complaints and anecdotal evidence, and cost analysis for the renovation projects.

ATTENDANCE:
June 26th: 9 Profession of Attendees: 9 Architects
AVERAGE EVALUATIONS: Scale:
In general, today’s workshop was: 4.8 The content of the workshop was: 3.3
Rate organization: 4.7
Rate clarity: 4.7 Rate opportunity for questions: 4.4
Rate instructor’s knowledge of subject matter: 4.9
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.8
1 Not Useful – 5 Very Useful 1 Too Basic – 5 Too Advanced
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
COMMENTS:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
- “We should have invited our mechanical consultants!”
- “Major content made easily digestible with many slides but maybe lower content”
- “Very well done, well presented” What attendees found most valuable:
- “Very clear points. Always enjoy Ery's presentations”
- “Takeaways; major feats (from 100-50) can be done with little cost”
- “Technical information presented in very user friendly, easy-to-understand presentation”
- “Using local case studies of the projects presented” The professional associations of which attendees are members:
- AIA
- NCARB
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 13
2013 Lunch and Learn, Year-End Report (Report #1301_002-01)

Other types of training attendees would find useful:
- “See end results of study applied to building and find out if results match expectations”

3.10 Demand Control Ventilation
DATES AND LOCATIONS PRESENTED:
July 23rd at DC Engineering Presenter: Brad Acker
OVERVIEW:
This presentation was intended to introduce architects and engineers to the concept, background, and current standards of Demand Control Ventilation (DCV). The session explained ASHRAE
62.1-2007, the current best practice standard, as it applies to single zone systems and how it
compares to past methods and rules of thumb designers have used. Examples of poor and good design specification were presented, as well as how this information is used by Testing,
Adjusting, and Balancing (TAB) personal. The session covered system interactions, such as
sensor placement and DCV interaction with economizer systems. Additionally, an example was shown using the ventilation rate procedure step-by-step as outlined in ASHRAE 62.1-2007.

ATTENDANCE: July 23rd: 10 Profession of Attendees: 6 Mechanical Engineers, 4 Not Specified
AVERAGE EVALUATIONS: Scale:
In general, today’s workshop was: 4.4
The content of the workshop was: 3.1
Rate organization: 4.2 Rate clarity: 4.2
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.7
Rate instructor’s knowledge of subject matter: 4.4 Rate delivery of presentation: 4.3

1 Not Useful – 5 Very Useful
1 Too Basic – 5 Too Advanced
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
COMMENTS:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
- No comments. What attendees found most valuable:
- “Understanding the disconnect between engineering and design and incorporation in the
field”
- “Learning more advanced OSA calculations”
- “Clarity on the diversity factor for the multi-space evaluations”
- “Info will be helpful in future designs”
The professional associations of which attendees are members:
- ISHE Other types of training attendees would find useful:
- “IECC standards”

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 14
2013 Lunch and Learn, Year-End Report (Report #1301_002-01)

3.11 Hybrid Cooling Strategies
DATES AND LOCATIONS PRESENTED:
July 31st at ZGA Architects & Planners Presenter: Ery Djunaedy

OVERVIEW:
Cooling energy is one of the greatest electric energy end uses. This presentation explored different ways to bring cooling to the building with less energy. Mechanical cooling should be
seen as the last resort, only utilized when the cooling load cannot be handled by other means that consume less energy. For example, natural ventilation can provide cooling during the shoulder seasons. This presentation discussed simple design techniques to calculate the cross and stack
ventilation and how to combine it with the night ventilation of mass to further reduce peak cooling load. Boise and much of Idaho have climates that are very conducive for various types of evaporative cooling. The combined use of natural ventilation and evaporative cooling will reduce
the demand for mechanical cooling, both in terms of the peak cooling load and the total cooling energy.
ATTENDANCE: July 31st: 12 Profession of Attendees: 6 Architects, 6 Not Specified

AVERAGE EVALUATIONS: Scale:
In general, today’s workshop was: 4.6 The content of the workshop was: 3.3
Rate organization: 4.5 Rate clarity: 4.3 Rate opportunity for questions: 4.5
Rate instructor’s knowledge of subject matter: 4.8 Rate delivery of presentation: 4.5
1 Not Useful – 5 Very Useful 1 Too Basic – 5 Too Advanced
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
COMMENTS:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
- No comments. What attendees found most valuable:
- “PMV charting information”
- “Boise case studies”
- “New concepts in hybrid methods” The professional associations of which attendees are members:
- AIA
- USGBC
- LEED AP
- NCARB
Other types of training attendees would find useful:
- “Passive heating/cooling with emphasis on methods and stats of heat exchange units and
types”

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 15
2013 Lunch and Learn, Year-End Report (Report #1301_002-01)

3.12 Energy Plus/Open Studio Workflow
DATES AND LOCATIONS PRESENTED:
August 9th at DC Engineering Presenter: Jacob Dunn

OVERVIEW:
As whole building simulation software rapidly develops and evolves, understanding an effective workflow between the tools and disciplines is critical to the integrated design process. Front end
graphic user interfaces have made powerful simulation engines like EnergyPlus more accessible to both architects and engineers. It has also made the simulation process easier, smoother, and, perhaps most importantly, faster. This presentation focused on describing the integrated energy
and daylight simulation workflow of OpenStudio, a free graphic user interface developed by the Department of Energy, and how it interfaces with Radiance and EnergyPlus.
ATTENDANCE:
August 9th: 9 Profession of Attendees: 3 Mechanical Engineers, 2 Other, 4 Not Specified

AVERAGE EVALUATIONS: Scale:
In general, today’s workshop was: 4.5 The content of the workshop was: 3.5
Rate organization: 4.3
Rate clarity: 4.4 Rate opportunity for questions: 4.5
Rate instructor’s knowledge of subject matter: 4.8 Rate delivery of presentation: 4.5
1 Not Useful – 5 Very Useful 1 Too Basic – 5 Too Advanced
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
COMMENTS:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
- No comments. What attendees found most valuable:
- “Great overview”
- “Future training”
The professional associations of which attendees are members:
- ISHE Other types of training attendees would find useful:
- No comments.

3.13 Right Sizing of Existing HVAC Systems
DATES AND LOCATIONS PRESENTED:
August 21st at ZGA Architects & Planners September 12th at DC Engineering
Presenter: Dr. Ery Djunaedy
OVERVIEW:
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 16
2013 Lunch and Learn, Year-End Report (Report #1301_002-01)

Mechanical engineers are trained to oversize the capacity of HVAC systems for a good reason. In
reality, however, the degree of oversizing can be excessive, way beyond the good reason that the
engineers are trained for. This session covered the problem of HVAC systems oversizing, in particular, roof-top units (RTUs). The typical HVAC sizing process was outlined and several
potential sources of oversizing were discussed. This presentation also summarized a study carried
out by IDL in 2009 regarding roof-top unit oversizing. The study involved: (1) a survey and in-depth interviews with a number of mechanical engineering firms on how they design (i.e. size)
the roof-top units (RTU), (2) field measurements on the performance of RTUs during peak design
conditions, and (3) simulations conducted to determine penalties associated with oversizing in terms of energy consumption and peak electricity demand.
ATTENDANCE: August 21st: 11 September 12th: 11 Profession of Attendees: 6 Architects, 4 Mechanical Engineers, 1 Other, 11 Not Specified AVERAGE EVALUATIONS: Scale:
In general, today’s workshop was: 4.4
The content of the workshop was: 3.2 Rate organization: 4.6
Rate clarity: 4.4
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.9 Rate instructor’s knowledge of subject matter: 4.9
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.7

1 Not Useful – 5 Very Useful
1 Too Basic – 5 Too Advanced 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
COMMENTS:
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
- “Come back- love presentations from Ery!”
- “Graphs were not completely clear at times. Better explained and clearer graphs”
- “Deeper discussion on energy consumption”
- “Larger print on PowerPoint graphs” What attendees found most valuable:
- The local case study examples- although I'd like the name of the engineering company”
- “What to look for in mechanical design”
- “Examples”
- “Understand mechanical design process & how we integrate with them”
- “Interesting to see cooling gain from floors”
- “Be careful with assumptions in load calculations because it can make a big difference”
- “The discussion”
- “How much oversizing in general is being used”
- “Study and presentation of results of equipment sizing”
The professional associations of which attendees are members:
- AIA
- NCARB
- USGBC
- ASHRAE
Other types of training attendees would find useful:
- No comments.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 17
2013 Lunch and Learn, Year-End Report (Report #1301_002-01)

3.14 Operational Savings Opportunities
DATES AND LOCATIONS PRESENTED:
September 11th in Twin Falls Presenter: Jacob Dunn

OVERVIEW:
An often overlooked step of the integrated design process, operations and maintenance strategies can make or break the efficiency of a high performance project. Through our existing building
research and consulting, the UI-IDL has experienced first-hand how important operations can be on the energy efficiency of all buildings. This lunch and learn topic revolved around presenting the impact of operations on multiple building types and its effect on energy consumption,
simulation calibration, and occupant comfort. The talk also touched on some free resources developed by Better Bricks to aid building operators in understanding, diagnosing, and maintaining their projects.
ATTENDANCE: August 21st: 7
Profession of Attendees: 7 Not Specified
AVERAGE EVALUATIONS: The goal of the presentation was to provide information on typical energy efficiency areas of improvement that can be visually seen during a customer walk-thru and provide additional
information sources for you to share with your customers. How well did the presentation meet the goals? (1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent)
- 4
Did they provide information that will be useful on your future customer visits? (1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent)
- 4
Level of content – rate the level of content. (1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent)
- 3.5 Would this presentation be useful to all customer reps? Yes or No and why?
- “Yes, I learned new terminology and concepts.”
Would the value of this presentation be increased with an on-site hands on component? Yes
or no and why:
- “Yes, I'd love to do a walkthrough with these guys.”
- “I think it would be worth spending half a day to walk a facility or two to identify
potential measures.”
General feedback?
- “I thought it was very informative; it gave us a good idea of some possible things to look for. I actually may call some of my customers to check their economizers.”
- “Worthwhile presentation”

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 18
2013 Lunch and Learn, Year-End Report (Report #1301_002-01)

3.15 Daylight in Buildings: Health, Productivity & Satisfaction
DATES AND LOCATIONS PRESENTED:
September 17th to Construction Specifications Institute Presenter: Gunnar Gladics

OVERVIEW:
It is known that daylight in buildings fosters improved health, productivity, and user satisfaction.
This discussion highlighted historic and recent research related to the impacts of daylight on humans in the built environment. It highlighted both the physical and psychological effects of
daylight on the human visual and biological system, and what can be feasibly achieved in terms of positive impacts on worker productivity and improved user satisfaction through high quality daylighting design.
ATTENDANCE: September 12th: 10 Profession of Attendees: 3 Architects, 1 Interior Designer, 4 Other, 2 Not Specified
AVERAGE EVALUATIONS: Scale:
In general, today’s workshop was: 4.2
The content of the workshop was: 3.6
Rate organization: 4.4 Rate clarity: 4.4
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.7 Rate instructor’s knowledge of subject matter: 4.7 Rate delivery of presentation: 4.7

1 Not Useful – 5 Very Useful
1 Too Basic – 5 Too Advanced
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
COMMENTS: Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
- “What is missing is a full (which is hard) impact analysis, i.e. maintenance ramifications,
difficulty of instillation, related material impacts”
- “More examples of work beyond schools & big box”
- “Might have handout w/organizations & websites listed” What attendees found most valuable:
- “The examples used and discussion was great for generating ideas”
- “Potential for collaboration”
- “Daylight pattern guide”
- “Greater consciousness for requirements for successful daylighting”
- “Integrating examples of design” The professional associations of which attendees are members:
- AIA
- BOMA
- IIDA Other types of training attendees would find useful:
- “All energy and reuse subject matter”

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 19
2013 Lunch and Learn, Year-End Report (Report #1301_002-01)

3.16 Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump Systems
DATES AND LOCATIONS PRESENTED:
October 16th at AIA Eastern Section Presenter: Katie Leichliter

OVERVIEW:
The initial cost of ground-source heat pump systems can be substantially higher than conventional systems, limiting it as a design option. With a hybrid GSHP system, it is possible to
optimize the overall system life-cycle cost by reducing the initial cost, while still maintaining the low operating cost of a GSHP system. To reduce initial costs, peak loads should be carefully calculated and minimized during the design phase, the GSHP system should be sized based on
coincidental building loads with the use of simulation software, and the system components, including the ground heat exchanger and additional central plant equipment, should be sized to optimize life-cycle costs using appropriate economic assumptions.
ATTENDANCE: October 16th: 13
Profession of Attendees: 11 Architects, 2 Not Specified
AVERAGE EVALUATIONS: Scale:
In general, today’s workshop was: 3.8
The content of the workshop was: 3.2
Rate organization: 3.8 Rate clarity: 3.6
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.5 Rate instructor’s knowledge of subject matter: 3.9 Rate delivery of presentation: 3.6

1 Not Useful – 5 Very Useful
1 Too Basic – 5 Too Advanced
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent 1 Needs Improvement – 5 Excellent
COMMENTS: Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
- “Continue your good work - be confident”
- “Needs to practice the presentation more”
- “Not your fault, closer screen, hard to see”
- “Very generalized, needs some more specific; be able to answer more questions, she said ‘I don't know’ a lot”
- “Pretty tough topic, especially being new type product, some statistics opposed product”
What attendees found most valuable:
- “General explanation of system/concepts”
- “Understanding the hybrid as % of design”
- “Good review, excellent knowledge base, able to explain clearly”
- “Good explanation without being too technical”
- “General overview”
- “Good intro”
- “Good knowledge”
The professional associations of which attendees are members:
- NCARB
- AIA
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 20
2013 Lunch and Learn, Year-End Report (Report #1301_002-01)

- USGBC Other types of training attendees would find useful:
- “In person contact is very good”

4. CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
4.1 Profession of Attendees
TOTAL ATTENDEE PROFESSIONS FOR ALL SESSIONS
Profession Total % Architect 88 38%
Mechanical Engineer 15 6% Interior Designer 4 2%
Other: 15 6%
Not Specified: 112 48% All 234

4.2 Profession Comparison Charts
ATTENDEE PROFESSIONS PER PRESENTATION:

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Arch HVAC Int S
Radiant System
DL in Bldgs: Details
HVAC 101 and IECC 2009
High Performance Class
Deep Energy Retrofits
Air Barriers
High Performance Retrofits
Demand Control Ventilation
Hybrid Cooling Strategies
EnergyPlus/Open Studio
Right Sizing HVAC
DL in Bldgs: Health
Hybrid GSHP Not Specified
Other
Interior Designer
Mechancial Engineer
Architect
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 21
2013 Lunch and Learn, Year-End Report (Report #1301_002-01)

ATTENDEE PROFESSIONS PER LOCATION:

4.3 General Comments
Attendee suggested improvements for the instructor:
- Provide handouts of references or key take-away
- Provide an online version or email of the presentation
- A lot of information in a short time period, too dense
- Provide more of an overview, make it less technical
- Slow down
- Ask questions
- Spell out acronyms and define terms
- Graphs and graphics were hard to see
- Show more details of fixes to the issues brought up
What attendees found most valuable:
- Coordination of architecture and engineering components
- Integration between technology and design
- Information on future technologies and directionality / high performance buildings
- Case studies, examples, photos, cost savings
- References provided
- Simplicity/clarity
- Receiving a better understanding of building systems
- Inspiration/knowledge for next project
- Understanding that assumptions can be misled The professional associations of which attendees are members:
- AIA
- CSI
- BOMA
- USGBC
- NCARB
- CMA
- ULI
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
CSI
AIA Eastern
ZGA Architects
AIA Mountain
Insight Architects
DC Engineering
Erstad Architects
BRS Architects Not Specified
Other
Interior Designer
Mechancial Engineer
Architect
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 22
2013 Lunch and Learn, Year-End Report (Report #1301_002-01)

- ASHRAE
- LEED AP
- AISC
- IEEE
- IDI
- ASID
- NAHB
- ISHE Other types of training attendees would find useful:
- Passive design
- Net zero
- Temperature control
- LED lighting or LED/daylight integration
- Energy efficiency and business investment
- Software suggestions
- More materials and methods
- Results versus expectations comparisons

4.4 Evaluation Comparison Charts
AVERAGE OVERALL EVALUATIONS

0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
In general,
today's workshop was:
The content of
the workshop was:
Rate
organization:
Rate clarity: Rate
opportunity for questions:
Rate instructor's
knowledge of subject matter
Rate delivery of
presentation
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 23
2013 Lunch and Learn, Year-End Report (Report #1301_002-01)

AVERAGE EVALUATIONS PER PRESENTATION

AVERAGE EVALUATIONS PER LOCATION

0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
In general,
today's
workshop was:
The content of
the workshop
was:
Rate
organization:
Rate clarity: Rate
opportunity for
questions:
Rate instructor's
knowledge of
subject matter:
Rate delivery of
presentation:
Arch HVAC Int Radiant System DL in Bldgs: Details
HVAC 101 and IECC 2009 High Performance Class Deep Energy Retrofits
Air Barriers High Performance Retrofits Demand Control Ventilation
Hybrid Cooling Strategies EnergyPlus/Open Studio Right Sizing HVAC
DL in Bldgs: Health Hybrid GSHP
0
1
2
3
4
5
In general,
today's workshop was:
The content of
the workshop was:
Rate
organization:
Rate clarity: Rate
opportunity for questions:
Rate instructor's
knowledge of subject matter:
Rate delivery of
presentation:

Report Number: 1301_009-01

2013 MULTIFAMILY INCENTIVE
MEASURE ANALYSIS
YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2013

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Authors:
Katie Leichliter
Gunnar Gladics

This page left intentionally blank.

Prepared by:
University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab | Boise
306 S 6th St. Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl

IDL Director:
Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg

Authors:
Katie Leichliter
Gunnar Gladics

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
JBK-110

Please cite this report as follows: Leichliter, K., Gladics, G., &
Van Den Wymelenberg, K. (2013). Multifamily Incentive:
Measure Analysis, Year-End Report (1301_009-01). University of
Idaho Integrated Design Lab, Boise, ID.

DISCLAIMER
While the recommendations in this report have been reviewed for
technical accuracy and are believed to be reasonably accurate, the
findings are estimates and actual results may vary. All energy
savings and cost estimates included in the report are for
informational purposes only and are not to be construed as design
documents or as guarantees of energy or cost savings. The user of
this report, or any information contained in this report, should
independently evaluate any information, advice, or direction
provided in this report.
THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO MAKES NO
REPRESENTATIONS, EXTENDS NO WARRANTIES OF ANY
KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT
NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE WITH
RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO ANY RECOMMEDATIONS OR FINDINGS,
CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY
ADDITIONALLY DISCLAIMS ALL OBLIGATIONS AND
LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF UNIVERSITY FOR
DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DIRECT,
INDIRECT, SPECIAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES,
ATTORNEYS’ AND EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS
(EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBLITIY OF SUCH DAMAGES, FEES OR COSTS),
ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
MANUFACTURE, USE OR SALE OF THE INFORMATION,
RESULT(S), PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S) AND PROCESSES
PROVIDED BY THE UNIVERSITY. THE USER ASSUMES
ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR
DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE USE, SALE, OR OTHER
DISPOSITION BY THE USER OF PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S),
OR (PROCESSES) INCORPORATING OR MADE BY USE OF
THIS REPORT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN CONNECTION WITH THIS
REPORT OR THE INSTALLATION OF RECOMMENDED
MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN.

This page left intentionally blank.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2
2. Objective ................................................................................................................................................ 2
3. Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 2
3.1. Baseline ..................................................................................................................................... 3
3.2. Measures .................................................................................................................................... 4
4. Research ................................................................................................................................................. 5
4.1. Literature Review ...................................................................................................................... 6
4.2. Ada County Market Survey ....................................................................................................... 6
4.3. Current Market Trends ............................................................................................................ 10
5. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 10
6. Next Steps............................................................................................................................................. 11
7. References ............................................................................................................................................ 11
8. Appendices ........................................................................................................................................... 12
8.1. Appendix A: Cost Data ........................................................................................................... 12
8.2. Appendix B: Simulation Data ................................................................................................. 13
8.3. Appendix C: Current IPC Analysis Tables ............................................................................. 16
8.4. Appendix D: Existing Multifamily Programs ......................................................................... 23

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2013 Multifamily Measure Analysis, Year End Report (Report #1301_009-01)

1. INTRODUCTION
The work outlined in this report stemmed from research done for Idaho Power Company
(IPC) in 2012 by the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL). The culmination of
the 2012 work was a paper titled Multifamily Incentives, Literature Review (Report #120748-01),
which found incentive measures in the multifamily sector to be deficient nationwide. The
literature suggested that savings potential exists in many regions, including the IPC service
territory, through the implementation of incentive programs targeting the multifamily sector.
2. OBJECTIVE
The goal of this project, as outlined in the 2013 scope of work, was to provide
information regarding achievable savings through the multifamily measures outlined in the 2012
literature review. Other deliverables requested for the project included a tool or guideline for
program measures, incremental cost data, organization of a stakeholders’ meeting, a written
report summarizing findings, and assistance to IPC during program implementation. The scope
of work shifted and eliminated the stakeholders’ meeting and tool development so that more
resources could be dedicated to market assessment as well as savings and cost data refinement.
3. METHODS
In order to develop a multifamily incentive program, it was first necessary to predict
savings on a per measure basis. This was done by means of an existing building simulation
model of a new multifamily housing project, developed by Tim Johnson at CTA Architects.
Simulation data regarding building information inputs, modeling methods, and results are
detailed in the report Idaho Power Multifamily Housing Pilot Incentive Program Study (Johnson,
2013). Some information regarding the baseline model is summarized in the following section.
Construction cost data for each of the measures were provided by Steed Construction and
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2013 Multifamily Measure Analysis, Year End Report (Report #1301_009-01)

formatted as incremental cost above a baseline price. Information regarding references and
assumptions for costing can be seen in report titled Multifamily Budgetary Incremental Cost
Analysis (Cabaltera, 2013). The most recent cost data can be seen in Appendix A: Cost Data.
Cost values could be determined to separate the incremental costs associated with heating and
cooling equipment. This would provide a means to analyze heating and cooling savings
separately.
3.1. Baseline
The simulation model used for savings predictions was of a new two-story housing
project, approximately 39,000 ft2, with 40 two-bedroom apartments of about 950 ft2 each. A total
of six baselines were used for this study, summarized in Table 1, which included three different
HVAC baselines for Idaho Power climate zones 5B and 6B. Both envelope and HVAC values
for the baselines were equal to the code minimum values required by Chapter 4, Residential
Energy Efficiency, of the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). According to
the 2009 IECC, the residential code may be used for low-rise (one to three stories) houses,
condos, and apartments, (building type R-3 or type R-2 or R-4 and three stories or less). A
complete list of simulation baseline inputs and assumptions, including the reference for each, can
be seen in Table 5 in Appendix B: Simulation Data. Simulation results data can also be viewed in
Appendix B: Simulation Data in Table 6, Table 7, and Table 8 .
Table 1: Summary of Simulation Baselines
ID # Baseline Description
BASE-A Electric Furnace/DX Cool (SEER=13) (Zone 5B)
BASE-B Electric Baseboards/DX Cool (SEER=13) (Zone 5B)
BASE-C Gas Furnace/DX Cool (SEER=13) (Zone 5B)
BASE-D Electric Furnace/DX Cool (SEER=13) (Zone 6B)
BASE-E Electric Baseboards/DX Cool (SEER=13) (Zone 6B)
BASE-F Gas Furnace/DX Cool (SEER=13) (Zone 6B)
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
2013 Multifamily Measure Analysis, Year End Report (Report #1301_009-01)

3.2. Measures
Mechanical, envelope, and appliance upgrades were investigated in this study. The
measures investigated were chosen based on the information in the previous literature review.
The mechanical and envelope savings were calculated by means of the building simulation and
the appliance savings were taken from Regional Technical Forum (RTF) data. Table 2 and Table
3 below summarize the measures investigated.
Table 2: HVAC & Envelope Measures (Savings from Simulation)
ID # Measure
M1.1a Split DX w/ Elec. Furnace (SEER=14.5)
M1.1b Split DX w/ Elec. Furnace (SEER=15)
M1.1c Split DX w/ Elec. Furnace (SEER≥16)
M1.2a Split DX w/ Gas Furnace (SEER=14.5)
M1.2b Split DX w/ Gas Furnace (SEER=15)
M1.2c Split DX w/ Gas Furnace (SEER=16)
M1.3a Packaged DX w/ Elec. Heat (SEER=14.5)
M1.3b Packaged DX w/ Elec. Heat (SEER≥15)
M1.3c Packaged DX w/ Elec. Heat (SEER≥16)
M1.4a Packaged DX w/ Gas Heat (SEER=14.5)
M1.4b Packaged DX w/ Gas Heat (SEER≥15)
M1.4c Packaged DX w/ Gas Heat (SEER≥16)
M1.5a Split Air-Source HP (SEER=14.5 & HSPF=8.5)
M1.5b Split Air-Source HP (SEER≥15 & HSPF≥8.5)
M1.6a Packaged Air-Source HP (SEER=14 & HSPF=8)
M1.6b Packaged Air-Source HP (SEER≥14.5 & HSPF≥8)
M1.7 Packaged Terminal AC w/ Elec. Heat
M2.1 Windows U-value=0.30
M2.2 Windows SHGC=0.30
M2.3 Windows U-value=0.30, SHGC=0.30
M3 Energy Management System (not used)
M4 Reflective Roofing (Reflect. = 0.45)

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 5
2013 Multifamily Measure Analysis, Year End Report (Report #1301_009-01)

Table 3: Appliance Measures (Savings from RTF)
ID # Measure
M5.1 ENERGY STAR® Clothes Washer
M5.2 MEF 2.4 or Higher Clothes Washer
M5.3 MEF 2.46 or Higher Clothes Washer
M5.4 MEF 3.1 or Higher Clothes Washer
M6.1 ENERGY STAR Dishwasher
M6.2 CEE Tier 1 Dishwasher
M7.1 ENERGY STAR Refrigerator
M7.2 CEE Tier 1 Refrigerator
M7.3 CEE Tier 2 Refrigerator
M7.4 CEE Tier 3 Refrigerator
M8.1 ENERGY STAR Freezer
M8.2 ENERGY STAR Tier 3 Freezer
M8.3 ENERGY STAR Tier 5 Freezer

The information gathered from both the simulations as well as the RTF data included the
following items.
 Heating energy savings (kWh and Therms)
 Direct cooling energy savings (kWh)
 Indirect cooling energy savings (kWh)
 Total electricity savings (kWh)
 Electricity cost savings ($)
 Natural gas cost savings ($)
 Total cost savings ($)
These values, along with the incremental cost increase of each measure, were submitted
to IPC for cost effectiveness analysis. A table for each baseline containing these values is
included in Appendix C: Current IPC Analysis Tables.
4. RESEARCH
As multiple refinements of the analysis package were submitted, it became evident that
more research and refinement of energy savings and cost data were needed to determine the best
methods for achieving a cost-effective multifamily incentive program. The following sections
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 6
2013 Multifamily Measure Analysis, Year End Report (Report #1301_009-01)

outline further information relevant to multifamily programs, in general, as well as Idaho-
specific data.
4.1. Literature Review
As part of the 2013 scope of work, research was continued on current multifamily
incentive programs and best practices. It was found that although the issues, such as high initial
costs and split incentives (owner/tenant), continue to be a challenge for all programs, there are
numerous multifamily incentive programs across the nation today. However, after reviewing
many of these programs, it was evident that most include natural gas incentive components,
either as a dual-fuel utility or coordination between two or more single fuel utilities. Also, a
majority of the programs focused on existing building projects. Although some included both
existing and new, no programs targeted only new buildings. See Appendix D for a summary of
these programs. The reports Engaging as Partners in Energy Efficiency: A Primer for Utilities
on the Energy Efficiency Needs of Multifamily Buildings and Their Owners (McKibbin, 2013)
and Apartment Hunters: Programs Searching for Energy Savings in Multifamily Buildings
(Johnson, K., 2013) both list best practices for utility incentive programs including financing
options, utility coordination efforts, and targeting low-income markets.
4.2. Ada County Market Survey
To better understand the current multifamily market within IPC territory as well as the
baseline equipment for this incentive study, a brief analysis of the Ada County Area Apartment
Survey (January 2012) was done. The survey participants included 184 different multifamily
complexes constructed in Ada County between 1900 and the present, which contain 1,332
buildings and a total of 13,698 living units. The author estimated this to include about 50 percent
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7
2013 Multifamily Measure Analysis, Year End Report (Report #1301_009-01)

of the actual Ada county multifamily sector. The survey indicated the type of heating used,
which was divided into seven categories for the analysis:
 gas forced-air
 geothermal
 electric resistance
 electric forced-air
 both electric resistance and electric forced-air
 both electric resistance and gas forced-air
 central boiler
If the heating was classified as electric, the likelihood of on-site natural gas utilities was
determined by the types of other amenities present. For instance, it was deemed that if a fireplace
or a “pool or spa” were indicated, the property was marked for possible gas utility inclusion.
Figure 1 shows the breakdown of heating type and the possibility of a gas connection, based on
the 2012 Ada County survey. Figure 2 and Figure 3 show that even with the availability of
natural gas in Ada County, between 20 to 66 percent of existing units do not use natural gas, and
only 34 percent of units use natural gas as the primary heating source.
Figure 1: Breakdown of Heating Type and Possibility of Gas Connection of Existing Units

0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Gas Forced Air Geothermal Electrical Resistance Electric Forced Air Electrical Resistance &
Electric Forced Air
Gas Forced Air &
Electrical Resistance
Central Boiler Nu
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

L
i
v
i
n
g

U
n
i
t
s

Heating Type and Likelihood of Gas Utility Onsite
Gas Connection Possible
Electric Only
Gas Present
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8
2013 Multifamily Measure Analysis, Year End Report (Report #1301_009-01)

Figure 2: Possibility of Gas Connection of Existing Units

Figure 3: Space Heating Type of Existing Units

Figure 4: Heating Type by Decade of Existing Units

34%
20%
46%
Gas Present
Electric Only
Gas Connection
Possible
32%
1% 29%
35%
1% 1% 1% Gas Forced Air
Geothermal
Electrical Resistance
Electric Forced Air
Electrical Resistance & Electric Forced Air Gas Forced Air &
Electrical Resistance Central Boiler
100%
7% 4%
46% 38% 44%
100% 100% 100%
25%
82%
18%
13%
16%
9%
10%
36% 49% 39%
29%
1%
16%
3%
14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
%
o
f

E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

L
i
v
i
n
g

U
n
i
t
s

Heating Type by Decade
Central Boiler
Gas Forced Air &
Electrical Resistance
Electrical Resistance &
Electric Forced Air
Electric Forced Air
Electrical Resistance
Geothermal
Gas Forced Air
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
2013 Multifamily Measure Analysis, Year End Report (Report #1301_009-01)

A similar breakdown of heating type by decade built is shown in Figure 4. It can be seen
between 1980 and 2009 the heating type distributions appear somewhat steady. For those past
three decades as a whole, 41 percent of new multifamily facilities constructed had gas forced-air
heating, 15 percent had electrical resistance, and 44 percent had electric forced-air. Figure 5
below shows the percentage of units installed with electric heat vs. another fuel source by year,
starting in 1970. The values on the columns represent the total number of units with each fuel
type built that year. Considering the survey was limited to properties within Ada County, it is
assumed natural gas was accessible during design and construction phases for most projects. The
trend since 1970 appears to be an increase in natural gas or other fuel installations with a
decrease in electric heating equipment.
Figure 5: Electric Only Heating vs. Another Fuel Source by Year Built

The above data was provided only for rental or tenant occupied units in the Ada county
area and no data were found describing the current or past characteristics of owner occupied or
12
0

30
7

63
7

12
4

13
6

56

16
7

23
9

53
3

19
8

20

98

18

14

39
1

63

40

56

35
2

54
9

30
1

28
0

24
8

11
0
0

52
4

30
3

27
4

59
8

24
1

29
9

49

17
1

43

16

71

25

20

58

29
9

24
0

33
8

24

59
2

41
2

36
3

15
2

16

85

25
8

30
8

24
1

72

16
4

32
9

19
2

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
19
7
0

19
7
2

19
7
4

19
7
6

19
7
8

19
8
0

19
8
2

19
8
4

19
8
6

19
8
8

19
9
0

19
9
2

19
9
4

19
9
6

19
9
8

20
0
0

20
0
2

20
0
4

20
0
6

20
0
8

20
1
0

Year Built
Percent of Units with Electric Heating or Other Fuel by Year Built
Electric Only Heating Other Heating Fuel
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10
2013 Multifamily Measure Analysis, Year End Report (Report #1301_009-01)

condo type units in IPC territory. Further market assessment work would be needed to
characterize these owner occupied properties.
4.3. Current Market Trends
An informal survey was carried out to try to determine current market trends in the Boise
area. Contact was made with three architects or contractors who were currently in the planning or
building stages of multifamily projects. Two of the projects discussed were designed as rental
units, and the third was in development as condominium units for sale. Both of the proposed
rental units were designed with air source heat pumps as the main heating and cooling systems.
The condominium project had not yet finalized plans regarding mechanical unit installation;
however, the point of contact suggested that a gas furnace with DX cooling was likely, and air
source heat pumps were also under consideration. Investigation of installation plans of additional
projects was attempted; however, no further responses were received.
5. CONCLUSIONS
This multifamily incentive measure project consisted of energy savings estimates by
means of an energy simulation model from CTA Architects, incremental cost analyses from
Steed Construction, a literature review, and analysis of the 2012 Ada County multifamily survey.
The values were organized and submitted to IPC for analysis. However, due to market research
showing a trend of gas heat installations within the target area, it was determined gas heating
would be the likely baseline for new construction projects and only cooling savings should be
considered for cost effective analysis under Idaho Power’s current guidelines. For this reason, an
additional set of incremental costing values would be needed to separate out cooling and heating
cost values.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11
2013 Multifamily Measure Analysis, Year End Report (Report #1301_009-01)

6. NEXT STEPS
The continuation of the project and a multifamily incentive program is dependent on the
IPC analysis results. Cost effectiveness calculations could be performed by IPC for the current
tables found in Appendix C: Current IPC Analysis Tables, as well as on any subsequent costing
values received from Steed Construction.
If continued, the program could look at incentives from an existing electric-only building
perspective, using a pre-1980 baseline or similar. Other strategies for building a multifamily
program could include a more in depth look at published best practices as mentioned above.
7. REFERENCES
Cabaltera, Meir. 2013. Multifamily Budgetary Incremental Cost Analysis, Steed Construction,
Boise, ID.
Day, J., Bedke, M. & Gladics, G. 2012. Multifamily Incentives, Literature Review 120748-01,
Integrated Design Lab, University of Idaho, Boise, ID.
Johnson, Kate. 2013. Apartment Hunters: Programs Searching for Energy Savings in
Multifamily Buildings, Report Number E13N, American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy, Washington, DC.
Johnson, Tim. 2013. Idaho Power Multifamily Housing Pilot Incentive Program Study, CTA
Architects, Boise, ID.
McKibbin, Anne. 2013. Engaging as Partners in Energy Efficiency: A Primer for Utilities on the
Energy Efficiency Needs of Multifamily Buildings and Their Owners, CNT Energy, Chicago, IL.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 12
2013 Multifamily Measure Analysis, Year End Report (Report #1301_009-01)

8. APPENDICES
8.1. Appendix A: Cost Data
Cost data as of November 4, 2013 are shown below. Updated cost data, in which the
cooling-only costs are listed separately, was received by the end of 2013. If analysis of these
values yields different results, incentive development could continue.
Table 4: Mechanical Cost Data per Unit (Values Used to Calculate Incremental Costs)
Cost Data from Steed (11/4/13) Total cost per
living unit
BASE-B Electric Baseboards/DX Cool (SEER=13) $ 9,415
BASE-A Electric Furnace/DX Cool (SEER=13) $ 8,955
M1.1a Split DX w/ Elec. Furnace (SEER=14.5) $ 9,345
M1.1b Split DX w/ Elec. Furnace (SEER=15) $ 9,545
M1.1c Split DX w/ Elec. Furnace (SEER≥16) $ 9,750
BASE-C Gas Furnace/DX Cool (SEER=13) $ 9,020
M1.2a Split DX w/ Gas Furnace (SEER=14.5) $ 9,410
M1.2b Split DX w/ Gas Furnace (SEER=15) $ 9,610
M1.2c Split DX w/ Gas Furnace (SEER=16) $ 9,815
M1.3a Packaged DX w/ Elec. Heat (SEER=14.5) $ 8,949
M1.3b Packaged DX w/ Elec. Heat (SEER≥15) $ 9,099
M1.3c Packaged DX w/ Elec. Heat (SEER≥16) N/A
M1.4a Packaged DX w/ Gas Heat (SEER=14.5) $ 9,014
M1.4b Packaged DX w/ Gas Heat (SEER≥15) $ 9,164
M1.4c Packaged DX w/ Gas Heat (SEER≥16) $ 9,839
M1.5a Split Air-Source HP (SEER=14.5 & HSPF=8.5) $ 9,790
M1.5b Split Air-Source HP (SEER≥15 & HSPF≥8.5) $ 10,270
M1.6a Packaged Air-Source HP (SEER=14 & HSPF=8) $ 8,965
M1.6b Packaged Air-Source HP (SEER≥14.5 & HSPF≥8) $ 9,340
M1.7 Packaged Terminal AC w/ Elec Heat N/A

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 13
2013 Multifamily Measure Analysis, Year End Report (Report #1301_009-01)

8.2. Appendix B: Simulation Data
Below is a table of all the assumptions used for the six baseline models:
Table 5: Baseline Simulation Inputs and Assumptions

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 14
2013 Multifamily Measure Analysis, Year End Report (Report #1301_009-01)

Simulation results for HVAC baselines and upgrade measures are in Table 6 for climate
zone 5B and Table 7 for climate zone 6B. Simulation results for envelope measures are in Table
8.
Table 6: Simulation Results for ASHRAE Climate Zone 5B (Combined Use for 40-Unit Facility)

Mechanical System Elec. kBtu Gas kBtu Total kBtu
BASE-A Electric Furnace/DX Cool (SEER=13) (Zone 5B) 1,371,497 - 1,371,497
BASE-B Electric Baseboards/DX Cool (SEER=13) (Zone 5B) 1,374,854 - 1,374,854
BASE-C Gas Furnace/DX Cool (SEER=13) (Zone 5B) 806,821 1,058,600 1,865,421
M1.1a Split DX w/ Elec. Furnace (SEER=14.5) 1,360,114 - 1,360,114
M1.1b Split DX w/ Elec. Furnace (SEER=15) 1,356,913 - 1,356,913
M1.1c Split DX w/ Elec. Furnace (SEER≥16) 1,351,194 - 1,351,194
M1.2a Split DX w/ Gas Furnace (SEER=14.5) 795,459 1,058,600 1,854,059
M1.2b Split DX w/ Gas Furnace (SEER=15) 792,265 1,058,600 1,850,865
M1.2c Split DX w/ Gas Furnace (SEER=16) 786,560 1,058,600 1,845,160
M1.3a Packaged DX w/ Elec. Heat (SEER=14.5) 1,366,924 - 1,366,924
M1.3b Packaged DX w/ Elec. Heat (SEER≥15) 1,363,461 - 1,363,461
M1.3c Packaged DX w/ Elec. Heat (SEER≥16) 1,354,538 - 1,354,538
M1.4a Packaged DX w/ Gas Heat (SEER=14.5) 798,915 1,058,600 1,857,515
M1.4b Packaged DX w/ Gas Heat (SEER≥15) 795,459 1,058,600 1,854,059
M1.4c Packaged DX w/ Gas Heat (SEER≥16) 786,560 1,058,600 1,845,160
M1.5a Split Air-Source HP (SEER=14.5 & HSPF=8.5) 1,158,023 - 1,158,023
M1.5b Split Air-Source HP (SEER≥15 & HSPF≥8.5) 1,153,642 - 1,153,642
M1.6a Packaged Air-Source HP (SEER=14 & HSPF=8) 1,166,035 - 1,166,035
M1.6b Packaged Air-Source HP (SEER≥14.5 & HSPF≥8) 1,161,299 - 1,161,299
M1.7 Packaged Terminal AC w/ Elec. Heat 1,374,854 - 1,374,854

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 15
2013 Multifamily Measure Analysis, Year End Report (Report #1301_009-01)

Table 7: Simulation Results for ASHRAE Climate Zone 6B (Combined Use for 40-Unit Facility)
Mechanical System Elec. kBtu Gas kBtu Total kBtu
BASE-D Electric Furnace/DX Cool (SEER=13) (Zone 6B) 1,518,127 - 1,518,127
BASE-E Electric Baseboards/DX Cool (SEER=13) (Zone 6B) 1,523,818 - 1,523,818
BASE-F Gas Furnace/DX Cool (SEER=13) (Zone 6B) 791,132 1,290,300 2,081,432
M1.1a Split DX w/ Elec. Furnace (SEER=14.5) 1,508,579 - 1,508,579
M1.1b Split DX w/ Elec. Furnace (SEER=15) 1,505,894 - 1,505,894
M1.1c Split DX w/ Elec. Furnace (SEER≥16) 1,501,100 - 1,501,100
M1.2a Split DX w/ Gas Furnace (SEER=14.5) 781,612 1,290,300 2,071,912
M1.2b Split DX w/ Gas Furnace (SEER=15) 778,934 1,290,300 2,069,234
M1.2c Split DX w/ Gas Furnace (SEER=16) 774,154 1,290,300 2,064,454
M1.3a Packaged DX w/ Elec. Heat (SEER=14.5) 1,517,199 - 1,517,199
M1.3b Packaged DX w/ Elec. Heat (SEER≥15) 1,514,305 - 1,514,305
M1.3c Packaged DX w/ Elec. Heat (SEER≥16) 1,506,856 - 1,506,856
M1.4a Packaged DX w/ Gas Heat (SEER=14.5) 784,506 1,290,300 2,074,806
M1.4b Packaged DX w/ Gas Heat (SEER≥15) 781,612 1,290,300 2,071,912
M1.4c Packaged DX w/ Gas Heat (SEER≥16) 774,154 1,290,300 2,064,454
M1.5a Split Air-Source HP (SEER=14.5 & HSPF=8.5) 1,144,733 - 1,144,733
M1.5b Split Air-Source HP (SEER≥15 & HSPF≥8.5) 1,140,379 - 1,140,379
M1.6a Packaged Air-Source HP (SEER=14 & HSPF=8) 1,152,406 - 1,152,406
M1.6b Packaged Air-Source HP (SEER≥14.5 & HSPF≥8) 1,147,698 - 1,147,698
M1.7 Packaged Terminal AC w/ Elec. Heat 1,523,818 - 1,523,818

Table 8: Simulation Results for Envelope Measures (Combined Use for 40-Unit Facility)

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 16
2013 Multifamily Measure Analysis, Year End Report (Report #1301_009-01)

8.3. Appendix C: Current IPC Analysis Tables
The following seven tables show the most up-to-date (December 23, 2013) compilations for the savings values used by IPC
analysts. An excel version of these is attached with this report.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 17
2013 Multifamily Measure Analysis, Year End Report (Report #1301_009-01)

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 18
2013 Multifamily Measure Analysis, Year End Report (Report #1301_009-01)

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 19
2013 Multifamily Measure Analysis, Year End Report (Report #1301_009-01)

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 20
2013 Multifamily Measure Analysis, Year End Report (Report #1301_009-01)

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 21
2013 Multifamily Measure Analysis, Year End Report (Report #1301_009-01)

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 22
2013 Multifamily Measure Analysis, Year End Report (Report #1301_009-01)

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 23
2013 Multifamily Measure Analysis, Year End Report (Report #1301_009-01)

8.4. Appendix D: Existing Multifamily Programs
The table below summarizes existing multifamily programs that were researched during the literature review for this project.
Existing Multifamily Program Electric Utilities Gas Utilities Elec & Gas Utilities
Other
Organizations
involved
Audit? Existing/New
CNT Energy and Community Investment Corporation — Energy Savers ComEd Peoples, North Shore, Nicor Community Invest. Corp., CNT Energy Y Existing
Low-Income Energy Affordability Network (LEAN) and the Massachusetts Utilities — Low-Income Multifamily Retrofit Program
Western Massachusetts Columbia, Berkshire, Blackstone, New England
National Grid, Nstar, Unitil Cape Light Compact Y Existing
Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G) Residential Multi-Family Program PSE&G Existing
Puget Sound Energy (PSE) Existing Multifamily Building Program PSE Y Existing
Austin Energy Power Saver Multifamily Rebates Austin Energy Y Existing, possibly new
Energy Trust of Oregon Existing or New Construction Multifamily Programs Portland General, Pacific
Power
NW Natural, Cascade Energy Trust of Oregon N Both
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA)
Multifamily Performance Program
Central Hudson, ConEd, NYSEG,
Rochester, National Grid, Orange and Rockland
Y Both
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) Multifamily Home Performance Program SMUD Y Existing
Efficiency Vermont Market-Rate and Low Income Multifamily Retrofit Programs Not specified Not specified Not specified Efficiency Vermont Both
CenterPoint Energy Low-Income Multifamily Bonus Rebates CenterPoint Suppliers CenterPoint Suppliers CenterPoint Energy N Existing
Arizona Public Service (APS) Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program APS Suppliers APS Y Both
Indianapolis Power and Light Company and Citizens Gas Indianapolis Power and Light Citizens N Existing

Report Number: 1301_007-05

2013 TOOL LOAN LIBRARY
ACTIVITY SUMMARY
YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2013

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Author:
Brad Acker

This page left intentionally blank.

Prepared by:
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab | Boise
306 S 6th St. Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl

IDL Director:
Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg

Author:
Brad Acker

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
JBK-110

Please cite this report as follows: Acker, B. (2013). 2013Tool
Loan Library, Year End Report (1301_007-05). University of Idaho
Integrated Design Lab, Boise, ID.

DISCLAIMER
While the recommendations in this report have been reviewed for
technical accuracy and are believed to be reasonably accurate, the
findings are estimates and actual results may vary. All energy
savings and cost estimates included in the report are for
informational purposes only and are not to be construed as design
documents or as guarantees of energy or cost savings. The user of
this report, or any information contained in this report, should
independently evaluate any information, advice, or direction
provided in this report.
THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO MAKES NO
REPRESENTATIONS, EXTENDS NO WARRANTIES OF ANY
KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT
NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE WITH
RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO ANY RECOMMEDATIONS OR FINDINGS,
CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY
ADDITIONALLY DISCLAIMS ALL OBLIGATIONS AND
LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF UNIVERSITY FOR
DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DIRECT,
INDIRECT, SPECIAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES,
ATTORNEYS’ AND EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS
(EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBLITIY OF SUCH DAMAGES, FEES OR COSTS),
ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
MANUFACTURE, USE OR SALE OF THE INFORMATION,
RESULT(S), PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S) AND PROCESSES
PROVIDED BY THE UNIVERSITY. THE USER ASSUMES
ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR
DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE USE, SALE, OR OTHER
DISPOSITION BY THE USER OF PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S),
OR (PROCESSES) INCORPORATING OR MADE BY USE OF
THIS REPORT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN CONNECTION WITH THIS
REPORT OR THE INSTALLATION OF RECOMMENDED
MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN.

This page left intentionally blank.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Marketing .............................................................................................................................................. 3
3. Loan Statics Year-End Summary .......................................................................................................... 5
4. Web Page Work in 2013 ..................................................................................................................... 12
5. Quarterly Activities ............................................................................................................................. 13
7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 15
7.1. Appendix A-Equipment List ................................................................................................... 15

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2013 Tool Loan Library, Year-End Report (Report #1301_007-05)

1. INTRODUCTION
The Tool Loan Library (TLL) is a resource supported by Idaho Power Company (IPC)
and managed by the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL). The primary goal of
the TLL is to help customers with energy efficiency (EE) needs through the use of sensors and
loggers deployed in buildings of various types. Loans are provided to individuals or businesses at
no charge to the customer. Over 900 individual pieces of equipment are available for loan
through the TLL. The equipment is focused on measurement parameters to quantify key factors
related to building and equipment energy use, and factors which can affect worker productivity.
A list of equipment along with the category and/or the parameters the equipment is able to
measure is listed in Appendix A-Equipment List.
The loan process is started when a customer fills out the tool loan proposal form, which is
found on the TLL webpage (http://www.idlboise.com/tool-loan-library). When completing a tool
loan proposal, the customer gives basic background information on the customer, project, and
data measurement requirements and goals. When a proposal is submitted, UI-IDL staff members
are alerted of a pending proposal via email. The customer and a staff member communicate to
verify and finalize equipment needs. Tools are picked up at the UI-IDL or shipped at the
customer’s expense.
The TLL at the UI-IDL is modeled after the Lending Library at the Pacific Energy
Center, which is supported by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). Research suggests that the
PG&E and the UI-IDL library are the only two public tool-lending libraries in the country.
During 2013, representatives from Duke Energy, Avista, and the Bonneville Power
Administration contacted UI-IDL staff members with questions about the effectiveness and
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2013 Tool Loan Library, Year-End Report (Report #1301_007-05)

function of the TLL. Key members of the UI-IDL staff were in close contact with PG&E on
issues relating to library inventories, management, development, and growth.
2. MARKETING
Marketing was carried out in conjunction with various IPC and UI-IDL activities and
through the UI-IDL website. The TLL was promoted in presentations given by UI-IDL staff,
such as the Lunch and Learn Series, and lectures to professional organizations such as American
Society of Heating and Refrigeration Engineers (ASHRAE), American Institute of Architects
(AIA), International Building Operators Association (IBOA), and U.S. Green Building Council
(USGBC). UI-IDL staff members gave and sponsored various EE presentations, which provided
additional TLL marketing opportunities. The marketing flyer was available at these educational
events. The two-sided marketing flyer has been revised twice: the current version is in Figure 1.
Marketing via the flyer was an effective way to increase awareness of the TLL at various events.
The UI-IDL website is where individuals can view the available tools and submit tool
request forms. The 2013 scope of work improved the back-end capabilities of the website by
providing a dynamic database to check out tools and assign them to specific loans, to track due
dates, and to generate data on tool and customer utilization.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
2013 Tool Loan Library, Year-End Report (Report #1301_007-05)

Figure 1: Tool Loan Library Flyer

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 5
2013 Tool Loan Library, Year-End Report (Report #1301_007-05)

3. LOAN STATICS YEAR-END SUMMARY
Figure 2 shows the number of loans requested per month from January 1, 2013 to
December 31, 2013. While monthly checkouts varied, the trend of increasing tool loans can more
clearly be seen in the quarterly loans chart in Figure 3. It appears that this trend illustrates the
effect of increased marketing and general awareness by the community.
Figure 2: History of Loans per Month

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 6
2013 Tool Loan Library, Year-End Report (Report #1301_007-05)

Figure 3: History of Loans per Quarter

Table 1 shows a summary of all loan requests conducted in 2013. The table lists the
start/end dates, location, types of loggers used, project type, date completed, and whether data on
the loan were available. Loans that list “No” for the data category typically indicate loans in
which the types of data collected were not deemed important for archiving purposes.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7
2013 Tool Loan Library, Year-End Report (Report #1301_007-05)

Table 1: Loans for 2013
# Start Date Location Type of Loggers Project
Type
Date
Completed Data
1 1/14/2013 Garden City Power Research 1/28/2013 No
2 1/21/2013 Meridian Temperature Cx 1/28/2013 No
3 1/24/2013 Boise Current Audit 2/21/2013 Avail.
4 2/6/2013 Boise Temp/HR, Pressure,
Light
Cx 2/16/2013 No
5 2/15/2013 Burley Power Audit 3/22/2013 Yes
6 2/28/2013 Boise IR Camera Audit 2/28/2013 No
7 1/14/2013 Garden City Power Research 3/19/2013 No
8 3/27/2013 Boise Fluid Flow/Temp Research 4/1/2013 Yes
9 4/3/2013 Boise Fluid Flow/Temp Cx 4/8/2013 Yes
10 4/30/2013 Nampa Power, Temperature Audit 5/10/2013 Yes
11 6/3/2013 Boise Thermo-Anemometer Audit 6/5/2013 No
12 6/11/2013 Boise Power Audit 7/18/2013 Yes
13 6/20/2013 Boise Current Transformers Audit 7/12/2013 Avail.
14 6/20/2013 Moscow Current Transformers Audit 9/9/2013 Yes
15 6/20/2013 Twin Falls Dent Power Meters Post 9/4/2013 Avail.
16 7/2/2013 Boise Power Meter and C/Ts
(1 set up)
Baseline 7/23/2013 Yes
17 7/23/2013 Boise Power Baseline 8/2/2013 Yes
18 7/23/2013 Boise Temp/RH, Light,
Current
Audit 8/13/2013 Avail.
19 8/2/2013 Boise Temp/RH, Current Cx 8/16/2013 Yes
20 8/7/2013 Boise Light Meter Cx 8/8/2013 No
21 8/12/2013 Boise Temp/RH Research Ongoing Yes
22 8/26/2013 Boise Temp/RH Research Ongoing Yes
23 8/27/2013 Boise Current Baseline Ongoing Yes
24 9/12/2013 Boise Flow Baseline 10/28/2013 No
25 9/26/2013 Twin Falls Power Audit 10/18/2013 Avail.
26 10/28/2013 Twin Falls Sound Level Cx 10/21/2013 No
27 10/31/2013 Springfield Fluid Flow Cx 11/15/2013 No
28 11/7/2013 Jerome Power Audit 11/14/2013 Avail.
29 11/11/2013 Jackson, WY. Airflow Meter Cx 11/18/2013 No
30 11/13/2013 Gooding Temp/RH, State, IR,
Spot Readings
Audit 12/12/2013 Avail.
31 11/18/2013 Jerome Power, Flow Audit 12/20/2013 Avail.
32 11/21/2013 Boise Current, Spot
Readings
Audit Ongoing Avail.
33 12/4/2013 Meridian Flow Hood Research Ongoing No

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8
2013 Tool Loan Library, Year-End Report (Report #1301_007-05)

The project type was categorized as Audit, Cx (commissioning), Baseline, Post, or Other.
This category label was important because it identified how these tools were utilized and
informed how energy or power could be saved with the TLL.
The Audit category was assigned if it was clear that an energy audit was taking place.
Engineering firms and the University of Idaho/Boise State University collaborative Industrial
Assessment Center (IAC) were the major users in this category in 2013. One local building
operator performed two audit-type loans to determine the energy use of a data center in his
building.
The Cx category was assigned when the work was new construction or new equipment
commissioning-related work. The customers for Cx loans were engineers, equipment
representatives, or commissioning agents. Cx related loans were expected to verify energy
savings and proper setup of equipment, set points, and schedules.
The Baseline category was assigned when a customer had an existing equipment energy
efficiency measure (EEM) specified. It was not always evident whether customers moved
forward with implementation of EEMs, and they did not always return for additional loans.
The Post category was assigned if an initial loan was performed or if the customer stated
they had baseline data to compare. Only one Post loan was performed in 2013. The original loan
was from an energy audit performed by an engineering firm. One reason for a low number of
Post loans could be the relatively small, one-year, snapshot. Typical financial cycles associated
with most buildings allow capital improvements to be budgeted on a yearly basis. A one-year
date range may not be enough time to see customers return for Post logging loans. However, it
does show the forethought of energy efficiency as a driver in decision making.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
2013 Tool Loan Library, Year-End Report (Report #1301_007-05)

It seems prudent to track the Post category for multiple years to determine how the TLL
supports the whole lifecycle of a project. For example, an initial tool loan categorized as Audit
or Baseline could result in an operational or capital improvement that, upon implementation,
could result in a Post loan a year or two later.
The Other category was assigned for loans in which it was unclear if an EEM would be
implemented and is a catchall category. Oftentimes, customers just wanted to have data available
on equipment performance. Two customers conducted research on products to see if they met
specifications. One ongoing study is measuring moisture transfer through the walls of homes
constructed from straw bales and the data could be used to influence building codes for straw-
bale construction. Another loan which was labeled Other had the goal of determining hot water
use for a grocery store. The Other category is important as these loans could supply knowledge
and data to drive decisions based on energy efficiency.
Table 2 below shows a summary of the total number of loans in each category for 2013.
This information could be leveraged to evaluate and improve marketing efforts, and will be
discussed below.
Table 2: 2013 Loans by Category
Audit Cx Baseline Post Other
Total Loans 14 8 4 1 6

Figure 4 shows the number of loans in each category. A total of 33 loans were conducted
in 2013 to 20 individual users. Users with two or more loans made up 35% of the volume and the
remaining 65% of the loans were made to customers who used the library once during the year.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10
2013 Tool Loan Library, Year-End Report (Report #1301_007-05)

Figure 4: 2013 Loans by User

Table 3 shows the 20 individual users broken up into four user types. The 33 total loans
divided among these user types are shown.
Table 3: Loans by User Type
User Type Number of
Loans
Tool Types Loaned
Engineering Firm or Equipment Representative 19 Energy/Power Logger, IR Guns, IR Camera, Temp/RH Loggers,
Airflow/Pressure, Liquid Energy Flow, CO2, Sound Level, Signal Generator, Current Logging
University IAC (BSU and U of I) 6 IR Guns, IR Camera, Temp/RH
Loggers, Current Logging, Ultrasonic
Leak Detector, Air Flow
Direct to Manufacturing Plant 5 Airflow/Pressure, Energy/Power Loggers, Temp/RH
Direct to Office/Commercial Facility Manager 3 Energy/Power/Current Logging

Figure 5 shows the number of tools loaned in 2013. The y-axis is truncated due to the
high use of electrical power meters and Temp/RH/External channel data loggers. Data labels are
supplied above the columns to clearly indicate the number of times a tool type was loaned.
Figure 6 below shows the number of tools requested by month and the number of tools per loan.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11
2013 Tool Loan Library, Year-End Report (Report #1301_007-05)

Figure 5: Tools Loaned in 2013 by Category

Figure 6: Tools and Tools per Loan in 2013

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 12
2013 Tool Loan Library, Year-End Report (Report #1301_007-05)

4. WEB PAGE WORK IN 2013
The new web page was up and running on a test server as of October. Additional testing
is required to ensure that all requested features are present and working properly. If testing is
completed in early 2014, the new web page would be integrated with the existing main UI-IDL
web page. Users would have one log-in for both the main UI-IDL page and the TLL page.
The existing web page allows users to view all the tools the UI-IDL has available and to fill
out tool request forms. When a tool request form is submitted, staff members at the UI-IDL
receive an email alerting them of the request. All inventory-tracking of tools is done via an Excel
spreadsheet. The web page database does not have the ability to link specific tools to specific
loans and users.
Improvements to the TLL web page were a major focus in the 2013 scope of work. If the
new web page is implemented, improvements would include the ability to link tools that have
been checked out to specific proposals, and to track due dates of the tools. Reports could be
generated based on tools, proposals processed, and proposals by user. These reports could be
filtered by date range. The tools report could track how many times a tool has been checked out,
what tools are overdue, the durations of loans. The proposals report could summarize the number
of pending, approved, denied, and completed proposals over a selected time period. All reports
could be saved as .pdf or .csv files. Reports could be emailed to selected UI-IDL or IPC staff.
The dynamic database feature would allow searching of tools and proposals. The database would
have the ability to filter tools or proposals based on proposal number, tool barcode, user, tool
type, checkout date, due date, check in date, and status (checked in, checked out or overdue).
Also included would be the ability to select proposals based on a date range, and to convert
selected proposals into a .csv file with all fields in the original proposal.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 13
2013 Tool Loan Library, Year-End Report (Report #1301_007-05)

5. QUARTERLY ACTIVITIES
Figure 7 shows task activities by quarter with an additional bar to represent the yearly
percent of effort expended on that task. The 2013 scope of work had a focus on web page and
reporting improvements, which is supported by the data showing those two areas absorbing the
majority of effort, 59% for the yearly total.
Figure 7: Task Activities by Quarter

6. YEAR-END CONCLUSIONS
The TLL will enter its fourth year in 2014 and has moved beyond its developmental stage
into a growth and focused-improvement phase. Improvement could be made based on
information gathered on past activities. The total volume of loans would be expected to grow, so
the percentage of effort could shift from web page improvements to specific loan activities, as
seen in Figure 7: Task Activities by Quarter, above. Table 3: Loans by User Type shows that
previous marketing to engineering firms was effective, so the program may benefit from future
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 14
2013 Tool Loan Library, Year-End Report (Report #1301_007-05)

marketing efforts targeting property and facility managers who may be interested in doing direct
benchmarking of their facilities. With 65% of individual users conducting only one loan in 2013,
there may be an opportunity to identify barriers to repeated TLL use. To that end, a user survey
could be developed which could be emailed to previous users in hopes that their input would
further inform TLL improvements.
Over the past two years, much time was put into system and web page development.
Moving forward, less time would be needed for these activities. However, overhead activities
such as planning, reporting, inventory management, tool organization, new tool research, and
tool calibration would remain in place to support the primary functions of specific tool loans and
technical assistance. In the period of 2012/2013, these overhead and direct hours amounted to 7-
10 hours per loan (33 total loans in 2013). This number could be improved upon, perhaps into
the range of 4-6 hours per loan. This estimate is informed by communication with PG&E staff
who report conducting around 1,200 loans per year at 3-4 hours per loan.
In 2013, the TLL had 20 individual users. This number could be tracked with the goal of
increasing it each year. Perhaps adding a marketing focus on the building-operator segment
would improve the number of individual users.
Moving forward, web page front-end improvements could be added in the area of
examples of past loans, logging opportunities in different facility types, and elaborating on the
technical assistance available to TLL users.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 15
2013 Tool Loan Library, Year-End Report (Report #1301_007-05)

7. APPENDICES
7.1. Appendix A-Equipment List

Manufacturer Model Category/Measurement Parameter
Dwyer Instruments Magnehelic Guage, Pressure, Differential
Fluke Fluke PV350 Handheld Instrument Accessories, Multimeter Adapter,
Vacuum
Bjornax AB Handheld Instrument, Analyzing/Testing, Air Current
Tester, Smoke Pen
Retrotec Handheld Instrument, Analyzing/Testing, Air Current
Tester, Smoke Pen
Ideal 61-534 Handheld Instrument, Analyzing/Testing, Circuit Breaker
Finder
Fluke Fluke 43B Handheld Instrument, Analyzing/Testing, Power Quality
Analyzer, (Still and Motion)s, Line Voltage, Volts, Ohms
Dwyer Instruments ASG Handheld Instrument, Analyzing/Testing, Signal
Generator, Analog Signal
Monarch NOVA-STROBE BB115 Handheld Instrument, Analyzing/Testing, Stroboscope
(Battery Powered), Flashes/Min, Rev/Min
Raytek Raynger PM50,
RAYRPM5L3SZU-A84
Handheld Instrument, Logger, IR Thermometer, Temp
CEM DT-8852 Handheld Instrument, Logger, Sound Level, Decibel
Fluke Fluke 116 Handheld Instrument, Meter, AC/DC Multimeter, Amps,
Line Voltage, Volts, Ohms, Temp
DYNASONICS UFX Handheld Instrument, Meter, Flow Meter, Flow Rate
Extech EA33 with Memory Handheld Instrument, Meter, Light Meter, Luminance,
Illuminance
Extech 461891 Handheld Instrument, Meter, Tachometer (Contact),
Rev/in
Extech HD300 Handheld Instrument, Meter, Thermo-Anemometer,
CFM/CMM, Temp
Fluke Fluke i410 Handheld Instrument, Sensor, AC/DC Adapter-Clamp-On,
Amps
Fluke Fluke 62 Handheld Instrument, Sensor, IR Thermometer, Temp
Raytek MT2 Handheld Instrument, Sensor, IR Thermometer, Temp
GE Telaire Telaire 7001 with Onset
Cable
Handheld Instrument, Sensor, Monitor, CO2, Temperature
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 16
2013 Tool Loan Library, Year-End Report (Report #1301_007-05)

Manufacturer Model Category/Measurement Parameter
Sylvania QT 2X32/277 IS Lighting Accessories, Ballast, Instant Start
Philips Advance Mark 7 0-10V
IZT-2S32-SC
Lighting Accessories, Ballast, Programmed Start,
Dimmable
Electronic Educational
Devices
Logger, Logger Accessories, UO Cord Sets
Onset Computer
Corporation
Voltage Input Leadset Logger, Logger Accessories, Voltage Input Lead Set
Onset Computer
Corporation
Hobo U-Shuttle Logger, Logger Transporter
Electronic Educational
Devices
Watts Up? Pro ES Logger, Multi-Functional, Amps, Volts, Power Factor, Line
Power, Watts, Watt Hours, Cumulative Cost, more
Onset Computer
Corporation
Hobo H22-001, Energy
Logger Pro
Logger, Multi-Functional, External Channels
Onset Computer
Corporation
Hobo U12-006 Logger, Multi-Functional, External Channels
Onset Computer
Corporation
Hobo U12-008 Logger, Multi-Functional, External Channels, Outdoor
Dent Instruments ElitePro, High Memory Logger, Multi-Functional, Power, Amps, Volts, Power
Factor, Line Voltage
Dent Instruments ElitePro, Standard
Memory (512K)
Logger, Multi-Functional, Power, Amps, Volts, Power
Factor, Line Voltage
Dent Instruments ElitePro SP Power Meter Logger, Multi-Functional, Power, Amps, Volts, Power
Factor, Line Voltage, Watts, Kilowatt Hours, more
Onset Computer
Corporation
Hobo U8-003 Logger, Multi-Functional, Temp, RH
Monarch Track-It Mod #5396-
0201
Logger, Multi-Functional, Temp, RH
Onset Computer
Corporation
Hobo U12-013 Logger, Multi-Functional, Temp, RH, Extra Channels
Onset Computer
Corporation
Hobo U12-012 Logger, Multi-Functional, Temp, RH, Light, Extra Channels
Onset Computer
Corporation
Hobo U8-004 Logger, Multi-Functional, Temp, RH, Light, Extra Channels
Dent Instruments CONTACTlogger Logger, Single-Functional, Dry Contact
Dent Instruments MAGlogger Logger, Single-Functional, Magnetism
Onset Computer
Corporation
S-FS-CVIA Module, Flexsmart Analog, Extra Channels
Onset Computer
Corporation
S-FS-TRMSA Module, Flexsmart TRMS Converter, AC Current, AC
Voltage
Onset Computer
Corporation
S-FS-TRMSA-D Module, Flexsmart TRMS Converter, AC Current, AC
Voltage
Dent Instruments ELOG 2004 Software for
ElitePro
Office, Computer Software, ElitePro 2004
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 17
2013 Tool Loan Library, Year-End Report (Report #1301_007-05)

Manufacturer Model Category/Measurement Parameter
Dent Instruments SMARTware Software
for all SMARTloggers
Office, Computer Software, SMARTware
Toshiba Tecra M2V-S330, Office, Computer, Laptop
Lenovo ThinkPad T430 Office, Computer, Laptop
Lenovo X100e Office, Computer, Laptop
Samsung TabletGT-P5113TS Office, Computer, Tablet
Point Grey Camera
Omnitech Robotics
ORIVBF1 Photography (Still and Motion), Camera Accessories,
Filter.
Nikon AF Fisheye 10.5 mm Photography (Still and Motion), Camera Accessories, Lens,
Fisheye
Point Grey Camera
Omnitech Robotics
ORIFL190-3 Photography (Still and Motion), Camera Accessories, Lens,
Fisheye
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 12-24 mm Photography (Still and Motion), Camera Accessories, Lens,
Nikkor
RODE VIDEOMICPRO Photography (Still and Motion), Camera Accessories,
Microphone
Manfrotto Tripod Photography (Still and Motion), Camera Accessories,
Tripod.
Gear Tripod - "Baby" 14" to
36"
Photography (Still and Motion), Camera Accessories,
Tripod.
Heliodon Camera Heliodon Camera Photography (Still and Motion), Motion Camera, Heliodon
Olympus Camedia C-8080 Photography (Still and Motion), Still Camera, DLSR
Nikon D70S Photography (Still and Motion), Still Camera, DLSR
Fuji FinePix F550EXR 16
mega CMOS
Photography (Still and Motion), Still Camera, DLSR
FLIR E50BX Photography (Still and Motion), Still Camera, Thermal
Imaging
Dent Instruments CT-RMV-16-1000 RoCoil Sensor, CT, Flexible, 1000 Amp (Terminated)
Dent Instruments CT-FLN Sensor, CT, Flexible, 3000 Amp (Un-terminated)
Magnelab SCT-0400-020 Sensor, CT, Mini CT, 0-020 Amp
Dent Instruments CTHSC-050U Sensor, CT, Mini CT, 0-050 Amp
Magnelab SCT-0400-050 Sensor, CT, Mini CT, 0-050 Amp
Continental Control
Systems
ACT-0750-005 Sensor, CT, Split-Core, 0-005 Amp
Magnelab SCT-0750-005 Sensor, CT, Split-Core, 0-005 Amp
Continental Control
Systems
ACT-0750-020 Sensor, CT, Split-Core, 0-020 Amp
Onset Computer
Corporation
CTV-A Sensor, CT, Split-Core, 0-020 Amp
Onset Computer
Corporation
CTV-B Sensor, CT, Split-Core, 0-050 Amp
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 18
2013 Tool Loan Library, Year-End Report (Report #1301_007-05)

Manufacturer Model Category/Measurement Parameter
Magnelab SCT-0750-050 Sensor, CT, Split-Core, 0-050 Amp
Dent Instruments CT-SCM-0100 Sensor, CT, Split-Core, 0-100 Amp
Dent Instruments CT-SC-S-0100 Sensor, CT, Split-Core, 0-100 Amp
Onset Computer
Corporation
CTV-C Sensor, CT, Split-Core, 0-100 Amp
Dent Instruments CT-SCT-0200 Sensor, CT, Split-Core, 0-200 Amp
Onset Computer
Corporation
CTV-D Sensor, CT, Split-Core, 0-200 Amp
Onset Computer
Corporation
S-THB-M008 Sensor, Multi-functional, Temp, RH
LI-COR Mounting and leveling
bracket - 6 total
Sensor, Sensor Accessories, Mounting Bracket
LI-COR Mounting Base #2003S Sensor, Sensor Accessories, Mounting Bracket
EME Systems UTA/BNC/hobo-210 Sensor, Sensor Accessories, Transconductance Amplifier
(for Hobo), Amps
LI-COR LI-210SA; Photometric Sensor, Single-functional, Illuminance
Onset Computer
Corporation
S-UCA-M006 Sensor, Single-functional, Pulse Input Adaptor
Onset Computer
Corporation
TMC6-HD Sensor, Single-functional, Temp
LI-COR LI-200SA; Pyranometer Sensor, Single-functional, Thermo-Radiation
Veris Hawkeye H600 Switch, Current, "Go/No Go"
Master Lock Braided steel cable - 6' x
3/8"
Tools, Lock, Cable
Master Lock Combo Lock 31-17-35 Tools, Lock, Combo
Continental Control
Systems LLC
WNB-3D-480-P Transducer, WattNode Pulse Output, Watthour, 3 Wires
Continental Control
Systems LLC
WNA-3Y-208-P Transducer, WattNode Pulse Output, Watthour, 4 Wires

RESIDENTIAL ECONOMIZER
ENERGY IMPACTS- 2012
TECHNICAL REPORT

Prepared For:
Idaho Power Company Authors: B. Acker
C. Duarte
S. Shrief
K. Van Den Wymelenberg

Date December 31, 2012
Report No.
20120307-01

This page left intentionally blank.

Prepared By: University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab | Boise
306 S 6th St. Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl
UI-IDL Project Manager: Brad Acker, PE

Authors: B. Acker
C. Duarte
S. Shrief
K. Van Den Wymelenberg Prepared For: Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
JBK-965 20120303-01
DISCLAIMER

While the recommendations in this report have been reviewed for technical accuracy and are believed to be reasonably
accurate, the findings are estimates and actual results may vary.
As a result, University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab is not
liable if projected estimated savings or economics are not
actually achieved. All savings and cost estimates in the report are for informational purposes, and are not to be construed as
design documents or as guarantees.
The owner shall independently evaluate any advice or direction
provided in this report. In no event will University of Idaho,
Integrated Design Lab be liable for the failure of the customer to achieve a specified amount of energy savings, the operation of
customer’s facilities, or any incidental or consequential damages
of any kind in connection with this report or the installation of
recommended measures.
Please cite this report as follows: Acker, B., Duarte, C., Shrief, S., &Van Den Wymelenberg, K. 2012. Residential Economizer –
Energy Impacts 2012, Technical Report, 20120303-01, Integrated
Design Lab, University of Idaho, Boise, ID.

This page left intentionally blank.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 2
2. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1. Residential Economizer Equipment and Controls .................................................................... 4
2.1.1. Residential Economizer Equipment Used in the Study ........................................................ 6
3. Methods................................................................................................................................................. 7
3.1. Site Selection ............................................................................................................................ 7
3.2. Metering Methodology ............................................................................................................. 9
3.3. Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................ 10
4. Results ................................................................................................................................................. 11
4.1. Installed Sites .......................................................................................................................... 11
4.2. Annualized Energy Savings .................................................................................................... 14
4.3. Study Period Finding .............................................................................................................. 19
5. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 26
6. References ........................................................................................................................................... 28
7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 29
7.1. Appendix A ............................................................................................................................. 29

Integrated Design Lab| Boise 2
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Investigations into the energy savings of residential economizers were started by Idaho Power
Company (IPC) and the University of Idaho – Integrated Design Lab (IU-DL) in the spring of
2011. These investigations cover the retrofit of an economizer control system and related
hardware and ductwork into many existing single-family homes in Boise, Idaho and within the
surrounding Treasury Valley area. The 2011 study found a large range of energy impacts to the
home cooling system, ranging from no savings to 473 kWh/yr savings. The average cooling load
per home for the Boise climate was determined to be 1800 kWh/yr from work conducted by
Stellar Processes in 2011. As part of this multi-year study, work conducted in 2011 by Research
Into Action, uncovered trends in homeowner behavior and installer practices. The 2012 work
reported herein focused on determining if savings above the 2011 maximum of 473 kWh/yr per
home (26% of the average seasonal cooling load per home) could be achieved, and if so, could
average savings be reliably predicted to determine if any other major factors affect savings. For
detailed information on previous research, see Acker, et. al., 2012.

The results of the 2012 study suggest that significant cooling system savings is possible but
results from home to home are variable. Preferred intake and sensor locations have been
determined in the 2012 study to be on the north or west facades, and the non-energy benefit of
increased indoor air during economizer operation was demonstrated. The best site from the 2012
study had annualized savings of 543 kWh/yr, 30% of the average seasonal cooling load per
home. However savings have a large standard deviation making reliability of savings numbers
difficult to predict.
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 3
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

2. INTRODUCTION
An air-side economizer system is designed to save cooling energy by using outdoor air (OA)
instead of return air in order to avoid compressor operation. Hence, cooling in economizer mode
is often referred to as ‘free cooling’. The economizer system operates when there is a call for
cooling in the space and OA conditions (temperature and in some cases humidity) are favorable
to provide cooling to the space (Brandemuehl, Michael J., Braun, James E. 1999). Figure 1
shows a schematic of the different air streams and dampers in a typical air-side economizer
system. The blue line represents the cooling coil. In full economizer mode, the OA damper is
open to the maximum position and the mixed air damper is closed. Some control systems can
also throttle the mixed air damper to provide the desired supply air temperature. These systems
can also be used to supply fresh air to a space when the damper would otherwise be closed due to
extreme outdoor air conditions.

Figure 1 Airflow paths with economizer system

Air-side economizers are used and often required by code in commercial cooling equipment
greater than 4.5 tons of cooling. Economizers in commercial buildings are cost effective because
many commercial structures are interior load dominated (Moser, Dave. 2011). This means that
buildings often have cooling load requirements even when the outdoor air temperature (OAT) is
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 4
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

quite low, in the range of 40-50o F. Commercial style economizers and residential style
economizers share basic similarities but also have differences. This report discusses residential
economizer design, installation, controls, and energy impacts. The specifics of residential
economizers are addressed below.
2.1. RESIDENTIAL ECONOMIZER EQUIPMENT AND CONTROLS
This study focused on economizers installed as part of a “split” HVAC system. Split systems
have mechanical components that are not physically collocated. The air-conditioning compressor
and condensing unit are located outside of the house while the furnace is located on the interior
of the structure (e.g. crawl space, garage, attic or mechanical room). The furnace comprises a
heating device (gas or electric), evaporator coil for cooling, fan (blower) and the supply/return
ductwork. Figure 2 illustrates the major components of a typical split system.

Figure 2 Typical Split System
Image: http://bidboomerang.com
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 5
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

Figure 3 and Figure 4 illustrate a schematic of the ductwork and dampers necessary to operate an
economizer system. Figure 3 shows the system in economizer mode where air is drawn from the
outside, through the furnace/blower assembly and distributed to the conditioned space. The
addition of outside air pressurizes the conditioned space, and the return air duct system allows
the air to be exhausted to the attic space, providing an additional benefit of cooling the attic and
allowing for less heat transfer from the attic to the conditioned space. Note the position of the
dampers, which allow outside air into the furnace and isolate the return system forcing return air
to the attic. Figure 4 shows the system in normal or non-economizer mode. Again, note the
position of the dampers, which direct recirculation air from the conditioned space through the
furnace and back to the conditioned space.

Figure 3 Residential Economizer in Economizer Mode

Integrated Design Lab| Boise 6
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

Figure 4 Residential Economizer in Normal or Non-Economizer Mode

2.1.1. RESIDENTIAL ECONOMIZER EQUIPMENT USED IN THE STUDY
Two models of equipment, from different manufacturers, were used in this study and will herein
be referred to as Model 1 and Model 2. Both models provide an economizer function and have
the same ductwork requirements. The installation of an economizer requires the installation of an
outside air intake, three dampers (outside air, exhaust air and return air), along with the
associated ductwork to link the various components together. Another requirement is that the
existing system must physically have space to install these dampers between a point of a
common return duct and the furnace. Control wiring and boxes were also installed. Model 1 is
marketed as a fresh air machine that provides many options beyond a basic economizer and
operates independent of the home thermostat. An additional control box, with display and user
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 7
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

interface, was mounted in the same thermal zone as the thermostat for homes outfitted with
Model 1. Model 1 utilized a dry bulb temperature sensor, which is acceptable in the
Northwestern United States but may be a disadvantage in other, more humid climates. In the
2011 study (Acker et al., 2012), Model 1 had problems with excessive fan power being used in
an attempt to overcool the home in economizer mode. This feature was limited in 2012 to
prevent excessive fan power use. Model 2 also offered additional features beyond a traditional
economizer but is not a standalone control device. Therefore, Model 2 was wired in line with the
thermostat, and when a call for cooling occurred, the control logic either turned on the
compressor or opened the outside air damper based on OA conditions. Model 2 used a more
sophisticated outdoor temperature and humidity sensor, which would be beneficial in humid
climates. Both manufacturers recommend that outside air intakes be located in a shaded area,
such as north facing roofs or gable ends.

3. METHODS
3.1. SITE SELECTION
Idaho Power Company (IPC) staff were responsible for homeowner participation in this project.
A letter was mailed to 1561 IPC customers to explain the project objectives, and any associated
costs and responsibilities. Homeowners were selected by IPC staff based on home size and
heating, ventilating and air-conditioning (HVAC) system type. Site selection started in early
spring of 2012, with the majority of installs completed by mid June and a few installs performed
in July. The original solicitation letter is available in Appendix A. A list of desirable
qualifications for selection are listed below:
• Current homeowner planned to live in same home throughout the analysis period
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 8
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

• Had a ducted air-conditioning system without a heat pump for heating
• Had a single-level home from 1,400–1,800 ft2 or two-story between 1,800–2,500 ft2
• Allowed window air-conditioners and whole-house fans to remain off with windows
closed during the evening/early morning hours
• Allowed the installation of additional HVAC equipment, such as a wall-mounted control,
external wall or roof vent, flex duct and dampers to their existing system
• Allowed IPC and a third parties to analyze energy-usage data and other data collected.
IPC staff reviewed the homes that applied for consideration with the goal of eliminating some
homes which were known to be difficult to install based on lessons learned from the 2011 study
(Acker, et al., 2012). Two story homes, and homes that did not have easy access to return air
ductwork, are examples representing installations that are more difficult. IPC staff also reviewed
homes for possible intake vent locations, and this information was passed on to installers so
intakes could be installed in more favorable locations (e.g. north, shaded). It was noted from the
2011 study that installers did not always consider the solar exposure aspects of the intake
location. The order of intake locations, starting with the most favorable, were given as:
1. North facing gable
2. North facing roof
3. West facing gable
4. West facing roof
In the 2012 study, south and east-facing locations were discouraged due to the solar exposure.
The rationale for favoring a west over an east-facing intake was that morning sun tends to warm
eastern exposures during times of otherwise cool ambient air temperatures. In the evening, the
ambient temperatures are already warm, thus, free-cooling is not available until after the sun sets.
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 9
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

For these reasons, west-facing intakes were favored over east-facing in the 2012 study. This
ideology is investigated in Section 4.3.
3.2. METERING METHODOLOGY
Compressor power, fan power, outdoor and indoor air temperature and humidity were logged as
the primary data variables. On Model 2 units, damper position and thermostat signal data were
also collected to aid in trouble-shooting and system verification if needed. Model 1 units were
not configured to reliably collect these data. Data were collected on a 15-minute interval.
Compressor and fan power data were integrated over the 15-minute period and temperature data
were taken instantaneously at 15-minute intervals.

Findings from the 2011 study suggested a benefit to collecting data on several other parameters
in order to inform design, installation and cost effectiveness considerations of residential
economizer systems. In the 2012 study, data on temperature profiles on exterior exposure of
three representative homes were collected, airflow (cfm) of the system in economizer and non-
economizer modes on 20 homes were collected, and indoor air quality (IAQ) parameters were
collected on two representative homes.

The IAQ was assessed using both carbon dioxide (CO2) and volatile organic compound (VOC)
sensors. Two spaces were logged, one with VOC sensors and one space had both VOC and CO2
sensors. Two sensors were used because they indicate very different parameters. Both VOC and
CO2 were used at one space to look at how these two sensors differ for use with demand control
ventilation strategies. CO2 is an industry standard to indicate occupancy in spaces and by proxy
the presence of bioeffluents. VOC is becoming more accepted because it indicates occupancy, as
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 10
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

well as the presence of variety of compounds emitted from items or activities, such as cooking
odors and cleaning chemicals. These data will provide only a preliminary indication of the IAQ
effects of the residential economizers. Many factors can affect IAQ, and none of the several
possible confounding factors were recorded during this study.

3.3. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Relationships between OAT and compressor/fan power were compared pre- and post-
economizer installation. OAT was categorized in one degree Fahrenheit bins and the amount of
hours in each bin was determined. Normalization of the time dependence of the energy
consumption data from pre and post conditions was reconciled by considering the kWh per hour
in each 1°F bin, and the cooling degree days (CDD) per day were used to account for differences
in average daily temperature. For example, the energy used at 65°F on a June day may be
different than at 65°F on an August day because the average daily temperatures may be very
different. This metric of kWh per hour in a temperature bin per CDD was compared pre/post
economizer install to determine the energy savings as a result of economizer use. Once these pre
and post metrics were developed, these data were applied to typical meteorological year (TMY3)
data and annual savings were determined.

Integrated Design Lab| Boise 11
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

4. RESULTS
Results will be reported below in the following order: site installation, annualized energy
savings, and study period findings.
4.1. INSTALLED SITES
As homeowners returned participation paper work, sites were visited and reviewed by IPC staff
as an initial screening measure before installers were given site addresses. The UI-IDL received
a list of 57 sites that passed the initial IPC screening. Of these 57 sites, contractors rejected 23
for reasons listed in Table 1.
Table 1 Rejected Study Sites by Contractors
Reason for Contractor Rejection Number of Sites
Could not access duct returns 7
Could not contact customer 6
Could not pay the program fee ($250.00) 1
Existing duct system too poor 1
No Reason given 8

Therefore, in 2012, 34 homes were in the study, 13 of which were carryovers from the 2011
study and 21 new installs. Of the 34 homes being studied, 26 made it into the final analysis, and
eight were rejected for reasons outlined in Table 2.
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 12
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

Table 2 Rejected Sites from Analysis by UI-IDL
Reason for rejection from analysis Site number
Existing equipment change or failure during study 4, 10
Home owner not following usage instructions 8, 52
Economizer equipment problems 34, 58
Data logging issues 39, 66

Economizer equipment problems can be seen in Figure 5. This figure shows the economizer not
operating in periods with sufficiently low OAT, and a call for cooling is evident by the
compressor running. This happens several times in this figure and can easily be seen in the early
morning hours on September 7th. The OAT is around 65° F and falling as the indoor air
temperature is rising. The compressor turns on because of a thermostat call for cooling, and in
this case the economizer should have handled this cooling demand. The improper operation of
this unit can further be seen in Figure 6. In the temperature range of 60 to 70°F, when the
economizer is expected to operate most of the time, it did not operate.
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 13
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

Figure 5 Economizer Equipment Problems, Site 34

Integrated Design Lab| Boise 14
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

Figure 6 Compressor and Economizer Percent On, Site 34

4.2. ANNUALIZED ENERGY SAVINGS
System performance from the study period was modeled using regression analysis on a site-by-
site basis and applied to TMY3 data to determine the estimated typical annual energy savings for
each site (Bonneville Power Administration, 2011). Figure 7 shows all sites that were analyzed,
arranged by total energy savings from negative to positive. As evidenced by the graph, there is a
wide range of savings from negative 375 kWh/yr to positive 543 kWh/yr. Figure 8 shows some
of the statistics to define this data set. This wide spread in the data makes reporting average
energy savings problematic (Baker, Andie. 2012). Because of this, several factors were
investigated to try to determine why some homes saved energy and some did not.
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 15
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

Figure 9 shows initial metrics, which were compared between the group of homes that saved
energy and those that did not. The metrics include the size of the home (in square feet), the
square feet of the home per ton of cooling (capacity of the air-conditioning system), wattage of
the supply fan, and balance point temperature of the home. From viewing these possible
variables, no clear indication is made as to whether any of these variables are responsible for the
wide range in savings numbers.
Figure 7 Annual Energy Savings by Total Savings
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 16
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

Figure 8 Statistical Descriptors of Energy Savings

Figure 9 Metrics of Comparison

Integrated Design Lab| Boise 17
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

If the location of air intake and OAT sensor is more closely studied, patterns begin to emerge.
Figure 10 and Figure 11 show the annual energy savings of all sites, arranged by the location of
the OAT sensor. When all savings are averaged, Figure 10 shows more savings on the north and
west locations as compared to the south and east locations. This coincides with the finding
presented below in Figure 14 and Figure 15 regarding the OAT fluctuations during the day on
different orientations of a home. Figure 7 shows the annual savings by site, arranged from lowest
to highest energy savings. On the right side of this figure, eight sites showed positive total annual
savings. Of this group of eight sites, they were evenly split with four having sensors located on
the north side of the home and four on the west side of the home. This can also be seen below in
Figure 11, which shows all sites arranged by sensor location and model type. Sites 7, 42, 47, and
62 had sensors on the north side and showed an average energy savings of 165 kWh/yr. Sites 7,
26, 61, and 63 had sensors on the west side and showed an average energy savings of 163
kWh/yr. While this should not be interpreted as a causal relationship, it is a useful trend in the
attempt to find features of systems that did or did not save energy. In other words, not all systems
that had OA intakes on the north or west side saved energy, but all systems which saved energy
had sensors on the north or west side of the home. Of all the metrics examined, intake and sensor
location are the only aspects that appear to affect the amount of energy savings.

Integrated Design Lab| Boise 18
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

Figure 10 Average Savings by Sensor Location, All Sites

Integrated Design Lab| Boise 19
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

Figure 11 Annual Energy Savings, Grouped by Sensor Location

4.3. STUDY PERIOD FINDING
The 2012 study focused primarily on energy saving aspects of the economizer equipment and
anecdotally on some questions that arose from the 2011 study. The main questions that arose in
2011 included intake/sensor location, quantification of indoor air quality, and airflow of systems
with and without the economizer running.

In the 2012 study, two homes were outfitted with several OAT sensors so the profile of the
temperature on the exterior of the homes could be investigated. Radiant temperature shields were
used on the sensors so true dry bulb temperature could be measured to reflect the microclimate
around the home. Figure 12 and Figure 13 show data from the two sites that were monitored.
These figures show the daily peak temperatures of each facade. From this graph, it can be seen
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 20
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

that the south facades are the warmest and the north and east facades are the coolest based on
daily peak temperature. It was common to see a 10-15°F difference in daily peak temperature
reading from the warmest to coolest facades. This large difference in peak temperatures indicates
that sensor and intake location should be carefully chosen.

Figure 12 Site 59 Maximum Daily Outdoor Temperature

Integrated Design Lab| Boise 21
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

Figure 13 Site 62 Maximum Daily Outdoor Temperature

After reviewing the data for peak daily temperatures in Figure 12 and Figure 13, one may
conclude that the best location for intakes and sensors would be on the north or east facades. If
data are analyzed to see how the temperate changes during the day, a different picture emerges.
Figure 14 and Figure 15 illustrate how the temperature changed for a single day. It can be seen
that west facades remain cool into the early afternoon and do not rise above the temperature of
other exposures until ambient temperatures are above typical economizer operating temperatures
(70°F). In Figure 14, the west wall facades reached 70°F two hours after the east facades and one
hour after the north roof facades. In Figure 15, the north gable exposure remained the lowest of
all temperatures and did not show the morning peak, which occurred on the east exposure, or the
afternoon peak, which occurred on the west exposure.
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 22
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

Figure 14 Site 62 Single Day Temperature Profile

Figure 15 Site 59 Single Day Temperature Profile

Integrated Design Lab| Boise 23
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

Another aspect of the 2011 study investigated further in the 2012 study was the issue that while
not all sites saved energy, people were still happy with the operation of the equipment. While no
formal interviews were undertaken by the UI-IDL, homeowners often mentioned their perception
of improved IAQ and enjoyed having the fresh air. In addition to homeowners commenting on
enjoying the “feeling” of fresh air, several people liked the fact that outdoor air was filtered
rather than simply opening windows without filtration due to conditions such as asthma or
allergies. Security issues were also mentioned; homeowners liked getting fresh air without
having to leave windows open during the night. In the 2012 study, these non-energy benefits
were quantified with two types of sensors often used to control indoor ventilation rates. One
sensor measures CO2, which is commonly used to control ventilation strategies such as demand
control ventilation (Maripuu, Mari-Liis. 2009). The presence of CO2 has a direct relationship
with the occupancy of a space because people emit CO2. The other sensor used measures VOC.
This sensor, which is also used to control ventilation systems, measures a wide array of VOC
emitted from both people and objects. VOC sensors can be thought of as being a better indicator
of IAQ because they pick up not only occupancy of people, but also the presence of compounds,
which can be emitted from activities such as cleaning, cooking, crafts or home repair projects. In
a residential environment, it is possible that the occupancy does not change as dramatically as the
activities taking place in the home.

Figure 16 shows site 60, which was equipped with both a CO2 and VOC sensor. The figure
shows the difference in IAQ parameters of a space and both show the effect of economizer
operation on IAQ. The IAQ that these systems provided can be seen in Figure 16 and Figure 17.
During periods of economizer operation, the CO2 and VOC levels drop to ambient conditions.
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 24
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

Figure 16 Site 60, VOC and CO2 Levels

Integrated Design Lab| Boise 25
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

Figure 17 Site 62 VOC Signal

Quality control in the installation of these systems was also of great interest in the 2012 study. In
2011, four sites were removed from the final analysis due to economizer equipment failures or
incorrect installation. One aspect of installations that can be quantified is the airflow of a system
with and without the economizer operating. After economizer systems were installed, the airflow
of the HVAC system was measured with and without the economizer operating. Twenty homes
were measured for airflow and the results can be seen below in Figure 18. Fan power use is an
important consideration with regard to energy savings for systems. Reduced airflow in
economizer mode would cause the blower fan to run longer and use more energy compared to
having the same or increased airflow as standard operation. Of the twenty homes metered, in
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 26
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

economizer mode, fourteen had a reduction in airflow, averaging 13%, and six had an increase in
airflow, averaging 20%. No clear pattern was seen between homes that saved energy and homes
that did not. Of the eight sites that saved fan and compressor energy, six were also tested for
airflow. Four had decreased airflow in economizer mode, averaging 20% and two had increased
airflow, averaging 12%.

Figure 18 System Airflow by Site

5. CONCLUSION
The energy saving potential of residential economizers has been studied during a two-year
period. In both cooling seasons, a wide differential in energy savings has been observed. Past
studies (Lutzenhiser, L. 1993) have shown a wide range of energy use not only from residence to
residence but also among end uses even when homes are grouped in similar demographic
families. This could be one reason such a wide range of savings was found in our study. The
formal goal of our study was to determine energy savings of a residential economizer system.
While this has been accomplished on a per site basis, the wide differential in savings numbers
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 27
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

prohibits energy savings to be predicted with good confidence at an average site with accuracy.
While out of the official scope of this study, several factors were examined in order to attempt to
improve the confidence of energy savings estimates. Of the factors examined, sensor and intake
location appear to be the primary factors that impact savings. Sensors and intakes located on the
north or west exposures of homes appear to have the greatest potential to save energy. In
addition to energy savings, residential economizer systems have shown three important non-
energy benefits, improved IAQ, anecdotal findings of reduced negative health problems from
unfiltered outdoor air, and an increased perception of safety and security while still having fresh
air as described in Section 4.3. The level of VOC present in two representative homes was shown
to be greatly reduced by the operation of the economizer. This corresponds with previous
anecdotal findings that homeowners are highly satisfied with economizer systems and enjoy
additional fresh air in the home even when the systems may not have saved the homeowner
energy (Acker, et al 2012).

Integrated Design Lab| Boise 28
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

6. REFERENCES
Acker, B., Duarte, C., Van Den Wymelenberg, K. 2012. Residential Economizer – Energy Impacts,
Technical Report, 20110311-01, Integrated Design Lab, University of Idaho, Boise, ID.
Baker, Andie. 2012. Sample Size Selection in Energy Efficiency Research and Evaluation – The Use and Abuse of the Coefficient of Variation, Paper to be presented at the International Energy Program Evaluation Conference. Rome, Italy. June 2012.

Bonneville Power Administration, 2011. Draft Report, Regression For M&V: Reference Guide
Brandemuehl, Michael J., Braun, James E. 1999. The Impact of Demand-Controlled and
Ecomizer Ventilation Strategies on Energy Use in Buildings. ASHRAE Transactions 1999, V.
105, Pt.2.
Lutzenhiser, L. 1993. Social and Behavioral Aspects of Energy Use, Annual Review of
Energy & Environment: 247-289.
Maripuu, Mari-Liis. 2009. Demand Controlled Ventilation (DCV) Systems In Commercial
Buildings. Chalmers University of Technology. ISBN 978-91-7385-256-2
Moser, Dave. 2011. Free Cooling: Don’t Let Savings Slip Away. PECI. From www.peci.org.
Research Into Action, 2011. Residential Economizer Report. Prepared for Idaho Power
Company.
Robison, David. 2011. Residential Cooling Loads in Idaho. Prepared for Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance. Stellar Processes, Inc. Portland, OR.

Integrated Design Lab| Boise 29
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

7. APPENDICES
7.1. APPENDIX A
<<Date>> «AddressBlock» RE: New summer cooling program from XX «GreetingLine» You have been randomly selected to receive an opportunity to apply for participation in a research project conducted by XX in the Treasure Valley. If you own a home with central air conditioning, you could reduce your energy use while keeping your home cool this summer. Twenty five participants will be selected from those expressing interest. If you’re one of the 25 participants chosen, you will receive: • A $1,100 economizer system for $250 • Potential: • Reduction in summer cooling costs • Increased home comfort • Better air quality The Residential Economizer Pilot Project involves fitting 25 houses with a residential economizer that draws cool outside nighttime air into your home with the goal of reducing summer cooling costs. The objective of the pilot is to evaluate the energy savings and comfort provided by these economizers. Installation will be performed by a local heating and cooling contractor. Selected participants will pay $250 to the contractor prior to the installation; the value of the work is estimated at up to $1,100, and the economizer will remain the property of the homeowner after the pilot is complete. You might qualify to participate if you: • Are the homeowner and plan to be home June through September • Have a ducted air conditioning system without a heat pump for heating • Have a single-level home from 1,400–1,800 sq. ft. or two-story between 1,800–2,500 sq. ft. • Allow window air conditioners and whole-house fans to remain off with windows closed during the evening/early morning hours • Allow the installation of additional HVAC equipment, such as a wall-mounted control, external wall or roof vent, flex duct and dampers to your existing system • Allow Idaho Power and a third party to analyze energy-usage data and data collected • Other requirements may apply
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 30
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

How to participate: E-mail your name, address, and a daytime phone number to XX within 5 days of receiving this letter. Twenty five homeowners will be contacted from among all e-mail respondents to verify eligibility and interest in participating. These 25 will be asked to sign and return the enclosed agreement. You will have the opportunity to decline this offer at that time if you wish. Neither this letter nor your e-mail response is a guarantee of your participation, nor is your e-mail a commitment to participate. If you are chosen to participate, the enclosed agreement must be completed and returned per the instructions. If you have further questions about this offer, please give me a call or send an e-mail to the address above. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, XX Program Specialist
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 31
Residential Economizer, Energy Impacts 2012 (Report #20120303-01)

Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is an economizer? An economizer is a device made up of a control box, dampers and an outside vent. These components are installed into an existing forced-air cooling system along with a vent placed on the roof or side wall. A flexible duct connects the vent to the existing ductwork of the house. When your thermostat calls for cooling, the vent will open, the existing air handler will come on, and air will be drawn in from the outside. This air is circulated throughout the house using your existing air handler. At the same time, the air conditioner compressor will remain off. Keeping the compressor off is where the energy savings come from. The vent opens only when the outside air temperature drops to a predetermined level. If it is not at that level at that moment, the vent will not open, and the air conditioner will come on instead to cool the house. 2. Why is XX doing this project? The XX service area enjoys cool air in the summer evenings. Cool air drawn into the house can take the place of running the air conditioner in the evening, overnight and early morning hours. The project goal is to determine how much energy can be saved by cooling a house with a residential economizer.
3. What is the time frame? Installations will be performed between March and May. The operating period is from June through the end of September. 4. Can I confirm my enrollment now? No. Residents who confirm interest via e-mail as described in this letter will be contacted on a random basis until 25 houses are selected.
5. What will it cost? Selected participants will pay $250 to the contractor prior to the installation; the value of the work is estimated at up to $1,100, and the economizer will remain the property of the homeowner after the pilot is complete. 6. What information will be shared with the installing contractor? Only information necessary to establish appointments for installation, follow-up calls, and the removal of data logging devices will be provided. 7. How will I identify the installing contractor? The contractor will possess identification to confirm he or she is a contractor representing XX. You will be contacted prior to the appointment so we may provide an introduction as to who will be present at your house. 8. What type of data will be collected during the project? The types of data that will be collected include house temperature, compressor run times, and energy
consumption of the compressor.
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2013 Annual Report Page 267
RESEARCH/SURVEYS
Table 3. 2013 Research/Surveys
Report Title Program or Sector Analysis Performed by Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type
Easy Savings Survey Response Summary 2012–2013 Year End Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Energy Efficiency Non-participant Survey: Cross-Audience Summary All Hansa GCR Idaho Power Research
Energy Efficiency Non-participant Survey: Research Conducted with Commercial Customers Commercial Hansa GCR Idaho Power Research
Energy Efficiency Non-participant Survey:
Research Conducted with Irrigation Customers
Irrigation Hansa GCR Idaho Power Research
Energy Efficiency Non-participant Survey: Research Conducted with Residential Customers Residential Hansa GCR Idaho Power Research
FitOne Expo Survey Results Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Student Energy Efficiency Kit (SEEK) Program
Survey Results
Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 268 Demand-Side Management 2013 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.
Idaho Power Easy Savings Program Page 1 of 2 2012-2013 Year End Survey
Question % Answered
Qty
Answered
Total
Answered
1. How much would you like to save?414
$30 - Install just the showerhead, CFLs, and LED Night Light 6%25
$85 - Install the showerhead, CFLs, LED Night Light, and unplug under used appliances 19%79
$300 - Complete the Easy Savings® Quick Start Guide Steps 75%310
100%414
2. Have you (or will you) lower your heat during the day?439
Yes 93%407
No 7%32
100%439
3. Have you (or will you) lower your heat at night?436
Yes 86%374
No 14%62
100%436
4. Did you place the Thermostat Temperature Sticker near your thermostat?420
Yes 82%343
No 18%77
100%420
5. How many new Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) did you install?434
1 10%42
2 86%375
Didn't install CFLs 4%17
100%434
6. Did you place the Turn Off Light Sticker near a light switch that was often left on?430
Yes 77%330
No 23%100
100%430
7. Do you turn off lights in empty rooms more often now?438
Yes 97%423
No 3%15
100%438
8. Did you install the High-Efficiency Showerhead?432
Yes 82%356
No 18%76
100%432
9. Do you use cold water when you do your laundry?437
Yes, always 57%247
Yes, sometimes 40%176
Never 3%14
100%437
10. Did you place the Wash in Cold Water Magnet on your washing machine? 437
Yes 75%286
No 25%93
Don't have a washing machine 13%58
437
11. Did you use the Digital Thermometer to check the temperature of your water?431
Yes 75%322
No 25%109
100%431
Survey Response Summary
2012-2013 Year End (1/7/14)
Idaho Power Easy Savings Program Page 2 of 2 2012-2013 Year End Survey
12. Did you change the temperature setting of your water heater?426
Yes, raised (warmer)10%44
Yes, lowered (cooler)42%180
No 47%202
100%426
13. Did you check the temperature of your refrigerator(s) and freezer(s)?436
Yes 91%398
No 9%38
100%436
14. Did you adjust the temperature of your refrigerator(s) and freezer(s)?425
Yes, turned up (warmer)33%141
Yes, turned down (colder)27%116
No 40%168
100%425
15. Did you recycle or unplug your second or old refrigerators or freezers?409
Yes, recycled 1 unit 15%60
Yes, unplugged 2 units 15%60
Yes, unplugged 1 unit 4%15
No 67%274
100%409
16. Did you place the Turn Your Computer Off Sticker on your computer?433
Yes 74%185
No 26%66
I don't have a computer 42%182
433
17. How many items from your Easy Savings® Kit did you install?427
1 3%12
2 6%25
3 11%48
4 22%93
5+58%249
100%427
18. What is your average yearly income?429
$0 - $7,999 22%96
$8,000 - $15,999 43%185
$16,000 - $23,999 21%92
$24,000 - $31,999 7%28
$32,000+1%5
No Answer 5%23
100%429
19. How effective was the Easy Savings® Quick Start Guide in helping you install the items in your kit?437
Very helpful 83%361
Somewhat helpful 14%62
Not helpful 1%3
Didn't use 3%11
100%437
20. Now that you have completed the Easy Savings® Quick Start Guide, how much have you learned
about saving energy and money in your home?438
I learned a lot 77%338
I learned a little 22%95
Nothing 1%5
100%438
Energy Efficiency Non-participant Survey:
Cross-audience Summary
April 2013
Table of Contents:
Cross-audience Summary Report
2
Objectives and Methodology Page 3

Cross-audience Score Cards Page 8

Residential Page 12

Commercial Page 20

Irrigation Page 28

Objectives and Methodology
Research Goal and Objectives
Goal:
Idaho Power’s overarching goal is to understand why
customers do not participate and how best to increase
participation in energy efficiency programs.

Objectives:
Idaho Power’s primary objective for this research is to
increase participation in energy efficiency and gain an
understanding of why customers do not participate in
programs. Idaho Power will accomplish this objective by
assessing current awareness of, and interest in, a series of
energy efficiency programs, and weighing customer
perceptions of benefits and barriers to program
participation. The specific objectives are to:
•Ascertain customer awareness of energy efficiency
•Determine overall interest levels in programs and
offerings.
•Assess customer perceptions of program benefits.
•Identify barriers to program participation.
•Identify preferred communication channels.
4
5
•Survey fielded via phone.
•Data collection steps:

•Phone contact practices and protocols:
– At the start of the call, customers were informed of Idaho Power’s sponsorship and the energy
efficiency program focus of the survey.
–Interviewing was done Monday through Saturday; calling ceased at or before 8:00 p.m. local time.
–When the interviewers reached an answering device, they left a message about the intent and
sponsorship of the research, including a call-back invitation to encourage participation.
–At the conclusion of each interview, participants were asked if they wanted to have someone from
Idaho Power Company follow up with them for any reason.

Methodology and Participant Profile:
Data Collection Process and Protocols
November 15-21
Survey pretest: two
interviews with customers
from each segment
November 22-30
Survey programming
and program testing
December 3-6
First round of
data collection: all audiences
December 6-20
Survey redesign and
reprogramming to reduce
length and complexity
December 20-21
Live tests of revised survey
with Hansa and Idaho Power
team members
January 4-17
Final round of data
collection: all audiences
5
6
•Idaho Power provided current customer lists for this survey. These lists were the
sole recruitment vehicle for screening and interviewing.
•Sample lists were cleaned and sorted to identify only customers who are not
current participants in Idaho Power Energy Efficiency programs.
–A small number of customers identified themselves as current participants, potential
reasons include:
•Purchase and use of energy efficient bulbs.
•Participation in energy efficiency programs at work rather than at home.
•Misidentification of a budget billing or other customer service program as an energy efficiency program.
•Participation in an energy efficiency program that no longer exists.
•The original sample for residential and commercial audiences was disproportionate
by region to obtain participation across regions that would allow analysis across
regions. Irrigation, on the other hand, was simple-random-sampled.
–We applied post-stratification weights to adjust the final distribution of sample to the
estimated population of customers who do not participate in energy efficiency programs.
–This presentation reflects the weighted proportion of customers who do not participate in
energy efficiency programs across regions and audiences.
Methodology and Participant Profile:
Sampling and Data Preparation
6
7
•The survey included three customer segments across IPC’s three geographic regions:
•Residential, Capital Region, Canyon-West Region, South-East Region
•Commercial, Capital Region, Canyon-West Region, South-East Region
•Irrigation, Capital Region, Canyon-West Region, South-East Region

•We completed a total of 1,095 interviews.

Methodology and Participant Profile:
Segments and Regions in the Final Sample
Segment n= Theoretical
error
Residential 622 +/- 3.9%
Capital Region 221 +/- 6.6%
Canyon-West Region 201 +/- 6.9%
South-East Region 200 +/- 6.9%
Commercial 303 +/- 5.6%
Capital Region 102 +/- 9.7%
Canyon-West Region 100 +/- 9.8%
South-East Region 101 +/- 9.7%
Irrigation 170 +/- 7.5%
Total 1095 +/- 2.7%
7
Cross-audience Scorecards
Scorecard: Importance and Awareness
Awareness of energy efficiency programs
Yes No
Residential (n=622) 40% 60%
Commercial (n=303) 29% 71%
Irrigation (n=170) 55% 45%
Low
4%
High
73% Mid
23%
Importance of energy efficiency programs

Low
10%
High
61% Mid
29%
Commercial (n=303)
Irrigation (n=170)
Residential (n=622)
Low
6%
High
69% Mid
25%
Opportunity: Across
audiences, customers
agree energy
efficiency programs
are important.
Obstacle:
Customers
don’t know
Idaho Power
offers EE
programs.
9
Low
24%
High
30%
Mid
45%
Scorecard: Barriers and Benefits
10
Barrier Residential
(n=622)
Commercial
(n=303)
Irrigation
(n=170)
Unfamiliar with the
programs 52% 58% 57%
Upfront costs are too much 33% 26% 27%
Too long to recoup
investment 12% 13% 14%
Don’t know where to start 3% 3% 2%
Benefit Residential
(n=622)
Commercial
(n=303)
Irrigation
(n=170)
Lower energy costs 54% 61% 61%
More money in
my pocket/Improved
profitability
36% 22% 26%
Incentives to defray costs 9% 12% 9%
Lower maintenance costs 9% 5% 4%
How likely are
you to participate?
Low
36%
High
22% Mid
44%
Residential
(n=622)
Low
32%
High
25% Mid
42%
Commercial
(n=303)
Irrigation
(n=170)
Most customers have some
interest in participating.
Why don’t they participate?
What would they gain if they did participate?
Changing the Game
Residential
(n=622)
Commercial
(n=303)
Irrigation
(n=170)
Bill insert
63%
Letter/ brochure in mail
69%
Bill insert
65%
Newsletter
51%
IPC representative
39%
Community events
24%
Website
31%
Newsletter
37%
Website
22%
Preferred communication
•Unfamiliarity is the top barrier to participation across audiences.
•Where does Idaho Power begin the outreach?
•While there are similarities across audiences, opportunities to customize by audience
also exist.
•Commercial customers look for a more direct, personal approach than residential
or irrigation customers.
•Bill insert information appeals to residential and irrigation customers.
11
Residential
Idaho Power’s Residential Customer
Meet a composite of the typical residential customers who
participated in the survey.
Who are they?
Educated at the high school or college level, they
are a two-person household living in a single family
home. They’re more likely to be between the ages
of 25 and 34 or 55 and 64.
Where do they stand on EE?
Energy efficiency programs are important to
residential customers, but there are roadblocks.
•They’re not likely to be aware of IPC’s EE
offerings.
•They’re neutral to somewhat positive about
IPC’s offerings.
What are they likely to do?
•Only about two in ten are likely to participate in
an EE program.
•They see lower energy costs as the most
important benefit, and lack of familiarity is the
biggest barrier.
•The place to start educating residential
customers is bill inserts.
13
Awareness
•Fewer than half are aware of energy efficiency programs from Idaho Power.
•A/C Cool Credit is best known energy efficiency offering.
17%
8%
8%
7%
7%
5%
5%
5%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
5%
29%
Specific program awareness
(n=246)
Awareness of energy
efficiency programs
(n=622)
40% 60%
A/C Cool Credit
Home Improvement Program
See ya later, refrigerator
Budget Pay
Time of Day
Weatherization Assistance/Solutions
Home Products Program
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program
Energy Efficient Lighting
Winter Payment Plan
Project Share
Ductless Heat Pump Pilot
Net Metering
ENERGY STAR * Homes Northwest
Energy House Calls
Rebate Advantage
Other
None/Don't know
Yes No
Q01. Are you aware of any residential energy efficiency programs offered by Idaho Power?
Q02A. Can you give us the name or description of any of those programs?
14
Idaho Power Customers and Energy Efficiency
10. Very well
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0. Not at all well
13%
5%
15%
13%
9%
22%
5%
4%
3%
3%
10%
Idaho Power EE offerings
(n=622)
50%
6%
17%
7%
4%
11%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Importance of energy
efficiency programs
(n=622)
10. Very
important
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0. Not at all
important
Customers are
neutral to positive
about Idaho
Power’s offerings
in energy
efficiency.
Energy efficiency
is important to
Idaho Power
residential
customers. Low
4%
High
73% Mid
23%
Q03A. Based on your knowledge today, how well does Idaho Power do at offering programs that help and/or encourage customers to be energy efficient?
Q04. And finally, how important is it to you/your business that Idaho Power offer energy efficiency programs?
15
•Bill inserts are the preferred way to reach customers with energy efficiency news.

Communication Preferences
Bill insert
Newsletter
Web site
Community events
Newspaper ad
Social Media (Facebook & Twitter)
Email or e-newsletter
Phone call from real person
TV or radio ad
Letter or brochure in the mail
An Idaho Power Representative
Other
NA/None
(n=622)
63%
51%
31%
23%
18%
17%
6%
3%
2%
2%
1%
2%
1%
Preferred
Bill insert
Newsletter
Web site
Social Media (Facebook
& Twitter)
Newspaper ad
Community events
Other, specify
48%
21%
11%
4%
4%
2%
10%
(n=622)
Most preferred
C01. Which of the following are preferable to you as ways Idaho Power could communicate with you?
C02. Which of these is your most preferred way to receive communications from Idaho Power?
16
Barriers: Most and Least Important
32%
26%
25%
17%
Importance Rankings:
Most to Least
(Participant counts, n=622)
Barrier Rank #1 Rank #2 Rank #3 Rank #4
Unfamiliar with the programs 52% 20% 17% 11%
Upfront costs are too much 33% 20% 30% 17%
Don’t know where to start 3% 41% 33% 23%
Too long to recoup investment 12% 19% 19% 49%
Average Importance of Barriers
Total
(n=622)
Customers completed a paired comparison exercise to evaluate the relative importance of four
potential barriers to participation.
•Lack of awareness or unfamiliar with the programs is the biggest barrier to participation.
•Too long to recoup the investment is least likely to be a barrier to adoption of energy efficiency programs.
Unfamiliar with the programs
Upfront costs are too much
Don’t know where to start
Too long to recoup investment
Q6A-Q6F. Now, please consider these two barriers. Which one is more likely to keep you from participating in an energy efficiency program?
17
Benefits: Most and Least Important
38%
26%
18%
18%
Importance Rankings:
Most to Least
(Participant counts, n=622)
Benefit Rank #1 Rank #2 Rank #3 Rank #4
Lower energy costs 54% 37% 9% 0%
More money in my pocket 36% 27% 17% 21%
Lower maintenance costs 2% 20% 43% 35%
Incentives to defray costs 9% 16% 31% 44%
Average Importance of Benefits
Total
(n=622)
Customers completed a second paired comparison exercise to evaluate the relative importance of
four potential benefits of participation.
•Residential customers see lower energy costs as the biggest benefit of energy efficiency programs.
•Incentives to defray costs is the least compelling reason to adopt energy efficiency programs.
Lower energy costs
More money in my pocket
Lower maintenance costs0
Incentives to defray costs
Q7A-Q7F. Now, please consider these two benefits. Which one is more likely to encourage you to participate in an energy efficiency program?
18
Rebate for purchasing an ENERGY STAR appliance
Incentive for adding insulation
Whole home weatherization
Incentive to remove old refrigerators/freezers
In-store promotion for CFL bulbs
Incentives for properly installed heat
pumps/evaporative coolers
Purchase an ENERGY STAR certified home
Rebate for purchasing an ENERGY STAR
manufactured home
Incentive for a ductless heat pump
Free duct sealing
None/Don't know
Likelihood to Participate in EE Programs
•Likelihood to participate in an energy efficiency program is relatively low.
•ENERGY STAR appliances and insulation incentives have the most appeal.
62%
59%
52%
49%
46%
42%
34%
28%
27%
20%
6%
Which program(s) would you consider
(n=397)
10. Very likely
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0. Not at all likely
12%
2%
8%
8%
8%
25%
3%
7%
7%
4%
18%
How likely are you to participate
(n=622)
Low
36%
High
22% Mid
44%
Q07H. How likely are you to participate in an energy efficiency program in the next 12 months?
Q08. Which of the following programs, if any, sound like something you would consider participating in?
19
Commercial
Idaho Power’s Commercial Customer
IPC commercial customers who participated in the survey
represent a broad range of industries.
Who are they, and what do they have in common?
Idaho Power commercial customers generally own their
own business and their commercial property, where they
have one to five employees. Their property is mostly like to
be a stand-alone building.

Where do they stand on EE?
About 90% of commercial customers think EE programs are
important.
•About seven in ten are unaware of IPC’s EE offerings.
•They’re in the neutral range about how well IPC does at
offering EE options.

What are they likely to do?
•About two-thirds of commercial customers have at least
moderate interest in participating in EE programs.
•Lowering energy costs is the most appealing reason to
participate, and lack of familiarity is the main barrier.
•Commercial customers are most open to a letter or
brochure in the mail to inform them of what’s available.

21
Awareness
•Fewer than one-third are aware of commercial energy efficiency programs offered by Idaho
Power.
•Easy Upgrades is the most recognized commercial offering among those aware of energy
efficiency programs.
48%
7%
5%
3%
3%
3%
1%
1%
7%
27%
Specific program awareness
(n=88) Awareness of energy
efficiency programs
(n=303)
29%
71%
Easy Upgrades
Building Efficiency
FlexPeak Management
Green Power
Custom Efficiency
See ya later, refrigerator
Irrigation Peak Rewards
Time of Day
Other
None/Don't know
Yes No
Q01. Are you aware of any Commercial energy efficiency programs offered by Idaho Power? Q02A. Can you give us the name or description of any of those programs?
22
Idaho Power Customers and Energy Efficiency
10. Very well
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0. Not at all
8%
5%
10%
10%
10%
27%
7%
6%
5%
3%
11%
Idaho Power EE offerings
(n=303)
36%
5%
19%
9%
3%
14%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
Importance of energy
efficiency programs
(n=303)
10. Very
important
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0. Not at all
important
Businesses are
mostly neutral
about Idaho
Power’s offerings
in energy
efficiency.
Many commercial
customers
indicate energy
efficiency is
important to their
business.
Low 10%
High 61% Medium
29%
Q03A. Based on your knowledge today, how well does Idaho Power do at offering programs that help and/or encourage customers to be energy efficient? Q04. And finally, how important is it to you/your business that Idaho Power offer energy efficiency programs?
23

Communication Preferences
Letter or brochure in the mail
Idaho Power representative
Newsletter
Web site
Newspaper ad
Email or e-newsletter
Other
(n=303)
69%
39%
37%
33%
11%
10%
5%
Preferred
Letter or brochure in the mail
Idaho Power representative
Newsletter
Web site
Newspaper ad
Other, specify
44%
19%
12%
10%
2%
14%
(n=303)
Most Preferred
•Commercial customers prefer to receive letters or brochures by mail over other
communications.
C01. Which of the following are preferable to you as ways Idaho Power could communicate with you? C02. Which of these is your most preferred way to receive communications from Idaho Power?
24
Barriers: Most and Least Important
33%
24%
27%
16%
Importance Rankings:
Most to Least
(Participant counts, n=303)
Barrier Rank #1 Rank #2 Rank #3 Rank #4
Unfamiliar with the programs 58% 15% 18% 9%
Upfront costs are too much 26% 15% 41% 19%
Don’t know where to start 3% 54% 21% 23%
Too long to recoup investment 13% 18% 20% 50%
Average Importance of Barriers
Total
(n=303)
Customers completed a paired comparison exercise to evaluate the relative importance of
four potential barriers to participation.
•Average rankings of the four barriers reveal that unfamiliarity with the programs is the
greatest barrier, while the long wait to recoup program investment is of least concern
as a barrier.
Unfamiliar with the programs
Upfront costs are too much
Don’t know where to start
Too long to recoup investment
Q6A-Q6F. Now, please consider these two barriers. Which one is more likely to keep you from participating in an energy efficiency program?
25
Benefits: Most and Least Important
38%
26%
18%
18%
Importance Rankings:
Most to Least
(Participant counts, n=303)
Benefit Rank #1 Rank #2 Rank #3 Rank #4
Lower energy costs 61% 25% 14% 0%
Improved profitability 22% 33% 20% 25%
Lower maintenance costs 5% 23% 34% 38%
Incentives to defray costs 12% 19% 33% 37%
Average Importance of Benefits
Total
(n=303)
Customers completed a second paired comparison exercise to evaluate the relative
importance of four potential benefits of participation.
•Average rankings of the four benefits reveal lowering energy costs is the most
compelling benefit and lower maintenance costs is least compelling.
Lower energy costs
Improved profitability
Lower maintenance costs
Incentives to defray costs
Q7A-Q7F. Now, please consider these two benefits. Which one is more likely to encourage you to participate in an energy efficiency program?
26
Easy Upgrades
Building Efficiency
Custom Efficiency
None/Don't know
Likelihood to Participate in EE Programs
•Participation likelihood is mostly neutral with more on the low end of the scale than the higher end.
•Easy Upgrades is the most attractive energy efficiency program.
68%
28%
18%
15%
Which program(s) would you consider
(n=205)
10. Very likely
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0. Not at all likely
15%
3%
7%
6%
7%
23%
7%
6%
11%
4%
11%
How likely are you to participate
(n=303)
Low
32%
High
25% Mid
42%
Q07H. How likely are you (your business) to participate in an energy efficiency program in the next 12 months? Q08. Which of the following programs, if any, sound like something you would consider participating in?
27
Irrigation
Idaho Power’s Irrigation Customer
Typical irrigation customers who participated in the survey
represent a range of farms and irrigation systems.
Who are they?
Irrigation customers represent a mix of full time and part time
farmers; more than half farm 100 or more acres where the most
common crops are hay, grains and pasture. Just over half have
two or more pump locations with hand lines, wheel lines and
pivot systems the most commonly used systems.

Where do they stand on EE?
Almost three-fourths of irrigation customers think EE
programs are important.
•More than half are aware IPC offers EE programs.
•Eight in ten indicate they are neutral to positive about
how well IPC does at offering EE opportunities with more
than a third in the very positive range.
What are they likely to do?
•Three-fourths indicate at least some interest in
participating in EE programs.
•Lowering energy costs is the biggest benefit for irrigation
customers, and unfamiliarity is the prime barrier.
•Bill inserts are the best choice for reaching this audience.
29
Awareness
•Just over half (55%) of IPC irrigation customers are aware of energy efficiency programs.
•Three in four (75%) of those who are aware name a specific, irrigation-focused program.
41%
34%
8%
25%
Specific program awareness
(n=96)
Awareness of energy
efficiency programs
(n=170)
55%
45%
Irrigation Peak Rewards
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
Other
None/Don't know
Yes No
Q01. Are you aware of any irrigation energy efficiency programs offered by Idaho Power? Q02A. Can you give us the name or description of any of those programs?
30
Idaho Power Customers and Energy Efficiency
10. Very well
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0. Not at all well
9%
7%
18%
14%
6%
25%
3%
6%
3%
2%
8%
Idaho Power EE offerings
(n=170)
45%
8%
16%
7%
3%
11%
4%
1%
0%
1%
4%
Importance of energy
efficiency programs
(n=170)
10. Very
important
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0. Not at all
important
One in three
(34%) customers
views IPC
programs as doing
well to encourage
energy efficient
behavior.
Just under one in
two (47%) is
neutral to positive
while one in five
(19%) indicates
IPC isn’t doing
well.
Energy efficiency
matters to Idaho
Power irrigation
customers; more
than two-thirds
(69%) consider
programs very
important.
Only one in four
(25%) is lukewarm
in terms of
importance; few
consider the topic
unimportant.
Low
6%
High
69% Mid
25%
Q03A. Based on your knowledge today, how well does Idaho Power do at offering programs that help and/or encourage customers to be energy efficient? Q04. And finally, how important is it to you/your business that Idaho Power offer energy efficiency programs?
31
•Bill inserts stand out as the preferred way to reach customers with EE news.

Communication Preferences
Bill insert
Community events
Web site
Newspaper ad
Letter or brochure in the mail
Email or e-newsletter
Other
Don't know
(n=170)
65%
24%
22%
16%
12%
5%
7%
1%
Preferred
Bill insert
Web site
Community events
Newspaper ad
Other, specify
54%
13%
9%
5%
19%
(n=170)
Most preferred
C01. Which of the following are preferable to you as ways Idaho Power could communicate with you? C02. Which of these is your most preferred way to receive communications from Idaho Power?
32
Customers completed a paired comparison exercise to evaluate the relative importance of four
potential barriers to participation.
•Nearly three in five (57%) irrigation customers indicate a lack of familiarity with programs is the
#1 reason that keeps them from participating in energy efficiency programs.
•Upfront costs being too much and not knowing where to start are also barriers to participation.

Barriers: Most and Least Important
34%
26%
21%
10%
Importance Rankings:
Most to Least
(Participant counts, n=170)
Barrier Rank #1 Rank #2 Rank #3 Rank #4
Unfamiliar with the programs 57% 17% 18% 8%
Upfront costs are too much 27% 17% 33% 23%
Don’t know where to start 2% 49% 26% 23%
Too long to recoup investment 14% 16% 24% 46%
Average Importance of Barriers
Total
(n=170)
Unfamiliar with the programs
Upfront costs are too much
Don’t know where to start
Too long to recoup investment
Q6A-Q6F. Now, please consider these two barriers. Which one is more likely to keep you from participating in an energy efficiency program?
33
Benefits: Most and Least Important
38%
27%
19%
16%
Importance Rankings:
Most to Least
(Participant counts, n=170)
Benefit Rank #1 Rank #2 Rank #3 Rank #4
Lower energy costs 61% 30% 9% 0%
Improved profitability 26% 30% 18% 26%
Lower maintenance costs 4% 23% 43% 29%
Incentives to defray costs 9% 16% 30% 45%
Average Importance of Benefits
Total
(n=170)
Customers completed a second paired comparison exercise to evaluate the relative importance of four
potential benefits of participation.
•Lower energy costs are ranked the #1 benefit to EE program participation by three in five (61%) IPC
irrigation customers.
•Improved profitability also resonates; lower maintenance costs and incentives are slightly less
compelling overall.
Lower energy costs
Improved profitability
Lower maintenance costs
Incentives to defray costs
Q7A-Q7F. Now, please consider these two benefits. Which one is more likely to encourage you to participate in an energy efficiency program?
34
Irrigation Efficiency
Rewards
None/Don't know
Likelihood to Participate in EE Programs
•Three in ten (30%) irrigation customers are very likely to participate in an EE program.
•Those who indicate interest in participation gravitate to Irrigation Efficiency Rewards (82%).
82%
18%
Which program(s) would you consider
(n=127)
10. Very likely
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0. Not at all likely
13%
2%
15%
6%
6%
29%
4%
4%
4%
3%
13%
How likely are you to participate
(n=170)
Low
24%
High
30%
Mid
45%
Q07H. How likely are you to participate in an energy efficiency program in the next 12 months? Q08. Which of the following programs, if any, sound like something you would consider participating in?
35
36
Kathryn Stevens
Client Services Director
Hansa GCR
+1 503.241.9136
[e-mail]
Thank You!
About Hansa|GCR
Hansa is a full-service market research and consulting firm. Looking through the lens of the customer experience and applying psychological principles of
human motivation, it offers best-in-class services in areas relating to Customer Relationship Equity, Market Assessment, Branding, and Product/Service
Innovation. Hansa is part of R K SWAMY HANSA, an emerging global group with 1,200+professionals offering Creative Communication, Market Research,
Data Analytics, Brand Consulting, Interactive and Healthcare Communication services. For further information about Hansa please visit us on the Web at
www.hansagcr.com, contact us via email at [e-mail] or call us at: +1 503.241.8036.
Jenn Falco
Senior Vice President
Hansa GCR
[phone]
[e-mail]
Energy Efficiency Non-participant Survey:
Research Conducted with
Commercial Customers
April 2013
Table of Contents:
Commercial Customer Report
Objectives and Methodology Page 3

Executive Summary Page 9

Awareness and Overall Interest for
Energy Efficiency Programs: Barriers and Drivers Page 14

Perceived Benefits and Barriers Page 22

Communication Preferences and Demographics Page 28

Appendix by Region Data Page 34
2
Objectives and Methodology
Research Goal and Objectives
Goal:
Idaho Power’s overarching goal is to understand why
customers do not participate and how best to increase
participation in energy efficiency programs.

Objectives:
Idaho Power’s primary objective for this research is to
increase participation in energy efficiency and gain an
understanding of why customers do not participate in
programs. Idaho Power will accomplish this objective by
assessing current awareness of, and interest in, a series of
energy efficiency programs, and weighing customer
perceptions of benefits and barriers to program
participation. The specific objectives are to:
•Ascertain customer awareness of energy efficiency
•Determine overall interest levels in programs and
offerings.
•Assess customer perceptions of program benefits.
•Identify barriers to program participation.
•Identify preferred communication channels.
4
5
•Survey fielded via phone.
•Data collection steps:

•Phone contact practices and protocols:
– At the start of the call, customers were informed of Idaho Power’s sponsorship and the energy efficiency
programs focus of the survey.
–Interviewing was done Monday through Saturday; calling ceased at or before 8:00 p.m. local time.
–When the interviewers reached an answering device, they left a message about the intent and sponsorship of
the research, including a call-back invitation.
–At the conclusion of each interview, participants were asked if they wanted to have someone from Idaho
Power Company follow up with them for any reason.

Methodology and Participant Profile: Data Collection
November 15-21
Survey pretest: 2 interviews
with customers from each
segment
November 22-30
Survey programming and
testing
December 3-6
First round of data collection
December 6-20
Survey redesign and
reprogramming
December 20-21
Live tests of revised survey
with Hansa and Idaho Power
team members
January 4-17
Final round of data collection
6
•Idaho Power provided customer lists for this survey.
•Sample lists were cleaned and sorted to identify only customers who are not
current participants in Idaho Power Energy Efficiency programs.
–Some customers identified themselves as current participants for a variety of
reasons.
•Purchase and use of energy efficient bulbs.
•Participation in energy efficiency programs at home rather than at work.
•Misidentification of a budget billing or other customer service program as an energy
efficiency program.
•Participation in an energy efficiency program that no longer exists.
•The original sample was disproportionate by region to allow participation
and analysis across regions.
–We applied post-stratification weights to adjust the final distribution of sample to
the estimated population of customers who do not participate in energy efficiency
programs.
–This presentation reflects the weighted proportion of customers who do not
participate in energy efficiency programs across regions and audiences.
Methodology and Participant Profile: Sampling and Data Prep
7
•The survey included three customer segments across IPC’s three geographical regions:
–Residential, Capital Region, Canyon-West Region, South-East Region
–Commercial, Capital Region, Canyon-West Region, South-East Region
–Irrigation, Capital Region, Canyon-West Region, South-East Region

•Total completes = 1095

Methodology and Participant Profile:
Segments and Regions in the Final Sample
Segment n= Theoretical
error
Residential 622 +/- 3.9%
Capital Region 221 +/- 6.6%
Canyon-West Region 201 +/- 6.9%
South-East Region 200 +/- 6.9%
Commercial 303 +/- 5.6%
Capital Region 102 +/- 9.7%
Canyon-West Region 100 +/- 9.8%
South-East Region 101 +/- 9.7%
Irrigation 170 +/- 7.5%
Total 1095 +/- 2.7%
This report
focuses solely on
the IPC
Commercial
Customers.
Across regions, customers surveyed tend most
often to be:
•Decision makers about electric utilities in their
business (63%).
•Owners of their business (67%).
•Owners of their commercial property (63%) where
1 to 5 people work at their company location (64%).
•Operating in a stand-alone building (37%) between
1,000 and 1,999 square feet (18%) or 10,000+
square feet (18%).
•Operating within industries including agriculture
(11%), construction (10%) and retail (9%).

No statistically significant differences by region.

Audience Summary
8
Executive Summary

Low 10%
High 61% Medium
29%
“Energy is not cheap
anymore. Energy efficient
programs are the most
important thing for me.”

“So we don't waste
power. We need to have
the knowledge of how to
save power.”

“Well anything you can
do to save money is
important. I guess I am
assuming that energy
efficiency means savings
on my part.”

“Energy efficiency for my
bill is not applicable. It's not
going to make a real
difference.”

“I have a lot more pressing
needs.”

“I don't know a program
that would help my
situation.”

Executive Summary
Importance of Energy Efficiency Programs to Customers
10
How important is it to your
business that Idaho Power
offer energy efficiency
programs?
(n=303)
Three in five IPC commercial customers consider EE programs an important
part of the company’s service.
Executive Summary
Awareness and Overall Interest
11
High

Mid

Low
High

Mid

Low
•Overall awareness of energy efficiency programs
offered by Idaho Power is relatively low.
•Across all customers in the commercial survey,
three in ten (29%) say they are aware of energy
efficiency programs from Idaho Power.
•Awareness by region is consistent with 28% in the
Capital region, 29% in the Canyon-West region and
31% in the South-East region aware of EE programs.
•Interest in participating in an energy efficiency program
in the future is moderate.
•One in four (25%) reports high interest; scores
range from 28% in Capital to 22% in Canyon-West
and 27% in South-East.
•Two in five (42%) overall show mid-range interest;
39% in Capital, 46% in Canyon-West and 42% in the
South-East service territories.

Executive Summary
Critical Barriers and Benefits
12
•Barriers: An overall lack of education about energy
efficiency stands in the way of program
participation.
•Three in five (58%) commercial customers cite a
lack of familiarity as the top reason for not
participating in energy efficiency programs.
•Concerns about upfront costs and length of time to
recoup investment also keep customers from
considering energy efficiency programs.

•Benefits: Lowering energy costs is the most
valuable benefit to commercial customers, three in
five (61%) rank it the top benefit of program
participation
•Improved profitability is the next most compelling
benefit, subsequent to their highest ranked benefit
of cost savings. More than half (55%) give it a rank
#1 or rank #2 in benefit importance.
Executive Summary
Communication Preferences
13
•Idaho Power commercial customers prefer learning
about EE programs through a letter or brochure or
company representatives.

•Two in five (44%) indicate a letter or brochure in the
mail is their most preferred communication channel.

•One in five (19%) cite an Idaho Power representative as
their most preferred communication vehicle.

•One in ten prefers either a newsletter (12%) or web site
(10%) as their most preferred outreach method.
Awareness and Overall Interest for
Energy Efficiency Programs:
Barriers and Drivers
Awareness
•Fewer than one-third are aware of commercial energy efficiency programs offered by Idaho
Power.
•Easy Upgrades is the most recognized commercial offering among those aware of energy
efficiency programs.
48%
7%
5%
3%
3%
3%
1%
1%
7%
27%
Specific program awareness
(n=88) Awareness of energy
efficiency programs
(n=303)
29%
71%
Easy Upgrades
Building Efficiency
FlexPeak Management
Green Power
Custom Efficiency
See ya later, refrigerator
Irrigation Peak Rewards
Time of Day
Other
None/Don't know
Yes No
Q01. Are you aware of any Commercial energy efficiency programs offered by Idaho Power? Q02A. Can you give us the name or description of any of those programs?
15
Idaho Power Customers and Energy Efficiency
10. Very well
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0. Not at all
8%
5%
10%
10%
10%
27%
7%
6%
5%
3%
11%
Idaho Power EE offerings
(n=303)
36%
5%
19%
9%
3%
14%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
Importance of energy
efficiency programs
(n=303)
10. Very
important
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0. Not at all
important
Businesses are
mostly neutral
about Idaho
Power’s offerings
in energy
efficiency.
Many commercial
customers
indicate energy
efficiency is
important to their
business.
Low 10%
High 61% Medium
29%
Q03A. Based on your knowledge today, how well does Idaho Power do at offering programs that help and/or encourage customers to be energy efficient? Q04. And finally, how important is it to you/your business that Idaho Power offer energy efficiency programs?
16
Customer Verbatim Responses: In Their Own Words …
Why EE programs are not important
(n=29*)
21%
14%
10%
7%
4%
Don't use a lot of energy

Too small

Already efficient

Unfamiliar with programs
Don't know
“We had an Idaho Power employee come and did a
survey a year ago. For the time spent and the
investments, it would have taken years to recoup.”

“I am a small business and I don't see how that would
help.”

“Energy efficiency for my bill is not applicable. It's not
going to make a real difference.”

“Well we are as efficient as we can be with the
equipment we have.”

“I think they are geared to private consumers and not to
small businesses.”

“Because I don't see that I would change anything, and I
have already been contacted by them. They are
important just not to me in this business. I already use
energy efficient light bulbs.”

Q05A. And why did you give that rating? Why are energy efficiency programs not important? (0 - 3 on 0 – 10 scale on Q04.)
17
* Small sample size = interpret results with caution
•When customers describe why EE programs are unimportant, they most often mention not using
much energy.
Customer Verbatim Responses: In Their Own Words …
“I am not aware of any programs. It has not been
detrimental at all. I would like to know if there are any.”

“I don't know the programs...they have some suggestions
and we never took advantage of them.”

“I run a business that runs electricity each day and my
bill flew quite a bit when I'm running the same. So I don't
know if they read meter wrong and that could be
improved on.”

“They have moved away from the smaller companies
and the incentives are for the larger companies. Doing
less for the smaller company. Longer to get the payback.”

“Because we found that most of the contractors that
came to us were to be $0 out of pocket, but that turned
out not to be the case.”

10%
8%
8%
7%
7%
7%
6%
5%
9%

Unfamiliar with programs

Don't use a lot of energy

Save money

Not important to
my business

Important

Save energy/water

Not applicable to my business

Too small
Don't know
Why neutral on EE programs
(n=90)
Q05B. Why did you give that rating? (4 - 7 on 0 – 10 scale on Q04.)
18
•Unfamiliarity with the programs in the most commonly cited reason for neutral reactions to
energy efficiency programs.
Customer Verbatim Responses: In Their Own Words …

“Just everybody is looking for a cost reduction in
business.”

“Well anything you can do to save money is important. I
guess I am assuming that energy efficiency means
savings on my part.”

“Well because we want to save money. It's difficult to
make profit.”

“Because I'd be willing to get into some reasonable price
range using energy saving programs.”

“We would have no good reason if there were not
incentives.”

“They offset the energy demand costs. They help control
peak demands.”

“Well, I think that is the only way to improve energy
efficiency- if the provider assists. That is the most
effective way, not the only way.”

63%
17%
10%
5%
Save money
Save energy/water

Good for future/environment/
economy/community

Education/knowledge
Why EE programs are very important
(n=184)
Q05C. And why did you give that rating? Why are energy efficiency programs very important? (8 - 10 on 0 – 10 scale on Q04.)
19
•When asked to explain their positive rating for EE programs, Commercial customers say they are
primarily impressed with the money saving aspects.
Easy Upgrades
Building Efficiency
Custom Efficiency
None/Don't know
Likelihood to Participate in Energy Efficiency Programs
•Participation likelihood is mostly neutral with more on the low end of the scale than the higher end.
•Easy Upgrades is the most attractive energy efficiency program.
68%
28%
18%
15%
Which program(s) would you consider
(n=205)
10. Very likely
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0. Not at all likely
15%
3%
7%
6%
7%
23%
7%
6%
11%
4%
11%
How likely are you to participate
(n=303)
Low
32%
High
25% Medium
42%
Q07H. How likely are you (your business) to participate in an energy efficiency program in the next 12 months? Q08. Which of the following programs, if any, sound like something you would consider participating in?
20
Getting the Word Out
• Bill inserts is the best source of information among those aware of Idaho Power’s energy efficiency
programs.
•Contractor/supplier is the second ranked source.

Idaho Power bill insert
Contractor/supplier
Call from an Idaho Power Energy Expert
Friends and family
Letter or brochure in the mail
Idaho Power web site
Television ad
Idaho Power newsletter
Newspaper ad
Radio ad
Community events
Through a Community Action Partnership agency
Social Media (Facebook & Twitter)
Other
Don't know/don't remember
26%
13%
10%
9%
7%
7%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
13%
7%
Where did you hear about EE programs
(n=88)
Q02C. Where did you hear about the program(s) you mentioned you are aware of?
21
Perceived Benefits and Barriers
23

Paired Comparison Exercise
The paired comparison exercise presents four benefits or barriers in a series of paired
combinations and forces participants to pick the more important in each pair.

Barriers Text: In the following section, you will be asked to compare 2 possible reasons (or barriers) for not participating in an energy
efficiency program. For each of the six pairs of reasons that I read, I’d like you to tell me which of the two is more likely to keep you from
participating in an energy efficiency program.

Throughout this exercise you may hear some of the reasons read more than once but they will be compared to a different reason each
time. So for each pair of reasons please tell us which of those two is more likely to keep you from participating in an energy efficiency
program.

Benefits Text: I am going to read six pairs of reasons why you might choose to participate in an energy efficiency program. From each
pair, select the more compelling reason to participate in an energy efficiency program.

Again, some of the reasons may be read more than once but compared against a different reason each time. For each pair of reasons,
please tell us which of those two is the more compelling reason to participate in an energy efficiency program.

Customers hear a total of six
different pair combinations each
for barriers and for benefits.
Which is more likely to keep you from participating in an
energy efficiency program?
Unfamiliar with the programs Don’t know where to start
Which is more likely to encourage you to participate in
an energy efficiency program?
Lower energy costs Incentives to defray costs
Barriers: Most and Least Important
33%
24%
27%
16%
Importance Rankings:
Most to Least
(Participant counts, n=303)
Barrier Rank #1 Rank #2 Rank #3 Rank #4
Unfamiliar with the programs 58% 15% 18% 9%
Upfront costs are too much 26% 15% 41% 19%
Don’t know where to start 3% 54% 21% 23%
Too long to recoup investment 13% 18% 20% 50%
Average Importance of Barriers
Total
(n=303)
Customers completed a paired comparison exercise to evaluate the relative importance of
four potential barriers to participation.
•Average rankings of the four barriers reveal that unfamiliarity with the programs is the
greatest barrier, while the long wait to recoup program investment is of least concern
as a barrier.
Unfamiliar with the programs
Upfront costs are too much
Don’t know where to start
Too long to recoup investment
Q6A-Q6F. Now, please consider these two barriers. Which one is more likely to keep you from participating in an energy efficiency program?
24
Customer Verbatim Responses: In Their Own Words …
•In the words of the commercial customers, low awareness and investment cost of
energy efficiency are the top barriers to participation.

“Well, I don't know anything about it and no one has
attempted to tell us anything.”

“Gaining the knowledge of what's available.”

“I am not familiar with, how to go about these programs.”

“I probably just don't know where to begin. I honestly don't
know enough about it.”

“Not enough information about the program, too many
initial costs.”

“Knowledge, I need to be informed. I need information to
be well informed and I need to know what the costs will
be.”

“The upfront costs are high.”

“The cost and time to get it done. The amount it will cost,
and how much time I will have to invest in myself to learn
about the program.”

Awareness/Unfamiliar with programs,
benefits, investment, process
Cost/how long to recoup cost/not
worth investment
Need help getting started
Time investment/convenience
Other
Don't know
NA/None
43%
40%
7%
5%
12%
3%
0%
Barriers
(n=303)
Q06H. In your own words, what is the most significant barrier to overcome for participation in an energy efficiency program?
25
Benefits: Most and Least Important
38%
26%
18%
18%
Importance Rankings:
Most to Least
(Participant counts, n=303)
Benefit Rank #1 Rank #2 Rank #3 Rank #4
Lower energy costs 61% 25% 14% 0%
Improved profitability 22% 33% 20% 25%
Lower maintenance costs 5% 23% 34% 38%
Incentives to defray costs 12% 19% 33% 37%
Average Importance of Benefits
Total
(n=303)
Customers completed a second paired comparison exercise to evaluate the relative
importance of four potential benefits of participation.
•Average rankings of the four benefits reveal lowering energy costs is the most
compelling benefit and lower maintenance costs is least compelling.
Lower energy costs
Improved profitability
Lower maintenance costs
Incentives to defray costs
Q7A-Q7F. Now, please consider these two benefits. Which one is more likely to encourage you to participate in an energy efficiency program?
26
Customer Verbatim Responses: In Their Own Words …
• In the customer’s own words, education outreach and accessibility are the best means to motivate
program participation.
•Providing no cost/low cost opportunities is the second most frequent recommendation.

“Put the programs out there where you can see them.”

“Better communication along with monthly bills.”

“Send out booklets on the programs.”

“Advertise more; get the word out better than just
newsletters.”

“Show me the savings on my bill.”

“Make it easier to secure a rebate.”

“Give us a full explanation on how we can save.”

“Provide more opportunities to decrease upfront costs.”

“Send representatives to my location to teach and train
and maybe do an inspection to show us where we can
improve energy efficiency practices.”

Educate/Raise awareness/Easy to get
information
No cost/Low cost/Incentives/Payment options
Clearly identify
benefits/savings/costs/requirements/process
Other
Don't know
NA/None
42%
35%
8%
12%
7%
3%
What would you change
(n=303)
Q07I. In your own words, if Idaho Power could change one thing, what could Idaho Power do to help motivate you to participate in an energy efficiency program?
27
Communication Preferences and
Demographics

Communication Preferences
Letter or brochure in the mail
Idaho Power representative
Newsletter
Web site
Newspaper ad
Email or e-newsletter
Other
(n=303)
69%
39%
37%
33%
11%
10%
5%
Preferred
Letter or brochure in the mail
Idaho Power representative
Newsletter
Web site
Newspaper ad
Other, specify
44%
19%
12%
10%
2%
14%
(n=303)
Most Preferred
•Commercial customers prefer to receive letters or brochures by mail over other
communications.
C01. Which of the following are preferable to you as ways Idaho Power could communicate with you? C02. Which of these is your most preferred way to receive communications from Idaho Power?
29
63%
37%
Audience Profile: Who Are They?
I make decisions
I share in decisions
S02. Which of the following best describes your role in making decisions about electric utilities in your home/business? B03. Which of the following best describes your job function?
30
(n=303)
Role in decision making
•Nearly two-thirds are primary decision makers.
•About two-thirds of the respondents are business owners.
Owner
Facilities or Office Manager
President
Operations Manager
Manager
Plant Engineer/Engineer
Other
Retired
67%
10%
7%
6%
5%
1%
4%
0%
(n=303)
Job Function
Audience Profile: Where Do They Work?
31
•Most common are companies with 1 to 5 employees.
•Industries vary, but the most prominent are agriculture, fishing, forestry and construction.
B01. How many people work at your company across all locations? B04. Please tell me which industry your company is in?
Agriculture, Farming, Fishing, Forestry, Mining, Extraction
Construction, Landscaping
Retail, Non-Restaurant
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Automotive
Healthcare, Pharmaceuticals
Restaurant
Transportation, Travel, Accommodations
Personal and Pet Services
Non-Profit Organization
Marketing, Media, Printing, Consulting
Telecommunications
Engineering, Architecture
Computer/IT, Consultation, Sales, Software Dev
Banking, Finance, Investment Service (Etc.)
Food Processing
Insurance
Wholesale Distribution
Legal
Other, specify
11%
10%
9%
8%
7%
7%
6%
5%
5%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
13%
(n=303)
Industry
1 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 50
More than 50
64%
17%
13%
7%
(n=303)
People work at company
Audience Profile: Where Do They Work?
•Most commercial customers own their business property.
•Prevalent office type is a stand-alone building.
32
B02. And do you own or rent your property? B06. And how many square feet, ballpark, is your current business operating space? B07. And which of the following best describes the office where you work? Is it…?
(n=303)
Own or rent your property
63%
36%
1%
Own
Rent/lease
Don't know
12%
18%
15%
14%
13%
18%
11%
(n=303)
Business operating space
1 to 999
1,000 to 1,999
2,000 to 2,999
3,000 to 4,999
5,000 to 9,999
10,000+
Don't know
(n=303)
Office description
37%
29%
19%
7%
3%
4%
1%
All or most of a stand-alone
building
An office in a stand-alone
building
An office in a complex of
buildings
Home-based office
All or most of a complex of
buildings
Other
NA/None
33
Kathryn Stevens
Client Services Director
Hansa GCR
+1 503.241.9136
[e-mail]
Thank You!
About Hansa|GCR
Hansa is a full-service market research and consulting firm. Looking through the lens of the customer experience and applying psychological principles of
human motivation, it offers best-in-class services in areas relating to Customer Relationship Equity, Market Assessment, Branding, and Product/Service
Innovation. Hansa is part of R K SWAMY HANSA, an emerging global group with 1,200+professionals offering Creative Communication, Market Research,
Data Analytics, Brand Consulting, Interactive and Healthcare Communication services. For further information about Hansa please visit us on the Web at
www.hansagcr.com, contact us via email at [e-mail] or call us at: +1 503.241.8036.
Jenn Falco
Senior Vice President
Hansa GCR
+1 503.295.0129
[e-mail]
Appendix by Region Data
Awareness
Q01. Are you aware of any Commercial energy efficiency programs offered by Idaho Power?
28%
73%
Yes
No
(n=102)
Capital
(A)
29%
71%
(n=100)
Canyon-West
(B)
31%
69%
(n=101)
South-East
(C)
Awareness of energy efficiency programs
•About seven in 10 in all regions are not aware of commercial energy efficiency programs.

35
Awareness
Q02A. Can you give us the name or description of any of those programs?
•Easy Upgrades is the best known energy efficiency program across all regions.

(n=28*)
Capital
(A)
(n=29*)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=31)
South-East
(C)
Easy Upgrades
Building Efficiency
Custom Efficiency
Green Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards
FlexPeak Management
See ya later, refrigerator
Time of Day
Other
None/Don't know
61%
7%
4%
4%
4%
0%
0%
0%
7%
29%
38%
7%
3%
0%
0%
10%
3%
3%
7%
31%
45%
7%
3%
7%
0%
3%
7%
0%
7%
23%
Specific program awareness
36
* Small sample size = interpret results with caution
Idaho Power Customers and Energy Efficiency
Q03A. Based on your knowledge today, how well does Idaho Power do at offering programs that help and/or encourage customers to be energy efficient?
•Across all regions, commercial customers are primarily neutral regarding Idaho Power’s role in
offering energy efficiency opportunities.

8%
5%
8%
9%
7%
32%
6%
5%
5%
1%
15%
10. Very well
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0. Not at all
Idaho Power EE offerings
(n=102)
Capital
(A)
(n=100)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=101)
South-East
(C)
6%
6%
10%
11%
12%
31%
8%
4%
5%
0%
7%
10%
3%
12%
10%
10%
18%
8%
8%
5%
7%
10%
37
10. Very important
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0. Not at all
important
Idaho Power Customers and Energy Efficiency
Q04. And finally, how important is it to you/your business that Idaho Power offer energy efficiency programs?
39%
4%
18%
11%
3%
14%
3%
4%
1%
0%
4%
Low
9%
High
61%
Mid
30%
Importance of energy efficiency programs
Capital
(A)
Canyon-West
(B)
South-East
(C)
28%
6%
23%
6%
4%
21%
3%
1%
4%
2%
2%
Low 9%
High
57%
Mid
34%
42%
5%
18%
11%
3%
7%
4%
4%
3%
3%
1%
Low
11%
High
64%
Mid
25%
(n=102) (n=100) (n=101)
38
•Most commercial customers rate energy efficiency programs as very important.

In Their Own Words …
Q05A. And why did you give that rating? Why are energy efficiency programs not important? (0 - 3 on 0 – 10 scale on Q04.)
(n=9*)
Capital
(A)
(n=9*)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=11*)
South-East
(C)
Don't use a lot of energy
Already efficient
Not important to my business
Too small
Unfamiliar with programs
Other
Don't know
33%
11%
11%
0%
0%
33%
11%
22%
11%
0%
22%
11%
33%
0%
9%
9%
0%
18%
9%
64%
0%
Why EE programs are not important
•Small company size is the top reason for lack of interest in energy efficiency programs in the Canyon-
West and South-East regions.
•Not using a lot of energy is a barrier in the Capital and Canyon-West regions.

* Small sample size = interpret results with caution
39
In Their Own Words …
Q05B. Why did you give that rating? (4 - 7 on 0 – 10 scale on Q04.)
(n=31)
Capital
(A)
(n=34)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=25*)
South-East
(C)
Not important to my business
Don't use a lot of energy
Unfamiliar with programs
Important
Too small
Save money
Not applicable to my business
Education/knowledge
Save energy/water
Already efficient
Other
Don't know
NA/None
16%
13%
7%
7%
7%
3%
3%
3%
3%
0%
35%
10%
0%
0%
3%
12%
3%
3%
12%
6%
6%
3%
6%
41%
9%
0%
4%
8%
12%
12%
4%
8%
8%
4%
16%
0%
16%
8%
4%
Why neutral on EE programs
•Commercial customers differ across regions regarding why they are neutral with regard to energy
efficiency programs.
•Lack of familiarity is more prevalent in Canyon-West and South-East than in the Capital region.
40
* Small sample size = interpret results with caution
In Their Own Words …
Q05C. And why did you give that rating? Why are energy efficiency programs very important? (8 - 10 on 0 – 10 scale on Q04.)
(n=62)
Capital
(A)
(n=57)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=65)
South-East
(C)
Save money
Save energy/water
Good for future/environment/economy/community
Good for my business
Education/knowledge
We use a lot of power
More efficient products
Other
68%
21%
16%
5%
3%
3%
0%
8%
56%
14%
11%
0%
7%
5%
2%
25%
63%
17%
5%
0%
6%
3%
5%
14%
Why EE programs are very important
•Across all regions, saving money is the top reason for the importance of energy efficiency
programs.

41
18%
3%
7%
5%
5%
25%
5%
7%
8%
5%
14%
Low
33%
High
28% Mid
39%
Likelihood to Participate in Energy Efficiency Programs
•In all regions, most are neutral regarding their likelihood to participate in energy efficiency
programs.

Q07H. How likely are you (is your business) to participate in an energy efficiency program in the next 12 months?
10. Very likely
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0. Not at all likely
How likely are you to participate?
(n=102)
Capital
(A)
(n=100)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=101)
South-East
(C)
10%
4%
8%
7%
9%
23%
7%
6%
13%
4%
9%
Low
32%
High
22%
Mid
46%
18%
2%
7%
7%
6%
21%
8%
6%
11%
4%
11%
Low
32%
High
27% Mid
42%
42
Likelihood to Participate in Energy Efficiency Programs
Q08. Which of the following programs, if any, sound like something you would consider participating in?
(n=68)
Capital
(A)
(n=68)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=69)
South-East
(C)
•Easy Upgrades is most attractive to those who would participate in all three regions.

Easy Upgrades
Building Efficiency
Custom Efficiency
None/Don't know
71%
27%
24%
9%
63%
28%
21%
19%
71%
30%
10%
16%
Which program(s) would you consider?
43
Getting the Word Out
•Bill inserts attract the most attention across all regions.
•Word of mouth from friends and family is a standout in Canyon-West.

Q02C. Where did you hear about the program(s) you mentioned you are aware of?
Where did you hear about EE programs?
(n=28*)
Capital
(A)
(n=29*)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=31)
South-East
(C)
Idaho Power bill insert
Contractor/supplier
Letter or brochure in the mail
Call from an Idaho Power Energy Expert
Idaho Power Web site
Idaho Power Newsletter
Television ad
Friends and family
Newspaper ad
Radio ad
Through a Community Action Partnership agency
Social Media (Facebook & Twitter)
Community events
Other
Don't know/don't remember
25%
18%
14%
7%
7%
7%
7%
4%
4%
4%
0%
0%
0%
18%
0%
24%
14%
3%
14%
3%
3%
0%
21%
3%
0%
3%
3%
0%
14%
0%
29%
7%
3%
10%
10%
0%
3%
3%
3%
3%
0%
0%
7%
6%
19%
44
* Small sample size = interpret results with caution
Barriers
Q06H. In your own words, what is the most significant barrier to overcome for participation in an energy efficiency program?
•Consistently in all regions, lack of awareness and cost concerns are the biggest obstacles to
participation in energy efficiency programs.
Barriers
(n=102)
Capital
(A)
(n=100)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=101)
South-East
(C)
Awareness/Unfamiliar with programs, benefits,
investment, process
Cost/how long to recoup cost/not worth investment
Need help getting started
Time investment/convenience
Other
Don't know
NA/None
44%
40%
8%
6%
15%
0%
0%
36%
46%
7%
6%
9%
6%
0%
48%
34%
7%
3%
3%
4%
1%
45
Respondent Suggestions for Change
Q07I. In your own words, if Idaho Power could change one thing, what could Idaho Power do to help motivate you participate in an energy efficiency program?
What would you change?
(n=102)
Capital
(A)
(n=100)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=101)
South-East
(C)
•In the Capital and South-East regions, most would change awareness approaches and information
accessibility to motivate participation.

Educate/Raise awareness/Easy to get information
No cost/Low cost/Incentives/Payment options
Clearly identify benefits/savings/costs/requirements/process
Other
Don't know
NA/None
49%
28%
6%
16%
6%
4%
35%
43%
7%
9%
10%
2%
41%
35%
10%
12%
5%
4%
46

Communication Preferences
•Across all regions, a letter or brochure in the mail is the most often cited communication.
C01. Which of the following are preferable to you as ways Idaho Power could communicate with you?
Letter or brochure in the mail
An Idaho Power Representative
Web site
Newsletter
Email or e-newsletter
Newspaper ad
Other
67%
39%
39%
37%
16%
8%
2%
Preferred
75%
34%
30%
36%
5%
16%
8%
65%
44%
29%
39%
8%
9%
5%
(n=102)
Capital
(A)
(n=100)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=101)
South-East
(C)
47

Communication Preferences
C02. Which of these is your most preferred way to receive communications from Idaho Power?
Letter or brochure in the
mail
An Idaho Power
Representative
Web site
Newsletter
Newspaper ad
Other
39%
20%
15%
8%
2%
17%
Most Preferred
44%
16%
11%
14%
3%
12%
49%
20%
5%
13%
2%
12%
(n=102)
Capital
(A)
(n=100)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=101)
South-East
(C)
48
•Receiving a letter or brochure in the mail is the most preferred communication preference in all
regions.
Audience Profile: Who Are They?
I make decisions
I share in decisions
S02. Which of the following best describes your role in making decisions about electric utilities in your home/business?
63%
37%
(n=102)
Capital
(A)
(n=100)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=101)
South-East
(C)
Role in decision making
66%
34%
60%
40%
•Decision making roles are similar across regions.
49
Audience Profile: Who Are They?
B03. Which of the following best describes your job function?
50
Owner
Facilities or Office Manager
President
Manager
Operations Manager
Plant Engineer/Engineer
Other
Retired
61%
14%
7%
6%
5%
2%
6%
0%
Job Function

72%
5%
10%
3%
6%
1%
3%
0%
67%
12%
3%
6%
8%
0%
3%
1%
(n=102)
Capital
(A)
(n=100)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=101)
South-East
(C)
•Owner is the prevalent job function in all regions.

Audience Profile: Where Do They Work?
51
•Companies with 1 to 5 employees are the most common in all regions.
B01. How many people work at your company across all locations?
1 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 50
More than 50
64%
14%
13%
10%
56%
20%
18%
6%
71%
16%
8%
5%
People work at company
(n=102)
Capital
(A)
(n=100)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=101)
South-East
(C)
Audience Profile: Where Do They Work?
52
•Agriculture, Farming, Forestry is the top industry in the Canyon-West and South-East,
while in the Capital region Healthcare, Pharmaceuticals tops the list.
B04. Please tell me which industry your company is in?
Healthcare, Pharmaceuticals
Construction, Landscaping
Real Estate
Automotive
Manufacturing
Personal and Pet Services
Retail, Non-Restaurant
Telecommunications
Agriculture, Farming, Fishing, Forestry, Mining, Extraction
Non-Profit Organization
Marketing, Media, Printing, Consulting
Restaurant
Engineering, Architecture
Computer/IT, Consultation, Sales, Software Dev
Banking, Finance, Investment Service (Etc.)
Wholesale Distribution
Transportation, Travel, Accommodations
Legal
Food Processing
Insurance
Other, specify
12%
10%
8%
8%
8%
7%
6%
5%
5%
5%
4%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
15%
4%
11%
9%
8%
7%
2%
11%
0%
13%
2%
3%
7%
0%
2%
0%
1%
7%
1%
0%
0%
12%
3%
8%
8%
5%
6%
4%
10%
1%
14%
3%
3%
4%
3%
1%
2%
0%
7%
1%
3%
2%
13%
(n=102) (n=100)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=101)
South-East
(C)
Industry
Capital
(A)
Audience Profile: Where Do They Work?
53
B02. And do you own or rent your property?
Own
Rent/lease
Don't know
71%
28%
1%
(n=102)
Capital
(A)
(n=100)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=101)
South-East
(C)
Own or rent your property
65%
33%
2%
54%
46%
0%
•Most commercial customers in all regions own their business property.
Audience Profile: Where Do They Work?
•All business operating space sizes represented across all regions.
54
B06. And how many square feet, ballpark, is your current business operating space?
1 to 999
1,000 to 1,999
2,000 to 2,999
3,000 to 4,999
5,000 to 9,999
10,000+
Don't know
9%
22%
21%
13%
15%
14%
8%
11%
16%
11%
14%
14%
22%
12%
16%
16%
12%
15%
10%
18%
14%
Business operating space
(n=102)
Capital
(A)
(n=100)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=101)
South-East
(C)
Audience Profile: Where Do They Work?
•Most business customers in all regions are in stand-alone buildings.
55
B07. And which of the following best describes the office where you work? Is it…?
All or most of a stand-alone
building
An office in a stand-alone
building
An office in a complex of
buildings
Home-based office
All or most of a complex of
buildings
Other
NA/None
35%
32%
20%
4%
3%
6%
0%
39%
22%
23%
10%
3%
3%
0%
37%
32%
16%
6%
4%
4%
2%
Office description
(n=102)
Capital
(A)
(n=100)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=101)
South-East
(C)
Energy Efficiency Non-participant Survey:
Research Conducted with
Irrigation Customers
April 2013
Table of Contents:
Irrigation Customer Report
2
Objectives and Methodology Page 3

Executive Summary Page 9

Awareness and Overall Interest for
Energy Efficiency Programs: Barriers and Drivers Page 14

Perceived Benefits and Barriers Page 22

Communication Preferences and Demographics Page 28

Appendix by Region Data Page 34
Objectives and Methodology
Research Goal and Objectives
Goal:
Idaho Power’s overarching goal is to understand why
customers do not participate and how best to increase
participation in energy efficiency programs.

Objectives:
Idaho Power’s primary objective for this research is to
increase participation in energy efficiency and gain an
understanding of why customers do not participate in
programs. Idaho Power will accomplish this objective by
assessing current awareness of, and interest in, a series of
energy efficiency programs, and weighing customer
perceptions of benefits and barriers to program
participation. The specific objectives are to:
•Ascertain customer awareness of energy efficiency
•Determine overall interest levels in programs and
offerings.
•Assess customer perceptions of program benefits.
•Identify barriers to program participation.
•Identify preferred communication channels.
4
5
•Survey fielded via phone.
•Data collection steps:

•Phone contact practices and protocols:
– At the start of the call, customers were informed of Idaho Power’s sponsorship and the energy
efficiency program focus of the survey.
–Interviewing was done Monday through Saturday; calling ceased at or before 8:00 p.m. local time.
–When the interviewers reached an answering device, they left a message about the intent and
sponsorship of the research, including a call-back invitation to encourage participation.
–At the conclusion of each interview, participants were asked if they wanted to have someone from
Idaho Power Company follow up with them for any reason.

Methodology and Participant Profile:
Data Collection Process and Protocols
November 15-21
Survey pretest: two
interviews with customers
from each segment
November 22-30
Survey programming
and program testing
December 3-6
First round of
data collection: all audiences
December 6-20
Survey redesign and
reprogramming to reduce
length and complexity
December 20-21
Live tests of revised survey
with Hansa and Idaho Power
team members
January 4-17
Final round of data
collection: all audiences
6
•Idaho Power provided current customer lists for this survey. These lists were the
sole recruitment vehicle for screening and interviewing.
•Sample lists were cleaned and sorted to identify only customers who are not
current participants in Idaho Power Energy Efficiency programs.
–A small number of customers identified themselves as current participants; potential
reasons include:
•Purchase and use of energy efficient bulbs.
•Participation in energy efficiency programs at residence rather than on farm.
•Participation in an energy efficiency program that no longer exists.
•The original sample for residential and commercial audiences was disproportionate
by region to obtain participation across regions that would allow analysis across
regions. Irrigation, on the other hand, was simple-random-sampled.
–We applied post-stratification weights to adjust the final distribution of sample to the
estimated population of customers who do not participate in energy efficiency programs.
–This presentation reflects the weighted proportion of customers who do not participate in
energy efficiency programs across regions and audiences.
Methodology and Participant Profile:
Sampling and Data Preparation
7
•The survey included three customer segments across IPC’s three geographic regions:
•Residential, Capital Region, Canyon-West Region, South-East Region
•Commercial, Capital Region, Canyon-West Region, South-East Region
•Irrigation, Capital Region, Canyon-West Region, South-East Region

•We completed a total of 1,095 interviews.

Methodology and Participant Profile:
Segments and Regions in the Final Sample
Segment n= Theoretical
error
Residential 622 +/- 3.9%
Capital Region 221 +/- 6.6%
Canyon-West Region 201 +/- 6.9%
South-East Region 200 +/- 6.9%
Commercial 303 +/- 5.6%
Capital Region 102 +/- 9.7%
Canyon-West Region 100 +/- 9.8%
South-East Region 101 +/- 9.7%
Irrigation 170 +/- 7.5%
Total 1095 +/- 2.7%
This report
focuses solely on
the IPC Irrigation
Customers.
Across regions, irrigation customers surveyed tend most often to be:
•Primary (63%) decision-makers for electric utilities.
•A mix of full (53%) and part-time (44%) farmers farming larger fields; one in two (51%)
farms 100 acres or more.
•Growing hay (71%), grains (38%), pasture (31%) or corn (24%).
•Irrigating from more than one pump location (54%) most often using a hand line (41%),
wheel line (39%) or pivot system (35%).

For irrigation customers, there are generally more similarities than differences
across the IPC service territory:
•Awareness and likelihood to participate in EE programs is generally constant from region to
region.
•EE programs are generally viewed as very important across territories.

Differences by region:
•Irrigation Peak Rewards is more top-of-mind for customers in the Capital region; Irrigation
Efficiency Rewards more so for those in Canyon-West and South-East.
•Customers in the Capital region are more likely (59%) to indicate IPC does very well at
offering programs that help and encourage energy efficiency than are customers in the
Canyon-West and South-East regions (32% each).

Audience Summary
8
Executive Summary

Low 6%
High 69%
Mid 25%
“Because I believe it is
good for our resources.”

“Anything to help save
money.”

“The more money I can
save on energy, the more
I can make on irrigating.”

“We need to spread the
energy for everyone.”

“Without them, we will
not have anything.”

“I am too small of an
operation.”

“I am a farmer. To me,
energy efficiency means
turning off the irrigation
pump. We live in a desert
where water is a necessity.”
Executive Summary
Importance of Energy Efficiency Programs to Customers
10
How important is it to your
business that Idaho Power offer
energy efficiency programs?
More than two-thirds (69%) of IPC irrigation customers consider EE programs
important.
(n=170)
Executive Summary
Awareness and Overall Interest
11
High

Mid

Low
High

Mid

Low
•Overall awareness of energy efficiency programs
offered by Idaho Power is moderate.
•Across all customers in the irrigation survey, more
than one-half (55%) say they are aware of energy
efficiency programs from Idaho Power.
•Awareness by region is generally consistent but
somewhat higher at 64% in the Capital region vs.
53% in the Canyon-West region and 55% in the
South-East region.
•Interest in participating in an energy efficiency
program in the future is also moderate.
•Across the company about one-third of customers
indicate high interest (33% in Capital, 27% in
Canyon-West and 33% in South-East).
•Nearly half outside the Capital region show
moderate interest, with 46% in Canyon-West and
51% in South-East; three in ten (31%) in the Capital
express mid-levels of interest.

Overall EE Program
Awareness
Overall Interest in
EE Program Participation
Executive Summary
Critical Barriers and Benefits
12
•Barriers: An overall lack of familiarity about energy
efficiency stands in the way of participation.
•Nearly three in five (57%) respondent irrigation
customers indicate a lack of program familiarity is
the #1 reason that keeps them from participating.
•Concerns about upfront costs and not knowing
where to start are also listed as barriers to
participation.

•Benefits: Lower energy costs emerge as the key
driver for program participation—the tangible
benefit that matters most to irrigators.
•Three in five (61%) IPC customers indicate lower
energy costs are the #1 reason to participate in an
EE program.
•Delivering improved profitability also emerges as a
powerful motivator.
Executive Summary
Communication Preferences
13
•Idaho Power irrigation customers prefer clear,
detailed information for learning about offerings
like energy efficiency programs.

•Bill inserts, the Web site and community events
emerge as the most preferred communication
channels. (Newspapers are also valued in the
Canyon-West and South-East territories.)

•More than half (54%) select bill inserts as their
most preferred channel overall; the Web site and
community events are the preference for about
one in two customers (13% and 9% respectively).

•Verbatim comments make clear the importance
of providing detailed information to irrigation
customers while at the same time making the
programs as accessible as possible in terms of
increasing awareness, developing programs
suited to small and large irrigators, and in building
financial momentum for participation.
Awareness and Overall Interest for
Energy Efficiency Programs:
Barriers and Drivers
Awareness
•Just over half (55%) of IPC irrigation customers are aware of energy efficiency programs.
•Three in four (75%) of those who are aware name a specific, irrigation-focused program.
41%
34%
8%
25%
Specific program awareness
(n=96)
Awareness of energy
efficiency programs
(n=170)
55%
45%
Irrigation Peak Rewards
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
Other
None/Don't know
Yes No
Q01. Are you aware of any irrigation energy efficiency programs offered by Idaho Power? Q02A. Can you give us the name or description of any of those programs?
15
Idaho Power Customers and Energy Efficiency
10. Very well
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0. Not at all well
9%
7%
18%
14%
6%
25%
3%
6%
3%
2%
8%
Idaho Power EE offerings
(n=170)
45%
8%
16%
7%
3%
11%
4%
1%
0%
1%
4%
Importance of energy
efficiency programs
(n=170)
10. Very
important
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0. Not at all
important
One in three
(34%) customers
views IPC
programs as doing
well to encourage
energy efficient
behavior.
Just under half
(47%) are neutral
to positive while
one in five (19%)
indicates IPC isn’t
doing well at all.
Energy efficiency
matters to Idaho
Power irrigation
customers; more
than two-thirds
(69%) consider
programs
important.
Few consider the
topic
unimportant.
Low
6%
High
69% Mid
24%
Q03A. Based on your knowledge today, how well does Idaho Power do at offering programs that help and/or encourage customers to be energy efficient? Q04. And finally, how important is it to you/your business that Idaho Power offer energy efficiency programs?
16
Customer Verbatim Responses: In Their Own Words …
Why EE programs are not important
(n=11*)
22%
9%
7%
Not important to
my business

Don't use a lot of energy

Too small
“Because they aren't that
big of a deal honestly.”

“Because I am too small
of an operation.”

“We use very little energy
because we use gravity
flow.”

“Energy efficiency for my
bill is not applicable. It's
not going to make a real
difference.”

“Because we don't work
and they charge us to use
the pump.”

Q05A. And why did you give that rating? Why are energy efficiency programs not important? (0 - 3 on 0 – 10 scale on Q04.)
17
* Small sample size = interpret results with caution
•Customers explain in their own words that EE programs are not important because the programs have limited
impact.
Customer Verbatim Responses: In Their Own Words …

“I am not really educated on the
programs.”

“When I get my bill, it includes information
that would provide some insight.”

“I don't know what they offer, so it is hard
for me to get a numerical value.”

“Because we're too small for any programs
to be economical. I don't like anybody
managing my power except for myself.”

“Because I can do these things on my own.”

“It is a great idea but our setup here is not
conducive to the programs they offer.”

“Because we have such a small amount that
we need to irrigate.”

“We didn't qualify for the program. We
don't use enough power.”

12%
8%
8%
8%
8%
3%
3%
Unfamiliar with programs

Don't use a lot of energy

Save money

Not applicable to
my business

Education/knowledge
Don't know
NA/None
Why neutral on EE programs
(n=42)
Q05B. Why did you give that rating? (4 - 7 on 0 – 10 scale on Q04.)
18
• Customers who are neutral about EE programs say they don’t know about the programs or don’t see how the
programs are relevant.
Customer Verbatim Responses: In Their Own Words …

“Because energy is a natural resource, and we
need to be efficient with it, in order to take
care of our company.”

“The more we can conserve, the lower our bill.”

“Because it would help to save money.”

“So I can increase profit margin. Lowering my
energy costs would help me profit more.

“To keep energy costs “at a minimum.”

“We are all responsible for the energy we use.”

“Because [we] need to save energy and money.”

“Power for irrigation is extremely expensive for
farmers pumping from 500 ft or more.”

“During peak season, it is too expensive to
pump water.”
58%
17%
8%
2%
Save money

Save energy/water

Good for future/environment
/economy/community
Don't know
Why EE programs are very important
(n=117)
Q05C. And why did you give that rating? Why are energy efficiency programs very important? (8 - 10 on 0 – 10 scale on Q04.)
19

•When customers use their own words to explain why EE programs are important, they most often mention
saving money.
Irrigation Efficiency
Rewards
None/Don't know
Likelihood to Participate in Energy Efficiency Programs
•Three in ten (30%) irrigation customers are very likely to participate in an EE program.
•Those who indicate interest in participation gravitate to Irrigation Efficiency Rewards (82%).
82%
18%
Which program(s) would you consider
(n=127)
10. Very likely
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0. Not at all likely
13%
2%
15%
6%
6%
29%
4%
4%
4%
3%
13%
How likely are you to participate
(n=170)
Low
24%
High
30%
Mid
45%
Q07H. How likely are you to participate in an energy efficiency program in the next 12 months? Q08. Which of the following programs, if any, sound like something you would consider participating in?
20
Getting the Word Out
•Irrigation customers aware of EE programs most often cite direct mail (24%) and bill
inserts (20%) as the source of their awareness.
•Around one in seven (16%) learns via word of mouth, either from friends and family
members or contractors and suppliers.

Letter or brochure in the mail
Idaho Power bill insert
Contractor/supplier
Friends and family
Idaho Power Newsletter
Community events
Call from an Idaho Power Energy Expert
Through a Community Action Partnership agency
Television ad
Idaho Power Web site
Newspaper ad
Billboards
Other
Don't know/don't remember
24%
20%
9%
7%
6%
6%
6%
4%
4%
3%
2%
0%
7%
13%
Where did you hear about EE programs
(n=96)
Q02C. Where did you hear about the program(s) you mentioned you are aware of?
21
Perceived Benefits and Barriers
23

Paired Comparison Exercise
The paired comparison exercise presents four benefits or barriers in a series of paired
combinations and forces participants to pick the more important in each pair.

Barriers Text: In the following section, you will be asked to compare 2 possible reasons (or barriers) for not participating in an energy
efficiency program. For each of the six pairs of reasons that I read, I’d like you to tell me which of the two is more likely to keep you from
participating in an energy efficiency program.

Throughout this exercise you may hear some of the reasons read more than once but they will be compared to a different reason each
time. So for each pair of reasons please tell us which of those two is more likely to keep you from participating in an energy efficiency
program.

Benefits Text: I am going to read six pairs of reasons why you might choose to participate in an energy efficiency program. From each
pair, select the more compelling reason to participate in an energy efficiency program.

Again, some of the reasons may be read more than once but compared against a different reason each time. For each pair of reasons,
please tell us which of those two is the more compelling reason to participate in an energy efficiency program.

Customers heard a total of six
different pair combinations each
for barriers and for benefits.
Which is more likely to keep you from participating in an
energy efficiency program?
Unfamiliar with the programs Don’t know where to start
Which is more likely to encourage you to participate in
an energy efficiency program?
Lower energy costs Incentives to defray costs
Customers completed a paired comparison exercise to evaluate the relative importance of four
potential barriers to participation.
•Nearly three in five (57%) irrigation customers indicate a lack of familiarity with programs is the
#1 reason that keeps them from participating in energy efficiency programs.
•Upfront costs being too much and not knowing where to start are also barriers to participation.

Barriers: Most and Least Important
34%
26%
21%
10%
Importance Rankings:
Most to Least
(Participant counts, n=170)
Barrier Rank #1 Rank #2 Rank #3 Rank #4
Unfamiliar with the programs 57% 17% 18% 8%
Upfront costs are too much 27% 17% 33% 23%
Don’t know where to start 2% 49% 26% 23%
Too long to recoup investment 14% 16% 24% 46%
Average Importance of Barriers
Total
(n=170)
Unfamiliar with the programs
Upfront costs are too much
Don’t know where to start
Too long to recoup investment
Q6A-Q6F. Now, please consider these two barriers. Which one is more likely to keep you from participating in an energy efficiency program?
24
Customer Verbatim Responses: In Their Own Words …
•Open-ended comments from IPC irrigation customers validate a lack of program awareness
and a perception of high start-up costs as barriers to participation in energy efficiency
programs.
•Consistent with feedback throughout the survey, programs targeted
to smaller irrigators appear to be an unmet need. “I have to know they exist.”

“I just don't know enough about the
programs.”

“I don't know anything about the
program.”

“We haven't [participated] because
they want too much.”

“The upfront costs.”

“The fact that it is too long to
recoup investments.”

“The size of my operation doesn't
allow for them.”

“I don't know how to get started.”
Awareness/unfamiliar with programs,
benefits, investment, process
Cost/how long to recoup cost/not
worth investment
Need help getting started
Other
Don't know
NA/None
34%
24%
7%
23%
10%
2%
Barriers
(n=170)
Q06H. In your own words, what is the most significant barrier to overcome for participation in an energy efficiency program?
25
Benefits: Most and Least Important
38%
27%
19%
16%
Importance Rankings:
Most to Least
(Participant counts, n=170)
Benefit Rank #1 Rank #2 Rank #3 Rank #4
Lower energy costs 61% 30% 9% 0%
Improved profitability 26% 30% 18% 26%
Lower maintenance costs 4% 23% 43% 29%
Incentives to defray costs 9% 16% 30% 45%
Average Importance of Benefits
Total
(n=170)
Customers completed a second paired comparison exercise to evaluate the relative importance of four
potential benefits of participation.
•Lower energy costs are ranked the #1 benefit to EE program participation by three in five (61%) IPC
irrigation customers.
•Improved profitability also resonates; lower maintenance costs and incentives are slightly less
compelling overall.
Lower energy costs
Improved profitability
Lower maintenance costs
Incentives to defray costs
Q7A-Q7F. Now, please consider these two benefits. Which one is more likely to encourage you to participate in an energy efficiency program?
26
Customer Verbatim Responses: In Their Own Words …
•When asked what one thing IPC could do to help encourage
EE program participation, top open-ended comments focus
on low or no-cost options or incentives for making changes,
as well as more information about EE programs. “Make it so we could get into it
for less cost upfront and quicker
return on investment.”

“It has to be cost saving.”

“Offer an incentive.”

“I would say more improved
incentives to participate.”

“Lower my costs.”

“Drop the costs of electricity.”

“Explain the costs of everything.”

“I need more information and get
more familiar with them.”

“They would have to come tell
me what to do.”
Offer no or low–cost options/Incentives
Educate/Raise awareness/
Develop easy-to-access information
Clearly identify
benefits/savings/costs/requirements
Make it easy, convenient
Other
Don't know/none
39%
20%
6%
6%
19%
19%
What would you change
(n=170)
Q07I. In your own words, if Idaho Power could change one thing, what could Idaho Power do to help motivate you participate in an energy efficiency program?
27
Communication Preferences and
Demographics
•Bill inserts stand out as the preferred way to reach irrigation customers with EE news.

Communication Preferences
Bill insert
Community events
Web site
Newspaper ad
Letter or brochure in the mail
Email or e-newsletter
Other
Don't know
(n=170)
65%
24%
22%
16%
12%
5%
7%
1%
Preferred
Bill insert
Web site
Community events
Newspaper ad
Other, specify
54%
13%
9%
5%
19%
(n=170)
Most preferred
C01. Which of the following are preferable to you as ways Idaho Power could communicate with you? C02. Which of these is your most preferred way to receive communications from Idaho Power?
29
63%
37%
53% 44%
3%
Audience Profile: Who Are They?
30
•Participating irrigation customers are a strong mix of full- and part-time farmers, and
primary as well as supporting electric utility decision-makers.
S02. Which of the following best describes your role in making decisions about electric utilities in your home/business? I06. And do you farm full time or part time?
I make decisions
I share in decisions
(n=170)
Role in decision making
(n=170)
Farm full- or part-time
Full-time
Part-time
Prefer not to say
Audience Profile: The Farm
31
•Irrigation respondents most often have larger farms. Most own their land.
•Hay, followed by grains, pasture and corn are the most common crops.
I01. How many acres do you farm? I02. What crops do you grow? I03. What percent of your acres are owned vs. rented or leased?
9%
18%
11%
11%
51%
(n=170)
Farm in acres
1 to 9
10 to 24
25 to 49
50 to 99
100+
(n=170)
Crops you grow
71%
38%
31%
24%
10%
9%
9%
4%
9%
Hay
Grains
Pasture
Corn
Potatoes
Beans
Sugar Beets
Onions
Other
(n=170)
Percent of Farm Land Owned
4%
4%
4%
11%
4%
74%
0% 50%-74%
1%-24%
25%-49%
75%-99%
100%
Audience Profile: The Irrigation Equipment
•Just under half (46%) of responding irrigation customers report one pump location; the
remainder (54%) count two or more.
•While some farms have more than one type of irrigation system, hand lines (41%), wheel
lines (39%) and pivot systems (35%) are overall most common.
32
I04. How many pump locations do you operate? I05. What type of irrigation system do you have?
46%
29%
25%
(n=170)
How many pump locations
1
2
3+
41%
39%
35%
23%
8%
8%
1%
1%
(n=170)
Type of irrigation system
Hand line
Wheel line
Pivot/linear
Furrow/flood
Portable solid set
Buried solid set
Drip
Other
33
Kathryn Stevens
Client Services Director
Hansa GCR
+1 503.241.9136
[e-mail]
Thank You!
About Hansa|GCR
Hansa is a full-service market research and consulting firm. Looking through the lens of the customer experience and applying psychological principles of
human motivation, it offers best-in-class services in areas relating to Customer Relationship Equity, Market Assessment, Branding, and Product/Service
Innovation. Hansa is part of R K SWAMY HANSA, an emerging global group with 1,200+professionals offering Creative Communication, Market Research,
Data Analytics, Brand Consulting, Interactive and Healthcare Communication services. For further information about Hansa please visit us on the Web at
www.hansagcr.com, contact us via email at [e-mail] or call us at: +1 503.241.8036.
Jenn Falco
Senior Vice President
Hansa GCR
[phone]
[e-mail]
Appendix by Region Data
Awareness
Q01. Are you aware of any irrigation energy efficiency programs offered by Idaho Power?
64%
36%
Yes
No
(n=39)
Capital
(A)
53%
47%
(n=64)
Canyon-West
(B)
55%
45%
(n=67)
South-East
(C)
Awareness of energy efficiency programs
•Awareness of EE programs is the about the same (statistically undifferentiated) across
regions.
•Note, however, that Capital service territory customers are somewhat more aware than
customers in the other regions.

35
Awareness
Q02A. Can you give us the name or description of any of those programs?
•IPC customers in the Canyon-West and South-East regions are more likely to name the
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program when compared with those in the Capital region.

(n=25*)
Capital
(A)
(n=34)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=37)
South-East
(C)
Irrigation Peak Rewards
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
Other
None/Don't know
56%
4%
4%
36%
44%
32%
9%
21%
32%
43%
8%
27%
Specific program awareness
36
* Small sample size = interpret results with caution
Idaho Power Customers and Energy Efficiency
Q03A. Based on your knowledge today, how well does Idaho Power do at offering programs that help and/or encourage customers to be energy efficient?
•Three in five (59%) irrigation customers in the Capital region indicate IPC does well in terms
of offering programs that help or encourage energy efficiency.
•Only one in three (32%) gives the same rating in the Canyon-West or South-East regions.

13%
5%
41%
5%
3%
26%
3%
0%
0%
0%
5%
10. Very well
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0. Not at all
Idaho Power EE offerings
(n=39)
Capital
(A)
(n=64)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=67)
South-East
(C)
8%
8%
16%
17%
8%
27%
3%
3%
2%
3%
6%
10%
6%
16%
10%
3%
24%
3%
10%
5%
0%
12%
37
10. Very important
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
1
0. Not at all
important
Idaho Power Customers and Energy Efficiency
Q04. And finally, how important is it to you/your business that Idaho Power offer energy efficiency programs?
44%
5%
15%
5%
3%
18%
3%
5%
0%
3%
Low
8%
High
64%
Mid
29%
Importance of energy efficiency programs
Capital
(A)
Canyon-West
(B)
South-East
(C)
48%
8%
14%
9%
2%
9%
3%
2%
2%
3%
Low
7%
High
70%
Mid
23%
42%
9%
19%
5%
5%
10%
5%
0%
2%
5%
Low
7%
High
70%
Mid
24%
(n=39) (n=64) (n=67)
38
•Across all regions at least two in three (64%-70%) IPC irrigation customers indicate IPC EE
programs are very important as measured by providing a score of 8 or greater on an
eleven-point scale.

In Their Own Words …
Q05C. And why did you give that rating? Why are energy efficiency programs very important? (8 - 10 on 0 – 10 scale on Q04.)
(n=25*)
Capital
(A)
(n=45)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=47)
South-East
(C)
Save money
Save energy/water
Good for future/environment/economy/community
More efficient products
Other
Don't know
52%
16%
12%
4%
28%
0%
62%
18%
9%
2%
16%
0%
53%
15%
6%
6%
28%
4%
Why EE programs are very important
39
* Small sample size = interpret results with caution
•A majority of IPC irrigation customers consider EE programs very important. For these
customers, the programs matter first and foremost because they can save money.
•Reducing environmental impact, and providing for the future, are cited as secondary
reasons for program importance.
18%
5%
10%
0%
5%
23%
3%
5%
3%
5%
23%
Low
36%
High
33%
Mid
31%
Likelihood to Participate in Energy Efficiency Programs
•Across regions approximately one in three irrigation customers indicates they are likely to
participate in an EE program.
•Those in the Capital region are less likely to participate.

Q07H. How likely are you to participate in an energy efficiency program in the next 12 months?
10. Very likely
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0. Not at all likely
How likely are you to participate?
(n=39)
Capital
(A)
(n=64)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=67)
South-East
(C)
11%
2%
14%
8%
6%
27%
5%
5%
3%
3%
17%
Low
28%
High
27%
Mid
46%
15%
2%
16%
6%
6%
34%
5%
3%
6%
2%
6%
Low
17%
High
33%
Mid
51%
40
Likelihood to Participate in Energy Efficiency Programs
Q08. Which of the following programs, if any, sound like something you would consider participating in?
(n=25*)
Capital
(A)
(n=46)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=56)
South-East
(C)
•Irrigation Efficiency Rewards stands out as an appealing program with more than three in
four customers across regions indicating interest.

Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
None/Don't know
92%
8%
87%
13%
75%
25%
Which program(s) would you consider?
41
* Small sample size = interpret results with caution
Getting the Word Out
•Past awareness has been driven by letters and brochures, bill inserts and, in the Capital and
South-East territories, community events and friends and family.
•Contractors have also played a role in the Canyon-West and South-East regions.

Q02C. Where did you hear about the program(s) you mentioned you are aware of?
Where did you hear about EE programs?
(n=25*)
Capital
(A)
(n=34)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=37)
South-East
(C)
Letter or brochure in the mail
Idaho Power bill insert
Idaho Power Newsletter
Community events
Friends and family
Call from an Idaho Power Energy Expert
Billboards
Contractor/supplier
Through a Community Action Partnership agency
Television ad
Idaho Power Web site
Newspaper ad
Other
Don't know/don't remember
28%
20%
8%
8%
8%
4%
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
20%
21%
27%
6%
3%
3%
6%
0%
9%
6%
3%
3%
3%
6%
15%
27%
11%
5%
8%
11%
5%
0%
11%
3%
5%
3%
0%
8%
8%
42
* Small sample size = interpret results with caution
Barriers
Q06H. In your own words, what is the most significant barrier to overcome for participation in an energy efficiency program?
•Across regions when customers describe in their own words the barriers to participation, cost and
awareness are the most frequently mentioned issues.
Barriers
(n=39)
Capital
(A)
(n=64)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=67)
South-East
(C)
Cost/how long to recoup cost/not worth investment
Awareness/Unfamiliar with programs, benefits,
investment, process
Need help getting started
Size of company
Time investment/convenience
Too complex/Too difficult/Confusing
Other
Don't know
NA/None
36%
28%
8%
5%
3%
0%
16%
8%
0%
25%
38%
6%
3%
5%
0%
14%
9%
0%
21%
31%
8%
6%
5%
5%
11%
12%
5%
43
•Open-ended suggestions for improvement are also consistent across regions.
•Comments focus on reducing the initial cost, and increased education.

Respondent Suggestions for Change
Q07I. In your own words, if Idaho Power could change one thing, what could Idaho Power do to help motivate you participate in an energy efficiency program?
What would you change?
(n=39)
Capital
(A)
(n=64)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=67)
South-East
(C)
No cost/Low cost/Incentives/Payment options
Educate/Raise awareness/Easy to get information
Provide options/Customize
Clearly identify benefits/savings/costs/requirements/process
Easy, convenient
Other
Don't know
NA/None
39%
21%
3%
0%
0%
5%
18%
15%
38%
17%
3%
6%
6%
22%
14%
5%
42%
22%
5%
6%
6%
9%
10%
5%
44

Communication Preferences
•A wide variety of communication methods are preferable to IPC irrigation customers: the bill insert,
community events, the Web site, and company representatives comprise the top tier.
•Note the increased acceptability of the newspaper ad outside the Capital region.

C01. Which of the following are preferable to you as ways Idaho Power could communicate with you?
Bill insert
Community events
Web site
Letter or brochure in the mail
Email or e-newsletter
Newspaper ad
An Idaho Power Representative
Other
Don't know
82%
26%
18%
13%
10%
8%
0%
0%
0%
Preferred
56%
22%
27%
16%
5%
16%
5%
5%
2%
72%
25%
18%
8%
3%
19%
2%
5%
0%
(n=39)
Capital
(A)
(n=64)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=67)
South-East
(C)
45

Communication Preferences
•While many communication vehicles are acceptable, the most preferred communicationn
method overall is the bill insert.
•Note the increased value of Web for those in the Canyon-West and South-East regions.
C02. Which of these is your most preferred way to receive communications from Idaho Power?
Bill insert
Community events
Web site
Newspaper ad
Other
72%
8%
0%
0%
21%
Most preferred
44%
9%
17%
6%
23%
64%
9%
9%
5%
13%
(n=39)
Capital
(A)
(n=64)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=67)
South-East
(C)
46
Audience Profile: Who Are They?
I make decisions
I share in decisions
S02. Which of the following best describes your role in making decisions about electric utilities in your home/business?
64%
36%
(n=39)
Capital
(A)
(n=64)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=67)
South-East
(C)
Role in decision making
61%
39%
67%
33%
•Approximately two-thirds are decision makers across regions.
47
Energy Efficiency Non-participant Survey:
Research Conducted with
Residential Customers
April 2013
Table of Contents:
Residential Customer Report
Objectives and Methodology Page 3

Executive Summary Page 9

Awareness and Overall Interest for
Energy Efficiency Programs: Barriers and Drivers Page 14

Perceived Benefits and Barriers Page 22

Communication Preferences and Demographics Page 28

Appendix by Region Data Page 34
2
Objectives and Methodology
Research Goal and Objectives
Goal:
Idaho Power’s overarching goal is to understand why
customers do not participate and how best to increase
participation in energy efficiency programs.

Objectives:
Idaho Power’s primary objective for this research is to
increase participation in energy efficiency and gain an
understanding of why customers do not participate in
programs. Idaho Power will accomplish this objective by
assessing current awareness of, and interest in, a series of
energy efficiency programs, and weighing customer
perceptions of benefits and barriers to program
participation. The specific objectives are to:
•Ascertain customer awareness of energy efficiency
•Determine overall interest levels in programs and
offerings.
•Assess customer perceptions of program benefits.
•Identify barriers to program participation.
•Identify preferred communication channels.
4
5
•Survey fielded via phone.
•Data collection steps:

•Phone contact practices and protocols:
– At the start of the call, customers were informed of Idaho Power’s sponsorship and the energy
efficiency program focus of the survey.
–Interviewing was done Monday through Saturday; calling ceased at or before 8:00 p.m. local time.
–When the interviewers reached an answering device, they left a message about the intent and
sponsorship of the research, including a call-back invitation to encourage participation.
–At the conclusion of each interview, participants were asked if they wanted to have someone from
Idaho Power Company follow up with them for any reason.

Methodology and Participant Profile:
Data Collection Process and Protocols
November 15-21
Survey pretest: two
interviews with customers
from each segment
November 22-30
Survey programming
and program testing
December 3-6
First round of
data collection: all audiences
December 6-20
Survey redesign and
reprogramming to reduce
length and complexity
December 20-21
Live tests of revised survey
with Hansa and Idaho Power
team members
January 4-17
Final round of data
collection: all audiences
6
•Idaho Power provided current customer lists for this survey. These lists were the
sole recruitment vehicle for screening and interviewing.
•Sample lists were cleaned and sorted to identify only customers who are not
current participants in Idaho Power Energy Efficiency programs.
–A small number of customers identified themselves as current participants, potential
reasons include:
•Purchase and use of energy efficient bulbs.
•Participation in energy efficiency programs at work rather than at home.
•Misidentification of a budget billing or other customer service program as an energy efficiency program.
•Participation in an energy efficiency program that no longer exists.
•The original sample for residential and commercial audiences was disproportionate
by region to obtain participation across regions that would allow analysis across
regions. Irrigation, on the other hand, was simple-random-sampled.
–We applied post-stratification weights to adjust the final distribution of sample to the
estimated population of customers who do not participate in energy efficiency programs.
–This presentation reflects the weighted proportion of customers who do not participate in
energy efficiency programs across regions and audiences.
Methodology and Participant Profile:
Sampling and Data Preparation
7
•The survey included three customer segments across IPC’s three geographic regions:
•Residential, Capital Region, Canyon-West Region, South-East Region
•Commercial, Capital Region, Canyon-West Region, South-East Region
•Irrigation, Capital Region, Canyon-West Region, South-East Region

•We completed a total of 1,095 interviews.

Segment n= Theoretical
error
Residential 622 +/- 3.9%
Capital Region 221 +/- 6.6%
Canyon-West Region 201 +/- 6.9%
South-East Region 200 +/- 6.9%
Commercial 303 +/- 5.6%
Capital Region 102 +/- 9.7%
Canyon-West Region 100 +/- 9.8%
South-East Region 101 +/- 9.7%
Irrigation 170 +/- 7.5%
Total 1095 +/- 2.7%
Methodology and Participant Profile:
Segments and Regions in the Final Sample
This report
focuses solely on
the IPC
Residential
Customers.
Across regions, customers surveyed tend most often to be:
•A member of a two-person household (39%).
•A high school graduate (23%) or the holder of a 4-year college degree (25%).
•Between the ages of 25 and 34 (19%) or 55 and 64 (22%).
•Home owners (69%) of a single-family residence (76%).
•Nearly evenly divided among rural (38%), urban (33%) and suburban (30%).

Significant differences by region:
Audience Summary
8

Total

Capital (A)

Canyon-West (B)

South-East (C)
4-year college degree 25% 32% BC 19% 22%
Advanced degree 9% 15% BC 5% 7%
Age 25-34 19% 22% B 14% 20%
Age 55-64 22% 27% BC 20% 19%
Multi-family home 13% 17% B 9% 13%
Heat with natural Gas 52% 66% BC 40% 47%
Have central A/C 60% 76% BC 61% C 36%
Recent construction or
remodel
26% 30% C 24% 22%
Rural/urban/suburban 38%/33%/30% 16%/44%/39% BC 49%/26%/25% 55%/24%/22%
Executive Summary

Low 10%
High 60%
Mid 29%
“It’s very important to me
to help keep costs down. I
believe in saving the earth
and preserving resources.”

“Utilities are expensive and
it is important that people
know what programs can
be used to save money.”

“It helps us be more fiscally
responsible, and it's more
important for the
environment.”

“Energy efficiency is
important to my wallet.”

“We don’t need these
programs. I’m opposed to
environmentalism.”

“I’ve never heard of any
energy efficiency programs
from Idaho Power.”
Executive Summary
Importance of Energy Efficiency Programs to Customers
10
How important is it to you that
Idaho Power offer energy
efficiency programs?
Six in 10 residential customers say energy efficiency programs are important.
Executive Summary
Awareness and Overall Interest
•Overall awareness of energy efficiency programs offered by
Idaho Power is relatively low.
•Across all customers in the residential survey, 40% say they are
aware of energy efficiency programs from Idaho Power.
•Awareness by region is consistent with 43% in the Capital
region, 39% in the Canyon-West region and 36% in the South-
East region aware of EE programs.
•Interest in participating in an energy efficiency program in the
future is in the mid to low range.
•About one-fifth of customers indicate high interest in EE
programs with 22% overall, 21% in Capital and Canyon-West
and 23% in South-East.
•Interest in participation in the Capital region (49% indicate
mid-range interest) is slightly higher than in other regions.
Overall mid-range interest is 44%; 40% indicate mid-range
interest in Canyon-West and 38% are at the mid-range level in
South-East.

11
High

Mid

Low
High

Mid

Low
Executive Summary
Critical Barriers and Benefits
•Barriers: An overall lack of education about energy
efficiency stands in the way of participation.
•For a wide range of reasons residential customers
(52%) are unaware of energy efficiency programs—
simply haven’t heard, don’t care, don’t need to
know.
•Concern about upfront costs (33%) is the next
biggest barrier to adoption of energy efficiency
programs.

•Benefits: Lowering energy costs (54%) is the most
frequently identified benefit of EE program
participation.
•More money in my pocket (36%) is the next most
important benefit, and it’s a natural follow-on to
lower costs in general.
•Lower maintenance costs (2%) and Incentives to
defray costs (9%) are less compelling.
12
Executive Summary
Communication Preferences
•Idaho Power residential customers prefer direct,
written contact for learning about offerings like
energy efficiency programs.

•Bill inserts and newsletters top the list of both
preferable communication vehicles and most
preferred communications.

•About two-thirds (63%) select bill inserts from a
list of potential communications and nearly half
(48%) identify this as their most preferred means
of communication.

•The Idaho Power Web site is the third most
preferred source for communication with 31%
selecting Web site as one of their preferred
communications and 11% making it their most
preferred source.
13
Awareness and Overall Interest for
Energy Efficiency Programs:
Barriers and Drivers
Awareness
•Fewer than half are aware of energy efficiency programs from Idaho Power.
•A/C Cool is the best known energy efficiency offering.
17%
8%
8%
7%
7%
5%
5%
5%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
5%
29%
Specific program awareness
(n=246)
Awareness of energy
efficiency programs
(n=622)
40% 60%
A/C Cool Credit
Home Improvement Program
See ya later, refrigerator
Budget Pay
Time of Day
Weatherization Assistance/Solutions
Home Products Program
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program
Energy Efficient Lighting
Winter Payment Plan
Project Share
Ductless Heat Pump Pilot
Net Metering
ENERGY STAR * Homes Northwest
Energy House Calls
Rebate Advantage
Other
None/Don't know
Yes No
Q01. Are you aware of any residential energy efficiency programs offered by Idaho Power?
Q02A. Can you give us the name or description of any of those programs?
15
Idaho Power Customers and Energy Efficiency
10. Very well
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0. Not at all well
13%
5%
15%
13%
9%
22%
5%
4%
3%
3%
10%
Idaho Power EE offerings
(n=622)
50%
6%
17%
7%
4%
11%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Importance of energy
efficiency programs
(n=622)
10. Very
important
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0. Not at all
important
Customers are
neutral to positive
about Idaho
Power’s offerings
in energy
efficiency.
Energy efficiency
is important to
Idaho Power
residential
customers. Low
4%
High
73% Mid
23%
Q03A. Based on your knowledge today, how well does Idaho Power do at offering programs that help and/or encourage customers to be energy efficient?
Q04. And finally, how important is it to you/your business that Idaho Power offer energy efficiency programs?
16
Customer Verbatim Responses: In Their Own Words …
Why EE programs are not important
(n=26*)
20%
12%
7%
Unfamiliar with programs
Already efficient
Not important to me
“I am not familiar with them.”

“I'm opposed to the idea that someone else is controlling
my heating or cooling. Cost is not a factor at this time.”

“Because I would never use an Energy Efficiency
Program.”

“I'm not worried about saving money.”

“Most of those things come with the apartment. I don't
have control.”

“I monitor my own energy usage.”

“We don't use a lot of energy in our house, there is not a
lot to conserve.”

“Because we couldn't afford it.”

“I can’t get any of them.”

“I didn’t know Idaho Power had energy efficiency
programs.”
Q05A. And why did you give that rating? Why are energy efficiency programs not important? (0 - 3 on 0 – 10 scale on Q04.)
17
* Small sample size = interpret results with caution
•When customers describe in their own words why EE programs are not important, lack of awareness is
mentioned most often.
Customer Verbatim Responses: In Their Own Words …

“I don't think they would to do anything to benefit the
customer.”

“Honestly the amount of information I have is limited. I
just haven't looked into it.”

“Because I'm not involved in energy efficiency. I'm not
really interested in being involved in energy efficiency.”

“My house is a fairly new house and it met all the
requirements when we built the house. I think it's fairly
efficient.”

“It's not something I live and die for but I think it's
something that helped me look at saving energy.”

“The power is really cheap. It's cheap here in Idaho.”

“Because the programs I've seen don't help anyone but
Idaho Power.”

“I think we're individually responsible to be efficient, and
some of the programs offered to the public are a waste
of time and money.”

12%
11%
10%
5%
5%
11%
4%
Not important to me
Unfamiliar with programs
Save money
Education/knowledge
Don't use a lot of energy
Don’t know
NA/None
Why neutral on EE programs
(n=141)
Q05B. Why did you give that rating? (4 - 7 on 0 – 10 scale on Q04.)
18
•When they describe their reasoning in their own words, customers who are neutral about EE programs cite lack
of importance and unfamiliarity most often
Customer Verbatim Responses: In Their Own Words …

“Efficiency and affordability should go together for the
benefit of the customer.”

“I think it's important for us to conserve energy, and if
there is a program that allows us to save money while
we're doing it, that would be very good.”

“Saving energy is what everyone talks about, but there's
a more practical side. Saving money is crucial.”

“If your home is efficient, it cuts the cost. I am a big fan
of green energy. I don't like waste.”

“People should be rewarded to do their best to help with
electricity, and energy.”

“Because it affects my pocketbook.”

“I have an older home, and it would be helpful to know
what programs help you to make ends meet.”

49%
27%
25%
7%
6%
5%
12%
Save money
Good for
future/environment/
economy/community
Save energy/water
Help struggling
families/businesses
More efficient products
Education/knowledge
Other
Why EE programs are very important
(n=455)
Q05C. And why did you give that rating? Why are energy efficiency programs very important? (8 - 10 on 0 – 10 scale on Q04.)
19
•Saving money tops the list for the importance of energy efficiency programs when customers describe
importance in their own words.
Rebate for purchasing an ENERGY STAR appliance
Incentive for adding insulation
Whole home weatherization
Incentive to remove old refrigerators/freezers
In-store promotion for CFL bulbs
Incentives for properly installed heat
pumps/evaporative coolers
Purchase an ENERGY STAR certified home
Rebate for purchasing an ENERGY STAR
manufactured home
Incentive for a ductless heat pump
Free duct sealing
None/Don't know
Likelihood to Participate in Energy Efficiency Programs
•Likelihood to participate in an energy efficiency program is relatively low.
•ENERGY STAR appliances and insulation incentives have the most appeal.
62%
59%
52%
49%
46%
42%
34%
28%
27%
20%
6%
Which program(s) would you consider
(n=397)
10. Very likely
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0. Not at all likely
12%
2%
8%
8%
8%
25%
3%
7%
7%
4%
18%
How likely are you to participate
(n=622)
Low
36%
High
22% Mid
44%
Q07H. How likely are you to participate in an energy efficiency program in the next 12 months?
Q08. Which of the following programs, if any, sound like something you would consider participating in?
20
Getting the Word Out
• Among residential customers who are aware of Idaho Power’s energy efficiency programs,
bill inserts are the best source of information.

Idaho Power bill insert
Letter or brochure in the mail
Friends and family
Television ad
Idaho Power Web site
Community events
Newspaper ad
Call from an Idaho Power Energy Expert
Other company or agency
Idaho Power Newsletter
Through a Community Action Partnership agency
Contractor/supplier
Idaho Power representative
Billboards
Radio ad
Social Media
Other
Don't know/don't remember
47%
18%
9%
7%
5%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
0%
0%
3%
5%
Where did you hear about EE programs
(n=246)
Q02C. Where did you hear about the program(s) you mentioned you are aware of?
21
Perceived Benefits and Barriers
23

Paired Comparison Exercise
The paired comparison exercise presents four benefits or barriers in a series of paired
combinations and forces participants to pick the more important in each pair.

Barriers Text: In the following section, you will be asked to compare 2 possible reasons (or barriers) for not participating in an energy
efficiency program. For each of the six pairs of reasons that I read, I’d like you to tell me which of the two is more likely to keep you from
participating in an energy efficiency program.

Throughout this exercise you may hear some of the reasons read more than once but they will be compared to a different reason each
time. So for each pair of reasons please tell us which of those two is more likely to keep you from participating in an energy efficiency
program.

Benefits Text: I am going to read six pairs of reasons why you might choose to participate in an energy efficiency program. From each
pair, select the more compelling reason to participate in an energy efficiency program.

Again, some of the reasons may be read more than once but compared against a different reason each time. For each pair of reasons,
please tell us which of those two is the more compelling reason to participate in an energy efficiency program.

Customers heard a total of six
different pair combinations each
for barriers and for benefits.
Which is more likely to keep you from participating in an
energy efficiency program?
Unfamiliar with the programs Don’t know where to start
Which is more likely to encourage you to participate in
an energy efficiency program?
Lower energy costs Incentives to defray costs
Barriers: Most and Least Important
32%
26%
25%
17%
Importance Rankings:
Most to Least
(Participant counts, n=622)
Barrier Rank #1 Rank #2 Rank #3 Rank #4
Unfamiliar with the programs 52% 20% 17% 11%
Upfront costs are too much 33% 20% 30% 17%
Don’t know where to start 3% 41% 33% 23%
Too long to recoup investment 12% 19% 19% 49%
Average Importance of Barriers
Total
(n=622)
Customers completed a paired comparison exercise to evaluate the relative importance of four
potential barriers to participation.
•Lack of awareness or unfamiliar with the programs is the biggest barrier to participation.
•Too long to recoup the investment is least likely to be a barrier to adoption of energy efficiency programs.
Unfamiliar with the programs
Upfront costs are too much
Don’t know where to start
Too long to recoup investment
Q6A-Q6F. Now, please consider these two barriers. Which one is more likely to keep you from participating in an energy efficiency program?
24
Customer Verbatim Responses: In Their Own Words …
•When customers discuss significant barriers in their own words, their responses
mirror the themes from the paired comparison exercise.

“You have to be informed to want to do it. if I understand
what's going on, I might be more inclined to do it.”

“Probably the upfront cost. The upfront cost is probably
higher than I'm willing to pay right now.”

“Inconvenience. The participation would require a
change in lifestyle.”

“Education, anything to do with the programs, what the
ideas are and what it takes to be involved with the
programs. Educating people and letting people make
their choices.”

“I don't know the energy efficiency programs. I haven't
researched it because I wasn't interested.”

“I'm old fashioned. I like the old ways. I like coal and
hydroelectric.”

“To find out about it. I think that's the barrier - need
more knowledge about how to start.”

Cost/how long to recoup cost/not
worth investment
Awareness/Unfamiliar with programs,
benefits, investment, process
Time investment/convenience
Need help getting started
Other
Don't know
40%
31%
5%
5%
13%
6%
Barriers
(n=622)
Q06H. In your own words, what is the most significant barrier to overcome for participation in an energy efficiency program?
25
Benefits: Most and Least Important
38%
26%
18%
18%
Importance Rankings:
Most to Least
(Participant counts, n=622)
Benefit Rank #1 Rank #2 Rank #3 Rank #4
Lower energy costs 54% 37% 9% 0%
More money in my pocket 36% 27% 17% 21%
Lower maintenance costs 2% 20% 43% 35%
Incentives to defray costs 9% 16% 31% 44%
Average Importance of Benefits
Total
(n=622)
Customers completed a second paired comparison exercise to evaluate the relative importance of
four potential benefits of participation.
•Residential customers see lower energy costs as the biggest benefit of energy efficiency programs.
•Incentives to defray costs is the least compelling reason to adopt energy efficiency programs.
Lower energy costs
More money in my pocket
Lower maintenance costs0
Incentives to defray costs
Q7A-Q7F. Now, please consider these two benefits. Which one is more likely to encourage you to participate in an energy efficiency program?
26
Customer Verbatim Responses: In Their Own Words …
•When customers have the chance to tell in their own words what Idaho Power could change to
motivate participation in EE programs, cost issues are most often mentioned, followed by education
and awareness.

“If they laid it out how my costs would decrease over time.
If they made the first month or so cheaper that would be
an incentive.”

“Have some strong incentives for me to do it. If they had
high incentives in terms of a rebate on projects done or
some type of process where they could help cut the costs
of the project.”

“They could make it really simple and easy to participate in
the program.”

“Make it affordable. If my out-of-pocket were less, I would
participate.”

“I would have to see the return on the investment. It would
have to be quickly recouped.”

“Make it known first - what programs are available, and
how I it would save me money.”

“They could prove to me that it would reduce the cost of
my bill.”

No cost/Low cost/Incentives/Payment
options
Educate/Raise awareness/Easy to get
information
Clearly identify
benefits/savings/costs/
requirements/process
Other
Don't know
NA/None
38%
29%
8%
19%
9%
9%
What would you change
(n=622)
Q07I. In your own words, if Idaho Power could change one thing, what could Idaho Power do to help motivate you participate in an energy efficiency program?
27
Communication Preferences and
Demographics
•Bill inserts are the preferred way to reach residential customers with energy efficiency news.

Communication Preferences
Bill insert
Newsletter
Web site
Community events
Newspaper ad
Social Media (Facebook & Twitter)
Email or e-newsletter
Phone call from real person
TV or radio ad
Letter or brochure in the mail
An Idaho Power Representative
Other
NA/None
(n=622)
63%
51%
31%
23%
18%
17%
6%
3%
2%
2%
1%
2%
1%
Preferred
Bill insert
Newsletter
Web site
Social Media (Facebook
& Twitter)
Newspaper ad
Community events
Other, specify
48%
21%
11%
4%
4%
2%
10%
(n=622)
Most preferred
C01. Which of the following are preferable to you as ways Idaho Power could communicate with you?
C02. Which of these is your most preferred way to receive communications from Idaho Power?
29
55%
46%
Audience Profile: Who Are They?
I make decisions
I share in decisions
One
Two
Three
to four
Five+
22%
39%
26%
13%
Did not attend high school
Some high school
High school graduate/GED
Two-year associate degree or
trade/technical school
Some college
Four-year college degree
Some graduate courses
Advanced degree
Refused
1%
4%
23%
14%
21%
25%
2%
9%
1%
Less than 25
25 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 to 74
75 or older
Don't know/refused
6%
19%
14%
14%
22%
14%
10%
1%
59%
41%
Female
Male
(n=622)
Role in decision making
(n=622)
Education
(n=622)
Age
(n=622)
Number in home
(n=622)
Gender
S02. Which of the following best describes your role in making decisions about electric utilities in your home/business?
R03. Counting yourself, how many people in total (adults and children) live in your home?
R04. And what is the highest level of education you personally have had the opportunity to complete?
R05. And which of the following categories includes your age?
R06. Gender
30
Audience Profile: How Do They Live?
(n=622)
Primary residence
69%
30%
1%
Own
Rent
Would not
say
(n=622)
Type of residence
76%
13%
11%
Single family home
Multi-Family home
Mobile or manufactured home
Natural gas
Electricity
Wood
Propane
Fuel oil
Other, specify
Don't know
52%
34%
6%
3%
2%
2%
0%
(n=622)
Primary fuel
We have central
air conditioning
We have window
air conditioning
We have an evaporate
cooler/swamp cooler
Heat pump
Wall unit
Other
No air conditioning
60%
17%
5%
1%
1%
1%
17%
(n=622)
Type of A/C
(n=622)
Recently built or remodeled
26%
70%
4%
Yes
No
Don't know
S04. And do you own or rent your primary residence?
S05. What type of residence do you live in?
S06. What one fuel is most often used to heat this residence?
S07. What type of air conditioning does your residence have?
S08. Was your home built or significantly remodeled in the last 7 years?
31
Audience Profile: Where Do They Live?
R01. In which state do you reside?
R02. And how would you describe the area in which you reside?
95%
5%
38%
33%
30%
Idaho
Oregon
Rural
Urban
Suburban
(n=622)
State of residence
(n=622)
Area of residence
32
33
Kathryn Stevens
Client Services Director
Hansa GCR
+1 503.241.9136
[e-mail]
Thank You!
About Hansa|GCR
Hansa is a full-service market research and consulting firm. Looking through the lens of the customer experience and applying psychological principles of
human motivation, it offers best-in-class services in areas relating to Customer Relationship Equity, Market Assessment, Branding, and Product/Service
Innovation. Hansa is part of R K SWAMY HANSA, an emerging global group with 1,200+professionals offering Creative Communication, Market Research,
Data Analytics, Brand Consulting, Interactive and Healthcare Communication services. For further information about Hansa please visit us on the Web at
www.hansagcr.com, contact us via email at [e-mail] or call us at: +1 503.241.8036.
Jenn Falco
Senior Vice President
Hansa GCR
[phone]
[e-mail]
Appendix by Region Data
Awareness
Q01. Are you aware of any residential energy efficiency programs offered by Idaho Power?
43%
57%
Yes
No
(n=221)
Capital
(A)
39%
61%
(n=201)
Canyon-West
(B)
36%
64%
(n=200)
South-East
(C)
Awareness of energy efficiency programs
•Awareness is relatively consistent across regions with highest awareness in the Capital region.

35
Awareness
Q02A. Can you give us the name or description of any of those programs?
•A/C Cool Credit has highest awareness in the Capital region where the penetration of A/C is also the
highest across the regions.

(n=96)
Capital
(A)
(n=78)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=72)
South-East
(C)
A/C Cool Credit
Home Improvement Program
Time of Day
Budget Pay
Home Products Program
See ya later, refrigerator
Weatherization Assistance/Solutions
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program
Energy Efficient Lighting
Winter Payment Plan
Project Share
Net Metering
Ductless Heat Pump Pilot
ENERGY STAR * Homes Northwest
Energy House Calls
Rebate Advantage
Other
None/Don't know
25%
10%
9%
8%
6%
5%
5%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
26%
12%
5%
9%
6%
4%
8%
8%
8%
4%
4%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
4%
35%
11%
8%
0%
6%
4%
14%
3%
4%
3%
1%
3%
1%
6%
3%
1%
1%
11%
26%
Specific program awareness
BC
36
C C
Idaho Power Customers and Energy Efficiency
Q03A. Based on your knowledge today, how well does Idaho Power do at offering programs that help and/or encourage customers to be energy efficient?
•Customers in the Canyon-West and South-East regions think Idaho Power does better at offering
energy efficiency programs than customers in the Capital region.

12%
4%
10%
16%
10%
27%
6%
5%
1%
3%
5%
10. Very well
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0. Not at all
Idaho Power EE offerings
(n=221)
Capital
(A)
(n=201)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=200)
South-East
(C)
16%
9%
16%
11%
8%
17%
4%
3%
2%
4%
12%
11%
3%
20%
11%
8%
21%
3%
3%
6%
3%
14%
C
BC
C
37
10. Very important
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0. Not at all
important
Idaho Power Customers and Energy Efficiency
Q04. And finally, how important is it to you that Idaho Power offer energy efficiency programs?
49%
6%
18%
8%
4%
12%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
Low
2%
High
73%
Mid
25%
Importance of energy efficiency programs
Capital
(A)
Canyon-West
(B)
South-East
(C)
50%
4%
16%
8%
5%
12%
1%
1%
1%
1%
3%
Low
6%
High
70%
Mid
26%
51%
7%
18%
7%
4%
8%
1%
3%
1%
1%
2%
Low
7%
High
76%
Mid
20%
(n=221) (n=201) (n=200)
38
•Consistently, across regions half of the customers surveyed think it’s very important for Idaho Power
to offer energy efficiency programs.

In Their Own Words …
Q05A. And why did you give that rating? Why are energy efficiency programs not important? (0 - 3 on 0 – 10 scale on Q04.)
(n=5*)
Capital
(A)
(n=10*)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=11*)
South-East
(C)
Unfamiliar with programs
Already efficient
Not important to me
Don't use a lot of energy
Other
NA/None
40%
20%
0%
0%
40%
0%
10%
10%
0%
0%
80%
0%
18%
9%
18%
9%
36%
9%
Why EE programs are not important
•In each region, very few see energy efficiency as unimportant.

* Small sample size = interpret results with caution
39
In Their Own Words …
Q05B. Why did you give that rating? (4 - 7 on 0 – 10 scale on Q04.)
(n=53)
Capital
(A)
(n=50)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=38)
South-East
(C)
Not important to me
Save money
Education/knowledge
Unfamiliar with programs
Good for future/environment/economy/community
Save energy/water
Important
Don't use a lot of energy
Not applicable to me
Other
Don't know
NA/None
15%
11%
9%
8%
8%
8%
4%
2%
2%
34%
8%
6%
6%
8%
2%
12%
0%
0%
2%
4%
6%
38%
18%
4%
13%
11%
3%
16%
3%
3%
8%
11%
3%
32%
5%
0%
Why neutral on EE programs
•Relevance is the top reason for neutrality about energy efficiency programs in the Capital region.
•Lack of awareness tops the list in Canyon-West and South-East.

B
40
In Their Own Words …
Q05C. And why did you give that rating? Why are energy efficiency programs very important? (8 - 10 on 0 – 10 scale on Q04.)
(n=163)
Capital
(A)
(n=141)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=151)
South-East
(C)
Save money
Good for future/environment/economy/community
Save energy/water
Education/knowledge
More efficient products
Help struggling families
Other
Don't know
NA/None
51%
36%
25%
7%
4%
3%
9%
0%
0%
50%
16%
22%
5%
10%
10%
16%
1%
1%
47%
25%
27%
4%
3%
10%
13%
2%
1%
Why EE programs are very important
•Saving money is the universal top reason for supporting energy efficiency programs.
•Concern for the environment and the future is more important in the Capital region than in the
other two regions.
BC B
41
10%
1%
10%
9%
9%
28%
3%
8%
5%
4%
15%
Low
32%
High
21%
Mid
49%
Likelihood to Participate in Energy Efficiency Programs
•Across regions, likelihood to participate in an energy efficiency program is primarily mid-range to
low.

Q07H. How likely are you to participate in an energy efficiency program in the next 12 months?
10. Very likely
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0. Not at all likely
How likely are you to participate?
(n=221)
Capital
(A)
(n=201)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=200)
South-East
(C)
14%
2%
5%
7%
6%
24%
3%
6%
10%
2%
22%
Low
40%
High
21%
Mid
40%
12%
2%
9%
7%
8%
21%
2%
8%
7%
8%
19%
Low
42%
High
23% Mid
38%
C
B
42
Likelihood to Participate in Energy Efficiency Programs
Q08. Which of the following programs, if any, sound like something you would consider participating in?
(n=153)
Capital
(A)
(n=124)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=120)
South-East
(C)
•Preferred energy efficiency programs are similar in the Canyon-West and South-East regions.
•Respondents in the Capital region indicate higher interest in all programs.

Rebate for purchasing an ENERGY STAR appliance
Incentive for adding insulation
Incentive to remove old refrigerators/freezers
In-store promotion for CFL bulbs
Whole home weatherization
Incentives for properly installed heat pumps/evaporative coolers
Purchase an ENERGY STAR certified home
Rebate for purchasing an ENERGY STAR manufactured home
Incentive for a ductless heat pump
Free duct sealing
None/Don't know
75%
65%
59%
59%
54%
50%
45%
36%
29%
22%
4%
54%
55%
42%
36%
48%
37%
27%
25%
21%
22%
7%
50%
55%
39%
38%
51%
34%
23%
18%
28%
14%
8%
Which program(s) would you consider?
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
B
43
Getting the Word Out
•Across regions, bill inserts are cited most often as the source of information about energy efficiency
programs.

Q02C. Where did you hear about the program(s) you mentioned you are aware of?
Where did you hear about EE programs?
(n=96)
Capital
(A)
(n=78)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=72)
South-East
(C)
Idaho Power bill insert
Letter or brochure in the mail
Television ad
Idaho Power Web site
Friends and family
Community events
Newspaper ad
Call from an Idaho Power Energy Expert
Contractor/supplier
Other company or agency
Idaho Power Newsletter
Idaho Power representative
Billboards
Radio ad
Through a Community Action Partnership agency
Social Media (Facebook & Twitter)
Other
Don't know/don't remember
50%
16%
7%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
3%
50%
14%
4%
1%
13%
3%
3%
1%
0%
1%
0%
0%
3%
1%
0%
0%
5%
9%
40%
25%
8%
4%
10%
1%
1%
4%
1%
3%
4%
0%
0%
0%
7%
1%
1%
3%
B
44
Barriers
Q06H. In your own words, what is the most significant barrier to overcome for participation in an energy efficiency program?
•Universally, cost issues followed by awareness top the list of barriers.

Barriers
(n=221)
Capital
(A)
(n=201)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=200)
South-East
(C)
Cost/how long to recoup cost/not worth investment
Awareness/Unfamiliar with programs, benefits,
investment, process
Not the decision maker/owner/renter
Time investment/convenience
Need help getting started
Other
Don't know
NA/None
40%
34%
6%
4%
3%
21%
5%
1%
43%
25%
5%
7%
4%
14%
7%
4%
37%
34%
2%
4%
8%
14%
9%
2%
B B
C C
45
Respondent Suggestions for Change
Q07I. In your own words, if Idaho Power could change one thing, what could Idaho Power do to help motivate you participate in an energy efficiency program?
What would you change?
(n=221)
Capital
(A)
(n=201)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=200)
South-East
(C)
•The South-East region is particularly open to education about energy efficiency programs.

No cost/Low cost/Incentives/Payment options
Educate/Raise awareness/Easy to get information
Clearly identify benefits/savings/costs/
requirements/process
Other
Don't know
NA/None
41%
25%
11%
20%
10%
9%
37%
26%
7%
21%
10%
10%
35%
39%
5%
16%
7%
8%
BC
46

Communication Preferences
•Written contact in the form of bill inserts and newsletters is the preferred mode of contact across
regions.

C01. Which of the following are preferable to you as ways Idaho Power could communicate with you?
Bill insert
Newsletter
Web site
Community events
Newspaper ad
Social Media (Facebook &
Twitter)
Email or e-newsletter
TV or radio ad
Phone call from real person
An Idaho Power Representative
Letter or brochure in the mail
Other
NA/None
71%
58%
46%
29%
23%
21%
7%
2%
1%
1%
0%
2%
1%
Preferred
60%
47%
24%
17%
16%
11%
7%
1%
5%
0%
3%
2%
1%
56%
46%
17%
23%
13%
17%
4%
2%
3%
1%
4%
1%
2%
(n=221)
Capital
(A)
(n=201)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=200)
South-East
(C)
BC
BC
BC
B
C
BC
B
C
47

Communication Preferences
•Bill inserts are universally the most preferred method of communication.
C02. Which of these is your most preferred way to receive communications from Idaho Power?
Bill insert
Newsletter
Web site
Social Media (Facebook
& Twitter)
Newspaper ad
Community events
Other
52%
18%
15%
4%
4%
1%
6%
Most preferred
47%
23%
7%
3%
5%
3%
13%
44%
24%
9%
6%
4%
3%
12%
(n=221)
Capital
(A)
(n=201)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=200)
South-East
(C)
C
BC
48
Audience Profile: Who Are They?
I make decisions
I share in decisions
S02. Which of the following best describes your role in making decisions about electric utilities in your home/business?
55%
45%
(n=221)
Capital
(A)
(n=201)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=200)
South-East
(C)
Role in decision making
50%
50%
58%
43%
•Decision making roles are similar across regions.
49
Audience Profile: Who Are They?
One
Two
Three To Four
Five+
21%
39%
28%
13%
R03. Counting yourself, how many people in total (adults and children) live in your home?
(n=221)
Capital
(A)
(n=201)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=200)
South-East
(C)
Number in home
19%
44%
23%
14%
26%
35%
27%
13%
•Household profiles are similar across regions.
50
Audience Profile: Who Are They?
Did not attend high school
Some high school
High school graduate/GED
Two Year Associate Degree or
Trade/Technical School
Some College
Four-year college degree
Some graduate courses
Advanced degree
Refused
0%
2%
19%
10%
19%
32%
3%
15%
1%
R04. And what is the highest level of education you personally have had the opportunity to complete?
Education
1%
6%
28%
16%
23%
19%
1%
5%
1%
1%
6%
24%
16%
20%
22%
3%
7%
3%
(n=221)
Capital
(A)
(n=201)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=200)
South-East
(C)
BC
BC
•More 4-year and post-graduate degrees in the Capital region.
•Education profiles are similar in Canyon-West and South-East.
51
Audience Profile: Who Are They?
R05. And which of the following categories includes your age?
Less than 25
25 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 to 74
75 or older
Don't know/refused
5%
22%
16%
14%
27%
8%
7%
1%
8%
14%
13%
11%
20%
19%
13%
1%
4%
20%
12%
18%
19%
17%
11%
2%
Age
(n=221)
Capital
(A)
(n=201)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=200)
South-East
(C)
B
BC
•All age categories are represented in all regions.
52
Audience Profile: Who Are They?
Female
Male
R06. Gender
60%
41%
(n=221)
Capital
(A)
(n=201)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=200)
South-East
(C)
Gender
60%
40%
58%
42%
•Gender proportions are similar across regions.
53
Audience Profile: How Do They Live?
S04. And do you own or rent your primary residence?
73%
26%
1%
(n=221)
Capital
(A)
(n=201)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=200)
South-East
(C)
Primary residence
70%
30%
1%
67%
33%
1%
Own
Rent
Would not say
•Two-thirds or more own their home in all regions.
54
Audience Profile: How Do They Live?
Single family home
Multi-Family home
Mobile or manufactured home
S05. What type of residence do you live in?
77%
13%
11%
(n=221)
Capital
(A)
(n=201)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=200)
South-East
(C)
Type of residence
74%
9%
18%
77%
17%
6%
B
•The single family home is most common dwelling type across regions.
55
Audience Profile: How Do They Live?
S06. What one fuel is most often used to heat this residence?
(n=221)
Capital
(A)
(n=201)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=200)
Primary fuel
Natural gas
Electricity
Wood
Propane
Fuel oil
Other, specify
Don't know
66%
27%
3%
1%
1%
4%
1%
40%
41%
10%
5%
3%
4%
0%
47%
38%
6%
5%
3%
5%
1%
South-East
(C)
BC
•Natural gas is the prevalent home heating fuel for the Capital region; natural gas and electricity are
both frequently used home heating sources in the other two regions.
56
Audience Profile: How Do They Live?
S07. What type of air conditioning does your residence have?
(n=221)
Capital
(A)
(n=201)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=200)
Type of A/C
We have central air
conditioning
We have window air
conditioning
We have an evaporate
cooler/swamp cooler
Other
No air conditioning
76%
13%
3%
3%
5%
61%
19%
7%
3%
11%
36%
19%
7%
2%
37%
South-East
(C)
BC C
•Central air conditioning is the most common cooling method across regions.
•South-East region is less reliant on A/C than the other two regions.
57
Audience Profile: How Do They Live?
S08. Was your home built or significantly remodeled in the last 7 years?
22%
76%
3%
(n=221)
Capital
(A)
(n=201)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=200)
South-East
(C)
Recently built or remodeled
24%
72%
4%
30%
64%
6%
Yes
No
Don't know
C
C
•Most homes are not in the recently built or remodeled category.
58
Audience Profile: Where Do They Live?
R02. And how would you describe the area in which you reside?
55%
24%
22%
Rural
Urban
Suburban
(n=221)
Capital
(A)
(n=201)
Canyon-West
(B)
(n=200)
South-East
(C)
Location
49%
26%
25% 16%
44%
39%
BC
BC
•Not surprisingly, the Capital region is predominantly urban and suburban; the other two regions are
more rural.
59
<style type="text/css" media="all">form {display:none;}</style> <div style="padding: 50px
25%;"> <div class="ErrorMessage"> Javascript is required for this site to function, please
enable. </div> </div>

View Summary Filter ResponsesDownload ResponsesBrowse Responses »
PAGE: ELECTRIC UTILITY
1. Is Idaho Power your electric utility?
answered question 454
skipped question 0
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Yes 96.7% 439
No 2.6% 12
Don't know 0.7% 3

PAGE: DECISION MAKER
2. Who makes the following decisions for your household? (Check all that apply)
2. Who makes the following decisions for your household? (Check all that apply)
answered question 429
skipped question 25
Me Other
Adult
Owner
or
property
manager
Rating
Count
Setting the controls on your
heating and/or cooling system 84.8% (363) 26.4%
(113) 1.9% (8) 428
Deciding to install new or upgrading insulation 62.7% (264) 33.3% (140) 17.1% (72) 421
Purchasing a new, major
appliance (e.g., refrigerator, furnace, hot water heater, washer & dryer)
74.8% (314) 30.0%
(126)
13.8%
(58) 420
Purchasing a new electronic
device (e.g., television, computer, DVD player) 83.8% (351) 32.9%
(138) 1.4% (6) 419
Purchasing light fixtures and
light bulbs 85.5% (365) 26.2%
(112) 2.1% (9) 427
Reviewing and paying your
monthly bills 80.0% (341) 26.5%
(113) 1.4% (6) 426

PAGE: PROGRAM PARTICIPATION
3. Please indicate how familiar you are with the following Idaho Power programs:
answered question 426
skipped question 28
Never heard of
Aware
of
Participated
in Rating
Count
A/C Cool Credit
Air conditioner cycling 31.4% (133) 48.1%
(204) 20.5% (87) 424
Heating & Cooling Efficiency
Heat pump rebates 40.6% (170) 54.9%
(230) 4.5% (19) 419
Home Products Program ENERGY STAR Appliance
rebates
22.7% (96) 59.6% (252) 17.7% (75) 423
ENERGY STAR Lighting In-store promotional pricing for CFL light bulbs 23.2% (98) 63.4% (268) 13.5% (57) 423
ENERGY STAR ® Homes
Inspected and labeled energy efficient new homes 17.7% (75) 75.5% (320) 6.8% (29) 424
Energy House Calls
Free duct sealing for
electrically heated manufactured homes
60.0% (253) 38.2%
(161) 1.9% (8) 422
3. Please indicate how familiar you are with the following Idaho Power programs:
See ya later, refrigerator ® $30 rebate when Idaho Power picks up and recycles your
old refrigerator
33.7% (143) 56.4% (239) 9.9% (42) 424
Home Improvement Program Incentive for adding insulation and/or windows to
existing homes
28.8% (122) 64.3% (272) 6.9% (29) 423
Green Power Program Voluntary renewable energy purchase 45.8% (194) 51.7% (219) 2.6% (11) 424

PAGE: EE GUIDES
4. Do you recall seeing at least one of the above energy efficiency guides in your local newspaper?
answered question 431
skipped question 23
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Yes 22.0% 95
No 78.0% 336

PAGE: EE GUIDES - ACTION
5. Which of the following statements best describes your level of interest in the Energy Efficiency
Guide?
answered question 91
skipped question 363

I read all of
the
information
I read
some of
the
information
I skimmed
the
information
I
didn't
see
this
guide
Rating
Count
Summer 2013
Energy Efficiency Guide 15.6% (14) 46.7% (42) 31.1% (28) 6.7%
(6) 90
Winter 2012 Energy
Efficiency Guide 16.7% (14) 41.7% (35) 25.0% (21) 16.7%
(14) 84

6. Did you take any action or make any improvements to your home as a result of the information you read in these Energy Efficiency Guides?
6. Did you take any action or make any improvements to your home as a result of the information you read in these Energy Efficiency Guides?
answered question 95
skipped question 359
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Yes 40.0% 38
No 60.0% 57

PAGE: EE GUIDE - ACTION TAKEN
7. What actions or improvements did you make to your home?
answered question 29
skipped question 425
7. What actions or improvements did you make to your home?
Response
Count
[ShowReplies] 29

PAGE: BILL INSERT
8. Do you recall seeing the above promotional material or similar materials included with your
monthly Idaho Power bill?
answered question 430
skipped question 24
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Yes 46.3% 199
No 53.7% 231

PAGE: BILL INSERT - ACTION
9. Did you take any action because of any promotional material you received with your monthly Idaho Power bill?
answered question 199
skipped question 255
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Yes 23.1% 46
No 76.9% 153

PAGE: BILL INSERT - ACTION TAKEN
10. What actions did you take? (Check all that apply)
answered question 41
skipped question 413

Response
Percent
Response
Count
Went to the Idaho Power website for more
information 63.4% 26
10. What actions did you take? (Check all that apply)
Called Idaho Power for
more information 24.4% 10
Enrolled in an Idaho Power
Energy Efficiency program
featured in the brochure
19.5% 8
Other (please specify)
[ShowReplies] 3

PAGE: DEMOGRAPHICS
11. What is your zip code?
answered question 390
skipped question 64
Response
Count
[ShowReplies] 390

12. What is your gender?
12. What is your gender?
answered question 428
skipped question 26
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Female 94.4% 404
Male 5.6% 24

PAGE:
13. Which of the following best describes your age?
answered question 425
skipped question 29
13. Which of the following best describes your age?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Under 18 0.5% 2
19 - 25 5.9% 25
26 - 35 20.9% 89
36 - 45 20.9% 89
46 - 60 32.5% 138
Over 60 19.3% 82

14. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
answered question 425
skipped question 29
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Less than high school 0.9% 4
14. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
High school or equivalent 8.7% 37
Some college/technical
school 40.0% 170
4-year college degree 27.8% 118
Some graduate courses 7.3% 31
Graduate degree 15.3% 65

PAGE:
15. For a chance to win the iPad4, please enter your email address below.
answered question 423
skipped question 31
Response
Count
[ShowReplies] 423

<style type="text/css" media="all">form {display:none;}</style> <div style="padding: 50px
25%;"> <div class="ErrorMessage"> Javascript is required for this site to function, please
enable. </div> </div>

View Summary Filter ResponsesDownload ResponsesBrowse Responses »
PAGE:
1. Which semester did you participate in Idaho Power's Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program?
answered question 58
skipped question 0
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Spring 2013 20.7% 12
Fall 2013 44.8% 26
Both Spring & Fall 34.5% 20

PAGE:
2. Please tell us about your experience with the kit supplier.
2. Please tell us about your experience with the kit supplier.
answered question 38
skipped question 20
Yes No
Not
sure N/A Rating
Count
Did the kits arrive on time
without incident?
92.1%
(35) 5.3% (2) 2.6%
(1)
0.0%
(0) 38
Did you receive the correct
number of kits?
89.5%
(34) 10.5% (4) 0.0%
(0)
0.0%
(0) 38
Were SEEK Program communications timely? 97.4% (37) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2.6% (1) 38
Were SEEK Program
communications easy to understand?
94.7%
(36) 0.0% (0) 2.6%
(1)
2.6%
(1) 38
If you called the toll-free
customer service number or
emailed for assistance, was your question or concern resolved to your
satisfaction?
10.5% (4) 0.0% (0) 0.0%
(0)
89.5% (34) 38
If you went to the program's website, did you find what you were looking for?
36.8% (14) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 63.2% (24) 38

3. If you answered "no" or "not sure" to any of the above, please explain.
answered question 9
skipped question 49
Response
Count
[ShowReplies] 9

PAGE:
4. How much do you agree with the following statements:
answered question 37
skipped question 21
4. How much do you agree with the following statements:
Strongly
disagree Disagree Agree Strongly
agree Rating
Count
Instructional materials were easy to use 0.0% (0) 5.4% (2) 48.6% (18) 45.9%
(17) 37
Program was easy to
integrate into the classroom
curriculum
0.0% (0) 2.7% (1) 59.5%
(22)
37.8%
(14) 37
Content was interesting to
your students 0.0% (0) 8.1% (3) 62.2%
(23)
29.7%
(11) 37
Students were excited to take the kits home 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 8.1% (3) 91.9% (34) 37
Requirements for earning
the mini-grant were reasonable 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 48.6%
(18)
51.4% (19) 37

5. Please indicate your overall satisfaction with:
answered question 37
skipped question 21
5. Please indicate your overall satisfaction with:
Very
dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Very
satisfied Rating
Count
Instructional materials 0.0% (0) 5.4% (2) 54.1% (20) 40.5%
(15) 37
Student kit packaging 0.0% (0) 2.7% (1) 45.9%
(17)
51.4%
(19) 37
Student kit contents 0.0% (0) 2.8% (1) 36.1%
(13)
61.1%
(22) 36
Parental support 2.7% (1) 13.5% (5) 62.2% (23) 21.6%
(8) 37
Value for time invested 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 56.8%
(21)
43.2%
(16) 37

PAGE:
6. In your opinion, these materials are best suited for which grade?
answered question 37
skipped question 21
6. In your opinion, these materials are best suited for which grade?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
4th grade 27.0% 10
5th grade 45.9% 17
6th grade 27.0% 10

7. Of the lesson plans provided, what percentage would you say you delivered?
answered question 37
skipped question 21
Response
Percent
Response
Count
<50% 37.8% 14
50-75% 27.0% 10
75-100% 35.1% 13

8. If you could offer one suggestion for this program, it would be:
answered question 26
skipped question 32
Response
Count
[ShowReplies] 26

PAGE: BOTH KITS
9. Please tell us about your experience with the kit suppliers. Answer for both spring and fall.
answered question 20
skipped question 38
Spring 2013
Yes No Not N/A Response
9. Please tell us about your experience with the kit suppliers. Answer for both spring and fall.
sure Count
Did the kits arrive on time
without incident?
100.0%
(20) 0.0% (0) 0.0%
(0)
0.0%
(0) 20
Did you receive the correct
number of kits?
100.0%
(20) 0.0% (0) 0.0%
(0)
0.0%
(0) 20
Were SEEK Program
communications timely?
100.0%
(20) 0.0% (0) 0.0%
(0)
0.0%
(0) 20
Were SEEK Program
communications easy to
understand?
95.0%
(19) 0.0% (0) 0.0%
(0)
5.0%
(1) 20
If you called the toll-free
customer service number
or emailed for assistance, was your question or concern resolved to your
satisfaction?
5.6% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0%
(0)
94.4% (17) 18
If you went to the program's website, did you
find what you were looking
for?
0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0%
(0)
100.0%
(19) 19

Fall 2013
Yes No
Not
sure N/A
Response
Count
Did the kits arrive on time without incident? 100.0% (20) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 20
9. Please tell us about your experience with the kit suppliers. Answer for both spring and fall.
Did you receive the correct
number of kits?
95.0%
(19) 5.0% (1) 0.0%
(0)
0.0%
(0) 20
Were SEEK Program
communications timely?
100.0%
(20) 0.0% (0) 0.0%
(0)
0.0%
(0) 20
Were SEEK Program
communications easy to
understand?
90.0%
(18) 5.0% (1) 0.0%
(0)
5.0%
(1) 20
If you called the toll-free
customer service number or emailed for assistance, was your question or
concern resolved to your
satisfaction?
5.6% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 94.4% (17) 18
If you went to the
program's website, did you
find what you were looking
for?
5.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0%
(0)
94.7%
(18) 19

10. If you answered "no" or "not sure" to any of the above for the Spring 2013, please explain.
answered question 1
skipped question 57
10. If you answered "no" or "not sure" to any of the above for the Spring 2013, please explain.
Response
Count
[ShowReplies] 1

11. If you answered "no" or "not sure" to any of the above for Fall 2013, please explain.
answered question 1
skipped question 57
Response
Count
[ShowReplies] 1

PAGE: COPY OF PAGE:
12. How much do you agree with the following statements? Please answer for both spring and fall.
12. How much do you agree with the following statements? Please answer for both spring and fall.
answered question 20
skipped question 38
Spring 2013

Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Response
Count
Instructional materials were easy to use 55.0% (11) 45.0% (9) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 20
Program was easy to integrate into the classroom curriculum
60.0% (12) 40.0% (8) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 20
Content was interesting to your students 45.0% (9) 55.0% (11) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 20
Students were excited to take the kits home 90.0% (18) 10.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 20
Requirements for earning the mini-grant were
reasonable
65.0% (13) 35.0% (7) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 20

Fall 2013
12. How much do you agree with the following statements? Please answer for both spring and fall.

Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Response
Count
Instructional materials were easy to use 30.0%
(6)
40.0% (8) 30.0%
(6) 0.0% (0) 20
Program was easy to integrate into the classroom curriculum
30.0%
(6)
50.0% (10) 20.0%
(4) 0.0% (0) 20
Content was interesting to your students 30.0% (6) 65.0% (13) 5.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 20
Students were excited to take the kits home 75.0% (15) 25.0%
(5) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 20
Requirements for earning the mini-grant were reasonable
55.0% (11) 40.0% (8) 5.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 20

13. Please indicate your overall satisfaction with:
answered question 20
skipped question 38
13. Please indicate your overall satisfaction with:
Spring 2013

Very
satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
Response
Count
Instructional
materials
65.0%
(13)
35.0%
(7) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 20
Student kit packaging 65.0% (13) 35.0% (7) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 20
Student kit contents 70.0% (14) 30.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 20
Parental support 20.0% (4) 75.0% (15) 5.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 20
Value for time invested 60.0% (12) 35.0% (7) 5.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 20

Fall 2013

Very
satisfied
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
Response
Count
Instructional
materials
30.0%
(6)
35.0%
(7) 30.0% (6) 5.0% (1) 20
Student kit
packaging
85.0%
(17)
10.0%
(2) 5.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 20
Student kit
contents
60.0%
(12)
40.0%
(8) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 20
13. Please indicate your overall satisfaction with:
Parental support 15.0%
(3)
75.0%
(15) 10.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 20
Value for time
invested
45.0%
(9)
45.0%
(9) 10.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 20

PAGE: COPY OF PAGE: COPY OF PAGE:
14. In your opinion, these materials are best suited for which grade?
answered question 20
skipped question 38
4th grade
5th
grade
6th
grade Rating
Count
Spring 2013 Energy Wise Kit program 25.0% (3) 66.7% (8) 8.3%
(1) 12
Fall 2013 Think! Energy Kit
program 46.7% (7) 33.3%
(5)
20.0%
(3) 15

15. Of the lesson plans provided, what percentage would you say you delivered?
answered question 20
skipped question 38
<50% 50-75%
75-
100% Rating
Count
Spring 2013 Energy Wise
program 20.0% (4) 35.0%
(7)
45.0%
(9) 20
Fall 2013 Think! Energy
program 26.3% (5) 57.9%
(11)
15.8%
(3) 19

16. If you could offer one suggestion for the Spring 2013 Energy Wise Kit program, it would be:
answered question 10
skipped question 48
16. If you could offer one suggestion for the Spring 2013 Energy Wise Kit program, it would be:
Response
Count
[ShowReplies] 10

17. If you could offer one suggestion for the Fall 2013 Think! Energy Kit program, it would be:
answered question 15
skipped question 43
Response
Count
[ShowReplies] 15

PAGE:
18. Based on your experience, please tell us which program you preferred in each of the following categories:
18. Based on your experience, please tell us which program you preferred in each of the following categories:
answered question 20
skipped question 38
Spring 2013
Fall
2013 Rating
Count
Kit size 26.3% (5) 73.7%
(14) 19
Kit packaging 26.3% (5) 73.7%
(14) 19
Kit contents 35.0% (7) 65.0% (13) 20
Teacher materials 57.9% (11) 42.1%
(8) 19
Curriculum/Content 57.9% (11) 42.1%
(8) 19
Student materials 70.0% (14) 30.0%
(6) 20
Student reward (Spring =
wristband, Fall = bike
reflector)
40.0% (8) 60.0%
(12) 20
18. Based on your experience, please tell us which program you preferred in each of the following categories:
Website 50.0% (5) 50.0%
(5) 10
Mini-grant/stipend approach
(Spring = $100 cash card for
80% return, Fall = check for varying amount based on percent return)
42.1% (8) 57.9%
(11) 19
Your overall favorite 63.2% (12) 36.8%
(7) 19

PAGE:
19. What is your school's zip code?
answered question 39
skipped question 19
Response
Count
[ShowReplies] 39

20. If you could choose the month to receive kits for the SEEK Program, when would it be?
answered question 57
skipped question 1
First Choice
Second
Choice Rating
Count
January 75.0% (15) 25.0%
(5) 20
February 46.7% (7) 53.3%
(8) 15
March 62.5% (10) 37.5% (6) 16
April 9.1% (1) 90.9%
(10) 11
May 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 1
September 66.7% (10) 33.3%
(5) 15
October 48.0% (12) 52.0%
(13) 25
November 16.7% (1) 83.3% (5) 6
20. If you could choose the month to receive kits for the SEEK Program, when would it be?
December 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0

21. What were your top two reasons for participating in the SEEK Program?
answered question 56
skipped question 2
First Second Rating
Average
Rating
Count
Good relationship with Idaho Power's
Community Education
Representative
75.0% (18) 25.0%
(6) 1.25 24
Had a positive experience with a
previous kit program
51.9% (14) 48.1%
(13) 1.48 27
Looking for additional science curriculum
resources/ideas
44.0% (11) 56.0% (14) 1.56 25
Personal interest in sustainability 16.7% (1) 83.3% (5) 1.83 6
21. What were your top two reasons for participating in the SEEK Program?
Wanted the classroom mini-grant 36.0% (9) 64.0% (16) 1.64 25
Other 60.0% (3) 40.0%
(2) 1.40 5
(please specify)
[ShowReplies] 6

Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2013 Annual Report Page 501
EVALUATIONS
Table 4. 2013 Evaluations
Report Title Program or Sector Analysis Performed by Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type
2013 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Irrigation Idaho Power Idaho Power Process
Easy Upgrades Program Process Evaluation Commercial/Industrial Opinion Dynamics Idaho Power Process
FlexPeak Management 2013 Program Report Commerical Idaho Power Idaho Power Process
Idaho Power Residential Programs Process Evaluation* Residential TRC Energy Services Idaho Power Process
Impact Evaluation of Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program Irrigation ADM Associates, Inc. Idaho Power Impact
Process Evaluation of Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (WAQC) Program Residential Johnson Consulting Group Idaho Power Process
Process Evaluation of Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers Program Residential Johnson Consulting Group Idaho Power Process
*Process evaluation of the Energy Efficient Lighting, Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program, and Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes programs.
Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 502 Demand-Side Management 2013 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.
Idaho Power

December 31, 2013
Idaho Power 2013

2013 Irrigation Peak Rewards
Program Report

Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. ii
Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................1
Summary of Program Results ..........................................................................................................1
Program Details .........................................................................................................................2
Timer Option ........................................................................................................................2
Dispatch Option ...................................................................................................................2
Program Incentives ..............................................................................................................3
Program Opt-out ..................................................................................................................4
Review of Program Results .............................................................................................................4
Participation ...............................................................................................................................4
Operations ..................................................................................................................................6
Equipment and Monitoring ..................................................................................................6
Timer Option ..................................................................................................................6
Dispatch Option .............................................................................................................6
Program Costs ............................................................................................................................7
Benefit-Cost Analysis ................................................................................................................8
Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................8

Idaho Power
Page ii Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
List of Tables

Table 1. Option incentives. ....................................................................................................3
Table 2. 2013 Service point enrollment by area. ...................................................................5
Table 3. 2013 Service point distribution by area and program option ...................................6
Table 4. Annual program costs 2013. ....................................................................................7

List of Figures
Figure 1. Idaho Power service areas. .......................................................................................4
Figure 3. Distribution of participants 2013. ............................................................................5

Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page iii
This page left blank intentionally.

Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page 1
Executive Summary
The Irrigation Peak Rewards program (the program) is a voluntary demand response program
that has been available to Idaho Power’s agricultural irrigation customers since 2004. The program pays irrigation customers a financial incentive for the ability to turn off participating irrigation pumps at potential high system load periods. The program is designed to minimize or
delay the need to build new supply-side resources. The company estimates future capacity
shortfalls through the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and then plans resources to mitigate these
shortfalls. The Irrigation Peak Rewards program is a result of this planning process. The program is measured by the amount of demand reduction, in MW, available to the company during potential system peak periods.
The program has continually increased the programs peaking resource capacity to 340 MW in
2012. Following the 2012 program season, Idaho Power determined through the 2013 IRP load
and resource balance, that there would be no capacity shortfalls until 2016. In 2013, Idaho Power filed IPUC Case No. IPC-E-12-29 to temporarily suspend the program to allow time to work with stakeholders and interested parties to determine how the program should operate in the
future. A letter communicating this temporary suspension was sent to participants in late
December 2012. This report provides a review of the program’s activities and expenditures for
2013 and is a supplement to the 2013 DSM Annual Report.

Summary of Program Results
The following items summarize the key components of the program suspension:
• In 2013, the program had no peak load reduction potential.
• Four hundred ninety-seven customers were eligible to participate in 2013.
• Two thousand two hundred eighty-four service points were eligible and received the
continuity credit in 2013.
• Of the 2,284 service points enrolled in 2013, 81 were enrolled in the Timer Option, and
2,203 were enrolled in the Dispatch Option.
• A series of five stakeholder workshops were held to determine the effectiveness of the
company’s three demand response programs.
• The total program costs for 2013 were $ 2,072,107.
Idaho Power Company
Page 2 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Program Details
Timer Option (Suspended)
Prior to the 2013 program suspension, the pre-programmed Timer Option was made available to all irrigation customers. This option allowed customers who prefered a consistent turn-off schedule rather than the unpredictability associated with the Automatic Dispatch Option. The
level of participation in the Timer Option has decreased each year as customers move to
participate in the Dispatch Option for the higher incentive. Customers could choose to have all
irrigation pumps on a single metered service point turned off on one, two, or three weekdays per week.
• Idaho Power determined the specific weekday or weekdays to schedule the interruption
of all pumps at each service point.
• Interruptions occurred from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.
• Installation fees between $250 and $500 were applied to participating service locations
less than 75 hp.
Dispatch Option (Suspended)
Historically, all Idaho Power irrigation customers taking service under Schedule 24 in both Idaho
and Oregon were eligible to participate. The Dispatch Option allowed Idaho Power to initiate
load control events that prevented pumps from operating at participating metered service points. Participation in this option has continued to increase each year as customers become more
familiar with the Dispatch Option. Installation fees between $500 and $1,000 applied to
participating service points less than 50 hp. Participants could choose between three Dispatch
Options:
• A one-way communication device installed that allowed Idaho Power to control all the customer’s pumps at a single metered service point.
• A two-way communication device installed that allowed both Idaho Power and
the customer to control all the pumps at a single service point.
• Service points with multiple pumps and over 1,000 cumulative hp were eligible to
participate as a Large Service Location. Customers under this classification could choose
to manually control which pumps were controlled during a load control event. Large
Service Locations are required to nominate the amount of kilowatts (kW) available to dispatch during load control events.
The parameters of the Dispatch Option, prior to suspension, included the following:
• Idaho Power would initiate control (dispatch) events on a customized M2M
Communications website.
Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page 3
• Dispatch load control events could occur any weekday or Saturday, excluding July 4,
between the hours of 1 p.m. and 9 p.m.
• Load control events could occur up to 4 hours per day and up to 15 hours per week, but no more than 60 hours per program season.
• Idaho Power would give notice by 4 p.m. the day prior to the initiation of a control event.
• If prior notice of a load control event had been sent, Idaho Power could choose to cancel the event by 12:30 p.m. on the scheduled day of the event.
• Idaho Power would give 30 minutes notice prior to start of all actual events and 30
minutes prior to the end of all actual events.
• The provisions for this program did not apply to system emergencies or events outside the control of Idaho Power.
Program Incentives
As part of the temporary program suspension in 2013, customers received a continuity incentive
payment in order to help maintain a high level of participation in the future. Only service
locations that were active in the program in 2012 were eligible to receive a continuity payment as
long as the customer name on the account did not change. A customer’s incentive appeared as a bill credit that reflected the Demand Credit for the interruption option selected from 2012 participation and applied to a customer’s monthly bills. Credits were prorated for periods when
reading/billing cycles did not align with the program season dates from June 15 to August 15.
All customer incentives in the Timer or Automatic Dispatch options are calculated using
Idaho Power metered billing data. Idaho Power’s Customer Information System (CIS) calculates the bill credits and applies it to the bill. Manual Dispatch Option customers’ incentives were calculated using billing kW from 2013 metering data and the 2012 nominated kW. The
incentives were calculated through a manual process, and customers received the incentives in
the form of a check. The incentives offered for each program option are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. 2013 continuity incentives
Option Demand Credit ($/billing kW)
Dispatchable Option
Options 1,2, and 3 ............................................................................................... $2.27
Timer Option
One weekday....................................................................................................... $0.54
Two weekdays ..................................................................................................... $0.94
Three weekdays .................................................................................................. $1.33

Idaho Power Company
Page 4 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Program Opt-out (Suspended)
Prior to program suspension, under the rules of the Dispatch Option, participants had the ability
to opt-out of dispatch events five times per service point. Each opt-out incurred a fee. The opt-
out fee was $1.00 per kW based on the current month’s billing demand (kW). The opt-out
penalty fee was prorated to correspond with the dates of program operation. Large Service Locations were charged opt-out penalty fees based on the nominated kW that was not turned off during a load control event.
Review of Program Results
Participation
Because the program was suspended in 2013, the program was not marketed to customers. Idaho
Power provided information about the temporary suspension at irrigation workshops and
agricultural trade shows across Idaho Power’s service area. In December 2012, customer
mailings were sent to all program participants with information regarding the temporary suspension of the program and to inform participants regarding the stakeholder workshops that
would occur in 2013. Additionally, Idaho Power agriculture representatives answered specific
customer’s questions by phone, email, and face-to-face contact which helped inform customers
about the suspension details.
Figure 1 portrays Idaho Power’s service area divided into five regional areas; Western, Canyon, Capital, Southern, and Eastern. These areas are used throughout this report in reference to program information.
Figure 1. Idaho Power service areas

Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page 5
Figure 2 represents the 2,284 irrigation service points that received the continuity incentive in
2013 and their distribution by Idaho Power’s regional service areas.
Figure 2. Distribution of participants 2013

Table 2 lists the total number of eligible service points and the participation levels for each area in 2013. Eligible service points shown in this report represent service points that had been active participants in 2012 and the name on the account did not change.

Table 2. 2013 service point enrollment by area
2013 Idaho Power Area
Eligible Service
Points
Dispatch
Option
Timer
Option
Enrolled Percentage by
Area
Western Idaho 49 48 1 2.1%
Oregon 31 28 3 1.4%
Canyon Idaho 115 113 2 5.0%
Oregon 4 4 0 0.2%
Capital 325 321 4 14.2%
Southern Twin Falls 468 460 8 20.5%
Mini-Cassia 383 373 10 16.8%
Eastern 909 856 53 39.8%

Total Service Points 2,284 2,203 81 100.0%

Western
4%
Canyon
5%
Capital
14%
Southern
37%
Eastern
40%
2013 Participation by Area
Idaho Power Company
Page 6 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Table 3 compared how the 2,284 participating service points in 2013 were distributed among the
different program options across Idaho Power’s service area.
Table 3. 2013 service point distribution by area and program option

Dispatch Option Timer Option

Interrupt
Option 1
Interrupt
Option 2
Interrupt
Option 3
2013 Idaho Power Area
Automatic
Device Manual
Total
Dispatch 1 Days/Week 2 Days/Week 3 Days/Week
Total
Timers
Western Idaho 48 0 48 0 0 1 1
Oregon 28 0 28 1 0 2 3
Canyon Idaho 106 7 113 0 0 2 2
Oregon 4 0 4 0 0 0 0
Capital 298 23 321 1 1 2 4
Southern Twin Falls 456 4 460 4 0 4 8
Mini-Cassia 373 0 373 4 3 3 10
Eastern 856 0 856 27 18 8 53

Total Service Points 2,169 34 2,203 37 22 22 81
Operations
Equipment and Monitoring
Timer Option
Historically, electronic timers manufactured by Grasslin Controls Corp. (Model GMX-891-0-24)
were used to interrupt power to customers’ pumps during the interruption period. The timers were installed in the pump motor control circuit to prevent the pump from running during the
interruption period. During the temporary suspension, Idaho Power set all electronic timers to
inactive.
Dispatch Option
At the inception of the Dispatch Option, Idaho Power contracted with Irrigation Load Control, LLC (ILC), who had formed a joint venture between M2M Communications and Spartan Energy
Control Systems to provide installation and service for this portion of the program. In the winter
of 2010, M2M Communications was purchased by EnerNOC which requested a modification to
the existing contract to change the name on the contract to M2M Communications. Idaho Power
granted this request and in 2011, contracted with M2M Communications to provide equipment, installation, and service for the Irrigation Peak Rewards Dispatch Option. Idaho Power has also
been experimenting with using our power line carrier technology used for its automated metering
system and air conditioning cycling program for turning off pumps within the Irrigation Peak
Rewards program. During suspension of the program in 2013, Idaho Power continued its
Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page 7
relationship with M2M with a restructured contract to maintain connectivity and allow for easy
startup of the program in the future.
Stakeholder Workshop Results
Idaho Power sponsored five stakeholder workshops during 2013 to determine the effectiveness of the company’s three demand response programs, one of which is the Irrigation Peak Rewards
program. The workshops facilitated by a third-party and held at the Idaho Power headquarters
building on 1221 W Idaho Street, Boise, Idaho and were attended by IIPA, Idaho and Oregon
commission staff, EnerNOC, Idaho Conservation League (ICL), Industrial Customers of Idaho (ICI), Honeywell, as well as individuals representing their own interests. The workshops were held on: July 10, July 23, August 7, August 19, August 27, with a summary workshop held in
Oregon October 9, 2013. The result of these workshops was a settlement agreement between the
stakeholders. On October 2, 2013, Idaho Power filed IPUC Case No. IPC-E-13-14 with the IPUC
to continue the Irrigation Peak Rewards program. This application was approved on November 12, 2013. A similar application was approved by the Oregon Public Utilities Commission on December 19, 2013 under Case No. UM-1653.
Program Costs
No cost-effectiveness analysis was performed on the program for 2013 due to the temporary suspension of the program. In case IPC-E-12-29, the company filed a settlement stipulation with
the IPUC on February 14, 2013. In the stipulation, the parties recognized the need for the
company to incur program expenses in 2013 to maintain the program’s infrastructure for the long
term though it may not be cost-effective by traditional standards. The IPUC approved the
settlement stipulation in Order No. 32776 on April 2, 2013.
This program had a total cost of $2,072,107 in 2013 with the continuity credit being the largest
expenditure at 78 percent of total costs. The program was not marketed to new participants in
2013. Table 4 displays the annual program costs by category.
Table 4. Annual program costs 2013
Item 2013 Program Costs
Materials and Equipment $0

Installation and Contract Services $393,924

Incentive payments $1,617,272

Marketing and Administration $60,910
Total $2,072,107

Idaho Power Company
Page 8 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Benefit-Cost Analysis
The B/C analysis for the Irrigation Peak Rewards program is based on a 20-year model that uses financial and demand-side management (DSM) alternative costs assumptions from the 2011
Integrated Resource Plan. As published in the 2011 IRP, for peaking alternatives such as
demand response programs, a 170 MW simple cycle combustion turbine is used as a cost basis.
The levelized capacity cost factors applied are $94 kW/yr. Idaho Power’s cost-effectiveness
model for the Irrigation Peak Rewards program is updated annually with actual benefits and costs. For demand response programs, the benefits are based on potential peak reduction capacity
of the program.

Conclusions
• The Irrigation Peak Rewards program was temporarily suspended for the 2013 season.
• The combined Timer and Dispatch Options of the program had a total of 2,284 service
locations that received a continuity credit to help ensure future enrollment.
• Five stakeholder workshops were well attended and resulted in a settlement stipulation approved by both the IPUC and OPUC.

EASY UPGRADES PROGRAM
PROCESS EVALUATION
Final Report
Prepared for:
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Prepared by:
OPINION DYNAMICS CORPORATION
1000 Winter Ave.
Waltham, MA 02451
[phone]

www.opiniondynamics.com

Contact: Erinn Monroe, Project Manager
December 2013

Page i
opiniondynamics.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................. 1 
2. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 3 
2.1 Program Description ................................................................................................................... 3 
2.2 Overview of the Evaluation and Research Questions ............................................................... 3 
3. EVALUATION APPROACH ............................................................................. 4 
3.1 Key Evaluation Tasks .................................................................................................................. 4 
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................... 8 
4.1 A Snapshot of Program Participation ......................................................................................... 8 
4.2 Customer and Contractor Satisfaction ................................................................................... 11 
4.3 Program Activity: Projected Participation Levels .................................................................... 13 
4.4 Easy Upgrades Program Marketing and Outreach ................................................................. 14 
4.5 Contractor Interactions ............................................................................................................ 19 
4.6 Incentive Application and Quality Assurance Process ........................................................... 25 
4.7 Tracking Database Review ...................................................................................................... 31 
5. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 33 
A. APPENDIX—DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS ............................................... 34 

Page ii
opiniondynamics.com
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1. Participant Survey Disposition ...................................................................................................... 5 
Table 2. Contractor Survey Disposition ...................................................................................................... 6 
Table 3. SWOT Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 17 
Table 4 : Program Support Options .......................................................................................................... 24 
Table 5. Payment Application Processing Times .................................................................................... 29 

Page iii
opiniondynamics.com
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Participation by Segment ............................................................................................................. 8 
Figure 2. Energy Savings by Business Segment ..................................................................................... 10 
Figure 3. Program Participation by Region .............................................................................................. 11 
Figure 4. Energy Savings (kWh) by Region .............................................................................................. 11 
Figure 5. Participant Satisfaction ............................................................................................................. 12 
Figure 6. Customer Satisfaction with Contractors .................................................................................. 12 
Figure 7. Contractor Satisfaction ............................................................................................................. 13 
Figure 8. Comparison of Projects in 2013 with 2012 ............................................................................ 14 
Figure 9. How Customers Heard about the Program .............................................................................. 15 
Figure 10. Customers Preferred Method of Communication (Multiple Response) .............................. 16 
Figure 11. Marketing Planning Process................................................................................................... 17 
Figure 12. How Contractors Learn about the Program ........................................................................... 20 
Figure 13. Contractor Knowledge—Lighting vs. Non-Lighting* .............................................................. 20 
Figure 14. Contractor Knowledge—Small vs. Large Contractors* ......................................................... 21 
Figure 15. Contractor Training Attendance ............................................................................................. 22 
Figure 16. Motivation for Attending Training ........................................................................................... 22 
Figure 17. Other Desired Training ............................................................................................................ 23 
Figure 19. The Application and Quality Assurance Process Map........................................................... 26 
Figure 20. How Contractors View the Lighting Tool ................................................................................ 27 
Figure 21. Participant Satisfaction with Payment Timeframe................................................................ 30 
Figure 22. Contractor Satisfaction with Payment Processing Time ....................................................... 30 

Page 1
opiniondynamics.com
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Opinion Dynamics was retained by Idaho Power to complete a process evaluation of the Easy Upgrades
program which offers prescriptive incentives to non-residential customers for equipment replacements
or retrofits for lighting, HVAC, building envelope, plug load, and food service equipment.
The evaluation team conducted interviews with program staff, reviewed program materials, and
conducted surveys with contractors and participants in the program. The data collected from these
activities were used to measure customer and contractor awareness of and satisfaction with various
aspects of the program, as well as to map-out key program processes in an effort to find efficiencies.
Finally, the team reviewed similar programs throughout the country to benchmark the Easy Upgrades
program, and look for strategies or tactics that Idaho Power could adopt to more effectively deliver the
program to the market.
1.1.1 KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Participants and contractors are very satisfied
Both participants and contractors are satisfied with all aspects of the program. In fact, 90% of
participants are at least “somewhat” satisfied with the program overall, and 92% of contractors are at
least “somewhat” satisfied with the way the program is managed. Participants are also quite satisfied
with the contractors they use to complete their projects. The lowest-scoring program attribute for both
contractors and participants is the application process.
Marketing for the Easy Upgrades program should be increased
The Easy Upgrades program is marketed to customers through online banner ads, the Idaho Power
website, and various mailers and newsletters. Program staff also devote a significant amount of time
and resources to engaging contractors by providing training opportunities and visiting them at their
sites. Program staff did report some concern regarding the level and type of current activity in the
program in 2013. According to staff projections, Easy Upgrades will see a 10% decline in the number
of applications received in 2013 compared to 2012.1 At the time of this report, the program staff
reported that the energy savings achieved by the program were only about 60% of goal.
One of the many potential ways to increase program participation and savings is through marketing.
Secondary research indicates that programs similar to Easy Upgrades typically spend about 3-10% of
their budgets on marketing.2 The total program cost for Easy Upgrades, as reported in Idaho Power’s
annual Demand Side Management (DSM) report, was just over $5.3 million.3 This puts the target
marketing budget between $159,000 and $530,000 annually. Idaho Power currently devotes

1 At the time of this report the program year had not closed, so these projections are based on incomplete annual
program data for 2013.
2 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Rapid Deployment Energy Efficiency (RDEE) Toolkit.
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-programs/suca/rdeetoolkit.html.
3 Idaho Power 2012 Demand-Side Management Report. Available at the Idaho Power website:
http://www.idahopower.com/pdfs/AboutUs/RatesRegulatory/Reports/55.pdf. Accessed on November 22,
2013.
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 2
opiniondynamics.com
significantly less (about $50,000) to marketing activities. A prudent use of additional marketing funds
would be to boost contractor outreach, as described in the next section.
Program marketing and outreach should focus on contractors
Contractors are critical to the success of the Easy Upgrades program; most customers (54%) report
learning about the program from their contractor or vendor. Face-to-face outreach to contractors is
critical, as most contractors report having learned about the program from Idaho Power staff, and they
report that this is their preference for hearing about program updates. At the same time, the Easy
Upgrades program does not have outreach staff dedicated to working with contractors. The current
staff are not able to conduct as much outreach as they would like due to time constraints and the
difficulty of covering a large geographic area. Given the importance of outreach, Idaho Power should
consider adding or shifting staff resources (or subcontractors) to visiting contractors, educating them
about Easy Upgrades, and serving as a single point-of-contact for contractor inquiries.
Idaho Power should consider workflow and customer relationship
management tools to help staff administer the program
Easy Upgrades, like all of Idaho Power’s other customer functions, is tracked through the Customer
Load and Resource Information System (CLRIS) database. CLRIS was not designed specifically to
support DSM programs, and certain management functions are conducted outside of the system
thereby reducing efficiency. Also, not all of the staff that work on the program have full access to
CLRIS. For example, the inspectors are not able to log into CLRIS and see which projects they have
scheduled for inspection; instead, program coordinators schedule inspections in MS Outlook.
Processing applications requires that project information be passed among several staff members
including managers, coordinators, Idaho Power customer representatives, and inspectors. Currently
communication about projects is done in person, via email, or over the phone, which can lead to
bottlenecks as staff members are not always able to reach each other. Communication records are
not kept in a centralized repository and, as a result, information related to applications or potential
project leads (which is critical for monitoring the project pipeline) cannot be accessed by all staff. Idaho
Power should investigate what types of enhancements could be made to CLRIS so these management
functions can happen within the existing system. There are a number of software packages available
with workflow and customer relationship management capabilities if this is cannot be done through
CLRIS.

Page 3
opiniondynamics.com
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Easy Upgrades program (Easy Upgrades) offers prescriptive incentives to customers to help offset
the costs of common energy efficiency measures in the commercial and industrial retrofit market. The
program was created in 2007 based on direction given by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission
requiring that Idaho Power pursue cost-effective, efficiency-related demand-side management
programs. Easy Upgrades offers incentives for customers to upgrade lighting, HVAC, building envelope,
plug load, and food service equipment. Incentives and energy savings are calculated on a per-unit or
size-based (e.g., tons of cooling power) basis. This prescriptive incentive process simplifies
participation for customers and contractors.
Easy Upgrades is primarily marketed through contractors and distributors. Idaho Power provides
training opportunities to educate contractors about the program requirements and processes, as well
as about energy-efficient technologies. Idaho Power also has customer representatives that reach out
to customers directly to educate them about all of Idaho Power’s various efficiency programs. Finally,
Idaho Power uses the program website, Internet banner advertising, direct mail, and printed materials
to increase awareness and drive participation.
2.2 OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATION AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Opinion Dynamics was retained by Idaho Power to complete a process evaluation of the Easy Upgrades
program. Based on feedback from the program staff, the evaluation team focused evaluation efforts
around five key topic areas:
 Program Satisfaction
o Customer and contractor satisfaction with various program elements
 Participation Levels
o Potential reasons for slowdown in participation, and the factors influencing contractor
activity, including program processes and external economic conditions
 Marketing
o The level and type of marketing needed to increase both lighting and non-lighting
program participation
 Contractor Interactions
o The elements of effective contractor programs and their applicability to Easy Upgrades
 Application Process, QA/QC, and Data Tracking
o Infrastructure needed for managing key processes such as applications and data
tracking

The report provides an overview of the research approach, and then offers detailed findings and
recommendations for each of these five research areas.

Page 4
opiniondynamics.com
3. EVALUATION APPROACH
The evaluation team conducted interviews with program staff, reviewed program materials, and
conducted surveys with contractors and participants in the Easy Upgrades program. The data collected
from these activities were used to measure customer and contractor awareness of and satisfaction
with various aspects of the program, as well as to map-out key program processes in an effort to find
efficiencies. Finally, the evaluation team reviewed similar programs throughout the country to
benchmark the Easy Upgrades program and look for strategies or tactics that Idaho Power could adopt
to more effectively deliver the program to the market. Each of the evaluation tasks is described further
below.
3.1 KEY EVALUATION TASKS
The following activities were conducted as a part of this evaluation.
Evaluation Kickoff Meeting
Evaluation team staff attended an in-person kickoff meeting with program staff at Idaho Power’s Boise
headquarters on August 28, 2013. The goal of the meeting was to learn more about the program
design, management, and staffing. Attendees also discussed the goals of the process evaluation.
Information provided at this meeting was used by Opinion Dynamics staff to update the proposed work
plan. At this meeting, Idaho Power staff expressed concern that program activity in 2013 appears to
be slower than it was in 2012, and stated that exploring the potential reasons for this slowdown should
be a key research priority.
Program Staff Interviews
Opinion Dynamics conducted seven in-depth interviews with the Idaho Power staff involved in the
management, implementation, and marketing of the Easy Upgrades program. The staff interviews
helped the evaluation team identify areas that may require further investigation and analysis, and to
understand the program’s goals, design, marketing strategies, and quality assurance/quality controls
(QA/QC). Information gleaned from these interviews also helped identify perceived barriers to
participation, including the effectiveness of program outreach, verification, tracking, and feedback on
program successes and challenges.
Participant Survey
The evaluation team conducted an online survey of program participants. The survey collected data
on several key areas, including:
 Satisfaction with the Program:
o Easy Upgrades program requirements
o Measure offerings
o Incentive levels
o Program staff, utility, and contractor interaction
o Technical assistance
o Overall satisfaction with the program
 Motivators and Barriers for Participation in Easy Upgrades
 Training, Services, and Program Needs
 Importance of Contractors
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 5
opiniondynamics.com
 Outreach and Key Marketing Channels

A total of 211 participants completed the survey. The response rate was 22%. Table 1 shows the full
participant survey disposition. The survey has at least a 90% confidence and 6% precision level.
Table 1. Participant Survey Disposition
Total Emails Sent 1,095
Completes 211
Bounce-Backs 126
Known Ineligibles (replied with reason) 2
Known Ineligibles (screened out) 0
Refused (replied but refused) 2
Partial Completes 67
No Response 687

Eligible 967
Ineligible 128
Completion Rate 22%
Contractor Survey
The Easy Upgrades program relies heavily on both lighting and non-lighting contractor participation to
reach its goals. During the kickoff meeting, program staff identified contractors as being a very
important driver for program participation. The evaluation team conducted a survey of contractors
focused on the following key areas:
 How they heard about the program
 General awareness of Idaho Power’s offerings
 How their level of activity in 2012 compares to that of 2013
o Is there is a difference in activity?
o If so, why has it changed?
 Level of satisfaction they are with the Easy Upgrades program in general
o Are there measure-specific incentive adjustments that should be made?
o How is the application process working?
 What additional support they would like to see from Idaho Power

The survey was sent to 447 contractors in Idaho Power’s contractor database which included lighting
and non-lighting contractors, energy services firms and property management companies. A total of
104 contractors (23%) the contractors in the database either attended a training or expressed interest
in receiving information about trainings.

Ninety-four (94) contractors completed the survey, including 76 that had completed lighting projects
and 18 that had completed non-lighting projects.4 Of those that completed the survey, 16 (17%) also

4 There were a number of contractors that had completed both lighting and non-lighting projects. The evaluation team
categorized anyone who had completed a lighting project as “lighting” even if they had also completed a non-lighting project
because it was assumed that their interaction with Easy Upgrades would have been more heavily influenced by their experience with the lighting program.
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 6
opiniondynamics.com
appeared on the list of contractors that had attended a training. The response rate for eligible email
addresses was 20%. Table 2 below shows the full contractor survey disposition. The survey has at
least a 90% confidence and 8% precision level.
Table 2. Contractor Survey Disposition
Total Emails Sent 477
Completes (may include partials used in analysis) 94
Bounce-Backs 17
Known Ineligibles (replied with reason) 1
Known Ineligibles (screened out) 0
Refused (replied but refused) 1
Partial Completes 46
No Response 318

Eligible 459
Ineligible 18
RR1 (completes/eligible) 20%
Material Review
The Opinion Dynamics team reviewed tracking databases and program materials while developing
survey instruments and process maps. Specifically, the evaluation team reviewed the following:
 Program-Tracking Data
 2010 and 2011 Easy Upgrades Customer Surveys
 Prior Easy Upgrades Contractor Survey
 Energy Efficiency Non-Participant Survey: Research Conducted with Commercial Customers
 Marketing Plans and Materials
 Existing Process Diagrams
 Application Forms and the Lighting Tool
 Previous Evaluation Reports, Including the 2012 Impact Evaluation by ADM and the Process
Evaluation Conducted by the Cadmus Group in 2011
Process Mapping
The evaluation team conducted process mapping of two program processes:
 Application processing and quality assurance and control efforts, for both lighting and non-
lighting projects
 Program marketing development and execution

Process mapping provides a clear illustration of the current approach/status quo, and specific areas
within a process where there may be challenges or concerns.
Best Practices Review and Benchmarking
Finally, the Opinion Dynamics team conducted a best practices review and benchmarking to provide
options for program enhancements that have proven successful in other areas of the country. This
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 7
opiniondynamics.com
task was designed to provide guidance for potential changes to the Easy Upgrades program. The
benchmarking activities focused on the following key areas identified by program staff:

 Relationships with contractors and involvement in the program
 Contractor training approaches
 Marketing and outreach approaches

The evaluation team reviewed utility programs similar to Idaho Power (similar size, measure mix, and
design).

Page 8
opiniondynamics.com
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 A SNAPSHOT OF PROGRAM PARTICIPATION
The evaluation team reviewed program-tracking data for the period of July 2, 2012, through September
19, 2013, (14 months) to gain insight into the program’s performance. During the period of analysis,
the average project saved 20,186 kWh and the average incentive was $1,998. Figure 1 below shows
the number of participants in the Easy Upgrades program by market segment over the period of
analysis.
Figure 1. Participation by Segment

Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 9
opiniondynamics.com

Figure 2 below shows the total and average energy (kWh) savings achieved by business segment over
the period of analysis. Industrial Plant, Office (>100,000 Sq/ft), and Food Processing sectors had the
largest average size projects in terms of energy savings5 but Office, Food Service and Other
Commercial were the largest overall contributors to the total savings achieved by Easy Upgrades.

5 Industrial Plant projects averaged 271,952 kWh, Office > 100,000 Sq/ft projects averaged 211,716 kWh and
Food Processing Plant projects averaged 177,966 kWh.
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 10
opiniondynamics.com
Figure 2. Energy Savings by Business Segment

Figure 3 below shows the program participation by region for the period of analysis. More than half of
the program activity occurred in the Capital region.
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 11
opiniondynamics.com
Figure 3. Program Participation by Region

Figure 4 below shows the energy savings (kWh) by region. Although the Southern region accounts for
only 12.1% of participation, it accounts for almost a quarter (23.9%) of the energy savings. The
Southern region accounted for 46% of the energy savings that came from the Food Processing sector,
and 64% of the energy savings from the Other Commercial sector which were two of the top five sectors
in terms of energy savings.
Figure 4. Energy Savings (kWh) by Region

4.2 CUSTOMER AND CONTRACTOR SATISFACTION
The survey results indicate that participants are very satisfied with the program. When asked to rate
the program overall, 95% gave a rating of 7 or higher on a 10-point scale, with an average score of
9.2. None of the survey respondents reported being dissatisfied with the program overall. Participants
were least satisfied with the application process, although satisfaction was still high (see Figure 5
below). Note that the small sample sizes around the application process question reflect the fact that
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 12
opiniondynamics.com
most participants rely on contractors to complete the application. In general, the program appears to
be meeting the needs of participants, and is operating well from the participants’ perspective.
Figure 5. Participant Satisfaction

Additionally, customers were highly satisfied with the contractors they used to complete their projects.
This is especially important given the role that contractors play in the Easy Upgrades program. All of
the elements of contractor performance received a mean score of 9 or higher on a 10-point scale.
Figure 6 shows the breakdown of customer satisfaction with their contractors’ performance.
Figure 6. Customer Satisfaction with Contractors

Contractors are also satisfied with the program; however, some contractors felt that the application
process was difficult and took a long time. As shown in Figure 7. below, on average, contractors
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 13
opiniondynamics.com
reported being less satisfied with the “ease” of the application process and the length of time it took
to process an application.
Contractor responses to our survey questions also indicated that additional marketing could be
helpful. Specifically, they are not currently as satisfied with the level of customer awareness and
interest in the program.
Figure 7. shows the levels of contractor satisfaction for various elements of the program and the target
market. Note that subsequent sections of this report explore both the program marketing efforts and
the application process in more detail.
Figure 7. Contractor Satisfaction

4.3 PROGRAM ACTIVITY: PROJECTED PARTICIPATION LEVELS
While the program is generally running well, one of the key research questions was understanding
potential reasons for the slowdown in participation between 2012 and 2013. Program staff reported
some concern regarding the level and type of current program activity in 2013, as compared to 2012.
According to staff projections, the program expected to see a 10% decline in the number of
applications received in 2013 compared to 2012. In addition, staff expect projects in 2013 to be
smaller than those in 2012.6
The evaluation team explored the level of program activity, specifically asking contractors if they
expected to complete more, fewer, or about the same number of applications in 2013 when compared
to 2012.
As shown in Figure 8 below, 44% of contractors expect to see the same amount of program activity,
and the rest were almost evenly split between expecting more and expecting fewer.

6 At the time of this report the program year had not closed, so these projections are based on incomplete annual
program data for 2013.
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 14
opiniondynamics.com
Figure 8. Comparison of Projects in 2013 with 2012

Respondents did not provide clear reasons as to why they expected to complete more or fewer
projects. Contractors who expect more projects tended to cite the improving economy, whereas those
who expect to complete fewer projects mentioned that many of the “easy” projects have already been
completed.
4.4 EASY UPGRADES PROGRAM MARKETING AND
OUTREACH
Our evaluation also explored the level and type of marketing needed to increase both lighting and non-
lighting program processes.
Based on our research, we found that the Easy Upgrades program is marketed through a relatively
limited set of activities, such as customer-facing ads through association events, commercial
publications, digital banner ads, and bill inserts. A program-specific page also appears on the Idaho
Power website.
A digital banner ad campaign ran from January 2 through April 1, 2013. The campaign resulted in
almost three million views with a “click through” rate of about .12%.7 Program staff reported, however,
that there was no noticeable increase in the applications submitted during the campaign.
Program staff mentioned that marketing staff are aware of kWh goals and participation goals for the
program. Staff also mentioned that it is difficult to track the effectiveness of marketing tactics because
there is no unique Easy Upgrades hotline, and website traffic is not regularly reviewed. Finally, all
program marketing is general across the Commercial & Industrial (C&I) market sector and is not
targeted based on business type.

7 The “click through” rate is the percentage of viewers of an ad that actually click on the ad to get more information. According
to a report furnished by Idaho Power the total impressions generated from January 2 through March 27, 2013 was 2,853,297 with 3,367 “click throughs” resulting in a “click through rate” of .12%
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 15
opiniondynamics.com
Customer outreach is conducted by Idaho Power customer representatives as well as contractors that
have received training on the Easy Upgrades program. In 2013, Idaho Power increased face-to-face
outreach to small businesses by the customer representatives. In terms of outreach to contractors,
activities are conducted as a part of program operations, and include contractor trainings and site
visits primarily focused on lighting contractors. Idaho Power program staff identify contractors as the
“sales force on the ground” for the program, but there is not a formalized “trade ally” program that
requires compliance with minimum quality standards in exchange for marketing support. (Note that
contractor interactions are described in a separate section.)
4.4.1 CUSTOMER OUTREACH AND MARKETING
Figure 9 shows how customers reported first learning about the Easy Upgrades program. The three
most commonly reported channels were through contractors, suppliers, and vendors, followed by
Idaho Power representatives, and word-of-mouth. All three involve face-to-face interaction.
Figure 9. How Customers Heard about the Program

The evaluation team also asked customers how they would prefer to hear about Easy Upgrades. Again,
face-to-face communication from contractors and Idaho Power representatives were the top-scoring
methods of communication (see Figure 10).
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 16
opiniondynamics.com
Figure 10. Customers Preferred Method of Communication (Multiple Response)

Overall, contractors are the primary driver for Easy Upgrades participation, with 54% of customers
reporting that they heard about the program from their contractor, and more than half feeling that the
contractor, supplier, or vendor is one of the best methods of outreach. However, customers also feel
that bill inserts, mailers, and newsletters are also good ways for reaching targeted businesses.
4.4.2 MARKETING PLANNING PROCESS
To understand how the level and types of marketing are determined, we also documented the
marketing planning process.
Each year program staff create a marketing plan to support program objectives. This process is
outlined in Figure 11 below, along with key departments/staff that are involved in each step.
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 17
opiniondynamics.com
Figure 11. Marketing Planning Process
Program staff note that first they review new secondary and primary research applicable to the Easy
Upgrades program that may assist them in forming relevant messaging to potential customers. A SWOT
(strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis is also performed. The 2013 marketing
plan identified the following key factors listed in
Table 3 below as a part of its SWOT analysis.
Table 3. SWOT Analysis
SWOT Key Factors Identified
Strengths  High awareness of program
 High incentives (esp. lighting)
 Good relationships with contractors
Weaknesses  Not enough customer/contractor training
 Industry-specific marketing and materials needed
 Lack of online application process
 Confusion regarding which program a project belongs to
 More promotional program materials needed
Opportunities  LED technology is becoming more prevalent
 Future government policies may lead to tax breaks for businesses, freeing
up capital for energy efficiency
Threats  Influx of out-of-state contractors/ESCOs to take advantage of lighting
incentives
 Mild weather reduces potential energy savings
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 18
opiniondynamics.com
 Economic uptick resulting in less contractor focus on energy efficiency
Some of the factors listed in the SWOT analysis—including good relationships with contractors and the
need for additional customer and contractor training—were supported by our survey research. Others,
including the economic uptick diverting focus away from efficiency, were not supported by survey data.
Also, while contractor awareness is very high, contractors also report that they are somewhat less
satisfied with the program in terms of customer awareness.
Following the SWOT review, the program defines its marketing strategy for the year, including
identifying relevant messaging and target audiences. Lessons learned from previous efforts and
feedback from customers or contractors are considered when putting together the strategy. Primary
messaging in 2013 included increasing return-on-investment and lowering energy costs, along with
increasing worker productivity (e.g., reduced eye strain due to better lighting). These messages aligned
with survey results indicating that the primary benefits that customers were interested in were saving
energy and lowering their utility bills.
Specific marketing tactics along with budgets are then proposed by the marketing department. In
2013, tactics included online banner ads, articles and ads in trade association publications,
highlighting program information in the “Energy at Work” newsletter, bill inserts, and customer success
stories. Additionally, the website was updated earlier in the year, and staff report positive feedback
from contractors.
Metrics for success are also defined during the planning process, and in 2013 included a target level
of energy savings and project participation, along with positive feedback from customers and program
stakeholders. After the marketing plan is drafted, it is sent for final review and approval by
management. At this point, some tactics may be added or removed due to budget or other concerns.
4.4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES FOR MARKETING
AND OUTREACH TO CUSTOMERS
Based on the documented marketing and outreach processes described above, the evaluation team
found that the marketing processes are generally working well. However, there are three areas where
the team offers suggestions for consideration based on best practices in other areas of the country.
Segmentation
Through the SWOT analysis, Idaho Power identified the need for industry-specific materials. By its
nature, the Easy Upgrades program is applicable to existing buildings in nearly all commercial and
industrial sectors, and covers measures that are desirable to all business types. Nevertheless, if
specific market areas of interest are identified as being ideal opportunities for efficiency
improvements, targeted marketing can help. Analyzing customer needs can reveal underserved
customer segments where additional programming could be helpful.
A number of similar programs use targeted messaging for key business segments. The Energy Trust of
Oregon divides non-residential customers into commercial and industrial/agricultural. Puget Sound
targets grocery/food service, hotel/motel, healthcare, data centers, and industrial customers. The
evaluation team recommends comparing program participation and energy savings achieved by Easy
Upgrades to Idaho Power’s customer base to identify markets with low penetration and high potential
for savings (i.e. usage) and to develop marketing materials specific to the business types identified as
high priority.
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 19
opiniondynamics.com
Budget
Reviewing marketing budgets and adjusting to better meet the goals of the Easy Upgrades program
may also be worth pursuing. The EPA’s Rapid Deployment Energy Efficiency (RDEE) Toolkit reports that
the typical non-residential energy efficiency program’s marketing budget makes up 3-10% of total
program costs. The Easy Upgrades program had a very limited marketing budget of approximately
$50,000 in 2013, representing just under 1% of the total annual budget for the program.8 While
individual market characteristics dictate the ideal marketing activities for any particular locale, the
Easy Upgrades program currently devotes significantly less of its budget to marketing than other
comparable non-residential energy efficiency programs.
Contractor Marketing Support
Our research also demonstrated the importance of contractors. Similar programs across the country
invest heavily in supporting contractors, because this is a key method of outreach. Notably, this
method is not included in the marketing costs, but additional marketing materials for contractors could
be valuable. Eighty-four percent (84%) of contractors expressed a desire to be listed on the website,
and 93% expressed interest in co-branded marketing materials. Interactions with contractors are
explored more in the section below.
4.5 CONTRACTOR INTERACTIONS
Easy Upgrades staff devote significant time and effort to cultivating strong relationships with
contractors. In 2013, Idaho Power offered 18 training sessions, including “Lighting 101,” “Lighting
Controls,” and contractor workshops. Program staff also visit contractor sites in order to familiarize
them with the program and provide them with updates about program changes. However, staff
reported that they were not able to visit as many contractors as they would like because of time and
distance constraints. Interactions with contractors, including contractor outreach and training, are
described below.
4.5.1 OUTREACH TO CONTRACTORS
Given their importance, we asked contractors how they learned about the program. As shown in Figure
12. below, the most common way contractors hear about the program is through contact with Idaho
Power staff, followed by others in the supply chain such as distributors and vendors. In fact, the top
three responses all related to face-to-face interaction with others. This is notable because, as
mentioned earlier, the Easy Upgrades staff has focused on getting out into the field to meet with
contractors in person and host training sessions. These efforts appear to be having an impact.

8 Idaho Power 2012 Demand Side Management Report. Available at the Idaho Power website:
http://www.idahopower.com/pdfs/AboutUs/RatesRegulatory/Reports/55.pdf. Accessed on November 22,
2013.
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 20
opiniondynamics.com
Figure 12. How Contractors Learn about the Program

In general, contractors felt they were knowledgeable about the program. However, when the evaluation
team tested the results of several subgroups in the population, there were a few statistically significant
differences that should be noted. First, the team looked at lighting versus non-lighting contractors and
found statistically significant differences between the two groups when it came to the application
process and where to find information, with lighting allies feeling more knowledgeable in both cases
(see Figure 13 below). Notably, non-lighting contractors appear to be in need of more information
about the program.
Figure 13. Contractor Knowledge—Lighting vs. Non-Lighting*
* Significant at the 90% level. ** Significant at the 95% level.
Note: n=94 includes all contractors; 76 lighting contractors and 18 non-lighting contractors participated in the survey.
The evaluation team also compared small contractors (less than 10 employees) with medium and
large contractors, finding that medium and large customers reported being more knowledgeable
regarding the items available, the application process, and the benefits to customers.
6.5 6.2 6.1 7.0 6.16.5 6.6 7.3*7.2 8.0**
Items Available Incentive Levels The Application
Process
Benefits to
Participants
Where to Find
Information
Non-Lighting Lighting(n=94)
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 21
opiniondynamics.com
Figure 14. Contractor Knowledge—Small vs. Large Contractors*

** Significant at the 95% level.
Note: n=94 includes all contractors; 76 lighting contractors and 18 non-lighting contractors participated in the survey.
4.5.2 CONTRACTOR TRAINING
As mentioned above, in 2013 Idaho Power offered 18 training sessions, including: “Lighting 101,”
“Lighting Controls,” and TA workshops. Lighting 101 and Lighting Controls were half-day training
sessions offered across the state, focusing on technical aspects of basic lighting and lighting control
systems. Both trainings offered continuing education credits and were free of cost. Program staff noted
that lighting controls projects increased following the Lighting Controls training sessions. Non-lighting
trainings are not currently being conducted as part of the Easy Upgrades program, and have not been
since September 2012.
Even though only 17% of the survey respondents appeared on the list of training participants, a large
majority of survey respondents reported that they had attended a training. Again, the evaluation team
tested to see if there were any statistically significant differences between subgroups of the sample,
including lighting/non-lighting, and small compared to medium/large contractors. The results indicate
that lighting contractors were more likely to attend training, as were medium/large contractors.
6.2 6.0 6.8 7.0 7.57.2 7.6**7.7**7.9**8.0
Incentive Levels Items Available The Application
Process
Benefits to
Participants
Where to Find
Information
Small Contractors Med/Large Contracters(n=94)
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 22
opiniondynamics.com
Figure 15. Contractor Training Attendance

* Significant at the 90% level. ** Significant at the 95% level.
Figure 16 below shows the reasons why contractors attend an Easy Upgrades program training. They
reported that learning about Easy Upgrades and getting technical information were most important;
networking opportunities and continuing education credits were less important. The team also tested
the significance of this finding among subgroups, and found that smaller contractors rated the
importance of the continuing education credits higher than medium/large contractors.
Figure 16. Motivation for Attending Training

When the evaluation team asked contractors what types of training they would like to see in the future
(see Figure 17), contractors reported that they were most interested in training on Idaho Power’s other
commercial and industrial programs.
67%
87%*
78%
93%**
Non-Lighting (n=18) Lighting (n=76) Small (n=65) Med/Large (n=29)
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 23
opiniondynamics.com
Figure 17. Other Desired Training

4.5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES FOR CONTRACTOR
OUTREACH AND TRAINING
Below the evaluation team explores the elements of effective contractor programs and their
applicability to Easy Upgrades. Specifically, the team focused on contractor outreach and training.
Recommendations provided by contractors currently associated with the Easy Upgrades program are
also provided.
In-person Outreach
Given the size of Idaho Power’s service territory customer interactions take place in a variety of ways
such as phone, email and face to face. All outreach may need to be expanded in order to achieve
savings targets; however, face-to-face interaction is especially important. Idaho Power should dedicate
additional staff time to contractor outreach. This could be done by either adding staff, if the budget
allows, or by shifting staff resources from other forms of outreach.
Many programs opt to have staff dedicated entirely to contractor outreach. For example, the Smart
Ideas for Your Business program (Commonwealth Edison) has a number of “outreach representatives”.
Outreach staff can serve a dual purpose by recruiting new contractors and assisting contractors that
have participated in the past.
Program Support for Contractors
Since contractors are critical to the success of the Easy Upgrades program, the evaluation team asked
contractors what types of support they would like to see from the program. Table 4 below shows the
rankings of various program support options that Easy Upgrades may consider. In the best practices
review, the evaluation team found that many programs offer these types of support to varying degrees.
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 24
opiniondynamics.com
The top rated item is short-term incentive bonuses to customers. The evaluation team recommends
that Idaho Power pilot a short-term customer bonus to see if this tactic produces the intended results.
In designing the pilot it is critical that Idaho Power build in an evaluation component to be sure that
the results of a bonus promotion can be tracked and separated from normal programmatic activity.
Table 4 : Program Support Options9
Desired Program Support Overall Rank
Short-term incentive bonuses to customers 1
List market providers on website 2
Joint customer calls with Easy Upgrades reps 3
Sales incentives for contractors 4
Preferred provider/tiered status 5
Co-brand marketing materials 6
Award program for top market providers 7
Idaho Power may also consider the other tactics as well. We discuss each in detail below.
Listing market providers on the website: Many programs, including some of Idaho Power’s residential
programs, make a list of providers available on the program website. This can be beneficial to the
contractors listed on the site, but can also be a risk for the program sponsor. Before listing market
providers on the website, it is important to ensure that the contractors meet some type of minimum
standard. The evaluation team also recommends adding caveat language stating that the sponsor is
not endorsing one contractor over another. This option is relatively low-cost.
Joint customer calls with Easy Upgrades representatives: Some contractors request that program staff
accompany them when they meet with customers. The program representative can explain the
program to the customer and answer program-related questions that the contractor might not be
comfortable answering. This would be one responsibility of staff focused on trade ally outreach
described in the previous section.
Sales incentives for contractors: Occasionally programs will offer contractors an incentive if they
complete a certain number of projects or achieve a certain level of energy savings. There is little
research around the effectiveness of these bonuses, but Wisconsin Focus on Energy found customer-
focused bonus incentives to be more effective than contractor-focused bonus incentives.
Preferred Provider/tiered status: Puget Sound Energy’s (PSE’s) Contractor Alliance Network maintains
a two-tier system, where contractors maintain different levels of involvement with the program, and
receive different benefits depending on their level of participation. For example, Tier 1 (the highest
tier) contractors can receive PSE marketing and cobranding materials for free, while Tier 2 allies have
access to these materials at their own cost.
Co-branded marketing materials: In order to spur this type of outreach, some programs, including
Energy Trust of Oregon’s commercial programs, provide cooperative marketing funds to contractors.
These are typically program funds that can be used by contractors to market themselves and the

9 These options were provided to the contractors, but they were also given an “other” option that allowed them to specify any
other suggestions they may have.
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 25
opiniondynamics.com
program cooperatively, via advertising or marketing efforts. Program staff sign off on contractor-
developed marketing, and the program provides funds to subsidize or pay for the marketing activities.
Providing these materials allows the contractor to represent the program in a more official capacity.
Award program for top market providers: Some programs have offered awards to market providers.
For example, Cascade Natural Gas Corporation publically rewards trade allies that have contributed to
the success of the program. Trade ally awards, however, could also be simple window clings or
certificates that contractors can display at their offices or on their vehicles.
4.6 INCENTIVE APPLICATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCESS
As noted earlier, although customers and contractors are quite satisfied with the program overall, both
groups rated the application process lower relative to other program elements. Notably, 18% of
contractors reported being “not satisfied” with the application process; this is significant because
customers with lighting projects reported that their contractor filled out the application 66% of the
time, and customers with non-lighting projects reported that their contractors fill out the application
44% of the time.
The sections below describe the application and quality assurance process, and include feedback
provided by participants, contractors, and program staff. The section is divided into three sub-sections
that align with the three steps in the application and quality assurance process: (1) Submittal and
Completeness Review, (2) Inspection and Technical Review, and (3) Approval and Payment Process.
These three steps are also depicted in Figure 18 below, which provides a process map that illustrates
key themes and decision points for how an application is processed.
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 26
opiniondynamics.com
Figure 18. The Application and Quality Assurance Process Map
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 27
opiniondynamics.com

Below are the three steps in the application and quality assurance process, followed by
recommendations for these three areas.
4.6.1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL AND COMPLETENESS REVIEW
As noted above, an application may be submitted to the program by either a contractor (on behalf of
the customer) or by a customer. Some measures require that a pre-approval application be provided,
while others only require that a payment application be sent in after the project is installed. Projects
with estimated incentives of more than $1,000 typically require a pre-approval application. In either
case, upon receiving the application, program staff first perform a completeness review to ensure that
all of the required application materials were provided and all fields are completed.
Lighting applications are unique in that Idaho Power has created a spreadsheet tool to assist in the
incentive and energy savings calculations. Program applicants enter the existing and proposed lighting
equipment, and the tool calculates the energy savings and expected incentive. Contractors find the
lighting tool to be very useful; in fact, 84% of the contractors we surveyed “strongly agreed” that the
lighting tool is useful. In comparison to the non-lighting applications, only 53% of respondents agreed
that overall application forms are easy.
Figure 19. How Contractors View the Lighting Tool

Program staff note that while the website details all of the materials needed to submit an application,
they still find that a substantial portion of applications received are missing key information. If
information is missing, staff must go back to the customer or contractor before the application can
move on to the next step, which slows down the application process. Staff surmise that contractors,
especially smaller ones, may be rushed for time and likely need more direction. Top pieces of missing
53%
Very Easy
(7-10)
84%
Strongly
Agree
(7-10)
Application Forms Easy Lighting Tool Useful
Mean
6.4
Mean
8.5
(n=94)
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 28
opiniondynamics.com
information as noted by program staff include missing part numbers on material invoices, and missing
information on measure specification sheets. This is a common issue throughout the energy efficiency
industry, and is certainly not unique to Idaho Power. The program staff work to mitigate this by:
 Offering program workshops to contractors across the Idaho Power service area, focusing on
program requirements and paperwork processes
 Conducting outreach to contractors, including field visits or phone calls, often focusing on
new and less experienced contractors
 Providing examples of complete paperwork to contractors needing additional support
 Walking through actual project application submission with contractors
 Creating resources and posting them to the website, including checklists to help contractors
remember what is required for project approval
 Adding pop-up notes to the lighting tool that remind contractors what to include
Once all of the required information has been provided, the application information is entered into the
Customer Load and Research Information System (CLRIS) program-tracking database.
4.6.2 INSPECTION AND TECHNICAL REVIEW
After the completeness review, the program specialist then determines if the project should receive
an inspection (pre-inspection or post-inspection). The following criteria are used to determine whether
a lighting project should be inspected:
 Is the incentive $5,000 or greater?
 Was the project submitted by a new contractor?
 Has the submitting contractor had discrepancies in the past?
 Does the project contain unusual circumstances or questionable information, or does
it need field clarification prior to concluding the review?
Selection criteria for non-lighting projects are similar to the criteria listed above, but program staff note
that this may depend on the project and other priorities, as there are far fewer non-lighting projects
than lighting projects. An impact evaluation performed in 2012 by ADM concluded that additional
inspections should be performed on EMS measures to reduce differences between ex-ante and ex-
post savings values. Over the period of review, the program data showed that about 50% of lighting
projects and 20% of non-lighting projects received post-inspections.
The program coordinator logs project information into an inspection tracking sheet prior to the
inspection taking place. Inspections include a detailed walk-through assessment to confirm the
information provided in the application, including characteristics of the existing equipment and how it
is being operated (for pre-inspections), and the installed equipment (for post-inspections). Any updates
to project information after the inspection will be entered into the tracking sheet. After the inspection,
the application is sent to a technical reviewer to confirm that the project qualifies for the program and
that the information provided, including estimated savings and incentive levels, is correct.
4.6.3 PROJECT APPROVAL AND PAYMENT
For pre-approval applications, the goal is to provide approval within two weeks of application receipt.
Program staff note that despite some delays caused by contractors providing incomplete information,
approval is typically given in one week. After a pre-approval application passes the technical review,
the applicant is notified that the project may begin.
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 29
opiniondynamics.com
For payment applications, the goal is to complete processing in six to eight weeks, and staff note that
this goal is always met, with uncomplicated applications typically being processed within two to three
weeks. Upon receipt, the project is entered into CLRIS upload for final review and payment. The
customer may specify that payment be sent to the contractor, provided that contractor has signed a
memo of understanding (MOU) with the Easy Upgrades program. If a payment is made directly to a
participant, an Idaho Power customer representative will personally deliver the check.
During the review of the application process, the evaluation team calculated payment application
processing times using dates provided in the program data. The average total number of business
days to process either a lighting or non-lighting payment application is 21, or about four weeks, as
shown in Table 5 below. This is well under the six-to-eight-week timeframe that is estimated for
customers when they receive a pre-approval notification.
The review shows that the completeness review phase for payment applications takes the longest,
and it is slightly longer for lighting. As previously mentioned, during this phase, the program will review
the application materials to ensure that all required items were provided by the submitter. Program
staff noted that this phase in the application process can cause delays at times, as many submitters
do not provide all of the information needed to process their application.
Table 5. Payment Application Processing Times

Processing Period
Represented
Lighting Payment
Applications
Non-Lighting
Payment Applications
Average Number of Business Days*
Total Processing Time

21 21
Completeness Review

12 9
Inspection and Technical
Review
7 7
Final Approval and
Payment
5 6
*Note: Numbers for each separate phase of the process do not add up to the total due to averaging.
Figure 20 and Figure 21 below illustrate participant and contractor satisfaction with payment
timeframe. As shown, 94% of participants are very satisfied with payment times, while a much lower
percent of contractors (50%) are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied (38%). This is not entirely
surprising, as most applications are submitted by contractors who may pass on the incentive amount
to the participant immediately with the project invoice, and some may be carrying the cost of the
incentive until they are paid by the program. Even though applications may be processed on time,
contractors typically prefer to receive payment as soon as possible.
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 30
opiniondynamics.com
Figure 20. Participant Satisfaction with Payment Timeframe

Figure 21. Contractor Satisfaction with Payment Processing Time

Program staff report that there is currently not a mechanism for keeping centralized notes about
projects. Additionally, pre-approval and payment applications are processed by different staff
members. As a result, the contractor or customer submitting the application may interact with multiple
program representatives throughout the process and in some cases, this results in applicants
explaining the project multiple times to different staff members.

Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 31
opiniondynamics.com
4.6.4 BEST PRACTICES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INCENTIVE
APPLICATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
Based on the review of best practices for the three areas of the application and quality assurance
process, the evaluation team offers the following suggestions for consideration by Idaho Power.
Online Applications
One of the weaknesses identified in Idaho Power’s SWOT analysis is the lack of an online application
process. Some similar programs have moved to an automated system where customers or contractors
can supply all of their application information and supporting documentation through an online portal.
Some of these online systems also allow the applicant to monitor the status of their application as it
moves through the process. Since Easy Upgrades staff report that they receive a large number of
applications that are missing invoices or other materials, program management should consider
deployment of an online application portal to help mitigate this problem.
Project Inspections
Over the period of review, the program data showed that about 50% of lighting projects and 20% of
non-lighting projects received post-inspections. These percentages are relatively high as compared to
other jurisdictions, which typically aim to inspect 5-10% of all projects. A previous process evaluation
by Cadmus also suggested that randomly inspecting approximately 10% of projects should suffice in
meeting a 90/10 confidence precision level. Program staff note that while 10% is the general target,
an influx of new contractors and an effort to improve contractor application quality warrants additional
inspections. Given the needs of the program, the evaluation team does not recommend that Idaho
Power decrease inspections at this time. However, Idaho Power should work to decrease the number
of inspections needed over the long run.
Training Requirements
Contractor training is one way to reduce the need for inspections. Adding a training requirement may
help contractors improve the quality of application paperwork they submit. Some programs have
initiated training requirements to develop the skills of contractors participating in the program. Puget
Sound Energy’s Contractor Alliance Network requires contractors to maintain a certain level of
performance, evaluated by metrics quantifying the number of completed jobs, the meeting of QA/QC
requirements, the number of training hours received, and a customer experience score. The Wisconsin
Focus on Energy program’s contractor network requires contractors to complete and submit an
application, complete mandatory program trainings, complete at least one Focus on Energy project
per year, and update their contact information yearly.
Additionally, many programs identify limited technical knowledge among contractors as a major barrier
standing in the way of savings that could be captured by more sophisticated and comprehensive
techniques. The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) recommends training that focuses on
developing advanced skills, as well as emphasizing sales training and contractor profitability. They also
use training to address contractor issues with program mechanics.
4.7 TRACKING DATABASE REVIEW
As described earlier, the Easy Upgrades program data is tracked and stored in an internal database
called CLRIS, which tracks data related to demand-side management projects along with other utility
functions. The CLRIS system is used to support all functions throughout the company, and was not
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 32
opiniondynamics.com
built specifically for demand-side management functions. Easy Upgrades uses CLRIS to track
information related to program contacts, measures installed, and savings estimates, along with other
information collected through applications and inspections. Dates of key activities are also recorded,
along with the names of staff that conducted the various approvals. CLRIS is a relational database
comprised of a set of tables from which fields can be queried to access the data. Given this, it was
impractical for Idaho Power to send the entire database to the evaluation team; a data export was
sent instead. The evaluation team also reviewed the Easy Upgrades procedures manual, which
contains detailed instructions for using CLRIS. The data-tracking process was reviewed for usability
and data quality.
4.7.1 USABILITY
The evaluation team spoke with program staff about using the CLRIS system and reviewed the program
manual which included detailed instructions for entering applications into the system. Program staff
did not report any difficulties or issues related to data entry into the CLRIS system. When first entering
a new application into the system, staff can call up a customer by account or meter number, and pre-
populate the customer information fields from the data in CLRIS. This eliminates duplicate customer
records. Staff can also view information regarding other DSM projects completed by the customer, but
project details are often difficult to find. Project documentation (such as invoices) cannot be scanned
and uploaded into the system, and as a result, the project staff must maintain paper copies of project
files.
4.7.2 DATA QUALITY
As mentioned previously, CLRIS supports many of Idaho Power’s non-DSM related functions (e.g.,
billing and outage restoration). One advantage of having the DSM system integrated into a database
with other utility functions is that the system can auto-populate site information based on account or
meter number. This eliminates the risk of duplicate entries that can arise when data from applications
is entered manually. For example, in some databases the same customer will appear multiple times
with slightly different spellings of street names (such as “Fourth St.” versus “4th St.”). In addition,
having an integrated system allows all programmatic activity to be tracked back to the participant so
that Idaho Power could use the data to look for participation trends over time.
The evaluation team did not find any issues related to data quality in the extract we received; all fields
were appropriately identified, and data was formatted correctly throughout.
4.7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES FOR DATA
TRACKING AND MANAGEMENT
Based on the evaluation team’s review of the data extract received, as well as the review of the
program procedures manual (which describes data tracking), the team recommends that Idaho Power
investigate the feasibility of CLRIS enhancements related to workflow management and customer
relationship management.
Workflow Management
As described above, to process applications, project information needs to be shared between
operations staff, managers, and project inspectors. For example, a program coordinator ensures that
the application materials are complete and then sends the information to a project inspector, who will
go to the site and verify the operating conditions. This is currently done through email, or, in the case
of non-lighting applications, the inspector will come to the Idaho Power office in person to pick up files
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 33
opiniondynamics.com
needing inspection. Adding workflow management capabilities, such as automated notifications when
projects are ready for inspection would help expedite the process and clearly define where the project
is in the process. If this cannot be done, Idaho Power should consider purchasing a software package
that will help facilitate workflow (for example Microsoft SharePoint).
Customer Relationship Management
CLRIS does not have the capability of tracking communications between customers, contractors, and
program staff. According to the program procedures manual, much of the information transfer between
staff is done through paper files and “sticky notes.” This can result in different staff asking the
customer for the same information which is burdensome to the customer. There is currently no place
for Idaho Power staff to house and share information about potential project leads or project
information. It also makes it difficult for program managers to estimate the project pipeline, which is
needed for making accurate forecasts and adjusting tactics to meet goals. Again, Idaho Power should
first explore if enhancements can be made to CLRIS for the purposes of customer relationship
management. If this cannot be done, Idaho Power should consider some of the commercially available
customer relationship management software packages on the market today such as Salesforce,
Landslide and Insightly.
5. CONCLUSION
In general, the program appears to be meeting the needs of participants, and is operating well from
the participants’ perspective. Additionally, customers were highly satisfied with the contractors they
used to complete their projects. This is especially important given the role that contractors play in the
Easy Upgrades program.
Program staff reported some concern regarding the level and type of current program activity in 2013,
as compared to 2012. Contractor responses to our survey questions also indicated that additional
marketing could be helpful. Idaho Power does spend somewhat less on marketing than the 3-10% of
overall budget that was found in the best practices review. Additionally, marketing and outreach should
focus on contractors.
Finally, the program staff would benefit from having workflow management and customer relationship
management capabilities that are currently not part of the CLIRS system. We recommend that Idaho
Power investigate the feasibility of enhancing CLRIS or perhaps alternative software packages to
facilitate these two important program administration functions.

Page 34
opiniondynamics.com
A. APPENDIX—DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS
Idaho Power- EASY UPGRADES PROGRAM
ONLINE MARKET PROVIDERS SURVEY
LANDING PAGE
Opinion Dynamics Corporation, on behalf of Idaho Power, is conducting a survey of contractors that
have participated in the Easy Upgrades program. This survey is intended to help Idaho Power improve
the program, and your feedback is critical and greatly appreciated. Please take a few minutes to
complete this survey. Your answers will be completely confidential.
BEGIN SURVEY
Program Awareness

PA1. How did you first hear about the Idaho Power Easy Upgrades program? [ROTATE]
1. Bill Insert
2. Contractor, supplier, or vendor
3. Idaho Power Website
4. Mailer
5. Friend/colleague/word of mouth
6. Idaho Power Newsletter
7. Online Advertisement
8. Article in trade magazine/newsletter
9. Advertisement in a trade magazine/newsletter
10. Participation in other Idaho Power program
11. Customer request
12. Idaho Power Representative
13. Idaho Power training
00. Other [SPECIFY]

PA2. How knowledgeable do you feel that you are about each of these aspects of the Easy Upgrades
program?
a. Incentive levels
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 35
opiniondynamics.com
b. Items available
c. The application process
d. Benefits to program participants
e. Where to find help or information about the program

Not
Knowledgeable
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Extremely
Knowledgeable
10

PA3. Have you installed lighting equipment through the Idaho Power Easy Upgrades program?
1. Yes
2. No

PA4. Have you installed equipment other than lighting through the Idaho Power Easy Upgrades
program? Check all that apply
1. HVAC
2. Variable Speed/Frequency Drives
3. Building Shell
4. Food Service Equipment
5. Plug Load
6. I have not completed a non-lighting project

Customer Participation
1.
CP1. How many projects do you expect to complete in 2013 compared to 2012?
1. More
2. Fewer
3. About the same

[ASK CP3 IF CP1=1, 2]
CP3. What do you think accounts for the difference between what you completed in 2012 and what
you expect to complete in 2013? [OPEN END]

2. CP5. How often do you promote the Easy Upgrades program to your customers?
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 36
opiniondynamics.com
1. Always
2. Occasionally
3. Rarely
4. Never

CP6. Please indicate how often you do each of the following for your customers … [SCALE Always,
Occasionally, Rarely, Never] [ROTATE]
a. Install or supply the equipment specified independently by the customer
b. Help the customer select the most energy efficient equipment
c. Fill out the application for the customer

Always Occasionally Rarely Never

CP7. How often does the Easy Upgrades incentive allow you to influence your customers to consider
additional equipment or more efficient equipment for their projects?
1. Always
2. Occasionally
3. Rarely
5. Never

CP8. Have the following barriers ever prevented your customers from participating in the Easy
Upgrades program? [YES/NO,DON’T KNOW, ROTATE]

CP8a. Customers don't understand the proposed technology
CP8b. The project return on investment is unattractive
CP8c. Customers lack the necessary up-front capital to invest
CP8d. The proposed product or equipment is not on the Easy Upgrades menu
CP8e.The program process is too burdensome
CP8f.The incentivized equipment is not stocked or available
CP8g.Incentives are not high enough

[ASK IF CP8F=1]
CP8F_1. What incentivized equipment is not stocked or available? [OPEN END]

[ASK IF CP8G=1]
CP8G_1. For which products if the incentive not high enough? [OPEN END]

CP8H. What other barriers, if any, have ever prevented your customers from participating in the Easy
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 37
opiniondynamics.com
Upgrades program? [OPEN END, 96: No other barriers)

CP9. What do you think would make the program more valuable to your customers?
00. [OPEN END]
96. Nothing
3.
Contractor Training

CT1. Have you attended any Easy Upgrades trainings?
1. Yes
2. No [SKIP TO CT4]

[ASK CT2 IF CT1=1, ELSE SKIP TO CT4]
CT2. How useful did you find the training? [NUMERIC 0-10; 998 Don’t know]
Not
Useful
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Very
Useful
10
4.
[ASK CT3 IF CT2<7 ELSE SKIP TO CT3a]
CT3. What would have made the training more useful to you? [OPEN END]

CT3a. When you were deciding to attend the training how important were these factors? [SCALE OF
0-10]
a. Continuing Education Credits
b. Networking opportunities with other professionals
c. Information about the Easy Upgrades Program
d. Technical information about energy efficient items

Not
Important
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Very
Important
10

5.
CT3b. What other factors, if any, were important when deciding to attend the training?
[OPEN END, 96 – No other factors]

[ASK IF CT3B=00]
CT3C. How important was this other factor when deciding to attend the training? [SCALE OF 0-10 –
same scale as CT3a]

Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 38
opiniondynamics.com
CT4. What types of training would you be interested in attending if offered by Idaho Power? (check
all that apply) [MULTIPLE RESPONSE] [ROTATE]
1. Information on other Idaho Power incentive programs for businesses
2. Training on program items and compliance
3. Technical training on efficiency opportunities. Please specify topics of interest
[SPECIFY]
4. Marketing training on selling efficiency products
00. Other [SPECIFY]
6. None

Memo of Understanding
[ASK SECTION IF PA3=1, ELSE SKIP]

MOU1. Have you signed a Memo of Understanding with Idaho Power in order to receive third-party
payment through the program?
1. Yes
2. No
8. Don’t know

[ASK IF MOU1=1 ELSE SKIP TO MARKET PROVIDER SUPPORT SECTION TAS1]
MOU2. Have you completed a project where you received the incentive payment on behalf of your
customer?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don’t know

[ASK IF MOU2=1]
MOU3. How satisfied were you with the process for receiving the incentive payment on behalf of you
customer?
1. Very satisfied
2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Neither
4. Somewhat dissatisfied
5. Very dissatisfied

Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 39
opiniondynamics.com
[ASK IF MOU3 = 4 or 5, ELSE SKIP]
MOU4. What could have made your experience receiving the incentive on behalf of your customer
better?
00. [OPEN END]
96. Nothing

Market Provider Support
TAS1. Below is a list of items that Idaho Power could consider including as a part of the Market
Provider program. Please rank the following items from what you’d like to see the most to what you
think is least important.

Please drag all 7 items from the left to the box on the right. Please place them in order so that the
most important is on top, followed by your 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th and 7th choices. [RANK]
1. Co-branded marketing materials
2. Having Market Providers listed on the website
3. Preferred Provider or tiered status levels
4. Joint customer calls with Easy Upgrades program representatives
5. A recognition or award program for top Market Providers
6. Sales Incentives for Market Providers
7. Short term incentive bonuses to customers

TAS2. What other types of Market Provider support would you like to see from Idaho Power?
00. [OPEN END]
96. Nothing

Marketing
MK1. How do you prefer to receive information about the program? [MULTIPLE RESPONSE] [ROTATE
1-5]
1. Website
2. Idaho Power representative
3. Training event or workshop
4. Email
5. Direct Mail
00. Other [Specify]

MK2. What, if any, specific promotional materials would you like Idaho Power to provide that might
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 40
opiniondynamics.com
help you sell the program to customers? [MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
1. Technical handouts
2. Website tools/enhancements
3. Customer testimonials
4. Case studies
96. None – current materials are enough
00. Other [Specify]

MK3. How useful are the Idaho Power Easy Upgrades marketing materials?
Not at all
useful
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Extremely
Useful
10

6. [ASK IF MK3<7]
7. MK4. What would make the materials more useful to you? [OPEN END]

Program Improvements & Satisfaction
8.
PS2. To what extent do you agree with the following statements? (96 Not Applicable, 98 Don’t
Know)
a. My customers are aware of the program
b. My customers are interested in the program
c. Easy Upgrades’ application forms are easy to follow
d. The Easy Upgrades administrative staff are helpful
e. There is an adequate selection of items offered through the program
f. My client's applications are processed in a timely manner
g. The Easy Upgrades Update e-mails are useful
h. The Idaho Power local Customer Representatives are helpful
l. Overall the program is well managed
i. [ASK IF PA3=1] The Lighting Savings/Incentive Tool is useful

Do not
agree
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Definitely
Agree
10

9. [ASK IF PS2a<7]
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 41
opiniondynamics.com
10. PS2aa. How could Idaho Power help increase program awareness among those customers? [OPEN
END]
11.
12. [ASK IF PS2b<7]
13. PS2bb. In your opinion, why aren’t customers interested in the easy Upgrades program? [OPEN END]
14.
15. [ASK IF PS2e<7]
16. PS2cc. What items would you like to see added? [OPEN END]
17.
18. [ASK IF PS2l<7]
PS2dd. How could the program be managed better? [OPEN END]

PS3. What do you view as the main benefits to being involved in the Easy Upgrades program? Check
all that apply
1. Increased sales of energy efficient equipment
2. Improved customer satisfaction
3. Incentives for customers
4. Marketing opportunities
00. Other [Specify]

19.
Firmographics

20. F1. What is your business category? Check all that apply [MULTIPLE RESPONSE, UP TO 3]
[ROTATE]
1. Contractor - Electrical
2. Contractor – Mechanical
3. Contractor – Other
4. Engineer [ANCHOR AS LAST BEFORE OTHER SPECIFY]
5. Energy Consultant
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 42
opiniondynamics.com
6. Manufacturer’s rep
7. Architect [ANCHOR BEFORE “ENGINEER”]
8. Equipment Supplier
00. Other [Specify][ANCHOR LAST]

F2. Which areas of the Idaho Power service territory do you service? [MULTIPLE RESPONSE, UP TO
5] [ROTATE]
1. West (eg. Nampa, Caldwell, Payette, Ontario, McCall)
2. Greater Boise Metropolitan area (eg. Boise, Eagle, Meridian, Kuna, Mountain Home )
3. South (eg. Jerome, Twin Falls, Mini-Cassia)
4. East (eg. Blackfoot, Pocatello, American Falls, Salmon)
00. Other [Specify]

F5. Approximately, how many employees does your company have in Idaho?
1. Under 10
2. 11-50
3. 51-100
4. Over 100

Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 43
opiniondynamics.com
Idaho Power- EASY UPGRADES PROGRAM
ONLINE PARTICIPANT SURVEY

INTRODUCTION
Opinion Dynamics Corporation, on behalf of Idaho Power, is conducting a survey of customers that
have participated in the Easy Upgrades program. Our records show that <COMPANY>, completed a
project [IF PROJECT_ADDRESS≠MISSING “at <PROJECT ADDRESS>”] [IF PROJECT_CITY≠MISSING “in
<PROJECT CITY>”] and received an incentive of <INCENTIVE AMOUNT> through the program. This
survey is intended to help Idaho Power improve the program, and your feedback is critical and greatly
appreciated. Please take a few minutes to complete this survey. Your answers will be completely
confidential.
Screening Questions

A1. Our records show you participated in the Easy Upgrades Program. Is this correct?
1. Yes
2. No [THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME] [TERMINATE]

A2. Did you install lighting equipment through the Easy Upgrades program?
1. Yes
2. No

[ASK IF A2=1 ELSE SKIP TO A3]
A2a. Did you complete Idaho Power’s online lighting tool to apply for the incentive?
1. Yes
2. No

[ASK IF A2a=1]
A2b. How would you rate Idaho Power’s online lighting tool in terms of ease of use? [SCALE 0-10;
98=Don’t know]
Very
difficult
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Very easy
10

Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 44
opiniondynamics.com
[ASK IF A2b<5]
A2c. What would make the lighting tool easier to use? [OPEN END]

[ASK IF A2a=2]
A2d. Who completed the online Lighting Tool for your lighting project?
1. Someone else at this facility
2. Someone else at this company but not at this specific facility
3. Contractor/Electrician or service provider etc
00. Other [SPECIFY]

A3. Have you installed equipment other than lighting through the Easy Upgrades program? Check all
that apply:
6. HVAC
7. Variable Speed/Frequency Drives
8. Building Shell
9. Food Service Equipment
10. Plug Load
6. I have not completed a non-lighting project [SKIP TO SC1]

[ASK IF A3 = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
A3a. Did YOU fill out the application yourself?
1. Yes
2. No

[ASK IF A3a=1 ELSE SKIP TO a3c]
A3b. How would you rate Idaho Power’s application process? [SCALE 0-10; 98=Don’t know]
Very
difficult
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Very easy
10

[ASK IF A3b<5]
S2ba. Why did you rate the application process that way? [OPEN END]

[ASK IF A3a=2]
A3c Who filled out the application forms?
1. Someone else at this facility
2. Someone else at this company but not at this specific facility
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 45
opiniondynamics.com
3. Contractor/Electrician or Service Provider etc
00. Other [SPECIFY]

Satisfaction with Contractor

SC1. Did you use a contractor for your project(s)?
1. Yes
2. No

[ASK IF SC1=1, else skip to next section]
SC2 On a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means ‘Very dissatisfied’ and 10 means ‘Very satisfied’, how
would you rate your satisfaction with the contractor(s) for the following: [SCALE 0-10; 98=Don’t
know] [ROTATE]

a. Quality of work
b. Courteousness
c. Professionalism
d. Knowledge of equipment
e. Knowledge of the Easy Upgrades program
f. Timely completion of work
g. Clear explanations of efficiency aspects of new equipment

Very
dissatisfied
0 1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9
Very
satisfied
10

[ASK IF SC2a<5]
SC3a. Why did you rate the contractor’s quality of work this way? [OPEN END; 98=Don’t know]

[ASK IF SC2b <5]
SC3b. Why did you rate the contractor’s courteousness this way? [OPEN END; 98=Don’t know]

[ASK IF SC2c <5]
SC3c. Why did you rate the contractor’s professionalism this way? [OPEN END; 98=Don’t know]

[ASK IF SC2d <5]
SC3d. Why did you rate the contractor’s knowledge of equipment this way? [OPEN END; 98=Don’t
know]

[ASK IF SC2e <5]
SC3e. Why did you rate the contractor’s knowledge of the Easy Upgrades program this way? [OPEN
END; 98=Don’t know]
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 46
opiniondynamics.com

[ASK IF SC2f <5]
SC3f. Why did you rate the contractor’s timely completion of work this way? [OPEN END; 98=Don’t
know]

[ASK IF SC2g <5]
SC3g. Why did you rate the contractor’s clear explanations of efficiency aspects of new equipment
this way? [OPEN END; 98=Don’t know]

SC4. How likely would you be to recommend the contractor(s) you worked with to a business
associate?
1. Very likely
2. Somewhat likely
3. Neither likely or unlikely
4. Somewhat unlikely
5. Very unlikely

[ASK IF SC4=4 or 5]
SC6a Why wouldn’t you recommend the contractor(s) you worked with? [OPEN END]

SC7 When implementing an energy efficiency project, how important would it be to know that the
contractor is affiliated with the Easy Upgrades Program? [SCALE 0-10; 98=Don’t know]
Not at all
Important
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Extremely
Important
10

Overall Satisfaction
S1 Using a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means 'Very dissatisfied' and 10 means 'Very satisfied',
how would you rate your satisfaction with the following aspect of the Easy Upgrades
program?… [SCALE 0-10; 96=not applicable, 98=Don’t know] [ROTATE]

a. the incentive amount
b. the communication you had with the Easy Upgrades program staff
c. the equipment eligible for incentives by the program
d. the equipment installed
e. the program information you received
f. the amount of time it took to receive the incentive
g. the Easy Upgrades program overall[FIXED SECOND TO LAST]
h. IDAHO POWER overall [ANCHOR]
Very
dissatisfied 1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9
Very
satisfied
NA
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 47
opiniondynamics.com
0 10

[ASK FOR ALL S1<5]

S1a-h: You indicated some dissatisfaction with <S1 RESPONSE>. Why did you rate it this way? [OPEN
END]

S2. How likely would you be to recommend the Easy Upgrades program to a business associate?
1. Very likely
2. Somewhat likely
3. Neither likely or unlikely
4. Somewhat unlikely
5. Very unlikely

[ASK IF S2= 4 or 5]
S11a. Why wouldn’t you recommend the program to a business associate?

S3 After participating in this program, has your opinion of Idaho Power …
1. Improved significantly
2. Improved somewhat
3. Not changed
4. Decreased somewhat
5. Decreased significantly

[ASK IF S3=1, 2, 4, 5]
S12a Can you explain why your opinion of Idaho Power changed after participating in this program?
[OPEN END;]

Marketing and Outreach

MO1. How did you first hear about the Easy Upgrades program? [ROTATE]
1. Bill insert
2. Contractor, supplier, or vendor
3. Idaho Power website
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 48
opiniondynamics.com
4. Mailer
5. Friend/colleague/word of mouth
6. Idaho Power newsletter
7. Online advertisement
8. Article in trade magazine/newsletter
9. Advertisement in a trade magazine/newsletter
10. Participation in other Idaho Power program [SPECIFY]
11. Idaho Power representative
00. Other [SPECIFY]

MO2. How useful do you find the program’s marketing materials?
1. Very useful
2. Somewhat useful
3. Not very useful
4. Not at all useful

[ASK IF MO2=2,3,4]
MO2a What would make the materials more useful to you? [OPEN END]

MO3. Below is a list of ways that programs like the Easy Upgrades program can reach your business
to provide information about energy efficiency opportunities. Please select up to three ways
that you would prefer to receive information from the Easy Upgrades program.
[ROTATE]
1. Bill insert
2. Contractor, supplier, or vendor
3. Idaho Power website
4. Mailer
5. Friend/colleague/word of mouth
6. Idaho Power newsletter
7. Online advertisement
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 49
opiniondynamics.com
8. Article in trade magazine/newsletter
9. Advertisement in a trade magazine/newsletter
10. Participation in other Idaho Power program
11. Idaho Power representative
00. Other: specify

MO3a. How often have you visited the Idaho Power website?
1. Only once
2. Weekly
3. Monthly
4. A few times a year
5. Never

[ASK IF MO3a=1,2,3,4]
MK3a. How easy is it to find information about the Easy Upgrades program on the Idaho Power
website? [SCALE 0-10; 98=Don’t know]

Not easy
at all
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Extremely
easy
10

Benefits and Barriers

B1 Below is a list of benefits that could be used to describe what participants gain from
participating in the Easy Upgrades program. Please select up to three benefits to participating
in the Easy Upgrades Program.

[ROTATE]

1. Energy savings
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 50
opiniondynamics.com
2. Good for the environment
3. Lower maintenance costs
4. Better quality/new equipment
5. Energy Upgrades incentive
6. Improved safety/morale
7. Set example/Industry leader
8. Able to make improvements sooner
9. Saves money on utility bill
10. Rapid rate of return
00. Other:specify
96. None of these

B2 Below is a list of barriers to participating in the Easy Upgrades program. Please select up to
three barriers that you feel are the most influential barriers to participation.
[ROTATE]
1. Paperwork and program processes are too burdensome
2. The rate of return is too long
3. Do not have access to capital or financing
4. Lack of awareness about the program
5. Participation is time consuming
6. Do not understand technology being proposed
00. Other: specify
96. No barriers

[ASK IF B2=2]
B3 What is the minimum payback that is required by your company to complete an energy
efficiency project?
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 51
opiniondynamics.com
If your payback period is 2 years, please enter 2 in the "Years" row and 0 in the "Months" row. If your
payback period is 2.5 years, please enter 2 in the "Years" row and 6 in the "Months" row.
[NUMERIC] Years
[NUMERIC] Months

Feedback and Recommendations

R1 How likely is your company to participate in the program again in the future? [SCALE 0-10;
96=not applicable, 98=Don’t know]
Not at all
likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Extremely
likely
10

[ASK IF R1<5]
R1a. What would make you more likely to participate again in the future? [OPEN END]

R2 Below is a list of ways in which the Easy Upgrades program could be improved. Please select
up to three ways in which the program could be improved.

[ROTATE]
1. More items
2. Greater publicity
3. Better communication/Improve program information
4. Contact/information from Idaho Power representative
5. Longer time period to complete project
6. Better review of applications
7. Simplify application process
8. Electronic applications
00. Other: specify
96. No improvements needed

[
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 52
opiniondynamics.com

Firmographics

F0 What is your position at your company?
1. CEO/Owner
2. Building manager (i.e. one building)
3. Energy manager
4. Plant/facility managers (i.e. industrial building manager)
5. Property manager (i.e. multiple properties)
00. Other [SPECIFY]

F1a What is <COMPANY>’s business type?
1. K-12 School
2. College/University
3. Grocery
4. Medical
5. Hotel/Motel
6. Light Industry
7. Heavy Industry
8. Office
9. Restaurant
10. Retail/Service
11. Warehouse
12. Property Management/Real Estate
00. Other [SPECIFY]

F3 Does <COMPANY> pay the electric bill at [ADDRESS]?
1. Yes
2. No
8. Don’t know

F4b What is the approximate age of the facility?
1. Less than 2 years
2. 2-4 years
3. 5-9 years
4. 10-19 years
5. 20-29 years
Easy Upgrades Process Evaluation
Page 53
opiniondynamics.com
6. 30 years or more years
8. Don’t know

F5b What is the approximate number of employees at this facility?
1. Less than 10
2. 10-49
3. 50-99
4. 100-249
5. 250-499
6. 500 or more
8. Don’t know

FlexPeak Management
2013 Program Report

December 27, 2013

Idaho Power
FlexPeak Management 2013 Program Report Page 2

Table of Contents
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................2
Program Summary .................................................................................................................................3
2013 Demand Reduction Event Results ................................................................................................4
Customer Recruitment ...........................................................................................................................5
Metering .................................................................................................................................................6
Event Initiation.......................................................................................................................................7
Customer Event Monitoring ..................................................................................................................7
Idaho Power Event Monitoring ..............................................................................................................8
Customer Satisfaction ............................................................................................................................9
Idaho Power Participation ....................................................................................................................10
Payment Reconciliation .......................................................................................................................10
Cost-Effectiveness ...............................................................................................................................11
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................................11

Idaho Power
FlexPeak Management 2013 Program Report Page 3

Program Summary
FlexPeak Management is a voluntary demand response program designed for 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 customers in Idaho
in May 2009 and became available to Oregon customers in May 2010. 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 of 2:00 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 last between two and four hours. The maximum hours available in
the 2013 active season were 30 (reduced from 60 available in all prior years).
In November 2008, Idaho Power selected EnerNOC, Inc. through a competitive Request for Proposal
(RFP) process, to implement the program. Idaho Power entered into a five-year agreement with EnerNOC in February 2009, pending the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) approval. In May 2009, the IPUC approved the contract in Order No. 30805.
In February 2010, Idaho Power filed a petition requesting the IPUC to approve an amendment to the
agreement between Idaho Power and EnerNOC. The contract changes clarified language regarding
accrual of energy payments, adjustment of language regarding baseline calculations, correction of an error in EnerNOC penalty calculations, and the addition of a non-solicitation clause. On June 2, 2010, under Order No. 31098, the IPUC granted the company’s Petition for Approval of the Amendment to the
Agreement. In March 2010, Idaho Power filed an application with the Oregon Public Utilities
Commission (OPUC) to approve the FlexPeak Management program to be available to Idaho Power
Oregon customers, which was approved on June 2, 2010 in Order No. 10-206.
In March 2013, Idaho Power filed a petition requesting the IPUC to approve a second amendment to the agreement between Idaho Power and EnerNOC. The purpose of this amendment was to reduce program
costs. The changes included: reducing the maximum available hours to call demand response events
from 60 hours to 30 hours, and reducing the maximum days from 20 to 10; reducing the amount of
demand response EnerNOC was obligated to make available from 35-65 MW down to 20-35 MW; and reducing the capacity amount Idaho Power paid to EnerNOC. On May 5, 2013, under Order No. 32805, the IPUC granted the company’s Petition for Approval of the Second Amendment to the Agreement.
EnerNOC is responsible for developing and implementing all marketing plans, securing all participants,
installing and maintaining all equipment downstream of Idaho Power’s meter, 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.
EnerNOC meets with prospective customers to identify their potential to reduce electrical energy load
during active program hours with minimal 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.
Contractually, EnerNOC has agreed to a target annual demand reduction amount for the five year
contract length. Each week during the active season, EnerNOC commits a demand reduction level in
Idaho Power
FlexPeak Management 2013 Program Report Page 4

megawatts (MWs) to Idaho Power that EnerNOC is obligated to meet during a demand reduction event.
When Idaho Power anticipates the need for capacity, it schedules the date and time of the event and
notifies EnerNOC.
Idaho Power has access to an EnerNOC web site that shows near real-time energy usage data of the aggregated load, and can continually monitor the success of the demand reduction during an event. Customers can also continuously monitor their demand reduction performance using their individual
near real-time energy usage data available to them through the EnerNOC web site.
2013 Demand Reduction Event Results
EnerNOC’s contractual demand response obligation to Idaho Power in 2013 was between 20 and 35
MW. The first week of the 2013 season, EnerNOC committed to provide a reduction of 28.3 MW. This
weekly commitment or “nomination” was comprised of 101 facility sites, of which 98 participated in the
program in 2012 and 3 were new in 2013. The reduction commitment peaked the second week in August at 35.0 MW, comprised of 98 facility sites.
Idaho Power initiated three demand response events in 2013. All three events occurred in July. The
highest hourly reduction achieved was in July 10, at 42.5 MW (meter-level). EnerNOC performed to
the committed MW reductions by the percentages shown in the table below.

98%
117% 118%
1st 2nd 3rd
MW

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

Event
FlexPeak 2013
Demand Reduction Percent Performances
Committed Capacity (MW) Avg Actual Reduction (MW)
Idaho Power
FlexPeak Management 2013 Program Report Page 5

Customer Recruitment
EnerNOC began the recruitment process in 2009 by partnering with Idaho Power Customer Representatives to engage customers with a demand of 500 kW and above. They then included
customers with a demand between 200 to 500 kW. Much of 2010 through 2012 was spent revisiting
those customers whose operations or demand may have changed, making them eligible to participate in
the program.
Once potentially eligible customers were identified, EnerNOC worked with them to develop a demand reduction plan that could be implemented at the site with minimal impact to the customer’s business
operations. Customers were then invited to sign a contract with EnerNOC and enroll in the program.
In 2013, due to the contract changes which reduced the amount of demand reduction EnerNOC was
contractually both obligated and allowed to provide, EnerNOC and Idaho Power did not actively market
to potential program candidates. EnerNOC was, however, still allowed to enroll new customers in 2013.
The most recent breakdown of MW reduction committed by customer segment in 2013 is shown below.

Asphalt, Concrete,
Gravel
35%
Food Processing
15%
Distribution/Shipping
Center/Warehouse
13%
Other Light
Industrial
9%
Refrigerated
Warehouse
7%
Energy/Mining
4%
Manufacturing
3%
Agriculture
3%
Grocer/Market
2%
Waste Removal
2% Education
2%
Other
5%
FlexPeak 2013
Committed MW Reduction by Customer Segment
Idaho Power
FlexPeak Management 2013 Program Report Page 6

Metering
Customers enroll in the program by signing a contract with EnerNOC. EnerNOC then submits requests to Idaho Power to enable the customers’ electric meters to transmit KYZ-pulse outputs. Some
customer’s meters are already enabled for pulse outputs. For each customer not receiving pulse outputs,
Idaho Power metering technicians enable the meters to transmit these outputs, and EnerNOC reimburses
Idaho Power for the associated costs. EnerNOC then installs monitoring equipment to obtain and
transmit the pulse output to their servers. By using EnerNOC’s proprietary software, DemandSMART™, customers can then monitor their near real-time energy use on a continual basis.
Below are examples of information participants can access year round through the EnerNOC web site
using their unique login and password. In these examples the reduction in energy use occurs on a
Saturday and Sunday.

Customers have an opportunity to compare actual usage to a calculated baseline, as shown below.

Idaho Power
FlexPeak Management 2013 Program Report Page 7

Event Initiation
In 2013, as in years prior, the Idaho Power team responsible for the identification of potential days for demand response events included representatives from groups such as Customer Relations and Energy
Efficiency, Power Supply Planning, Power Supply Operations, Grid Operations, and Generation
Dispatch. The team held weekly meetings through the active season to review system demand forecasts
and evaluate up-to-date information, including weather predictions, transmission constraints and market
conditions, to monitor the need for demand reduction events.
Idaho Power initiated demand reduction events in 2013 using EnerNOC’s dispatch web portal.
EnerNOC then notified customers two hours prior to each event. In 2013, 17 customer sites were
voluntarily set up for remote reduction of their energy use, triggered directly by EnerNOC. All other
demand reduction was achieved manually by the participants at their sites with EnerNOC retaining no automatic control of the reduction processes.

Customer Event Monitoring
EnerNOC submitted weekly reduction commitments to Idaho Power by the Thursday proceeding the event week. During each event, participants had access to near real-time electric use data, which
displayed their baselines and reduction commitments through EnerNOC’s web site. Below is an
example of what a customer might see during a demand reduction event.

Idaho Power
FlexPeak Management 2013 Program Report Page 8

Idaho Power Event Monitoring
During each event, Idaho Power had access to graphs showing near real-time aggregate performance in order to monitor event progress. Below is an example of a time-variant view that was available to Idaho
Power during each event. In this graph, the green horizontal line represents EnerNOC’s demand
reduction commitment (in this case at approximately 35 MW), and the blue shaded area represents
actual performance. The performance is an aggregate representation of all the sites reduction in near
real-time.

Idaho Power
FlexPeak Management 2013 Program Report Page 9

Customer Satisfaction
EnerNOC conducted a post-event survey after the July events in 2013. The survey was sent via email to 184 participants, which represented the 100 customer sites nominated for the July events. Of the
customers contacted, 16 completed the survey. Customers were asked about their overall satisfaction
with operations support, the event performance dashboard in DemandSMART™, how likely they were
to recommend the program, how prepared they felt, the clarity of the initial notification, and overall
satisfaction with the way the event was managed. Responses were based on a 0-10 scale, 10 being very positive, and 0 being very negative. The same post-event survey was conducted in 2012 following a
June event and an August event. All 2013 survey results were higher than 2012 results. Below is a
comparison of the results from these years.

EnerNOC did not conduct a post-season survey in 2013.

0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Satisfaction:
Operations
Support
Satisfaction: DS
Portal
Functionality
Likely to
Recommend
Level of
Preparation
Clarity of Initial
Notification
Satisfaction:
Event
Management
2013 Post-Event Survey
Compared to 2012 Post-Event Survey
2012
2013
Idaho Power
FlexPeak Management 2013 Program Report Page 10

Idaho Power Participation
In 2010, Idaho Power identified the Idaho Power Corporate Headquarters (IPC CHQ) in downtown Boise as a candidate for participation in FlexPeak Management. In August of 2010, Idaho Power
entered into an agreement with EnerNOC, similar to the agreement customers enter into to enroll in the
program. The IPC CHQ building has participated each year since and committed to reduce 100 kW of
electrical demand during events. Unlike other program participants, Idaho Power does not receive any
financial incentives for participation.
The IPC CHQ was not able to participate in the first two events of the season, which were initiated the
first week in July, due to work being done with the building’s new chillers. The IPC CHQ did
participate in the third event, which was initiated the second week in July. The average reduction
achieved by the facility during that event was 307 kW at the meter, which exceeded the nominated amount. The maximum hourly reduction was 448 kW during that event. Reductions were mostly
obtained by turning off lights, adjusting chiller set-points, decreasing fan speeds and curtailing elevator
use. Besides the benefit of experiencing first-hand what participants experience with the program, Idaho
Power now has a facility reduction plan in place that could be executed at any time to reduce electricity
use when necessary.

Payment Reconciliation
EnerNOC bills Idaho Power on a monthly basis for the months of June, July and August each year.
Invoices consist of both a capacity payment component, which is based on the amount of reduction
available during active program times, and an energy payment component, which is based on measured
reductions during each event. For the months of June and August, because no demand reduction events were initiated, the invoiced amounts consisted only of a capacity component, which was based on reduction commitments. For the month of the July, because demand reduction events were initiated, the
invoiced amounts also included both energy and capacity components determined by actual participant
reductions.
The overall demand reduction was determined by summing the demand reduction of each participating facility. The demand reduction of each participating facility was determined by subtracting their actual
use from a calculated baseline. The baseline in a demand reduction program is used to measure
response and establish appropriate compensation for program participants. It estimates what would have
happened on an event day, absent the demand reduction event, which then allows Idaho Power to determine how much load was reduced as a result of the program. Specifically, a baseline is calculated by selecting the three highest load days of the preceding ten non-event business days.

EnerNOC provided customer baseline and reduction data to Idaho Power with the July invoice and
Idaho Power worked in parallel, using the actual five minute interval data received from EnerNOC to
determine baselines and reductions independently. Idaho Power then cross-referenced a sample population to verify that the interval data provided by EnerNOC matched the meter interval data for the
customers. The companies worked together to identify and resolve all discrepancies. Discrepancies
were typically due to preliminary data being used instead of finalized data. At the end of the
reconciliation process, both companies agreed upon the individual reductions and composite reductions
for each event.

Idaho Power
FlexPeak Management 2013 Program Report Page 11

Cost-Effectiveness
The cost-effectiveness analysis for FlexPeak Management program uses financial and DSM alternative cost assumptions from Idaho Power’s 2011 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). The capacity costs of a 170
MW simple-cycle combustion turbine (SCCT), as published in the IRP, are used as the avoided resource
for peaking alternatives such as demand response programs. Because analysis for the 2013 IRP indicated
a lack of near-term capacity deficits, Idaho Power amended its contract with EnerNOC to operate the
program in 2013 at a reduced cost. Based on these contract amendments, the cost-effectiveness analysis for the program was updated using a 5-year program life versus the previously analyzed 10-year
program life. The FlexPeak Management program has a TRC ratio of 1.43 from a 5-year program life
perspective and a TRC ratio of 1.41 from a one-year perspective for 2013.

Conclusion
The average demand reduction event performance realization in 2013 was 111%. FlexPeak was
available on July 1 and again on July 2, when Idaho Power’s overall peak-hour average system load hit
record highs of 3,402 MW and 3,407 MW consecutively.
Idaho Power will 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. Results will continue to be reported annually in Idaho Power’s Demand Side
Management Annual Report.
Idaho Power Residential Programs
Process Evaluation
Process Evaluation of the Residential Energy Efficient Lighting, Heating and
Cooling Efficiency, and Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes programs
December 19, 2013

Submitted to:
Idaho Power Company
Attn: Gary Grayson
1221 W. Idaho Street
Boise, ID 83702
208-388-2395
[e-mail]

Submitted by:

TRC Energy Services
11211 Gold Country Blvd. #103
Gold River, CA 95670
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Contacts: Marian D. Goebes, PhD ([e-mail]), and
Douglas Mahone ([e-mail])
website: www. trcsolutions.com
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................... 7
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................ 8
2.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 8
2.2 Program Overviews ...................................................................................................... 8
2.2.1 Residential Energy Efficient Lighting ............................................................. 9
2.2.2 Heating and Cooling Efficiency ...................................................................... 9
2.2.3 Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes ............................................................. 10
2.3 Findings Affecting All Programs ............................................................................... 11
2.4 Summary of Barriers and Recommendations ............................................................. 12
3. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 20
4. OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY ................................................................. 21
4.1 Evaluation Approach .................................................................................................. 21
4.1.1 Kick off Meeting and Program Specialist Interviews .................................... 21
4.1.2 Program Materials and Database Review .................................................... 21
4.1.3 Interviews with Program Implementers, Trade Allies, and other Market Actors ............................................................................................................ 21
4.1.4 Analysis ......................................................................................................... 24
4.2 Approach to Best Practices Comparison .................................................................... 24
5. RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING PROGRAM ........................................................... 28
5.1 Program Overview ..................................................................................................... 28
5.2 Process Evaluation Methodology ............................................................................... 28
5.2.1 Overview ........................................................................................................ 28
5.2.2 Data Collection ............................................................................................. 28
5.3 Results and Findings .................................................................................................. 31
5.3.1 Program Processes ....................................................................................... 31
5.3.2 Program Goals and Status ............................................................................ 33
5.3.3 Program Marketing ....................................................................................... 34
5.3.4 Program Database Review ............................................................................ 35
5.3.5 Program Successes ........................................................................................ 38
5.3.6 Program Challenges...................................................................................... 39
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
ii
5.3.7 Looking Ahead – Future Challenges and Opportunities ............................... 41
5.3.8 Comparison to Best Practices ....................................................................... 41
5.4 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... 45
5.4.1 Recommendations .......................................................................................... 45
5.4.2 Summary of Barriers and Recommendations ................................................ 47
6. HEATING AND COOLING EFFICIENCY PROGRAM ....................................... 48
6.1 Program Overview ..................................................................................................... 48
6.2 Process Evaluation Methodology ............................................................................... 48
6.2.1 Overview ........................................................................................................ 48
6.2.2 Data Collection ............................................................................................. 48
6.3 Results and Findings .................................................................................................. 50
6.3.1 Program Roles ............................................................................................... 50
6.3.2 Program Processes ....................................................................................... 51
6.3.3 Program Goals and Status ............................................................................ 54
6.3.4 Program Marketing ....................................................................................... 55
6.3.5 Program Database Review ............................................................................ 56
6.3.6 Program Successes ........................................................................................ 59
6.3.7 Program Challenges...................................................................................... 60
6.3.8 Comparison to Best Practices ....................................................................... 61
6.4 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... 65
6.4.1 Recommended Modifications to Program Success Metrics .......................... 65
6.4.2 Recommendations .......................................................................................... 67
6.4.3 Summary of Barriers and Recommendations ................................................ 69
7. NORTHWEST ENERGY STAR® HOMES PROGRAM ........................................ 70
7.1 Program Overview ..................................................................................................... 70
7.2 Process Evaluation Methodology ............................................................................... 70
7.2.1 Overview ........................................................................................................ 70
7.2.2 Builder Interview Sample Determination ...................................................... 71
7.2.3 HPS Sample Determination ........................................................................... 72
7.2.4 Completed Interviews .................................................................................... 73
7.3 Results and Findings .................................................................................................. 76
7.3.1 Program Roles ............................................................................................... 76
7.3.2 Program Processes ....................................................................................... 76
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
iii
7.3.3 Program Marketing ....................................................................................... 81
7.3.4 Program Goals and Status ............................................................................ 83
7.3.5 Program Database Review ............................................................................ 86
7.3.6 Current Pipeline and Future Participation ................................................... 88
7.3.7 Program Successes ........................................................................................ 89
7.3.8 Program Challenges...................................................................................... 90
7.3.9 Comparison to Best Practices ....................................................................... 92
7.4 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... 97
7.4.1 Recommendations .......................................................................................... 97
7.4.2 Summary of Barriers and Recommendations .............................................. 101
8. RESULTS AFFECTING ALL PROGRAMS ..................................................... 102
8.1 Nonparticipating Customer Survey Review ............................................................. 102
8.1.1 Survey Methodology Overview .................................................................... 102
8.1.2 Survey Results ............................................................................................. 103
8.1.3 Summary of Key Findings for Evaluated Programs .................................... 109
8.2 Customer Representative Interview Findings .......................................................... 110
8.2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 110
8.2.2 Methodology ................................................................................................ 110
8.2.3 Overall Findings ......................................................................................... 111
8.2.4 Program Specific Findings .......................................................................... 113
9. OVERARCHING SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES ........................................ 116
9.1 Successes .................................................................................................................. 116
9.2 Challenges and Recommendations ........................................................................... 116
9.2.1 Reliance on a Few Trade Allies .................................................................. 116
9.2.2 Reliance on 3rd Party Implementers/ Contractors and Trade Allies ........... 117
9.2.3 Exclusion of Natural Gas Heated Homes .................................................... 117
9.2.4 Ineffective Marketing Efforts by Customer Reps and Trade Allies ............. 118
10. APPENDIX – DATA COLLECTION TOOLS .................................................. 120
10.1 Kick off Meeting Notes ............................................................................................ 120
10.2 Interview Scripts....................................................................................................... 121
10.2.1 Interview Scripts for Idaho Power Staff ...................................................... 121
10.2.2 Interview Scripts for 3rd Party Implementers, Trade Allies, and Partners .. 123
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
iv
TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Residential Energy Efficient Lighting Program Summary of Barriers and
Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 14
Figure 2: Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program Summary of Barriers and Recommendations . 16
Figure 3 – Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes Summary of Barriers and Recommendations .. 19
Figure 4. Summary of Interviews Conducted ................................................................................ 23
Figure 5 - National Best Practices for Comparison ....................................................................... 26
Figure 6 - TRC Recommended Best Practices for Comparison .................................................... 27
Figure 7: Residential Energy Efficient Lighting Data Collection Activities ................................. 29
Figure 8: Residential Energy Efficient Lighting Program Interview Population Outcomes ......... 30
Figure 9: Residential Energy Efficiency Program Materials ......................................................... 33
Figure 10 – Lighting Program Sales by Region ............................................................................. 35
Figure 11 – Lighting Program Sales by Product Type (According to Promotion) ........................ 36
Figure 12 – Lighting Program Sales by RTF Product Category .................................................... 37
Figure 13 – Lighting Program Sales by Retailer ............................................................................ 37
Figure 14 – Lighting Program Sales by Retailer Type .................................................................. 38
Figure 15: Residential Energy Efficient Lighting Program Savings Goals and Achievements ..... 39
Figure 16 - Residential Energy Efficient Lighting Program: Comparison to Best Practices ......... 42
Figure 17 - Heating & Cooling Efficiency Data Collection Activities Summary ......................... 49
Figure 18 - Heating & Cooling Efficiency Trade Ally Interview Outcomes ................................. 50
Figure 19 – Contractor Satisfaction with Heating & Cooling Program Processes ........................ 52
Figure 20 - Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program Materials Checklist ...................................... 54
Figure 21 - Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program Goals for 2013 .......................................... 55
Figure 22. Annual Energy Savings (kWh) by Region and System Type ....................................... 58
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
v
Figure 23. Percent of Savings by System Conversion Type .......................................................... 58
Figure 24. Percent Savings by Contractor Performance ................................................................ 59
Figure 25 - Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program: Comparison to Best Practices .................. 62
Figure 26. Heating and Cooling Program Success Metrics ........................................................... 67
Figure 27. Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes Builder Population ........................................... 72
Figure 28. Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes Data Collection Summary ............................... 74
Figure 29. Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes Market Actor Interview Attempts ................... 75
Figure 30 – Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes Program Materials Checklist ......................... 78
Figure 31. Builder Satisfaction with Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes Program Processes .. 79
Figure 32. Regional Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes Single Family Participation (Source:
Fluid Market Strategies) ....................................................................................................... 84
Figure 33. Regional Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes Multifamily Participation (Source:
Fluid Market Strategies) ....................................................................................................... 85
Figure 34. Comparison of participation between the regional and Idaho Power ENERGY STAR®
Homes programs .................................................................................................................. 86
Figure 35 – Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes Participation by Home Type, for 2011-2013 . 87
Figure 36 –Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes Participation by Program Year ....................... 87
Figure 37 – Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes Participation by Fuel Type ............................ 87
Figure 38 – Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes Program: Comparison to Best Practices ........ 93
Figure 39 Customer Survey timeline (Source: Hansa GCR) ....................................................... 102
Figure 40. Weighted sample size by region (Source: Hansa GCR) ........................................... 103
Figure 41. Example of the barrier and benefits pairing exercise (Source: Hansa GCR) ............. 103
Figure 42. Customer Heating Fuels and Air Conditioning Types (Source: Hansa GCR) ........... 105
Figure 43. Idaho Power Customer Program Awareness and Source of Awareness (Source: Hansa
GCR) 105
Figure 44. Customer perception of Idaho Power program offerings (Source: Hansa GCR) ....... 106
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
vi
Figure 45. Likelihood of respondents to participate in next 12 months (Source: Hansa GCR) ... 107
Figure 46. Programs that nonparticipating customers would consider (Source: Hansa GCR) .... 108
Figure 47 – Customers’ Barriers for Program Participation (Source: Hansa GCR) .................... 109
Figure 48 – Customers’ Motivations for Program Participation (Source: Hansa GCR) .............. 109
Figure 49. Customer Representatives Interview Sample ............................................................. 111
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
7

1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TRC gratefully acknowledges the time and efforts of various Idaho Power (IPC) staff, partners, and trade
allies that contributed to this project. We hope that the findings and recommendations are useful to the
success of their programs.
This project was conducted through deep collaboration with Idaho Power staff, including regular
meetings and frequent communication with the project manager, Gary Grayson. Program Specialists
were particularly gracious with their time, both in providing information directly during interviews, and
in providing program materials, other contacts for interviews, and comments on interview scripts. We
thank additional Idaho Power staff, particularly Becky Andersohn and Kathy Yi, for their constructive
comments on interview scripts. Other Idaho Power staff, including: data analysts, the residential market
segment coordinator, marketing staff, and customer representatives, provided time and feedback
through interviews.
In addition, we appreciate the time and feedback provided by program implementation staff, trade
allies, staff associated with regional program partners and others in the study.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
8
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Idaho Power Company (IPC) contracted TRC to conduct a process evaluation of three of its residential
energy efficiency programs: Residential Energy Efficient Lighting, Heating and Cooling Efficiency, and
Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes (ENERGY STAR® Homes). The purpose of the evaluation was to
investigate each program, document its successes, identify barriers to further success, and provide
recommendations for addressing these barriers.
2.1 Methodology
To conduct the evaluation, we interviewed key staff and trade allies associated with each program, and
we reviewed program materials. We interviewed Idaho Power staff, including the Program Specialists,
Data Analysts, and Customer Representatives (“Customer Reps” - the Idaho Power staff that interface
with customers to respond to electricity outages and high bill complaints, and to promote energy
efficiency programs). Our trade ally interviews included retailers and manufacturers for the Residential
Energy Efficient Lighting program, contractors for the Heating and Cooling Efficiency program, and
builders and Home Performance Specialists for the ENERGY STAR® Homes program. TRC also
interviewed the 3rd party implementer for the Residential Energy Efficient Lighting program, the 3rd party
contractor for the Heating and Cooling Efficiency program, and the regional program partners for the
Energy Efficient Lighting and ENERGY STAR® Homes program. TRC also reviewed program specific
materials, such as applications, manuals, marketing materials, and results of previous evaluations, and
we reviewed the results of a nonparticipating residential customer survey conducted by Hansa GCR1. We
also conducted a program database review, to review installation rates of program measures and trade
ally participation rates, and to check that key program metrics are captured in the database. After
collecting data, we reviewed our notes to synthesize overall findings from each data collection activity
(e.g., for the Customer Rep interviews - write up the common themes noted by these Idaho Power
staff), and from our data collection activities overall. Based on this data, we identified program trends,
successes, and barriers. We then developed recommendations to address these barriers.
2.2 Program Overviews
In general, all three programs are successfully meeting goals and delivering energy savings. This is
particularly impressive given the challenges of the recent market downturn and the exclusion of
customers with natural gas heat from the Heating and Cooling Efficiency and ENERGY STAR® Homes
programs. The Residential Energy Efficient Lighting and Heating and Cooling Efficiency programs are well
positioned to continue to provide energy savings at roughly the same level as in recent years, but there
is less certainty in future energy savings from the ENERGY STAR® Homes program.
We provide a brief description of each program below. We provide a summary of barriers
and recommendations in the table in the next section.

1 Specifically, TRC reviewed the presentation, “Energy Efficiency Non-participant Survey: Research Conducted with Residential
Customers” by Hansa GCR to Idaho Power on April 2013. Idaho Power staff provided the presentation slide deck to TRC.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
9
2.2.1 Residential Energy Efficient Lighting
The Residential Energy Efficient Lighting Program provides discounted promotional pricing on ENERGY
STAR® qualified compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) from participating retailers and manufacturers. In
addition to encouraging the use of more energy efficient lighting at lower costs to residential customers,
one of the main goals of the program is to help inform customers to be able to select the right CFL for
various applications. The Idaho Power program works in conjunction with the regional Simple Steps,
Smart Savings program, administered by Bonneville Power Authority (BPA) and is implemented by a
third party (Fluid Market Strategies).
The program is generally successful. Since the inception of the current iteration of this program in 2010,
the program has consistently exceeded kWh savings goals. As of late June 2013, the program was
already at 85% of its annual goal, although the savings goal for 2013 is significantly lower than in
previous years (roughly 3/4 compared with 2010 goals). TRC spoke with 4 manufacturers and 4 retailers,
who were generally satisfied with the program.
While the program is generally performing well, TRC identified some challenges and opportunities for
improvement.
 Several trade allies voiced interest in adding Light Emitting Diode (LED) lamps to the program;
Idaho Power has considered adding LEDs, but has determined that the measure would not be
cost effective at this time (and is therefore not allowed under regulatory requirements).
 The program is also challenged by signage restrictions at retailers, which reduces the ability of
Idaho Power (or the regional partner) from promoting program products.
 While the program has successfully engaged several big box retailers which deliver large energy
savings, and has other store types participating at a lower level, the program has low program
bulb sales from other types of retailers, such as small independent hardware stores and grocery
stores.
 Manufacturers are currently providing the bulk of marketing by bringing in retailers, but they
generally reach out to large (not small) retailers.
 Idaho Power Customer Representatives are generally not actively marketing the program to
retailers, although they recommend CFLs to customers when customers contact them with high
bill complaints.
2.2.2 Heating and Cooling Efficiency
The Heating and Cooling Efficiency program provides incentives to builders and customers for installing
high efficiency heating and cooling equipment, such as efficient heat pumps and evaporative coolers.
The program also requires that contractors practice right sizing and proper installation of equipment
according to industry best practices. Incentives are available throughout the Idaho Power territory, but
only to customers currently with electric heating, or that are converting to electric heating from oil or
propane. (This decision was made, because replacing gas heating with an electric heat pump was
deemed not cost effective, so was disallowed by regulatory requirements.) A 3rd party contractor
provides some specific services for the program, such as project verification and entering projects into
the program database. .
The program is generally successful and has consistently met its energy savings goals in recent years,
despite the market downturn. As of July 3, 2013, the program had achieved almost half (390 MWh) of
its 2013 gross savings goal of 800 MWh. TRC spoke with 5 participating and 4 nonparticipating
contractors. (The nonparticipating contractors had received training for the program and were listed as
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
10
a contractor on the program website, but had not yet delivered a project). These contractors were
generally satisfied with the program and its processes.
Although the program is performing well overall and appears well positioned to continue to deliver
energy savings, TRC identified some challenges and opportunities for improvement.
 While participating contractors generally reported that the program paperwork (application and
worksheets) was streamlined, nonparticipating contractors reported that the paperwork
dissuaded them from participating.
 Several contractors also indicated a desire to offer incentives to customers with natural gas
heating, and reported that program materials (and the website) should more clearly state that
the program is restricted to customers with specific fuel types.
 The bulk of program participation (90% in 2012) is currently provided by four contractors, which
is a potential area of risk for the program (if one or more decides to reduce participation).
2.2.3 Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes
The Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes program provides homebuilders with incentives, tools and
technical resources to build to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ENERGY STAR® Homes
Version 3 standards and labeling program. The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) oversees the
regional Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes program, with 3rd party implementation support from
consultant, Fluid Market Strategies. Builders are eligible for a $1,000 per home incentive when building
electrically heated homes to the latest ENERGY STAR® Homes standard, using heat pump technology.
Home Performance Specialists (HPS’s) act as third-party verifiers and are the main point of contact with
Idaho Power.
Over the last few years, the program has faced a number of program and market changes. First, the
program was impacted by the economic and home building downturn, which reduced the number of
homes that were built in Idaho Power territory. Secondly, the ENERGY STAR® Homes program recently
underwent a major upgrade to Version 3, implemented in 2012. This new version includes new
requirements and more checklists for builders. Most significantly, in 2011, the Idaho Power program
excluded gas-heated homes, allowing only electrically heated homes using an electric heat pump to
participate. Idaho Power made this decision, because the utility determined that the program was not
cost effective with gas heated homes.
Despite these challenges, the program has continued to see participation, and 213 homes were certified
in 2013 as of early July. The vast majority of participating homes (208) represent one specific segment of
the market – townhome developments. The program did not set participation or savings goals for 2013,
because of uncertainty with the market and the program. Program staff for the regional program also
reported that Idaho Power was a good collaborator and easy to work with. Based on our interviews
with HPS’s, Idaho Power staff is in regular contact with these important stakeholders.
While the program has had successes in the face of significant challenges, there is uncertainty in the
future energy savings from this program.
 There are only a few trade allies (builders and HPS’s) that currently participate in the program,
and TRC found evidence that these trade allies may reduce their participation in the future.
 Two of the three HPS’s interviewed indicated that they will likely reduce participation in the
future, and the third indicated his/her participation will remain roughly the same. Their reasons
included concerns with program quality assurance, and that the perceived value of the ENERGY
STAR® label is dropping among customers and builders. (Many see Idaho code as nearly as
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
11
stringent, and many builders believe they are building to the ENERGY STAR® standard, but are
unwilling to pay for certification.)
 TRC was not able to reach any participating builders, despite repeated attempts, which may
indicate that they are not engaged with the program and may also have reduced participation in
the future.
While Idaho Power staff work with builders at events such as the Parade of Homes, Customer Reps
report that their relationships with builders have declined in recent years (partially due to the market
downturn). TRC sees opportunities for Idaho Power staff to increase its direct engagement with builders,
particularly as the market rebounds. TRC interviewed 6 builders that had submitted a program
participation agreement; 1 of which had delivered natural gas homes, and 5 of which had not delivered
a home through the program (based on 2011-2013 data). These builders were somewhat interested in
the program, but reported they would need to be convinced of the benefits of building an electrically
heated home and of heat pumps. Builders, HPS’s, and Customer Reps reported that the incentive
amount was too low for many builders to participate.
The program uses national and regional marketing materials to promote the program. Program staff has
also developed a flyer that summarizes the benefits of heat pumps; however, from our limited
interviews with builders and Customer Reps, it does not appear that they are familiar with this
marketing material. The program website includes useful information promoting the value of ENERGY
STAR® Homes and links to important resources, but it also has outdated information regarding
contractors and their contact information.
2.3 Findings Affecting All Programs
TRC reviewed the results of a phone survey of Idaho Power residential customers who were not
participating in an energy efficiency program, which was conducted by Hansa GCR in January, 20131. TRC
also interviewed seven Idaho Power Customer Reps, who provide support for all energy efficiency
programs. We summarize results here.
 Overall, the nonparticipating customer survey found that most existing homes have natural gas,
but a significant fraction – 34% for all of Idaho Power territory – have electric heat.
 Customers reported a moderate interest in these programs: 34% for an ENERGY STAR® Home,
42% for offerings under the Heating / Cooling Efficiency program, and 46% for the Residential
Energy Efficient Lighting program. This report indicates that program awareness is a problem in
general for all Idaho Power energy efficiency programs, and for these programs in particular.
 Overall, 40% of nonparticipating customers were aware of IPC’s energy efficiency programs.
Only 5% of these customers could identify the Heating & Cooling Efficiency program without a
prompt from the surveyor; 3% could identify the Energy Efficient Lighting, and 1% knew of the
ENERGY STAR® Homes program. Most customers that are aware of IPC’s programs learn about
them through a bill insert or a letter or brochure in the mail. However, 73% of customers
believe energy efficiency programs are important. Furthermore, nonparticipants cited a lack of
familiarity with programs as a major reason why they are not participating.

1 1 Idaho Power provided a PowerPoint presentation of the results to TRC. “Energy Efficiency Non-participant Survey: Research
Conducted with Residential Customers”, Hansa GCR, presented to Idaho Power, April 2013.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
12
 Only 6% learned about programs from an Idaho Power staff person, or a trade ally (contractor /
supplier). TRC views this as a surprising finding, because the marketing approach for the Heating
and Cooling Efficiency and ENERGY STAR® Homes program rely primarily on trade allies
(contractors, builders, HPS’s), and secondarily on Idaho Power staff (including Customer Reps) to
market the program to customers. The survey finding may indicate that Idaho Power staff and
trade allies are not reaching the vast majority of customers, or that their promotion of energy
efficiency programs is not strong enough to be recalled by customers.
Based on TRC’s interviews with Customer Reps, they spend roughly 20% of their time on energy
efficiency programs. Of this 20%, they spend 10-50% of their time marketing residential programs. This
marketing generally occurs as part of their interaction with a customer or trade ally. For example, some
reps are involved in community civic organizations and trade associations (e.g., Building Contractor
Associations - BCAs), and these reps may mention energy efficiency programs in their interaction with
these members. In addition, Customer Reps promote the programs directly to customers, when a
customer calls with a high bill complaint, or occasionally at community events or home and garden
shows. In general, Customer Reps do not appear to use a structured or systematic approach to
marketing IPC’s energy efficiency programs. From the data we collected, Customer Reps do not, for
example, present to BCAs about programs or send emails to contractors about these programs. In
addition, Customer Reps appear to be generally less engaged with trade allies than in years past. (The
exception is the Heating and Cooling Efficiency program, for which Customer Reps are encouraged to
contact contractors three times per year.) For the lighting program, reps were previously engaged with
retailers directly; however, now they see this as the 3rd party implementer’s role. For the ENERGY STAR®
Homes program, Customer Reps had previously had more relationships with builders; but since the
market downturn, they have fewer connections, and many do not appear engaged with BCAs. An Idaho
Power staff member noted that the utility previously provided contractor and builder trainings that reps
would also attend; this staff member believed this was a valuable method for both training reps on
existing programs and introducing them to contractors. Customer Reps noted the importance of
keeping updated information on program websites.
As one overarching recommendation, Idaho Power could work at the portfolio level to create a “brand”
for its energy efficiency programs to increase customer awareness and to improve customers’ image of
the organization. Based on staff interviews, Idaho Power struggles with its overall customer satisfaction
with some customers, and net metering has been a recent source of criticism among some customers.
Idaho Power could use its energy efficiency programs as one strategy for improving overall public
perception of the utility.
2.4 Summary of Barriers and Recommendations
As described above, all three programs have generally been successful in meeting energy savings goals,
and many trade allies and program partners report satisfaction with these programs. However, TRC
identified opportunities for improvement. We present the following summary of barriers and
recommendations for each program below. These tables are repeated in the individual program
chapters.
We begin with barriers and recommendations for the Residential Energy Efficient Lighting program.

TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
13
Residential Energy Efficient Lighting Program
Barrier Recommendation(s)
IPC, retailers, and
manufacturers want to see
LED products included in
program, but cost
effectiveness test has
prevented it.
Continue to investigate options to bring LED products into the
program, while maintaining cost-effectiveness. Consider providing a
lower incentive than what was used in the original cost
effectiveness test (if market research suggests that customers will
still purchase the LEDs with the slightly lower incentive). And/or
choose LEDs that should be more cost effective (e.g., typically
installed in areas with high hours of use – such as kitchens, that
replace low efficacy base measures, and/or that are relatively
cheaper types of LEDs). If needed, work with the RTF to develop
specific savings assumptions for LEDs, instead of using savings
values based on assumptions developed for CFLs.
Retail signage restrictions limit
in-store advertising and co-
branding.

Increase coordination with retailers to find mutually beneficial in-
store advertising solutions. Speak with corporate representatives
from a few big box stores to understand why stores implemented
these restrictions, and then work with them to overcome these
barriers. Work with retailers to increase sales by creating “in-store
architecture” that encourages efficient bulb purchases (e.g., putting
CFLs at eye level, “matching” products by placing CFLs above the
incandescent they replace, increasing shelf space of CFLs)1.
Four retailers provide > 90% of
program sales, representing
an area of program risk. One
reason is that it is in
manufacturers’ financial best
interest to work with a few
large retailers. Without
manufacturers’ support, there
may be too many barriers for
small and independently-
owned retailers to participate
at a medium or high level.
Increase investigations of opportunities to bring more grocery
chains and small retailers into the program, or work with
participating retailers of these types to overcome participation
barriers and increase program sales. For example, manufacturers
and the Program Specialist could target grocery chains, while
Customer Reps could work with small hardware stores. While many
groceries and small hardware stores participate, they do so at a
very low level (i.e., groceries contribute 2% of sales, specialty and
small hardware stores contribute 5%). A U.S. Department of Energy
CFL Market Study found that many customers purchase
incandescent bulbs in groceries2.

1 Further recommendations are provided in a report by D&R International, 2012: “California Lighting Critical Synthetic Literature
Review”, found in the Appendix of the following report (begins on pdf page 6):
http://www.calmac.org/publications/SCE0307.02_-_SCE_and_PGandE_Lighting_Report_Appendices.pdf
2 ENERGY STAR CFL Market Profile. U.S. Department of Energy, 2010, P. 14.
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/downloads/CFL_Market_Profile_2010.pdf
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
14
Residential Energy Efficient Lighting Program
Barrier Recommendation(s)
The RTF continues to change
net savings values for program
bulbs, making it difficult to
predict savings goals.
When adopting RTF values, consider adopting new values for future
cycles (not retroactively).
Monthly report review
processes limits the time for
the Program Specialist to
provide thought-critical
services
Consider assigning the review to junior or administrative staff, so
that the Program Specialist has more time to follow other
recommendations provided here.
Program database has
inconsistent or incomplete
information, due to different
promotions and contractors
over time.
Ensure consistent language and terminology for product type
categories through drop-down menus or similar strategies, and
provide future contractors with data dictionary or other description
of database terms.
Consider establishing a “retailer type” category to allow further
analysis of where program sales are occurring.
Figure 1: Residential Energy Efficient Lighting Program Summary of Barriers and Recommendations

Next, we summarize the barriers and recommendations for the Heating and Cooling Efficiency program.
Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program
Barrier Recommendation(s)
Only customers with electric
heating or converting from oil
or propane are eligible to
participate in the program.
The majority of Idaho Power
customers have natural gas
heating. Contractors report
that ineligible customers
sometimes contact them to
participate.
Gain a better understanding of the eligible market (i.e., customers
with electric, oil, or propane heat). By better understanding these
customers (e.g., are they more likely to be low income, in
multifamily units, in rural area, etc.), and their barriers for program
participation, Idaho Power could better target its marketing efforts.
(As described in section 9.2.3, Exclusion of Natural Gas Heated
Homes, Idaho Power could reanalyze the Hansa GCR
nonparticipating customer survey results, to isolate responses from
customers with electrically heated homes.) For example, Idaho
Power could send bill inserts to these types of customers; or use its
customer representatives to market the program to contractors
serving these customer types, or directly to these types of
customers.
Also, clearly and prominently describe the program’s eligibility
requirements in marketing materials and on the program website.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
15
Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program
Barrier Recommendation(s)
The nonparticipating
contractors interviewed have
a perception that it takes
considerable time to complete
program paperwork. In
addition, four contractors
provide the majority of
program participation. This
represents an area of program
risk. The contractor incentive
amount is not high enough to
encourage at least some
contractors to participate.
Offer a higher contractor incentive for the first application that a
contractor submits, to help address the learning curve and better
offset the additional time that contractors take in completing their
first application. To be fair to already participating contractors,
offer the same incentive amount to contractors that submit a
certain number of applications (e.g., for 10 completed projects), or
for bringing in projects of a certain type for which Idaho Power
would like to see more growth.
In addition, regularly conduct contractor satisfaction surveys, to
gather feedback on the program application, marketing efforts
(materials that may help promotional efforts), customer
demographics, barriers to participation, and training needs. These
could be simple electronic surveys to reduce administration costs.
Using this feedback, make changes to the program to address these
barriers.
Program awareness by
nonparticipating customers is
low.
In addition to marketing approaches described elsewhere in this
table, develop a “brand” for Idaho Power’s energy efficiency
programs to increase customer awareness. (This recommendation
should be pursued at the portfolio level.)
Many contractors are not
actively promoting the
program.
Providing contractors with co-branded marketing materials, case
studies, or cost calculation examples may assist them with their
marketing efforts.
Also, engage Customer Reps in contractor trainings. In the past,
Idaho Power provided trainings to trade allies and Customer Reps.
These side-by-side trainings provide the Customer Reps with
technical knowledge about the program, and they help Customer
Reps to create or maintain contractor relationships.
High turnover at contractor
companies means that
participating company may no
longer have a trained
employee.
Perform yearly check-ins with contractors to ensure that at least
one trained employee is still serving the program. If the qualified
person leaves the company or changes their role, the company
should be required to contact Idaho Power within a certain amount
of time (e.g., 2 weeks) with the contact name of the replacement,
so that Idaho Power can train this person. If a replacement person
is not identified within the set amount of time, Idaho Power should
notify this contractor that the company will be removed from the
list of participating contractors on the program website.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
16
Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program
Barrier Recommendation(s)
Website marketing materials
need revamping, and some
contractor information is out
of date.
Maintain correct information on participating contractors. Idaho
Power may also consider requiring contractors to attend refresher
training, and/or deliver a minimum number of projects per year, to
continue to be listed on the program website.
Some of the goals and
measurements shown in the
2013 Program Handbook are
different from practice
(according to information
from Idaho Power staff).
Review the 2013 Program Handbook, and compare stated practices
with actual practices. Where differences exist, identify the better
practice (stated or actual), and modify the other.
Figure 2: Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program Summary of Barriers and Recommendations

Finally, we summarize the barriers and recommendations for the Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes
program.

TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
17
Idaho Power Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes
Barrier Recommendation(s)
Lack of engagement by
participating builders, lack of
interest from nonparticipating
builders, and decreasing
builder participation overall.
Significant reasons are the
requirement for electric heat
pump and exclusion of natural
gas heated homes from the
program.
Develop a better understanding of the program target market,
including projects using electric heat and heat pumps, and develop
targeted marketing strategies based on these findings. Investigate
what market segment or builder types are already building
electrically heated homes, or installing heat pumps, and target
marketing towards these market segments.
While IPC staff report that multifamily builders are the primary
group building heat pump homes, this hypothesis should be tested
by analyzing the nonparticipating customer survey results, and
through interviews with Builder Contractor Association (BCA) staff.
BCA staff interviews can also provide a better understanding of the
demand for electrically heated homes, and the types of customers
that may be interested in this program, so that Idaho Power can
better develop participation and savings goals, and to target
marketing towards these customers (or builders serving them).
Also, use the regional (NEEA) program database to identify builders
that are building electrically heated homes in Idaho Power territory,
but do not qualify for the Idaho Power program (probably because
they are not using heat pumps). Interview these builders to
investigate their barriers for using heat pumps, and provide
marketing or education as necessary to overcome these barriers.
Have the Customer Reps or Program Specialist develop new
relationships with key homebuilders, heat pump contractors, and
heat pump suppliers; and reconnect with previously participating
builders. Also, the Program Specialist should contact top
participating builders from the past, to understand their
motivations and barriers to participation, and their plans regarding
future participation.
Builders do not think that it is
cost effective to build
electrically heated homes and
are not convinced that they
should install heat pumps.
Provide additional training addressing the benefits of heat pump
technology, electric heat pump home design, and design strategies
to reduce electricity use homes.
Limited direct communication
between builders and Idaho
Power, so Idaho Power is less
in touch with builders’
motivations and barriers, and
with the program pipeline.
Provide the Customer Reps with goals for marketing the program,
such as contacting a certain number of builders or presenting at a
BCA about the program. Have Customer Reps use the heat pump
flyer as a talking point with builders. Also, have Customer Reps
attend program trainings or heat pump presentations with builders,
to both learn about the program and develop relationships with
local builders.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
18
Idaho Power Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes
Barrier Recommendation(s)
Incentives too low to cover the
cost of participation for the
majority of the market.
Continue to support the multifamily and townhome market
through the program. For example, develop relationships in this
sector and marketing materials specific to the industry, such as a
one-page piece highlighting the benefits of the program in
townhome developments.
As described above, identify other markets that may be building
electrically heated homes or using electric heat pumps, and target
marketing towards these sectors.
Consider adjusting program incentives and program requirements
for townhomes and multifamily projects. Although Idaho Power
must be careful not to dissuade multifamily builders from
participating, the utility could consider lowering the incentive
payment for multifamily units, to enable the program to increase
incentive payments for single family homes.
Value of ENERGY STAR® label
is dropping: Many builders
believe that the Idaho building
code is close to ENERGY STAR®
Homes specification; and/or
that they are constructing
homes to the ENERGY STAR®
Homes specification, but they
are unwilling to pay for
verification costs.
Idaho Power should develop an argument for the value of
verification, and provide this (through talking points, or perhaps a
one-page flyer) to Customer Reps, HPS’s, and builders. Idaho Power
could work with other entities, such as NEEA or a rater group (e.g.,
RESNET) to develop these talking points.
Few HPS’s are active in the
program, and 2 of the 3
interviewed, plans to reduce
participation in the future.
Continue to support the HPS’s. Meet with them one-on-one to
understand their barriers to participation, and to work with them to
overcome these barriers. In particular, revisit the quality assurance
(QA) procedure for the program. While the program has clearly laid
out the responsible party for QA, some HPS’s are concerned that
the QA oversight is not sufficient.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
19
Idaho Power Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes
Barrier Recommendation(s)
Program website has outdated
contractor information.
Potential customers may lose
interest if they call several
builders listed, and discover
they are no longer in business
or are unfamiliar with the
current program.
The website currently has one
broken link.
Update the contractor list, so that it only contains builders that
provide accurate information about the program. Because
contractors sometimes go out of business or change contact
information, periodically update this list (e.g., biannually) by
reaching out to contractors. This will also provide an opportunity to
engage with builders and elicit their feedback on the program.
Consider removing the webpage with the list of participating
contractors, and refer customers to the Program Specialist for this
list, who should maintain an accurate list of participating builders.
Removing the contractor link could be less work for Idaho Power
staff (since it should be regularly updated), and provide an
opportunity for the Program Specialist to speak with interested
customers. Also, maintain an accurate list of participating HPS’s.
Remove the broken link (Northwest ENERGY STAR® Marketing
Tools) until this webpage is working again.
There appears to be a
discrepancy in the number of
electrically heated homes with
Idaho Power as their service
provider reported to
participate in the regional
(NEEA) program, with those
reported to participate in the
Idaho Power program. This
does not make sense, given
that the Idaho Power program
is a subset of the regional
program.
Investigate the discrepancy in the reported number of projects.
Some program database
information is incomplete
Fill in Home Type for all projects. Track by “single family – custom,
single family – subdivision, multifamily – apartment, and
multifamily – townhome”. Add a field for Idaho Power region, to
track regional program activity.
Figure 3 – Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes Summary of Barriers and Recommendations

TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
20
3. INTRODUCTION
Idaho Power contracted TRC to conduct a process evaluation of three of its residential energy efficiency
programs:
 Residential Energy Efficient Lighting,
 Heating and Cooling Efficiency, and
 Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes
The purpose of the process evaluation was to investigate each program, document its successes, identify
barriers to further success, and provide recommendations for addressing these barriers.
Idaho Power is an electric only utility serving most of the populated regions of Idaho (including the
Treasure Valley region), as well as some regions of eastern Oregon. It is regulated by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the state regulatory commissions of Idaho and Oregon. The Idaho
Public Utility Commissions has given Idaho Power the responsibility of pursuing all cost-effective energy
efficiency strategies. The residential energy efficiency programs evaluated help fulfill this responsibility
and support the utility’s mission of promoting environmental stewardship and sustainability.
Our overall approach to conduct the evaluation was a follows: We began with a kick off meeting with
key Idaho Power staff, including the project manager and Program Specialists to discuss the draft work
plan and gather their feedback on the goals of the evaluation; review program materials; conduct
interviews with trade allies, other program market actors, and Idaho Power customer representatives;
and review the results of a nonparticipating customer survey. After collecting data, we reviewed our
notes to synthesize overall findings from each data collection activity (e.g., for the Customer Rep
interviews - write up the common themes noted by these Idaho Power staff), and from our data
collection activities overall. Based on this data, we identified program trends, successes, and barriers.
We then developed recommendations to address these barriers. We provide further detail on our
methodology in the next section, and in the Methodology section of each program chapter. TRC
conducted this evaluation over an approximately 4 month timeframe: from July – October 2013.
We structured this report as follows:
 Executive Summary, which provides a brief description of each program, our overall
methodology, a summary of results from the customer rep interviews and nonresidential
customer survey review, and a table summarizing the major barriers and recommendations for
each program.
 Introduction, which describes the purpose of the evaluation
 Overview of Methodology, which presents a high level description of our evaluation approach.
We present more detail on methodology for each program evaluation in each program chapter.
 A chapter describing the evaluation methodology and results for each program, including a
discussion of the program’s barriers and recommendations, and a comparison of the program
against best practices.
 Overarching Successes and Challenges, which presents common themes from the evaluated
programs and discusses barriers and recommendations, including some that could be pursued at
the portfolio level.
 Appendix of Data Collection Resources, including kick-off meeting notes and interview scripts.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
21
4. OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY
4.1 Evaluation Approach
Below is a description of the general approach that TRC used in conducting this study. Within each
program chapter, we provide more detailed information on the data collection methodology used for
that particular program.
4.1.1 Kick off Meeting and Program Specialist Interviews
TRC began with a kick-off meeting at Idaho Power’s office in which TRC presented the draft work plan to
key Idaho Power staff to gather their feedback on the proposed plan and discuss their goals for their
evaluation. After the main group meeting, we had individual meetings with Program Specialists to learn
more about their program; gather program materials; and collect their suggestions on staff or market
actors for interviews, and other data collection resources. We then revised our work plan based on
their feedback, including our sampling plans for interviews, and the types of market actors that we
planned to interview.
4.1.2 Program Materials and Database Review
We reviewed program materials provided for each program, including applications, manuals, marketing
materials, and other information provided by Idaho Power staff. We also reviewed publicly available
materials, such as the program website and past evaluation reports. As we reviewed the materials, we
developed a deeper understanding of each program.
We conducted a program database review, to analyze key program parameters, such as the number of
projects by measure type and region. We also used the program database review to identify missing
information in the program database (i.e., fields that are often blank), and to recommend additional
information that the program database should track (i.e., fields that should be added).
4.1.3 Interviews with Program Implementers, Trade Allies, and other Market Actors
Based on our findings from the kick-off meeting and the program materials review, we developed draft
interview scripts for each program implementer and market actor involved in the programs. For some
of these interviews, we did not finalize the scripts until we had conducted earlier interviews, because
the information gathered in earlier interviews informed the questions included in the later interviews.
For example, for the Residential Energy Efficient Lighting program, we first conducted interviews with
the lighting program implementer and the implementer of the regional partner program; based on these
findings, we revised our interview scripts with lighting manufacturers and retailers. Similarly, we
developed our interview scripts for Customer Representatives (“Customer Reps”) based on findings
from trade ally interviews. TRC provided draft interview scripts to Idaho Power for comments, and we
provided final scripts for approval.
We provide the following table below summarizing the number of interviews targeted and completed:

TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
22
Program Target Populati
on
Targeted
Sample in Work
Plan
Sample
Achieved
Comment
All - Idaho
Power Staff
Marketing staff 2 2 2
Data Analysts 2 2 2
Residential Market
Segment Coordinator
1 0 1 Added to provide general
information on role of
Customer Reps in residential
energy efficiency programs
Customer
Representatives
17 3 7 Interviewed additional reps for
geographic diversity, and
because some reps were more
active in promoting these
programs than others
Residential
Energy
Efficient
Lighting
Program Specialist 1 1 1
3rd party implementer
(Fluid Market
Strategies)
1 1 1
Regional Program
Manager (BPA)
1 0 1 Interview added to understand
regional program
Manufacturers 8 5 4
Participating Retailers 95 24 – 8 high, 8
medium, and 8
low
participating
3 complete, 1
partial
The 3 interviews represent 24
individual stores, because the 3
complete interviewees were
corporate level staff for chains.
Had difficulty identifying
additional contacts at retailers.
Program Specialist and
implementer provided some
contacts, and TRC obtained a
few more from Customer Reps
and manufacturers.
Northwest
ENERGY
STAR®
Homes
Program Specialist 1 1 1
3rd party contractor 1 1 1 Fluid assists Idaho Power in
marketing the program,
maintaining the certification
database, and serving as a
technical resource, but is not a
true third party implementer.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
23
Program Target Populati
on
Targeted
Sample in Work
Plan
Sample
Achieved
Comment
Regional program
implementer (NEEA)
1 0 1
Builders 771 26 – 18
participating, 8
nonparticipating
6 – 1
participating, 5
nonparticipating
Had difficulty reaching builders.
Many builders did not return
our calls, and some builders’
phone numbers on the
program website were
incorrect. This one
participating builder had only
delivered natural gas homes
through the program, which
are no longer eligible.
Home Performance
Specialists (a.k.a.
raters)
11 4 3
Heating and
Cooling
Efficiency
Program
Program Specialist 1 1 1
3rd party contractor 1 1 1 The contractor performs
specific support tasks, but is
not a full 3rd party
implementer.
Participating and
Nonparticipating
Contractors
35 9 – 3 high
participating, 3
low
participating, 3
nonparticipating
9 – 2 high
participating, 3
low
participating, 4
nonparticipating
(includes 1
partial
complete)
TRC contacted 4 high
performing contractors, but 2
refused interviews
TOTAL FOR ALL PROGRAMS 79 46
Figure 4. Summary of Interviews Conducted
In designing the target sample size for lighting retailers and manufacturers, ENERGY STAR® Homes
builders, and Heating and Cooling contractors, we attempted to obtain 80% confidence, and at least
20% precision (80/20). Although 90% confidence 10% precision is the gold standard in evaluations, this
would have required considerably more data collection and was beyond the scope of this study.
However, we were not able to obtain enough interviews to meet 80/20 for the lighting retailers and

1 The program website lists 83 builders. After removing duplicates, we identified 77 builders. However, in the process of trying
to contact these builders, TRC identified several builders that were dissolved after the project finished (e.g., entities
established to develop a specific subdivision), and builders that appeared multiple times in the list under different names.
There may also be builders on the program website that are no longer in business. Consequently, the total number of
participating builders in the program is less than 77.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
24
ENERGY STAR® Homes builders. For the lighting retailers, this was because Idaho Power staff and the
program implementer provided contacts for corporate-level staff at 10 retail chains, and of these, not all
responded to TRC’s request for an interview. (TRC did not “cold call” these retailers, because we would
likely have reached a staff member unfamiliar with the program, and it would have taken considerable
effort per retailer to reach someone familiar with the program.) For the ENERGY STAR® Homes builders,
some of the contact information provided on the program website for builders was not up-to-date, and
many builders declined our multiple attempts for an interview. We present more details on the
dispositions of interview attempts in each program chapter.
4.1.4 Analysis
After interviewing all market actors of each type, TRC reviewed all interview notes and identified
common themes and findings. We present these in each program chapter write-up. We then reviewed
all findings from the various interviews and program material review to develop overall findings, identify
program barriers, and develop recommendations.
4.2 Approach to Best Practices Comparison
TRC compared industry-standard program design and implementation best practices with those being
used by Idaho Power. This included comparing the programs’ practices with Best Practices
Benchmarking for Energy Efficiency Programs1. In addition, TRC also compared applicable Best Practices
developed through a previous TRC study done for the California Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs)2 which
assessed the needs of 3rd Party Implementers. The purpose of this analysis is to provide each Idaho
Power Program Specialist with programmatic barriers and constraints. Below we present the best
practices and rational for each best practice.
Best Practice - National Best Practices Explanation
Program Design & Theory
Is the program design effective and
based on sound rationale?
Programs should have a clear stated program theory to facilitate efficient program
evaluation and evolution by providing a foundation for assessing progress towards
goals.
Is the local market well understood?
Programs should strive to understand the market within which the program
operates. This understanding will allow programs to develop a more effective
relationship with relevant stakeholders and recognize which lessons from other
areas transfer to the local market and which ones do not.
Program Management
Are responsibilities defined and
understood?
Programs with multiple entities involved, such as technical support contractors,
must provide clear lines of responsibility and communication protocols. As much as
possible, processes should appear integrated and seamless.

1 Quantum Consulting, 2004
2 The California IOUs are Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, and the Southern California
Gas Company.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
25
Best Practice - National Best Practices Explanation
Is there adequate staffing?
Programs should ensure that adequate staff support exists to properly manage
program activities, regardless of whether the program relies on in-house staff or
contractors to provide that support.
Reporting and Tracking
Are data easy to track and report?
Programs should clearly articulate the data requirements needed to measure
success and develop useful reporting and tracking systems in a cost-effective
manner.
Are all routine functions automated as
practical?
Automated routine tasks (e.g. standardized reports, automated notification
procedures) build in quality control checks and allow staff time for more
strategically important tasks. Programs should utilize regular check-in and progress
milestones to ensure that project status is known on a timely basis.
Quality Control and Verification
Does the program manager have a
strong relationship with trade allies
involved in the program?
Programs should vary the level of inspection or quality assurance depending on
complexity of the project and past relationship with the trade ally.
Does the program verify the accuracy of
application data, invoices, and
incentives to ensure the reporting
system is recording actual installations
by target market?
Standard measures installed by known vendors are likely to need less rigorous
quality control and verification than higher risk measures. Programs with no control
over vendors may need more quality control-oriented inspection.
Are customers satisfied with the
product?
Programs should utilize customer satisfaction surveys to identify unanticipated
problems or benefits related to a particular product.
Participation Process
Is participation simple? Programs should implement an easy, simplified participation process, as this will
facilitate participation of both customers and vendors.
Are participation strategies multi-
pronged and inclusive?
Programs that implement multi-pronged outreach strategies are more likely to
allow trade allies to participate in a variety of ways.
Does program provide quick, timely
feedback to participants?
Fast turnaround and good service often drive both vendors’ and participants’
satisfaction with the program.
Is participation part of routine
transactions?
Programs that make participation part of an existing transaction or creating one-
stop shopping for an energy efficiency measure help integrate energy efficiency into
the market.
Does the program facilitate participation
through the use of Internet/electronic
means?
Programs that leverage the Internet (i.e. online downloads, electronic application
processing, installation reports) can improve program responsiveness and reduce
administration cost
Does the program offer a single point of
contact for their customers?
Programs are more effectively managed through a single point of contact,
particularly those involving complex system upgrades or long timelines.
Are incentive levels well understood and
appropriate?
Programs should set incentive levels to maximize net program impacts (i.e.,
program impacts attributable to the program interventions and adjusted for
measure realization) and adjust incentive levels based on market demand and tie
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
26
Best Practice - National Best Practices Explanation
incentives to performance.
Marketing and Outreach
Does the program use targeted
marketing strategies?
Programs should use targeted messages at particular customers and vendors and
alternative information delivery channels in order to maximize participation.
Are products stocked and advertised?
For measures that are typically installed by customers, programs should provide
marketing support to retail channels (e.g., in-store advertising materials, co-
operative advertising funds)
Are trade allies and utility staff trained
to enhance marketing?
In many markets, consumers rely on trade allies as their chief source of information
about products. These trade allies can be an effective “on-the-ground” sales force
for the program. To keep private sector marketing efforts effective, programs
should provide outreach and offer training on program details to the applicable
trade allies.
Figure 5 - National Best Practices for Comparison

Best Practice - TRC Recommended Explanation
Program Design & Theory
Does the program engage trade allies in
development of program offerings and
measure design?
Trade allies have firsthand knowledge of the current market. Engaging trade allies
in initial development and ongoing program offerings and measure designs will
keep the programs current to the market needs.
Program Management
Does the program maintain consistency
in personnel (Program Specialist and 3rd
Party Implementer) over time?
Maintaining Program Specialist and 3rd Party Implementer helps maintain
institutional knowledge and reduce program interruptions.
Is program institutional memory
captured and retained in-house?
Maintain good program records and document communications with 3rd Party
Implementer and participants in the event the Program Specialist changes.
Does the program keep 3rd Party
Implementers well informed about
program features and changes?
Regular meetings to discuss program goals, changes, and any barriers will keep 3rd
party implementer up-to-date.
Participation Process
Does the program frequently assess
areas of burden or barriers to
participation?
Assessing areas of burden or barriers to participation on a regular basis can reduce
participant dropouts and streamline program participation processes.
Marketing and Outreach
Does the program leverage partnerships
with trade groups, industry associations,
etc. to market the program?
Marketing to trade groups, industry associations and other trade ally groups can
market the program in a broader way than trade allies acting alone in marketing
activities.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
27
Best Practice - TRC Recommended Explanation
If able, are co-branding opportunities
identified and utilized between utility
and contractor/builder/vendor
participating in the program?
Co-branding on marketing materials between utility and participating
contractor/builder/vendor increases validity of program and helps to leverage the
credibility of both parties.

Are program website and marketing
information kept up-to-date with most
recent program information?
Frequently updating program website and marketing information ensures
customers are seeing current program offerings, measures, and contact information
for program contacts at Idaho Power and participating contractors.
Figure 6 - TRC Recommended Best Practices for Comparison
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
28
5. RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING PROGRAM
5.1 Program Overview
Idaho Power’s Energy Efficient Lighting Program provides discounted promotional pricing on ENERGY
STAR® ® qualified compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) from participating retailers and manufacturers. In
addition to encouraging the use of more energy efficient lighting at lower costs to residential customers,
one of the main goals of the program is to help inform customers to be able to select the right CFL for
various applications. The Idaho Power program works in conjunction with the regional Simple Steps,
Smart Savings program, administered by Bonneville Power Authority (BPA). The regional Simple Steps,
Smart Savings program and the Idaho Power program are implemented by a 3rd party (currently Fluid
Market Strategies).
Since the inception of the current iteration of this program in 2010, the program has consistently
exceeded kWh savings goals.
5.2 Process Evaluation Methodology
To conduct a process evaluation of this program, TRC used the following methodology.
5.2.1 Overview
TRC conducted interviews with each stakeholder type involved in this program. Interviewees included
the Idaho Power Program Specialist, the Program Manager for BPA’s Simple Steps Smart Savings
program, the third-party program implementer, and a sample of participating retailers and
manufacturers.
5.2.2 Data Collection
The following table describes our data collection activities for this effort.
Data Collection Activity Timeframe for Data
Collection
Key Research Barriers Number of Data
Points
Program Specialist
Interview
July 8, 2013 Roles and responsibilities,
Program processes,
program successes and
challenges, goals for
process evaluation
1
3rd party implementer
interview
August 23, 2013 Roles and responsibilities,
Program processes,
program successes and
challenges
1
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
29
Data Collection Activity Timeframe for Data
Collection
Key Research Barriers Number of Data
Points
BPA Regional Program
Manager
September 3, 2013 Roles and responsibilities,
Regional program
processes, regional
program successes and
challenges
1
Participating Retailers September 2013 Retailer involvement and
perspective, program
successes and challenges
3 complete, 1 partial
Participating
Manufacturers
September 2013 Manufacturer
involvement and
perspective, program
successes and challenges
4
Figure 7: Residential Energy Efficient Lighting Data Collection Activities

TRC had planned to interview more participating retailers, but was not able to do so due to the following
reasons: TRC requested contact information for retailers from the Program Specialist, 3rd party
implementer, manufacturers, and Idaho Power Customer Reps, but these sources were only able to
provide a handful of contacts. Of these contacts, only 4 agreed to an interview. However, because 3 of
these retailers work at the corporate level, the 4 interviews represent 24 total stores. Figure 8 provides
more detail on the outcomes (i.e., final dispositions) of each attempted contact for trade allies.

TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
30

Figure 8: Residential Energy Efficient Lighting Program Interview Population Outcomes

Interview Target
Population
Size
Original Target
Sample Size
Contact
Attempts
Refusals
(including no
call backs)
Completed
Interviews
Partial
Interviews Comments and explanations
BPA Program Manager 1 0 1 0 1 0
BPA's Simple Steps, Smart Savings program is the regional
program that supports Idaho Power's residential energy
efficient lighting program.
Third-Party Implementer 1 1 1 0 1 0 Fluid Market Strategies is the third-party implementer for
Idaho Power's residential energy efficient lighting program,
and for BPA's Simple Steps, Smart Savings program.
Manufacturers 8 5 4 0 4 0
The third-party implementer provided contact information
for four participating manufacturers. TRC completed
interviews with all four of those manufacturers.
Retailers 95 24 10 6 3 1
Rather than contacting individual stores, the third-party
implementer recommended contacting corporate level staff
who had better knowledge of program details. The three
completed interviews represent 24 individual participating
stores. One of the Idaho Power customer reps also provided
contact information for two independently owned stores.
One was not available, and the other was no longer
participating in the program. TRC did complete a partial
interview with the non-participating independent hardware
store.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
31
In addition, TRC reviewed or requested various program materials, including the program database. We
also reviewed the nonparticipating customer survey for findings relevant to this program.
5.3 Results and Findings
Below, we present our results and findings from our data collection activities.
5.3.1 Program Processes
This program uses an upstream model to provide rebates to retailers for ENERGY STAR® certified CFLs.
These rebates are passed on to customers, thereby lowering the cost of these high efficacy lighting
products at the point of sale, lowering the price barrier for consumers and encouraging them to
consider energy efficient lighting products. The third-party program implementer provides the primary
day-to-day management of the program. The implementer interfaces with participating manufacturers
and retailers, collects program sales data, and pays incentives to retail stores. The implementer
regularly reports overall program sales and incentives to Idaho Power, and coordinates with Idaho
Power and BPA on overall program administration.
The main mechanism of the program is an agreement between the implementer and each participating
retailer and manufacturer. These agreements establish which products are sold through the program,
which individual stores are participating in the program, and the incentive rates provided for each
product. Retailers also agree to provide monthly sales reports to the implementer. Each agreement
varies depending on the individual requirements of the retailers and manufacturers. The program will
only incentivize products that the retailers are already carrying, rather than encouraging stores to carry
new or different products. As such, manufacturers typically take the lead in bringing retailers into the
program that carry their eligible products. Manufacturers frequently manage the program participation
for retailers as well, including collecting and reporting sales data to the implementer, to lower barriers
to participation for retailers. Participating retailers and manufacturers did not report any challenges
with the program process, and two of the manufacturers reported without prompting that the
implementer was very easy to work with.
The Idaho Power program staff consists of the Program Specialist. There are no other Idaho Power staff
dedicated specifically to this program, although others, such as Customer Reps, marketing staff, and
Data Analysts, serve this and many other programs. Although the 3rd party implementer provides
primary day-to-day management of the program operations, the Idaho Power Program Specialist
provides oversight from the utility perspective, including reviewing monthly reports from the
implementer. The Idaho Power Program Specialist performs a line-by-line review of monthly invoices
from the implementer to confirm the accuracy of the reports and that all of the invoiced products are
program eligible. Although the Program Specialist had no complaints, this process seems cumbersome
and onerous. A more streamlined review process may free up program resources to further develop the
program, such as recruiting additional retail participants, or providing more support to participating
retailers. BPA’s program manager provides support and coordination for the regional Simple Steps
Smart Savings program.
TRC also reviewed a variety of program materials. Below, we provide results of this review. These
program materials are important for documenting program processes, enabling continuity of the
program in the event of staff changes, and providing program information to trade allies and customers.

TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
32

Program Material Available? Comment
Program application No The program uses an RFP process to identify
potential manufacturer and retailer participants.
There is not a uniform program application.
Process Flow Diagram Yes Flow diagram only shows relationship between
the 3rd party implementer and trade ally
participants. Idaho Power involvement is not
shown.
Program Implementation Schedule Yes Idaho Power provided a schedule of program
tasks and objectives.
Marketing materials Yes The main marketing materials for the program
are in-store signage and product co-branding
aimed at customers. Idaho Power also provides
information on the program website, as well as
information cards to help customers choose the
right products.
Program logic model No Program materials document some program
logic model components. But a formal logic
model is not developed, and some logic model
components (e.g., long term goals) are not
documented.
Program success metrics Yes Idaho Power’s program manual provides annual
kWh savings goals.
List of measures Yes Idaho Power’s program manual includes a table
of CFL product types that have been found to be
cost effective.
Program manuals Yes Idaho Power provided their internal program
manual.
Program database Yes Idaho Power provided a database of program
product sales from April 2010 to present.
Current program achievements Yes Idaho Power’s Program Specialist and the 3rd
party implementer Program Manager both
reported that year-to-date sales have greatly
exceeded goals.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
33
Program Material Available? Comment
Program Staff Contact Information Somewhat There is one point of contact at Idaho Power for
the program, the Program Specialist, and the 3rd
party implementer handles many day-to-day
operations. However, the program website does
not provide a contact person for customers with
more questions about the program.
Figure 9: Residential Energy Efficiency Program Materials

5.3.2 Program Goals and Status
The program has consistently exceeded product sales goals. Manufacturers and retailers also report
that the program incentives result in significant sales increases for the incented products.
Store promotions and product placement can impact program sales outcomes: Both the Idaho Power
Program Specialist and the 3rd party implementer program manager reported that feature placement at
one retail chain resulted in a significant increase in program product sales. This offers both an
opportunity for additional program sales – if retailers can be convinced to feature program bulbs more
prominently, and a source of program risk – if the retailer no longer chooses to promote program bulbs.
Since the inception of the current iteration of this program in 2010, the program has consistently
exceeded kWh savings goals. Energy savings realized by the program peaked in 2010, and has declined
each year since. The energy savings goal for 2013 is the lowest it has been since 2008, as a result of
reductions in the energy savings per bulb over the years, as well as the overall downward trend in
program product sales. The downward sales trend may indicate an opportunity for the program to shift
emphasis to newer technologies, or to market areas that have had lower program participation, such as
small hardware stores or specialty stores.
The majority (68%) of program product sales were standard “spiral” or “twist” CFL bulbs. The remainder
of program sales was specialty bulbs, primarily reflector and globe type products.
Fifty percent of program sales since April 2010 have been in the more populated Capital region, in and
around Boise. The Canyon region had the second highest sales volume, at 22%, followed by the Eastern
(13%), Southern (13%), and Western (2%) regions.
The following findings are based on a review of the program database, of sales that occurred from April
2010 through May 2013. While there are many small stores that participate at a low level (i.e., sell at
least one program bulb), the vast majority (92%) of all program sales occurred at national chain “big
box” hardware or department stores. Specialty stores (such as lighting showrooms and electrical
suppliers) made up five percent of program sales, grocery stores contributed two percent, and discount
stores and small hardware stores each had less than one percent of the total program sales. These sales
trends appear to be relatively consistent with population distribution, and overall sales volumes for
different retail store types. They may also indicate opportunities for program growth. For example,
although big box hardware stores are heavily involved in the program, only one small independent
hardware store (as defined by TRC) reported any program sales. Despite the small sales volume, IPC
may want to consider opportunities to bring in more small hardware stores, in order to reach customers
who may not regularly shop at the big box stores. Grocery stores also represent a significant potential
increase in product sales for the program. A 2010 CFL Market Profile conducted by the U.S. Department
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
34
of Energy found that consumers bought incandescent bulbs from mass merchant stores first, home
improvement stores second and grocery stores third1. The program database shows 43 participating
grocery stores, but they deliver 2% of total program sales. Assuming that Idaho Power customers follow
these national trends, if the program could bring in more grocery stores or increase the participation of
those already in the program, they could potentially reach a significant number of additional customers.
Further program participation analysis is provided in the section, Program Database Review.
In addition to sales and energy savings goals, Idaho Power and the 3rd party implementer reported that
one of the primary goals of the program is to help customers choose the right CFL product for their
needs. However, because this study did not include purchaser interviews, it was not possible to
determine whether or not the program has achieved this goal.
5.3.3 Program Marketing
The primary marketing for the program occurs through in-store signage, promotional product
placement, and product labeling indicating that program products are discounted by the utility.
However, this has been problematic in some instances due to some retailers placing limits or restrictions
on what signage is allowed. Although some retail chains have no restrictions on additional signage or
promotional product placement, other chains do not allow any supplemental signage or special product
placement. Furthermore, while some national chains have consistent policies applying to all stores,
other chains allow for flexibility at the store level. The inconsistency between participating retailers, and
even within participating chains, creates added burden on the program to provide marketing materials
that comply with these varying restrictions.
Idaho Power Customer Representatives also distribute lighting information cards to customers during
store visits or at other events. These information cards are intended to help customers choose the right
program products for their needs. Customer Reps also direct customers to the Idaho Power website for
more information on the program, including finding participating retailers. However, many of the
Customer Reps that TRC interviewed were not actively engaged with retailers for the program. Thus,
the Customer Reps are only occasionally promoting the program to retailers. (In these instances,
Customer Reps refer retailers to the Program Specialist, who refers them to the 3rd party implementer
for enrollment in a promotion.). Customer Reps reported that they have reduced the amount of in-store
interaction they have with customers in recent years for this program. Their reason for this is that they
understand that the 3rd party implementer has taken over the primary responsibility of program
marketing. The Program Specialist reports that this is not a new development, and that marketing was
always conducted by the 3rd party implementer. Customer Reps reported that they do recommend CFLs
to customers when they contact Idaho Power with high bill complaints. Customer Reps also reported
that customers are generally unaware that Idaho Power is providing discounts on program CFL products.
If program staff wish for Customer Reps to assist in promoting this program, as TRC recommends, the
Program Specialist should work with Customer Reps to clarify roles and identify opportunities for the
Reps to supplement the implementer’s marketing.
Idaho Power’s Program Specialist is actively engaged in efforts to bring in additional retailers, in an
effort to reach more customers. The 3rd party implementer also engages with participating retailers to

1 ENERGY STAR CFL Market Profile. U.S. Department of Energy, 2010, P. 14.
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/downloads/CFL_Market_Profile_2010.pdf
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
35
encourage more chain locations to be added to the program. However, interview results indicate that
the program is heavily reliant on manufacturers to bring retailers into the program.
Much of the program’s marketing is done under the umbrella of the regional BPA program. Idaho
Power’s participation in the regional BPA lighting program has advantages and disadvantages. One
major advantage is that participating in the regional program reduces the cost of marketing and other
program processes. However, it poses some constraints on the program. For example, the measures
that BPA offers through Simple Steps, Smart Savings affect the measures that Idaho Power can offer.
For at least one participating chain retailer, regional variations in program offerings have caused
advertising complications. This chain has store locations across multiple utility territories with different
programs and incentive rates. Consequently, the retailer is unable to advertise program products in
regional mailers or newspaper inserts, because the program products are offered for different amounts
in the different territories. Instead, this chain only advertises their non-program products.
5.3.4 Program Database Review
TRC reviewed a database of program product sales that occurred from April 2010 through May of 2013.
The purpose of the review was to check that the program database was tracking key program metrics,
and to understand program product purchases by bulb type, region, and store type. The database allows
for sales data to be sorted based on various classifications, including retailer, region, and product type.
Although much of the data is clear, some portions of the database are less consistent.
The figure below breaks down program product sales by region. As shown, 50% of all program sales
occurred in the capital region in and around Boise. While it was beyond the scope of this project to
compare these values to populations in these regions, TRC notes that the capital region is the most
populous in Idaho Power territory.
Region Total Program
Sales
Percentage of
Total Sales
Capital 258,035 50%
Canyon 114,210 22%
Eastern 69,725 13%
Southern 66,552 13%
Western 10,369 2%
Figure 10 – Lighting Program Sales by Region
The database also provides two separate classifications for product types. The first product type
classification is according to promotion type. As the table below shows, program sales are broken down
into three categories by promotion type, with “twist” type products comprising the majority of program
sales. In addition to “twist,” products were also labeled as either “specialty” or “promo specialty”.
According to the Program Specialist, this distinction was made because these bulbs receive different
incentive levels.
Product Type According Total Program Percentage of
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
36
to Promotion Sales Total Sales
Twist 353,789 68%
Specialty 150,870 29%
Promo Specialty 14,232 3%
Figure 11 – Lighting Program Sales by Product Type (According to Promotion)
Program sales are sorted by subcategories established by the Regional Technical Forum (RTF), as shown
in the table below. As the table illustrates, there is less consistency of labeling for the RTF categories. In
some cases, different terms may be used to describe the same or similar product types, such as, “spiral,”
“twist,” and “T2 twist.” (According to the Program Specialist, the “twist” and “T2 twist” designations
came from different deemed savings levels during a promotion cycle.) In other cases, products were
labeled with multiple subcategory types, creating a new type of classification. In some instances, the
same product type was entered into the database with different spelling or style, creating multiple
categories for the same product types (i.e., “3 way” versus “3-way,” or “A lamp” versus “A-lamp”). Sales
data for inconsistently labeled product types are combined in the table below to provide a single total.
These inconsistencies may cause confusion or challenges in analyzing the program sales data.
RTF Subcategory Type Total Program
Sales
Percentage of
Total Sales
Spiral 187,366 36%
Twist 110,485 21%
Reflector 88,527 17%
Globe 68,793 13%
Daylight 30,001 6%
T2 Twist 21,000 4%
Candelabra 5,317 1%
A-lamp 4,541 1%
3-way 950 <1%
Specialty 869 <1%
High Watt 500 <1%
Outdoor 468 <1%
Post 40 <1%
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
37
A-lamp/High Watt 26 <1%
Globe/Daylight 8 <1%
Figure 12 – Lighting Program Sales by RTF Product Category
Program sales are also labeled by retail location. Information in the database allows for analysis by both
retail chain, and individual retailer locations. We present sales by individual retail chains in the table
below, in an anonymized format (e.g., Grocery A, Grocery B, etc.) Each letter (e.g., A) represents a
different chain, although multiple retailer locations may be included in this chain. As the table shows,
the bulk of program sales occur in just a handful of retail chains.
Participating Retail Chain Total Program
Sales
Percentage of
Total Sales
Big Box Dept Store A 196,277 38%
Big Box Hardware A 129,206 25%
Big Box Dept Store B 107,775 21%
Big Box Hardware B 45,068 9%
Specialty A 16,538 3%
Grocery A 9,342 2%
Specialty B 8,077 2%
Specialty C 1,999 <1%
Grocery B 1,942 <1%
Discount A 1,259 <1%
Specialty D 661 <1%
Grocery C 371 <1%
Discount B 189 <1%
Small Hardware A 111 <1%
Specialty E 76 <1%
Figure 13 – Lighting Program Sales by Retailer
In order to better classify where program sales occur, TRC created an additional category of “store
type.” This category includes six different types: Big Box Department Stores (Costco and Walmart), Big
Box Hardware Stores (Home Depot and Lowes), Discount (Big Lots and BiMart), Grocery (Albertsons,
Fred Meyer, and Paul’s Market), Specialty (Alloway, Batteries Plus, Builders Lighting, Grovers, and Platt),
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
38
and Small Hardware Stores (True Value). The table below shows product sales based on these
categories developed by TRC.
As shown, almost all program sales are concentrated in just a few retailer types (big box department
stores and big box hardware stores). Although grocery stores comprise 45% of the total number of
participating stores, they account for only 2% of program sales. TRC listed the store types in descending
order of total sales, because we see this metric (not total number of stores participating) as the more
important indicator of the program’s engagement.

Retail Type Number of
Participating
Stores
Total Program
Sales
Percentage of
Total Sales
Big Box Department Stores 17 304,052 59%
Big Box Hardware Stores 14 174,274 34%
Specialty 13 27,351 5%
Grocery 43 11,655 2%
Discount 7 1,448 <1%
Small Hardware Stores 1 111 <1%
Figure 14 – Lighting Program Sales by Retailer Type
Although these categories may not represent the exact categories of interest to Idaho Power, it may be
useful for Idaho Power to establish retailer types in the program database, to further analyze the nature
of program sales.
5.3.5 Program Successes
The program has consistently succeeded in meeting and exceeding sales and energy savings goals.
Figure 15 outlines the savings goals established by Idaho Power and the energy savings achieved by the
program since 2010. As the table shows, the program exceeded its goal by 87% in 2010, but achieved
savings dropped closer to goal levels for 2011 and 2012. The savings goal for 2013 is the lowest goal of
the past four years. One reason why the savings goal has been reduced, is that the Regional Technical
Forum, which sets deemed savings values for Idaho Power, has reduced the net savings values for
program CFLs.
The Idaho Power Program Specialist reported that the program was already at 85% of that goal as of late
June of 2013. The Program Specialist was not entirely sure why the program has been more successful
than anticipated so far this year.
Year Savings Goal (kWh) Savings Achieved
(kWh)
Percent Above
Goal
2010 15,000,000 28,082,738 87%
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
39
2011 16,800,000 19,694,381 17%
2012 15,000,000 16,691,509 11%
2013 11,200,000 (at 85% as of June) --
Figure 15: Residential Energy Efficient Lighting Program Savings Goals and Achievements
In addition to meeting the quantitative goals, program participants consistently provided positive
qualitative feedback about the program. Retailers noted that the reduced costs for the program
products eliminates the cost barrier for customers, and encourages customers to consider CFL products
who might otherwise prefer other products. One retailer also noted that the program and the incented
products encourage customers to think more about energy efficiency and energy savings opportunities.
Manufacturers were also happy with the program. All of the 4 manufacturers interviewed reported that
the product incentives make a significant difference in customer choices, encouraging customers to
consider energy efficient products, when they otherwise would not have. Manufacturers also report
that the program significantly increases sales volume. One manufacturer reported between 100% and
200% sales increases for program incented products.
Retailers also expressed support for the program. Although they were generally less aware of the
detailed workings of the program than the manufacturers, they all recognized that the program
incentives are influencing customers to consider CFL products.
Program processes have also been successful. There is open and frequent communication between the
Idaho Power Program Specialist, and the program managers at the 3rd party implementer, as well as
with the Simple Steps, Smart Savings program manager at BPA. Although there is not a single
application process for program participants, all participating retailers and manufacturers interviewed
were happy with the work that the 3rd party implementer does coordinating the program. Idaho Power
reports that staff updates the program website with resources and information for customers. The
Idaho Power program relies on BPA’s Simple Steps, Smart Savings website for information on
participating retailers. Due to the large number of participating retail locations, and a lack of contact
information for store retailers, TRC did not verify whether all the retailers listed on BPA’s website are
currently participating in the program.
5.3.6 Program Challenges
Although this program is generally operating effectively, there are program challenges. Below we
describe some program challenges, both those voiced by interviewees and those identified by TRC.
Balancing the marketing needs of the program with the varying signage requirements and restrictions of
the various retailers has been a challenge for program implementation. Signage restrictions limit the
visibility of the program for consumers, and variations in signage requirements and restrictions create
added burden for the program to create customized marketing materials for each participating retailer.
In addition, the signage restrictions probably contribute to the issue of customers not realizing that
Idaho Power provided the incentive for the CFL. Results from the non-participant survey, discussed in
more detail in section 9.1, indicate that customers are generally unaware of the residential energy
efficient lighting program. The survey found that 46% of respondents would consider buying discounted
CFL products in retail stores, but only 3% could identify the Energy Efficient Lighting program as a
current Idaho Power offering. This confirms the findings reported from Customer Reps that many
customers are not aware that Idaho Power provides the incentive to buy down the price of CFLs. This
may not be a problem for the program in terms of participation, and one advantage of an upstream
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
40
program is that it reduces the measure cost in a streamlined approach for the customer (e.g., without
the need to submit rebate applications). However, the possibility that many customers are not aware
that Idaho Power is providing the rebate is an issue, if Idaho Power would like to use its energy
efficiency programs as a means of improving customers’ perception of the utility.
As described above, manufacturers generally encourage retailers to participate, and assist them with
program applications and reporting. For manufacturers, it is in their financial best interest to work with
a small number of retailers that sell a large volume of program bulbs, rather than many small retailers.
Consequently, one manufacturer reported that they have to strategically choose which retailers they
should encourage to participate in the program.
Many of the interviewees would like to see LED products included in the program (including Idaho
Power staff). One retailer mentioned that LED incentives will be important to their lighting product
sales going forward. At least one Customer Rep also noted that feedback from program participants
indicated a desire for LEDs to be added to the program. This may become a challenge for the Idaho
Power program if LED products are not added in the near future. The Idaho Power Program Specialist
has indicated that LED products are not currently cost effective, and regulatory requirements specify
that product offerings must be cost effective. However, one retailer interviewee indicated that BPA
Simple Steps, Smart Savings incentive rates for LED products are lower than the national average, and
are more consistent with the savings that utilities can expect from LED products. Lighting market trends
will continue to increase the pressure to include LED products in the program.
Although there are many different retailers and retailer types that participate at some level, since
September 2010, four big box chains made up 92% of program product sales. This represents a
potential area of risk for the program. If one of these chains reduces participation, or reduces their
promotion of program bulbs, the program could see a significant reduction in savings.
The structure of the program favors large chain retail stores that have sufficient sales volume to justify
the effort that manufacturers spend in assisting retailers with participating in the program. While this
program approach has enabled it to successfully exceed sales goals and energy savings targets, it
reduces the participation of smaller, independently-owned hardware stores and their customers. While
these customers represent a smaller fraction of total bulb purchases, they do present an opportunity for
Idaho Power to engage more customers in energy efficiency and assist them in choosing the right bulb
for the right application. For example, one independent hardware store owner who is no longer
participating in the program noted that their customers had been unhappy with CFL products and were
hoping that federal regulations would be repealed rather than switching to energy efficient lighting
products. It is possible that these consumers could be aided by program information that identifies high
quality energy efficient lighting products, and helps customers identify the appropriate products for
their needs.
One manufacturer reported that the incentive rate for bare spiral CFL products was too low to make the
program products viable in certain discount retail locations.
The Program Specialist noted that one challenge has been that the Regional Technical Forum, which sets
deemed savings values for this and other programs, continues to change the net savings values for
program bulbs. Idaho Power sometimes chooses to apply these changes retroactively. In general, the
RTF continues to reduce deemed savings. This has reduced claimable program savings, and it makes it
difficult for Idaho Power to set savings goals.
As a small challenge, TRC noted that the Idaho Power Program Specialist appears to spend some time
conducting monthly, line-by-line reviews of invoices. While Idaho Power staff did not raise this as a
challenge, TRC believes that the time of this experienced Program Specialist could be better spent
conducting more thought-critical tasks.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
41
5.3.7 Looking Ahead – Future Challenges and Opportunities
In general, the Idaho Power residential energy efficient lighting program has been very successful to
date. As described above, this program has exceeded its energy savings goals every year since 2010,
proving over 64 million kWh in energy savings through 2012, and has already achieved 85% of the
savings goal for 2013. The Simple Steps, Smart Savings program manager reported that approximately
80% of BPA’s residential energy savings goal comes from CFL incentive programs.
However, as the lighting market quickly shifts to LEDs, Idaho Power will need to consider how to bring
LED products into the energy efficient lighting program. One manufacturer noted that the regional
incentive rates for LED products are lower than the national average, making LED products more cost-
effective (from the utility standpoint) for utility incentive inclusion. There also may be more
opportunities to reach as yet untapped markets, especially in more rural areas and in grocery stores and
small hardware stores, to help consumers transition to energy efficient lighting products before federal
regulations phase-out the incandescent products that consumers are used to.
5.3.8 Comparison to Best Practices
Below we present a comparison of this program to best practices. We provide an explanation for each
comparison below the figure.

Best Practice - National Best Practices Met?
Is the program design effective and based on sound rationale? Yes
Is the local market well understood? Somewhat
Are responsibilities defined and understood? Yes
Is there adequate staffing? Somewhat
Are data easy to track and report? Somewhat
Are all routine functions automated as practical? Somewhat
Does the program manager have a strong relationship with trade allies involved in the
program?
Somewhat
Does the program verify the accuracy of application data, invoices, and incentives to
ensure the reporting system is recording actual installations by target market?
Yes
Are customers satisfied with the product? Yes
Is participation simple? Somewhat
Are participation strategies multi-pronged and inclusive? Somewhat
Does program provide quick, timely feedback to participants? Not researched
Is participation part of routine transactions? Somewhat
Does the program facilitate participation through the use of Internet/electronic means? Somewhat
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
42
Does the program offer a single point of contact for their customers? Yes
Are incentive levels well understood and appropriate? Somewhat
Does the program use targeted marketing strategies? Yes
Are products stocked and advertised? Somewhat
Are trade allies and utility staff trained to enhance marketing? Somewhat
Best Practice - TRC Recommended for 3rd Party programs Met?
Does the program engage market actors in development of program offerings and
measure design? Not researched
Does the program maintain consistency in personnel (Program Specialist and 3rd Party
Implementer) over time? Yes
Is program institutional memory captured and retained in-house? Somewhat
Does the program keep 3rd Party Implementers well informed about program features
and changes? Yes
Does the program frequently assess areas of burden or barriers to participation? Somewhat
Does the program leverage partnerships with trade groups, industry associations, etc. to
market the program? Not researched
If able, are co-branding opportunities identified and utilized between utility and
contractor/builder/vendor participating in the program? Somewhat
Are program website and marketing information kept up-to-date with most recent
program information? Yes
Figure 16 - Residential Energy Efficient Lighting Program: Comparison to Best Practices
Below, we provide a rationale for the information in the best practices comparison table.
1. Program Theory and Design
a. Is the program design effective and based on sound rationale? Yes. The program
provides quality (ENERGY STAR® labeled) energy efficient CFL products at competitive
prices directly to the consumer, via the participation of retailers and manufacturers.
The program is consistent with similar upstream programs in other areas.
b. Is the local market well understood? Somewhat. The program has succeeded in certain
retail segments such as big box hardware stores, but has struggled to reach other retail
segments such as small hardware stores and grocery stores.
c. Does the program engage market actors in development of program offerings and
measure design? Not researched.
2. Program Management
a. Are responsibilities defined and understood? Yes. Program staff, third-party
implementers, and participating retailers and manufacturers all have a clear
understanding of their responsibilities.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
43
b. Is there adequate staffing? Somewhat. Although program participants had no
complaints about program implementation, participating manufacturers often take on
much of the burden of recruiting and maintaining retailer participation. Additional
program staff may be able to provide program support for smaller retailers whose sales
volume may not justify manufacturer support.
c. Does the program maintain consistency in personnel (Program Specialist and 3rd Party
Implementer) over time? Yes. Personnel and third-party program management have
been consistent.
d. Is program institutional memory captured and retained in-house? Somewhat. Program
management appears to flow through only one person at Idaho Power (the Program
Specialist), and most management activities occur through the third-party implementer.
Based on TRC’s review of program materials, the program has developed most of the
main program materials, with the exception of a logic model.
e. Does the program keep 3rd Party Implementers well informed about program features
and changes? Yes. Idaho Power, Bonneville Power Authority, and the 3rd party
implementer communicate and coordinate on the program regularly.
3. Reporting and Tracking
a. Are data easy to track and report? Somewhat. Although neither report this as a
problem, the process of reviewing program sales data line-by-line appears to be
cumbersome and onerous for the Program Specialist and the third-party implementer.
A more streamlined approach could free up program resources for further program
development. However, retailers and manufacturers had no complaints about the
program reporting process, and all interviewees were satisfied with the way the
program runs. In many cases, manufacturers handle the reporting tasks for the
retailers, which significantly reduces the burden on the retailers.
b. Are all routine functions automated as practical? Somewhat. The nature of program
reporting processes limit options for practical automation. However, there may be an
opportunity to create a simple automation process for Idaho Power to review monthly
invoices from the 3rd party implementer to confirm that all incented products were
eligible for the program.
4. Quality Control and Verification
a. Does the program manager have a strong relationship with trade allies involved in the
program? Somewhat. The Idaho Power Program Specialist has been actively involved in
recruiting some retailers for the program, but the bulk of trade ally relationships are
handled through the 3rd party implementer. Program managers at the implementer
organization have strong relationships with manufacturers and large retailers who have
the resources to dedicate to program participation. However, retailers without the
resources to manage program participation on their own may be overlooked.
b. Does the program verify the accuracy of application data, invoices, and incentives to
ensure the reporting system is recording actual installations by target market? Yes. The
program specialist reviews all monthly reports from the 3rd party implementer to
ensure accuracy and product eligibility.
c. Are customers satisfied with the product? Yes. According to participating retailers and
manufacturers, customers have been generally happy with program products.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
44
5. Participation Process
a. Is participation simple? Somewhat. Customers participate by simply purchasing the
incented products at participating retailers. Because manufacturers typically coordinate
much of the effort for the retailers, participation for retailers is also relatively simple.
However, without this manufacturer support, retailers are unlikely to participate in the
program.
b. Are participation strategies multi-pronged and inclusive? Somewhat. Although the
program is open to any interested retailers, and any qualifying products, the
coordination and reporting burden may be too restrictive for some smaller retailers.
Because the manufacturers typically coordinate the reporting efforts for their retailers,
they tend to focus on larger retailers with larger sales volume to justify their effort.
c. Does program provide quick, timely feedback to participants? Not researched.
d. Is participation part of routine transactions? Somewhat. As noted above, customers
participate just by purchasing incented products. However, manufacturer and retailer
participation requires more effort, and retailers appear unlikely to participate in the
program without significant support from manufacturers.
e. Does the program facilitate participation through the use of Internet/electronic means?
Somewhat. Although program information is available online, the upstream nature of
the program limits the possibilities for fully electronic participation.
f. Does the program offer a single point of contact for their customers? Yes. A 3rd party
implementer manages all interactions with program participant manufacturers and
retailers.
g. Are incentive levels well understood and appropriate? Somewhat. Incentives vary for
different CFL products, depending on product type and energy savings estimates, as
established by the regional Simple Steps Smart Savings program. However, participating
retailers and manufacturers indicated that they would like to see more products
included, such as more specialty bulbs, dimmable CFLs, and LED products.
h. Does the program frequently assess areas of burden or barriers to participation?
Somewhat. The Idaho Power Program Specialist is aware of some burdens or barriers to
participation, such as restrictions on program signage in some retail outlets. However,
there is less awareness of barriers to participation for some retailers such as small
hardware stores. It is unclear if there is an established protocol for regularly assessing
areas of burden or barriers in the program.
6. Marketing and Outreach
a. Does the program use targeted marketing strategies? Yes. The program uses in-store
advertising to the extent allowed by retailers to promote program products to
customers. In some cases, the program also reaches out directly to potential retail
participants.
b. Are products stocked and advertised? Somewhat. Co-branding and in-store advertising
alert customers to incentivized products. However, some retailers restrict co-branding
and promotions. One retailer also noted that they are unable to advertise program
products on a regional level because of variations between utility programs and
incentive rates.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
45
c. Are trade allies and utility staff trained to enhance marketing? Somewhat. Although
Customer Reps are trained to promote the program, it is unclear how regularly
Customer Reps interact with participating retailers, or if retail store staff are able to
promote the program to their customers. Customer Reps also report that many of the
large stores have high turnover rates, making it difficult to keep the store staff up to
date on program information.
d. Does the program leverage partnerships with trade groups, industry associations, etc. to
market the program? Not researched.
e. If able, are co-branding opportunities identified and utilized between utility and
contractor/builder/vendor participating in the program? Somewhat. Utility product
labels and marketing signage are coordinated with the participating retailers and
manufacturers to promote the products in stores. However, limits on program signage
may be a barrier to program effectiveness, and customer awareness of program pricing
and of Idaho Power as the source of the discount.
f. Are program website and marketing information kept up-to-date with most recent
program information? Yes. Idaho Power maintains a website with resources and
information for customers. A website with information on participating retailers is
operated by BPA for the regional Simple Steps, Smart Savings program.

5.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
This program is generally successful. It has delivered or exceeded its energy savings goals. It appears
well positioned to continue to deliver energy savings in the short and medium term. (To achieve long-
term savings, LEDs may need to be incorporated into the program.) However, TRC identified barriers
and opportunities for further improvements to the program.
5.4.1 Recommendations
Based on the study findings discussed above, TRC presents the following recommendations for the
energy efficient residential lighting program:
 Maintain successful program processes – Overall the program is very successful, and
participating retailers and manufacturers are very happy with the program’s third-party
implementer, and how the program works. Idaho Power should endeavor to maintain these
successful processes.
 Continue to investigate opportunities to bring LED products into the program – The lighting
market as a whole is shifting more and more toward LED technology. Manufacturers, and in
some case retailers, are focusing their efforts primarily on LED products. TRC heard from
multiple trade allies and Customer Reps that they (or customers) would like to purchase LEDs
through the program. Idaho Power should increase its investigation of opportunities to bring
LED products into the program in ways that are cost-effective and maintain the success of the
program.
• Consider reducing the incentive level for LEDs, so that they perform better in the cost
effectiveness test. (In other words, if customers will still purchase the LEDs with a smaller
incentive, this will reduce the “cost” side of the equation.) One retailer indicated that the
BPA Simple Steps, Smart Savings incentive rates for LED products are lower than the
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
46
national average, and are more consistent with the savings that BPA partner utilities can
expect from LED products. Idaho Power could consider providing a lower incentive for LEDs
than the value originally used for the cost effectiveness calculation, as one option for
including LEDs in program offerings. As the price of LEDs continues to drop, the value of the
incentive can also be reduced. TRC acknowledges that the low price of electricity in Idaho
Power territory will make the cost effectiveness tests more challenging.
• Idaho Power could also review the types of LEDs that it originally considered when
determining cost effectiveness, and look for different types of LEDs that have a higher
chance of passing the cost effectiveness test. This includes looking for LEDs that
- Are installed in areas of high use (for a high Hours of Use, HOU, assumption), such as
LEDs commonly installed in kitchens
- Often replace base measures with low efficacy
- Are relatively inexpensive, compared with other LED lamp options
TRC recognizes that many evaluation parameters are decided by the RTF, and that the RTF
may use blanket values for some assumptions (as a hypothetical example - assume the same
HOU for all lamps). Idaho Power could work with the RTF to encourage the forum to allow
more specific savings assumptions for LEDs, to enable these lamps to pass the cost
effectiveness test. Or Idaho Power could choose to not adopt RTF values for LEDs.
 Increase investigations of grocery retailers and small, independently-owned stores, to
increase their program sales – The program has been very successful in certain retail segments,
but has had only limited impact with grocery stores and small, independently-owned hardware
stores.
• Manufacturers could leverage their relationships with grocery chains to encourage more
sales at existing program participating stores, or to bring in new grocery chain participants.
The Program Specialist and/or Customer Reps could also work with grocery store chains that
are currently participating at a low level to boost participation, or target an additional
grocery store chain to bring into the program.
• Although the independently-owned hardware market segment may be relatively small, the
program may be missing an opportunity to educate some customers on the benefits and
effective uses of energy efficient lighting products. Idaho Power could consider
opportunities to bring more small and independently-owned retailers into the program to
increase participation at currently enrolled retailers. Customer Reps could engage more with
smaller hardware retailers to encourage program participation. (TRC notes that this
recommendation may not be cost effective for Idaho Power, but it could increase
customers’ and small business owners’ awareness of Idaho Power’s energy efficiency
programs).
 Consider opportunities for deeper coordination at the regional level – Although the Idaho
Power program is coordinated through the regional Simple Steps Smart Savings program,
incentives and retailer participation varies across the utilities within the BPA program, and
across the other utilities in the region, complicating the efforts of larger retail chain participants.
Further program coordination at a regional level, such as the same incentive for a few common
program products, could provide greater reach and visibility through regional retail participant
advertising.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
47
 Coordinate with retailers to find mutually supportive in-store advertising solutions –
Restrictions some retailers place on in-store advertising limit opportunities to market program
bulbs. Secondarily, co-branding restrictions limit the ability of Idaho Power to communicate
that the utility is the source of incentives.
• Idaho Power and the 3rd party implementer should continue to coordinate with retailers
where possible to find mutually beneficial in-store advertising solutions. For example, Idaho
Power or the 3rd party implementer could begin by speaking with one or two corporate
representatives from big box stores with advertising limitations to understand why the
stores have placed these restrictions. Once they understand the reason for these
restrictions, Idaho Power and the 3rd party implementer could present options for
advertising that overcome these barriers.
• The fact that Idaho Power is the source of program rebates should not affect program
participation. However, Idaho Power may wish to communicate to customers that it
provides these rebates. As shown in the nonparticipating customer survey, 73% of
customers reported that energy efficiency programs are important, but only 40% of
customers were aware of Idaho Power’s energy efficiency programs, and only 3% were
aware of this lighting program. Idaho Power could work with retailers to increase its co-
branding opportunities both in-store and through mailings, and use its own bill inserts or
Customer Reps to promote the program to customers.
 Re-consider strategy for adopting of RTF deemed savings changes –This recommendation could
be pursued at the portfolio level. Idaho Power could choose not to apply RTF changes
retroactively, or set regular intervals for changing savings assumptions.
 Consider opportunities to streamline the monthly report review process – Although the
Program Specialist had no complaints, the line-by-line monthly report review process strikes TRC
as a poor use of this experienced staff person’s time. A more streamlined review process may
free up program resources to further develop the program, such as recruiting additional retail
participants, providing more support to participating retailers, or working to resolve the barriers
to bringing in LEDs. Potential strategies may include assigning the monthly invoice review
process to more junior or administrative staff, allowing the Program Specialist to focus on
program operations and development.
 Ensure that program database uses consistent and effective inputs – Although the current
program database is a useful tool for analyzing program product sales, there are opportunities
for improvement. Inputs for program product types should use consistent terminology to
ensure that sales of different product types can be accurately tracked. This could be achieved
using drop-down menus with pre-determined product types for data entry, rather than using a
text field, or by providing a data dictionary for consistent data entries. Similarly, TRC believes it
would be useful for Idaho Power to establish retailer categories (i.e., “Big Box Hardware Stores,”
“Grocery Stores,” etc.) to allow for analysis of where product sales are occurring beyond the
level of individual retail chains.
5.4.2 Summary of Barriers and Recommendations
We provide a table summarizing the main barriers and recommendations for this program in the
Executive Summary, in section 2.4 Summary of Barriers and Recommendations.

TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
48
6. HEATING AND COOLING EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
6.1 Program Overview
The Heating and Cooling Efficiency program provides incentives to builders and customers for installing
high efficiency heating and cooling equipment, such as efficient heat pumps and evaporative coolers.
The program also requires that contractors practice right sizing and proper installation of equipment
according to industry best practices. Right sizing Heating Cooling and Ventilating (HVAC) equipment
requires the contractor to perform a heating and cooling load analysis based on several measurements
(i.e. insulation value, air leakage, etc.) of the particular home. Proper installation best practices include
performing a refrigerant charge and air flow test of the new system. The right sizing requirement is
based on Air Conditioning Contractors of America (ACCA) Manual J, but modified to make it more
applicable for heat pumps.
The program began offering incentives for air and ground-source heat pumps in 2007 and evaporative
cooling equipment in 2008. Customer incentives range from $250-$1,000, depending on the system
being installed and replaced. The contractor incentive is $150 per project. Incentives are available
throughout the Idaho Power territory, but only to customers currently with electric heating, or that are
converting to electric heating from oil or propane. The program is assisted by a 3rd party contractor
(currently Honeywell), and administered by participating HVAC contractors (trade allies).
The primary objective of the program is to acquire kWh savings through customers installing high
efficiency heat pumps which are sized and installed properly. Other program goals include: to create
partnerships with trade allies, to increase the practices of right sizing equipment and proper installation,
and to provide customers with a well-trained contractor workforce to assist in achieving energy
efficiency goals. Each of the above mentioned goals will be discussed in further detail below.
6.2 Process Evaluation Methodology
To conduct a process evaluation of this program, TRC used the following methodology.
6.2.1 Overview
TRC first conducted an in person interview with the Program Specialist, and a phone interview with the
third party contractor. Once program staff interviews were complete, the evaluation team reviewed
program materials. This included the program application, program database, website, marketing
materials, program handbooks (internal and participant), implementation plan, program measures and
goals. In addition, TRC reviewed previous impact and process evaluations.
After program materials were reviewed, TRC conducted phone interviews with participating and
nonparticipating HVAC contractors of the program. Both sets of interviews evaluated program design,
implementation, administration, marketing, and other processes. Additionally, TRC reviewed results of
a 2011 program survey that was administered to customers who installed air and ground-source heat
pumps, and evaporative coolers. TRC also reviewed results of a survey conducted with nonparticipating
customers in Idaho Power residential energy efficiency programs.
6.2.2 Data Collection
The following table describes our data collection activities for this program.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
49
Data Collection Activity Timeframe for Data
Collection
Key Research Issues Number of Data
Points
Program Specialist
Interview
July 8, 2013 Roles and responsibilities,
Program processes,
training, marketing and
outreach, program
successes and challenges,
goals for process
evaluation
1
3rd party contractor
interview
July 9, 2013 Roles and responsibilities,
application process,
program database,
training, verification,
successes and challenges
1
Participating Contractor
interviews
August-September
2013
Program processes
(application), program
offerings (trainings &
incentives), participation,
technical barriers,
successes and challenges
5
Nonparticipating
Contractor interviews
August-September
2013
Program processes
(application), program
offerings (trainings &
incentives), participation,
technical barriers,
successes and challenges
4
Figure 17 - Heating & Cooling Efficiency Data Collection Activities Summary
The following provides more detail on the outcomes (i.e., final dispositions) of each attempted contact
for trade allies. The Program Specialist categorized participating contractors into three tiers based on
their level of participation (i.e. number of applications submitted): high participating, light participating,
and nonparticipating contractors. The high participating contractors, which TRC defined as those that
submitted at least 10 applications/year, make up 80% of the program participation. The light
participating contractors, which TRC defined as those that submitted 1-9 applications/year make up the
remaining 20% of participation. The nonparticipating contractors have gone through training and are
listed on the program website, but have not submitted any applications in recent years.

TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
50
Interview Target Population
Size
Sample
Size
Incorrect
Contact
Information
Contact
Attempts
Refusals
(incl. no
call
backs)
Completed
Interviews
Partial
Interviews
Participating
Contractors (High) 3 3 11 8 1 2 0
Participating
Contractors (Light) 25 6 0 10 3 3 0
Nonparticipating
Contractors 9 5 0 4 0 3 1
Figure 18 - Heating & Cooling Efficiency Trade Ally Interview Outcomes
In addition, TRC reviewed or requested program materials. We present our comments on these
materials in the Results section below.
Finally, TRC reviewed the following additional resources that relate to this program. These studies were
conducted by other firms.
 Nonparticipating customer survey for residential programs (conducted by Hansa GCR).
 2011 participating customer survey (for the Heating & Cooling Efficiency program only).
6.3 Results and Findings
From the above data collection activities, we present the results and findings below.
6.3.1 Program Roles
The main trade allies and program staff involved in the implementation and administration of the
program include: Idaho Power Program Specialist and Customer Reps, 3rd party contractor, and
participating contractors. We describe the role of each below:
 The Program Specialist is the main contact for the program at Idaho Power. This individual runs
the day to day operations of the program for the utility. This includes recruiting contractors,
managing the 3rd party contractor, and administering the program contractor trainings. The
Marketing Specialist manages program marketing (with input from the Program Specialist),
primarily through customer bill inserts, program fliers, and the program website.
 The 3rd party contractor is responsible for entering all program applications into the Idaho
Power tracking database (CLRIS), performing project verifications, and maintaining relationships
with the participating contractors. The 3rd party implementer generally does not recruit new
contractors.
 HVAC participating contractors administer the program to Idaho Power customers. They are
responsible for sizing, installing, filling out, and submitting program application materials on
behalf of the customer. Idaho Power also intends for contractors to market the program to
customers.

1TRC will provide the correct contact information to Idaho Power in a private communication.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
51
 Idaho Power Customer Reps are utility staff with various responsibilities, which includes
promoting energy efficiency programs. For the Heating and Cooling Efficiency program
specifically, they promote the program to contractors, so that contractors can market the
program to customers. According to the Program Specialist, Customer Reps have a suggested
goal of meeting with each participating contractor three times per year. (The 2013 Program
Handbook states that the goal is quarterly meetings). Customer Reps also occasionally market
the program directly to customers. This is most commonly done when a customer calls with a
high bill complaint.

6.3.2 Program Processes
Program processes include the customer and contractor participation processes, including application;
incentive processing; verification or quality assurance; and contractor training. We provide more
information on each program process below.
Eligibility and Program Participation
Customers located within the Idaho Power service territory, with electric heating fuel, are eligible to
participate in the Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program. Customers with oil and propane converting
to electric air source or open loop ground source heat pumps are also eligible. Additionally, Idaho
Power customers installing evaporative coolers can also receive an incentive.
When a customer wants to participate in the program they take the following steps:
1. Choose a participating contractor,
2. Purchase qualifying high efficiency heating equipment,
3. Have the participating contractor right size and properly install the equipment, and
4. Sign and return the customer section of the application to the participating contractor. The
contractor then submits the application and associated documentation to the 3rd party
contractor.
A contractor looking to qualify for the program must go through heat pump training by Idaho Power.
This is an introductory course on equipment sizing. In previous years, the course was organized for a
group of contractors looking to participate. The Program Specialist now does one-on-one training and
some group training, if there is sufficient interest. The individuals at the contractor organizations who
participate in the training are those who conduct the field work and will be submitting the application.
Once these individuals have completed all necessary training, their company is listed on the Idaho
Power website as a participating contractor. The HVAC contractor submits application materials to Idaho
Power on behalf of the customer. Application materials include: the incentive application, invoice of
purchased system, right sizing worksheet, heating and cooling load worksheet, and installation
worksheet. The contractor fills out and submits all materials, with the help of the participant, and
submits it to Idaho Power.
Once all application materials are submitted, 3rd party contractor staff enters project information into
the Idaho Power program tracking database, CLRIS. The program database houses all information from
the application materials, and it is used to track projects and meet reporting needs.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
52
Once a participating contractor submits an application, the 3rd party contractor may conduct on-site
verification for quality control. The 3rd party contractor provides on-site verification of 100% of first-
time contractors, and 10% of projects for repeat contractors.
Satisfaction with Program Processes
TRC conducted interviews of participating and nonparticipating contractors to gain insight into their
experience with the program. We present the results of the program processes interview questions
below. Specifically, we asked respondents to rate their agreement with each of the below statements
on a scale of 1-5, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. These questions were only
applicable to contractors who have participated in the program, with the exception of the last question
on contractor training. Therefore, we received a total of 5 responses from ‘high’ and ‘low’ participating
contractors on all questions, with the exception of the contractor training question. This question
received responses from 8 of the 9 contractors (participating and nonparticipating) interviewed. In the
figure below, the light shading indicates fewer responses, and the darker shading indicates more
responses. We present the raw results below.

Figure 19 – Contractor Satisfaction with Heating & Cooling Program Processes
We provide more information on this data from participating contractors below. We also provide
information on program processes obtained from nonparticipating contractors and Customer Reps.
Application and Worksheets: The Program Specialist and 3rd Party contractor indicated that the
application process has been streamlined in recent years. Both indicated this has reduced the
application processing time. Based on the data above, the overall feedback from the contractors was
that the application process was fairly streamlined. There was poor to neutral feedback from
contractors on the installation worksheet. Most indicated that it took them extra time to work through
it if they had not used it recently. There was neutral feedback on the sizing worksheets (i.e., the heating
and cooling load calculation worksheet). Several participating contractors reported in follow-up
information that they use their own sizing worksheet, which they then submit to Idaho Power.
Program Processes Questions
1
=

S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

D
i
s
a
g
r
e
e
2 3 4
5
=

S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

A
g
r
e
e
The application process is streamlined.2 2 1
The installation worksheet is easy to understand.2 2 1
The heating or cooling load calculation worksheet is easy to understand.2 2 1
The customer application form is easy to understand. 1 1 3
The contractor incentive amount influences your decision on whether or not you to
participate in the program. 3 2
The customer incentive amounts are set appropriately.1 4
The third party service provider conducts the on-site verification in a reasonable
amount of time. 2 2
Idaho Power processes incentives in a reasonable amount of time. 1 4
The required program training was effective.3 5
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
53
Contractors who use their own sizing worksheet indicated they do so because their worksheet was
easier to understand, and they were already familiar with it.
Incentives: TRC investigated satisfaction with the customer incentive, and the contractor incentive. As
shown in the figure above, most of the participating contractors felt the customer incentives are set
appropriately. However, in qualitative interviews, many of the nonparticipating contractors reported
that the customer incentive amount was not enough to offset the cost of a new high efficiency system.
Customer Reps also provided mixed feedback on the customer incentive amount. Some Customer Reps
reported that their feedback from the field was that this incentive was set appropriately, while others
reported that it was too low. This mixed feedback could be a result of what region (all electric, gas, duel
fuel) and income levels the reps and contractors serve. For example, contractors serving low income
areas felt strongly that the incentives were not high enough to assist their customers with the upfront
cost of the equipment.
Regarding the contractor incentive amount, three out of five participating contractors indicated that the
contractor incentive does not influence their decision on whether or not they participate in the
program. Of these three contractors, two said they appreciate the contractor incentive, but that they
do not participate because of this incentive, because it is not very high. The two contractors that
indicated they are influenced to participate by the contractor incentive reported that, if there was no
contractor incentive, they may not participate due to the extra time it takes to participate in the
program.
Several of the Customer Reps reported that contractors indicate that they would like the contractor
incentive to increase.
Based on the participating contractor feedback, Idaho Power provides the incentive amounts in a timely
fashion.
On-Site Verification: According to the feedback from participating contractors, Honeywell provides this
verification in a reasonable amount of time.
Training: Contractors that participate or plan to participate in the program must attend an Idaho Power
right sizing and installation training. Of the contractors interviewed (i.e., both participating and
nonparticipating), all felt that the training was effective. Contractors reported that the field training was
the most beneficial part of the training. Many contractors expressed interest in having a refresher
training every few years. Additionally, several of the participating contractors reported that they have
new employees they would like to train, but that they have not been informed of any upcoming training
sessions from Idaho Power.
Program Materials
Program materials provide an important mechanism for the program to document its processes. Below
we present the findings from our review of program materials.

Program Material Checklist Available? Comment
Program Application Yes All applications are available on the program website
under the "Information for Participating Contractors"
page with the exception of the evaporative cooler. The
customer application for this measure is located on the
"Available Incentives" page.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
54
Program Material Checklist Available? Comment
Process Flow Diagram Yes A text version summarizing the process flow is available
in the internal program handbook. A visual graphic is
found in the hard copy version of the program
handbook.
Program Implementation Plan Yes Some program implementation information is available
in the internal handbook.
Program Marketing Materials Yes The website provides some program marketing. In
addition, Idaho Power expects to make co-branding
marketing materials available to participating HVAC
contractors later this year via the program website.
Program Logic Models No Program materials document some program logic model
components. But a formal logic model is not developed,
and some logic model components (e.g., long term
goals) are not documented.
Program Success Metrics Yes Outlined in internal program handbook.
List of Measures Yes Available via the program website.
Program Manuals Yes The program has an internal program participation
manual, which Idaho Power staff reports is being
updated.
Program database Yes The program database tracks various information,
including equipment installed, HVAC contractor,
incentive paid, and customer location.
Program Staff Contact
Information
Yes Website provides contact information for Program
Specialist.
Current Program Achievements Yes Program database has information on the status of
program savings to date.
Figure 20 - Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program Materials Checklist

6.3.3 Program Goals and Status
The 2013 goals for the Heating & Cooling program found in the internal Idaho Power 2013 Program
Handbook are as follows. For each row, TRC pulled the Goal and Measurement directly from Section III,
Annual IRP/Budgeted Goals and Progress section of the handbook.
Goal Measurement Achieved? Comments
Acquire kWh savings. Achieve 800 gross
MWh savings for 2013
To Be
Determined
Program Specialist indicated they
are on track to meet the MWh
savings goal for 2013. Program
database shows ~485 MWh gross
savings achieved for the first half
of 2013 (up to July 3, 2013).
Create partnerships
with contractors to
At least one HVAC
company from each
Partially One HVAC company from each
region is currently participating,
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
55
Goal Measurement Achieved? Comments
generate sales of
energy efficient
equipment.
region will participate.
Regional Customer
Reps will visit
participating
companies quarterly.
based on the program database.
Customer Reps have relationships
with contractors; however,
meetings with contractors vary,
depending on region and number
of contractors in the area. Also,
the Program Specialist reports
that Customer Reps are requested
to meet with contractors 3 times
per year (not quarterly).
Increase the practice
of proper sizing and
proper installation of
efficient heat pumps in
the Idaho Power
service area.
Accomplished by the
projects receiving
incentives.
Yes Approximately 50 applications
have been approved to-date.
Provide customers
with trained and
knowledgeable
contractors to assist
them in increasing the
energy savings in their
homes.
Ensure at least one
company in each
region is trained in the
Program. The
Program will offer
training sessions in
2013.
Yes There is at least one participating
company in each region; the
number of trainings per region is
unknown.
Conduct customer and
contractor satisfaction
surveys.
Conduct surveys in
2013.
No Last participating customer survey
was conducted in 2010.
Figure 21 - Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program Goals for 2013
The program is currently on-track to meet 2013 MWh savings goals. The Program Specialist indicated
the MWh savings goals for the program have been consistently met in recent years, even with the
market downturn. TRC interviewed two of the four high participating contractors, who delivered 90% of
savings in 2012. Both reported that they hoped to increase participation in the future.
Program trainings for 2013 have been done on an as needed basis for new contractors. However,
common feedback from contractors interviewed indicated that refresher training would be beneficial,
and that some have new employees that could benefit from training. The Program Specialist indicated
that turnover at the contractor companies is a challenge.
6.3.4 Program Marketing
Roles and Responsibilities
In theory, program marketing is done by participating contractors; Customer Reps, who should promote
the program to contractors and customers; through Idaho Power bill inserts, which targets customers;
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
56
and the program website, which target contractors and customers. This strategy should meet the
Program Specialist’s goal of having a multi-pronged approach, where Idaho Power reaches out directly
to customers and to contractors (who in turn reach out to customers). In practice, of the participating
contractors interviewed, very few proactively promote the program to their customers. Many
contractors only advertise the program when a customer has a qualifying system or has asked about the
program. Customer Reps reported that they promote the program to customers when they receive
high bill complaints. They are also active in promoting the program to contractors. The Program
Specialist is responsible for forming new relationships with contractors and assisting them with
marketing the program. But the Customer Reps, along with the 3rd party contractor, are responsible for
supporting contractor relationships for the program. Based on TRC’s interviews, most Customer Reps
are contacting contractors on a regular basis about the program, per the Program Specialist’s request.
The 2013 residential survey of nonparticipating customers (discussed in section Error! Reference source
not found.) also indicates that the marketing strategy for this program is different in theory than in
practice. Overall, the survey found that program awareness is low. Only 5% of nonparticipating
customers could identify the Heating and Cooling program without a prompt from the surveyor. In
addition, only 2% of nonparticipating customers that were aware of Idaho Power residential energy
efficiency programs had heard about them from contractors or suppliers. (The majority had heard about
programs from Idaho Power bill inserts or from a letter or mail brochure). Thus, contractors do not
appear to be effectively marketing the program to customers on a broad scale.
Marketing Materials
Program collateral consists of bill inserts, program brochure, and a one page advertisement. The
Program Specialist also reports that newspaper ads, web ads, direct mail, and trade show displays have
been used. The program website is also an important source of program marketing, and Customer Reps
report referring customers to the website.
Regarding program collateral, several contractors requested that the program provide more collateral
with clear advertising that only customers with electric heating are eligible for the program. Some
contractors requested that Idaho Power provide case studies, especially to illustrate savings for
customers converting from oil or propane heating to electric.
The Program Specialist and Customer Reps indicated the Idaho Power and program website needs
revamping to better serve customers and participating contractors. The Program Specialist is currently
working with the Idaho Power marketing team to develop downloadable marketing materials for
contractors as part of a contractor portal portion of the website. These materials will have co-branding
opportunities for contractors to place their logo on the marketing materials as well. TRC found that
contact information for at least one contractor was incorrect. Customer Reps often direct customers to
the program website. This highlights the importance of maintaining an updated list of contractors and
their accurate contact information.
6.3.5 Program Database Review
TRC reviewed the program incentive database for projects entered from April 2010 through June 2013.
The purpose of the review was to verify that the program database was tracking key program metrics
including system type, participating projects per region, and contractor participation.
Overall, the database allows for easy sorting by region, system type, and contractor. The data is also
clear and easy to understand, although there is some missing information. We provide a brief analysis
below.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
57
Program Participation
The figure below shows the program savings, broken out by Idaho Power‘s five regions and by system
type, for existing system replacements. For 2013, the data runs through June 2013. As seen in the
figure, the Southern region has historically had the most savings in the Idaho Power service territory,
although the Canyon region has higher savings so far for 2013. Also, participation has varied across the
regions from year to year. For example, assuming that current 2013 participation is roughly half of what
will be achieved by the end of 2013, the Canyon region is on track to roughly double savings compared
with 2011 and 2012, while the Capital and Southern regions are on track to achieve only about half of
2012 savings.
Savings (kWh)
Region System Type 2010 2011 2012 2013 (thru June)
Canyon
ASHP 156,243 127,982 117,036 130,300
Open Loop 20,502 11,575 35,708 44,635
Evap Cool 554 - - -
New Const. 44,982 8,927 8,927 36,402
Total 222,281 148,484 161,671 211,337
Capital
ASHP 120,951 70,716 185,831 53,326
Open Loop 17,854 26,781 17,854 -
Evap Cool 3,164 - - -
New Const. 8,927 9,274
Total 150,896 106,771 203,685 53,326
Eastern
ASHP 25,040 31,068 34,314 -
Open Loop 17,854 89,270 26,781 17,854
Evap Cool - - - -
New Const. 17,854 18,201 8,927
Total 42,894 138,192 79,296 26,781
Western
ASHP 118,244 137,256 100,160 62,136
Open Loop 11,575 17,854 35,708 -
Evap Cool 632 - - -
New Const. 26,781 9,274 8,927
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
58
Total 157,232 155,110 145,142 71,063
Southern
ASHP 480,860 213,304 362,288 113,608
Open Loop - 11,575 34,725 -
Evap Cool - - - -
New Const. 74,192 27,475 27,822 9,274
Total 555,052 252,354 424,835 122,882
Annual Total 1,128,355 800,911 1,014,629 485,389
Figure 22. Annual Energy Savings (kWh) by Region and System Type
The program database tracks the system conversion type (i.e., the type of system replaced and the type
of system installed). The figure below shows each conversion type and the total percent of program
savings achieved by this conversion type, for 2010-2013. As shown, the two most common system
conversion types are the electric heating to air-source heat pump (38% of program savings), and
oil/propane to air-source heat pump (22% of program savings). Air-source heat pumps represent the
majority of program savings (84%), followed by water source heat pumps (16%). Evaporative coolers
provide less than 1% of program savings.
System Conversion Type Gross kWh % of Savings
Electric Heating System to Air-Source Heat Pump 1,305,552 38.1%
Oil/Propane Heating System to Air-Source Heat Pump 739,491 21.6%
Air-Source Heat Pump to Air-Source Heat Pump 595,620 17.4%
Oil/Propane Heating System to Open Loop Water Source Heat Pump 223,175 6.5%
Air-Source Heat Pump (new construction) 203,334 5.9%
Electric Heating System to Open Loop Water Source Heat Pump 196,394 5.7%
Open Loop Water Source Heat Pump (new construction) 142,832 4.2%
Air-Source Heat Pump to Open Loop Water Source Heat Pump 18,536 0.5%
Evaporative Cooler - Single Family 2,770 0.1%
Evaporative Cooler - Manufactured Home 1,580 0.0%
Figure 23. Percent of Savings by System Conversion Type
The database tracks the contractor responsible for delivering each project. The table below shows the
percent of savings achieved annually, broken out by contractor participation level and equipment type.
For participation level, we have defined high participating contractors (n=3) as those that have delivered
at least 10 projects per year, and light participating contractors (n=25) as those that have delivered at
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
59
least one project since 2010. (The program also has 9 “nonparticipating contractors”, who have taken
program training and are listed on the program website, but have not submitted any applications in
recent years, which are not shown.) As shown in the figure below, there are only 3 high participating
contractors, but they submit the majority of applications (60%). However, the light participating
contractors provide the majority of open loop water source heat pump projects.
Percent Savings by Contractor
2010 2011 2012 2013
High Participating
(n=3)
ASHP 44% 48% 54% 56%
Open Loop 1% 1% 0% 4%
Light Participation
(n=25)
ASHP 49% 31% 30% 30%
Open Loop 6% 20% 16% 11%
Figure 24. Percent Savings by Contractor Performance
Completeness of Database
The database provides sufficient information about each project. Most of these fields are consistently
completed for projects. The application was revised so that data could be more easily entered into the
database. However, there are some fields with missing data entries, such as manufacturer and model
number for some projects.

6.3.6 Program Successes
Overall, the program is successful in consistently reaching energy savings goals, and implementing the
program across the Idaho Power territory. Currently, the majority of program goals have been achieved
for the program or are on track to be met by the end of 2013. The program has achieved success in the
following areas:
 Participation goals: Customer participation in the program is on track to meet 2013 energy
savings goals. Savings goals have been consistently met, even during the market downturn.
 Program Processes:
• Application: The application process is streamlined compared to recent years, and is well
understood by participating contractors.
• Program database: The program database is comprehensive, and it has been designed to
have the same fields as the application materials (worksheets included) for quick entry.
• Incentive turnaround: All contractors felt that the incentive payment times were fairly quick.
None had any complaints.
 Contractor Training: All contractors interviewed had positive feedback on the training to
participate in the program. Some contractors had only attended classroom training (many years
ago), while others had attended classroom and field training. Of those contractors who
attended field training, all found that this was the most beneficial aspect of the training. The 3rd
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
60
party contractor also identified contractor training as a success of the program because it has
trained contractors to “master” right sizing.
 Project verification: The 3rd party contractor, who conducts on-site verification as one of its
responsibilities, indicated that there are very few barriers identified during on-site verifications.
This may be because of the contractor training that Idaho Power provides when a contractor
initially joins the program. The 3rd party contractor reported that, if a program measure is not
initially met, it is typically addressed while on-site.
Based on interviews with the Program Specialist, the 3rd party contractor, and contractors, the program
is running smoothly and is overall successful.
6.3.7 Program Challenges
Generally, the program is operating effectively and meeting set program goals. However, TRC identified
some program challenges. These include:
 Application materials - Many of the nonparticipating contractors have a perception that it takes
considerable time to complete program paperwork. While participating contractors generally
reported that the application is fairly streamlined, it appears that some nonparticipating
contractors hesitate to participate, because of the time to complete paperwork.
 Incentive amounts - This program provides two incentives – one to customers, and one to
contractors. Contractors and Customer Reps provided mixed feedback regarding whether these
incentive amounts are set appropriately.
While many of the contractors interviewed felt the customer incentive amounts were sufficient,
several that served low income customers indicated they were not sufficient for their client
base. Feedback from Customer Reps supported this finding: They reported that contractors in
their territory indicate the incentive amount is not enough to offset the incremental cost of the
new system.
Additionally, participating and nonparticipating contractors have indicated that the contractor
incentive amount is not high enough to warrant the amount of extra work for them to
participate in the program. While 3 of the participating contractors interviewed indicated that
the inventive amount does not influence their decision to participate in the program, 2 indicated
that they would not participate without this incentive. The limited number of participating
contractors may also indicate that the contractor incentive level is too low to encourage many
contractors to participate.
TRC recognizes that increasing incentive amounts would increase the cost of administering the
program, and make it less cost effective.
 Participation - There are several challenges to maintaining or increasing participation levels:
• Program awareness by customers is low. According to the 2013 residential survey of
nonparticipating customers, only 5% of customers could identify the Heating and Cooling
program without a prompt from the surveyor. However, according to the survey, 42% were
interested in participating in a program that offered incentives for proper installation of
heat pumps/evaporative coolers. This indicates missed opportunities in outreach and
marketing efforts by the program.
• Only customers with electric heating or converting from oil or propane are eligible to
participate in the program. This is because the cost effectiveness test required for regulatory
purposes has found that these systems are not cost effective in homes heated by natural
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
61
gas. Idaho Power’s electric heating fuel customers represent approximately 1/3 of the total
service area. While this represents a substantial portion of the service territory, many
contractors and Customer Reps indicated a desire to offer incentives to customers with
natural gas heating or dual fuel.
• Low income customers are not able to participate due to the initial costs of the high
efficiency systems.
• Contractor participation is limited. Based on 2012 participation, 4 participating contractors
submitted 90% of the projects. This is a potential risk area for the program. If one of the
top performing contractors were to change their business model to a different system type
or chooses to no longer participate, program participation could drop significantly.
However, TRC notes that, of the 2 high participating contractors interviewed, both reported
they would like to increase participation.
 Marketing: A few Idaho Power staff reported that the website and marketing materials need
revamping, and that the website should better clarify that the program is restricted to
customers with electric heating (or switching from oil or propane heating). Many participating
and nonparticipating contractors indicated that they receive inquiries from customers that do
not qualify for the program, because they have natural gas heating.
The program is marketed through several avenues. The participating contractors are intended to
serve as the primary marketing channel to customers. However, based on TRC’s interviews, the
majority of participating and nonparticipating contractors are not actively promoting the
program, unless a customer has a qualifying system or asks about the program. In addition,
based on the nonparticipating customer survey, of customers that were aware of any Idaho
Power energy efficiency program, only 2% of them had heard about the program from
contractors or suppliers. If these general results hold true for the Heating and Cooling Efficiency
program, then contractors do not appear to be effectively marketing the program to eligible
customers (i.e., the approximately 39% of customers with electric, propane, or oil heating,
based on survey results). Overall, it appears that contractors are not actively promoting the
program, which results in missed opportunities to expand program participation.
6.3.8 Comparison to Best Practices
When compared to industry best practice, the Idaho Power Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program is
currently fully or somewhat meeting many of the standards identified. The figure below summarizes the
program’s comparison to best practices, followed by the reasoning for the assessment given.
Best Practice - National Best Practices Met?
Is the program design effective and based on sound rationale? Yes
Is the local market well understood? Somewhat
Are responsibilities defined and understood? Yes
Is there adequate staffing? Yes
Are data easy to track and report? Yes
Are all routine functions automated as practical? Somewhat
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
62
Does the program manager have a strong relationship with trade allies involved in the
program?
Yes
Does the program verify the accuracy of application data, invoices, and incentives to
ensure the reporting system is recording actual installations by target market?
Yes
Are customers satisfied with the product? Not researched
Is participation simple? Yes
Are participation strategies multi-pronged and inclusive? Somewhat
Does program provide quick, timely feedback to participants? Yes
Is participation part of routine transactions? No
Does the program facilitate participation through the use of Internet/electronic means? Somewhat
Does the program offer a single point of contact for their customers? Yes
Are incentive levels well understood and appropriate? Somewhat
Does the program use targeted marketing strategies? No
Are products stocked and advertised? Not applicable
Are trade allies and utility staff trained to enhance marketing? Somewhat
Best Practice - TRC Recommended for 3rd party programs
Does the program engage trade allies in development of program offerings and measure
design? Not researched
Does the program maintain consistency in personnel (Program Specialist and 3rd Party
Implementer) over time? Yes
Is program institutional memory captured and retained in-house? Somewhat
Does the program keep 3rd Party Implementers well informed about program features
and changes? Yes
Does the program frequently assess areas of burden or barriers to participation? Somewhat
Does the program leverage partnerships with trade groups, industry associations, etc. to
market the program? Somewhat
If able, are co-branding opportunities identified and utilized between utility and
contractor/builder/vendor participating in the program? No (but planned)
Are program website and marketing information kept up-to-date with most recent
program information? Yes
Figure 25 - Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program: Comparison to Best Practices
1. Program Theory and Design
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
63
a. Is the program design effective and based on sound rationale? Yes. The program is
based on the rationale that incentives and training to contractors and customers will
encourage customers to purchase high efficiency heating and cooling equipment and
practice industry best practices for installation.
b. Is the local market well understood? Somewhat. While natural gas is the most dominant
heating fuel in the region, about a third of Idaho Power customers have electric heating
based on the nonparticipating customer survey. These electric heating customers, as
well as customers with oil and propane heating, are eligible for the program. Idaho
Power could potentially reach more eligible customers by better understanding the
types of customers with electric, oil, and propane heating (e.g., are these customers
more likely to be low income, in multifamily units, in rural area, etc.), and their barriers
for program participation. Once these markets and their barriers are understood, Idaho
Power could develop a marketing strategy for each to more effectively promote the
program.
c. Does the program engage trade allies in development of program offerings and measure
design? Not Researched. While Idaho Power works with HVAC contractors to develop
the program, TRC is not certain if Idaho Power consults with participating contractors
when developing program offerings and measure design. If not, TRC recommends that
Idaho Power follow this practice.
2. Program Management
a. Are responsibilities defined and understood? Yes. Duties of the Program Specialist and
3rd party implementer are clearly defined and understood with minimal overlap.
b. Is there adequate staffing? Yes. Due to the small size of the program, there appears to
be adequate staffing with the one Program Specialist, one 3rd party contractor
personnel, Customer Reps, and other support staff.
c. Does the program maintain consistency in personnel (Program Specialist and 3rd Party
contractor) over time? Yes. The Program Specialist has been involved with the program
for at least 2 years, and the 3rd party implementer has remained the same for several
years.
d. Is program institutional memory captured and retained in-house? Somewhat. The
program is generally well documented based on program materials (e.g., program
manual, application, database, etc.) Based on TRC’s review of program materials, the
Program Specialist has developed most of the main program materials, with the
exception of a logic model.
e. Does the program keep 3rd Party Implementers well informed about program features
and changes? Yes. While this program does not have a 3rd party implementer, it uses a
3rd party contractor for several discrete tasks. The Program Specialist and 3rd party
contractor are in frequent contact about program requirements and any changes to the
program.
3. Program Marketing
a. Does the program leverage partnerships with trade groups, industry associations, etc. to
market the program? Somewhat. Some HVAC contractors reach out to customers to
market the program. However, findings from the customer survey indicate that
customers generally do not learn about Idaho Power programs from contractors.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
64
b. If able, are co-branding opportunities identified and utilized between utility and
contractor/builder/vendor participating in the program? No (but planned). Currently,
the program does not offer any co-branding opportunities. However, the Program
Specialist indicated a contractor portal is under development for the program website.
This portal will include marketing materials with co-branding options.
c. Are program website and marketing information kept up-to-date with most recent
program information? Yes. Website and all marketing materials have up-to-date
program information including available incentives and program participation processes.
4. Reporting and Tracking
a. Are data easy to track and report? Yes. The application and database were recently
modified to create a streamlined data tracking process, so that information from the
application could be entered directly into the database.
b. Are all routine functions automated as practical? Somewhat. The information
submitted on the application is manually entered by the 3rd party implementer.
Currently, web based application submittal is not available through the program
website. However, due to the relatively small volume of this program, manual entry
does not appear to be a problem.
5. Quality Control and Verification
a. Does the program manager have a strong relationship with trade allies involved in the
program? Yes. The Program Specialist recruits and develops relationships with new
HVAC contractors, while the 3rd party contractor and Customer Reps further develop
and maintain relationships with participating contractors.
b. Does the program verify the accuracy of application data, invoices, and incentives to
ensure the reporting system is recording actual installations by target market? Yes. The
3rd party contractor reviews application materials and does 100% verification on the first
project from new contractors and on 10% of projects from repeat contractors.
c. Are customers satisfied with the product? Not researched.
6. Participation Process
a. Is participation simple? Yes. Participation for the customer is simple, because the
contractor fills out and submits all paperwork on behalf of the customer. The
application process was streamlined, so that contractors have minimal paperwork to
submit per application. (While participating contractors reported that paperwork was
not too onerous, many nonparticipating contractors reported that paperwork is a
barrier to participation. Thus, there appears to be a perception of onerous paperwork
among the nonparticipating contractors we spoke with.)
Are participation strategies multi-pronged and inclusive? Somewhat. A customer can only
participate through a participating contractor. However, TRC does not see this as a problem
for the program. The participation strategy is inclusive, because there is at least one
participating contractor (including at least one light or high performing contractor) serving
each region in the Idaho Power territory.
b. Does program provide quick, timely feedback to participants? Yes. The contractors
interviewed indicated that the application process, verification process, and incentive
check release are done in a timely manner.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
65
c. Is participation part of routine transactions? No. Of the contractors interviewed, few
promote the program as part of regular sales of qualifying equipment.
d. Does the program facilitate participation through the use of Internet/electronic means?
Somewhat. All program forms used by participating contractors are available for
download from the program website. Currently, program form submittals are not
available through the program website.
e. Does the program offer a single point of contact for their customers? Yes. Customers
participating in the program are directed to contact a participating contractor, listed on
the program website. Once the contractor is chosen, they act as the customer’s single
point of contact. The program website also provides contact information for the
Program Specialist.
f. Are incentive levels well understood and appropriate? Somewhat. Incentive levels are
understood by all parties. However, contractors and Customer Reps provided mixed
feedback on whether these incentive levels are appropriate. Some reported that both
the customer incentive was sufficient, while others indicated that it was not high
enough to offset the cost of more efficient equipment. Similarly, some contractors
indicated that the contractor incentive motivates them to participate, while others
indicated it is not enough to offset their additional time required to complete program
paperwork.
g. Does the program frequently assess areas of burden or barriers to participation?
Somewhat. Assessing areas of burden or barriers to participation are somewhat done
through participating customer surveys conducted approximately every 2 years, and
through process evaluations such as this one. Contractor surveys are not conducted on
a regular basis.
6.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
In general, the Heating and Cooling Efficiency program has been successful to date. The program
consistently meets projected energy savings goals and has successfully trained participating contractors
in right sizing and installation best practices. Based on feedback from the Program Specialist and 3rd
party contractor, the program is running smoothly and program goals are being achieved.
However, TRC believes that the program has the potential to expand and achieve even greater savings.
In addition, there is some program risk, because only 3 contractors are bringing in over 80% of the
projects. We provide recommendations for the program in this section. We begin by providing
suggested modifications to the program success metrics. We then provide further recommendations.
6.4.1 Recommended Modifications to Program Success Metrics
In the table below, we list each of the program goals and the current measurement towards this goal, as
stated in the 2013 Program Handbook. While these may not be targeted in practice, these are the
stated program goals and measurements.
For each specific goal, we provide a recommended measurement and comment.

TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
66
Goal Current
Measurement
Recommended
Measurement Comments
Acquire kWh savings. Achieve 800 MWh
savings
Consider increasing
savings goals by 5-10%
each year.
By increasing savings goals, the
program staff and trade allies
could be encouraged to achieve
even greater savings
Create partnerships
with contractors to
generate sales of
energy efficient
equipment.
At least one HVAC
company from each
region will participate.
Regional Customer
Reps will visit
participating
companies quarterly.
Increase number of
participating HVAC
companies in each
region to 2-3
contractors. Consider
reducing rep visits to a
biannual or annual
basis for contractors
that are already active
in the program, and
focusing more time on
contractors that have
low or no participation.
Increasing the number of
participating contractors in each
region can potentially expand
the program and program
savings, and reduce program
risk.
Increase the practice
of proper sizing and
proper installation of
efficient heat pumps
in the Idaho Power
service area.
Accomplished by the
projects receiving
incentives. The
program provides field
quality assurance to
ensure that projects
receiving incentives
have properly sized
and installed systems.
An impact evaluation
could provide an
independent
verification that
payment of incentives
is ensuring proper
sizing and installation.
This independent verification
could be part of a larger
program impact evaluation or a
separate, smaller effort to test
the current measurement
theory.
Provide customers
with trained and
knowledgeable
contractors to assist
them in increasing
their energy savings
in their homes.
Ensure at least one
company in each
region is trained in the
program. The
Program will offer
training sessions in
2013.
As noted above, ensure
that 2-3 companies in
each region are trained
and active. Continue to
offer training sessions,
as well as shorter
refresher sessions.
To expand the knowledge of
program practices, the number
of trainings in each region
should be increased.
Contractors indicated in
interviews a need for training to
new staff (which Idaho Power
already provides), and an
interest in a refresher training.
Tie refresher training to
commitment for continued or
increased participation.
Conduct customer
and contractor
satisfaction surveys.
Conduct surveys in
2013.
Conduct participating
customer and
participating (and
nonparticipating)
This evaluation included a
limited number of interviews
with contractors. More robust
findings would be developed
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
67
Goal Current
Measurement
Recommended
Measurement Comments
contractor satisfaction
surveys periodically.
with a larger sample size of
contractors. In addition, a
survey of participating
customers could provide useful
information on customer
satisfaction, and marketing
efforts (i.e., how customers
became aware of the program).
Figure 26. Heating and Cooling Program Success Metrics
6.4.2 Recommendations
Based on the study findings discussed above, TRC presents the following recommendations:
 Gain a better understanding of the eligible market. Because the program has been determined
to be not cost effective for homes with natural gas heating, the program is restricted to
customers with electric, oil, or propane heating. Based on the nonparticipating customer survey,
electric heating customers comprise slightly more than 1/3 of Idaho Power’s customers in
existing homes, and a small fraction more have oil or propane. By developing a better
understanding of these customers (e.g., are they more likely to be low income, in multifamily
units, in rural area, etc.), and their barriers for program participation, Idaho Power could better
target its marketing efforts. For example, Idaho Power could send bill inserts to these types of
customers; or use its customer representatives to market the program to contractors serving
customer types, or directly to these types of customers.
 Encourage more contractors to participate in the program. Currently, 4 contractors are
providing the majority of program participation (90% in 2012). This represents a potential area
of risk for the program. In addition, program participation could be increased if more
contractors actively participated.
 Provide a higher incentive for first-time contractors. To encourage more contractors to
participate, TRC recommends that Idaho Power offer a higher contractor incentive for the first
application that a contractor submits. This should help offset the additional time that
contractors take in completing their first application. To be fair to contractors that are already
participating, Idaho Power could also consider offering the same incentive amount to
contractors that submit a certain number of applications (e.g., for 10 completed projects).
Idaho Power could also use this strategy to encourage contractors to bring in customers in hard
to reach areas, or to bring in projects of a certain type (e.g., more evaporative coolers or
ground-source heat pumps).
 Enhance marketing efforts. Idaho Power staff and contractors indicated that marketing
materials could be improved. We provide the following specific recommendations.
• Clearly define which customers are eligible for program. A common request by the
contractors is for more program collateral with clear advertising indicating only customers
with electric heating are eligible for the program. The eligibility requirements should be
more prominently and clearly stated on marketing materials and the program website (such
as in large font at the top of materials, rather than as footnotes.)
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
68
• Provide contractors with more marketing materials. Contractors are a primary marketing
force for the program; however, many are not actively promoting the program to
customers. Providing contractors with co-branded marketing materials, case studies, or cost
calculation examples may assist them with their marketing efforts.
• Keep list of participating contractors updated on the program website. Although TRC
found that most of the contractors we contacted had correct information on the program
website, TRC found one contractor (out of the approximately 14 we attempted to contact)
had incorrect contact information listed. Since Customer Reps reported that they will direct
customers to the program website to find a participating contractor, it is important for
Idaho Power to maintain correct information regarding participating contractors.
In addition, TRC recommends that Idaho Power perform yearly check-ins with contractors to
ensure that at least one trained employee is still serving the program. If the qualified
person leaves the company or changes their role, the company should be required to
contact Idaho Power within a certain amount of time (e.g., 2 weeks) with the contact name
of the replacement, so that Idaho power can train this person. If a replacement person is
not identified within the set amount of time, Idaho Power should notify the contractor that
they are being removed from the list of participating contractors on the program website.
Idaho Power may also consider requiring contractors to attend refresher training, and/or
deliver a minimum number of projects per year, to continue to be listed on the program
website.
 Contact contractors regularly to assess training needs. Each participating and nonparticipating
contractor reported that they received initial training. However, many indicated the need for a
refresher course or that there are new employees at the company who need to be trained.
Idaho Power could assess the need for trainings for new employees or refresher trainings for
previously trained employees during Customer Rep visits or through short, periodic contractor
surveys.
 Engage Customer Reps in training efforts. TRC found in our Idaho Power staff interviews that,
in the past, the utility provided trainings to trade allies and Customer Reps. Customer Reps who
attended trainings side-by-side with contractors expressed great value in attending these
sessions. These trainings provide the Customer Reps with technical knowledge about the
program, and they help Customer Reps to create or maintain contractor relationships. This
model of engaging Customer Reps in the contractor trainings could be used for the Heating and
Cooling Efficiency program for either the introductory training, or refresher trainings.
 Create a “brand” for Idaho Power energy efficiency programs. Develop a “brand” for Idaho
Power’s energy efficiency programs to increase customer awareness. Based on the
nonparticipating residential customer survey, most of these customers are not aware of Idaho
Power’s residential programs. This recommendation should be pursued at the portfolio level.
 Regularly conduct contractor satisfaction surveys. While this study interviewed a sample of
contractors (9 total), more robust findings could be collected from a larger sample size of
contractors. This would help in understanding contractor’s barriers to participation and any
ongoing program barriers. The survey could be conducted electronically to reduce
administration costs. It should include questions regarding the program application (including
any difficulties with the application), marketing efforts (materials that may help promotional
efforts), customer demographics, barriers to participation, and training needs. This type of
survey should be required for participating contractors, to collect data on how many projects
they have done, how many trained staff they have, how often they sell the program, and
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
69
program barriers. By conducting regular surveys, Idaho Power would also remind the contractor
of their commitment to IPC for the program support.
 Compare 2013 Program Handbook descriptions to actual practice, and revise stated or actual
practice as needed. Some of the goals and metrics in the 2013 Program Handbook differ from
the information received from the Program Specialist. This is a small issue, but it could cause
confusion if the Program Specialist leaves this position or is absent for an extended period of
time. Compare the stated information in the Program Handbook with actual practice, identify
the best practice between the two, and revise the other (actual or stated) practice.
6.4.3 Summary of Barriers and Recommendations
We provide a table summarizing the main barriers and recommendations for this program in the
Executive Summary, in section 2.4 Summary of Barriers and Recommendations.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
70
7. NORTHWEST ENERGY STAR® HOMES PROGRAM
7.1 Program Overview
The Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes program provides homebuilders with incentives, tools and
technical resources to build to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ENERGY STAR® Homes
Version 3 standards and labeling program. The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) oversees the
regional Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes program, with 3rd party implementation support. In addition
to setting the minimum technical participation standards, NEEA (through the Northwest ENERGY STAR®
Homes program) also provides customized training to builders, raters, and realtors.
In Idaho Power territory, builders are eligible for a $1,000 per home incentive when building to the
latest ENERGY STAR® Homes standard with electrically heated homes, using heat pump technology.
Builders are also eligible for marketing incentives of $500 for participating in the annual “Parade of
Homes,” an event co-hosted by the local Building Contractors Association (BCA).
The program has two main trade allies: residential homebuilders and Home Performance Specialists
(HPS’s) – i.e., third-party raters. The builders are the recipient of the program incentives and the HPS’s
act as the third-party verifier and are the main point of contact with Idaho Power. Both trade allies are
intended to market the program to customers (i.e., homebuyers). Program quality control is
administered by QC Providers, overseen by the regional Northwest ENERGY STAR® program (NEEA).
The Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes program has been in place since the early 2000’s. Over the last
few years, the program has faced a number of program and market changes. First, the program was
impacted by the economic and home building downturn, which reduced the number of homes that
were built in Idaho Power territory. Secondly, the ENERGY STAR® Homes program recently underwent a
major upgrade to Version 3, implemented in 2012. This new version includes new requirements and
more checklists for builders. Most significantly, in 2011, the Idaho Power program transitioned away
from allowing gas-heated homes to receive the Idaho Power incentive, allowing only homes heated with
an electric heat pump to participate. Idaho Power made this decision because the utility determined
that the program was not cost effective for gas heated homes, mainly because the price of natural gas
had become so low.
Despite these challenges, the program has continued to see participation, and 213 homes participated
in 2013 as of early July. However, the vast majority of these homes represent only a specific segment of
the market – townhome developments. Also, there are only a few trade allies (builders and HPS’s) that
currently participate in the program, and TRC found evidence that these trade allies may reduce their
participation in the future.
We present more information on these topics in the sections below.
7.2 Process Evaluation Methodology
To conduct the process evaluation of the Idaho Power Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes program, TRC
used the following methodology.
7.2.1 Overview
TRC sought direct input on the Idaho Power Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes program through phone
interviews with staff and trade allies, including: the Idaho Power Program Specialist, the NEEA program
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
71
third-party implementer, participating and nonparticipating builders1 (including natural gas builders),
and Home Performance Specialists (HPS’s). TRC also interviewed Idaho Power Customer Reps, which
promote this and other energy efficiency programs.
TRC began the evaluation by conducting in-person and phone interviews with the Idaho Power Program
Specialist and 3rd party implementer for the regional program. Upon completion of these initial
interviews, TRC reviewed program materials that were provided by Idaho Power and that were available
on the program website, including the builder participation agreement, application, and handbook.
Once complete, TRC reached out to Home Performance Specialists and participating builders (both
recent participants, and participants in previous program years when gas-heated homes were still able
to participate). TRC developed unique interview scripts for each of these market actors that included the
following topic areas: program processes, technical barriers, marketing, and program
successes/challenges.
TRC also conducted a database review and database analysis of key program participation parameters.
In addition, TRC reviewed the 2012 NEEA process evaluation for the Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes
program, which studied the program at the regional level. TRC also reviewed the results of a survey
conducted by Hansa GCR of Idaho Power residential customers that had not participated in a residential
energy efficiency program (i.e., the nonparticipant customer survey)
7.2.2 Builder Interview Sample Determination
In the study work plan, TRC planned to interview 16 participating and nonparticipating builders. As data
collection evolved, TRC stratified our sampling plan of participating builders to focus more on builders
that delivered electrically heated homes (i.e., that would be eligible to participate in the program), but
to also include a few builders that had only delivered natural gas homes through the program. (TRC
interviewed these natural gas builders to better understand barriers to building electrically heated
homes and if there were any actions that Idaho Power could implement to motivate these builders to
build electric homes.) The nonparticipating builders refer to builders who have submitted an Idaho
Power builder agreement to be listed as a participating builder on the program website, but who have
not yet delivered a project.
TRC developed a sample of each of these types of builders: participating electric, participating gas, and
nonparticipating - as follows:
1. TRC created a list of builders who submitted homes to Idaho Power between 2011 and 2013,
referred to as the “initial list.” 64 builders were identified on this list.
2. TRC compared this initial list to the list of ENERGY STAR® Homes builders located on the Idaho
Power website and identified “nonparticipating builders” – i.e., builders listed on the program
website that had not yet delivered a qualified home between 2011- 2013. TRC identified 23
nonparticipating builders for the nonparticipating builder population.
3. From the list of participating builders, TRC removed builders who had only submitted natural gas
homes since 2011 (48 builders were removed). The remaining builders were termed
“participating electric builders”. This population included builders who had submitted only

1 Nonparticipating builders included all builders that have not completed a participating home in the last 3 years.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
72
electric homes, and builders that had submitted electric and gas homes. TRC identified 16
participating builders in this population of “participating electric builders”.
4. Of the participating builders that had only submitted natural gas heated homes, TRC retained
builders that had submitted homes in 2012 and 2013, but removed builders that had only
submitted homes in 2011. (Because TRC planned to interview only a few natural gas builders,
and because the program had undergone other changes since 2011, we focused on contacting
more recent builders.). TRC identified 8 natural gas participating builders.
Below we summarize the number of builders in each group
Builder Population Population Size
Total Builders that submitted IP participation
agreement and are listed on website
87
(3 of which are not listed on the website)
Participating Builders – defined by TRC as those
that submitted a project between 2011-2013
64
Participating Electric Builders 16
Participating Natural Gas Builders 48
(9 of which submitted homes in 2012-20131)
Nonparticipating Builders2 23
Figure 27. Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes Builder Population
TRC originally developed a sample of builders from each group (participating electric, participating
natural gas in 2012-2013, and nonparticipating) to target for an interview. However, because the
majority of builders in each group refused our interview attempts, TRC ultimately attempted to contact
all builders for an interview. We provide more detail on our interview attempts below.

7.2.3 HPS Sample Determination
In the work plan, TRC planned to interview 4 HPS’s: 2 high participating, and 2 low participating. Because
there are only 2 high participating HPS’s, TRC did not need to draw a sample for this population. (We
attempted to interview both.) Of the 11 low participating HPS’s, TRC chose 2 for interviews. One of
these HPS’s was recommended by the Program Specialist, because he is working in a new territory. TRC
chose the other HPS, because TRC staff knew from professional experience that this HPS was active in

1 The remaining builders delivered only natural gas homes in 2011 and were removed from the interview population.
2 Note that nonparticipating builders refers to builders who submitted an Idaho Power builder agreement to be listed as a
participating builder on the program website, but who have not turned in a project according to the program pipeline
provided by Idaho Power.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
73
various programs, so could provide insights on comparing the Idaho Power program with other
programs. We provide our interview dispositions below.
7.2.4 Completed Interviews
TRC contacted each of the participating electric, participating natural gas, and nonparticipating builders
with the goal of interviewing 16 total builders (8 participating – primarily electric builders, and 8
nonparticipating). At the end of the data collection period, TRC was able to complete 6 builder
interviews: 0 participating electric, 2 participating natural gas, and 4 nonparticipating builders.
A number of factors contributed to these limited interview results:
 11 phone numbers listed on the Idaho Power website were incorrect; including 5 participating, 5
nonparticipating, and 1 natural gas participating builder.
• TRC sought correct contact information through web searches and in instances where this
was not successful, TRC solicited assistance from the Idaho Power Program Specialist. Using
this approach, TRC obtained correct information for 4 of 5 participating builders, 4 of 5
nonparticipating builders, and 1 natural gas participating builder1.
 3 participating builders are not listed on the Idaho Power website.
• The Program Specialist had not added these builders to the website, as the specialist
perceived them as “one-time” builders who completed a single custom home and were
therefore unlikely to participate again. Based on discussion with the Program Specialist, 1 of
these builders constructed his own home; consequently TRC agreed that this builder was
unlikely to participate again and did not try to contact him. However, TRC tried to contact
the other builders, but they refused an interview.
 32 builders were unresponsive to voicemails from TRC. TRC focused on obtaining interviews
with the participating electric builders, and asked the Program Specialist and the HPS that had
worked with these builders to encourage them to accept an interview. However, none of them
agreed to an interview. TRC also discovered that 2 of the 3 major participating electric builders
were temporary entities that no longer exist; they were established to build a specific
subdivision, and dissolved once that project finished. These entities are still listed on the
program website as participating builders.
 3 builders agreed to a scheduled interview but did not answer their phone at the designated
time, and 1 builder declined to be interviewed. TRC was not able to obtain contact information
for the remaining 2 builders via web searches, and therefore were not able to contact them for
an interview.
TRC attempted to contact each of these 43 builders at least twice. The figure below summarizes these
data collection efforts.

1 The Appendix of this report provides the correct contact information for the mentioned builders.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
74
Data Collection
Activity
Timeframe Key Research Barriers Number of
Data Points
Program
Specialist
July 8, 2013 Roles and responsibilities, processes, successes and
challenges, goals for process evaluation
1
3rd party
Implementer
August 29, 2013 Roles and responsibilities, processes, marketing,
successes and challenges
1 interview
(3 individuals)
Participating
Electric Builders
August 2013 -
September 2013
Roles and responsibilities, processes, marketing,
program offerings
0
Nonparticipating
Builders
August 2013 -
September 2013
Roles and responsibilities, marketing, barriers to
participation, program offerings
4
Participating
Natural Gas
Builders
September 2013 Roles and responsibilities, heating fuel selection,
marketing, barriers to participation, program offerings
2
Home
Performance
Specialists
August 2013 -
September 2013
Roles and responsibilities, marketing, barriers to
participation, program offerings
3 (2 high
participating,
1 low
participating)
Figure 28. Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes Data Collection Summary
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
75
The figure below provides more detail on the outcomes (i.e. final dispositions) of each attempted contact of builders.
Interview Target
Population
Size
Number with
incorrect or no
contact
information
Active
sample
size
Contact
Attempts Refusals
Completed
Interviews Comments (if applicable)
Participating Electric
Builders
16 8 12 (27); 2-3 per
builder
12

0 Obtained correct contact
information for 4 builders. Did not
receive callbacks from any builders
in this population.
Participating Natural Gas
Builders1
8 1 8 (11); 1-3 per
builder
6 2
Nonparticipating Builders 23 5 22 (38); 1-3 per
builder
18 4
Home Performance
Specialists
4 0 1 per HPS 1 3 Spoke with the 2 high participating
and 1 low participating HPS
Figure 29. Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes Market Actor Interview Attempts

1 This only includes builders that participated in 2012-2013.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
76

7.3 Results and Findings
Below we present our results and findings from the ENERGY STAR® Homes program material review and
the staff and trade ally interviews.
7.3.1 Program Roles
The main market actors and program staff involved in the implementation of the program include: Idaho
Power Program Specialist, Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes staff (i.e. NEEA and 3rd Party Implementer),
builders, Home Performance Specialists, and IPC Customer Representatives. The roles of each are
explained below:
 The Program Specialist is the program manager at Idaho Power and the primary participant
contact, managing day-to-day program operations, processing and verifying incentive
applications, and issuing payments. This individual interfaces regularly with the HPS’s, as well as
with NEEA’s Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes program staff and their implementer.
 Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes staff implement this regional ENERGY STAR® Homes program,
targeted to Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and Washington. The program is overseen by NEEA and is
implemented by a third party, currently Fluid Market Strategies. The 3rd party contractor is
ultimately responsible for overseeing the ENERGY STAR® Homes certification component of the
program, setting and maintaining regional technical specifications, tracking regional adoption of
ENERGY STAR® Homes certification, and technical review of projects (including verification).
 Builders administer the program to Idaho Power customers, and they are responsible for
building to the ENERGY STAR® Homes standard and submitting program application materials.
Builders receive Idaho Power program incentives.
 Home Performance Specialists (HPS’s) verify homes participating in the Idaho Power program.
The HPS’s work directly with builders to perform field verification (including required diagnostic
testing, as necessary). The HPS’s market the program and their services to builders. Some HPS’s
complete necessary program paper work on behalf of the builders. The Program Specialist
interacts directly with HPS’s.
 Idaho Power Customer Reps are Idaho Power staff members that promote the program to
builders, as part of their larger responsibility of marketing all Idaho Power energy efficiency
programs. Customer Reps also occasionally market the program directly to prospective
homebuyers through community events.
7.3.2 Program Processes
We provide more information on our results of program processes in this section.
Program Material Review
Below, we provide results of our review of program materials. These program materials are important
for documenting program processes, enabling continuity of the program in the event of staff changes,
and providing program information to trade allies and customers.

TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
77

Program Material Checklist Available? Comment
Program Enrollment Form Yes Available on the program website.
Process Flow Diagram Yes Visual graphic is not available, but the program
handbook provides a written summary.
Program Implementation Plan Yes General implementation material is available in the
program handbook.
Program Marketing Materials Yes Program has various marketing materials. The program
website provides an overview of the ENERGY STAR®
Homes and program. The Program Specialist developed
marketing collateral for builders and realtors, including a
heat pump flyer, which are available in electronic form,
but not on the program website. Extensive materials are
available through the regional Northwest ENERGY STAR®
Homes website and national marketing brochures are
available in hard-copy for free through the national EPA
builder website.
Program Logic Models No
Program Success Metrics Somewhat Unit goals are outlined in the internal program
handbook, and were last updated in 2009. The program
set no savings goals for 2013, because of market
uncertainty. The handbook does not discuss how savings
goals are developed. According to the Program
Specialist, updated unit goals are maintained on the
monthly Demand Side Management (DSM) spreadsheet
used to update regional managers.
List of Measures Yes Program specifications are available via the program
website.
Program Manuals Yes Although there is no formal handbook, Idaho Power
provided 11 unique program documents describing
program processes.
Customer or Trade Ally
Participation Manuals
Yes Technical specifications are linked to the builder page on
the program website. Many participation documents are
linked to the Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes
webpage.
Copy of the database Yes Some information is missing, and some builder contact
information is no longer correct.
Program Staff Contact
Information
Yes Website provides contact information for Program
Specialist.
Current Program Achievements Yes The number of projects and energy savings are provided
in the program database.
Previous impact and process
evaluations of these programs
Yes TRC reviewed the process evaluation for the regional
Northwest ENERGY STAR® program.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
78

Figure 30 – Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes Program Materials Checklist
Eligibility and Participation Process
Builders that build ENERGY STAR® Homes in Idaho Power service territory are eligible to participate in
the Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes program. The program provides homebuilders with incentives,
tools and technical resources to build to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ENERGY STAR®
Homes® Version 3 standards and labeling program. Homes built with electric heating and cooling (using
heat pump technology), with electric backup, are eligible for Idaho Power incentives.
According to the Program Specialist, the participation process is as follows:
1. Builder contracts with an HPS, who reviews and assists the builder with the national, regional,
and Idaho Power program enrollment procedures.
2. HPS trains the builder and his/her subcontractors on the certification specifications, includes
training on the heat pump specification and on the incentive process.
3. Builder builds the home to the program specifications. The HPS verifies measures and conducts
testing procedures.
4. HPS uploads the home information, inspection, and testing results to the (regional) Northwest
ENERGY STAR® Homes database. The ENERGY STAR® Certifying Organization reviews the entry
and denies or approves the home for ENERGY STAR® certification.
5. Idaho Power program staff logs into the regional Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes system,
verifies the home has been certified, checks that the home meets the specification for a heat
pump with electric back-up heat, and uploads the entry into the Idaho Power program database.
6. Idaho Power sends the builder an incentive payment.
After Idaho Power staff uploads the home into the Idaho Power program database and pays the builder
incentive, Idaho Power lists the builder on the ENERGY STAR® Homes program website.
Satisfaction with Program Processes
TRC conducted interviews of participating and nonparticipating builders to gain insight into their
experience with the program. The figure below presents the results of the program processes interview
questions. Specifically, we asked respondents to rate their agreement with each of the below
statements on a scale of 1-5, where 1 is where they strongly disagree and 5 is where they strongly agree.
In the below table, the light shading indicates few responses for that ranking, and the darker shading
indicates more responses for that ranking.
The questions varied according to the target group (i.e., participating natural gas, nonparticipating
builder). Consequently, the total number of responses differs between the first and the second set of
questions.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
79

Figure 31. Builder Satisfaction with Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes Program Processes
Builder Agreement1 Process: Both builders and HPS’s interviewed reported that the Idaho Power
program process is easy to follow and that it was simple to become a participating builder or HPS. None
of the builders indicated any challenge with the application process, or with getting listed as a
participating builder on the Idaho Power website. However, TRC found several incorrect phone
numbers on the program website, and that at least 2 companies on the program website no longer
exist. Thus, it does not appear that Idaho Power performs periodic review of the builder list to update or
remove participating builder contacts from the program website.
Technical requirements: Interviewees gave positive feedback regarding the national ENERGY STAR®
Homes program, in terms of documentation and technical requirements. Most builders and HPS’s
interviewed reported that the documentation required by the national EPA ENERGY STAR® Homes
certification is manageable. Though the latest version of ENERGY STAR® Homes (Version 3) did add a
number of checklists, most builders have handed this paperwork over to the HPS’s. The HPS’s indicated
that the paperwork, though extensive, is manageable.
There are a few ENERGY STAR® Homes checklists in particular that two of the HPS’s interviewed
described as being challenging to meet, especially the thermal enclosure checklist. Both of these HPS’s

1 TRC developed this question based on the “ES_Website_Enromment_Process.pdf” from Idaho Power staff, which states that
the builder must submit the “Idaho Power Builder Partnership Agreement”. TRC clarified in the interviews that the question
pertained specifically to the Idaho Power agreement form, not to regional or national forms.
Program Processes Questions
Sa
m
p
l
e

S
i
z
e

(
n
)
1
=

s
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

d
i
s
a
g
r
e
e
2 3 4
5
=

s
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

a
g
r
e
e
You are satisfied with the following program processes or aspects:
The Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes Builder Agreement Form.2 2
Verification, conducted by a Home Performance Specialsit.2 1 1
The amount of incentive payment received in return for the level of work required.2 1 1
Incentive payment timing.2 1 1
Usefulness of training.5 2 2 1
Ease of delivering a project in ENERGY STAR version 3. *5 1 2
You find the following aspects to be influential:
ENERGY STAR designation for selling a house to a homebuyer.1 1
$1000 rebate to you for building with an electric heat pump specification.5 4 1
* 1 builder had not yet certified a home under ENERGY STAR version 3
* 1 builder was not sure if they had used version 3, but gave a 4 for overall ease of building with ENERGY STAR
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
80

indicated that none of the checklists prevent projects from participating in the program. However, one
HPS indicated that a few of his builders are not able to meet the minimum program requirements when
installing wood doors, due to air sealing limitations.
One of the HPS’s indicated that builders would rather meet the national ENERGY STAR® Homes standard
rather than the Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes regional (and prescriptive) standard. This HPS did not
elaborate on why he/she has this preference.
Some builders and HPS’s indicated that the new Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes database required
considerable learning and troubleshooting when first released. However, they report that the process is
now working much more smoothly.
Verification: The main feedback that TRC received regarding verification is that the cost of this service is
high, relative to the Idaho Power incentive. Many builders believe that they are building to the ENERGY
STAR® Homes specification, but they are not certifying the homes to avoid the cost of HPS verification.
One builder noted that meeting the Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes verification requirements was
challenging from a scheduling perspective. This builder noted that it is difficult and time consuming to
involve the HPS in the construction process, especially since the HPS must be involved during multiple
stages of construction (e.g., pre-drywall, and final construction).
Idaho Power Incentives: As described above, Idaho Power provides an incentive of $1000 to builders for
each project delivered under the program. The builders interviewed did not find that the $1000
incentive was high enough to influence their decision to switch from natural gas heated homes to
electrically heated homes. Builders pointed out that this is particularly due to the costs associated with
building an electrically heated home, including the installation cost of heat pumps. One builder
reported that the wiring cost for installing the heat pump also adds significant cost when compared to
piping for gas.1 Another builder noted that the cost of building (and operating) an electrically heated
home combined with the cost of certifying the project is too much for many homebuyers.
The heat pump incentive is of interest to multifamily (primarily townhome) builders and developers.
This is reflected in the shift in program participation in recent years, as described in Section Error!
Reference source not found.. It appears that, for multifamily developments, the incentive is proving to
be cost-effective to the builder or developer. Two of the HPS’s interviewed indicated that the Idaho
Power incentive was the primary driver for this increased participation in this market sector. One of the
HPS’s went on to report that, without the $1,000 per unit incentive (which is a high per-unit incentive
relative to other multifamily programs), the multifamily developers would not install heat pumps.
Training: Idaho Power, Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes (NEEA), and the National ENERGY STAR®
Homes (EPA) offer trainings for builders to learn about building to the ENERGY STAR® Homes
requirements. These trainings are offered locally in Idaho by NEEA through the Northwest ENERGY
STAR® Homes program, and they are sponsored by Idaho Power.
Of the 6 builder’s interviewed, only one builder indicated that the trainings were useful (i.e., ranked the
training at 4 or 5, on a 1 to 5 scale). The remaining builders rated the trainings as not useful or neutral (2
or 3). These builders did not find the trainings to be very effective or interactive.

1 TRC does not necessarily agree with the accuracy of this statement, but we report it as a perceived barrier by a builder.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
81

Although there was not much positive feedback from the builders about the trainings, most of the
builders did not feel that they needed additional training in order to continue to build to the ENERGY
STAR® Homes standard. This may be because builders rely on the HPS to keep them informed about
ENERGY STAR® Homes and Idaho Power program requirements. In the case of one builder, their
organization regularly provides in-house training on ENERGY STAR® Homes.
However 3 of the builders interviewed indicated they would be interested in attending future trainings if
they were free and focused specifically on building electrically heated homes in Idaho’s climate. One
builder indicated an interest in training in the following topic areas: design strategies to reduce electric
utility bills and to mitigate high electricity costs (e.g. related to reducing plug loads), air-sealing
approaches using spray foam, and advanced framing techniques.
By contrast, all of the HPS’s interviewed indicated that the trainings offered by Northwest ENERGY
STAR® Homes in Idaho were effective. One HPS in particular praised the knowledge of the Northwest
ENERGY STAR® Homes trainers. One HPS mentioned that the trainings he has attended have had low
builder participation. One HPS is offering training services to builders (where the builder is paying the
HPS to have a customized curriculum developed to train their superintendents).

7.3.3 Program Marketing
Marketing Approach
The program uses several approaches to market the program. According to Idaho Power’s ENERGY
STAR® Homes program “Handbook”, program marketing is targeted to homebuyers through customer
connection articles, events, and web content on the Idaho Power webpage. In addition, according to
the Program Specialist, this staff member participates annually with the BCA of Southwestern Idaho, the
Snake River Valley BCA, the Magic Valley Builders Association and the Eastern Idaho Builders Association
“Parade of Homes” tours. Builders showcasing their heat pump ENERGY STAR® Home in a Parade of
Homes event earn the $1,000 Idaho Power incentive as well as a $500 marketing incentive to assist in
marketing their ENERGY STAR® Parade of Homes project.
The handbook also identifies the Idaho Power Customer Representative as a key program marketer. The
handbook specifies that Customer Reps should market the program through:
 Meetings with builders and developers in their area who are not currently building ENERGY
STAR® Homes to introduce the program and explain the benefits of ENERGY STAR® Homes
Qualified Homes.
 Meetings with real estate agents and brokers to educate them about ENERGY STAR® Homes as
they compare to standard code compliant homes, with the intent that these market actors can
then education homeowners.
 Involvement with regional Building Contractor Associations to establish relationships with local
builders and sub-contractors.
Based on TRC’s interviews with Customer Reps, this level of marketing does not appear to be happening.
These representatives are well informed of the program offerings and respond to some, but not many,
inquiries about the ENERGY STAR® Homes program. The representatives indicated that, prior to the
market downturn; they had more interaction with builders than today. The Customer Representatives
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
82

interviewed did not mention outreach to real estate agents and brokers. Customer Reps reported that
they provide program materials for customers (homebuyers) in local community events.
In practice, much of the program marketing is done by HPS’s. These trade allies appear to be the primary
source for marketing the program to builders.
Marketing Collateral and Program Website
The ENERGY STAR® Homes program has a dedicated page on the Idaho Power website, under the energy
efficiency section. The program website is targeted to two stakeholders, homeowners and builders
(each have their own set of pages). On the builder page, the participation process is clearly laid out,
including: the enrollment process, contracting with a third-party HPS, and following the Idaho Power
electric heat pump home specifications. There is also information regarding heat pumps, which together
with the Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes requirements, qualify for Idaho Power incentives. None of
the trade allies we interviewed indicated that they access the Idaho Power website much, if at all. Most
of the trade allies use the Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes webpage to obtain program information.
In addition to the national ENERGY STAR® Homes program brochures, and the Northwest ENERGY STAR®
Homes brochure, the Program Specialist has recently developed a one-page marketing flyer on electric
heat pumps. This flyer succinctly describes heat pumps and their advantages. According to the Program
Specialist, this flyer is distributed at BCA builder events, home shows, and builder/realtor training
events. However, this flyer is not currently posted on the Idaho Power website. Idaho Power has also
developed an ENERGY STAR® folder that can be customized with inserts for both builders and realtors.
The Program Specialist reports that this folder is distributed at BCA builder events, home shows, and
builder and realtor training events.
Most of the builders or HPS’s that market the ENERGY STAR® Homes program rely on the national
materials available for free shipment on the EPA website. Some builders receive marketing information
from the Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes program. HPS’s reported that they place marketing materials
for prospective homebuyers at model homes.

Program Awareness
All of the builders interviewed are aware of the ENERGY STAR® Homes program, and particularly, the
Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes program. A few of the builders interviewed were not familiar with the
Idaho Power program incentive process. At least two builders indicated that they thought Idaho Power
could do more to proactively market to builders. Note that TRC was not able to interview participating
builders and, for this report’s purpose, “nonparticipating” builders are those that have registered as
certified ENERGY STAR® Homes builders with Idaho Power, but have not submitted a project during the
2011-2013 timeframe. For this reason, TRC does not know if builders who have not registered as an
Idaho Power ENERGY STAR® Homes builder are aware of the program.
Idaho Power customer awareness is low for the ENERGY STAR® Homes program. Based on the
nonparticipating customer survey conducted by Hansa GCR (described in section Error! Reference
source not found.), customers have very little awareness of the ENERGY STAR® Homes program. Only
1% of the 246 customers who were aware of Idaho Power’s energy efficiency programs could recall this
specific program. However 66% of respondents said they would consider participating in a program in
the future, and 34% out of those respondents said they would consider purchasing an ENERGY STAR®
Homes home.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
83

7.3.4 Program Goals and Status
The Idaho Power program handbook indicates that the Idaho Power ENERGY STAR® Homes program’s
goal is to “encourage construction of electrically-heated and electrically-cooled single family homes that
are at least 15% more energy efficient than homes built to standard Idaho residential code” and that the
program is a “regionally coordinated initiative…to improve energy efficiency construction practices for
single-family homes.”
Current Participation and Trends
Since the program instituted the electric heat pump requirement, the program has seen an increase in
the relative participation of multifamily projects (including townhomes and stacked apartments).
Multifamily participation increased from 39% of total submitted projects in 2011 to 94% and 98% in
2012 and 2013, respectively.
To date in 2013, the Idaho Power program has received incentive applications for 213 homes from 5
builders. Of these, 208 homes are multifamily, and 5 homes are custom homes or located in small
subdivisions. This is a large decrease in the number of participating builders compared with previous
program years: there were 16 participating builders in 2012 and 59 builders in 2011.
The handbook identifies other desired program outcomes related to lowering homeowner utility bills
and increasing comfort and indoor air quality, educating consumers, improving demand and awareness
of ENERGY STAR® Homes, and providing market differentiation opportunities for builders. One of the
HPS’s interviewed identified market transformation as a key program success; since the program has
been in place this individual has seen ENERGY STAR® Homes become an increasingly standard practice.
Participation Relative to Region
According to the Program Specialist, the Idaho Power program is under the regional Northwest ENERGY
STAR® program umbrella (administered by NEEA). If a builder constructs a home that qualifies for the
Idaho Power program (i.e., Idaho Power is its electricity provider and the home has a heat pump with
electric back-up heat), the project will qualify for the Idaho Power program incentive. The regional
program does not have the electric heat pump restriction.
The regional NEEA Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes program underwent a process evaluation,
published in 2012. Note that this process evaluation divides data sets by state. While Idaho Power
territory includes much of the state of Idaho, including the highly populated regions, it does not cover
the entire state. Also, Idaho Power territory includes a small portion of eastern Oregon. Thus, the Idaho
information in the process evaluation is not fully representative of the Idaho Power territory. However,
this evaluation indicates that, according to data from 2010, Idaho has strong market penetration of the
ENERGY STAR® Homes certification, the highest in the region, comprising 24.3% of total construction
(compared to 11-15% in other states). The same evaluation identified that the Northwest ENERGY STAR®
Homes program has 348 participating builders in the Idaho region, of which approximately 84% (291)
submitted a project.
Idaho builders submitted more projects than average for the Northwest program. However, based on a
review of the Idaho Power project database, many of these builders appear to have only submitted to
Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes to obtain certification. It does not appear that these builders took
advantage of Idaho Power incentives. This was confirmed by a number of the nonparticipating builders
interviewed and by some of the HPS’s, both of whom indicated that some of their projects continue to
be submitted to Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes for certification, but not to Idaho Power. Although it
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
84

is unclear the exact reason why Idaho projects are not participating in the Idaho Power program, one
reason may be because of the electric heat pump requirement.
According to a report for the regional Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes program, for 2011 - 2013
participation, the Northwest program is receiving higher volumes of both single-family and multifamily
homes in the Idaho Power utility area compared with the Idaho Power’s program. The exception is with
multifamily projects in 2013, for which the Idaho Power and regional program report similar numbers of
participating projects in Idaho Power territory. The majority of single-family homes in Idaho Power
territory that participated in the Northwest program are natural gas; however, almost all multifamily
homes in Idaho Power territory that participated in the Northwest program are electric.
These values are illustrated in the following two figures, obtained from the implementer staff for the
Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes program. According to TRC’s communication with the implementer,
these figures show participation in the regional Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes program for 2013 that
reported Idaho Power as their electricity provider. Applicants must identify their utility provider as part
of the application process, and Idaho Power can view the participants that have identified Idaho Power.
The HPS enters the project into the database.

Figure 32. Regional Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes Single Family Participation (Source: Fluid Market
Strategies)

TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
85

Figure 33. Regional Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes Multifamily Participation (Source: Fluid Market
Strategies)
We present the following figure to compare electrically heated projects in Idaho Power territory that
participated in the regional program, with homes that participated in the Idaho Power program. We
present this comparison only for 2012 and 2013, because the Idaho Power program allowed natural gas
heated homes to participate in 2011. As shown in the figure, more than twice as many electrically
heated homes participated in the regional program as the Idaho Power program in 2012. However, so
far for 2013, the Idaho Power program reports a higher participation level than the regional program.
One reason why electrically heated projects may participate in the regional program, but not Idaho
Power program, is that the regional program does not have the heat pump requirement. If this is the
case, Idaho Power could target these builders for marketing. (Electrically-heated home builders may be
more willing to adopt heat pumps than builders only constructing natural gas homes.) We recommend
that Idaho Power interview these builders to understand if they would consider using heat pumps, and
what education or training may be needed.
According to the NEEA program implementer, builders rarely deliver electrically heated ENERGY STAR®
Homes through the regional program, unless they use a heat pump. Consequently, there may be other
reasons for the discrepancy in the number of homes reported to participate in 2012 between the two
databases. Furthermore, for 2013, it is surprising that there are more projects listed as participating in
the Idaho Power program, than electrically heated homes in Idaho Power territory shown as
participating in the regional program, since the Idaho Power program is part of the regional program.
(The difference could be due to when data was analyzed, although TRC obtained the Idaho Power
program information in July 2013, while the NEEA implementer reports the regional program
information through September 2013.) This discrepancy indicates that there may be a data reporting
error. TRC recommends that Idaho Power work with NEEA to compare the databases and investigate
the discrepancies.

TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
86

Year Home Type
NEEA (regional) program
participation for
electrically heated homes
in Idaho Power territory
Idaho Power program
participation
2012
Multifamily 509 204
Single Family 8 14
Total 517 218
2013
Multifamily 163 208
Single Family 4 5
Total 167 213
Figure 34. Comparison of participation between the regional and Idaho Power ENERGY STAR® Homes
programs

7.3.5 Program Database Review
TRC performed a database review on projects which enrolled in the program between January 2011 and
August 7, 2013. The review was conducted to analyze key program parameters, to identify missing fields
in the database, and to recommend any information that is not tracked in the database.
Program Participation
The figures below provide summaries of the information that can be gathered from the database.
The first figure shows project participation, and projects by home type. The Home Type field was
generally missing in the program database. (According to the Program Specialist, this was a new field.)
Consequently, TRC used its best judgment to distinguish between multifamily and single family units: For
homes with the same address, TRC assumed these were multifamily units (including townhomes and
stacked flats). For homes that did not have a subdivision listed, TRC assumed these were custom
homes. Because of these assumptions, it is possible that TRC incorrectly categorized some units.
However, TRC identified 208 multifamily units for 2013 using this method, which agrees with the
number of 2013 multifamily units reported by the Program Specialist.
As shown in the figure below, there is a heavy reliance on multifamily units for program participation.

TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
87

Home/Unit Type Number
of Units
Percent of Total
Multifamily Units (individual units within
building)
534 72%
Single Family Homes in Subdivisions 199 27%
Custom Single Family Homes 7 1%
Total Units 740 –
Figure 35 – Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes Participation by Home Type, for 2011-2013

The figure below shows participation by program year, including the number of participating builders.
As shown in this figure, the number of single family units, and the number of builders, has decreased
since 2011.

Parameter 2011 2012 2013
Single Family units 187 14 5
Multifamily units 122 204 208
Total units 309 218 213
Builders 59 16 5
Figure 36 –Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes Participation by Program Year

The following figure shows the shift in fuel type, in reaction to the scope change for the program.

Primary Heating Fuel 2011 2012 2013
Electricity 181 10 0
Natural gas 74 208 213
Don't know / other 54 0 0
Figure 37 – Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes Participation by Fuel Type
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
88

Completeness of Database
The database provides substantial information about each project. Some of these fields are consistently
completed for projects, including fuel type, subdivision name and builder. However, there are also fields
that are usually blank for each project, such as electrician, HVAC, and insulation. Additionally, the
“Home Type” field (e.g., single family, multi-family) is often missing from projects.
The electrician, HVAC, and insulation contractors may not be useful fields, so Idaho Power could
consider removing these columns from the program database. The home type is an important field,
which Idaho Power staff recently added. TRC recommends that it be filled in for every project from 2011
onward. (If requested, TRC can provide the entries we assumed for projects from 2011 to July 2013;
these should be reviewed by the Program Specialist for accuracy.)
Also, there are occasionally discrepancies in data entry (e.g., Loughs Landing versus Lough’s Landing), or
spelling errors (e.g., Gramcery instead of Gramercy). TRC acknowledges that some of these data entry
errors may be carried over from the regional program’s database. We recommend that Idaho Power
work with NEEA and its program implementer to create greater consistency in the regional database.
7.3.6 Current Pipeline and Future Participation
The program has successfully brought in projects since its inception, despite the economic downturn, a
decrease in scope that disallows natural gas heated homes, and a new version of ENERGY STAR® Homes.
However, TRC believes there are several indicators that this program may have reduced participation
going forward. We describe these indicators here.
Of the 16 participating electric builders, none responded to TRC’s repeated requests for an interview.
This may indicate a lack of interest in the program. In addition, at least 2 of these organizations are no
longer operating. (They were created specifically to develop a subdivision, and then dissolved.) Without
participation from repeat builders, program participation will likely decline.
None of the builders interviewed have submitted a project to Idaho Power within the last few years, or
if they have, they have only submitted natural gas heated homes. All of the interviewed builders
indicated that this is because consumers have a decreased interest in the ENERGY STAR® Homes brand,
and because of the electric space heating requirement. (Builders did not indicate that program
processes were a barrier to participation.) The majority of builders and HPS’s indicated that the
homebuyer demand for ENERGY STAR® Homes has decreased in the past few years, and that there is no
consumer demand for electrically heated homes.
Based on the few trade allies and staff we spoke with, the lack of interest in electrically heated homes
and the ENERGY STAR® brand appears to be a result of the following:
 The inexpensive cost of gas in Idaho Power territory.
 The increasing stringency of the Idaho energy code, which decreases the advantage (or
perceived advantage) of homes with the ENERGY STAR® label.
 Builders’ belief that they are already building to the ENERGY STAR® specification, even if they
are not certifying homes.
 An overall lack of knowledge regarding heat pump technology.
As listed above, several builders interviewed believe that they are applying the techniques identified by
ENERGY STAR® Homes and building to the ENERGY STAR® Homes specifications, but they are not opting
for the ENERGY STAR® Homes certification. This may be because builders do not believe that the
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
89

additional value of the ENERGY STAR® label is worth the cost for the HPS to verify the home. Although
one Customer Rep stated that he emphasizes verification as a valuable aspect of the program, and that
this process ensures that a project truly is ENERGY STAR®, this message did not appear to resonate with
the builders we interviewed. Builders report that customers would rather use the cost of certification to
pay for additional energy saving measures in the home (such as LED lighting). Other builders continue to
offer the ENERGY STAR® Homes certification, but only as an optional package for homebuyers. One
builder mentioned that though they offer the certification, homebuyers typically opt not to purchase the
ENERGY STAR® Homes certification.
All of the HPS’s interviewed indicated that another factor impacting the uptake of ENERGY STAR® Homes
certification is the increasing stringency of the Idaho energy code. Because of the increasing baseline of
the Idaho code, there is a perception among builders in Idaho that building to the minimum code
requirements is similar to the ENERGY STAR® Homes certification.
Finally, one of the two high performing HPS’s plans to reduce his participation in the future, in part due
to his concerns with the program quality assurance process. Another HPS also voiced concern over
quality assurance.) Because HPS’s play an important role in the program, particularly regarding
marketing the program to builders, and because two HPS’s provide the majority of projects, the
decreased role of one will likely result in a significant participation decrease.
7.3.7 Program Successes
Based on the interview findings and document review discussed in previous sections, the following are
successes of the Idaho Power ENERGY STAR® Homes program:
 Ease of participation.
The program has clearly defined the participation process for builders and HPS’s to become
listed as a participating builder/ HPS and for applying for incentives.
 Increased participation from a new market sector – multifamily homes.
The program has seen a recent uptake in multifamily apartments and townhomes. This may
indicate that the heat pump incentive has proven to be attractive and cost-effective for this
market sector.
 Some builders value HPS’s, some HPS’s have built a successful business related to energy
efficiency, and Idaho Power has leveraged these trade allies to market the program.
At this time, the HPS’s are the main marketers of the program. This approach has reduced the
marketing burden on Idaho Power staff, and it only requires a small group of HPS’s to support
the program.
Some builders see value in the services that HPS’s provide: One of the builders specifically
identified third-party verification performed by the HPS’s as one of the main benefits of the
program. Another builder stated the HPS was his source of education and best practices
regarding meeting ENERGY STAR® Homes requirements. However, feedback from other builders
and Customer Reps is that many builders are unwilling to pay for verification services.
Many of the HPS businesses started largely as a result of the ENERGY STAR® Homes program.
But some of the HPS’s are moving away from supporting the program as frequently, and are
increasing their code compliance services and other program certification support, such as the
LEED for Homes program or the Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes program (without taking
advantage of Idaho Power incentives).
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
90

 Awareness of the ENERGY STAR® Homes Qualified Homes certification.
Since the program inception, builders have developed an awareness of the program, which has
allowed the brand to thrive. However, interest in paying for the certification (including
verification services) is waning.
 Continued participation, despite several significant challenges.
The program has continued to bring in participants and deliver energy savings, despite a major
market downturn, a greatly reduced scope in the program (excluding natural gas homes from
participating), and a new version of ENERGY STAR® Homes which requires more paperwork.
7.3.8 Program Challenges
Based on the interview findings and document review discussed in previous sections, the following are
key challenges facing the Idaho Power ENERGY STAR® Homes program moving forward:
 Lack of knowledge of heat pump technology and building electrically heated homes
Builders do not think that it is cost effective to build electrically heated homes and are not
convinced that they should install heat pumps. Some of the builders we interviewed were
unfamiliar with heat pumps.
 Lack of engagement by participating builders
TRC could not successfully reach any of the 16 participating electric builders for their feedback.
This could indicate that the participating builders are not engaged with the program, and that
these builders are less likely to participate again.
 Lack of interest from nonparticipating builders
Of the 5 nonparticipating builders and 1 participating natural gas builder we interviewed, none
indicated that they planned to participate in the future. All stated that it was not likely unless
certain aspects of the program were changed, or unless they were made more aware of the
benefits and cost effectiveness of electrically heated homes. Additionally, 2012 and 2013 saw a
large decrease in the number of builders participating and of the number of single-family homes
submitted.
 Decreasing builder participation
In 2011, the program had over 50 active builders. In 2013, only 5 builders have submitted
homes. With few active builders, there is greater program risk and uncertainty for future
program participation: If two or three of these active builders does not participate again, and no
new builders are brought in, program participation will drop significantly.
 Requirement for electric heat pump and exclusion of natural gas heated homes
For cost effectiveness reasons, Idaho Power reduced the scope of the program to exclude
natural gas heated homes from participating. Homes must use an electric heat pump as their
primary heat source. Because the majority of new homes constructed in Idaho Power use
natural gas heating, this has reduced participation.
 Limited direct communication between builders and Idaho Power
From our interviews with builders who have either not participated in the last year, or have
never participated, the finding is that builders are not kept well informed of the program and its
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
91

evolution. They rely mainly on HPS’s for their information, but are not generally receiving it. The
Program Specialist reports that Idaho Power staff (including the Program Specialist and
Customer Reps) are in contact with builders through BCA events and other activities. However,
TRC could not reach any builders to confirm this direct communication. The Customer Reps
interviewed reported that they have some relationships with BCAs, but that their relationships
with local builders have decreased in recent years due to the market downturn. These findings
indicate that there is potential for Idaho Power to increase its regular contact with builders, and
to increase its promotion of the program through more one-on-one communications,
particularly as the market recovers.
 Incentives too low to cover the cost of participation for the majority of the market
Trade allies reported that incentive amounts were not enough to incent builders to participate.
As one builder pointed out, there are essentially two costs to participate in the program: the
cost of installing an electric heat pump, and the cost for certification (including HPS verification
fees). The $1000 rebate was not enough to motivate most builders to participate, except in the
multifamily sector. Two of the builders interviewed are non-profits and indicated that they
cannot afford to pass the added certification costs down to the low-income homebuyers.
 ENERGY STAR® Homes no longer recognized as a market differentiator, and ENERGY STAR®
label not valued
Many builders believe that the Idaho building code is close to the ENERGY STAR® Homes
specification. In addition, many builders believe that they are constructing homes to the
ENERGY STAR® Homes specification, and that there is little value in achieving official
certification.
 Declining participation of Home Performance Specialists (HPS) in the program
Idaho Power currently has approximately four active HPS’s, with two HPS’s performing the
majority of the program verification. Two of the 3 HPS’s interviewed indicated that they
expected their program participation to decrease moving forward. These two HPS’s expressed
strong concern with the quality assurance process of the program. They question the quality of
some homes certified through the program and were not confident that the homes were
actually meeting the ENERGY STAR® Homes requirement.
 Website includes outdated contractor information
While the program website includes some valuable links and information, some of the
information is out-of-date. For example, many of the phone numbers for contractors listed on
the program website are incorrect, and at least a few of these contractor organizations have
been dissolved. Of the five “builders” delivering the most homes in 2011-2013, the “Company
Name” was no longer correct for two (these builders were temporary companies set up to
complete a project, and then dissolved once the project was completed), and one company had
an incorrect phone number. Moreover, the majority of builders on the website have not
delivered a project in at least three years. Builders may go out of business or change
information, which is out of Idaho Power’s control. However, TRC believes it is critical that 1.
Idaho Power maintains an updated list of contractors that are active in the program, to update
them on program changes and to market the program to them; and 2. Idaho Power ensures that
all publicly available information is correct. Consequently, as described below, we recommend
that Idaho Power periodically update the website information. Otherwise, customers that try to
use the website to find a builder may need to call many builders before they reach one who can
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
92

provide up-to-date program information. As of December 2, 2013, the website also has a broken
link, to “Northwest ENERGY STAR® Marketing Tools.”
 Limited attention given to custom home builders by Idaho Power
Traditionally, the vast majority of Idaho Power single family home participants were production
home builders. However, since the change to the electric heat pump requirement, all single
family homes submitted to the program in 2013 have been custom homes or homes in small
subdivisions (5 or fewer homes). The program currently does not reach out to this subsector.
 Incomplete program database
Some of the fields in the database are often blank. Some of these fields could provide useful
marketing information, such as the Home Type (e.g., single family vs. multi-family). There are
occasionally data entry discrepancies and spelling errors, which cause errors in data analysis.

7.3.9 Comparison to Best Practices
Best Practice - National Best Practices Met?
Is the program design effective and based on sound rationale? Somewhat
Is the local market well understood? Somewhat
Are responsibilities defined and understood? Somewhat
Is there adequate staffing? Yes
Are data easy to track and report? Yes
Are all routine functions automated as practical? Not researched
Does the program manager have a strong relationship with trade allies involved in the
program?
Somewhat
Does the program verify the accuracy of application data, invoices, and incentives to
ensure the reporting system is recording actual installations by target market?
Yes
Are customers satisfied with the product? Not Researched
Is participation simple? Not Researched
Are participation strategies multi-pronged and inclusive? Somewhat
Does program provide quick, timely feedback to participants? Not researched
Is participation part of routine transactions? Not Researched
Does the program facilitate participation through the use of Internet/electronic means? No
Does the program offer a single point of contact for their customers? Yes
Are incentive levels well understood and appropriate? Somewhat
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
93

Best Practice - National Best Practices Met?
Does the program use targeted marketing strategies? Somewhat
Are products stocked and advertised? NA
Are trade allies and utility staff trained to enhance marketing? Yes
Best Practice - TRC Recommended
Does the program engage market actors in development of program offerings and
measure design? No
Does the program maintain consistency in personnel (Program Specialist and 3rd Party
Implementer) over time? Yes
Is program institutional memory captured and retained in-house? Somewhat
Does the program keep 3rd Party Implementers well informed about program features
and changes? Yes
Does the program frequently assess areas of burden or barriers to participation? Yes
Does the program leverage partnerships with trade groups, industry associations, etc. to
market the program? Somewhat
If able, are co-branding opportunities identified and utilized between utility and
contractor/builder/vendor participating in the program? Somewhat
Are program website and marketing information kept up-to-date with most recent
program information? Somewhat
Figure 38 – Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes Program: Comparison to Best Practices
1. Program Theory and Design
a. Is the program design effective and based on sound rationale? Somewhat. The program
is based on sound rationale to encourage builders to build high-performing, energy
conserving homes. The program has also successfully certified hundreds of homes.
However, in recent years, the program was changed to only allow homes with an
electric heat pump. This decision was made to reach an Idaho Public Utility Commission
(IPUC) cost-effectiveness mandate. This, along with increasing energy codes and
decreased market value for the ENERGY STAR® Homes brand, has reduced program
participation significantly in recent years. The current program design limited to
electrically heated homes may not be sound rationale from the market perspective. The
current program incentive may not be sufficient to bring in single family homes.
b. Is the local market well understood? Somewhat. Idaho Power recognizes challenges
facing the program in internal program documents. Idaho Power staff report
engagement with builders and BCAs. However, Customer Reps report that their
relationships with builders have decreased due to the market downturn. Also, TRC could
not verify direct engagement with builders, because no participating builders accepted
interview requests. Based on these findings, there appears to be the potential for Idaho
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
94

Power to increase its individual relationships with builders and to deepen its market
knowledge.
c. Does the program engage market actors in development of program offerings and
measure design? No. Idaho Power is somewhat constrained in program requirements,
because ENERGY STAR® Homes is a nationwide standard. Idaho Power also participates
in the regional Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes, and it partners with NEEA to develop
regional requirements. Idaho Power also has its own requirements. As far as we are
aware, Idaho Power was not able to include the builders in the decision to transition the
program to electrically heated homes, because this decision was made to meet cost
effectiveness requirements. Idaho Power could potentially work with contractors and
HPS’s to develop or modify other aspects of the program, such as HPS quality assurance
(QA) procedures. Although the QA procedures are clearly laid out, some HPS’s are
unsatisfied with the process.
2. Program Management
a. Are responsibilities defined and understood? Somewhat. Roles and responsibilities are
well outlined in the handbook. However, theory differs from practice in at least some
roles. For example, it does not appear that Customer Representatives are implementing
their specified marketing responsibilities
b. Is there adequate staffing? Yes. Due to the small size of the program, there is adequate
staffing of one Program Specialist. The Program could benefit from additional staffing,
or increased outreach by the Program Specialist and Customer Reps, to market and
educate builders on the program.
c. Does the program maintain consistency in personnel (Program Specialist and 3rd Party
Implementer) over time? Yes. Program Specialist and Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes
team has remained consistent for the last few years. The manager at NEEA has recently
changed.
d. Is program institutional memory captured and retained in-house? Somewhat. Based on
our review of program materials, there is adequate documentation of many program
practices. However, as described above, there is some difference between documented
practices and what actually occurs. Also, the program does not have a logic model.
e. Does the program keep 3rd Party Implementers well informed about program features
and changes? Yes. Idaho Power staff and the Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes
implementer are in regular contact. The implementer identified Idaho Power as one of
the most active utilities in working with Fluid and NEEA to implement the regional
program.
3. Reporting and Tracking
a. Are data easy to track and report? Somewhat. Although each multifamily unit appears
as a separate entry (because projects are paid by service point), the subdivision name is
also tracked, which makes it easy to identify multi-unit projects. The database should
also differentiate between multifamily buildings, subdivisions, and custom single family.
(This is the intent of the recently added “Home Type” field, although this field is
currently incomplete for most entries.) The database does not currently track builder
parent company when built by a development entity (i.e. LLC or LLP). This could make it
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
95

difficult to re-enlist builders in future incarnations of the program. Finally, the database
contains several missing fields.
b. Are all routine functions automated as practical? Not researched.
4. Quality Control and Verification
a. Does the program manager have a strong relationship with trade allies involved in the
program? Somewhat. The Program Specialist is in regular contact with 3rd Party
Implementer and some of the HPS’s. However, there is little to no contact between the
Program Specialist and builders. Builders typically receive information from HPS’s, as
acknowledged by the Program Specialist.
b. Does the program verify the accuracy of application data, invoices, and incentives to
ensure the reporting system is recording actual installations by target market? Yes. This
is part of the role of the Program Specialist (for Idaho Power incentives) and Northwest
ENERGY STAR® Homes (for certification paperwork).
c. Are customers satisfied with the product? Not Researched. TRC did not interview
customers.
5. Participation Process
a. Is participation simple? Not Researched. Because TRC was unable to interview any
participating electric builders, we cannot assess this criterion. However the
nonparticipating builders interviewed identified no barriers with the program
participation processes or the ENERGY STAR® Homes requirements. The new ENERGY
STAR® Homes program brought with it a significant learning curve, but this appears to
have been overcome.
b. Are participation strategies multi-pronged and inclusive? Somewhat. Although the
program welcomes all types of projects, the majority of projects that have participated
recently have been multifamily developments. The program’s electric heat pump
requirement and housing downturn contributed to this trend, which are out of the
program’s control. However, as described in other sections, Idaho Power could increase
its outreach to other types of builders and developers.
c. Does program provide quick, timely feedback to participants? Not researched. TRC did
not receive a response from any recently participating builders and therefore cannot
speak to this issue.
d. Is participation part of routine transactions? Not Researched. Because TRC was unable
to speak with any participating builders, we cannot assess this.
e. Does the program facilitate participation through the use of Internet/electronic means?
Somewhat. All program forms are available for download on the Idaho Power website.
The program does not currently allow builders to apply online.
f. Does the program offer a single point of contact for their customers? Yes. The Idaho
Power ENERGY STAR® Homes website refers interested parties to the Program
Specialist.
g. Are incentive levels well understood and appropriate? Somewhat. Builders who no
longer participate in the program were in most cases not aware of the incentive
offerings from Idaho Power for marketing or meeting ENERGY STAR® Homes with a heat
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
96

pump specification. The prior incentive level and the $1000 rebate for meeting the
requirements with a heat pump were not perceived as enough to influence builders.
h. Does the program frequently assess areas of burden or barriers to participation? Yes.
The program assesses these areas during process evaluations, such as this. Barriers are
also identified and outlined in the program handbook.
6. Marketing and Outreach
a. Does the program use targeted marketing strategies? No. Customer Representatives
do not appear to be in frequent contact with builders. The program developed a
targeted marketing piece on heat pumps, but TRC could not verify its distribution. (Of
the few nonparticipating builders and Customer Reps that TRC asked about this flyer,
none were familiar with it). TRC did not evaluate regional marketing initiatives
conducted by Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes.
b. Are products stocked and advertised? Not applicable. This is a multi-measure program
and does not supply specific products.
c. Are trade allies and utility staff trained to enhance marketing? Somewhat. The program
relies heavily on HPS marketing. The marketing strategy described in the program
handbook points out that Customer Reps should have more involvement than what was
identified through interviews with these staff. Additionally, the Program Specialist
develops materials, such as the heat pump marketing piece. However, Customer Reps
appeared to be unfamiliar with this flyer.
d. Does the program leverage partnerships with trade groups, industry associations, etc. to
market the program? Somewhat. The program hosts an annual “Parade of Homes”
marketing event with the BCA. Some Customer Reps also reported interaction with
their local BCAs, and personal relationships with local contractors, but that this
interaction has decreased in recent years. The Program Specialist reported further
interaction with BCA builders. However, TRC could not verify this interaction, because
we were unable to reach any participating builders. There appears to be opportunities
to further leverage partnerships.
e. If applicable are co-branding opportunities identified and utilized between utility and
contractor/builder/vendor participating in the program? Somewhat. The regional
Northwest ENERGY STAR® program and Idaho Power co-brand on marketing pieces. The
national ENERGY STAR® Homes program offers co-branding opportunities for builders
building to ENERGY STAR® Homes standard as well. Idaho Power collaborates with
builders for the “Parade of Homes” event, but it is not apparent that Idaho Power is
engaged with other co-branding opportunities with builders or HPS’s.
f. Are program website and marketing information kept up-to-date with most recent
program information? Somewhat. Information about the program participation,
technical specifications, requirements to participate, and the Program Specialist contact
information are up-to-date. However, both the builder and Home Performance
Specialist lists include market actors that have not participated in a number of years,
and the builder list has some incorrect contact information. Also, two separate builder
lists are available on the web, one on Idaho Power’s website, and one on the Northwest
ENERGY STAR® Homes website.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
97

7.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
This program has continued to deliver energy savings, despite significant challenges. However, future
savings from this program are uncertain. We provide recommendations below.
7.4.1 Recommendations
Based on the study findings discussed above, TRC presents the following recommendations for the
program:
 Develop a better understanding of the program target market, including projects using electric
heat and heat pumps, and develop targeted marketing strategies based on these findings.
The program requirement for electric heat pumps has significantly decreased program
participation. Because of this restriction, it is likely that the program will appeal to specific niche
markets, rather than to the broad market of all single and multifamily homes. The program has
gained some traction with multifamily (particularly townhome) developments. There may be
additional market segments for which electric heat pumps are an attractive choice.
• Investigate what market segment or builder types are building electrically heated homes,
and their reasons for doing so. This could serve two purposes: Once Idaho Power has
identified these market segments already building (or buying) electrically heated homes, it
could target its marketing of the ENERGY STAR® Homes program towards these segments.
Secondarily, Idaho Power could develop a better understanding of why some customers or
builders build electrically heated homes, and use these motivations in talking points to
encourage other builders to construct electrically heated homes. (However, some reasons
may be specific to a market sector, such as rural homes not reached by natural gas.
• Investigate what market sector or builders are installing heat pumps. For example, speak
with the Idaho Power Ductless Heat Pump Pilot Program Specialist and NEEA staff for its
Ductless Heat Pump pilot program, to understand the types of customers participating in
this program. Although these programs serve existing homes, some of the trade allies or
customers may overlap with the new homes market. Idaho Power could also speak with
heat pump manufacturers or other heat pump stakeholders to identify the niche markets
attracted to this technology.
• Develop a better estimate of the market potential for the program, based on interviews
with Builder Contractor Association (BCA) staff. It is unclear what demand exists for
electrically heated homes and how frequently this type of home is built. One way to
evaluate the market is to speak to the BCAs in Idaho Power territory to better understand
the frequency that they build electrically heated homes. These trade allies could also
provide insights into the types of homes for which they install electric heating and/or heat
pumps. We also recommend that Idaho Power re-evaluate program goals based on the new
requirement for heat pumps. This will allow Idaho Power to better anticipate program
volume and set unit and savings goals.
• Use the regional (NEEA) ENERGY STAR® Homes program database to identify builders that
have delivered electric homes in Idaho Power territory for this program, but not participated
in the Idaho Power program. It may be because they did not use heat pumps. If so, interview
these builders to understand their interest and barriers in using heat pumps, and develop
strategies to address these barriers.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
98

 Develop new relationships with key homebuilders, HVAC contractors and heat pump
suppliers; and reconnect with previously participating builders.
• In recent years, the program has had limited contact with large production home builders.
We recommend that the Program Specialist or Customer Reps meet with the Idaho Building
Contractor Association. There is an opportunity to provide training opportunities on the
program and heat pump technology with their membership. There is also an opportunity to
re-engage customer representatives in relationship building with these builder customers.
TRC searched for the top producing builders in Southern Idaho and found a number of lists
of both production and custom homebuilders. In one example1 reviewed, only 8 of the top
16 builders were listed as participating builders on the Idaho Power website. We
recommend that Idaho Power conduct targeted outreach to these top producing builders as
well as reach out to HVAC contractors and suppliers who install heat pumps.
• TRC also recommends that Idaho Power contact builders that participated in the program
previously, particularly high participating builders, to understand their motivations and
barriers to participation, and their plans regarding future participation. These builders could
provide valuable feedback on the program, and understanding their future plans will enable
Idaho Power to have a better prediction of program participation.
 Provide additional training addressing electric heat pump home design and the benefits of
heat pump technology.
The builders interviewed expressed interest in continuing education on building electrically
heated homes, design strategies to reduce electricity use in homes, and particularly, the
benefits of heat pumps. This type of training could encourage new builders (or previously
participating natural gas builders) to participate in the Idaho Power program. Publicize the
training through the BCAs, and also invite builders that deliver electrically-heated ENERGY
STAR® Homes in Idaho Power territory through the regional program, but that do not use heat
pumps.
 If Idaho Power is concerned about low builder participation and looking for opportunities to
increase participation (but not necessarily large energy savings), consider providing a partial
incentive for natural-gas heated homes (and claim only the electricity savings).
To enable natural gas heated homes to participate, Idaho Power could provide a reduced
incentive to natural gas-heated homes that earn the ENERGY STAR® label. Idaho Power would
only claim the electricity savings from these homes: i.e., the savings from air conditioning,
lighting, appliances, and plug-in loads. Idaho Power should develop an incentive value that
reflects only electricity savings. Although this incentive value would potentially be small on a per
homes basis, it may appeal to large single family developers that could collect this incentive for
multiple homes.
Idaho Power may wish to target homes installing air conditioning for this partial incentive, and
require a high performance air conditioner. The energy savings and cost-effectiveness will be

1
http://www.buildidaho.com/idaho_real_estate_blog/e_4205/Idaho_Real_Estate_Insights/2013/1/2012_Boise_Idaho_Top_B
uilders.htm
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
99

greater for Idaho Power, and customers may be more attracted to the comfort and energy
savings provided by a high performance air conditioning system.
 Continue to support the Home Performance Specialists
The Home Performance Specialists are in many ways the backbone of the program. These
individuals are the most informed trade allies regarding the program. Participating HPS’s inspect
numerous homes a year and work with multiple builders. Currently, none of the active HPS’s
interviewed (including the 2 high participating HPS’s) plan to increase their program
participation in the coming years. Some of the HPS’s interviewed are disenchanted by what
they consider to be a decline of rigor in the program quality control. TRC recommends that
Idaho Power meet with these HPS’s one-on-one to understand their barriers to participation,
and to work with them to overcome these barriers For example, Idaho Power could work with
HPS’s to revisit the quality assurance procedure.
 Provide the Customer Reps with goals for marketing the program.
Program materials describe the Customer Reps as providing marketing for the program. In
reality, it appears that most Customer Reps are not actively promoting the program, and that
the bulk of marketing is done by the HPS’s. Although Idaho Power should continue to encourage
the HPS’s to market the program, we recommend that Customer Reps also play a more active
role. We recommend that Idaho Power provide the Customer Reps with goals, such as
contacting a certain number of builders or presenting at a BCA about the program once per
quarter. We also recommend that the Customer Reps use the heat pump flyer as a talking point
with builders. Finally, if Idaho Power offers program training or education, including education
on the value of electric heating (such as many of the talking points presented in the Idaho Power
ENERGY STAR® Homes heat pump flyer), Customer Reps could attend this training with builders,
to both learn about the program and develop relationships with local builders.
 Emphasize the value of verification.
Builders and Customer Reps reported that many builders and customers do not see value in
verification, and are therefore unwilling to pay for these services. Idaho Power should develop
an argument for the value of verification, and provide this (through talking points, or perhaps a
one-page flyer) to Customer Reps, HPS’s, and builders. Idaho Power could work with other
entities, such as NEEA or a rater group (e.g., RESNET) to develop these talking points.
 Streamline the program website, and increase its integration with the Northwest ENERGY
STAR® Homes website
• There is already some integration: The Idaho Power program website has a link to the main
Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes website (under “For more information”. However, these
websites also have some duplicative information, such as participating builder lists,
marketing materials, and educational materials for prospective homebuyers. Consider
streamlining the Idaho Power website to only house information on benefits, and on Idaho
Power program-specific information (e.g., process and incentives).
• The program website currently includes a list of participating home builders. However, TRC
found that contact information for several of the listed builders was incorrect. The
marketing approach for this program calls for builders to reach out to customers (not vice
versa). Thus, there may be little value in providing a list of participating builders on the
program website. Idaho Power could consider removing the list of builders on the website,
and directing customers to contact the Program Specialist for a list of participating builders.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
100

This would reduce the amount of effort Idaho Power would need to spend updating the
website periodically, and provide an opportunity for the Program Specialist to speak with
customers.
• While TRC generally recommends reducing the amount of information on the Idaho Power
program website, we do recommend adding the heat pump flyer to the website. This
resource could educate builders and customers on the benefits of heat pumps.
 Update the lists of participating builders and HPS’s
• The current participating builder and HPS lists contain a number of companies and
individuals who have not been active in the program for over two years, and have incorrect
contact information. According to program staff and some of the active trade allies
interviewed, some companies (both builders and HPS’s) have gone out of business or are no
longer engaged in the program and should be removed. While TRC recommends above that
the program remove the list of participating builders from the webpage (to save the time of
continually updating this list), the Program Specialist should keep an updated list for
customer referrals.
• As described above, TRC also recommends that the Program Specialist reconnect with
previously active builders in the program. The Program Specialist could update the list of
builders as part of this process.
 Continue to collaborate with Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes on trainings and participating
builders
• Feedback from Home Performance Specialists indicated that the training offered by NEEA’s
Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes program were informative and valuable. Though the
builders did not respond as positively, it appears that builders have less frequently attended
these trainings. One way to engage builders is to co-sponsor some of these trainings with
the Idaho Building Contractor Association.
• For 2013, there appears to be more projects in the Idaho Power program (based on a review
of the Idaho Power program database thru July 2013), than the regional ENERGY STAR®
Homes program (based on information from the implementer through September 2013).
For 2012, roughly twice as many electrically heated homes with Idaho Power as their service
provider are reported as participating in the regional program than in the Idaho Power
program. (While some of these homes may only be eligible to participate in the regional
program, because they do not have a heat pump, the regional program implementer
guesses this is not the case with the majority of them.) This does not make sense, given that
the Idaho Power program is a subset of the regional program. TRC recommends that Idaho
Power investigate this discrepancy.
 Consider adjusting program incentives and program requirements for townhomes and
multifamily projects.
• The Idaho Power program has seen a recent uptick in attached home and apartment
participation since adding the heat pump requirement. TRC notes that $1,000 per unit is a
relatively high incentive for multifamily apartments, compared to the energy savings for
each unit (smaller savings per unit than in a single family home). Although Idaho Power
must be careful not to dissuade multifamily builders from participating, the utility could
consider lowering the incentive payment for multifamily units, to enable the program to
increase incentive payments for single family homes.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
101

• In addition, Idaho Power could evaluate the program specifications to ensure they are
applicable for townhomes and multifamily housing. It may be beneficial to adjust some of
the program requirements to better address this market. There is an opportunity to
collaborate with Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes on this effort, as they too have seen an
increase in participation of multifamily housing and are considering adopting multifamily-
specific technical standards.
 Develop relationships in the multifamily sector and marketing materials specific to the
multifamily industry
The multifamily sector includes a new set of players including larger, more sophisticated
developers, architects, engineers and other consultants. We recommend that Idaho Power
develop relationships with some of these players, to better understand their motivations and
barriers for program participation, as well as their industry trade groups. Idaho Power could
then develop targeted marketing approaches to this sector, such as having Customer Reps visit
trade group meetings to market the program, or developing a one-page flyer highlighting the
benefits of the program in multifamily developments.
 Identify key fields in the program database, and ensure these are complete for all projects.
The program database has some missing fields, including Home Type. (According to the Program
Specialist, this field was recently added.) This is a useful field for marketing and tracking
purposes, so we recommend that Idaho Power staff consistently fill in this field, to identify
trends in program participation. (Idaho Power could start with the assumptions TRC developed
for its database review, and review these for accuracy.) Furthermore, we recommend that Idaho
Power break out Home Type by the following categories: single family - subdivision, single family
- custom, multifamily - apartment, and multifamily – townhome. These 4 types of home
categories all differ in terms of project teams and processes, so tracking this information could
be useful for marketing purposes. TRC also recommends that Idaho Power add a field for
“Region”, using the Customer Rep regions (i.e., Western, Canyon, Capital, Southern, and
Eastern” to track regional activity.
For the subcontractor fields (electrician, HVAC, insulation), TRC recommends that Idaho Power
consider removing these fields from the database, unless Idaho Power can identify a good
reason to track this information. (These fields do not appear useful to TRC.) Consider using
dropdown menus to ensure that data is entered consistently.
7.4.2 Summary of Barriers and Recommendations
We provide a table summarizing the main barriers and recommendations for this program in the
Executive Summary, in section 2.4 Summary of Barriers and Recommendations.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
102

8. RESULTS AFFECTING ALL PROGRAMS
The following section presents results of the nonparticipating customer survey (conducted by Hansa
GCR prior to this evaluation) and the customer rep interviews conducted by TRC as part of this
evaluation. These results include information pertinent to the three programs evaluated here.
8.1 Nonparticipating Customer Survey Review
Idaho Power recently contracted Hansa GCR to conduct a phone survey of Idaho Power residential
customers who were not participating in an energy efficiency program, termed “nonparticipating
customers”. The goal was to understand basic customer demographics, nonparticipating customer
awareness of programs, why customers do not participate, and what would motivate increased
participation.

This section provides a summary of findings that relate to the three residential energy efficiency
programs studied in this process evaluation. All graphics and figures show below are taken from the
April 2013 Hansa GCR presentation1 based on the survey results.
8.1.1 Survey Methodology Overview
Timeframe
A survey of nonparticipating residential customers in Idaho Power territory was developed and
conducted between November 2012 and January 2013. The actual survey was conducted via phone by
the Hansa GCR during a two week period in January 2013. The diagram below shows the temporal flow
of events for this survey.

Figure 39 Customer Survey timeline (Source: Hansa GCR)

1 Idaho Power provided TRC with a PowerPoint presentation of the results, “Energy Efficiency Non-participant Survey: Research
Conducted with Residential Customers” that Hansa GCR, presented to Idaho Power, April 2013. TRC requested a report, but
this was not available at the time of the process evaluation.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
103

Survey Respondents
The survey reached 622 respondents from three identified regions in Idaho Power territory. The regions
are the Capital Region, Canyon-West Region and South-East Region. The original sample audience was
not proportional across the regions, so Hansa GCR applied post-stratification weights to adjust the
distribution and allow for cross-regional analysis of nonparticipating customers. The weighted
population size for each region and theoretical error resulting from the weighting are displayed in the
figure below.

Figure 40. Weighted sample size by region (Source: Hansa GCR)
Survey Questions
The survey asked respondents to answer questions on a 0-10 scale, with 0 equating to “not likely at all”
and 10 equating to “very likely”. Respondents were also asked to provide reasoning for their selection in
their own words.

For the Barriers and Benefits portion of the survey, Hansa conducted a paired comparison exercise. In
this exercise, four benefits and four barriers were presented in a series of paired combinations, and
respondents were asked to pick the more important or compelling option in each pair. The figure below
gives two examples of this. The first asks about barriers, and the second about benefits. After being
presented with several pairings, the survey team was able to rank the perceived barriers and benefits.
We discuss the results in the Error! Reference source not found. subsection of Error! Reference source
not found..

Figure 41. Example of the barrier and benefits pairing exercise (Source: Hansa GCR)
8.1.2 Survey Results
The survey completed 622 residential interviews of only nonparticipating Idaho Power customers.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
104

Audience Profile
The survey reached out to residents in three identified regions: Capital Region, Canyon-West Region and
South-East Region. The figure below represents the proportion of development types in each region.
The most common type of residency by far for all regions is single family homes, which represents 76%
of residencies for all regions. The remaining 24% includes multifamily, mobile, and manufactured
homes. As shown below, the Capital region has more multifamily buildings than the other regions, the
Canyon-West region has more mobile or manufactured homes than the other regions, and the South-
East region has a fairly even amount of multifamily and mobile or manufactured homes.

The regions are typically consistent on survey responses. But there are some differences in responses,
some of which may result from regional differences. The following are some distinctive points of
separation for each region:
 Capital Region (n=221): On average, respondents from the Capital region indicated a higher
interest in all Idaho Power programs, compared with the entire Idaho Power territory.
 Canyon-West Region (n=201): This region has the highest fraction of electrically heated homes –
41%.
 South-East Region (n=200): 37% of respondents do not have any form of air conditioning, and
only 36% have central air conditioning.
Heating Fuel
The primary heating fuel for a home is an important characteristic for Idaho Power, because it is an
electric-only utility. As depicted in the figures below, the primary fuel source is natural gas in all regions.
However, over one-third of homes (34%) use electric heating. This represents a significant portion of the
market. The fraction of electrically heated homes varies by region.
 In the Capital region, 66% use natural gas as their primary fuel; 27% use electricity.
 In Canyon-West, 40% use natural gas as their primary fuel; 41% use electricity.
 In South-East, 47% use natural gas as their primary fuel; 38% use electricity.
Air conditioning is also an important home characteristic for Idaho Power, particularly because this load
is always met by electricity. In general, 60% of respondents have central air conditioning.

TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
105

Figure 42. Customer Heating Fuels and Air Conditioning Types (Source: Hansa GCR)
Awareness and Communication
Across all regions, only 40% of the surveyed nonparticipating customers responded that they were
aware of Idaho Power’s energy efficiency program offerings. Customer awareness was generally the
same across all regions. Of those that were aware of programs, only a small number of respondents
could identify the programs studied here without prompts: 5% of these customers could identify the
Heating & Cooling Efficiency program without a prompt from the surveyor; 3% could identify the Energy
Efficient Lighting, and only 1% knew of the ENERGY STAR® Homes program. The figure below shows the
breakdown of specific program awareness from the 40% of customers who stated that they were aware
of Idaho Power programs.

Of these 246 respondents who were aware of Idaho Power Energy Efficiency programs, 47% cite bill
insert as the source of information and 18% as a letter or mail brochure as a source. Only a small
percentage of customers had heard about programs from an Idaho Power staff person or trade ally: 3%
from an Idaho Power Energy Expert, 2% from a contractor or supplier, and 1% from an Idaho Power
representative. This indicates that Idaho Power staff and its trade allies are reaching only a small
fraction of the population, or that their promotion of energy efficiency programs is not effective (i.e.,
customers do not remember it).

Figure 43. Idaho Power Customer Program Awareness and Source of Awareness (Source: Hansa GCR)
Customers indicated that their preferred means of communication is bill inserts, which was selected by
63% of respondents from a large list of potential methods. The second choice is through a Newsletter,
followed by the Idaho Power web site.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
106

Participation Potential
Half of the respondents think that residential energy efficiency programs are very important.
Respondents gave the following views of the importance that Idaho Power offers energy efficiency
programs, on a 0-10 scale of importance:
 73% rank the importance at 8 or higher, signifying high importance. Their verbatim responses
correlate to the following top three reasons, in order, for this ranking:
• Programs save money for customers
• Programs represent environmental, economic and community stewardship
• Programs save energy and/or water
 23% rank the importance between a 4 and 7, signifying a neutral stance. The top reasons for
their neutral stance were (in order of importance):
• They are not interested in programs or energy efficiency is not important to them
• They are not familiar with programs
• They are already efficient energy users on their own
• They recognize that programs save money for users
 4% rank the importance between 0 and 3, signifying low to no importance. The top reasons for
this low ranking were (in order of importance):
• They are not familiar with programs
• They are already efficient energy users on their own
• Energy efficiency is not important to them

Customers reported a medium to high likelihood in participating in Idaho Power’s residential energy
efficiency programs. The following figure provides the breakdown of customers’ opinion of Idaho
Power’s offerings.

Figure 44. Customer perception of Idaho Power program offerings (Source: Hansa GCR)

TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
107

When asked about the likelihood of participating in a program in the next 12 months, 22% of
respondents indicated that the likelihood is high, and 44% indicated a medium likelihood, as shown
below.

Figure 45. Likelihood of respondents to participate in next 12 months (Source: Hansa GCR)
The report did not provide any further reasoning for these responses, but respondents were later asked
to identify, in their own words, the most significant barriers to their participation. The barriers that are
provided without prompts mirror the responses collected during the paired comparison exercise; this is
described in more detail below. Respondents identified the following general categories as the most
significant barriers:

 Upfront cost is high
 Not aware of program offerings. They would need to be more educated and involved, but they
want the information provided to them
 Uninterested in programs and unwilling to change their lifestyle
The 66% of respondents who said that their likelihood of participating in the future is medium or high
were then asked which programs they would consider. They indicated a 34% interest in purchasing an
ENERGY STAR® Home, 42% interest in offerings under the Heating / Cooling Efficiency program, and a
46% interest in purchasing CFL bulbs. The programs that customers considered for future participation
vary slightly depending on the region, especially due to the lower amount of homes with central air
conditioning in the South-East, and the lower percentage of electric homes in the Capital Region. The
Capital region is more likely to participate in all three programs studied here: i.e., they are more likely to
purchase an ENERGY STAR® certified home, participate in in-store CFL bulb promotion, and receive
incentives for properly installed heat pumps or evaporative coolers than other regions. The Capital
region also appears to have the highest percentage of residencies with air conditioning. The figure
below presents the programs in which respondents indicated that they would consider participating.
The highlighted programs are those studied in this evaluation.

TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
108

Figure 46. Programs that nonparticipating customers would consider (Source: Hansa GCR)
When asked what Idaho Power could change to help motivate their participation in an energy efficiency
program, respondents provided two main suggestions:

 38% would want “No cost/Low cost/Incentives/payment options”. Their verbatim responses
reflect the desire for strong incentives that can be realized fairly quickly and options that reduce
out-of-pocket expenses.
 29% suggest “Educate/Raise Awareness/Ease of getting information”. Their verbatim responses
express the need for greater awareness of program availability and how the program will
benefit them.
Barriers and Benefits
The survey performed a pairing exercise to rank the perceived barriers and benefits for energy efficiency
programs. Respondents were provided with two of the four options and asked to select which one was
more compelling of the two. The four options were presented in varying pairs. Unfamiliarity with the
programs was the top ranked barrier, but there is no clear order after that. However, respondents
generally ranked “Don’t know where to start” as the second highest barrier.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
109

Figure 47 – Customers’ Barriers for Program Participation (Source: Hansa GCR)

The same exercise was performed to rank the perceived benefits of programs. The top benefit was the
ability of energy efficiency programs to lower energy costs for users. Again, there is no clear ranking
order for the benefits after lower energy costs.

Figure 48 – Customers’ Motivations for Program Participation (Source: Hansa GCR)
8.1.3 Summary of Key Findings for Evaluated Programs
The survey provided several important findings relevant to Idaho Power residential energy efficiency
programs in general, and to these programs in particular. TRC provides the following summary of what
we view as the main points of interest for these programs:

 Most homes have natural gas, but a significant fraction – 34% for all of Idaho Power territory –
has electric heat.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
110

 There is fairly high interest in programs in general: Many customers have moderate (44% of
respondents) to high (22% of respondents) interest in participating in Idaho Power’s residential
energy efficiency programs, and the majority (73%) reported that these programs are important.
For the programs studied here, of the customers reporting an interest in any Idaho Power
program, customers reported a moderate interest in these program offerings: 34% for an
ENERGY STAR® Home, 42% for offerings under the Heating / Cooling Efficiency program, and
46% for the Residential Energy Efficient Lighting program.
 Program awareness is a problem in general for the Idaho Power energy efficiency programs and
for these programs in particular. Overall, 40% of these nonparticipating customers were aware
of programs. Only 5% of these customers could identify the Heating & Cooling Efficiency
program without a prompt from the surveyor; 3% could identify the Energy Efficient Lighting,
and only 1% knew of the ENERGY STAR® Homes program.
 Most customers that are aware of programs learn about them through a bill insert or a letter or
brochure in the mail (65% total). Only 6% learned about programs from an Idaho Power staff
person (Idaho Power Energy Expert or rep) or a trade ally (contractor / supplier), indicating that
Idaho Power staff and trade allies are not reaching the vast majority of customers, or that their
promotion of energy efficiency programs is not strong enough to be recalled by customers.
 Customers responded that incentive payments to reduce upfront costs, and greater education
or ease of greater information, would help motivate them to participate in programs.
Customers reported that the top benefit of programs is lowering their energy costs.

We provide recommendations based on these findings in each program chapter, and in section 9.
8.2 Customer Representative Interview Findings
8.2.1 Introduction
Customer representatives (“Customer Reps”) play an important role for Idaho Power in general, and for
the residential energy efficiency programs. They are the main point of contact between Idaho Power
and customers, trade allies, and other program partners, and they are the “boots on the ground” staff.
As such, they have the opportunity of speaking with customers and trade allies about programs. For
customers and trade allies that they communicate with frequently and with whom they have
established rapport, and can potentially be particularly persuasive in encouraging them to participate in
programs.
All of the programs, particularly the Heating and Cooling Efficiency program and ENERGY STAR® Homes
program, describe in program materials that Customer Reps should provide marketing for the program.
Thus, TRC interviewed a sample of Customer Reps, and the Residential Market Segment Coordinator, to
understand the role of these staff in promoting residential energy efficiency programs in general, and of
these three programs in particular. In particular, we investigated if there were discrepancies between
how the Customer Reps were supposed to market the programs, and how they were actually promoting
the programs (i.e., differences between theory and practice).
8.2.2 Methodology
TRC began by interviewing the Residential Market Segment Coordinator who manages the Customer
Reps. The Residential Market Segment Coordinator provided a high level overview on the various roles
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
111

a customer representative has, including their role in promoting energy efficiency programs, both
residential and commercial.
TRC then contacted a sample of the Customer Reps for interviews, to gain insight on their roles in
promoting each of the 3 residential programs evaluated through this research: the Northwest ENERGY
STAR® Homes, Heating and Cooling Efficiency program, and the Residential Energy Efficient Lighting
program. We contacted two reps that the ENERGY STAR® Homes Program Specialist recommended that
we speak with. In addition, we interviewed at least one rep from each region: We pulled a random
sample of reps that served each of the five Idaho Power regions. Five of these randomly sampled reps
responded to our interview requests. In total, we spoke with 7 Customer Reps, which was more than
the number in our work plan (3-4).
The figure below outlines the sample size of reps from each region, how many we contacted, and how
many we interviewed.
Region Population Contacted for
Interview Interviewed
Western 1 1 1
Canyon 2 2 2
Capital 7 3 2
Southern 4 2 1
Eastern 3 2 1
Total 17 7
Figure 49. Customer Representatives Interview Sample
To conduct the customer rep interviews, TRC developed an interview script, which was approved by
Idaho Power. A copy of the interview script is located in the Appendix.
Below, we present the findings from the Residential Market Segment Coordinator and Customer Rep
interviews. These findings were also incorporated into our findings for each program chapter, and our
overall findings for these programs.
8.2.3 Overall Findings
Based on the interviews, we present overall findings commonly found across all 3 of the programs
evaluated.
The Customer Reps are instructed to spend approximately 80% of their time on Operation &
Maintenance activities, including responding to planned and unexpected outages, and targeted visits to
large customers. The remaining 20% of their time should be spent on promoting energy efficiency
programs, both commercial and residential. Customer Reps reported that in general, they do spend
roughly 20% of their time promoting programs. However, it is difficult to quantify this precisely,
because Customer Reps generally weave a discussion of energy efficiency programs into their overall
conversation with customers or trade allies. For example, a customer rep may speak with a customer
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
112

about a high bill complaint, and as part of the conversation, recommend participation in energy
efficiency programs.
Of the time spent on energy efficiency programs, Customer Reps are intended to split their time roughly
evenly between residential and commercial programs. However, in reality, the majority of reps have an
80%/20% split between commercial and residential, depending on the region to which they are assigned
(i.e. urban or rural). More time is spent on commercial programs mainly due to the nature of the
programs, requiring site visits before and after participation.
Customer representatives promote the residential energy efficiency program primarily in two ways.
First, Customer Reps promote programs as part of their interaction with a customer or trade ally. For
example, some reps are involved in community civic organizations and trade associations (e.g., Building
Contractor Associations - BCAs), and the reps may mention programs in their interaction with these
members. Based on the reps we interviewed, each attend regular meetings for civic organizations and
trade associations to promote the residential programs. Additionally, in the past, Customer Reps
attended contractor training sessions and trained on programs side-by-side with trade allies. In recent
years, this has not occurred for unknown reasons. Customer Reps who did attend trainings along-side
contractors found it very beneficial in gaining technical knowledge and forming relationships with
contractors in their area.
The second main mechanism is promoting the programs directly to customers, when a customer calls
with a high bill complaint. The reps indicated that when a customer calls with a high bill they are able
to promote all of the residential programs at once. (TRC noted this does not appear feasible with the
ENERGY STAR® Homes program.) For example, the rep will suggest that a customer installs CFLs, or
he/she will recommend the Heating and Cooling Efficiency program if the customer’s system is failing.
In general, high bill calls are the most common way a customer rep interacts with a customer seeking
energy efficiency solutions. In addition to these two main strategies, some Customer Reps use other
promotional strategies as well. For example, a customer rep may occasionally undertake an activity
specifically to promote a program, such as attending a CFL promotion at a store.
In most of these interactions with customers and trade allies, the reps provide direction on how to
participate in each program. For example, one rep will get on the computer with the customer and walk
them through the program website. Many of the reps reported that they will direct customers to the
program website, follow up after the event personally, or have the Program Specialist contact them with
more information.
Overall, reps felt they had adequate training and information on program offerings, incentives, and
enough technical knowledge to promote the program to customers and trade allies. All reps indicated
that they direct customers and trade allies to the Program Specialist when customers or trade allies ask
questions about the program beyond their technical knowledge. Twice a year, reps receive scheduled
updates for all programs (commercial and residential) at Idaho Power’s headquarters in Boise. Other
program updates are relayed by the Program Specialist via email. Reps expressed interest in receiving
more frequent program updates on each program, with the update calling out specific changes in the
program collateral, website, incentives, or measures. This would ensure that the most up-to-date
program collateral is distributed to customers and trade allies.
The marketing collateral distributed to the reps is generally in the form of program brochures. These
brochures are part of a portfolio that reps bring with them when visiting customers, trade allies, and
presenting at industry or community events. Each of the reps interviewed reported that the materials
provided by the Program Specialist are adequate. However, common feedback expressed by several
reps was that program websites need to be updated in terms of content, and that they generally need
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
113

revamping. Many of the reps use the program website to walk customers or trade allies through the
program and to show them program specific information (e.g., measures list). Therefore, it is essential
that program staff keep these websites updated.
In general, Customer Reps do not appear to use a structured or systematic approach to marketing. (The
one exception is that Customer Reps regularly contact contractors for the Heating and Cooling Efficiency
program, as discussed below.) Most marketing appears to be ad hoc and spontaneous: Reps will speak
about programs as part of a strategy for addressing high bill complaints or when they speak one-on-one
with customers and contractors at events. From the data we collected, Customer Reps do not, for
example, present to BCAs about programs or send emails to contractors about these programs.
8.2.4 Program Specific Findings
Below we present the findings from the Customer Reps’ survey for each of the 3 programs evaluated.
We incorporated recommendations based on these findings into each program chapter.
Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes
Overall, the Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes program has seen a reduction in participation in recent
years. The majority of Customer Reps believe this is a direct result of the downturn in the housing
market throughout Idaho Power’s territory. The Customer Reps report that they generally receive 1-2
inquires per year, depending on the region. In the last year, the more populated regions have seen an
increase in housing starts. However, feedback from the Customer Reps indicated that participation in
the ENERGY STAR® Homes program was not increasing. They indicated the following reasons for a lack
of participation:
 Small incentive amount,
 A belief of many builders that they build to ENERGY STAR® Homes specifications, but choose
not to pay for certification (i.e., the ENERGY STAR® label)
 Recent code changes now result in ENERGY STAR® Homes being only 15% better than code
rather than 30% compared with the previous code.
Many Customer Reps indicated that a common feedback from builders is that the incentive amount is
not enough to motivate them to hire an HPS to verify their homes. Reps do encourage builders to verify
their homes, and use the ENERGY STAR® Homes label and verification process as a marketing piece to
homebuyers. Lastly, another reason that participation is low is because the new code has become
stricter. Builders do not see the value in branding the home with an ENERGY STAR® Homes label.
Many of the reps interviewed expressed that they previously had relationships with local builders, both
custom and production builders. But in recent years, those relationships have dissolved due to the
downturn in the housing market. In addition, many of the reps indicated that they have relationships
with local trade ally organizations (e.g., local Builders and Contractors Association – BCA) and frequently
present at association events; however, very few reps indicated having one-on-one relationships with
builders in their area.
Lastly, another common feedback from reps was that the prevalence of natural gas as the primary
heating fuel in the area prevents many builders from participating in the program. Many expressed the
desire to offer incentives to natural gas homes to encourage more participation.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
114

Heating & Cooling Efficiency
For the Heating and Cooling Efficiency program, the Customer Reps indicated that they primarily
promote this program by forming relationships with local HVAC contractors. They also promote the
program directly to customers. We discuss both strategies below.
The Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program Specialist requested that Customer Reps check in with their
HVAC contractors on a quarterly basis to remind them about the program and report any program
updates. Reps indicated that the majority of contractors only want the rep to contact them about the
program if there are changes to report. Therefore, Customer Reps believe that quarterly check-ins are
sometimes burdensome for many contractors. However, some contractors appreciate quarterly check-
ins. Most reps adjust the number of check-ins per year depending on the contractors’ preference and
existing relationship.
Of the reps interviewed, the majority indicated that they receive approximately 2-4 inquiries per month
from customers about the program, depending on the area and time of year. The most common way of
promoting the program is when the customer calls with a high bill or their system is failing. This is
typically during extended periods of hot or cold weather. Otherwise, Customer Reps report that
homeowners typically do not think about their heating or cooling system until it has failed. (The Program
Specialist also provided the same information.)
A common feedback that the reps receive from contractors is that the contractor and customer
incentives are too low. They indicated the contractor incentive does not motivate or encourage
contractors to participate. Additionally, contractors feel the customer incentive is too low and does not
offset the cost of the more expensive, high efficiency system. This is especially seen in low income
areas, where customers have greater difficulty affording the upfront costs of the systems.
Many reps also indicated that participation is limited in their area due to the prevalence of natural gas
heating in the region. Several reps expressed the desire to offer an incentive for hybrid systems.
Additionally, many of the rural territories have oil and propane heating fuels. The reps serving these
areas indicated that it would be useful to have marketing materials that show customers the benefits in
changing their heating fuel source from oil and propane to electric. However, similar to many other
utility territories in the U.S., TRC notes that fuel switching, particularly from gas to electricity, is
generally not encouraged in IPC territory.
Residential Energy Efficient Lighting
As described in the program chapter, the Residential Energy Efficient Lighting program is an upstream
program that provides rebates to retailers for program bulbs, which are passed on to customers.
Customer Reps reported that most marketing efforts are carried out by the 3rd party implementer
through the lighting retailers. However, Customer Reps reported that they do promote this program to
some degree. Reps most commonly promote the program when a customer calls with a high bill. In this
case, the rep will discuss any applicable residential energy efficiency program, including the residential
lighting program. In addition, at community events (e.g. National Night Out), reps will carry program
brochures and a brochure of color renderings showing CFLs vs. incandescent bulbs. Reps indicated this
is a great tool to help customers visualize differences in lighting and discuss energy savings of CFLs.
Additional marketing efforts include presence at home and garden shows and community or
neighborhood events. Customer Reps reported that they receive approximately 1-2 inquiries per year
about the program from customers. Of the reps interviewed, each had a goal to visit retailers in their
area quarterly, the number of retailers varies depending on population. During these visits, the rep will
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
115

meet with the store owner or department manager, depending on the store size, to talk about the
program. With large “big box” stores, the reps frequently see high turnover in department managers;
therefore, they try to stop into larger stores more often. Additionally, reps reported that in years past,
they used their visits as an opportunity to update aisle end cap materials and set up a booth to speak
with customers. In recent years, these efforts have not been practiced, because they understood that
the 3rd party implementer is handling the marketing for the program. Lastly, another common feedback
from reps was the lack of customer awareness that Idaho Power provided the rebate for the light bulbs.
The Customer Reps see this as a missed opportunity in marketing Idaho Power’s energy efficiency
programs and services.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
116

9. OVERARCHING SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES
Below, we present common themes from the evaluated programs.
9.1 Successes
All programs have continued to see significant program participation, despite the recent downturn in
the economy. Two of the three programs evaluated are meeting or exceeding savings goals. The third
program, ENERGY STAR® Homes, does not have savings goals for this year, but it has seen significant
participation (over 200 homes certified the first half of 2013.) These programs have also established at
least some relationships with trade allies. Some of these relationships are directly with Idaho Power
staff, while others are primarily with the 3rd party implementer or contractor that assists with
implementation.
Customer Reps report that they understand these programs and are kept informed of program updates,
and most report that they are promoting these programs to trade allies and customers. Most Customer
Reps report that they discuss programs in their general conversations with trade allies, and with
customers in response to a high bill complaint. However, as discussed in the next section, a
nonparticipating customer survey found that most customers do not hear about programs through a
Customer Rep, or through a trade ally (that may have been influenced by a Customer Rep).
Based on the comparison to best practices, these three programs also meet the following criteria. All
programs have consistency in the program manager (i.e., Program Specialist)/lead point of contact for
programs. Many utilities struggle with program staff turnover, which can reduce program effectiveness
and efficiency. These programs have had the same Program Specialists for several years, which provides
consistency and a depth of knowledge about the program, measures, trade allies, and other factors.
These programs also ranked high in keeping 3rd party implementers well informed of program updates.
This includes true 3rd party implementers, 3rd party contractors, regional program partners, and
implementers for these regional programs.
9.2 Challenges and Recommendations
We note the following overarching challenges and recommendations.
9.2.1 Reliance on a Few Trade Allies
All three of the programs have only a few trade allies delivering the majority of projects. This represents
an area of program risk. For the Residential Energy Efficient Lighting program, four big box chains sell
over 90% of program bulbs. For at least one store, a change in promotional methods led to a significant
program bulb sales increase. Consequently if one retailer dropped their participation in the program or
reduced program bulb promotions, program sales would likely drop. Similarly, for the Heating and
Cooling Efficiency program, four contractors delivered 90% of projects in 2012. Although the two high
participating contractors interviewed reported that they hope to deliver more projects in the future,
there is still the risk that one of these contractors will go out of business, move, or change business
delivery models so they no longer participate in the program, thereby significantly reducing program
participation. Finally, for the ENERGY STAR® Homes program, a few subdivisions provided the bulk of
homes for 2012 and 2013. The number of participating builders has dropped from 59 in 2011, to 16 in
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
117

2012, to five for the first half of 2013. Similarly, there are only two high participating ENERGY STAR®
Homes Home Performance Specialists (HPS’s), who verify homes and market the program.
As we describe in the program chapters, TRC recommends that Idaho Power make a greater effort of
increasing the number of participating trade allies for programs. For example, for the Residential Energy
Efficient Lighting program, Idaho Power staff (including the Program Specialist and Customer Reps)
could reach out directly to grocery stores, independent stores, and possibly an additional big box chain.
(Currently, the 3rd party implementer and manufacturers do most retailer outreach.) For the Heating
and Cooling Efficiency program, Idaho Power could offer a higher contractor incentive for a contractor’s
first application. For the ENERGY STAR® Homes program, Idaho Power staff (including the Program
Specialist and Customer Reps) could increase their outreach to local BCAs, and have one-on-one
discussions with BCA members on the challenges and advantages of building homes with electric heat
pumps.
9.2.2 Reliance on 3rd Party Implementers/ Contractors and Trade Allies
The Heating and Cooling Efficiency program uses a 3rd party contractor to assist with specific program
roles, and the Residential Energy Efficient Lighting and ENERGY STAR® Homes programs partner with
regional programs that use a 3rd party implementer (Lighting) and 3rd party contractor (ENERGY STAR®
Homes). The Lighting program also relies heavily on manufacturers to market the program to retailers,
and the ENERGY STAR® Homes program relies on HPS’s to assist the Program Specialist and Customer
Reps with marketing the program to builders. This strategy reduces the day-to-day work for program
staff. This is important, because only one program staff member serves each program, and these staff
members have additional duties beyond managing these programs. However, TRC found that for the
Energy Efficient Lighting and ENERGY STAR® Homes program, the Program Specialists and Customer
Reps were generally not in regular direct contact with important program trade allies (lighting retailers
and home builders). Without regular direct contact, Idaho Power will have difficulty understanding the
needs of these trade allies and their plans for future participation, and will be less able to bring in new
trade allies.
TRC recommends that Program Specialists and Customer Reps have more regular direct contact with
trade allies. We provide recommendations for the Program Specialist to reach out to trade allies in
each program chapter. For the Customer Reps, programs could follow the example of the Heating and
Cooling program, and set quarterly (or semi-annual) contact goals for Customer Reps to reach out to
lighting retailers or builders (particularly through BCA events). As suggested by an Idaho Power staff
member, Customer Reps could also participate in program training sessions side-by-side with trade
allies. This provides an opportunity for Customer Reps to learn about programs and build relationships
with trade allies.
9.2.3 Exclusion of Natural Gas Heated Homes
Most homes in Idaho Power territory use natural gas as their primary heating fuel. Idaho Power recently
changed the scope of the Heating and Cooling Efficiency and Northwest ENERGY STAR® Homes
programs, so that gas-heated homes could not participate. This decision was made, because the
program energy savings were not cost effective for natural gas-heated homes, in part because of the
low cost of natural gas in Idaho Power territory. Many Idaho Power staff and trade allies cited the
restriction in heating fuel as a barrier to program participation, and expressed their desire for gas-
heated homes to participate.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
118

The nonparticipating customer survey confirmed that the majority of Idaho Power customers (52% of
survey respondents) use natural gas as their primary heating source. This represents a significant barrier
to both of these programs. However, the survey also indicated that a sizeable fraction (34% of survey
respondents) use electricity as their primary heating source. This represents a significant number of
potential participants for these programs. Customers with oil and propane as their heating source
represent another 5% of customers.
TRC offers a few recommendations to confront this difficult challenge.
 In general, Idaho Power and its partners should focus on bringing in electrically heated homes,
instead of wishing they could tap into the market of gas-heated homes. TRC heard various
Idaho Power staff and trade allies express the desire for gas-heated homes to participate. While
it is true that this restriction is a major barrier, the sizeable portion of electrically heated homes
that are not participating in these programs indicates that there are other barriers facing these
programs, some of which may be addressable. By focusing on what is not obtainable (i.e.,
offering the program to gas-heated homes), Idaho Power and its partners may be missing
opportunities to bring in eligible customers.
 Conduct data analysis of the nonparticipating survey results to better understand these electric
customers. For example, are they more likely to be multifamily, rural, and/or low-income?
Idaho Power could conduct a second round of analysis of the Hansa GCR customer survey, in
which data is restricted to capture responses for only customers with electric heating. There
may be characteristics of electrically-heated home customers that are different from the overall
population, which may inform how to reach these customers or how to motivate them to
participate. We recommend that analysis investigate customer demographics (geographic
location, education level, income, etc.), how they became aware of programs, how they would
like to be contacted about programs, and their participation barriers and motivations. Idaho
Power should then develop marketing materials targeting these groups. For example, if many of
these customers are rural, ensure that Customer Reps serving rural areas are promoting these
programs with customers and trade ally groups, or send bill inserts to these types of customers.
Idaho Power could also develop case studies highlighting participating projects of these
customer types.

 Provide trainings to builders and contractors on the value of building electrically heated homes
and heat pumps. For the ENERGY STAR® Homes program, several nonparticipating builders were
interested in heat pumps, but were not familiar with the technology or its benefits. Idaho
Power could provide builder trainings on these topics. In addition, ensure that Customer Reps
and program trade allies are aware of the marketing materials developed for these programs on
the benefits of heat pumps, and are distributing these to builders, contractors and customers.
(Both the Heating and Cooling Efficiency and the ENERGY STAR® Homes programs have flyers
describing the benefits of efficient ducted heat pumps, and ductless heat pumps, respectively.)
9.2.4 Ineffective Marketing Efforts by Customer Reps and Trade Allies
Customer Reps report that they market these and other energy efficiency programs to trade allies, and
directly to customers. In addition, the ENERGY STAR® Homes program and the Heating and Cooling
Efficiency program both reportedly use trade allies (contractors and builders) to market their program to
customers.
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
119

However, based on a nonparticipating customer survey, 40% of nonparticipating customers are aware of
programs. Only 5% of customers could identify the Heating and Cooling Efficiency program without a
prompt from the surveyor, 3% could identify the Residential Energy Efficient Lighting program, and 1%
could identify the ENERGY STAR® Homes program. Of those that are aware of any of Idaho Power’s
energy efficiency programs, only 6% reported learning about programs by Idaho Power staff or trade
allies: 3% reported hearing about programs from an “Idaho Power Energy Expert” (i.e., a Customer Rep),
2% from a contractor or supplier, and 1% from an Idaho Power representative.
These survey findings indicate a disconnect between the stated marketing strategy for these programs,
and the actual effects of marketing. Customer Reps and contractors do not appear to be reaching many
customers for Idaho Power energy efficiency programs (at least in a way that customers remember), and
the vast majority of nonparticipating customers are unaware of these particular programs.
Idaho Power staff, particularly Customer Reps, could take a more structured approach for outreach,
such as presenting on programs at BCAs or contacting a certain number of retailers about the
Residential Energy Efficient Lighting program each quarter. As part of this interaction, Idaho Power
Customer Reps and Program Specialists should work with trade allies to understand their motivations
for participating beyond financial incentives (e.g., an ENERGY STAR® builder can use this status to
differentiate itself in quality from non-program builders), and how Idaho Power can support these
motivations. Idaho Power should also encourage or require trade allies to meet specific expectations to
continue to be listed as a program partner, such as participating in refresher training, or delivering a
minimum number of projects / selling a minimum number of program bulbs per year.
As discussed in the Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program chapter, Idaho Power could work at the
portfolio level to create a “brand” for its energy efficiency programs to increase customer awareness.
The nonparticipating residential customer survey found that only 40% of these customers were aware of
Idaho Power’s residential energy efficiency programs, but 73% of customers believe these types of
programs are important. Furthermore, nonparticipants cited a lack of familiarity with programs as a
major reason why they are not participating, or why they may not see programs as important. Based on
staff interviews, Idaho Power struggles with its overall customer satisfaction with some customers, and
net metering has been a recent source of criticism among some customers. Idaho Power could use its
energy efficiency programs as one strategy for improving overall public perception of the utility.

TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
120

10. APPENDIX – DATA COLLECTION TOOLS
Below we present notes from the project kick off meeting, followed by our interview scripts.
10.1 Kick off Meeting Notes
On behalf of Idaho Power Corporation (IPC), TRC is performing a process evaluation of three IPC
residential programs -- Energy Efficiency Lighting Program, the ENERGY STAR® Homes Northwest and
the Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program. As part of this evaluation, TRC held a kick-off meeting with
key IPC staff on July 8, 2013. Below, we present the notes from this meeting.
Attendees
Idaho Power Staff
Gary Grayson – IPC Energy Efficiency Evaluator
Program specialists
 Todd Greenwell –Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program (and Ductless Heat pump pilot
program)
 Becky Arte-Howell – ENERGY STAR® Homes Northwest program (and Home Improvement
program)
 Patti Best – Energy Efficiency Lighting program, (and See Ya Later Refrigerator program, Green
Power, Net Metering, and shade tree program advocate)
All program specialists have at least a few years of experience in their role.
TRC Staff
Doug Mahone (in person) – project oversight
Marian Goebes(in person) and Mary Anderson (by phone) – project managers
Agenda
The agenda of the meeting was as follows:
 Team introduction
 Project objectives and approach
 Schedule
 IPC Goals for Process Evaluation
 Next Steps
Feedback from Idaho Power Staff
Below we present the feedback we gathered from our discussions with IPC staff.
The staff identified the following goals for the evaluation:
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
121

 TRC needs to spend enough time with them to fully understand their programs.
 They are looking for issues and recommendations not obvious to them.
 They are looking for the industry perspective and other best practices - how are they doing
compared to other NW utilities & nationwide?
 Identify areas of risk where things could go wrong.
 These are programs with the least problems – they are all at or exceeding savings goals
 Ensure recommendations are actionable. The last process evaluation provided
recommendations that have already been rejected, because they would increase free-ridership.
(In the report, if a recommendation cannot be implemented, TRC plans to include it in a
separate section and describe why it cannot be implemented.)
This study completes an evaluation cycle (they have done process evaluations of other programs).

The staff identified the following information sources:
 TRC will use a nonparticipant survey that was recently completed.
 Todd has surveys thru 2011 with participants for the Heating and Cooling program.
 The programs may not have official logic models, but the program specialists have thought these
issues through. TRC could provide guidance in developing logic models.
 Each program has its own database.
 There are two analysts (Kathy Yi and Cory Read) who analyze program information, which Gary’s
group leads.
 The lighting program does not connect to customers directly, so there is a separate database for
trade allies.
Schedule
The schedule was pushed back by 2 weeks, because the kick off meeting was held 2 weeks after the
originally planned date. The final report is due September 30, 2013.

10.2 Interview Scripts
In this section, we present our interview scripts for Idaho Power staff, including Program Specialists,
followed by our interview scripts for 3rd party implementers, trade allies, and regional partners.
10.2.1 Interview Scripts for Idaho Power Staff
The following are interview guides for post kick-off meeting discussions with Idaho Power staff. The
conversations were intended to be free flowing in nature. TRC used these scripts to conduct interviews
with key Idaho Power staff, including the Program Specialists.

General Questions
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
122

 What is your role and responsibility?
 Who are the other key staff members that serve your program?
 What types of market actors are key to your program?
 What are the main program goals? Which of these do you think the program is and is not
achieving?
 What would you like to learn from this process evaluation?

Energy Efficient Lighting Program

 Describe how incentives are provided for your program.
 How does Idaho Power identify participating manufacturers and retailers?
 Does Idaho Power use any performance metrics to qualify participating products? What are
those performance metrics?
 What percentage of the CFL market, in terms of overall sales do you think you reach with the
program? Is there a target market penetration for the program?
 Are you looking for additional manufacturer or retailer participants?
 What obstacles do you see in identifying and recruiting more participating lighting retailers and
manufacturers?
 Has the program met its sales targets?
 Have there been problems with any of the products?
 How does the program verify that the CFLs have been installed?
 What measures have been taken to ensure that the CFLs are staying in the service territory?
 What are you plans for CFL incentives for future program cycles? (For example, due to changing
federal regulations)
 What have been the key successes?
 What have been the challenges?
 What types of non-CFL lighting measures are you considering for future program cycles?
 Do you have suggestions for improving the program? (Open ended)

ENERGY STAR® Homes Northwest
 Describe how a builder participates in your program.
 How does the program qualify home builders?
 What documentation is collected as a part of the application (i.e. ENERGY STAR® checklists,
energy models, etc.)
 What version of ENERGY STAR® do you utilize for the program (v2, v3)
 What feedback have you received from the builders about ENERGY STAR?
 Has the program struggled to find participating home builders?
 Does the program provide marketing materials to participating home builders? What additional
marketing support does the program provide to participating home builders?
 Does the program provide training to home builders?
 Does the program provide technical support to builders to help them meet ENERGY STAR®
standards?
 How does the program verify the projects?
 Have there been problems with the builders complying with the program standards?
 Are there any measures that have a higher than average non-compliance rate?
 What have been the key successes?
TRC Energy Services
Idaho Power
Residential Process Evaluation
December 19, 2013
123

 What have been the challenges?
 Do you have suggestions for improving the program? (open ended)

Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program
 Describe how customers participate in the program.
 How does Idaho Power recruit customers?
 How do customers hear about the program?
 Has the program struggled to find customers? Are there geographic areas where there is higher
participation? (i.e. urban vs. rural)
 How does Idaho Power qualify participating contractors?
 Does the program help train contractors on how to right size equipment and proper installation?
 Has the program had any difficulty with contractors’ quality control issues? If so, how has Idaho
Power handled those issues?
 Have there been problems with the measure installation process or results?
 How does the program verify the projects?
 Are there any measures that have a higher than average failure rate?
 What have been the key successes?
 What have been the challenges?
 Do you have suggestions for improving the program? (open ended)
10.2.2 Interview Scripts for 3rd Party Implementers, Trade Allies, and Partners
The following interview scripts were used for interviewing 3rd party implementers, trade allies, and
partners (such as regional program partners). TRC worked with Idaho Power staff to develop these
interview scripts. In some cases, the results of one set of interviews were used to modify interview
scripts for a different group. For example, for the Residential Lighting program, TRC conducted its
interviews with the 3rd party implementer and regional partner before finalizing the interview scripts
with retailers and manufacturers. Similarly, TRC developed the Customer Rep interview scripts after we
had conducted most of the interviews with trade allies.

\\GoldRiver-FP1\all_proj\1314 IP Res Process Eval (205430)\Task 3 - Data Collection and Analysis\Final Interview Guides for 3P implementers
and trade allies.docx 9/11/2013 1:17 PM

MEMORANDUM

To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
From: Marian Goebes, Sophia Hartkopf, David Douglass, Stephanie Berkland, Megan Dawe, Doug Mahone (TRC)
Re: DRAFT Interview Scripts for Residential Program Process Evaluation
DRAFT INTERVIEW SCRIPTS
Introduction
TRC is conducting a process evaluation of three residential programs on behalf of Idaho Power. As an important
step in our data collection, we will conduct interviews with program implementation staff and market actors.
Below, we present draft interview scripts for Idaho Power review. Once we have received feedback from Idaho
Power, we will finalize the interview scripts. We will then test the scripts on a few respondents, and may make
additional minor modifications to the scripts after we have conducted a few interviews, if we find that some
questions are unclear to respondents.
Memo Format and Scope

We have organized this memo as follows:
 Introduction – memo format and scope, interview question categories and abbreviations, and
target interview times
 Draft Interview Introduction – this is the proposed language our interviewers will use to introduce
ourselves and the purpose of the call
 Interview scripts for the Residential Energy Efficient Lighting program
 Interview scripts for the Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes Program
 Interview scripts for the Heating and Cooling Efficiency (H/C) Program
 Interviews scripts for combined interviews for multiple programs - this includes the interview script
for the customer representatives, who serve all programs

As part of the project kick-off held July 8-9, 2013, we conducted interviews with the program specialists, Idaho
Power marketing staff, and the program analysts. We also interviewed the third party service provider for the
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 2 of 29
Heating and Cooling Program. Because these interviews have already been conducted, we do not present interview
scripts below for these staff. Interview findings will be provided in the final report.
Interview Script Categories

Where applicable, we have grouped our interview questions into the following categories:
 Roles and Respondent background
 Program processes and coordination
 Program offerings (trainings and/or incentives)
 Technical Issues and Measure development
 Marketing, Customer Outreach, and Market Actor Engagement
 Successes and Challenges
 Closing (thank you and final comments)
Interview Script Designations and Definitions
Response Designations
In these interview scripts, brackets: [ ] are used to show the likely responses. In general, TRC will ask questions
without providing prompts. However, to facilitate analysis, we will group responses into the categories shown in
brackets.
Definition of “Nonparticipating” Market Actor
This memo includes interview scripts for “nonparticipating” builders (Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes program)
and "nonparticipating" contractors (for the Heating / Cooling Efficiency program). However, they are not truly
nonparticipants. In both cases, these market actors are listed on the program website or on an internal Idaho
Power list of trained trade allies. But they have not delivered a project. In the interview scripts, TRC includes
questions to try to identify the major barrier(s) for them to bring in a project. For example: Are they trying to
market it to customers? If not, why not? Are they trying to market it, but customers aren't interested? If not, why
not? Have they tried to enroll a customer, but been stymied by the application process? Was someone else at their
company trained on the program, this person has left, and now no one else at the company can carry it on?
Consequently, our nonparticipating market actor interview scripts include questions about steps in the participation
process.
This evaluation will not interview any true nonparticipating market actors. It was beyond the scope of this
evaluation, and TRC believes that we will find more useful information from the market actors that are officially
enrolled in the program, but that have not delivered a project.
Interview Target Times
In general, we have designed these interviews for the following target times:
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 3 of 29
 Third party implementers and customers reps: 30-45 minutes
 Participating lighting manufacturers, retailers of lighting products, builders, Home Performance
Specialists (HPS’s), and HVAC contractors: 25-30 minutes
 Nonparticipating builders and nonparticipating HVAC contractors: 20 minutes
At the beginning of each interview, we will provide an estimated time for the interview, and thank the interviewee
in advance for his/her time. If an interviewee is willing to remain on the call for longer than these times and is
contributing useful information, we will extend the interview. However, we will end the interview at the promised
time if the interviewee prefers.
Most of the interview questions are designed for open-ended responses (as opposed to selecting from among a list
of fixed responses), so as to obtain better insight and to uncover unanticipated problems or successes. The
interviewer will take detailed notes to record the responses. However, where we will interview >5 market actors of
that type (lighting retailers, builders, HVAC contractors), these scripts include several closed questions, so that
results can be quantified.
DRAFT Interview Introduction
TRC will begin each interview with an introduction. We provide the following draft language and welcome feedback
from Idaho Power on the phrasing of this introduction:
Hello, this is [interviewer’s name] calling from TRC Energy Services. We are conducting research on behalf
of Idaho Power to assess their residential energy efficiency programs. We’d like to find out about your
experience as a [market actor role – e.g., contractor / builder /retailer / etc.] with the [program name]
which provides incentives for [1 or 2 phrases on program, to help jog their memory – e.g., “building homes
to the ENERGY STAR Homes criteria”].
Please be assured that this is not for sales purposes and that all responses will be treated confidentially. The
information you provide will help Idaho Power to improve its efficiency program.
This call will take approximately [enter time] minutes. Is this an okay time to talk or should we contact you at a
different time? Thank you very much in advance for your time and feedback.
Residential Energy Efficient Lighting Program
BPA Program Manager Interview
Role and Background
 What is your position title?
 Please briefly describe your role in Simple Steps, Smart Savings program for residential energy
efficient lighting.
Program Processes and Coordination
 What are the main goals of the Simple Steps, Smart Savings program?
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 4 of 29
• Which of these goals do you think the Simple Steps, Smart Savings program is achieving?
• For the goals that are not being achieved, what do you think is the reason?
• For goals such as energy or demand savings, or number of program products sold, how does
BPA develop these goals?
• Does the regional program have market transformation goals (such as increasing the percent of
efficient lighting products sold in the region, relative to total market share)?
 Based on our understanding of the Idaho Power program, Idaho Power, BPA, and Fluid all play a
role in delivering the Idaho Power program: Idaho Power administers its specific program, BPA
administers the regional promotion, and Fluid is the 3rd party implementer. We are trying to better
understand the role of each of these parties as it affects the Idaho Power program.
• What is the relationship between the regional Simple Steps, Smart Savings program and the
Idaho Power residential energy efficient lighting program? For example, what does the regional
program do that affects the Idaho Power program?
• How, if at all, does the Idaho Power program differ from Simple Steps, Smart Savings?
• What role does Fluid play (i.e., what does Fluid do) in the Idaho Power program?
 Describe your communication with the Idaho Power program specialist, in terms of frequency,
communication method, etc.
 Describe your communication with the third party implementer, Fluid, in terms of frequency,
communication method, etc.
 How does BPA determine how to allocate program energy savings for retail locations that may
serve multiple service territories?
Program Offerings, Technical Issues, and Measure Development
 How does BPA determine the types of products to incent through the program?
 In your opinion, how satisfied are participating manufacturers with the lighting measure products
offered by the program? Have they requested that the program provide different or new lighting
measures? If so, which types?
 In your opinion, how satisfied are participating retailers with the lighting measure products offered
by the program? Have they requested that the program provide different or new lighting
measures? If so, which types?
 What program products is BPA considering adding or removing in the future?
• How do you think the program may evolve as federal standards become more stringent?
Marketing, Customer Outreach, and Market Actor Engagement
 How, if at all, is BPA involved in identifying manufacturers for the program?
 How, if at all, is BPA involved in identifying retailers in the program?
 Are you looking for additional manufacturer or retailer participants?
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 5 of 29
• If so, are there specific types of retailers or manufacturers you are trying to engage? [If needed
– for example, another big box store, or small mom-and-pop stores, or discount retailers, or
rural retailers, etc.]
 What obstacles do you see in identifying and recruiting more participating lighting retailers and
manufacturers?
 Please describe BPA’s involvement in marketing efforts for the program.
 We understand that stores often limit promotional or marketing efforts (for example, no utility
logos on store promotional material). Has this been an issue for this program? If so, please explain.
 Are there other marketing efforts that BPA, Idaho Power, or Fluid could provide that you think
would be helpful (e.g., brochures, product labeling)?
 Idaho Power staff have described the marketing message for this program as “the right bulb for the
right application”. How effective do you think this message is? Do you think the program should
alter this message in the future?
Goals, Successes and Challenges
 In your opinion, what have been the key successes of the Idaho Power program?
 In your opinion, what have been the challenges of the Idaho Power program?
 Do you know of any successes or challenges that are unique to the Idaho Power delivery of the
lighting program?
Closing
 Do you have any further suggestions for improving either the regional program or the Idaho Power
energy efficient lighting program, or comments you would like to add about either program?
 Thank you for your time.
Third Party Implementer Interview
Role and Background
 What is your position title?
 Please briefly describe Fluid’s role in Idaho Power’s Residential energy efficient lighting program.
Which of these roles do you fulfill?
Program processes and coordination
For the following questions, please consider the current markdown promotion Simple Steps, Smart Savings not
previous versions of the program.
 What are the main program goals?
• Which of these do you think the program is achieving?
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 6 of 29
• For those not achieving the goal(s), what do you think is the primary reason the goal(s) are not
being achieved?
 Please briefly describe how Fluid works with participating retailers.
• How are store managers or staff at individual retail locations involved in the program?
• How are corporate staff for chain retailers involved in the program?
• How does Fluid recruit a participating retailer to participate in the program?
• Would you like to see any changes in how retailers are involved with the program?

 How do retailers communicate product sales to Fluid?
 Do you verify sales data provided by retailers? If so, how?
 Please briefly describe how Fluid works with participating manufacturers.
• How are manufacturers involved in the program?
• What is the typical job title or role of the person at the manufacturer who engages with Fluid,
and the program?
• How do manufacturers become involved with the program? Does Fluid actively recruit
participating manufacturers? If so, how?
• Would you like to see any changes in how manufacturers are involved with the program?

 Are you looking for additional manufacturer or retailer participants?
 What obstacles do you see in identifying and recruiting more participating lighting retailers and
manufacturers?
Program offerings
 Approximately what percentage of overall sales in the CFL market in Idaho do you think you reach
with the program? How confident are you in this percentage? [Very confident, somewhat
confident, not confident]
Technical Issues and Measure development
 Have there been problems or complaints about any of the program CFLs? [If needed, probe: For
example:
• CFLs not functioning properly in cold temperatures (i.e. outdoor applications or unconditioned
spaces)?
• CFLs burning out prior to advertised life expectancy?
• CFLs producing “harsh” or “displeasing” light in home settings?
• Other problems?]
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 7 of 29
 In your opinion, how satisfied are participating retailers with the lighting measure products offered
by the program? Have they requested that the program provide different or new lighting
measures? If so, which types?
Marketing, Customer Outreach, and Market Actor Engagement
 Describe your communication with the Idaho Power program specialist, in terms of frequency,
communication method, etc.
 Have you interacted with Idaho Power customer representatives (in the field/regions) (“customer
reps”) for this program? If so, please describe those interactions. What has been your overall
experience with customer reps?
 What other program supporters or implementers do you work with for the program (e.g., other
program staff in the “simple steps smart savings” partnering regional program)?
 Please describe your marketing efforts for the program.
 We understand that stores often limit promotional or marketing efforts. Has this been an issue for
this program? If so, please explain.
 Are there other marketing efforts that Idaho Power could provide that you think would be helpful
(e.g., brochures, product labeling)?
 Idaho Power staff have described the marketing message for this program as “the right bulb for the
right application”. How effective do you think this message is? Do you think the program should
alter this message in the future? Suggestions?
Successes and Challenges
 What have been the program’s key successes?
 What have been the program’s challenges?
 Do you know of any successes or challenges that are unique to the Idaho Power delivery of the
program?
Closing
 How do you think this program should evolve in the next few years? [if needed – probe about more
stringent federal requirements for bulbs, customer interest in LEDs, or other issues and how these
could affect the program.]
 Do you have any further suggestions for improving the program or comments you would like to
add?
 Thank you for your time.
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 8 of 29
Manufacturer Interviews
[In the Introduction, state that we are calling about the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Simple Steps Smart
Savings program that incents energy efficient lighting. The manufacturers are probably NOT familiar with the Idaho
power program specifically.]
Roles and Respondent background
 What is your job title?
 What is your role in your company’s participation in the BPA Simple Steps Smart Savings program
that incents energy efficient lighting?
Program processes and coordination
 Describe how your company participates in the Simple Steps energy efficient lighting program.
 How did your company hear about the program? Did you seek out the program, or did someone
involved in the program approach you? If someone approached you, who was it? [if needed: staff
member from BPA? Staff member from Fluid? Other?].
Program offerings
 What are your most successful lighting products that are incented through the program in terms of
sales? Why do you think that is?
 Are there lighting technologies currently excluded from the program that you think should be
brought into the program?
 Does your company have a goal for the fraction of lighting products sold that are incented through
a utility?
 Do you think your participation in the program will increase, decrease, or stay the same in the next
3 years? Why is this?
 Do you expect your mix of program lighting products to change in the future (e.g., based on
changing regulations or market preferences)? If so, how?
Technical Issues and Measure development
 Have there been problems with any of the products in the program?
Marketing, Customer Outreach, and Market Actor Engagement
 Does your company do any marketing for the program’s incented lighting products, either in
conjunction with the program (such as using program-provided marketing) or independently (using
your own marketing)? If so, what?
 How does your company interact with retailers in support of this program? How do you determine
which retailers to coordinate with for the program?
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 9 of 29
Successes and Challenges
 What are the program’s successes from your perspective ?
 What motivates you to participate in this program? [Promoting efficient lighting technologies to
unaware (first-time) customers / Introducing money-saving technologies to customers/ Promoting
customer participation in lighting programs/ Other – explain]
 What have been the challenges for you to participate?
 On a scale of 1 to 5, where one is not satisfied and five is very satisfied, how satisfied are you with
the Simple Steps Smart Savings energy efficient lighting program?
Closing
 Do you have any further suggestions for program improvements or comments about the program?
(Open ended)
 Thank you for your time.
Retailer Interviews
[In the Introduction, state that we are calling about the Simple Steps Smart Savings program that incents energy
efficient lighting. The retailers are probably NOT familiar with the Idaho power program specifically.]
Roles and Respondent background
 What is your job title?
 What is your role in your company’s participation in the Simple Steps Smart Savings program?
Program processes and coordination
 Describe how your store/company participates in the Simple Steps Smart Savings program.
 How did your store/company hear about the program? Did you seek out the program, or did
someone else approach you? If someone approached you, who was it? [if needed: BPA, Idaho
Power, Fluid (i.e., Megan or Ryan), manufacturers, other – who??].
Program offerings
 Which program lighting products sell best in your store(s)? Why do you think this is?
 Are there lighting technologies currently excluded from the program that you think should be
brought into the program? [If needed – in other words, are the types of energy efficient lighting
products that the program is not incenting that you think it should?] If yes, please describe.
 How does your store/company decide on the number and type of program lighting products to
carry?
 Does your store/company have a goal for the fraction of shelf space devoted specifically to
incented lighting products?
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 10 of 29
• What about a fraction of shelf space devoted specifically to energy efficient lighting products?
• If yes, how are these goals developed?
• Do you typically meets these goals? (if not, why not?)
Technical Issues and Measure development
 Have there been problems with any of the program products? If so, which products? How were
these problems addressed?
Marketing, Customer Outreach, and Market Actor Engagement
 Does your store/company do any marketing for the program’s incented lighting products? If so,
what?
 Does your store/company have restrictions on the marketing that partnering utilities can provide
for its lighting program? [If needed: for example, restrictions on signage or co-branding.] Y/N/Don’t
know
• If so, what are these restrictions?
• Who developed the restrictions? [Someone in the local store, someone at a corporate
headquarters, other – explain]
• Why were these restrictions imposed?
Successes and Challenges
 What are the program’s successes from your perspective?
 What have been the challenges for your store/company to participate?
 Have you witnessed the following challenges for customers seeking to purchase incented bulbs? If
yes, which has been the most prevalent challenge?
• The retail price is too high, even with the incentive price.
• Customers are confused about or unaware of the best applications for CFLs.
• There are not enough/too many CFL incented bulbs from which to choose.
• Bulbs burning out prematurely.
• Quality of light produced by CFLs.
• Other challenges?
 On a scale of 1 to 5, where one is very dissatisfied and five is very satisfied, how satisfied are you
with the reporting and invoicing requirements of the Simple Steps Smart Savings program?
 On a scale of 1 to 5, how satisfied are you with the timing and schedule of incentive payments?
 On a scale of 1 to 5, how satisfied are you overall with the Simple Steps Smart Savings program?
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 11 of 29
 In the next few years, if the program remains as it is, do you expect you would sell more, fewer, or
about the same number of program-incented products?
Closing (thank you and final comments)
 Do you have suggestions for improving the program? (Open ended)
 [For corporate level interviewees] Can you provide contact information for staff at the individual
stores that I contact to discuss their perspective on the program?
 Thank you for your time, in closing, is there anything else you would like to add about the
program?
Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes Program
Third Party Implementer Interview
[Note: According to program specialist, Fluid does not implement the Idaho Power program. Idaho Power
implements its own program. Fluid is a technical, and at times, a marketing partner/resource, but they do not
implement the Idaho Power program. So this is not technically a third party implementer interview.]
Roles and Respondents Background
 What is your role in assisting with the Idaho Power program?
 Explain your role in implementing the regional program.
Program Processes and Coordination
 What is your communication (frequency, method of communication) with participating builders?
With HPS’s (raters)? With the Idaho Power program specialist?
 What do you see as the main program goals? Is Idaho Power reaching these goals?
 What step(s) of the participation process generate the greatest barrier or burden for contractor
participation (application, HPS verification, incentive payment, other step)?
 What could be done to improve this(these) area(s)?
Program Offerings
 What do you see as the main motivations for builders to participate in the program?
 Do you believe that the incentives are set at the right level to encourage builders to participate?
Technical Issues and Measure Development
 What feedback have you received from builders regarding ENERGY STAR v3?
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 12 of 29
 Idaho Power currently does not have a measure-by-measure program – a program that would
incent many of the measures within the ENERGY STAR program, but in an “a la carte” fashion. (For
example, a builder could receive an incentive for installing attic insulation better than code or
conducting blower door testing.) Do you think this would encourage more contractor participation?
Why or why not?
Marketing, Outreach and Engagement
 What parties are the main focus for marketing this program (e.g., contractors, home buyers,
others)? Do you believe these are the best audiences to target for marketing?
 What forms of marketing are used to engage each of these (e.g., website, brochures, networking)?
• Identified Party 1: (ex: contractors)
• Identified Party 2: (ex: home buyers)
 Have you reached out to any other utilities in Idaho to sign on to this program (e.g., the natural gas
utilities)?
 Could Idaho Power improve marketing materials or develop new resources to enhance marketing
efforts for this program? If so, please describe.
 The Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes program has taken off in the past few years in Idaho with
townhome developments, but has little participation from custom, single family home builders.
• Why do you think townhome developers have embraced the program?
• What barriers do custom, single family builders face?
• Is there another market segment that you think this program could reach? If so, please explain.
• How does Idaho Power’s program participation rate compare to that of other utilities’ in the
Northwest region?
• Are builders building energy efficient homes outside of the program that would meet the
program requirements? If so, why do you think they choose not to participate?
Successes and Challenges
 What do you see as the main successes of this program?
 In your opinion, what is the main challenge for participation of builders who are already ENERGY
STAR certified?
 Do you know of any successes or challenges (strengths or weaknesses) that are unique to the Idaho
Power delivery of the program? (marketing and outreach, certification of ENERGY STAR builders,
contractor participation, etc.)
 Do you believe that participation in the Idaho Power Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes program will
increase, decrease, or stay about the same in the next 3 years (assuming the program continues
unchanged)?
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 13 of 29
Final Comments
 Do you have any recommendations for program improvement?
 Thank you very much for your time!

Participating Builder Interviews
Roles and Respondent background
 What is your title at your company? What is your role?
 Please describe the primary sector that your company serves: [custom single family homes, single
family home developments, townhome developments, stacked apartments, home remodels or
retrofits, other – describe]. Which are/is the main focus market for your company?
 Does your company build electrically heated homes, or are all of the homes that your company
builds heated with natural gas? [If they only build natural gas homes, thank them for their time, tell
them that the Idaho Power program only serves electrically heated homes, and end the call.] Have
you considered building electrically heated homes?

Program processes and coordination
 On a scale of 1 - 5, please rank your satisfaction with each stage in the program process; with 1
being very dissatisfied and 5 being very satisfied. [For “very dissatisfied” responses (1 or 2), ask for
further explanation.]
• The Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes Builder Agreement Form. [Clarify it is this specific
agreement, not the main ENERGY STAR application from the EPA.]
• Verification, conducted by a Home Performance Specialist (i.e., rater).
• The amount of incentive payment received in return for the level of work required.
• Incentive payment timing.
 How do you receive information about events, activities and trainings surrounding this program?
[Check all that respondent mentions: [NEEA staff, Program specialist (Becky Arte- Howell, Program
implementer (staff from Northwest ENERGY STAR), Home Performance Specialist (raters), checking
program website, other - explain]?
Program offerings
 Did you receive training from the program? Y/N/Don’t know
• If so, what training did you receive?
• Who conducted/sponsored the training?
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 14 of 29
• If so, how useful was this training, on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not helpful at all and 5 is very
helpful?
 Are there additional training topics that would be helpful? If so, what? Are there additional
audiences that the trainings should target [real estate agents, subcontractors, etc]?
Technical Issues and Measure development
 Have you built homes under the new ENERGY STAR version 3, earlier versions, or both? [v. 3/
earlier versions (v. 1 or v. 2)/ Both v.3 and earlier versions/ Don’t know]
• [If version 3 or Both]: How easy was it for you to deliver a project in ENERGY STAR version 3, on
a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is Not at all easy, and 5 is very easy?
• [If version 2]: Have you tried to build to the new version (v.3) of ENERGY STAR? Y/N/ Don’t
know. What was your experience with this?
 Do you feel that there are measures or requirements in ENERGY STAR Homes that are particularly
difficult to meet? [Y/N/Don’t know] If so, which ones?
 Do you find that it costs significantly more to build to the ENERGY STAR standard? [Y/N/Don’t
know] If so, what do you estimate that additional cost is (as a percent of total cost or incremental
cost above a conventional home)?
Marketing, Customer Outreach, and Market Actor Engagement
 How did you become aware of the Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes program? [If needed, provide
examples: contacted by Program specialist (Becky Arte- Howell), contacted by Program
implementer (staff from Northwest ENERGY STAR, contacted by Home Performance Specialist
(raters), program website, other - describe]?
 What are your main reasons for participating in the program?
 Roughly what fraction of your residential projects are built under the program? [Almost all / more
than half / roughly half / less than half/ almost none]
Approximately how many homes do you construct annually?
 Do you build energy efficient homes outside of the program? [Y/N/ don’t know]
• If yes, do you certify these homes through another route?
• Why do you choose not to participate in the program for these homes?
 On a scale of 1 to 5, what level of influence does the ENERGY STAR® designation provide in selling
homes (in comparison to a conventionally-built home), with 1 being no influence at all and 5 being
substantial influence? What type of buyer does it influence the most? Are there specific age groups
that are more active in purchasing these homes [active seniors, families, first time home buyers,
singles]?
 In your opinion, what motivates customers to purchase or build an ENERGY STAR® home? [comfort,
air quality, savings, stewardship, etc].
 Do you do any marketing for your ENERGY STAR homes? [Y/N/Don’t know]
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 15 of 29
• Are you aware that Idaho Power provides incentives for marketing.
• If yes, do you use any of the marketing materials/benefits provided by the program? Check all
that apply [program website, program brochures, “ductless heat pumps” one-pager, Parade of
Homes home showcase, other - explain]
• Could Idaho Power provide marketing resources or other strategies to assist you with
marketing ENERGY STAR Homes? [Y/N/Maybe]. If yes, please explain.
 Idaho Power developed a one-page marketing piece that describes ductless heat pumps, and why
they are a cost-effective solution for heating a home. Have you seen this marketing piece?
• If so, did it influence your decision of what choice of heating to use for current and/or future
projects?
• Have you used the marketing piece when explaining heat pumps to customers?
Successes and Challenges
 What do you see as the greatest successes of this program (i.e., what is the program doing well)?
 What are the largest challenges for you to participate in this program?
 Do you have any other recommendations for the program?
 In the next 3 years, do you expect that your participation in the program will increase, decrease, or
stay about the same (assuming the program continues in its present form)? [Increase / decrease /
Same / Don’t know]
Closing (thank you and final comments)
 Do you have any further recommendations for program improvement or comments about the
program?
 Would you be open to us following up if we have any additional questions regarding this interview?
If so, could you provide an e-mail address that we can reach you at, or would you prefer telephone?
 Thank you very much for your time!
Nonparticipating Builder Interviews
Roles and Respondent background
 What is your title and role at your company?
 Please describe the primary area(s) of your company’s business: [custom single family homes,
single family home developments, townhome developments, stacked apartments, home remodels
or retrofits, other – describe]
 Does your company build electrically heated homes, or are all of the homes that your company
builds heated with natural gas? [If they only build natural gas homes, thank them for their time, tell
them that the Idaho Power program only serves electrically heated homes, and end the call.]
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 16 of 29
Marketing, Customer Outreach, and Market Actor Engagement
 Are you aware of the Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes program? [Y/N/ Don’t know]
• If yes, how did you become aware of the program? [contacted by Program specialist (Becky
Arte- Howell, contacted by Program implementer (staff from Northwest ENERGY STAR),
contacted by Home Performance Specialist (raters), program website, other - describe]?
• [If yes] Your company is listed as an ENERGY STAR Homebuilder on the Idaho Power program
website. Would you consider your company as currently active in the program? If no, why not?
[If yes, ask how many projects they currently have in the pipeline, and switch to participating
builders interview script.]
 Have you thought about participating in the program? [Y/N/Maybe]
• If yes or maybe, what are the barriers to your participation?
• If no, why not?
 If yes, do you plan to participate in the future? [Y/N/Maybe / Don’t know]
 What could the program do to encourage you to participate in the future?
 Idaho Power developed a one-page marketing piece that describes ductless heat pumps, and why
they are a cost-effective solution for heating a home. Have you seen this marketing piece?
• If so, did it influence your decision of what choice of heating to use in the future?
• Have you used the marketing piece when explaining heat pumps to customers?
 In your opinion, what motivates customers to purchase or build an ENERGY STAR® home?
 Are you currently building homes to ENERGY STAR standards outside of the program?
 Has the recent recession impacted your company’s work load? [Y/N/Maybe]
• If so, please describe how, such as the primary work areas that have been affected.
Technical Issues and Measure development
 Have you reviewed the requirements for ENERGY STAR Homes version 3 (the new version of the
program)? [Y/N/Don’t know]
• If yes, how easy (on a scale of 1-5) do you think it would be to meet the program requirements,
where 1 is not at all easy and 5 is very easy?
• If 1 or 2, please explain.
Program offerings
 This program provides a $1000 rebate to builders for meeting the Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes
with electric heat pump specification. How much would this influence your decision to participate
in the program on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all influential and 5 is very influential? [if 1 or
2, probe for why.]
 Have you received training from the program? Y/N/Don’t know
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 17 of 29
• If so, how useful was this training on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all useful and 5 is very
useful? [If 1 or 2, ask why.]
• Who conducted/sponsored the training?
 Are there additional trainings that would be helpful? If so, what?
Closing (thank you and final comments)
 Those are all of the questions I have for you today. Do you have any final comments?
 Thank you so much for your time!

Natural Gas Participating Builder Interviews
We will explore why builders are choosing to build natural gas homes, and if they are interested in building electric
homes and heat pumps in the future. Specifically, we test each of the following theories:
 Some builders may be unaware of the Idaho Power program rebate.
 Some builders may not see the benefits of using electric heat pumps - especially in their climate
zone and for the added cost.
 Some builders may be receptive to heat pumps or electric only houses, but need more convincing
and/or training about the benefits.
Roles and Respondent background
 What is your title at your company?
 What is your role?
 Please describe the primary sector that your company serves: [custom single family homes, single
family home developments, townhome developments, stacked apartments, home remodels or
retrofits, other – describe]. Which are/is the main focus market for your company?
 Approximately how many homes do you build annually?
 Are you currently building any homes within the Idaho Power ENERGY STAR Homes program i.e., do
you have any homes in the pipeline that will receive a program rebate?
Choice of Natural Gas v. Electric
The Idaho Power ENERGY STAR Homes program currently requires that homes delivered through the
program use electric heating. Idaho Power must provide cost effective incentives, and incentives for natural
gas homes are not cost effective under current gas prices.
 Does your company ever build electrically heated homes, or are all of the homes that your
company builds heated with natural gas?
[If YES, build some electrically heated homes]:
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 18 of 29
• Do your electrically heated homes use heat pumps?
• According to information from the program, you have only delivered natural gas homes
through the program. Why have you chosen not to participate in Idaho Power’s ENERGY STAR
Homes Program for electrically heated homes?
•
• Are you aware that the program provides a $1000 rebate to builders for meeting the Northwest
ENERGY STAR Homes with electric heat pump specification?
• On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all influential and 5 is very influential, how much [if yes]
does this / [if no] would this influence your decision to participate in the program?
• Have you installed heat pumps in any of your homes? If yes, why did you choose to use this
technology?
• Are you interested in learning more about the advantages of heat pumps, compared with
natural gas heating systems?
• Are customers interested in buying homes with electric heat pumps? Why or why not?
• The Idaho Power ENERGY STAR Homes program has a one-page brochure explaining heat
pumps to customers. Are you familiar with this brochure? What other marketing materials
might be useful for you to sell heat pump-heated homes to customers?
• Would you need additional education or training to build a home with an electric heat pump?
[If NO, build natural gas homes only]:
• Why do you currently only build natural gas homes?
•
• Are you aware that the program provides a $1000 rebate to builders for meeting the Northwest
ENERGY STAR Homes with electric heat pump specification?
• On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all influential and 5 is very influential, how much [if yes]
does this / [if no] would this influence your decision to participate in the program?
• Are you familiar with electric heat pumps? Heat pumps use the difference between outdoor air
temperatures and indoor air temperatures to cool and heat a home.
• [If yes]: why have you chosen not to build homes with heat pumps?
• Are you interested in learning more about the advantages of heat pumps, compared with
natural gas heating systems?
• Would you need additional education or training to build a home with an electric heat pump?
Program processes and coordination
 On a scale of 1 - 5, please rank your satisfaction with each stage in the program process; with 1
being very dissatisfied and 5 being very satisfied. [For “very dissatisfied” responses (1 or 2), ask for
further explanation.]
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 19 of 29
• The Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes Builder Agreement Form. [Clarify it is this specific
agreement, not the main ENERGY STAR application from the EPA.]
• Verification, conducted by a Home Performance Specialist (i.e., rater).
• The amount of incentive payment received in return for the level of work required.
• Incentive payment timing.
Program offerings
 Did you receive training from the program? Y/N/Don’t know
 If so, what training did you receive?
 If so, how useful was this training, on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not helpful at all and 5 is very
helpful?
 Are there additional training topics that would be helpful? If so, what?
Technical Issues and Measure Development
 Have you built homes under the new ENERGY STAR version 3, earlier versions, or both? [v. 3/
earlier versions (v. 1 or v. 2)/ Both v.3 and earlier versions/ Don’t know]
• [If version 3 or Both]: How easy was it for you to deliver a project in ENERGY STAR version 3, on
a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is Not at all easy, and 5 is very easy?
• [If version 2]: Have you tried to build to the new version (v.3) of ENERGY STAR? Y/N/ Don’t
know. What was your experience with this?
 Do you feel that there are measures or requirements in ENERGY STAR Homes that are particularly
difficult to meet? [Y/N/Don’t know] If so, which ones?
Marketing, Customer Outreach, and Market Actor Engagement
 How did you become aware of the Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes program? [If needed, provide
examples: contacted by Program specialist (Becky Arte- Howell), contacted by Program
implementer (staff from Northwest ENERGY STAR, contacted by Home Performance Specialist
(raters), program website, other - describe]?
 Do you build energy efficient homes outside of the program? [Y/N/ don’t know]
• If yes, do you certify these homes through another route?
 Have you thought about participating again in the program? [Y/N/Maybe]
• If yes or maybe, what are the barriers to your participation?
• If no, why not?
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 20 of 29
Successes and Challenges
 In terms of your experience participating in the program, what do you see as the greatest successes
of this program (i.e., what is the program doing well)?
 What are the largest challenges for you to participate in this program?
 Do you have any other recommendations for the program?
Closing (thank you and final comments)
 Those are all of the questions I have for you today. Do you have any final comments?
 Thank you so much for your time!

Home Performance Specialists
[These interviews must be conducted with the HPS person listed on the program website, NOT with another
individual at their company. We need to speak with the actual HPS (i.e., the person that goes out into the field and
does the rating and verification), not their colleague.]
Roles and Respondent background
 Please describe the majority of your company’s business practices. [If needed – for example, do you
primarily provide verification or rater services? Energy efficiency consulting services? Contracting
services? Other?]
 What percent of your work is dedicated to the Northwest ENERGY STAR program?
Program processes and coordination
 How did you hear about the program initially?
 Explain your involvement in the program.
 Explain your typical process of verifying a home.
 How often are you in contact with the program specialist (Becky Arte-Howell) and program
implementation coordinator (Northwest ENERGY STAR staff)? What types of information do they
provide for you?
Program offerings
 Did you receive training from the program?
• If so, was this training useful?
• Who conducted/sponsored the training?
• Do you have any industry certifications to support your work (such as RESNET)?
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 21 of 29
 Are there areas where you and/or the builders could benefit from additional training?
Technical Issues and Measure development
 Overall, how easy do you believe it is for builders to meet the ENERGY STAR® requirements?
 Which of the following do you feel are contributing factors to builders struggling with Energy Star
requirements? You may select more than one response – less experience, untrained or
undertrained, costs, other [describe].
 What challenges do you have (if any) with verifying measures?
Marketing, Customer Outreach, and Market Actor Engagement
 Do you market the Northwest ENERGY STAR program?
• If so, what audiences do you mainly target for marketing?
• What marketing methods do you find to be the most successful?
 What sources do you use to find home builders?
 Are there any parts of the market that are currently overlooked and/or parts that you think should
receive more attention for program marketing? Is so, please describe.
 How could marketing be improved or what resources can Idaho Power provide to assist this effort?
 Do you believe that the ENERGY STAR® designation assists in selling homes?
Successes and Challenges
 Why do you participate in the program?
 What do you see as the program’s key successes?
 What are your main barriers to participation?
 What are the largest challenges for builders?
 Do you have suggestions for improving the program?
 In the next 3 years, do you expect that your participation in the program will increase, decrease, or
stay the same?
Closing (thank you and final comments)
 Those are all of the questions I have for you today. Do you have any final comments?
 Thank you so much for your time!
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 22 of 29
Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program
Below we present the script for the participating and nonparticipating contractors interviews of the Heating and
Cooling Efficiency Program. TRC conducted the interview with the 3rd party service provider on July 8, 2013, so we
do not present the interview script here. Interview notes will be provided in the final report.
Contractor Interviews (Participating)
Roles and Respondent background
 What is your position and role at your company?
 What products do you primarily sell or what services does your company offer?
 For each of the following types of equipment, please tell me about how many installs of new
equipment your company does each year if you can share this information:
• Air-source heat pumps?
• Ground-source heat pumps?
 Does your company specialize in energy efficient (rather than standard) products or technologies?
[Yes/No /Somewhat / Don’t know]
Marketing, Customer Outreach, and Market Actor Engagement
 How did you hear about the program?
 Do you market Idaho Power’s Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program? If so, how? [Provide examples
if needed: provide program brochures, mailers, door hangers, refer customers to the program
website, other- please describe?],Who are you marketing the program to (directly to customers, to
builders, others – please describe)?
 What barriers do your customers face when deciding to purchase energy efficient HVAC equipment
in general?
 What barriers do your customers face with participating in the program?
 What have you found to be effective in overcoming those barriers? [if needed – provide possible
examples: incentives, financing, calculations showing energy savings, descriptions or case studies
of successful projects]?
 Are there marketing materials you would like Idaho Power to develop to help you engage more
customers? If yes, what types? [examples: simple descriptions of heat pumps, door hangers, direct
mail fliers, calculations showing energy savings, descriptions or case studies of successful projects,
other?]
Program processes and coordination
 I’d now like to ask about your experience with Program Processes: Please rate your agreement
with each of the following statements on a scale of 1-5, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is
strongly agree. [if answers are 1 or 2’s ask what could be improved.]
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 23 of 29
• The application process is streamlined. [Remind them – 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly
agree]
• The form installation worksheet is easy to understand.
• The heating or cooling load calculation worksheet is easy to understand.
• The customer application form is easy to understand.
• The contractor incentive amount ($150 / qualifying application) influences your decision on
whether or not you to participate in the program.
• The customer incentive amounts are set appropriately.[if needed, provide the incentive
amounts: $250-$800 for ASHP’s and $500-$1,000 for Open Loop WSHP (depending on
equipment replaced)].
• The third party service provider conducts the on-site verification in a reasonable amount of
time. [if needed – Mike Hennen from Honeywell would have done this.]
• Idaho Power processes incentives in a reasonable amount of time. [If response is 1 or 2 – ask
which incentive is not sent in a reasonable amount of time? Contractor’s, customer’s, or both.
How long did it take to receive the incentive?]
Program offerings (trainings and/or incentives):

• How effective was the required training you received when joining the program training?
Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all effective and 5 is very effective. [If they
answer 1 or 2, ask how it could be improved.]
• Can you recommend any additional training that may be helpful for this program?
 Has your company had staff that were active in the Idaho Power Heating & Cooling Efficiency
program leave your company or transition to a new role? If so, how has this affected your
company’s ability to participate in the program?
Technical Issues and Measure development
 The program requires equipment to meet minimum efficiency ratings [enter specs], and the
contractor to use right-sizing calculations.
• Have you had trouble understanding or meeting these requirements? If so, please explain.
• Do you think these efficiency requirements are about right, or are they too high or too low?
 Do you have recommendations of incentives for Idaho Power to consider adding to or dropping
from the program in the future, such as other types of HVAC equipment?
• [If they include ductless heat pumps in response] Are you aware of the Idaho Power Ductless
Heat Pump Pilot?
- [If yes] do you participate in the Ductless Heat Pump pilot?
- [If no] would you be interested in learning more about the Ductless Heat Pump Pilot?
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 24 of 29
Successes and Challenges
 What do you identify as program successes (i.e., what is the program doing well)?
 What barriers (if any) have you had with participating in the program?
 Do you have any recommendations for program improvement?
 Compared to your current participation level, do you plan to increase, decrease, or not change your
participation level in the future? [Increase / Decrease / Same / Don’t know]
Closing
 Those are all of my questions for you today. Do you have any final comments about the program?
 Thank you so much for your time.
Contractor Interviews (Non-Participating)
Roles and Respondent background
 What is your position and role at your company?
 What products do you primarily sell or what services does your company offer?
 For each of the following types of equipment, please tell me about how many installs of new
equipment your company does each year if you can share that information:
• Air-source heat pumps?
• Ground-source heat pumps?
• Evaporative coolers?
 Does your company specialize in energy efficient (rather than standard) products or technologies?
[Yes/No /Somewhat / Don’t know]
Marketing, Customer Outreach, and Market Actor Engagement

 Have you ever tried to participate in the program? If yes, what barriers did you face? If not, why
not?
 Have you ever had customers request the Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program?
 Do you market the program to customers? If so, how? (program brochures, other?) Who are you
marketing the program to (directly to customers, to builders, other)?
 What challenges do your customers face when deciding to purchase energy efficient HVAC
equipment in general?
 [only ask if they stated they have tried to participate in program]What considerations or challenges
do your customers face with participating in the program?
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 25 of 29
 What might be effective in overcoming those barriers? [if needed – provide possible examples:
incentives, calculations showing energy savings, descriptions or case studies of successful projects]?
 Are there marketing materials you would like Idaho Power to develop to help you engage more
customers? If yes, what types? [examples: simple descriptions of heat pumps, calculations showing
energy savings, descriptions or case studies of successful projects, other?]
Program processes and coordination
 Are you familiar with the program application process? [y/n/maybe]
 If so, have you had any challenges with the process or with the application itself? Please describe.
Program offerings (trainings and/or incentives):
 The customer incentive offered by the program ranges from $250-$800 for ASHP’s and $500-$1,000
for Open Loop WSHP (depending on equipment replaced). How do you feel this incentive compares
with the costs of upgraded equipment?
 The program provides $150 to the contractor per equipment installation. Were you aware of this?
How much would this influence your decision to participate in the program?
 How effective was the required training you received to become a participating contractor? Please
rate on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all effective and 5 is very effective. [If they answer 1 or 2,
ask how it could be improved.]
Successes and Challenges
 What have been your barriers to participating in the program?
 What would motivate you to participate in the program?
 Are you installing the incented equipment outside of the program? (e.g., Installing heat pumps that
meet H/C spec’s, but not enrolling in program)
 Are you following right-sizing practices (e.g., Manual J calculations) with most of your heat pump
installations?
 Compared to your current participation level, do you plan to increase, decrease, or not change your
participation level in the future? [Increase / Decrease / Same / Don’t know]
Closing
 Those are all of my questions for you today. Do you have any final comments about the program?
 Thank you so much for your time.
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 26 of 29
Combined Interviews for Multiple Programs
At the project kick off on July 8, 2013, TRC interviewed members of the Idaho Power marketing team and data
analysts. These staff work on all of these programs. We will present findings from these interviews in our final
report.
TRC will begin by interviewing the market segment coordinator that manages customer reps. We will then
interview a few customer representatives. These staff have various roles, including promoting energy efficiency
programs.
Market Segment Coordinator
Roles and Respondent Background:
 What are your roles and responsibilities in general?
 What are the roles and responsibilities of customer reps in general?
 What are their responsibilities with regards to residential energy efficiency programs?
 How are customer reps organized? [Gary said by region, and then based on commercial customer
type. Is there any designation for residential programs – e.g., focus on lighting program?]
 Approximately what fraction of their time do you think customer reps spend promoting or helping
deliver energy efficiency programs? About what fraction of this time is on residential programs?
 Do customer reps have specific goals relating to energy efficiency programs – e.g., do they have to
make a certain number of contacts or bring in a certain number of customers to programs?
 Do customer reps’ compensation depend on these program goals? For example, is it part of their
job description, or do they receive a bonus for achieving a goal?
Program processes and coordination
 How do customer reps hear about new programs or program updates?
Marketing, Customer Outreach, and Market Actor Engagement
 How do customer reps promote residential energy efficiency programs?
 Who are they targeting this marketing to (e.g., customers, trade allies, others?)
 Are the reps provided with any sort of marketing materials for programs?
 Are there materials or other tools you think would better enable customer reps to market
residential energy efficiency programs?
Successes and Challenges
 Please share any feedback (successes or challenges) from customer reps on any of the following
programs:
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 27 of 29
• Energy Efficient Lighting
• Heating & Cooling Efficiency
• Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes
 Do you have any other recommendations for enabling customer reps to better serve residential
energy efficiency programs?
Closing
 Those are all of my questions for you today. Thank you so much for your time.
Customer Representatives
The script below includes questions that TRC will ask for each of the 3 programs that we are evaluating: the
Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes, Heating and Cooling Efficiency program, and the Residential Energy Efficient
Lighting program. As indicated below, most questions will be repeated for each program.
Introduction
Hello, this is [interviewer’s name] calling from TRC Energy Services. We are conducting research on behalf
of Idaho Power to assess their residential energy efficiency programs. We’d like to find out about your
experience as a customer rep with 3 residential programs:
 the Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes, which provides $1000 to builders that meet the ENERGY STAR
Homes program requirements and use electric heat pumps for heating;
 the Residential Energy Efficient Lighting program, which provides rebates to retailers for energy
efficient lighting products, such as CFLs
 and the Heating and Cooling Efficiency program, which provides rebates to builders and customers
for installing high efficiency heating and cooling equipment, such as efficient heat pumps and
evaporative coolers, and for right sizing equipment. Note we are NOT evaluating the Ductless Heat
Pump pilot program.
Thanks in advance for your time.
Roles and Respondent Background:
 Approximately what fraction of your time do you spend promoting or helping deliver energy
efficiency programs?
 About what fraction of your total time spent on energy efficiency programs do you spend on
residential programs?
Marketing, Customer Outreach, and Market Actor Engagement
[Run through all questions for ENERGY STAR Homes program. Then repeat for Heating and Cooling Efficiency
Program. Then repeat for Residential Lighting program.]
 Do you promote the program? [Ask for each program]
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 28 of 29
 If so,
• Who do you promote the program to (e.g., customers, trade allies [ask them to specify which
type of trade ally])?
• How do you promote the program?
 Do you feel equipped to talk about the program with market actors, such as, for the Northwest
ENERGY STAR Homes, homeowners, builders, and developers? For example, do you understand
the program and its requirements, and any technical issues that may arise in these discussions?
• [Repeat for Heating / Cooling Efficiency, where market actors are homeowners and
contractors]
• [Repeat for Residential Energy Efficiency, where market actors could include retailers and
manufacturers.]
• If not, how could Idaho Power better equip you to speak about these programs?
 Do you feel you are kept up to date with program changes? If so, how do you hear about them?
[Ask for each program]
 How many program inquiries do you receive per month for the program? [Ask for each program]
 If a customer or trade ally wants to participate in the program, where do you direct them to learn
more information about the program? [Ask for each program]
 Do you have ongoing relationships with any large accounts for the ENERGY STAR Homes program,
such as production builders? If so, please indicate which ones.
• Do you have ongoing relationships with any large accounts for the Residential Energy Efficiency
Lighting program, such as “big box” retailers? If so, which ones?
 Do you use any marketing materials, such as program promotional material or the program
website, when describing the program to customers or trade allies? [Ask for each program]
• If so, what do you use?
• Are there additional marketing materials or program website improvements that could assist
you in promoting the program?
• [For ENERGY STAR program only] The ENERGY STAR Homes program has a one-page marketing
piece that describes ductless heat pumps, and the advantages of these systems. Have you seen
this? If so, have you used it in your discussions with builders?
Successes and Challenges
[Run through all questions for ENERGY STAR Homes program. Then repeat for Heating and Cooling Efficiency
Program. Then repeat for Residential Lighting program.]

 What successes have you heard about in the program? [Ask for each program]
 What challenges have you heard from customers or trade allies about the program? [Ask for each
program]
MEMORANDUM (continued)
To: Gary Grayson (Idaho Power)
Re: DRAFT Interview scripts for residential process evaluation
Page 29 of 29
 Do you have any suggestions for improving, or enabling you to engage more customers in the
program? [Ask for each program]
Closing
 Do you have any final comments about your role in promoting energy efficiency programs in
general?
 Those are all of my questions for you today. Thank you so much for your time.

Impact Evaluation of
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program
January 2012 through August 2013
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Prepared by:

ADM Associates, Inc.
3239 Ramos Circle
Sacramento, CA 95827
916.363.8383

Final Report: December 2013

Contact:

Taghi Alereza, Ph.D., CEO
916.363.8383
[e-mail]

Prepared by:

Crystal Jewett
916.363.8383
[e-mail]

Steven Keates, P.E.
916.363.8383
[e-mail]

i
Table of Contents

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................... E-1
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 1-1
2. Estimation of Impact Savings .................................................................................................................. 2-1
3. Non-Energy Benefit Review ..................................................................................................................... 3-1
4. Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 4-1
Appendix A: Sampled Custom Site Detail ................................................................................................ A-1

ii
List of Tables
Table ES-1. Summary of Impact Savings for Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program ........ ES-1
Table 1-1. Menu Option Incentives ............................................................................................................ 1-1
Table 1-2. Custom Option Incentives ........................................................................................................ 1-2
Table 1-3. Expected kWh Savings for Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program ........................ 1-2
Table 2-1. Population Statistics Used for Developing Sampling Plan ........................................... 2-2
Table 2-2. Number of Sampled Sites per Stratum (incl. Sample Weights) ................................. 2-2
Table 2-3. Ex Ante and 2013 RTF kWh Savings Values ...................................................................... 2-5
Table 2-4. Verified Savings by Utility and Measure Category ...................................................... 2-10
Table 2-5. Program Ex Ante and Ex Post Energy Savings by Program Component ............. 2-10
Table 3-1. Non Energy Benefit Summary ................................................................................................ 3-3
Table 4-1. Summary of Impact Savings for Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program .............. 4-1
Table A-1. Custom Site Analysis Detail .................................................................................................... A-1

iii
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Example of AMI meter data, pre and post retrofit ........................................................ 2-8

Executive Summary ES-1
Executive Summary
This report presents the results of the impact of the custom and menu incentive components of
the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program that Idaho Power Company (“IPC”) offers to its
agricultural customers in Idaho and Eastern Oregon. This report presents results for activity
during the period from January 2012 through August 2013.
Data for the study were collected through review of program materials, and interviews with
participating agricultural customers, agricultural trade allies, and IPC staff members. The main
features of the approach used for the evaluation are as follows:
 An analytical review of program measures was performed to verify ex post impact savings
estimates.
 Interviews were conducted and an analytical review was performed to confirm any non-
energy benefits (“NEBs”) associated with the program.
 Regional Technical Forum (“RTF”) estimates for the measures included in the menu
component of the program were reviewed for reasonability and accuracy.
The verified gross energy savings of the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program during 2012-
2013 are summarized in Table ES-1. During this period, verified ex post energy savings totaled
35,804,606 kWh, making the gross realization rate for the program 159%. The verified ex post
demand savings for the program were 28,029 kW.
Table ES-1. Summary of Impact Savings for Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program
Program Component Ex Ante kWh
Savings Ex Post kWh Savings Realization
Rate
Ex Post kW
Savings
Menu 13,385,010 25,018,743 187% 20,540.9
Custom 9,158,247 10,785,863 118% 7,488.1
Total: 22,543,257 35,804,606 159% 28,029.0
The following presents a selection of key findings from the program evaluation:
 Menu Option Expected Savings were Conservative: Using the 2013 RTF values to
calculate savings for menu option measures revealed that IPC’s expected savings estimates
were conservative. Expected savings included two adjustment factors: the first for actual
average pump run times for individual sites, and second, variations in irrigation system type.
ADM reviewed the RTF values for reasonability and accuracy and found no reason to
mitigate the values with per site adjustment factors.
 Custom Option Expected Savings were Conservative: ADM’s method for calculating ex
post savings for the custom option in the program relied primarily on pre and post retrofit
AMI meter data. This gave the evaluators an accurate snapshot of how each pump affected
by the retrofits at each site was using energy pre and post retrofit. IPC’s calculations were
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program Impact Evaluation Report
Executive Summary ES-2
based on 2012 data (not 2012 and 2013 data) and deemed hours estimates in most cases, thus
contributing to low ex ante estimates and high realization rates for the custom projects.
 Non-Energy Benefits Understated for Menu Option: Menu option NEBs were calculated
by IPC staff assuming that each acre of the farm would receive $2.00 in NEBs if any quantity
of any measure was installed. This led to a counterintuitive result of very large farms that
made small investments receiving disproportionate NEBs. For example, a 375 acre farm that
invested $12.60 on replacing 12 worn nozzles received a claimed NEB of $750, creating a
return on investment (“ROI”) of 5,952%. Inversely, farms that made costly investments to
their irrigation systems but have small overall acreage received very low NEBs. A 25 acre
farm invested $3,515 and received $50 in claimed NEBs (1% ROI), and so on. The average
NEB ROI for each project in the menu component of the program was 80%. Using societal
cost-benefit values from the Regional Technical Forum’s (RTF) workbook for irrigation
hardware, the evaluators discovered that potential NEBs for the menu option of the program
could be much higher than what was claimed by IPC if a linear relationship is assumed
between increases to NEBs and decreases in kWh associated with the retrofits.
In the interest of further program improvement, the following recommendations are offered:
 Consider Including a Cost-Effectiveness Test in the Next Evaluation Cycle: In order to
further verify non-energy benefits and the cost effectiveness of the Irrigation Efficiency
Rewards Program, we recommend including budget and resources for a cost-effectiveness
test in the next evaluation cycle. The RTF currently provides values for societal costs and
benefits for menu component measures only.1 Currently, no previous published research has
been conducted on NEBs for irrigation systems; however, extensive research has been
conducted on incorporating NEB estimates into cost-effectiveness tests for residential and
commercial demand side management programs.2 Non-energy benefits are difficult to
quantify, thus we recommend incorporating the evaluation of NEBs into a comprehensive
cost-effectiveness test for the entire program.
 Update Menu Component Incentives and Expected Savings to Match the RTF: The
2013 version of the RTF combined the existing nozzle measure, low pressure regulator
measure, and sprinkler head measures into a new “sprinkler package” measure. In 2012, the
menu option treated the existing nozzle, low pressure regulator and rotating sprinkler head
measures as separate line items. The application for the 2014 irrigation program should be
revised to match the measures covered under the RTF. Similarly, IPC should consider
revising their expected savings values to be consistent with the RTF values for each measure
or measure group.
1 These values were used to estimate NEBs for the menu component only.
2 “Addressing Non-Energy Benefits in the Cost-Effectiveness Framework.” California Public Utilities Commission
Staff, 2012. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/BA1A54CF-AA89-4B80-BD90-0A4D32D11238/0/AddressingNEBsFinal.pdf

Introduction 1-1
1. Introduction
This report presents the results of the impact evaluation of the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
Program offered by Idaho Power Company (IPC) during the period January 2012 through
August 2013.
1.1 Description of Program
The Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program generates electricity savings through incenting
efficiency improvements to existing irrigation systems as well as from design improvements for
new irrigation systems on added acreage to existing farms. Applicants requesting incentives for
electricity conservation measures must do so for sites serviced by Idaho Power Company.
The program is divided into two main components: the menu option and the custom option.
Menu option incentives are limited to a set list of measures. Menu option incentives can be
issued up to a year after measures have been installed. For the custom option incentives,
applicants must submit a project proposal for preapproval by IPC. Table 1-1 demonstrates how
incentives are calculated for each measure of the menu option of the program. The main
difference in how incentives are calculated between the two components is that menu option
incentives are measure-based, while the custom option issues incentives based on expected kWh
or kW saved.
Table 1-1. Menu Option Incentives
Menu Option
Measure Incentive per unit
New flow-control type nozzles replacing existing brass
nozzles or worn out flow-control nozzles of same flow rate or less2 $1.50
New nozzles replacing existing worn nozzles of same
flow rate or less2 $0.25
Rebuilt or new brass impact sprinklers1,2 $2.75
Rebuild kits for wheel line levelers $0.75
New rotating-type sprinklers or low-pressure pivot sprinklers heads with the same flow rate or less1,2 $2.75
New low-pressure regulators $5.00
New drains, risercaps and gaskets for hand lines, wheel
lines or portable mainline1,2 $1.00
New wheel line hubs (on Thunderbird wheel lines)1,2 $12.00
New gooseneck with drop tube or boomback $1.00 per outlet
Cut and press pipe repair of leaking hand lines, wheel lines and portable mainline (invoice must show number
of joints repaired)
$8.00 per joint
New center pivot base boot gasket $125.00 1 Incentives are limited to the lesser of the incentive or 50 percent of the customer’s invoice cost. 2 Incentives are limited to $2 per acre.
Table 1-2 explains in brief the incentive structure for the custom option of the program.
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program Impact Evaluation Report
Introduction 1-2
Table 1-2. Custom Option Incentives
Custom Option
Type of System Incentive Structure
Existing System $0.25 per annual kWh saved or $450 per kW (Incentive will not exceed 75% of project cost)
New System $0.25 per annual kWh saved
(Incentive will not exceed 10% of project cost)
It is important to note that new variable frequency drive (VFD) pumps were incented through the
custom option of the program, as well as conversions from ditch irrigation to gravity line
systems. New systems are generally defined as irrigation system retrofits that were
comprehensive enough to be deemed as a new system. New systems primarily include adding
acreage that had not been previously farmed and installing a new irrigation system on that
acreage.
1.2 Expected Energy Savings
Expected energy savings by program component are shown in Table 1-3. There were 1,623
incentive projects during the period January 2012 through August 2013, which were expected to
provide savings of 22,543,257 kWh annually.
Table 1-3. Expected kWh Savings for Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program
Program Component Project Count Ex Ante kWh Savings
Menu 1,453 13,385,010
Custom 170 9,158,247
Total: 1,623 22,543,257

1.3 Overview of Evaluation Approach
The overall objective for the impact evaluation of the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program
was to determine the gross energy savings resulting from the program’s custom and menu
projects during the period January 2012 through August 2013.
The approach for the impact evaluation was based on the following features:
 Available documentation (e.g., audit reports, invoices, AMI meter data, etc.) was reviewed
for the custom projects, with particular attention given to the calculation procedures and
documentation for expected savings estimates.
 The 2013 RTF savings workbook for agricultural hardware was reviewed for reliability and
accuracy of savings for measures included in the menu option, and those values applied as
appropriate to the menu projects.
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program Impact Evaluation Report
Introduction 1-3
 A sample of participant farmers was interviewed on-site and during desk reviews to collect
information about irrigation schedules, measures installed, and non-energy benefits gained by
participation in the program.
1.4 Organization of Report
This report on the impact evaluation of the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program for the period
January 2012 through August 2013 is organized as follows:
 Chapter 2 presents and discusses the analytical methods and results of estimating ex post
savings for measures implemented under the program.
 Chapter 3 presents and discusses the analytical methods and results of the non-energy benefit
review.
 Chapter 4 presents evaluation conclusions and recommendations resulting from the program
evaluation.
 Appendix A provides a detailed discussion of sampled custom sites and the analytical
methods applied to evaluate savings for each site.

Estimation of Impact Savings 2-1
2. Estimation of Impact Savings
This chapter addresses the estimation of gross kWh and kW savings resulting from measures
installed in facilities of customers that obtained incentives under the Irrigation Efficiency
Rewards Program during the period January 2012 through August 2013. The sampling design
for the evaluation effort is presented in Section 2.1. Section 2.2 describes the methodology used
for estimating ex post savings for the menu option of the program. Section 2.3 describes the
methodologies used for estimating ex post savings for the custom option of the program. Section
2.4 presents the program ex post verified kWh and kW energy savings.
2.1 Sample Plan Design
Estimation of the gross savings achieved through projects undertaken under the Irrigation
Efficiency Rewards Program were developed using data for a statistically valid sample of
projects whose savings were claimed during the period of January 2012 through August 2013.
The focus of the sampling was on selecting a sample of projects (1) that accounts for a
significant portion of estimated savings and (2) that includes projects for which savings estimates
seem most uncertain.
In addition to the above considerations, separate strata for custom option projects were created
for new systems and existing systems. The sample was selected so that results are representative
of the population to a high degree of confidence (i.e., 10% precision at the 90% confidence
level).
A sample frame with which to examine alternative sample designs was constructed using the
information on projects provided by Idaho Power. The design variable used in developing a
sampling plan was ex ante expected gross annual kWh savings. Sample strata were defined by
applying a stratification procedure to the data on ex ante kWh savings (based on the data
provided by IPC). The population statistics, used to develop the sampling plan, are shown in
Table 2-1.

Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program Impact Evaluation Report
Estimation of Impact Savings 2-2
Table 2-1. Population Statistics Used for Developing Sampling Plan
Stratum Measure Cat. Stratum Boundaries Number of
Projects
Ex Ante Expected kWh Savings
Total Average Standard Deviation
Coefficient of
Variation
1 Menu Minimum – 1,000 175 88,865 508 317 0.625
2 Menu 1,001 – 10,000 816 3,847,881 4,716 2,500 0.530
3 Menu 10,001 – 45,000 440 7,730,503 17,569 7,043 0.401
4 Menu 45,001 – Maximum 22 1,717,762 78,080 31,467 0.403
5 CustomNew Minimum – 25,000 52 549,061 10,559 5,697 0.540
6 CustomNew 25,001 – 100,000 15 595,049 39,670 18,232 0.460
7 CustomNew 100,001 – 300,000 3 557,873 185,958 99,767 0.537
8 CustomNew 300,001 – Maximum 7 3,459,450 494,207 132,255 0.268
9 CustomExisting Minimum – 5,000 9 28,014 3,113 1,034 0.332
10 CustomExisting 5,001 – 25,000 44 595,430 13,533 5,477 0.405
11 CustomExisting 25,001 – 150,000 36 1,978,177 54,949 28,284 0.515
12 CustomExisting 150,001 – Maximum 4 1,395,193 348,798 236,778 0.679
Total: 1,623 22,543,257 13,890
The sample frame above was used to select a sample of 82 projects for evaluation. The
population distribution is positively skewed for both menu and custom option projects. As such,
a relatively small percentage of the projects account for the majority of the program savings.
Because of this skew, in addition to the program option category, consideration was given to the
size of the projects (ex ante savings estimate) and their overall contribution to program savings.
Table 2-2 lists the number of projects sampled within each stratum. The sample was selected so
that results are representative of the population with 10% precision at the 90% confidence level.
Table 2-2. Number of Sampled Sites per Stratum (incl. Sample Weights)
Stratum Measure Category Number of Projects Number of Sampled Projects Stratum Weight
1 Menu 175 5 47.51
2 Menu 816 15 55.73
3 Menu 440 20 22.08
4 Menu 22 22 1.00
5 CustomNew 52 2 17.16
6 CustomNew 15 2 10.15
7 CustomNew 3 2 1.26
8 CustomNew 7 6 1.16
9 CustomExisting 9 1 6.94
10 CustomExisting 44 2 36.80
11 CustomExisting 36 2 29.05
12 CustomExisting 4 3 1.00
Total: 1,623 82 n/a

Of the sampled projects, 20 custom option sites received on-site verification visits and
engineering analyses. Seven menu option projects received on-site verification visits and desk
reviews were conducted for an additional 55 projects. Thus, a total of 62 menu option projects
and 20 custom option projects were sampled.
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program Impact Evaluation Report
Estimation of Impact Savings 2-3
2.2 Methodology for Estimating Ex Post Savings, Menu Option
The methodology used for estimating ex post savings for the menu option of the Irrigation
Efficiency Rewards Program is described in this section.
2.2.1 Review of Documentation
Idaho Power Company provided documentation pertaining to the projects completed during the
evaluation cycle. The first step in the evaluation effort was to review this documentation and
other relevant program materials.
ADM created a stratified sample of the menu option projects and selected a number of projects
for site visits and/or desk reviews. In sum, ADM conducted 62 desk reviews and seven on-site
verification visits for menu option projects.
For each sampled project, the available documentation (e.g., incentive application forms, savings
calculation work papers, etc.) for each rebated measure was reviewed, with particular attention
given to the calculation procedures and savings estimates. Documentation that was reviewed for
all projects included program forms, databases, reports, billing system data, weather data, and
any other potentially useful data.
2.2.2 On-site Data Collection Procedures
For each verification visit conducted at a menu project site, ADM’s field engineer recorded specifications for each pump unit and irrigation system, including nameplate data for each pump
motor. Measure counts from the project documentation were verified as well as the operating
condition of the measures. The field engineer also interviewed customers about any NEBs they
may have experienced as a result of the retrofits.
Throughout the inspection process at each site, staff photographed the retrofitted measures, pump nameplates and other key elements of the irrigation pump system.
2.2.3 Analytical Desk Review
For projects with unclear or seemingly incomplete documentation, evaluation staff contacted IPC
to seek further information. This ensured the development of accurate verified ex post savings
estimates.
Evaluation staff reviewed the ex ante energy savings algorithms to verify that the assumptions
were reasonable, that the algorithm was correct for assigning ex ante savings per measure, and
that the procedure aligned with the methodologies outlined in the Regional Technical Forum
(RTF) workbook for irrigation hardware. ADM reviewed and verified the mathematical
soundness of the savings calculations for each measure. Measure algorithm inputs were verified
with the information provided by IPC. The calculations were then checked to ensure that the
reported results could be replicated. Once the ex ante calculation methods were verified, the
reasonableness of the calculation was assessed. IPC had used two adjustment factors to enhance
the accuracy of their ex ante analysis of the menu option projects; for some projects, adjustments
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program Impact Evaluation Report
Estimation of Impact Savings 2-4
were made for actual annual hours of use and irrigation system types. ADM was able to replicate
final ex ante savings values using these adjustment factors.
IPC constructed their menu option incentives and savings for both the 2012 and 2013 programs
based on measure types and groupings used in the 2012 RTF. ADM instead used the 2013 RTF3
for deemed savings and reconciled the differences in the measure groupings when necessary. For
example, the 2013 version of the RTF combined the 2012 existing nozzle measure, low pressure
regulator measure, and sprinkler head measures into a new “sprinkler package” measure. Low
pressure regulators were offered as standalone measures incentives in the IPC program. In order
to evaluate the savings for these regulators, ADM staff used engineering calculations to
determine what the saving value is for the “regulators only” and “gaskets only” measure under
the purveyance of the 2013 RTF. In addition, for each project where it was applicable, ADM
staff grouped an even number of replaced nozzles, regulators, and rotating sprinkler heads
together as a “sprinkler package” and calculated ex post savings from the 2013 RTF values for a
new sprinkler package for center pivot systems.

Table 2-3 provides the ex ante values and 2013 RTF kWh savings values used for ex post
calculations for each measure included in the menu option of the program. Project level ex post
savings are calculated by multiplying the 2013 RTF savings values per measure by the verified
quantity per measure.
Ex post reductions in kW were calculated by dividing the ex post kWh savings by the 2013 RTF
deemed, regional annual hours of use for irrigation systems.

Equation 2-1
Where:
kWhexpost = Verified ex post kWh savings
HOU = Hours of use for irrigation systems
(Eastern & Southern Idaho = 1,142; Western Idaho = 1,600)
3 The 2013 RTF values for irrigation hardware have been vetted by external studies conducted at the University of Idaho.
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program Impact Evaluation Report
Estimation of Impact Savings 2-5

Table 2-3. Ex Ante and 2013 RTF kWh Savings Values
Measure Ex Ante kWh
Value
2013 RTF kWh Value
(Southern & Eastern Idaho)
2013 RTF kWh Value
(Western Idaho)
New flow-control type nozzles
replacing existing brass nozzles or worn out flow-control nozzles of
same flow rate or less
20 40.6 37.1
New nozzles replacing existing worn nozzles of same flow rate or less
(wheel & hand line systems) 20 40.6 37.1
New nozzles replacing existing worn nozzles of same flow rate or less
(pivot systems)
20 44 36.2
Rebuilt or new brass impact sprinklers 40 27.3 32.6
Rebuild kits for wheel line levelers 2 40.5 48.4
New rotating-type sprinklers or low-
pressure pivot sprinklers heads with the same flow rate or less 40 29.6 31.8
New low-pressure regulators3 40 24.4 37.4
Replace leaking gasket with new
gasket n/a 163.3 195
Replace leaking drain with new drain n/a 169.2 202.1
New drains, risercaps and gaskets for
hand lines, wheel lines or portable mainline2 30 n/a n/a
New wheel line hubs (on
Thunderbird wheel lines) 40 70.3 84
New gooseneck with drop tube or
boomback1 20 14.9 16.1
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program Impact Evaluation Report
Estimation of Impact Savings 2-6
Cut and press pipe repair of leaking
hand lines, wheel lines and portable mainline (invoice must show number
of joints repaired)
60 81.3 97
New center pivot base boot gasket 850 1,423.8 1,532.2
Install new center pivot sprinkler package n/a 97.9 105.4
1 This measure was separated in the 2013 RTF into two measures: new goosenecks and drop tubes. “RTF kWh values” are the savings combined from the two measures. 2 This measure was separated in the 2013 RTF into two measures: “replace leaking drain” and “replace leaking gasket”. 3 Regulators measure dropped in 2013 RTF. ADM calculated ex post values.
2.3 Methodology for Estimating Ex Post Savings, Custom Option
The methodology used for estimating ex post savings for the custom option of the Irrigation
Efficiency Rewards Program is described in this section.
2.3.1 Review of Documentation
Idaho Power Company provided documentation pertaining to the projects completed during the
evaluation cycle. The first step in the evaluation effort was to review this documentation and
other relevant program materials.
ADM created a stratified sample of the custom option projects and selected a number of projects
for site visits and/or desk reviews. In sum, ADM conducted 20 on-site verification visits and
engineering analyses for custom option projects.
For each sampled project, the available documentation (e.g., incentive application forms, savings
calculation work papers, etc.) for each rebated measure was reviewed, with particular attention
given to the calculation procedures and savings estimates. Documentation that was reviewed for
all projects included program forms, databases, reports, AMI meter data, billing system data,
weather data, and any other potentially useful data.
2.3.2 On-site Data Collection Procedures
For each verification visit conducted at a custom project site, ADM’s field engineer recorded
specifications for each pump unit and irrigation system, including nameplate data for each pump
motor. ADM field staff documented customer information, and also conducted a visual inspection pertaining to general conditions noting whether or not the equipment was installed
and operating as described in project documentation. For example, nozzle size was verified, and
sprinklers were activated when possible to check for leaks or other malfunctions of the irrigation
system. The field engineer conducted customer interviews on-site in order to estimate operating
times and schedules for the irrigation pump(s). The field engineer also interviewed customers about any NEBs they may have experienced as a result of the retrofits. In addition to the
technical specifications of the evaluated irrigation system, ADM field staff noted the crop type
(per irrigated plot) and interviewed site contact for a recent history of crops planted in the field.
Crop history data was important in normalizing for differences in water usage from one year to
the next.
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program Impact Evaluation Report
Estimation of Impact Savings 2-7
Throughout the inspection process at each site, staff photographed the measures retrofitted or
newly installed, pump nameplates and other key elements of the irrigation pump system. All data
was documented on a customized field data form.
2.3.3 Engineering Analyses
Evaluation staff reviewed the ex ante energy savings algorithms to review the assumptions
algorithm applicability for assigning ex ante savings per project. ADM reviewed and verified the
mathematical soundness of the savings calculations for each measure. Measure algorithm inputs
were reviewed with the information provided by IPC. The calculations were then checked to
ensure that the reported results could be replicated. Once the ex ante calculation methods were
reviewed, ADM engineering staff calculated the ex post energy impacts as follows.
Sampled projects in the custom option of the program broadly fell into one or more of the following categories of retrofit:
 Installation of new VFD(s) on existing pumps;
 Conversion from ditch and/or well pump irrigation to gravity lines;
 Conversions from hand and wheel line irrigation systems to pivot irrigation systems;
 Repairing or upgrading existing well and/or booster pumps; and,
 Installing an efficient irrigation system on new acreage added to an existing farm.
ADM’s engineers first assessed what types of retrofits occurred at each sampled project. Each
custom project was treated as unique in that the crop type, irrigated acreage, field elevations, etc.
differed from farm to farm. Moreover the types of retrofits (or combination of retrofits)
performed and the type of irrigation system employed varied across sites. Project documentation
was reviewed against on-site field notes and AMI meter data for each affected pump to check for
discrepancies in annual hours of usage. For projects with unclear or seemingly incomplete
documentation, evaluation staff contacted IPC to seek further information regarding project
scope.
Ex post energy impacts were quantified using engineering first principles and hourly billing
history provided by IPC. Though the irrigation systems, crops, pump head, etc. varied across
projects, most projects targeted a reduction in demand (kW) rather than operating hours.
Consequently, the hourly demand data provided by IPC was reviewed to identify differences in
the pre and post irrigation system demand. The same data was be used to quantify the annual
hours of operation. For projects which impacted only the irrigation system’s demand, ADM was
able to use both the pre and post hourly data to quantify average system operating hours. The
governing equation for the ex post savings can be simplified as follows:

Equation 2-2
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program Impact Evaluation Report
Estimation of Impact Savings 2-8
Where:
∆kW = Difference between baseline demand and post-retrofit demand
HOU = Hours of use for irrigation systems per project
This approach differed from that used by IPC engineers to generate the ex ante savings estimate
in that ADM had access to actual ex post demand measurements for comparison. The ex ante
estimates relied on engineering first principles to estimate the post system demand. Ex ante hours
of operation were generally estimated by dividing the average monthly peak demand by the
average annual energy use. In some cases IPC engineers deemed it appropriate to use the IPC
deemed estimate of 2,000 hours.
Figure 2-1 below illustrates the reduction of kW demand at an AMI metered-pump before and
after installing a smaller (hp), efficient well pump. The retrofit included replacing a 15 hp pump
with a 5 hp pump. The pump power demand in the AMI data is noticeably reduced after the
installation of the new pump. At this example site (project #1666), the retrofit of the pump
occurred in August of 2012. ADM took the delta of the pre and post retrofit kW as the demand
savings.
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program Impact Evaluation Report
Estimation of Impact Savings 2-9
Figure 2-1. Example of AMI meter data, pre and post retrofit
One important consideration when comparing demand data across different years is the crop
type. Different crops have different watering needs which effect the run time for the irrigation
system.4 ADM engineers reviewed crop type information collected on-site against
evapotranspiration data from AgriMET5 in order to identify where differences in pump run-time
(as seen in the hourly billing data) were caused by crop rotation.
Appendix A presents a table with a summary of the analysis methods and findings for each
sample project. Where the methodology deviates from the main approaches explained above, that
is noted and alternative methodology presented in detail.
2.3.4 Custom Option Billing Analysis
In order to further substantiate the engineering analyses conducted to calculate savings for the
custom option of the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program, the evaluators conducted a parallel
billing analysis using monthly billing data from the participating custom projects and for a non-
participant control group. The methodology of the billing analysis is explained below.
Monthly billing data was received by ADM from IPC for every pump system receiving a custom
measure in the 2012 – 2013 program. Estimating the total GWh savings attributable to the
custom measures required developing a multiple regression model of annual GWh (summed over
all pump systems) as a function of cumulative precipitation and cumulative evapotranspiration.
4 Note that only the run-time is impacted, not the system demand.
5 http://www.usbr.gov/pn/agrimet/etsummary.html
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program Impact Evaluation Report
Estimation of Impact Savings 2-10
Cumulative precipitation and evapotranspiration data was pulled from the AgriMET database
mentioned in the previous section.
Thus, the linear model was designed as:

Equation 2-3
Where:
GWhy = The sum of GWh for all pump systems in the treatment group which
fulfilled a set quota for billing data6
ET = Evapotranspiration constant
ETy = Total evapotranspiration for year (water) Y7
PU = Precipitation constant
PUy = Total precipitation for year (water) Y
The data, both billing and AgriMET, were examined for any erroneous reads or significant
outliers. Erroneous entries in the AMI data were removed from the data that was used in the
regression model. Outliers in the AgriMET evapotranspiration and/or precipitation data were
replaced with median values. With the outliers accounted for, the annual values for precipitation
and evapotranspiration were summed for the water year. The model was run through the R
statistical software package. In order to corroborate the analysis of the treatment group, the
evaluators completed a similar longitudinal analysis of a set of pump systems that had not
participated in the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program.
For program participants, this model had a significant predictive power for the years prior to
2013, and the program achieved a realization rate of 111%. This is in line with the engineering
analyses approach which achieved an overall realization rate of 118% for the custom option of
the program.
2.4 Results of Program Ex Post Savings Estimation
To estimate program ex post energy savings, data were collected and analyzed for 82 projects.
The data were analyzed using the methods described in Section 2.2 and 2.3 to determine project
6 Criteria for billing data were as follows: an uninterrupted billing history dating back to 2007, with bills as recent as
2013. Out of 76 systems for which the evaluators received billing data, it was determined 56 satisfied this criteria. Continuity of data in necessary to ensure that the treatment group does not change from in its makeup from year to
year.
7 A water year is defined as running from October 1st to September 30th.
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program Impact Evaluation Report
Estimation of Impact Savings 2-11
energy savings and to determine realization rates for the program. The results of that analysis
are reported in this section.
2.4.1 Verified Ex Post Energy Savings
Sampled projects’ ex post verified energy savings (kWh and kW) attributable to the Irrigation
Efficiency Rewards Program are provided in Table 2-4. Savings are reported by stratum.
Table 2-4. Verified Savings by Utility and Measure Category
Stratum Measure Category Ex Ante kWh Ex Post kWh Realization Rate
1 Menu 1,870 19,447 1040%
2 Menu 69,043 145,282 210%
3 Menu 350,191 562,294 161%
4 Menu 1,717,762 3,585,231 209%
5 CustomNew 549,061 429,434 78%
6 CustomNew 595,049 604,075 102%
7 CustomNew 557,873 449,468 81%
8 CustomNew 3,459,450 5,097,989 147%
9 CustomExisting 28,014 82,497 294%
10 CustomExisting 595,430 552,855 93%
11 CustomExisting 1,978,177 2,400,487 121%
12 CustomExisting 1,395,193 1,169,059 84%
Total: 22,543,257 35,804,606 159%

Realization rates were calculated for each stratum based on the ex post verified savings for the
sampled projects. The stratum realization rate was then applied to the entire population of
projects, which generated program level savings (kWh and kW). Table 2-5 below displays the
expected ex ante and verified ex post energy savings for the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
Program for each component of the program. Program-level ex post verified savings total
35,804,606 kWh and 28,029 kW for the period of January 2012 through August 2013.
Table 2-5. Program Ex Ante and Ex Post Energy Savings by Program Component
Program Component Ex Ante kWh Savings Ex Post kWh Savings Realization Rate Ex Post kW Savings
Menu 13,385,010 25,018,743 187% 20,540.9
Custom 9,158,247 10,785,863 118% 7,488.1
Total: 22,543,257 35,804,606 159% 28,029.0

Non-Energy Benefit Review 3-1
3. Non-Energy Benefit Review
This chapter provides information on the methodology ADM used to verify and estimate the
non-energy benefits (NEBs) resulting from the 2012 – 2013 Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
Program. NEBs were claimed for the custom option of the program for the following categories:
 Increases to overall crop yield
 Decreases in labor costs
 Decreases in overhead or management costs
 Any decreases in operating costs associated with installing new VFDs on pumps
Most of the NEBs for the custom option claimed by IPC were for increases to crop yield and
decreases to labor costs. These NEBs were calculated on a per acre basis, and several factors
were taken into account by IPC analysts such as region and type of system installed. Overall,
NEBs were reported between $25 and $100 an acre for the custom option. It is important to note
that NEBs were not claimed by IPC for every project in the custom option, as the NEBs were
calculated on a project by project basis.
For the menu option, an overall value of $2 an acre was applied by IPC to calculate a project
level NEB for every project. This value was inclusive of increased crop yield and decreased
labor costs.
3.1 Verification Rate of NEBs
Idaho Power’s and ADM’s approach to verifying the occurrence of NEBs for both the menu and
custom options of the program relied on program participants’ self-reporting amounts. ADM
staff conducted a total of 28 sites visits to farms that received incentives from the program.
During those site visits and follow-up interviews, participating customers were asked about any
NEBs they may have experienced, from water savings to labor savings. Using this interview
data, ADM was able to calculate a verification rate for the NEBs for both portions of the
program. The verification rate was calculated by counting the number of customers for each
portion of the program who said they had experienced any NEBs at all, divided by the number of
projects/customers in IPC’s database that had claimed any NEBs. Therefore, ADM was able to
confirm that 40% of the 67% of custom projects that claimed NEBS had actually experienced
any, thus giving a net verification rate of 59% of projects experiencing NEBs for the custom
portion of the program.
3.2 Estimating NEBs Methodology
ADM also asked participating customers to estimate their actual increased crop yield or
decreased labor, management and water costs that they attributed to their farm’s participation in
the program. Overall, the customer’s self reporting for the custom portion of the program fell in
the range that IPC used to calculate the NEBs, $25 to $100 an acre. ADM found no reason to
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program Impact Evaluation Report
Non-Energy Benefit Review 3-2
mitigate IPC’s methodology and accepted the values that were listed in the database for NEBs
before applying the verification rate to calculate a final net NEB value.
However, there were systematic issues with how NEBs were calculated for the menu portion of
the program. Using the overall $2 an acre figure for calculating NEBs produced a
counterintuitive result of very large farms that made small investments receiving
disproportionate NEBs. For example, a 375 acre farm that invested $12.60 on replacing 12 worn
nozzles received a claimed NEB of $750, creating a return on investment (“ROI”) of 5,952%.
Inversely, farms that made costly investments to their irrigation systems but have small overall
acreage received very low NEBs. A 25 acre farm invested $3,515 and received $50 in claimed
NEBs (1% ROI), and so on.
IPC’s assumptions were also tested using statistical regression to see if ex ante kWh and kW
savings shared a linear relationship with NEB values. ADM found that there was no statistical
relationship between kWh and kW savings and NEBs for either portion of the program. This is a
reasonable result as NEBs for both portions of the program were reliant on farm acreage and not
energy savings.
The RTF provides various values for societal cost-benefits that include NEBs for the menu
option of the irrigation program. These values are assessed by the kWh saved for each measure.
In order to normalize the data and mitigate the issues of large farms and small project costs
receiving large NEB values as described above, the evaluators decided to adopt the RTF method
for calculating NEBs for the menu option, which assumes a relationship between kWh saved and
NEBs gained. Using this method, ADM was able to calculate a societal cost-benefit value ($) per
verified measure for sampled projects in the menu option of the program. Ex post values for
NEBs were divided by ex ante values for NEBs to create stratum-level realization rates8. These
realization rates were then applied to the entire population of claimed NEBs for the menu option
of the program.
Currently, no previous published research has been conducted on NEBs for irrigation systems;
however, extensive research has been conducted on incorporating NEB estimates into cost-
effectiveness tests for residential and commercial demand side management (DSM) programs.
Non-energy benefits are difficult to quantify, thus we recommend incorporating the evaluation of
NEBs into a comprehensive cost-effectiveness test for the entire program. It is ADM’s
recommendation based on a literature review that future NEB analyses should be incorporated
into whole program costs effectiveness tests. Therefore, the values presented in Table 3-1 below
should be taken as advisory only; the “ex post net NEBs” values refer to the maximum amount
of NEBs that could have been claimed by IPC in their assessment of the Irrigation Efficiency
Rewards Program for the period of January 2012 – August 2013.
8 The sample design and stratum boundaries are exactly the same as those shown in Table 2-2.
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program Impact Evaluation Report
Non-Energy Benefit Review 3-3
Table 3-1. Non Energy Benefit Summary
Program Component Ex Ante NEBs Ex Post Gross NEBs Verification Rate Ex Post Net NEBs
Menu $ 595,496.00 $ 20,344,363.33 67% $ 13,562,908.89
Custom $ 1,301,702.00 $ 1,301,702.00 59% $ 769,702.05
Total: $ 1,897,198.00 $ 21,646,065.33 66% $ 14,332,610.94

Conclusions and Recommendations 4-1
4. Conclusions and Recommendations
This section provides the final impact summary and key conclusions and recommendations
resulting from ADM’s evaluation of the 2012 – 2013 Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program.
4.1 Impact Summary
The verified gross energy savings of the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program during 2012-
2013 are summarized in Table 4-1. During this period, verified ex post energy savings totaled
35,804,606 kWh, making the gross realization rate for the program 159%. The verified ex post
demand savings for the program were 28,029 kW.
Table 4-1. Summary of Impact Savings for Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program
Program
Component Ex Ante kWh Savings Ex Post kWh Savings Realization
Rate
Ex Post kW
Savings
Menu 13,385,010 25,018,743 187% 20,540.9
Custom 9,158,247 10,785,863 118% 7,488.1
Total: 22,543,257 35,804,606 159% 28,029.0
4.2 Key Findings
The following presents a selection of key findings from the program evaluation:
 Menu Option Expected Savings were Conservative: Using the 2013 RTF values to
calculate savings for menu option measures revealed that IPC’s expected savings estimates
were conservative. Expected savings included two adjustment factors: the first for actual
average pump run times for individual sites, and second, variations in irrigation system type.
ADM reviewed the RTF values for reasonability and accuracy and found no reason to
mitigate the values with per site adjustment factors.
 Custom Option Expected Savings were Conservative: ADM’s method for calculating ex
post savings for the custom option in the program relied primarily on pre and post retrofit
AMI meter data. This gave the evaluators an accurate snapshot of how each pump affected
by the retrofits at each site was using energy pre and post retrofit. IPC’s calculations were
based on 2012 data (not 2012 and 2013 data) and deemed hours estimates in most cases, thus
contributing to low ex ante estimates and high realization rates for the custom projects.
 Non-Energy Benefits Understated for Menu Option: Menu option NEBs were calculated
by assuming that each acre of the farm would receive $2.00 in NEBs if any quantity of any
measure was installed. This led to a counterintuitive result of very large farms that made
small investments receiving disproportionate NEBs. For example, a 375 acre farm that
invested $12.60 on replacing 12 worn nozzles received a claimed NEB of $750, creating a
return on investment (“ROI”) of 5,952%. Inversely, farms that made costly investments to
their irrigation systems but have small overall acreage received very low NEBs. A 25 acre
farm invested $3,515 and received $50 in claimed NEBs (1% ROI), and so on. The average
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program Impact Evaluation Report
Conclusions and Recommendations 4-2
NEB ROI for each project in the menu component of the program was 80%. Using societal
cost-benefit values from the Regional Technical Forum’s (RTF) for irrigation hardware, the
evaluators discovered that potential NEBs for the menu option of the program could be much
higher than what was claimed by IPC if a linear relationship is assumed between increases to
NEBs and decreases in kWh associated with the retrofits.
4.3 Recommendations
In the interest of further program improvement, the following recommendations are offered:
 Consider Including a Cost-Effectiveness Test in the Next Evaluation Cycle: In order to
further verify non-energy benefits and the cost effectiveness of the Irrigation Efficiency
Rewards Program, we recommend including budget and resources for a cost-effectiveness
test in the next evaluation cycle. The RTF currently provides values for societal costs and
benefits for menu component measures only. Currently, no previous published research has
been conducted on NEBs for irrigation systems; however, extensive research has been
conducted on incorporating NEB estimates into cost-effectiveness tests for residential and
commercial demand side management programs. Non-energy benefits are difficult to
quantify, thus we recommend incorporating the evaluation of NEBs into a comprehensive
cost-effectiveness test for the entire program.
 Update Menu Component Incentives and Expected Savings to Match the RTF: The
2013 version of the RTF combined the existing nozzle measure, low pressure regulator
measure, and sprinkler head measures into a new “sprinkler package” measure. In 2012, the
menu option treated the existing nozzle, low pressure regulator and rotating sprinkler head
measures as separate line items. The application for the 2014 irrigation program should be
revised to match the measures covered under the RTF. Similarly, IPC should consider
revising their expected savings values to be consistent with the RTF values for each measure
or measure group.

Appendix A A-1
Appendix A: Sampled Custom Site Detail
This section presents detail on each sampled custom option site analysis.
Table A-1. Custom Site Analysis Detail
Project Measure Summary Ex Ante kWh Ex Post kWh Site RR Analysis Method and Findings
1579 Installed gravity line
and added new pivots. 299,779 202,917 68%
Verified pre-existing pump kWh/acre, connected load, and EFLHs. Used pre-
existing pump kWh/acre times new acres to triangulate baseline kWh. Used
EFLHs as determined by pre-existing pump (billed peak/kWh) to estimate
baseline kWh.
1580 Soft conversion, new
pumps and VFDs. 766,676 636,059 83% AMI data used for post retrofit runtime hours and average kW. Baseline kW from
peak kW average over 5 years. Savings are delta of post-retro and baseline kW.
1596 Conversion wheel lines
to pivots. 1,976 5,819 294%
AMI data and affinity laws used to establish annual flow. Flow was converted to
volume to extrapolate the baseline usage. Savings is the delta between post-retro
and baseline flow. Ex ante used 8% savings factor for a pivot replacing wheel
lines and doesn't account for VFD savings.
1607
Mainlines changed to
reduce pumping hp.
Pumps replaced or
rebuilt. Conversion
hand lines to pivots.
242,990 206,518 85%
Reported savings are calculated from delta kW and annual runtime hours using
AMI data and 5 years of billing data. AMI data was used for each of the three
meters to calculate pre and post-retrofit kW and equivalent full load hours. 2011
was used for pre-retrofit kW except for meter 5681490762, which uses 5 years of
monthly billing data to establish the baseline kW. That meter was different
because 2011 was significantly lower than the 5 previous years.
1621 New VFD on well
pump. 27,018 44,003 163%
AMI data used to develop ex post bins for VFD. Ex ante used bins also but
assumed VFD runs longer at higher flow than what was found in post-retrofit
AMI data.
1641
60 acres added to
existing farm. Hand
lines and pivots
installed.
15,858 12,939 82%
AMI data used for a runtime hours and average kW. Baseline kW was calculated
from engineering equation. New construction. Baseline system taken as hand and
wheel lines; savings come from the reduced operating pressure of a pivot system.
Only 54 of 60 acres qualify for savings (other 6 acres were on hand lines).
1655 New VFDs on mainline
pump. 293,014 303,305 104%
Utilized ex ante bin analysis methodology with the addition of 2012 billing data.
Mainlines 27 & 29 use AMI data to validate ex ante bin analyses. Ex ante calcs
penalized several mainlines for pivot savings. Ex post doesn't reduce for pivot
savings; it may be that pivot projects were also installed during the post period
for the VFDs.
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program Impact Evaluation Report
Appendix A A-2
Project Measure Summary Ex Ante kWh Ex Post kWh Site RR Analysis Method and Findings
1657
Moved a 1/2 swing
pivot and converted
another 1/2 swing pivot
to 7/8 swing. New
motor installed on 7/8
swing pivot.
16,142 12,089 75%
New construction. Ex post savings are calculated using a baseline of hand and
wheel lines and post retrofit of pivot for the 57 acre new plot. Annual hours
changed to 2,205 based on metering.
1661
Conversion hand lines
and wheel lines to
pivots.
8,791 7,043 80% AMI data used for post retrofit runtime hours and average kW. Baseline kW from
pre-retrofit AMI data.
1666
Replaced existing
pump with smaller hp
pump.
7,390 7,981 108% AMI data used for post retrofit runtime hours and average kW. Baseline kW from
pre-retrofit AMI data.
1674 Soft conversion and
new pumps. 527,880 937,166 178%
Analysis methodology involved straight comparison of pre and post kW data. 5-
year average of pre annual kWh was compared to 2-year average of post annual
kWh, and the difference was the energy savings. There were three new meters
added, and six existing meters. Since there was no pre data for the new meters,
their energy use was deducted from the savings. Ex ante analysis followed this
same approach. However, ADM incorporated 2013 data (not just 2012). Ex ante
calcs applied a 25% factor to the savings, and this is why the RR is very high. Ex
post savings are high, but not unrealistic, given the large acreage irrigated (1,217
acres) and the nature of the measure: instead of primarily pumping water from
deep wells, they are now pumping from surface water. The data did indicate that
the deep wells are still sometimes used as a water source.
1675 Soft conversion, new
pumps and VFDs. 144,440 154,982 107%
AMI data used for post retrofit runtime hours and average kW. Assumed equal
total flow pre and post retrofit. Equates to 1,701 hours of well pump use for
baseline, 2,541 annual hours of canal pumping and 214 annual hours of well
pumping post-retrofit. AMI data shows 92% reduction in well pumping.
1680
Installed gravity line.
New pivots and hand
lines.
373,525 500,915 134%
Analysis based on direct difference in pre/post annual energy consumption from
AMI, for total of all five meters affected by project. High RR due to ADM
including 2013 data in the pre/post analysis, whereas the ex ante analysis only
had 2012 data for post, and ex post assumed the following to compute five-year
average savings: one year in five with gravity line providing water for entire
irrigation season and four years in five with gravity line providing water for two
full months, 60 days of the 165 day irrigation season.
1689
Conversion hand lines
and wheel lines to
pivots. New VFD.
41,076 38,628 94% AMI data used for post retrofit runtime hours and average kW. Baseline kW from
pre-retrofit AMI data.
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program Impact Evaluation Report
Appendix A A-3
Project Measure Summary Ex Ante kWh Ex Post kWh Site RR Analysis Method and Findings
1690
Conversion hand lines
and wheel lines to
pivots. Added 2,000
acres.
385,821 438,422 114%
New construction. Ex post savings are calculated using a baseline of hand and
wheel lines and post retrofit of pivot for the 2,000 acre new plots. Annual hours
changed to 2,272.7 based on metering.
1691 Installed gravity line. 29,936 27,736 93% Savings are the delta of baseline (pump power) and no pump (gravity line). kWh
is product of kW and annual operating hours.
1707 Soft conversion. 439,375 1,050,596 239%
Analysis methodology involved straight comparison of pre and post kW data. 5-
year average of pre annual kWh was compared to 2-year average of post annual
kWh, and the difference was the energy savings. There were three new meters
added, and six existing meters. Since there was no pre data for the new meters,
their energy use was deducted from the savings. Ex ante analysis followed this
same approach. However, ADM incorporated 2013 data (not just 2012). Ex ante
calcs applied a 25% factor to the savings, and this is why the RR is very high. Ex
post savings are high, but not unrealistic, given the large acreage irrigated (1,260
acres) and the nature of the measure: instead of primarily pumping water from
deep wells, they are now pumping from surface water. The data did indicate that
the deep wells are still sometimes used as a water source.
1718 Installed new drip
system. 28,675 31,764 111%
New construction. Annual hours changed to 2,460 based on metering. Ex post
savings are calculated using a baseline of hand and wheel lines and post retrofit
of drip system.
1721 Soft conversion. 485,297 826,192 170%
Analysis methodology involved straight comparison of pre and post kW data. 5-
year average of pre annual kWh was compared to 2-year average of post annual
kWh, and the difference was the energy savings. Ex ante analysis followed this
approach. Realization rate due to ex ante applying a random 50% factor to the
savings found in the bills. ADM also was able to incorporate 2013 AMI data into
the billing analysis, whereas ex ante only used one year of post-retrofit data,
2012. This did not have a large impact, however, which gives us confidence the
pumps operated similarly in 2011 and 2012, and in years to come. ADM's
savings are high, but not unrealistic, given the large acreage irrigated (1,400
acres) and the nature of the measure: instead of pumping water from deep wells,
they are now pumping from surface water. The data did indicate that the deep
wells are still sometimes used as a water source, but this is later in the season and
appears to be dependent upon surface water availability.
1725 Installed gravity line. 164,238 76,923 47%
AMI data used for post retrofit runtime hours and pre/post retrofit kW. 75 hp
booster pump did not get removed as was assumed in the ex ante analysis; it
operates about as much as it did prior to the gravity line installation. The 150 hp
well pump is being operated a lot more than expected in the post to compensate
for removal of the 100 hp booster pump.

Process Evaluation of
Weatherization Assistance for
Qualified Customers (WAQC) Program

Prepared for:

Mr. Gary Grayson, Energy Efficiency Evaluator
Idaho Power Company
P.O. Box 70
Boise, ID 83707

Prepared by:
Dr. Katherine Johnson, President
Johnson Consulting Group
1033 Lindfield Drive, Frederick, MD 21702

with
Eisenberg Energy

October 30, 2013
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... iii
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 WAQC Program Overview .............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Process Evaluation Methodology..................................................................................................... 2
2 Process Evaluation Key Findings ................................................................................................................ 4
2.1 Review of Program Materials........................................................................................................... 4
Customer Feedback ............................................................................................................................. 5
Review of Commission Order .............................................................................................................. 6
2.2 Review of Program Tracking Database ........................................................................................... 8
Energy Savings Analysis .....................................................................................................................14
2.3 IPC Staff Interviews Summary Findings .........................................................................................16
Roles and Responsibilities ..................................................................................................................16
Program History .................................................................................................................................17
Marketing ...........................................................................................................................................17
Participation Rates/Customer Characteristics ...................................................................................17
Customer Feedback ...........................................................................................................................18
Program Implementation ..................................................................................................................18
Program Tracking ...............................................................................................................................19
Barriers ...............................................................................................................................................20
Suggestions for Improvement ...........................................................................................................20
2.4 Weatherization Agencies/CAP Interview Summary Findings ........................................................21
CAP’s Roles and Responsibilities ........................................................................................................22
Participation Rates .............................................................................................................................22
Program Enrollment ...........................................................................................................................23
Relationship with Idaho Power ..........................................................................................................23
Program Tracking ...............................................................................................................................24
Overall Program Satisfaction .............................................................................................................25
Key Barriers to Program Participation ...............................................................................................25
Areas for Program Improvement .......................................................................................................26
3 Program Flow Diagram for WAQC ........................................................................................................... 27
4 Key Findings and Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 29
4.1. Key Findings ...................................................................................................................................29
4.2 Key Recommendations ..................................................................................................................29
Addendum: Literature Review of Low-Income Programs and Policies ................................................... 32
Appendix A Interview Guides .................................................................................................................... 1

Table of Figures
Figure E- 1: Distribution of WAQC Homes Completed by CAP Agency ........................................................... iii

Figure 1: IPC Brochure to Promote the WAQC Program ................................................................................. 5
Figure 2: Distribution of WAQC Homes Completed by CAP Agency ................................................................ 8
Figure 3: Average Number of Days to Process WAQC Homes by Agency for Idaho Projects .......................... 9
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 ii
Figure 4: Summary of Measures Installed Through the WAQC Program for PY 2012 in Idaho ..................... 10
Figure 5: Summary of Measures Installed Through the WAQC Program for PY 2012 in Oregon .................. 11
Figure 6: Distribution of Measures Installed in Idaho Through the WAQC Program PY-2012 ...................... 12
Figure 7: Distribution of Measures Installed in Oregon Through the WAQC Program PY-2012 ................... 12
Figure 7: WAQC Program Diagram ................................................................................................................ 28

Table of Tables
Table E- 1: Comparison of WAQC Program Measure Costs ............................................................................ iv
Table E- 2: Comparison of WAQC Program Average Measure Costs .............................................................. iv

Table 1: CAP Agencies in the WAQC Program ................................................................................................. 2
Table 2: Summary of Process Evaluation Activities ......................................................................................... 3
Table 3: Summary of Key Research Questions ................................................................................................ 3
Table 4: Summary of PSC Staff Recommendations for Low-Income Programs ............................................... 6
Table 5: Measure Categorization ................................................................................................................... 10
Table 6: Comparison of WAQC Program Measure Costs ............................................................................... 13
Table 7: Comparison of WAQC Program Average Measure Costs for Idaho ................................................. 14
Table 8: Analysis of BTU Estimates ................................................................................................................ 15
Table 9: Comparison of WAQC BTU Savings Estimates ................................................................................. 15
Table 10: Comparison of WAQC Annual KWH Savings Estimates .................................................................. 16
Table 11: Examples of Utility and Societal Non Energy Benefits ................................................................... 32
Table 12: Examples of Participant NEBs ........................................................................................................ 33
Table 13: Summary of Costs Used to Quantify NEBs in Massachusetts for Low-Income Programs ............. 34
Table 14: Summary of Current State Cost-Effectiveness Policies for Low-Income Programs ....................... 36

Johnson Consulting Group 2013 iii
Executive Summary

Idaho Power Company’s (IPC) Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (WAQC) Program has
been offering assistance to low-income customers for 24 years. Participating Community Action
Partnership (CAP) agencies in Idaho and Oregon install a variety of cost-effective energy efficiency
measures in qualified, electrically heated homes.
This report summarizes the findings from a comprehensive process evaluation of the WAQC Program
completed by the Johnson Consulting Group team. The process evaluation gathered data from a variety
of sources, including reviews of program materials, the program database, and in-depth interviews with
key staff and stakeholders from May through August 2013.
In addition, Johnson Consulting Group conducted a literature review focusing on low-income Non Energy
Benefits (NEBs) and cost-effectiveness policies used in other jurisdictions. These findings are provided in
an Addendum to this report.
Key Findings
 The WAQC Program is operating efficiently and effectively. Overall feedback from the CAP
agency staff was positive about this program. The customer feedback was also positive regarding
both the quality of the measures installed, and the overall program implementation.
 The WAQC Program is filling a need in the low-income community. Although participation rates
vary by geographic region, the majority of the CAP agencies reported that there continues to be
pent-up demand for this program. All but two agencies reported that they could serve even more
customers, if the funding levels were increased. Figure E-1 shows the current level of activity for
each participating CAP agency.

Source: IPC 2012 WAQC Program Database
Figure E- 1: Distribution of WAQC Homes Completed by CAP Agency
CCOA
19% EICAP
2%
EL-ADA
45%
SSCAP
16%
SEICAA
14%
CCNO
1%
CINA
3%
Distribution of WAQC Homes Completed by CAP
Agency
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 iv
The WAQC Program provided a total of $1,291,843 to the CAP agencies in 2012. Of this, the CAP agencies
spent $1,164,615 to weatherize 234 homes throughout IPC’s service area. This amount includes both
measure cost and administrative payments to CAP agencies. The value of these weatherization projects
was $1,510,001. Of this, IPC funding accounted for 70 percent of all measure costs, totaling $1,058,741.
This finding demonstrates how the WAQC Program is effectively leveraging the DOE funds available in
order to provide weatherization measures to its low-income qualified customers (See Table E-1).

Table E- 1: Comparison of WAQC Program Measure Costs
Total Cost
Measure Cost
Total Job
Measure Cost IP
Payment % Paid by IPC
CCOA (n= 44) $384,286 $255,823 67%
EICAP (n=4) $18,611 $11,625 62%
EL-ADA (n=106) $658,865 $516,799 78%
SCCAP (n=37) $230,148 $152,186 66%
SEICAA (n=33) $149,016 $82,068 55%
CCNO(n=2) $15,515 $5,864 38%
CINA (n=8) $53,560 $34,374 64%
Total (n=234) $1,510,001 1,058,741 70%
Source: IPC 2012 WAQC Program Database

Table E-2 summarizes average cost per measure across all weatherization retrofits, as well as the portion
of costs paid by IPC. The average measure costs vary significantly by agency, suggesting that further
investigation is needed.

Table E- 2: Comparison of WAQC Program Average Measure Costs
Average Cost Average Measure
Total Cost
Average Measure
Cost for IPC
% Paid
by IPC
CCOA (n= 44) $8,734 $5,814 67%
EICAP (n=4) $4,653 $2,906 62%
EL-ADA (n=106) $6,216 $4,875 78%
SCCAP (n=37) $6,220 $4,113 66%
SEICAA (n=33) $6,255 $2487 55%
Community Connection
of Northeast Oregon $7.758 $2,932 38%
Community In Action $6,695 $4,297 64%
Average Across All Agencies $6,647 $3,918 59%
Source: IPC 2012 WAQC Program Database
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 v
 The current database tracking system does not provide the level of granularity required to
provide more in-depth analysis for management and tracking purposes. The database review
uncovered several discrepancies in the ways in which data are tracked to calculate energy
efficiency savings estimates.
 Accurately determining the program’s overall cost-effectiveness is the overwhelming concern
reported by both IPC staff and CAP agency personnel. This is also a concern raised by the Idaho
Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) Staff, as the 2012 Impact Evaluation Report from D&R
International found that the program ex-post savings were substantially lower than ex-ante
estimates.
Key Recommendations
 IPC should track customer satisfaction consistently across all CAP agencies. IPC should field a
customer survey to assess major indicators of customer satisfaction, program operations, and
track critical demographic information that are not currently being tracked in the program
database such as housing characteristics, customer demographics, and measures that are
removed during the audit.
In addition, IPC should develop a consistent customer satisfaction feedback survey and distribute
it to all CAP agencies to allow for consistent reporting and tracking for all participating CAP
agencies throughout IPCs territory.
 IPC should improve current database tracking system to more accurately capture the key data
already available on participant in-take forms as well as capture more details regarding
measures installed for health and safety.
 IPC should conduct a market potential study to determine the size and scope of the low-income
market segment in IPC’s service territory. The findings from this study could be used to better
understand the funding levels required to serve this market, and address Idaho PUC’s Staff
Recommendation No. 16.
This market potential study could also help to identify the issues regarding the length of the
waiting list for this program, as it will provide a better estimate of the number of customers that
could be served by region throughout its service territory.
 IPC should revise its current approach to calculating measure savings for the WAQC Program.
IPC should either consider using a different software tool that will more accurately capture the
savings associated with these measure installations, or use a “Deemed Savings” methodology that
will report the savings for each measure in a consistent manner. The deemed savings calculations
can be adjusted for weather and other key variables, which would allow for consistent reporting
of savings in a more objective manner.
 IPC should consider using the REM-Design approach used in Oregon as an alternative to EA5.
The Oregon CAP staff recommended using REM-Design audit tool for Oregon projects instead of
the EA5 as way to both standardize the approach used in Oregon as well as provide more
consistent energy savings estimates.
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 vi
 To the extent practicable, IPC should make adjustments to the cost-effectiveness calculations to
be more consistent with industry best practices as this will provide a more accurate reflection
of the true cost-effectiveness of the WAQC Program.
For example, IPC should use the full-cost of the measure installed, rather than just the part
funded by IPC which is the correct approach for determining cost-effectiveness. IPC should also
review the calculations of NEBs provided in the Literature Review Addendum to identify
additional ways in which the utility can better capture the true costs and benefits associated with
its low-income programs.
Implementing these recommendations will make the WAQC Program more efficient and likely more cost-
effective. But even more importantly, both the program staff and implementers will have much greater
confidence in the savings produced through these measure installations, and WAQC will continue to
provide an essential service to IPC’s low-income qualified customers.
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 1

1 Introduction

Idaho Power Company’s (IPC) Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (WAQC) Program has
been offering assistance to low-income customers for 24 years. This program is delivered by local
Community Action Partnerships (CAP) agencies, which receive funding from Idaho Power Company, to
install energy efficiency measures in qualified, electrically heated homes.
This report summarizes the findings from a comprehensive process evaluation of the WAQC program
completed by the Johnson Consulting Group team. The process evaluation gathered data from a variety
of sources, including reviews of program materials, the program database, and in-depth interviews with
key staff and stakeholders during May through August 2013.
This report begins with an overview of both the WAQC Program and a general discussion of the process
evaluation methodologies used. The key findings from the process evaluation are summarized in Section
2. A program flow diagram is provided in Section 3 and key conclusions and recommendations are
provided in Section 4.

1.1 WAQC Program Overview
The WAQC Program, which began in 1989, provides funding for energy efficiency installations in
electrically heated households with incomes up to 200 percent of federal poverty level guidelines.
Through this program, modeled after the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Weatherization Programs,
participating CAP agencies in Idaho and Oregon install a variety of cost-effective energy efficiency
measures, including upgrades to windows, doors, wall, ceiling, and floor insulation, furnace tune-ups,
repairs and replacements, water heater repair, refrigerator replacement, duct repair and sealing, pipe
wrap, venting, infiltration measures, and compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs).
Federal funds are allocated to IPC’s service area based on the US census data of qualifying household
income within each CAP agency’s geographic area.
The CAP agencies oversee local weatherization crews and contractors, providing energy efficiency services
including measure installation and customer education. WAQC funding allows these state agencies to
leverage their federal dollars and serve more residences by supplementing the federal Low Income Home
Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) weatherization funds (Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual
Report, p. 64).
Table 1 summarizes the locations served by the seven participating CAP agencies serving IPC’s low-income
communities in Idaho and Oregon.

Johnson Consulting Group 2013 2

Table 1: CAP Agencies in the WAQC Program
Agency Geographic Service Areas
Idaho
CCOA - Aging, Weatherization and Human Services Serving Canyon, Gem, Payette, Boise, Washington, Valley,
and Adams counties
Eastern Idaho Community Action Partnership Serving Lemhi County
El Ada Community Action Partnership Serving, Elmore, Ada and Owyhee counties
South Central Community Action Partnership Serving Blaine, Camas, Gooding, Lincoln, Jerome,
Minidoka, Twin Falls, and Cassia counties
Southeastern Idaho Community Action Agency Serving Bingham, Power, Oneida, and Bannock counties
Oregon
Community Connection of Northeast Oregon Serving Baker County
Community In Action Serving Harney and Malheur counties

Marketing and outreach activities are conducted in cooperation with the weatherization managers
and include a dedicated webpage with program information located at IPC’s website at:
http://www.idahopower.com/EnergyEfficiency/Residential/Programs/WeatherizationAssistance/weatheri
zationAssistance.cfm.

1.2 Process Evaluation Methodology
Process evaluations focus on ways to improve overall program operations by reviewing critical
documents, program databases, and customer contact and follow-up procedures. Process evaluations
also include feedback mechanisms from the key stakeholder groups, usually in the form of in-depth
interviews with key program staff, program implementers, and other stakeholders. Table 2 summarizes
the process evaluation activities Johnson Consulting Group team members completed as part of this
process evaluation.

Johnson Consulting Group 2013 3

Table 2: Summary of Process Evaluation Activities
Process Evaluation Objective
Review
Program
Materials
Review
Program
Database
Conduct
In-Depth
Interviews
Develop
Program Flow
Diagram
Efficiency & Quality of program operations ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Processes ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Documentation ✔ ✔ ✔
Outreach ✔ ✔ ✔
Data Tracking ✔ ✔ Participant Satisfaction ✔ ✔ Stakeholder Satisfaction ✔ Motivations for participation ✔ Barriers to participation ✔ Challenges to program implementation ✔ Successes in program implementation ✔ Recommendations for program improvement ✔ ✔
The process evaluation of the WAQC Program addressed the following critical research questions, as
summarized in Table 3.

Table 3: Summary of Key Research Questions
Research Area Key Research Questions
Specific Program
Characteristics
What are the demographic profiles of the WAQC program participants?
What are the installation rates for each measure?
Effectiveness
of Program
Operations &
Delivery
What is the average time from initial application to project completion for each agency?
Has this changed since program launch?
Is the program performing as expected based on the perceptions from the staff/key stakeholders?
How satisfied is CAP agency staff with the program implementation and delivery?
Overall, how satisfied are customers with the program delivery?
Effectiveness
of Marketing
and Outreach
Activities
Which marketing and outreach activities are the most effective?
Which ones are least effective?
How can these materials and outreach activities be improved?
Participant
Decision-Making
Process
Please describe the participation process.
Why do program participants decide to participate?
Barriers to
Program
Participation
What are the barriers to program participation?
Areas for
Program
Improvement
How can IPC staff improve its program, in terms of design and delivery?
What other types of offerings or delivery strategies should IPC consider?
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 4

2 Process Evaluation Key Findings
This section summarizes the key findings derived from the process evaluation activities, which included a
review of program materials, review of the program database, and in-depth interviews with key staff,
stakeholders, and CAP agency personnel.

2.1 Review of Program Materials
The team reviewed the following materials used in the WAQC program:
 Scope of Services for CAP Agencies
 Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual Report
 Participant Application Form
 Inspector Verification Form
 Program brochures/marketing materials
 Program website
 Idaho Public Utilities Commission ORDER NO. 32788 for CASE NO. GNR-E-12-01
The program eligibility requirements are clearly documented, and require all CAP agencies to conform to
the Weatherization Assistance Program Operations Manual, which is consistent with the DOE
requirements for these types of services. IPC’s portion of program expenditures varies according to the
types of measures installed. According to the eligibility requirements,
“…the Operations Manual authorizes the installation of approved health and safety measures that
protect the effectiveness of installed weatherization measures…provided the annual expenditure
for such measures does not exceed 15 percent of IPC’s portion of production costs per Eligible
Dwelling.” (STATEMENT OF WORK #2 SCOPE OF SERVICES for IDAHO p. 1)
The Operations Manual clearly states the measure eligibility requirements of “Savings to Investment Ratio
(SIR) of 1.0 for all jobs, and a quality assurance/quality control requirement (QA/QC) of a minimum of 5
percent.” These are in line with current industry standards and best practices.
All CAP agencies also need to provide customer education materials along with measure installation. IPC
provides customer educational materials to CAP agencies on ways to encourage customers to save energy
through low cost/no cost strategies and simple energy tips.
The application form captures a wealth of data including housing type; however, these data are not
currently tracked in the program database provided to the program evaluator. Similarly, the pre- and
post-installation information from the Job Order Form is also not tracked in the program database. This
finding suggests there are significant deficiencies in current program database that could lead to under-
reporting of program savings.
Although this program is not formally marketed, IPC did provide marketing materials for customer
representatives to leave in low-income communities, such as mobile home parks, as a way to generate
increased awareness about this program. Figure 1 shows an example of these types of marketing
materials.
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 5

Figure 1: IPC Brochure to Promote the WAQC Program

Overall the program materials provided a comprehensive summary of the current WAQC program
eligibility requirements for 2012. These materials were easy to read and understand, and provide a good
overview about the WAQC program.

Customer Feedback
Each CAP agency gathers informal feedback from program participants; however, the Johnson Consulting
Group team only received copies of these surveys from the Eastern Community Action Partnership (n=2),
the Southeastern Community Action Agency (n=11), and South Central Community Action
Partnership (n=17).
Overall, the feedback was excellent regarding the WAQC program based on the 30 feedback forms
submitted from three of the five CAP agencies. Overall, the participating customers provided positive
feedback regarding the services provided by these CAP agencies.
Comments included the following:

"A bunch of good guys, courteous and they knew what they were doing..."

"I found most of the crew courteous- they worked efficiently.”

"Very courteous and polite; good crew, excellent job! Thanks"

“I appreciated everything that was done. Employees were very professional and nice.”

“Outstanding workers and workmanship by and from and were polite gentlemen. Thank you!”

Johnson Consulting Group 2013 6

However, IPC is not receiving timely feedback from the other CAP agencies, despite this requirement in
the Program’s Operating Manual. In addition, the survey forms used by these three agencies are
inconsistent, which makes it difficult to identify any trends among or between agencies. Going forward,
IPC should develop a standard customer satisfaction survey for each of the CAP agencies to use, that will
also include feedback about the WAQC Program overall in addition to the feedback regarding the
weatherization agency.
In this way, IPC will be able to better monitor customer satisfaction levels and identify if any CAP agencies
are failing to deliver weatherization services in a timely manner.

Review of Commission Order
Determining the cost-effectiveness for IPC’s WAQC Program has been a major concern to both IPC staff as
well as the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC). Given the importance of this issue, the Johnson
Consulting Group team included a review and summary of the most recent order issued on this matter as
part of the process evaluation.
In the Summary of Case No. GNR-E-12-01, Order NO. 32788, Idaho PUC Staff made 181 recommendations
regarding ways in which the three Idaho utilities could change their cost-effectiveness methodologies to
more accurately measure the value of low-income weatherization programs (p. 2). These
recommendations are summarized in the following table. According to IPC Staff, all applicable
recommendations have been addressed (see Table 4).

Table 4: Summary of PSC Staff Recommendations for Low-Income Programs
Recom-
mendation Description Expected Outcome
No.1
Idaho Power should use its third-party impact
evaluation to inform savings estimates from the
EA5 modeling software.
This adjustment will decrease the
cost-effectiveness for the low-
income weatherization programs.
No. 2
Utilities should claim 100% of the net-to-gross for
its low-income programs.
This will increase the overall benefits
of the cost-effectiveness of
programs.
No. 3
The utilities claim 100% of the energy savings
produced by each low-income weatherization
project for which they provide funding (p. 3).
This will align Idaho Power’s DSM
programs to claim 100% of savings
rather than only claim project
savings that the utility contributed to
the project.
No. 4
Idaho Power’s low income cost-effectiveness
calculations should include direct and indirect
administrative costs (p. 4)
This will make the cost-effectiveness
calculations consistent for the three
Idaho utilities.

1 Note Order 32788 does not include Recommendation No. 5.
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 7

Recom-
mendation Description Expected Outcome
No. 6
Use a 10% conservation adder when calculating the
cost-effectiveness for low-income weatherization
programs (p. 4)
Staff does not oppose Idaho Power
from engaging in this practice.
However, the inclusion of non-
energy benefits is not provided.
No. 7
Cost-effectiveness analyses should include
quantifiable, payment-related non-energy benefits
when possible. The analyses should exclude non-
energy benefits (pp. 5-7).
Including quantifiable non-energy
benefits will increase the overall
cost-effectiveness of these
weatherization programs.
No. 8
The utilities should quantify utility-funded health,
safety, and repair measures as a dollar of non-
energy benefits for each dollar of cost, and IPC
should use this methodology (Attachment A, p. 3 of
5).
The quantification of non-energy
benefits should be restricted to IPC’s
two-income weatherization
programs and the non-energy
benefits should be included in the
TRC.
No. 9
Staff recommends that utilities have the option to
claim one dollar of non-energy benefits for each
dollar of federal funds invested in health, safety,
and repair measures (Attachment A p. 3 of 5).
This is likely to increase the cost-
effectiveness of the program.
No. 10
Use a modified discount rate for participant
benefits (Attachment A p. 3 of 5).
This is likely to have no effect on
cost-effectiveness tests for low-
income programs.
No. 11
Staff will continue to review low-income
weatherization programs for cost-effectiveness but
will not construct a specific test for low-income
programs at this time (p.8).
This issue will continue to be
explored regarding rigorous
quantification and monetization of
non-energy benefits.
No. 12
Utilities vary the independent contractors used to
evaluate their low-income programs (p. 8).
Provide competition and result and
better, more independent third-
party evaluation.
No. 13
Idaho Power should continue to carryover unspent
low-income funding from base rates into the
following year. (p. 9).
Continue to allow low-income
programs to offer the programs.
No. 14
Consider adopting Idaho Power’s scalable approach
to paying for measures that allow for more
strategic and cost-effective investments
(Attachment A p. 4 of 5)
The whole-house approach is a
strong method that leads to deep
savings.
No. 15
Avista should pay up to 100% of cost per low-
income weatherization measure (Attachment A 4
of 5).
Not relevant to IPC
No. 16
Staff sets forth factors that a utility, CAPAI or other
interested persons should consider when deciding
when a funding increase might be appropriate (p.
12).
The factors are based on the LIHEAP
data and are used as a guide but not
a mandate for funding increases.
No. 17 Maintain current funding levels for the three low-
income weatherization programs (pp. 12-13).
Deferring funding until after the DSM
reports are filed seems appropriate.
No. 18 Maintain Idaho Power’s current annual
conservation education program level funding

Johnson Consulting Group 2013 8

The recommendations from IPUC Staff are consistent with the findings from the in-depth interviews with
both IPC staff and the CAP agencies. Therefore, to the extent practicable, IPC should make these
adjustments to the cost-effectiveness calculations as they are consistent with industry best practices and
will provide a more accurate reflection of the true cost-effectiveness of the WAQC program.

2.2 Review of Program Tracking Database
The Johnson Consulting Group team members also reviewed the 2012 WAQC Program database. The key
findings from this review are summarized next.
According to program records, the WAQC program provided a total of $1,120,353 to the Idaho CAP
agencies to complete 224 weatherization homes throughout the state during PY 2012. Figure 2
summarizes the percentage of homes completed by each CAP agency.

Source: IPC 2012 WAQC Program Database
Figure 2: Distribution of WAQC Homes Completed by CAP Agency

The program database also recorded the key milestones for each weatherization job including the date
initially received, the date the project was completed and the date IPC paid the invoice. Figure 3
summarizes the average processing time for program applications based on the dates recorded in the
program database for jobs completed in Idaho. Note however that agencies process invoices in batches,
so the actual processing time for the receipt of invoices could be slightly longer.

CCOA
19% EICAP
2%
EL-ADA
45%
SSCAP
16%
SEICAA
14%
CCNO
1%
CINA
3%
Distribution of WAQC Homes Completed by CAP
Agency
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 9

Source: IPC 2012 WAQC Program Database
Figure 3: Average Number of Days to Process WAQC Homes by Agency for Idaho Projects2
As this figure shows, most WAQC homes are completed from initial application to invoice payment in less
than one month. However, CCOA homes take up to three times longer to complete compared to the other
four CAP agencies. Excluding CCOA homes, the CAP agencies complete the homes within 15 days of
receipt, while it takes CCOA 40.5 days to complete the home upon receipt.
Similarly, it takes approximately 10 days for the CAP agencies to receive payment from IPC while CCOA
averages 38.7 days. Lastly, the CAP agencies average 25 days from start to finish for these homes, while it
is three-times longer, 79.2 days, for CCOA homes.
These findings suggest that there are some implementation issues regarding CCOA’s ability to manage the
WAQC homes that require further investigation and follow up by IPC staff.
The database also provided information regarding the number of measures installed throughout PY 2012.
Figure 4 summarizes the total measure installation rates across the following categories listed in Table 5.

2 The WAQC program database extract only included Idaho-based jobs. Oregon projects represented only four percent of the total weatherization jobs completed.
40.5
16.5 18.6 13.7 11.5
38.7
12.0 9.6 8.6 10.6
79.2
28.5 28.2 22.2 22.2
CCOA (n= 44)EICAP (n=4)EL-ADA (n=106)SCCAP(n=37)SEICAA (n=33)
Average Number of Days to
Process WAQC Homes by Agency for Idaho Projects
Date Received to Date Completed Date Received to Date Paid Date Completed to Date Paid
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 10

Table 5: Measure Categorization
Measure Category WAQC Measures
Envelope Measures Infiltration, Windows, Doors, Insulation (Wall, Ceiling, Floor)
Furnace Measures Furnace Replacement, Repair, Modification, Tune-Up, Vents, Ducts
Water Heating Measures Water Heater and Pipe
Other Not described
Health and Safety Not described
As Figure 4 shows, envelope measures accounted for the majority of measures installed through the
program (53%) while the other measure categories represented less than 20 percent of all installations.
Furthermore, health and safety measures and other measure categories are not described in the program
records, and therefore it is hard to discern what these measures are. But they also account for less than
15 percent of the total PY 2012 installations.

Source: IPC 2012 WAQC Program Database
Figure 4: Summary of Measures Installed Through the WAQC Program for PY 2012 in Idaho

As Figure 5 shows, the majority of measures installed in the 10 jobs completed in Oregon were for
envelope measures. Only one job also received health and safety measures.
Envelope
Measures
53% Furnace
Measures
18%
Water Heating
Measures
2%
Other
13%
Health and Safety
2% Audits
12%
Summary of Measures Installed Through the
WAQC Program for PY 2012 in Idaho
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 11

Figure 5: Summary of Measures Installed Through the WAQC Program for PY 2012 in Oregon
The next two figures summarize the installation rates of energy efficiency measures by agency for both
Idaho and Oregon. Of note, there were much fewer installations in Oregon in PY2012, and thus the overall
installation numbers are lower. But in both cases, infiltration remains the most commonly installed
measure by CAP agencies throughout IPC’s service territory. Infiltration measures accounted for 12
percent of the total measures installed (n= 1,286) in Idaho and 30 percent of the measures installed in
Oregon (n=23).

Envelope Measures
95%
Furnace Measures
0%
Water Heating Measures
0%
Other
0% Health & Safety
5%
Summary of Measures Installed Through WAQC Program for PY2012
in Oregon
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 12

Source: IPC 2012 WAQC Program Database
Figure 6: Distribution of Measures Installed in Idaho Through the WAQC Program PY-2012

Source: IPC 2012 WAQC Program Database
Figure 7: Distribution of Measures Installed in Oregon Through the WAQC Program PY-2012

160
155
154
146
146
139
111
102
52
24
24
21
17
17
10
4
3
1
Infiltration
Audits
CFLs
Windows
Furnace Replacement
Doors
Ceiling Insulation
Floor Insulation
Ducts
Health and Safety
Pipes
Other
Wall Insulation
Vents
Furnace Repair
Furnace Modifications
Water Heater
Furnace Tune-Ups
Distribution of Measures Installed in Idaho
Through the WAQC Program in PY2012
Number Installed
7
5
3
2
2
2
1
1
Infiltration
Floor Insulation
Ducts
Windows
Wall Insulation
Ceiling Insulation
Doors
Health & Safety
Distribution of Measures Installed in Oregon
Through the WAQC Program in PY2012
Number Installed
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 13

The review of the program records also revealed that the value of these weatherization projects was
$1,510,001. Of this, IPC funding accounted for 70 percent of all measure costs, totaling $1,058,741 during
PY 2012. This finding demonstrates clearly how the WAQC program is effectively leveraging the DOE funds
available in order to provide weatherization measures to its low-income qualified customers.

Table 6: Comparison of WAQC Program Measure Costs
Total Cost Measure Cost Total Job
Measure Cost IP
Payment % Paid by IPC
CCOA (n= 44) $384,286 $255,823 67%
EICAP (n=4) $18,611 $11,625 62%
EL-ADA (n=106) $658,865 $516,799 78%
SCCAP (n=37) $230,148 $152,186 66%
SEICAA (n=33) $149,016 $82,068 55%
CCNO(n=2) $15,515 $5,864 38%
CINA (n=8) $53,560 $34,374 64%
Total (n=234) $1,510,001 $1,058,741 70%

Source: IPC 2012 WAQC Program Database
Table 7 summarizes average cost per measure by for the total weatherization jobs as well as the portion
paid by IPC. As this table shows, IPC continues to pay for the majority of measure costs ranging from 55
percent for SEIAA projects to 78 percent for EL-ADA.
However, the average measure costs also vary significantly by agency. CCOA’s average total measure
costs are approximately $8,700, which is one-third higher that the amount from any other CAP agency.
Similarly, IPC’s cost share for CCOA’s projects are 34 percent higher compared to the average jobs across
the other CAP agencies. These findings further reinforce the need to investigate the project costs for
CCOA CAP agency.

Johnson Consulting Group 2013 14

Table 7: Comparison of WAQC Program Average Measure Costs for Idaho
Average Cost Average Measure
Total Cost
Average Measure
Cost for IPC
% Paid
by IPC
CCOA (n= 44) $8,734 $5,814 67%
EICAP (n=4) $4,653 $2,906 62%
EL-ADA (n=106) $6,216 $4,875 78%
SCCAP (n=37) $6,220 $4,113 66%
SEICAA (n=33) $6,255 $2,487 55%
Community Connection
of Northeast Oregon $7.758 $2,932 38%
Community In Action $6,695 $4,297 64%
Average Across All Agencies $6,647 $3,918 59%

Source: IPC 2012 WAQC Program Database

Energy Savings Analysis
IPC’s WAQC database also tracks savings estimates from the measure installations in both British Thermal
Units (BTU) and kilowatt hours (kWh). However, these estimates are used for informational purposes only
and are not used to determine the actual energy savings associated with these measure installations.
Table 8 identifies a few instances in which the database total per home varied slightly from the individual
savings calculated for each measure. However, it is appropriate that IPC does not rely on these estimates
to determine measure savings. Rather, these variations in savings estimates further suggest that IPC
should either review the current way energy audit savings are calculated, or alternatively, develop a
deemed savings approach for each measure based on average estimates. This approach will lead to
improved confidence in the overall reliability of the savings achieved from these energy efficiency
measures.

Johnson Consulting Group 2013 15

Table 8: Analysis of BTU Estimates
Range of Estimates
Agency
Amount
Tracked in
Database
Total BTU/Job Difference # of
Matches High Low %
Variance
CCOA
(n= 44) 1,652,253,539

1,637,184,672

15,068,867

42

15,294,944

-226,077

0.92%

EICAP
(n=4) 69,392,682 69,392,682 0 4 0 0 0
EL-ADA
(n=106) 4,575,345,931

4,574,432,429

913,502

105 913,502

913,502

0.02%

SCCAP
(n=37) 1,117,296,514

1,110,358,563

-6,937,951

35

3,568,520

3,369,431

-1%
SEICAA
(n=33) 706,809,917

706,809,917

0 33 0 0 0
Source: IPC 2012 WAQC Program Database

Of note, the analysis of the IPC BTU estimates matched up exactly, and there were no variances reported.

Tables 9 and 10 summarize the overall percentages of the annual savings estimates calculated by both
BTUs and KWH.

Table 9: Comparison of WAQC BTU Savings Estimates
Agency Annual BTU Total IP BTU Total % for IP
CCOA (n= 44) 1,637,184,672 1,261,147,702 77%
EICAP (n=4) 69,392,682 62,262,269 90%
EL-ADA (n=106) 4,574,432,429 4,360,771,504 95%
SCCAP(n=37) 1,110,358,563 916,954,934 83%
SEICAA (n=33) 706,809,917 529,706,118 75%
Total 8,098,178,263 7,130,842,527 88%
Source: IPC 2012 WAQC Program Database 3

3 The database review did not include this information for the 10 Oregon jobs.
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 16

Table 10: Comparison of WAQC Annual KWH Savings Estimates
Agency Annual KWH Total IP Annual KWH % for IP
CCOA (n= 44) 479,691 369,513 77%
EICAP (n=4) 20,332 18,243 90%
EL-ADA (n=106) 1,340,297 1,277,695 95%
SCCAP(n=37) 325,332 268,665 83%
SEICAA (n=33) 207,093 155,202 75%
Source: IPC 2012 WAQC Database4

Overall, these findings further demonstrate that the IPCs WAQC Program accounts for the majority of
savings associated with weatherizing these homes.
2.3 IPC Staff Interviews Summary Findings
The Johnson Consulting Group team also completed three in-depth staff interviews with key personnel
during June and July 2013, addressing the following topics:
 Roles and Responsibilities
 Program History
 Program Operations
 Results
 Areas for Program Improvement
The in-depth interview guide used for these discussions is provided in Appendix A. The key findings are
organized by topic area and summarized next.

Roles and Responsibilities
The three staff members all involved in managing the WAQC Program in various capacities. The Program
Specialist handles the day-to-day operations, while the Leader of Residential Programs provides review
and oversight. The Senior Regulatory Analyst focuses on managing the annual DSM Report filings and
related regulatory issues as they apply to this program.
The IPC’s staff primary role, therefore, is to ensure the program continues to operate smoothly. Although
this is a mandated program by the PUC, the staff all works to ensure that the program is “well run and
cost-effective.”
The Program Specialist is responsible for the working directly with the CAP agencies, including reviewing
the payments. The senior staff reported that the current Program Specialist is both capable and effective
in handing the day-to-day operations.

4 The database review did not include this information for the 10 Oregon jobs.
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 17

Program History
The WAQC program is modeled after the weatherization programs funded by the Department of Energy.
(DOE). IPC is funding the program through signed contracts with the CAP agencies. The agencies follow
the DOE and state guidelines to conform to Weatherization Assistance Programs operations manual. The
DOE funding pays for 15 percent of the measure costs, while IPC will pay up to 85 percent for any cost-
effective measure.
Though this program started in the mid-1980s, it has evolved and changed over time.
“In the early days, the weatherization programs were not held to the same standard as other DSM
programs. About five years ago, the PUC staff had the expectation that the program should be
more cost-effective.” (Program Staff)
Since the impact evaluation findings from the D&R Report in 2012 indicated that the ex-ante program
savings were over estimated, which negatively effected program cost-effectiveness, IPC staff has been
looking for ways to improve the overall cost-effectiveness of measures offered through the program. They
are also exploring other alternatives, such as quantifying the Net-Energy-Benefits (NEBs) associated with
this program, such as improved health, comfort and safety.
“We want to use quantifiable NEBs for cost-benefits.” (Program Staff)
“We may also need to reduce the number of measures offered to make the program more cost-
effective (in the future).” (Program Staff)
Given the high profile of low-income programs, WAQC has to address the issues raised by intervener
groups, such as the Community Action Partnership of Association of Idaho (CAPAI). However, these
groups have to serve “multiple masters” which can lead to conflicting or competing goals. The inter-
relationships between the CAP agencies, the interveners, and IPC can make it more difficult to manage
these programs effectively.

Marketing
The WAQC program is not formally marketed to customers; however, program staff provides educational
materials to program participants including booklets and tips on easy low-cost/no-cost ways to save
energy. The program also provided information on energy efficiency measures, such as CFLs.
The marketing activities are also piggybacked on other existing outreach activities, such as developing
flyers in various regions or targeting mobile home parks.

Participation Rates/Customer Characteristics
The program is currently funded at $1.2 million annually, which enables IPC to serve between 200 and 400
households per year.
“The participation level is determined by average maximum spending per project- so that is how
the program manages the pipeline by increasing or lowering the average maximum spend per
house” (Program Staff).
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 18

“The poor economy filled up the pipeline (with eligible customers)… the average spend per home
has increased like a hockey stick curve, with us paying more for heat pumps now. The (CAP
agencies/contractors) are what is driving the evolution of spending.” (Program Staff)
The current emphasis is on taking a “whole house approach” to making home improvements that will lead
to long-term energy savings. This approach means that the average spending per house is several
thousand dollars. The program staff tries to strike a balance between quality versus quantity installations.

“We had 234 participants in PY 2012. The number of (participating) homes is going down over the
years, but in the last three to four years, we are maximizing the savings per home. We don’t reach
as many customers, but we do get more measures installed at their residences…It is more cost-
effective to maximize the savings at fewer locations by using the whole house approach.”
(Program Staff)
One major reason for the high per house costs is the increase in the installation of heat pumps in low-
income homes.
“The insulation and the heat pumps make the homes more efficient because we are taking the
whole-house approach. We always have higher quality (installations) when we install a heat
pump.” (Program Staff)
According to IPC staff, the highest participation is from the CAP agencies serving the Canyon and El Ada
areas due to their higher population. The staff also noted that CAP agencies are allowed to carry over
funding if it is not spent during the year, which does ensure that all CAP agencies have funding to provide
these services to their customers.

Customer Feedback
Currently, there is no formalized process in place to receive customer feedback from the CAP agencies. A
few CAP agencies conduct their own customer satisfaction surveys, the staff reported, but these surveys
focus only on feedback regarding the CAP agency rather than regarding the program overall. The IPC staff
reported that the feedback they did receive, either directly or indirectly, was overwhelmingly positive
among customers regarding the program.

Program Implementation
According to IPC staff, the overall program implementation process is operating smoothly and without
incident. The CAP agencies identify eligible customers through the referrals they receive for the Energy
Assistance Programs. The CAP agencies manage the entire program process from initial referral to
measure installation.

Waiting List
The IPC staff reported that the waiting list for customers to participate may be as long as six to eight
months. However, customers drop off the waiting list at the end of each year, and have to reapply, so in
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 19

reality, the waiting list for these customers could be even longer. The issue of the waiting list has been a
concern raised to IPC by the interveners.
“The waiting list is a huge issue… it is not necessarily a function of money or resources but rather
the capacity to do the jobs.” (IPC Program Staff)
Once the customer is qualified, the CAP agency will schedule an initial in-home audit or assessment.
During this visit, the auditor will estimate the energy savings potential of the home. The auditors use the
EA5 Version of the DOE-approved weatherization software to conduct these in-home audits, estimate
measure savings and determine measure Savings-to-Investment (SIR) Ratio. .
However, the findings from the 2012 impact evaluation revealed that there had been some difficulties
with the previous version of the software, EA4, which may over-estimate savings.
After the in-home assessment, the auditor then identifies the most cost-effective measures to install in
the home. These measures are then ordered, and installed upon a follow-up visit.
To simplify payment processing, the CAP agencies bundle jobs and send them in batches to IPC for review
and payment.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
Both the individual agencies as well as IPC conduct additional QA/QC of these completed installations to
ensure the measures are properly installed.
“We are pretty comfortable with the vendors and CAP agencies, crews that are well-versed and
pretty comfortable do their own QA in addition to QA done by the state—haven’t uncovered any
huge issues there.” (Program Staff)
IPC conducts QA/QC of 10 percent of the completed jobs. For those installations that are in remote parts
of IPC’s territory, they rely on local IPC staff to conduct these QA/QC inspections.

Program Tracking
The staff reported that projects are tracked in a dedicated MS-Access database. However, not all of the
information regarding each job is tracked in the database.
“We don’t really know what is collected (on the audit forms)... The types of measures installed are
not provided in detail. When the crew goes out, they record the measures, but the measures installed
by health/safety are not broken out by detail. There are also inconsistencies in reporting among the
CAP agencies/contractors.” (Program Staff)
The staff reported that many of the key data from the energy auditing software is not tracked in the
program database.
“Pre and post data are not tracked…Rather energy savings are calculated on percentage of dollars
invested but they are not capturing full energy savings from the measures.”(Program Staff)
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 20

The program database also does not track the energy savings attributable to health and safety measures
installed in these residences, which means that IPC is not getting credit for the associated non-energy
benefits (NEB).
“We are making improvements in health/safety but we are not getting the credit for the savings.
The reports need to have greater granularity for more accurate counting of savings. CFL counts are
not captured and so the savings rates for the CFLs are not captured.”(Program Staff)
According to program staff, IPC can only claim credit for heating savings, even though these measures
may also generate significant cooling savings as well. However, the EA5 Software does not capture savings
from reduced cooling, thus understating the overall savings achieved through the program.
“We know we are getting savings from the furnace measures, like we are putting in a heat pump
and pulling out a window air conditioner, but the audit program does not tell us what is being
taken out.” (Program Staff)
Barriers
According to IPC staff, the biggest barrier to program participation is directly related to the cost-
effectiveness calculations used for the program.
“Cost-effectiveness is the issue. People fuel switch and so some of the savings that we would
expect to see are less than expected because customers are no longer using wood and pellet
stoves. But we have no way of being able to count the savings from that.” (Program Staff)
The current audit program does not calculate the savings that the customer achieves from switching from
an inefficient wood stove coupled with expensive baseboard heating. Through the program, the customer
could receive a new heat pump, which will use more electricity. However, overall, the customer is saving
both energy and money by not relying on the old wood stove and baseboard heat.
“Now, the energy is cheaper overall for the customer but the customer is using more
electricity...we are not currently calculating the savings from switching out the pellet stoves.”
(Program Staff)
Therefore, program staff believes that the current policy of not allowing fuel neutral savings calculations
has adversely affected the overall cost-effectiveness of this program.

Suggestions for Improvement
Program staff also provided the following suggestions on ways the overall WAQC program could be
improved. These suggestions included:
 Improving the overall communications with the CAP agencies regarding cost-effective measures.
The staff reported that there had been some “misunderstandings with some CAP agencies about
measure eligibility.

Johnson Consulting Group 2013 21

 Address the waiting list issue by identifying the actual market potential for eligible low-income
customers. To date, IPC staff reported that there has not been any objective analysis done to
identify the scope of potential low income customers. With this information, IPC would have a
better understanding of the market needs, and then determine the most cost-effective ways to
reach this low-income population.
“This has been an ongoing issue between the state agencies and advocates concerning the
backlog for this work... this back log has not really been quantified so there is a need for a market
potential study for this program… A market potential study would determine what the housing
stock is and we would get verifiable numbers so we know what estimates are (for this customer
segment). ” (Program Staff)
 Ensure that the program is cost-effective by reviewing the current measure mix, and develop a
consistent approach to accurately counting savings.
The program staff recommended comparing the current measure mix offered in the WAQC program to
other types of low-income programs across the country to verify that the measure mix is appropriate.
However, program staff also emphasized the importance of being able to capture savings accurately for
cooling measures and health and safety measures, in addition to the heating measures. The current
software tool, EA5, does not do that, and therefore may need to be updated or replaced.
Another suggestion would be to continue using the EA5 software tool for the audits, but develop a
deemed savings methodology to quantify savings for each measure. The deemed savings approach would
capture all savings attributable to the measures, including health and safety that would then be used in
the cost-effectiveness analysis for the WAQC program.

2.4 Weatherization Agencies/CAP Interview Summary Findings
The Johnson Consulting Group team also completed seven in-depth interviews with CAP/Weatherization
agencies. Six were with the weatherization directors at participating CAP agencies in both Idaho and
Oregon and one was with staff at the Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho (CAPAI).
Overall, the feedback from these CAP agency staff was positive, with most not identifying any significant
areas for program improvement.
This is not particularly surprising, however, given that the WAQC program is identical to the federal
weatherization programs. However one respondent noted that IPC’s programs are much less flexible
regarding cost sharing, compared to weatherization programs offered in Oregon by Bonneville Power
Authority (BPA).
“The overall quality has been good…it seems like it is a good partnership (between the utility and
the CAP agencies).” (CAP Staff)

Johnson Consulting Group 2013 22

CAP’s Roles and Responsibilities
According to the local weatherization directors, the CAPs perform multiple functions in the communities
they serve. Energy assistance and energy efficiency is one of the primary services that CAPs offer in their
local communities. However, these agencies also provide a variety of non-energy related services for the
elderly, children and disabled.
CAPAI provides additional education and assistance to both CAP agencies and legislators regarding low-
income assistance. This association also provides coordination between the state and agencies as well as
providing technical assistance, training and monitoring of work quality and progress throughout the state.
Overall, the CAP agency staff reports a long tenure with some working on the WAQC program from four
to 20 years. Therefore, the agency staff is quite familiar with this program.
The amount of time that individual program managers spend on this program varies depending on both
the overall size and scope of the agency as well as the number of IPC customers they serve. For example,
CAP agencies that have relatively few electrically-heated customers, such as those in Oregon, spend less
than five percent of their time on this program. However, the Idaho-based CAP agency staff spends as
much as 40 percent of their time managing the WAQC program.

Participation Rates
The weatherization managers explained that the WAQC program targets the same demographic groups
who qualify for other types of federal and state assistance such as low-income seniors, disabled people,
and low-income families with children.
“Sixty percent (of our clients) are seniors living on Social Security, and a lot of them live in older
homes that weren’t insulated well (because energy was cheap back when the homes were built).
We do a lot of mobile homes also. Contractors don’t work in mobile homes, so we fill that
niche.”(CAP Staff)
The agency staff also reported high participation rates for the WAQC program, based on both the need for
these services as well as the types of energy efficiency measures installed.
“Roughly 99 percent of the clients will let us do the energy audit, and then will let us install the
energy efficiency measures. In 2012, for example, we weatherized 37 homes at average cost of
$4100 each.” (CAP Staff)
The CAP managers explained that they do some local promotion of the program, often using materials
and brochures supplied by Idaho Power. Three CAPs mentioned that they promote the Weatherization
Assistance Program at local events, on the radio, on local TV or in newspaper ads. They unanimously
thought that the Idaho Power brochures are concise, informative and effective. They explained that Idaho
Power also promotes the program through its bill inserts. But the most important way the program gets
promoted is through their offices, when customers sign up for the Energy Assistance Program.
“Our clients are required to go through an energy education class and Idaho Power gives us a lot
of brochures (that) we hand out. They provide the information, and we teach the clients how to
get on IPC’s website.” (CAP Staff)
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 23

Consistent with the findings from the staff interviews, however, additional program promotion is not
really needed. As the CAP staff observed, since their clients who sign up to receive financial help from the
Energy Assistance Program are also informed about the Weatherization Assistance Program. They are
usually placed on the Weatherization Program’s waiting list.
“The demand for the program exceeds supply. There is no failure in promotion, because more
people know about the program and more are waiting to be served by it than the program can
fulfill in many years.” (CAP Staff)
“We don’t have the funding to do very many homes, so we don’t really want to over-promote it,
because we can’t deliver.” (CAP Staff)
CAP agency staff reported waiting lists as long as five years for some participants, which suggests that
program promotion is not particularly needed. As this agency staff member observed, “The client base is
already established.”

Program Enrollment
Enrolling in the WAQC program is straightforward and is not an issue that needs to be changed or
improved. Most of the CAP agency clients are enrolled in the Weatherization Assistance Program when
their names come up to the top of the waiting lists.
“The enrollment process takes 15-minutes of paper-work…But the waiting list can be over ten
years long.” (CAP Staff)
“We get a lot of referrals from Energy Assistance, and they get put on a waiting list
automatically…then we prioritize them: seniors, disabled, families with children, high energy
burdens, and no heating emergencies.” (CAP Staff)
Idaho Power customers get attention more quickly, because the funding is there. The applications are
simple and are valid for one year. One manager pointed out that it is helpful to have Energy Assistance
and Weatherization Assistance in the same office as that simplifies program enrollment.

Relationship with Idaho Power
The CAPs have had long relationships with IPC implementing the WAQC Program. Their relationships with
IPC have not changed much over the years. The weatherization managers described the relationship as
very easy and positive. Idaho Power reimburses the CAPs for weatherization-related expenses in a timely
fashion, with clear guidelines, making the program easy to implement. The weatherization managers had
few recommendations for how Idaho Power could or should improve or change the program.
“The Idaho Power program works in parallel with DOE and LPW, both federal programs that go
through the state, and this slows the process down a little. On the DOE and LPW side, there are
probably lots of things that could be improved, but not on Idaho Power’s side.” (CAP Staff)

Johnson Consulting Group 2013 24

“The relationship has always been good. They increased our funding a few years ago, from
$40,000-50,000 up to $170,000 per year. This was a huge boost. We staffed up and serve many
more homes. The funding really helps.” (CAP Staff)
However, the situation is different in Oregon in which Bonneville Power Authority (BPA) pays up to 99
percent of the project costs whereas IPC pays up to 85 percent of the job. The CAP staff also noted that
IPC’s program requires the CAP to stay under an average cost per unit while BPA does not.
Program Tracking
The CAP managers also provided feedback regarding the EA software required to conduct energy audits.
Some agencies reported that the previous software tool, EA4.6 was too complicated for them to use.
However, in PY 2012, the program did transition to EA5. But even with that transition, the CAP agency
staff reported that the required software is too complicated or difficult for them to use effectively.
“In Oregon we use REM-Design to track and model all the data we gather from audits, but for IPC
we can’t use that software, we have to use EA5 to determine cost-effectiveness. I’d like to see
them accept REM-Design for the four to five homes per year we do for IPC.” (CAP Staff)
The CAPs in Idaho, however, use the Weatherization Inventory Tracking System (WITS) to track program
activities.
“It tracks everything about the clients, inventory, materials, and energy audit, on each house.”
(CAP Staff)
“EA5 is a kind of spreadsheet that state of Idaho developed (before WITS came along). We use
EA5 for Idaho Power clients, and we use WITs for our non-Idaho Power jobs.” (CAP Staff)
“We use WITS, the statewide program. We collect savings to investment ratios (SIRs, for cost-
effectiveness), material/labor costs, Btu savings, and types of measures installed. WITs is an
effective tool.” (CAP Staff)
The state association staff indicated that the software selected is also based on the DOE requirements for
weatherization programs. CAP agencies can only use approved weatherization software programs;
however, there are several options available to CAP agencies. For example, Oak Ridge developed the
NEAT software, which is used in several states. One Oregon CAP agency is using another software package
called OPUS.
There seems to be some overall consensus that the current EA5 software is not an effective tool in
capturing the savings, because the savings may be overstated5 and that the health and safety issues may
not be properly accounted for in the current tool.
“There are missed opportunities in health and safety. Health and safety measures not properly
calculated.” (CAP Staff)
However, the agencies and state staff did like the fact that the current program is tied to a statewide
database. Overall, the CAP agencies indicated they would like to explore other software options.
“We want to get things right and use software that makes our (estimates) better.” (CAP Staff)

5 This was a major finding from the 2012 D&R International Impact Evaluation
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 25

Overall Program Satisfaction
In general, program satisfaction levels among end-users are very high. Each CAP agency measures client
satisfaction with simple, follow-up questionnaires to determine if results were satisfactory for the
occupants.
The weatherization program managers also rated IPC’s roles and activities associated with the WAQC very
favorably. All the CAP agency staff reported that IPC is easy to work with and is a reliable and effective
partner in implementing the WAQC Program.

Key Barriers to Program Participation
Several CAP agencies identified the lack of funding as the primary barrier to program participation.
“If we had more funding, we could weatherize more homes.” (CAP Staff)
The CAP staff reported long waiting lists to be served by this program, with one CAP maintaining a 20-year
or longer waiting period. When ARRA funding was available, some measure costs were offset, which
allowed the CAPs to weatherize more homes.
“There are a lot of clients who are not being served. If we had more funding, we would weatherize
many more homes (in and out of Idaho Power’s territory). We used do 200 homes per year when
ARRA funding came, but now it is 50 to-60 homes per year.”
“Funding is the barrier – we have long waiting lists. Our waiting list is 10-12 years long. We have
more seniors alone (top priority) than we can serve.”
A second barrier is the lack of eligible customers in certain parts of both Idaho and Oregon.
“We weatherize only two to three homes per year. I do not think we would do more if we had
more funding, because the homes just aren’t out there.” (CAP Staff)
“We weatherize only four to five households per year, based on minimum funding of $12,788 per
year. There is a bigger market, but it is a two and a half hour one-way trip, so the program might
not need to be funded more. It is a very small part of our service territory.” (CAP Staff)
The CAP agencies also indicated that there is a long waiting list for some customers to receive services—
which can include the first date they enrolled in Energy Assistance.
“There is big backlog of people who signed up for assistance, but there isn’t funding. In the rest of
our territory (not Idaho Power), the waiting list is only about three years…” (CAP Staff)

Johnson Consulting Group 2013 26

Areas for Program Improvement
Overall, the CAP agencies provided few recommendations for process improvement. The CAP agencies
staff made the following two suggestions for program improvement:
 Simplify the current software tools or identify an effective alternative for data tracking and cost-
effectiveness.
 Increase funding to help increase program reach. All but two agencies reported that they could
easily increase their budgets to meet the demand for the WAQC program services.

Johnson Consulting Group 2013 27

3 Program Flow Diagram for WAQC
Based on the information from the staff interviews, the Johnson Consulting Group team developed a
program flow chart documenting the program participation process. Of note, program flow charts are
different from logic models in that they focus on identifying the participation journey for both the
customers and the program implementers.

Johnson Consulting Group 2013 28

Figure 8: WAQC Program Diagram
WAQC Program Diagram
WAQC Program Diagram
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 29

4 Key Findings and Recommendations
The results from the review of program materials, the program database, and the in-depth interviews led
to the following key findings and recommendations for the WAQC program. The findings are summarized
first, followed by recommendations for program improvement.

4.1. Key Findings
 The WAQC Program is operating efficiently and effectively. Overall feedback from the CAP
agency staff was positive about this program. The customer feedback was also positive regarding
both the quality of the measures installed, and the overall program implementation.
 The WAQC Program is filling a need in the low-income community. Although participation rates
vary by geographic region, the majority of the CAP agencies reported that there continues to be
pent-up demand for this program. All but two agencies reported that they could serve even more
customers, if the funding levels were increased.
 The current database tracking system does not provide the level of granularity required to
provide more in-depth analysis for cost effectiveness and tracking purposes. The database
review uncovered numerous discrepancies and inconsistencies in the way in which data are
tracked to calculate energy efficiency savings estimates.
Similarly, the pre and post information from the Job Order Form are also not tracked in the
program database, which could lead to under-reporting of program savings.
 Accurately determining the program’s overall cost-effectiveness is the overwhelming concern
reported by both IPC staff and CAP agency personnel. This is also a concern raised by the IPUC
Staff, as the 2012 Impact Evaluation Report from D&R International found that the program ex-
ante savings estimates were overstated.
The CAP agency staff reported on-going concerns with the way in which the current software tool,
EA5 calculates savings.
The Idaho IPUC staff also identified several other inconsistencies in the ways in which the IPC staff
are determining measure savings costs.

4.2 Key Recommendations
This process evaluation also led to the following recommendations to improve the WAQC program.
 IPC should track customer satisfaction consistently across all CAP agencies. IPC should field a
customer survey to assess the following key indicators of overall program operations:
o Customer satisfaction
o Measure satisfaction
o Satisfaction with the enrollment process
o Satisfaction with the CAP agency
o Satisfaction the WAQC program
o Satisfaction overall with IPC
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 30

This customer survey could also track critical demographic information that is currently not being
tracked in the program database, such as characteristics regarding housing stock, number of
occupants, vintage of heating and cooling equipment. It could also be used to further address the
non-energy benefits as identified by Idaho PUC staff in Recommendations No. 8 and 9.
In addition, IPC should develop a consistent customer satisfaction feedback survey and distribute
it to all CAP agencies to allow for consistent reporting and tracking for all participating CAP
agencies throughout IPCs territory.
 IPC should investigate the discrepancies identified in the program database and follow up with
appropriate CAP agency staff to resolve any communication issues or misunderstandings.
 IPC should improve current database tracking system to capture more accurately the key data
already available on participant in-take forms as well as capture more details regarding
measures installed for health and safety. The database entries should also be checked for
“reasonableness” regarding the energy savings estimates, as a way to improve overall accuracy of
these estimates and reduce the large variances reported for these energy savings measures.
 Conduct a market potential study to determine the size and scope of the low-income market
segment in IPC’s service territory. The findings from this study could be used to better
understand the funding levels required to serve this market, and address Idaho PUC’s Staff
recommendation No. 16. With this information, IPC could have a better understanding of the
market needs, and then determine the most cost-effective ways to reach this low-income
population.
This market potential study could also help to identify the issues regarding the length of the
waiting list for this program, as it will provide a better estimate of the number of customers that
could be served by region throughout its service territory.
 IPC should revise its current approach to calculating ex-post savings estimates for the WAQC
program. Currently, the audit software does not account for the following:
o Savings associated with secondary heat sources (i.e., savings from wood stoves to heat
pumps)
o Savings associated with cooling improvements (i.e., savings associated with heat pumps)
Therefore IPC should either consider using a different software tool that will more accurately
capture the savings associated with these measure installations, or use a “Deemed Savings”
methodology that will report the savings for each measure in a consistent manner. The deemed
savings calculations can be adjusted for weather and other key variables, and would allow for
consistent reporting of savings in a more objective manner.
 IPC should consider using the REM-Design approach used in Oregon as an alternative to EA5.
The Oregon CAP staff recommended using REM-Design audit tool instead of the EA5 as way to
both standardize the approach used in Oregon as well as provide more consistent energy savings
estimates.

Johnson Consulting Group 2013 31

Implementing these recommendations will make the WAQC Program more efficient and likely more cost-
effective. But even more importantly, both the program staff and implementers will have much greater
confidence in the savings produced through these measure installations, and WAQC will continue to
provide an essential service to low-income qualified IPC customers.

Johnson Consulting Group 2013 32

Addendum: Literature Review of Low-Income Programs and Policies

As a way to further inform the process evaluation findings for the IPC’s low-income programs, Johnson
Consulting Group team members also completed a literature review exploring two key areas:
 The types of Non Energy Benefits (NEBs) used in low income programs and
 Policies regarding cost-effectiveness tests for low-income weatherization programs.
The key findings from each area of inquiry are summarized next.
Non-Energy Benefits
Non Energy Benefits (NEBs) have been the subject of extensive research for the past 20 years. The
literature identified a wide range of NEBs that were developed in the mid-1990s based on three
“perspectives”; the benefits to the utility, society, or the participant (Amann 2006; Skumatz et al, 2010).
The next two tables summarize the types of NEBs that have been identified in previous studies of low-
income NEBs.
Table 11: Examples of Utility and Societal Non Energy Benefits
Utility Perspective Societal Perspective
Transmission and/or distribution savings Economic impacts (job creation, tax revenue, job retention)
Peak load reductions Improved housing stock/preservation/ property values
Reduced payment arrearages Emissions/environmental impacts
Reduced carrying costs Health and safety benefits
Lower debt written off/ lower collection costs Water and wastewater savings
Fewer customer calls Reduced reliance on public service benefits
Sources: Amann 2006; Hall et al 2002; Skumatz et al, 2010; Oppenhimer 2013

Johnson Consulting Group 2013 33

Table 12: Examples of Participant NEBs
Type of NEB Examples
Financial benefits Program incentives: rebates, low interest financing, subsidize home assessment/diagnosis
Water and wastewater bill savings
Reduced equipment repair and maintenance
Increased home resale value
Improved home durability
Comfort benefits Improved airflow
Reduced drafts and temperature savings
Better humidity control
Aesthetic benefits More attractive windows, appliances, etc.
Less dust
Reduced/eliminated mold and/or water damage
Protection of furnishings
Dimmable lighting
Water/Sewer
benefits
Lower water usage
Health and safety
benefits
Improved IAQ
Reduced Emergency Calls
Reduced illnesses
Sources: Amann 2006, Hall et al 2002; Skumatz et al 2010; Oppenhimer 2013

While the list of NEBs is extensive, the real issue has been to identify the best way to measure the effects
of these NEBs. This has led to the development of “readily-measured” NEBS which are defined as those
“easily measured with direct computations of impacts or direct application of readily-accepted secondary
data” (Skumatz et al 2010, p. 42).
Examples of these types of easily measured NEBs include estimating the savings from low flow
showerheads, faucet aerators, or from efficient clothes washers, as well as the associated “soap” savings
from these washers. These NEBs are computed based on average showers or laundry loads per household
from established sources like the AWWA (American Water Works Association), among others. These types
of NEBs are measured around the country, but are formally included particularly in the Northwest.
Moreover, these NEBs have also been included in documenting savings for commercial and industrial
programs rather than just low-income programs (Skumatz et al 2010, p. 42).
Several states are moving towards using “readily measured” or easily quantifiable NEBs, including
Arkansas and Massachusetts. Table 13 summarizes the value that Massachusetts has attached to their
“readily measured” NEBs.

Johnson Consulting Group 2013 34

Table 13: Summary of Costs Used to Quantify NEBs in Massachusetts for Low-Income Programs
Type NEB Description
Value to
Low-Income
Program
A=Annual Electric Heat-
Related
Aesthetics Lighting quality, lifetime $56.00 1x x
Safety HVAC - Fire, CO $45.05 A x
Dual Fuel HVAC - a/c $45.00 A a/c
Financial Rate discounts avoided calculate A x x
Comfort Thermal comfort -includes MF $101.00 A x
gas insulation – includes MF $25.38 A x
gas air sealing - includes MF $30.23 A x
gas heating - includes MF $28.01 A x
Comfort Thermal comfort - NC $101.00 A x
Comfort Noise reduction includes MF $30.00 A a/c x
gas insulation - includes MF $13.56 A x
gas air sealing - includes MF $16.39 A x
Comfort Noise reduction - NC $30.00 A a/c
Comfort Noise reduction - heat and cool A x x
gas insulation - includes MF $8.76 A x
gas air sealing - includes MF $10.61 A x
gas heating - includes MF $9.72 A x
Maintenance Equip. maint. - includes NC; MF $54.00 A x x
Maintenance Equip. maint. - heating includes LI MF) $27.43 A x
Health Health benefits-includes MF) $19.00 A x
gas insulation – includes MF $4.77 A x
gas air sealing - includes MF $5.69 A x
gas heating - includes MF $5.27 A x
Health Health benefits - NC $19.00 A x
Property Property value increase -includes MF $949.00 1x x x
gas insulation – includes MF $223.63 1x x
gas air sealing – includes MF $144.93 1x x
gas heating - includes MF $249.20 1x x
Property Property value increase - NC $949.00 A x x
Financial Arrearages reduced – includes NC; MF $2.61 A x x
Financial Bad debt writes off reduced - includes
NC; MF Construction.
$3.74 A x x
Financial Terminations/reconnections – includes
NC; MF
$0.43 A x x
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 35

Type NEB Description
Value to
Low-Income
Program
A=Annual Electric Heat-
Related
Financial Customer calls/collections – includes NC;
MF
$0.58 A x x
Operations Notices - includes NC., MF $0.34 A x x
Operations Price hedging - includes MF (gas) $0.76 1x per MMBTU x
Operations Price hedging - includes MF (elec) $0.01 1x per kwh x
Safety Safety-related emergency calls (gas) -
includes MF
$8.43 A x
Economic Rental marketability - MF $0.96 A x x
gas $0.07 A x
Economic Property durability - MF $36.85 A x x
gas $2.58 A x
Operations Reduced tenant complaints - MF $19.61 A x x
gas $1.37 A x
Economic Rental unit increase property value - MF $17.03 1x x x
gas $1.19 1x x
MF=Multifamily: NC= New Construction
Note: all fuels (includes oil, propane) unless noted or lighting; gas refers to utility gas
Source: Massachusetts NEBS 2013-2015, Oppenheimer 2013
Based on this analysis, IPC should investigate additional readily-measured NEBs that could be included in
future cost-effectiveness testing of its low-income program portfolio.
Policies Regarding Cost-Effectiveness Tests for Low-Income Weatherization Programs
A second part of this literature review was to determine the current ways in which other states are
evaluating the cost-effectiveness of their low-income programs. According to recent literature review, 12
states include NEBs in their cost-benefit tests (Kushler et al 2011). Of those using NEBs, seven states
included water and other fuel savings, three include reduced maintenance, and one had a general adder.
In another recent review of selected states, NEBs were included in TRC calculations, usually as an “adder”
to the benefits side (Daykin et al 2011). Table 14 summarizes these findings.

Johnson Consulting Group 2013 36

Table 14: Summary of Current State Cost-Effectiveness Policies for Low-Income Programs
State Non-Energy Benefits
Alabama NA
Alaska NA
Arizona
The Arizona Corporation Commission does not require NEBs to be included in cost-
effectiveness evaluations, but will allow utilities to report air emissions reductions if
presented to them
Arkansas NEBs do not need to be reported for regulatory evaluations but this is currently under
review.
California
Formal inclusion of participant-side NEBs was approved in low-income tests and is
currently reinvestigating that issue.
Colorado 25% adder for low-income programs
Connecticut NA
Delaware NA
Georgia NEBs do not need to be reported for regulatory evaluations
Hawaii NA
Iowa 10% adder for electric; 7.5% adder for gas
Illinois NA
Indiana NA
Kansas NA
Kentucky California Public Purpose Test (PPT) broad range of NEBs
Louisiana NA
Maine All quantifiable NEBs including deferred replacement costs
Maryland NA
Massachusetts The benefit cost model has NEBs build in for reduced costs to utility (arrearages,
termination, collections), and participant benefits (mobility, comfort, etc.).
Michigan NA
Montana NEBs do not need to be reported for regulatory evaluations.
Nebraska NA
New Hampshire Modified TRC with 15% adder for environment
Nevada NA
New Jersey NA
New Mexico NA
New York Comfort, safety, air quality, productivity, etc. are included in regulatory cost-
effectiveness evaluations for low income.
North Carolina NA
North Dakota NA
Oklahoma NA
Ohio NA
Oregon Carbon ($15/ton) 10% adder
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 37

State Non-Energy Benefits
Pacific Northwest;
(from BPA, Energy
Trust, and NEEA)
BPA will only fund cost-effective measures with a BC ratio of 1 or greater. Energy Trust
/ NEEA report that they include the “readily measured” NEBs in the cost-effectiveness
reporting.
Pennsylvania Low income only;
Rhode Island NA
South Dakota NA
South Carolina NEBs do not need to be reported for regulatory evaluations.
Tennessee NA
Virginia NA
Utah Environmental “adder” of 10% of the benefits for low income cost-effectiveness if the
regulators allow
Vermont
NEBs such as reduced air emissions, property value increases, tax benefits, health
improvements and employment impacts are incorporated into formal cost-benefit
analysis for the low income program, which is required by the state legislature.
Washington 10% adder
Washington – Puget
Sound Energy
NEBs are not used for internal and regulatory cost-effectiveness test. Lower B/C ratios
are allowed for low-income weatherization programs because NEBs are assumed to be
associated with those programs.
Wisconsin California PPT
Wyoming
Environmental “adder” of 10% of the benefits for low income cost-effectiveness if the
regulators allow
Idaho Under review to add in NEBs and adders
Sources: Modified and Summarized from Daykin et al, 2011; Amann 2006, Skumatz et al 2011

The literature review also uncovered more specific information regarding low-income program cost-
effectiveness policies in California and Washington. These findings are summarized next.
California
The California Low-income Public Purpose Test (LIPPT) is used to estimate the impacts of the California
program. The LIPPT is a dynamic benefit-cost calculating tool developed for California’s investor-owned
utilities, and allows each user to edit, change and modify specific NEB- related values and assumptions
that drive an estimation of each NEB included in the estimation formula. The LIPPT may be used to
compute the energy and non-energy benefits and program costs of virtually any low-income or residential
program.
The results from these studies indicate that the non-energy benefits associated with low-income program
can be equal to or significantly greater than the value of the energy benefits for both large statewide cold-
climate programs installing in excess of $2,000 worth of measures per home, to smaller electric-focused
programs implemented in moderate climates (Hall et al 2001; Hall & Riggert 2002).

Johnson Consulting Group 2013 38

Washington
Washington allows utilities to run low-income programs with a TRC of at least 0.67. The state also
requires that a utility’s entire conservation portfolio pass the TRC. There is a statewide preference for
low-income programs, and so recognizes that these programs may not be cost-effective. Although
Washington Commission Staff would prefer to move toward a Savings-to-Investment (SIR) ratio for low-
income efficiency programs, these changes has not yet been made.

More recently, the Commission ordered Avista to examine its Low-Income Rate Assistance Program
(LIRAP) to see what design improvements might be available. In future stakeholder meetings, the Staff
will be exploring incorporating key metrics regarding NEBs including reducing customer energy burden to
a certain level, reducing customer non-payment, reducing the amount of arrearages. Avista’s LIRAP is
currently a grant program similar to LIHEAP (Williams 2013).
These findings further illustrate that low-income programs serve a unique set of customers within a
utility’s overall program portfolio, and therefore may require looking beyond the traditional economic
cost-benefit tests to determine its true value to the utility, the participant, and society as a whole. There is
currently a trend to re-examine the cost-effectiveness calculations for low-income programs in order to
provide a more balanced view of these programs which offer significant benefits beyond energy savings.
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 39

References

Amann, J. 2006. Valuation of Non-Energy Benefits to Determine Cost-Effectiveness of Whole- House
Retrofits Programs: A Literature Review. Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy pp. 5, 7, 8.11,
Daykin, E., J. Hedbam, A&B., 2011. “Picking a Standard: Implications of Differing TRC Requirements,”
presented at the Association of Energy Services Professionals National Conference
Hall, N., Skumatz, L. Riggert, H. & Megdal, L. 2001. The California Low-income Public Purpose Test (LIPPT),
Prepared for the California Public Utility Commission and four California investor-owned utilities.
_______ & Riggert, J. 2002. “Beyond Energy Savings: A Review of the Non-Energy Benefits Estimated for
Three Low-Income Programs,” TecMRKT Works, ACEEE 2002
Kushler, M., Nowak, S. & Witte P., 2011. A National Survey of State Policies and Practices for the
Evaluation of Ratepayer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs (draft), Washington, DC: American Council for
an Energy-Efficient Economy.
Oppenheimer, J. 2013. “Massachusetts NEBs 2013-2015,” Democracy and Regulation, Boston.
Riggert, J. Hall, N. Reed, J. & Oh, A. 1999, An Evaluation of the Energy and Non-energy Impacts of
Vermont’s Weatherization Assistance Program, TecMRKT Works.
Skumatz, L. Khawaja, S. & Krop, R. 2010 “Non-Energy Benefits:
Status, Findings, Next Steps, and
Implications for Low Income Program Analyses in California: Revised Report,” May 11.
Williams, J. 2013 Personal communication with Juliana Williams, Regulatory Analyst, Conservation &
Energy Planning, Washington Utilities and Transpiration Commission, August 19, 2013 with the author.

Vine, E. 2011, “Addressing Non-Energy Benefits in the Cost-Effectiveness Framework,” for the CPUC Energy
Division Research Staff from the California Institute for Energy and the Environment.

June 24, 2013 Interview Guide Johnson Consulting Group 1
Appendix A Interview Guides

(STAFF)
Name_______________________________________________________________

Date________________________________________________________________

Phone___________________Fax________________________________________

Email______________________________________________________________

Respondent Background
Thank you for talking with me today about Idaho Power’s weatherization programs. The goal of this discussion is to talk more fully about the way this program was designed and implemented. All comments will remain confidential.

Current Roles/Responsibilities
1. What is your current title? 2. What are your roles and responsibilities for each program:
a. Weatherization Assistance Program

b. Weatherization Solutions Program
3. About how much of your time is spent/allocated to each program?
a. Weatherization Assistance Program

b. Weatherization Solutions Program
c. Was this the level you anticipated? Why/why not?
4. How have your responsibilities for the program evolved since your involvement began (Probe for
each)?

Program History
5. Were you involved in the program design for:
a. Weatherization Assistance Program b. Weatherization Solutions Program
June 24, 2013 Interview Guide Johnson Consulting Group 2

6. What are each program’s goals? a. Weatherization Assistance Program
b. Weatherization Solutions Program
7. How were the programs designed to help achieve those goals?

Program Marketing/Materials
8. What types of marketing and outreach materials were developed to promote the program to potential
participants?
a. Where the marketing methods different for each program or similar?

b. If different, how were did they different?
9. Overall which of these methods were most effective? (Probe specifically for each)
a. Flyers
b. Brochures c. Bill Inserts d. Community Agencies
e. Others? 10. Please describe your overall assessment of the customer marketing/outreach activities?
a. Did customers seem to understand the two program options?

b. Did weatherization agencies understand the two program options?
11. What suggestions, if any, do you have to improve the program outreach for:
a. Weatherization Assistance Program

b. Weatherization Solutions Program
Participation Rates/Customer Characteristics
12. What have been the participation rates for:
a. Weatherization Assistance Program
b. Weatherization Solutions Program
13. What types of customers account for the majority of participation in:
a. Weatherization Assistance Program
b. Weatherization Solutions Program
June 24, 2013 Interview Guide Johnson Consulting Group 3
14. How have participation rates aligned with expectations for each program?
a. Weatherization Assistance Program
b. Weatherization Solutions Program 15. What types of feedback have you gotten from program participants?
a. Weatherization Assistance Program

b. Weatherization Solutions Program
16. What are the biggest barriers to program participation for each program?
a. Weatherization Assistance Program

b. Weatherization Solutions Program

Program Implementation
17. Please describe your overall assessment of the enrollment process?
a. Weatherization Assistance Program
1. How long does it take to enroll customers in the process? 2. Overall, what worked best for the enrollment process? 3. What needs to be improved?
b. Weatherization Solutions Program

1. How long does it take to enroll customers in the process? 2. Overall, what worked best for the enrollment process?
3. What needs to be improved?

Program Tracking
18. Please describe the program tracking mechanisms used.
a. How does IPC track/report data- types of data collected/ frequency of reporting, etc.?
b. Are the weatherization programs tracked separately?
c. Is the current tracking system meeting your program needs?
d. What areas of tracking need to be modified or improved moving forward?

June 24, 2013 Interview Guide Johnson Consulting Group 4
Community Agencies Roles 19. How many community agencies/weatherization agencies participated each program?
a. Weatherization Assistance Program 1. How were these agencies recruited?
2. How many participated?

3. Which types of organizations were the most active?
4. What types of services did they provide?
b. Weatherization Solutions Program

1. How were these agencies recruited?
2. How many participated?
3. Which types of organizations were the most active?
4. What types of services did they provide?
20. What types of feedback have you gotten from any of the weatherization/community agencies about these programs?
a. What did they like best about the program/s?
b. What were the biggest challenges for them to participate?
c. How can the Community Action agency component of this program be improved?

21. Do you have anything else you’d like to add?

Thank you again for taking the time to talk with me today.
June 24, 2013 Interview Guide Johnson Consulting Group 1
(WEATHERIZATION AGENCY STAFF)
Name_______________________________________________________________

Date________________________________________________________________

Phone___________________Fax________________________________________

Email______________________________________________________________

Respondent Background
Thank you for talking with me today about Idaho Power’s weatherization programs. The goal of this discussion is to talk more fully about the way this program was designed and implemented. All comments will remain confidential.

Current Roles/Responsibilities
1. What is your current title?
2. Please describe your agency’s primary role in the community?
3. How has your agency been involved with IPC’s weatherization programs? (Probe specifically for)

a. Weatherization Assistance Program
b. Weatherization Solutions Program
4. What are your roles/responsibilities for the program/s?

5. About how much of your time working on the IPC program/s?

Program History
6. When did your agency start working with IPC on these programs?
7. How has your relationship with IPC changed/evolved since your organization became involved?

Program Marketing/Materials
8. How do you promote the program/s to your clients?
9. Overall which of these methods were most effective?
10. How effective is IPC’s marketing/outreach activities?

June 24, 2013 Interview Guide Johnson Consulting Group 2
11. What suggestions do you have to improve these marketing/outreach activities, if any?

Participation Rates/Customer Characteristics

12. What have been the participation rates for: a. Weatherization Assistance Program?
b. Weatherization Solutions Program?

13. What types of customers account for the majority of participation in:
a. Weatherization Assistance Program?
b. Weatherization Solutions Program?

14. How do the program participants differ from your other clients?

15. What types of feedback have you gotten from program participants?
a. Weatherization Assistance Program b. Weatherization Solutions Program
16. What are the biggest barriers to program participation for each program?
a. Weatherization Assistance Program

b. Weatherization Solutions Program

Program Implementation

17. Please describe the enrollment process for each program your agency is involved in:
a. How long does it take to enroll customers in the process?

b. Overall, what worked best for the enrollment process?
c. What needs to be improved?

June 24, 2013 Interview Guide Johnson Consulting Group 3
Program Tracking 18. Please describe the program tracking mechanisms used.

a. What types of data do you collect on behalf of IPC?

b. How does your agency track clients who participate in these programs?

c. Are there areas of data tracking that should be improved? If so, what?

Overall Program Assessment

15. What do you like best about the IPC weatherization program/s?

16. What were the biggest challenges (if not already addressed)

17. How can IPC improve in its interaction with your agency?

18. Do you have anything else you’d like to add?

Thank you again for taking the time to talk with me today.

Johnson Consulting Group 2013 i
Process Evaluation of
Weatherization Solutions for
Eligible Customers Program

Prepared for:

Mr. Gary Grayson,
Energy Efficiency Evaluator
Idaho Power Company
P.O. Box 70
Boise, ID 83707

Prepared by:
Dr. Katherine Johnson, President
Johnson Consulting Group
1033 Lindfield Drive, Frederick, MD 21702

with
Eisenberg Energy

October 22, 2013

Johnson Consulting Group 2013 ii

Table of Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... iv
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Weatherization Solutions Program Overview ..................................................................................... 1
1.2 Process Evaluation Methodology ........................................................................................................ 2
2 Process Evaluation Key Findings ................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 Review of Program Materials .............................................................................................................. 4
2.2 Review of Program Tracking Database ................................................................................................ 6
Measure Installation Rates ....................................................................................................................... 8
Energy Savings Analysis ..........................................................................................................................10
Customer Feedback ................................................................................................................................10
2.3 IPC Staff Interviews Summary Findings .............................................................................................12
Roles and Responsibilities .......................................................................................................................13
Program History ......................................................................................................................................13
Marketing ................................................................................................................................................14
Role of Contractors .................................................................................................................................14
Program Implementation .......................................................................................................................14
Program Tracking ....................................................................................................................................15
Barriers ....................................................................................................................................................15
Areas for Program Improvement ............................................................................................................15
2.4 Weatherization Agencies/Contractor Interview Summary Findings .................................................16
Promotion ...............................................................................................................................................16
Participation Rates ..................................................................................................................................17
Data Tracking ..........................................................................................................................................18
Areas for Program Improvement ............................................................................................................18
3 Program Flow Diagram for Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers Program ..........................20
4 Key Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................................................22
4.1 Key Findings .......................................................................................................................................22
4.2 Key Recommendations ......................................................................................................................22
Addendum: Literature Review of Low-Income Programs and Policies ....................................................25
Appendix A Interview Guides ...................................................................................................................32

Table of Figures
Figure E- 1: Distribution of Measures Installed in PY2012 ................................................................................ v

Figure 1: IPC Door Hanger to Promote the Weatherization Solutions Program .............................................. 5
Figure 2: Weatherization Solutions Program Advertisement .......................................................................... 5
Figure 3: Ways Energy Zone Customers Learned About the Weatherization Solutions Program ................... 6
Figure 4: Distribution of Jobs Completed by Weatherization Solutions Contractors ....................................... 7
Figure 5: Average Number of Days to Process .................................................................................................. 7
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 iii
Figure 6: Distribution of Measures Installed in PY2012 .................................................................................... 8
Figure 7: Distribution of Measures by Agency .................................................................................................. 9
Figure 8: Distribution of Total Measure Costs Paid to Program Contractors .................................................10
Figure 9: Average Customer Satisfaction Ratings for Energy Zone.................................................................11
Figure 10: Weatherization Solutions Program Flow Diagram .........................................................................21

List of Tables
Table E- 1: Summary of Measure Costs by Contractor ..................................................................................... v

Table 1: Weatherization Solutions Participating Contractors .......................................................................... 1
Table 2: Summary of Process Evaluation Activities .......................................................................................... 2
Table 3: Summary of Key Research Questions ................................................................................................. 3
Table 4: Measure Categorization ...................................................................................................................... 8
Table 5: Summary of Measure Costs by Contractor ......................................................................................... 9
Table 6: Verbatim Customer Feedback About the Weatherization Solutions Program .................................12
Table 7: Examples of Utility and Societal Non Energy Benefits ......................................................................25
Table 8: Examples of Participant NEBs ...........................................................................................................26
Table 9: Summary of Costs Used to Quantify NEBs in Massachusetts for Low-Income Programs ................27
Table 10: Summary of Current State Cost-Effectiveness Policies for Low-Income Programs ........................29

Johnson Consulting Group 2013 iv

Executive Summary

Idaho Power Company (IPC) offers customers who do not qualify for the Weatherization Assistance for
Qualified Customers Program (WAQC) another energy efficiency program called the Weatherization
Solutions for Eligible Customers Program (Weatherization Solutions Program). This program serves
customers whose household incomes are between 175 percent and 250 percent of the Federal poverty
level. This provides a chance to participate for residential customers who are financially unable to
participate in cost sharing involved with other residential energy efficiency programs. This program is
designed to serve customers who are just slightly over income qualifications for WAQC but are living in
similar housing stock where energy savings are greatly needed. The Weatherization Solutions Program is
similar to the WAQC, but it is implemented by four private contracting firms who work either as a division
of a Community Action Partner (CAP) agency (contractor) or as a separate LLC entity owned by a CAP
which does not leverage any additional weatherization funding.
This report summarizes the findings from a comprehensive process evaluation of the Weatherization
Solutions Program completed by the Johnson Consulting Group team. The process evaluation gathered
data from a variety of sources, including reviews of program materials, the program database, and in-
depth interviews with key staff and stakeholders during May through August 2013.
Key Findings
 Overall, the Weatherization Solutions Program is operating effectively and efficiently throughout
most of IPC’s service territory. According to program records, four participating weatherization
contractors completed 141 weatherization projects in 2012, installing a total of 980 measures.
As Figure E-1 shows, most measures installed through this program were related to improving the overall
envelope (37%) and furnace-related services (18%).

Source: IPC Weatherization Solutions 2012 Program Database
Envelope
37%
Furnace
18%
Audit
14%
Other
14%
Water Heaters
10%
Health & Safety
7%
Distribution of Measures Installed in PY2012
Johnson Consulting Group 2013 v
Figure E- 1: Distribution of Measures Installed in PY2012
Based on the program records, the four agencies received a total of $1,013,492. The average cost per
weatherized home was fairly consistent, ranging from $5,144 to $7,215.

Table E- 1: Summary of Measure Costs by Contractor
Total Cost Measure Cost Average Cost
EZ-LLC (n=63) $454,545 $7,215
HEM-LLC (n= 41) $272,900 $7,215
Power Savers (n=20) $106,461 $5,323
SAP (n=17) $87,450 $5,144
Total $921,356 $6,084
Source: IPC Weatherization Solutions 2012 Program Database
 Program participation rates are inconsistent for some weatherization contractors. Some regions
are exceeding participation rates, while other regions, particularly those with limited numbers of
electrically heated homes, are having difficulty finding program participants.
 The current database tracking system does not provide the level of detail required to provide
more in-depth analysis for management and tracking purposes. Specifically, the program staff
reported that the types of measures installed for health and safety, and the number of Compact
Fluorescent Lamps (CFL)s installed, were not adequately reported in the current database. For
this reason, contractors are required to send backup paperwork for each completed home;
however this information is stored in a separate database.
 Costs for some measures, such as heat pumps, have risen but the funding levels have not been
increased to reflect these higher installation costs. A few agencies are concerned that these
increasing costs may limit their ability to offer these measures to customers in the future.
 Participating contractors view the current EA4 software audit tool as complicated, difficult to
use, and inaccurate. Several contractors believe that this tool does not adequately capture all of
the energy savings associated with measure installations, and may be missing savings from
cooling installations while over-inflating heating savings estimates.
Key Recommendations
 IPC should conduct a customer survey to solicit feedback directly regarding the Weatherization
Solutions Program. This customer survey would include questions to address key program
benchmarks, such as customer satisfaction. The survey could also identify the ways in which
participants learned about this program and validate the informal feedback currently documented
in program records.
 IPC should improve current database tracking system to more accurately capture the key data
already available on participant in-take forms as well as capture more details regarding
measures installed for health and safety and the number of CFLs.

Johnson Consulting Group 2013 vi
 IPC should revise its current approach to calculating ex-post savings estimates for the
Weatherization Solutions Program. IPC should either consider using a different software tool that
will more accurately capture the savings associated with these measure installations, or use a
“Deemed Savings” methodology that will report the savings for each measure in a consistent
manner. The deemed savings calculations can be adjusted for weather and other key variables,
which would allow for consistent reporting of savings in a more objective manner.
 IPC should consider including the Non Energy Benefits (NEBs) into its overall cost-effectiveness
calculations. The addendum to this report provides a discussion of various approaches used by
other jurisdictions to quantify NEBs for low-income programs. Incorporating a more progressive
approach will serve to make this program both more cost-effective and will better align with
similar programs nationally.
 IPC should consider revising its requirements regarding average cost per measure imposed on
the agencies to reflect rising costs of those measures that lead to significant energy savings,
such as heat pumps. This will allow the weatherization contractors to keep pace with the rising
costs of this equipment.
 IPC should continue to market this program through bill inserts throughout its service territory
as a way to supplement the individual marketing activities conducted by each contractor. IPC’s
marketing is particularly beneficial to reach customers located in regions where weatherization
contractors are struggling to meet participation goals.
 The program website should provide information regarding program eligibility or income
guidelines. This will ensure a consistent messaging strategy across the entire program.
 IPC should review the current program eligibility guidelines to determine if moving income
requirements down to 150 percent of the federal poverty level will be a cost-effective
approach. Currently, the program’s eligibility requirements do not align with other types of
energy assistance programs, which make it more difficult to reach potential program participants.
By implementing these recommendations, the Weatherization Solutions Program will continue to operate
efficiently and is likely to be more cost-effective. Even more importantly, both the program staff and
implementers will have much greater confidence in the savings produced through these measure
installations, and the Weatherization Solutions Program will continue to provide an essential service to
this under-served low-income market segment.

Johnson Consulting Group 1
1 Introduction
Idaho Power Company (IPC) offers customers who do not qualify for the Weatherization Assistance for
Qualified Customers program (WAQC) due to household income eligibility requirements another energy
efficiency program called the Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers program (Weatherization
Solutions). This program began as a pilot program in 2009. The Weatherization Solutions Program is
similar to the WAQC Program, but it is implemented by four private contracting firms who work either as
a division of a Community Action Partner (CAP) agency or as a separate LLC entity owned by a CAP.
This report summarizes the findings from a comprehensive process evaluation of the 2012
Weatherization Solutions Program completed by the Johnson Consulting Group team. The process
evaluation gathered data from a variety of sources, including reviews of program materials, the program
database, and in-depth interviews with key staff and stakeholders during May through August 2013.
This report begins with an overview of both the Weatherization Solutions Program and a general
discussion of the process evaluation methodologies used. The key findings from the process evaluation
are summarized in Section 2. A program flow diagram is provided in Section 3 and key conclusions and
recommendations are provided in Section 4.

1.1 Weatherization Solutions Program Overview
The Weatherization Solutions Program is designed to serve IPC residential households who are between
175 percent – 250 percent of Federal poverty level, which is slightly higher than the 200 percent cut-off
for the WAQC program. However, the program measures and delivery mechanisms are identical to the
WAQC program. All installation and repairs must meet the requirement of a Savings to Investment Ratio
(SIR) of 1.0 or higher and the weatherization contractors must follow Idaho State Weatherization
Assistance Program and Department of Energy Guidelines. Similarly, the dollar amount spent per home is
limited to an annual average maximum per home. All homes must be electrically heated and can be either
owned or rented. For rental units, the landlord’s permission is required prior to measure installation
(Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual Report, p. 68).
Table 1 summarizes the current contractors who are participating in delivering the Weatherization
Solutions program to IPC customers throughout the state.

Table 1: Weatherization Solutions Participating Contractors
Regional Contractor Locations Served
Energy Zone, LLC (E-Z) Serving Adams, Boise, Canyon, Gem, Payette, Valley and Washington counties
Home Energy
Management, LLC (HEM)
Serving Blaine, Camas, Cassia, Gooding, Jerome, Lincoln, Minidoka and Twin
Falls counties
Savings Around Power
(SAP)
Serving in Bannock, Bingham, Power and Oneida counties
208-237-0991
Power Savers (PS) Serving Ada, Elmore and Owyhee counties
Source: 2012 Program Materials

Johnson Consulting Group 2
1.2 Process Evaluation Methodology
Process evaluations focus on ways to improve overall program operations by reviewing critical
documents, program databases, and customer contact and follow-up procedures. Process evaluations
also include feedback mechanisms from the key stakeholder groups, usually in the form of in-depth
interviews with key program staff, program implementers, and other stakeholders, and interviews with
participating customers. Table 2 summarizes the process evaluation activities Johnson Consulting Group
team members completed as part of this process evaluation. Of note, this process evaluation did not
include customer surveys; however, surveys with program participants should be included in future
process evaluations in order to more fully assess the participant experience.

Table 2: Summary of Process Evaluation Activities
Process Evaluation Objective
Review
Program
Materials
Review
Program
Database
Conduct
In-Depth
Interviews
Develop
Program Flow
Diagram
Efficiency & Quality of program operations ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Processes ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Documentation ✔ ✔

✔
Outreach ✔ ✔ ✔
Data Tracking

✔ ✔

Participant Satisfaction ✔ ✔
Stakeholder Satisfaction

✔

Motivations for participation
✔
Barriers to participation

✔

Challenges to program implementation
✔
Successes in program implementation

✔

Recommendations for program improvement
✔ ✔
The process evaluation of the Weatherization Solutions Program addressed the following critical research
questions, as summarized in Table 3.

Johnson Consulting Group 3
Table 3: Summary of Key Research Questions
Research Area Key Research Questions
Specific Program
Characteristics
What are the demographic profiles of the residential Weatherization Solutions
Program participants?
What are the installation rates for each measure?
Effectiveness
of Program
Operations &
Delivery
What is the average time from initial application to project completion for each
program?
Has this changed since program launch?
Is the program performing as expected based on the perceptions from the staff/key
stakeholders?
How satisfied is weatherization agency staff with the program implementation and
delivery?
Overall, how satisfied are customers with the program delivery?
Effectiveness of
Marketing and
Outreach
Activities
Which marketing and outreach activities are the most effective?
Which ones are least effective?
How can these materials and outreach activities be improved?
Participant
Decision-Making
Process
Please describe the participation process.
Why do program participants decide to participate?
Barriers to
Program
Participation
What are the barriers to program participation?
What has been the effect of program changes on reducing identified barriers?
Areas for
Program
Improvement
How can IPC staff improve its programs, in terms of design and delivery?
What other types of offerings or delivery strategies should IPC consider?

Johnson Consulting Group 4
2 Process Evaluation Key Findings
This section summarizes the key findings from the process evaluation activities which included the review
of program materials, review of the program database, and in-depth interviews with key staff,
stakeholders, contractors, and CAP agency personnel involved in deploying this program.

2.1 Review of Program Materials
The team reviewed the following materials used in the Weatherization Solutions Program:
 Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual Report
 Marketing materials
 Program website
 Program materials from Energy Zone, LLC including marketing materials and handouts
 Contracts for each of the four weatherization contractors
IPC provides basic information about the Weatherization Solutions Program on its website and provides
referrals to the four participating contractors. However, the website does not provide any information
regarding program eligibility or income guidelines. This information, which is provided in other marketing
and outreach materials, should be added to the program website as well. This will ensure a consistent
messaging strategy across the entire program.
(http://www.idahopower.com/EnergyEfficiency/Residential/Programs/WeatherizationAssistance/weatheri
zation Solutions.cfm)
IPC also developed several other marketing materials including a brochure and a door hanger. In these
materials, the income guidelines and measure descriptions are prominently displayed. These materials
also allow for co-branding with the four weatherization contractors, which makes it easy for them to leave
brochures behind at customers’ homes when they are in the area.
Overall, the marketing messages are clear, easy to understand and provide the most critical information
and a clear call to action, with the appropriate contact information provided. Examples of these marketing
materials are provided next.

Johnson Consulting Group 5

Figure 1: IPC Door Hanger to Promote the Weatherization Solutions Program
Figure 2: Weatherization Solutions Program Advertisement

Johnson Consulting Group 6
According to Energy Zone’s internal records, IPC’s marketing materials and website have been the most
effective in generating awareness about the program, as Figure 4 shows.

Source: Energy Zone 2012 Records
Figure 3: Ways Energy Zone Customers Learned About the Weatherization Solutions Program

These findings suggest that IPC’s current marketing outreach is effective; however, a full-scale customer
survey of program participants should be conducted as a way to objectively measure customer awareness
across the customer base of all four weatherization contractors.
According to the Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual Report (p. 70), the most effective marketing
strategies were targeted mailings, bill inserts, and online advertisements. However, these findings should
be validated through an independent assessment from program participants, especially in areas where
program up-take has been slow.

2.2 Review of Program Tracking Database
A second component of the program materials review was to review the current Weatherization Solutions
Program database. According to program records, this program funded a total of 141 weatherization
projects in 2012 across the four participating weatherization contractors. The distribution of the projects
completed by each weatherization contractor is summarized in Figure 4.

Word of Mouth
4%
Energy Zone
Advertising
16%
CCOA
Weatherization,
WICAP
8%
Idaho Power
website or flyers
72%
Ways Energy Zone Customers Learned About the
Weatherization Solutions Program (n=60)

Johnson Consulting Group 7

Source: IPC Weatherization Solutions 2012 Program Database
Figure 4: Distribution of Jobs Completed by Weatherization Solutions Contractors

Average Processing Time
The program database also recorded the key milestones for each application including the date initially
received, the date the job was completed and the date the job was paid by IPC. Figure 5 summarizes the
average processing time for program applications based on the dates recorded in the program database.
Note however that some contractors process invoices in batches, so the actual processing time for the
receipt of invoices could be slightly longer.

Source: IPC Weatherization Solutions 2012 Program Database
Figure 5: Average Number of Days to Process

Energy Zone
45% Home Energy
Management
29%
Power Savers
14%
Savings Around
Power
12%
Distribution of Jobs Completed by Weatherization
Solutions Contractors
19.7
2.1
35.0
8.6
16.4 9.0 7.8 5.7 10.5 8.2
26.0
9.9
34.4
19.1 22.3
EZ-LLC (n-63) HEM-LLC (n-41) Power Savers
(n=20)
SAP (n=17) Overall Average
Average Number of Days to Process Weatherization
Solutions Homes by Agency
Date Received to Date Completed Date Received to Date Paid
Date Completed to Date Paid
Johnson Consulting Group 8
Overall, these weatherization contractors complete projects and submit invoices to IPC promptly. As
Figure 5 shows, the average number of days to complete these weatherization projects from start-to-
finish was 22.3 days. Although there were a few projects that had long processing times, overall these
findings suggest that the weatherization contractors are operating efficiently and completing the
weatherization projects in a timely manner.

Measure Installation Rates
The four weatherization contractors installed a range of measures in the 141 jobs. Table 4 organizes these
measures into broader categories, which are then displayed in Figure 6.

Table 4: Measure Categorization
Measure Category Weatherization Solutions Program Measures
Envelope Measures Infiltration, Windows, Doors, Insulation (Wall, Ceiling, Floor)
Furnace Measures Furnace Replacement, Repair, Modification, Tune-Up, Vents, Ducts
Water Heating Measures Water Heater and Pipe
Other Not described
Health and Safety Not described
Audits NA

The four participating contractors installed a total of 980 measures. As Figure 6 shows, most of the
measures installed through this program were related to improving the overall envelope (37%) and
furnace-related services (18%).

Source: IPC Weatherization Solutions 2012 Program Database
Figure 6: Distribution of Measures Installed in PY2012

Envelope
37%
Furnace
18%
Audit
14%
Other
14%
Water Heaters
10%
Health & Safety
7%
Distribution of Measures Installed in PY2012
Johnson Consulting Group 9
Figure 7 summarizes the distribution of the eligible measures installed by the four participating
weatherization contractors.

Source: IPC Weatherization Solutions 2012 Program Database
Figure 7: Distribution of Measures by Agency
The program database also tracked the costs of measures installed through this program by agency. Since
IPC funds 100 percent of the measure costs, the measure costs were equal to the payments made by IPC.
Based on the program records, the four agencies received a total of $921,356. The average cost per
measure was fairly consistent, ranging from $5,144 to $7,215.

Table 5: Summary of Measure Costs by Contractor
Total Cost Measure Cost Average Cost
EZ-LLC (n=63) $454,545 $7,215
HEM-LLC (n= 41) $272,900 $6,656
Power Savers (n=20) $106,461 $5,323
SAP (n=17) $87,450 $5,144
Total $908,663 $6,084
Source: IPC Weatherization Solutions 2012 Program Database

Of note, there are some discrepancies with the data captured in the database compared to the reported
numbers in the Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual Report. Specifically, the production costs
reported in the Annual Report were slightly higher at $921,356 compared to the tracking database totals
of $908,663. Similar discrepancies were found for the average job cost as well. However, these may be
due to not including the administrative adder in these calculations or errors in database tracking of
measure costs. In any case, there are not any significant variances.
135
80
8
34
0
61
112
63 57
42 37 40
69
21 11
28 20 20
45
14 17
34
16 17
Envelope Furnace Water Heaters Other Health & Safety Audit
Distribution of Measures by Agency
EZ-LLC HEM-LLC Power Savers SAP
Johnson Consulting Group 10
As Figure 8 illustrates, Energy Zone (EZ-LLC) accounted for the majority of all projects and measure costs
(50%) while both the SAP and Power Savers completed far fewer jobs, and thus received less from IPC.

Source: IPC Weatherization Solutions 2012 Program Database
Figure 8: Distribution of Total Measure Costs Paid to Program Contractors

Energy Savings Analysis
The Johnson Consulting Group team also compared the individual measure savings estimates with the
total measure savings for each measure. These totals added up to 100 percent for all agencies and
measures. This finding suggests that the data captured in the database are both accurate and consistent,
and therefore the database tracking system is operating correctly.

Customer Feedback
The four weatherization contractors also solicit feedback from customers to assess overall satisfaction.
However, the Johnson Consulting Group team only received completed customer surveys from one
contractor, Energy Zone. Based on this feedback, overall the customers are satisfied with all aspects of the
Weatherization Solutions program, as Figure 9 shows.
EZ-LLC (n=63)
50% HEM-LLC
(n=41)
29%
Power Savers (n=20)
12%
SAP (n=17)
9%
Distribution of Total Measure Costs
Paid to Program Contractors
Johnson Consulting Group 11

Source: Energy Zone Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2012
Figure 9: Average Customer Satisfaction Ratings for Energy Zone
Table 6 summarizes the verbatim comments received regarding the services received from Energy Zone.
Overall, these comments further illustrate the overall high level of customer satisfaction from these
program participants.

4.89 4.79 4.74 4.95 4.95
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Work performed was
well done
Work done was what I
expected
Crew did a good job of
cleaning up
Did a good job
explaining what would
be done and how long
it would take
Staff were courteous
and poilte
Average Customer Satisfaction Ratings for Energy Zone (n=15)
Average Satisfaction Ratings
Johnson Consulting Group 12

Table 6: Verbatim Customer Feedback About the Weatherization Solutions Program
Response What was the comfort of your home
before and after the weatherization?
What did you learn
about saving energy?
Did you experience a decrease
in your power bill?
1 It was better once we got a few
problems fixed.
Save energy if system
works properly
A little bit of a decrease, but did
not pay attention because we
are on level pay.
2
Have a more constant heat than I did
before. New furnace, insulation and
ducts have really helpful (sic)
A new furnace saves
more energy than
windows. Found areas
leaking air.
My bill has gone down. Using a
lot less kW (sic) than before.
3 Before it was drafty; now it is not.
Doors shut a lot tighter.
Saving energy saves
money
My bill dropped to at least half.
I wished I would have let them
do the walls so I could have
saved more energy and money.
4
Before we were just trying to keep
the house warm enough during the
day for a disabled man. Seemed like
the furnace ran constantly. Now it is
warmer and furnace does not run as
often.
The new thermostat
regulates temp at night
(65) and during the day
(72) so saves lots of
energy
Yes- the new furnace and
insulation was installed in the
attic November 1- savings
immediately.
5
We had no cooling unit in our home,
so after our home was weatherized,
we enjoyed a comfortable summer.
Our heat before came from the
ceiling- now with the new unit our
home stays comfortably warm with
less cost.
Our home needed air
flow. We were told to
keep the temp at a
comfortable setting
and not change the
degree more than 2 at
a time.
On our November bill there is a
23 kWh difference. We are very
happy and pleased with the
service provided. Thank you.
Source: Energy Zone Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2012

However, IPC should track the survey findings from all four participating contractors and offer a
standardized form and set of questions that each contractor would use for feedback. In addition, these
customer surveys should also solicit feedback about the Weatherization Solutions Program in addition to
assessing overall contractor feedback.

2.3 IPC Staff Interviews Summary Findings
As part of the process evaluation, the Johnson Consulting Group completed three in-depth staff
interviews with key personnel during June and July 2013. The topics covered in these in-depth interviews
included:
 Roles and Responsibilities
 Program History
 Program Operations
 Results
 Areas for Program Improvement

Johnson Consulting Group 13
The in-depth interview guide used for these discussions is provided in Appendix A. The key findings are
organized by topic area and summarized next.

Roles and Responsibilities
The three staff members are involved in the Weatherization Solutions Program in various capacities. The
Program Specialist handles the day-to-day operations, while the Leader of Residential Programs provides
review and oversight. The Senior Regulatory Analyst focuses on managing the annual DSM Report filings
and related regulatory issues as they apply to this program. The staff all works to ensure that the program
is “well run and cost-effective.”
The Program Specialist is responsible for working directly with the weatherization contractors including
reviewing the payments. The senior staff reported that the Program Specialist is both capable and
effective in handing the day-to-day operations.
While this program does provide a new level of service to IPC’s low-income customers, it is also required
to pass all the cost-effectiveness tests just like all of the other IPC programs.

Program History
The Weatherization Solutions Program was developed in 2007, and all three staff members were involved
in setting up the initial program structure. The program is similar in its focus on the “whole-house”
concept as the WAQC program. However, this program was designed to fill the gap for those low-income
households that “barely missed the income cut-off.”
“Weatherization Solutions focuses on eligible customers who can’t afford to participate in other
Idaho Power residential energy efficiency programs on their own. The Weatherization Solutions
Program was created to help meet a gap in the market and supplement the services offered by
WAQC.” (Program Staff)
This program was designed to help reduce the waiting list of customers for the WAQC program. Currently,
low-income customers may receive “priority points” based on their circumstances, such as families with
children, those infirmed or elderly.
“Those folks go to the front of the line further displacing other customers on the bottom of the
state Weatherization Assistance Program list…So the goal of the program was to serve customers
who were barely missing out on the program—so we pull in people from the bottom and direct
them to the Weatherization Solutions Program. There is a group of people who are near the low-
income market but can’t participate in it.” (Program Staff)
The Weatherization Solutions Program is also serving another purpose by providing jobs for
weatherization contractors after the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds were
exhausted.
“The Weatherization Solutions Program provides funding for weatherization allowing the agencies
to keep the contractors who were trained during the ramp-up for the ARRA and Weatherization
Solutions allowed the agencies to keep the contractors employed.” (Program Staff)
Johnson Consulting Group 14
Marketing
Since this program has slightly different eligibility requirements, it is marketed to customers through a
variety of different methods including direct mail, bill inserts, website pod casts, website pages and
partnering with the participating weatherization contractors.
Other marketing activities include flyers and door hangers that are often left at mobile home parks. These
activities were designed so the “market wouldn’t go away” and also provide additional information for
potential program participants.

Role of Contractors
The program is delivered through weatherization contractors, which may or may not be affiliated with a
particular CAP agency. Some contractors, such as Energy Zone, developed their own stand-alone business
to deliver the Weatherization Solutions Program. Others deliver the Weatherization Solutions Program as
the for-profit part of a CAP agency.
“Some weatherization agencies decided that they wanted to (offer Weatherization Solutions) so
they developed a LLC within the CAP agency…these agencies have the trained crews and
equipment and offer services for both the Weatherization Solutions and the HPwES programs.”
(Program Staff)

Program Implementation
The Weatherization Solutions Program was developed as a pilot project and IPC tested it with a contractor
in each region prior to full-scale launch. Therefore, the staff explained that it took two to three years for
the program to complete its pilot period, so it has only been up and running throughout IPC’s service
territory for two years.
The program implementation strategy is identical to the WAQC program, and also offers the same suite of
measures. One difference between the two programs is that staff reported that the Weatherization
Solutions Program has higher installation rates for heat pumps. Another major difference is that the
Weatherization Solutions Program uses EA4.6 software, while the WAQC program now uses EA5.
Both weatherization programs follow the same enrollment process, but the Weatherization Solutions
Program focuses on recruiting customers who were not able to receive energy assistance services from
the CAP agencies.
“Recruitment for the program is from the Low Income Heating Assistance Program (LIHEAP) denial
list – so we don’t have to do much marketing for the Solutions program either... There are a lot of
referrals from the senior parks/centers in the last several years.” (Program Staff)
The staff also reported that the average customer waiting time is much shorter compared to the WAQC
program, usually less than six months.
After a customer is enrolled in the program, the weatherization contractor then performs an energy audit
to identify areas for energy services. The auditor then computes the anticipated energy savings using the
EA4.6 software tool—which is an older form of the software used by the WAQC program auditors.
Johnson Consulting Group 15
After the measures are installed, the auditor conducts a post-test to verify the energy savings, and then
sends off the project invoice to IPC.
IPC also conducts an independent verification of 10 percent of all completed jobs, to ensure the measures
are installed and operating properly.

Program Tracking
The Weatherization Solutions Program is tracked in a separate program database. However, the program
staff indicated that not all information is provided in the detail required for proper program management.
“The types of measures are not provided in detail. When the crew goes out, they record the
measures, but the measures installed by health/safety are not broken out by detail.” (Program
Staff)
“There is also inconsistency in reporting among the contractors.” (Program Staff)
For this reason, each contractor is required to send additional backup paperwork for every job. But, this
information is not tracked in the program database- an issue that should be addressed going forward.
The staff also reported that the number of CFLs installed in the homes is not being captured in the
tracking database, as well as not accurately recording the measures that are being replaced.
“We are not getting credit for the savings. We need to have more granularity in the database for
more accurate counting of savings.” (Program Staff)
This is especially important regarding the heat pump installations, since this critical information is not
captured in the current energy auditing software.
“We need a new energy audit program because the program is not telling us what is being taken
out.” (Program Staff)

Barriers
The staff reported that the only barrier to program participation is the availability of funding to pay for
the measure installations.

Areas for Program Improvement
The staff provided two suggestions on ways to improve this program:
 Database tracking should be improved to accurately capture all of the energy savings associated
with the measure installations.
 Reexamine the current software used to estimate savings and consider alternative approaches in
order to accurately capture all energy savings.
The major concern is that the staff reports that the EA4.6 software incorrectly calculates the savings,
which has a negative effect on the program’s apparent cost-effectiveness.

Johnson Consulting Group 16
2.4 Weatherization Agencies/Contractor Interview Summary Findings
The Johnson Consulting Group team conducted in-depth interviews with all four weatherization
contractors currently implementing the Weatherization Solutions Program.
According to one contractor, the Weatherization Solutions Program helps those “who are falling through
the cracks.”
“The applicant pool is smaller and the range is narrower (for the Weatherization Solutions
Program), so the demographic is different. But I think both programs are crisis driven.”
(Weatherization Contractor)
“That income bracket can be hard to see and reach. A lot of them are elderly households, not on
the radar. Identifying those clients can be the first step.” (Weatherization Contractor)
The weatherization contractors either operate as a separate business entity, such as Energy Zone, or a for-
profit division under the CAP agency, such as Power Savers.
“We go out and do the work and then seek direct reimbursement. We don’t have a separate for-
profit spin-off. On a monthly basis the Weatherization Solutions Program contractor (known as
Power Savers) seeks reimbursement for 100 percent of its accrued program costs from Idaho
Power.” (Weatherization Contractor)
“The Energy Solutions is the program for the for-profit part of agency.” (Weatherization
Contractor)
The for-profit spin-offs operate in the same way (serving eligible households and then seeking
reimbursement for costs from IPC), but also offer fee-for-service retrofits to middle and higher-income
customers (which is completely separate from two IPC low-income weatherization programs.)

Promotion
Initially, these weatherization contractors relied on “word of mouth and the Yellow Pages” to promote
this program. In subsequent years, they expanded their marketing activities to include radio, TV, public
venues, and booths at town fairs, in coordination with IPC’s marketing activities. These weatherization
contractors also noted some of the difficulties in reaching this low-income customer demographic.
“We need to do some more cooperative marketing with Idaho Power. This demographic is harder
to find and market to. In Weatherization Assistance, we get direct referrals (from Energy
Assistance), and there is a long waiting list.” (Weatherization Contractor)
“Maybe we are reaching our Weatherization Solutions numbers better (than other regions)
because we are really targeting this just-above poverty demographic in a very focused way, even
by putting fliers up in the laundry rooms at some residential apartment buildings.”
(Weatherization Contractor)
“We are actually getting some community referrals.” (Weatherization Contractors)
These weatherization contractors also observed that IPC’s marketing activities greatly helped the
contractors reach customers.
Johnson Consulting Group 17
“Idaho Power’s bill stuffers really made a big difference for the Weatherization Solutions program.
We saw the numbers move up when Idaho Power stepped that up.” (Weatherization Contractor)
“Up until last week, we hadn’t done any mailings. Then Idaho Power did a bill insert and we were
able to schedule audits for 13 homes. We are now on target to reach between 25 to 27 homes per
year because the bill inserts brought us customers.” (Weatherization Contractor)
The weatherization contractors also reported that trust issues are apparent in the Weatherization
Solutions program; low-income clients in the Weatherization Assistance and Energy Assistance programs
tend to be easier to find since they are already enrolled in programs. These clients also already know and
trust the CAPs. The households in the next income higher income level (i.e., above 200 percent) are not
always accustomed to receiving assistance, and so they can be more difficult to reach.
However, the contractors reported high satisfaction rates with the Weatherization Solutions Program.
“In one residential apartment, the customers were so happy (with the program) that they had a
big pot luck dinner and talked about what services they received. And now they are starting to call
us. Grassroots marketing and overcoming trust issues are keys (to program success).”
(Weatherization Contractor)
“The feedback (from customers) is excellent. We provide them with a survey and we get good
feedback that we make them happy.” (Weatherization Contractor)
“The feedback is very positive. The customers are very pleased with the help. We are intervening in
a crisis situation, and they are grateful.” (Weatherization Contractor)

Participation Rates
The Weatherization Solutions Program was rolled out over the course of four years. So participation rates
across regions have been uneven. For example, Power Savers did not start participating in the program
until mid-2012, and in year one completed weatherization retrofits on 20 homes. However, other
contractors who have been participating in the program longer reported that the participation rates were
in-line with their expectations.
“This year we projected 40 homes, and we have done 20 homes (by mid-July). We think word of
mouth will help and with more targeted outreach, we think we’ll reach our target. Idaho power
has been helping identify the market and get the word out.” (Weatherization Contractor)
“Participation is about what we expected. Last year, we did about 50 homes.” (Weatherization
Contractor)
Unlike the WAQC Program, the Weatherization Solutions Program does not have multi-year waiting
periods.
“The application waiting list is about six months – but sometimes there can be a faster turn-
around if we can link it with other jobs in the area.” (Weatherization Contractor)
Other regions are not reaching their targets nearly as well, and are struggling to find out why the
programs are not reaching the participation rates they expect.
Johnson Consulting Group 18
“We are not spending a lot of the Weatherization Solutions money yet. We are having a hard time
finding people who qualify for the program…We also have information in each of our 10 local
offices. Our target is 25-30 homes, but it is mid-July and we have only done four this year. We did
20 last year, which was the second year.” (Weatherization Contractor)
“We have trouble finding homes for the Weatherization Solutions Program and not sure why. We
are going out in the neighborhood with flyers, but we are not getting a good response to that.”
(Weatherization Contractor)
The Weatherization Solutions contractors in these regions are trying to understand how to increase
promotions.
“We went to the Native American groups and told them this money is available. It is on our
Facebook page. Spanish speaking is 10 to-20 percent of the population in some towns; one idea is
a Spanish language flyer.” (Weatherization Contractor)

Data Tracking
The Weatherization Solutions Program uses EA4.6 to calculate cost-effectiveness and to track program
activity.
The weatherization contractors also reported some discrepancies with the software in terms of its overall
calculations of energy savings.
“It can do some funny stuff but we got used to it.” (Weatherization Contractor)
“I think the calculators don’t give the energy savings (correctly).” (Weatherization Contractor)
One weatherization contractor observed that the current software does not allow for energy savings
associated with cooling loads, which results in negative value for heat pump savings.
“However, the issue is the negative calculation with the cooling load. We deal with the heat loss
savings so the capacity of the cooling system is not considered. So the heat pump gets a negative
value in savings, which doesn’t make sense… Replacing the resistance electric heating and air
conditioning with a heat pump improves the SEER value and it is a more efficient option for both
heating and cooling… We think we are actually seeing savings of 25 to 40 percent per job.”
(Weatherization Contractor)

Areas for Program Improvement
Overall the weatherization contractors were happy with the Weatherization Solutions Program. The major
recommendations they provided for program improvement focused on increasing the overall funding
levels to complete more home improvements to keep pace with the rising costs of heat pumps and other
technologies and expand the range of eligible customers.
“The cost of mini-splits has gone up, so the program is getting pretty expensive.” (Weatherization
Contractor)
The weatherization contractors also pointed out that the marketing from IPC led directly to customer
participation, and so they want those activities to continue.
Johnson Consulting Group 19
“We should see more marketing out there, a couple times of year, until it is more well-known to
customers.” (Weatherization Contractor)
Another recommendation was to modify the program guidelines to close the gap between households in
the 150 to 175 percent federal poverty guidelines. Currently, the Weatherization Solutions Program starts
at 175 percent of federal poverty level, but one weatherization contractor said program participation
would increase if it was set to 150 percent of the poverty level.
“I would like the guidelines to be aligned with all the other assistance programs that start at 150
percent of poverty level. I think we are missing a gap in the market between the 150 percent and
175 percent starting point for the Weatherization Solutions Program.” (Weatherization
Contractor)
But overall, the weatherization contractors reported they were very satisfied with this program and their
partnership with IPC.
“We have no real recommendations for improvement. They pay promptly and have marketing and
advertising. We work hand-in-hand with Idaho Power. We work carefully together, and we are
pleased and happy with them.” (Weatherization Contractor)
“Idaho Power is a good partnership. We think it is a wonderful program and they are an excellent
partner…The Weatherization Solutions is a model for utility programs. It fills a need and I think it is
a cutting edge program. “(Weatherization Contractor)

Johnson Consulting Group 20

3 Program Flow Diagram for Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers
Program

Based on the information from the staff interviews, the Johnson Consulting Group team developed a flow
diagram documenting the program participation process. The program flow diagram differs from logic
models in that it focuses on identifying the participation journey for both the customers and the program
implementers.
Johnson Consulting Group 21
Figure 10: Weatherization Solutions Program Flow Diagram
Weatherization Solutions Program Flow Diagram
Johnson Consulting Group 22
4 Key Findings and Recommendations

The results from the review of program materials, the program database, and the in-depth interviews led
to the following key findings and recommendations for the Weatherization Solutions Program. The
findings are summarized first, followed by recommendations for program improvement.

4.1 Key Findings
 The Weatherization Solutions Program is operating efficiently and effectively. Overall feedback
from the weatherization contractors was positive about this program, and they view IPC as a
valuable partner in delivering weatherization services to an under-served community.
According to the program database, there were 141 weatherization projects completed by four
participating weatherization contractors in 2012 throughout IPC’s service territory in Idaho.
Overall feedback from these weatherization contractors was positive; however there has been no
formal assessment of customer feedback about this program.
The current marketing and outreach activities are effective for most contractors, based on
informal feedback and the Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual Report (p. 70).
 Program participation rates are inconsistent for some weatherization contractors. Some regions
are exceeding participation rates, while other regions, particularly those with limited numbers of
electrically heated homes, are having difficulty finding program participants.
 The current database tracking system does not provide the level of detail required to provide
more in-depth analysis for management and tracking purposes. Specifically, the staff reported
that the types of measures installed for health and safety, and the number of CFLs installed, were
not adequately reported in the current database as well as measures that were removed prior to
the retrofit. Moreover, not all of the information related to each completed home is stored in the
program database, which makes it difficult to review the entire process.
 Costs for some measures, such as heat pumps, have risen but the funding levels have not been
increased to reflect these higher measure costs. A few agencies are concerned that these
increasing costs may limit their ability to offer services to customers in the future.
 Participating contractors view the current EA4.6 software audit tool as complicated, difficult to
use, and inaccurate. Several contractors believe that this tool does not adequately capture all of
the energy savings associated with measure installations, and may be missing savings from
cooling installations while over-inflating heating savings estimates.

4.2 Key Recommendations
 IPC should conduct a customer survey to solicit feedback directly regarding the Weatherization
Solutions program. This standardized customer survey would include questions on addressing
key program benchmarks, such as customer satisfaction, measure satisfaction, and satisfaction
with the contractor and IPC. The survey could also identify the ways in which participants learned
about this program, which would be helpful to those contractors who are struggling to increase
Johnson Consulting Group 23
program participation levels. The survey would also validate the informal feedback currently
documented in program records.
 IPC should improve current database tracking system to capture more accurately the key data
already available on participant in-take forms as well as capture more details regarding
measures installed for health and safety and the number of CFLs. The database entries should
also be checked for “reasonableness” regarding the energy savings estimates, as a way to improve
overall accuracy of these estimates and reduce the large variances reported for these energy
savings measures.
The database should also be the repository of all relevant information, including data from the
post-installation and inspection activities.
 IPC should revise its current approach to calculating SIR and energy savings for the
Weatherization Solutions Program. Currently, the audit software does not account for the
following:
o Savings associated with fuel-switching (i.e., savings from wood stoves to heat pumps)
o Savings associated with cooling improvements (i.e., savings associated with heat pumps)
o Interaction affects of multiple measures
Therefore IPC should either consider using a different software tool that will more accurately
capture the savings associated with these measure installations, or use a “Deemed Savings”
methodology that will report the savings for each measure in a consistent manner. The deemed
savings calculations can be adjusted for weather and other key variables, and would allow for
consistent reporting of savings in a more objective manner.
 IPC should consider including the Non Energy Benefits (NEBs) into its overall cost-effectiveness
calculations. The addendum to this report provides a discussion of the approach used by other
jurisdictions to quantify NEBs for low-income programs, and by including this approach it will
serve to make this program both more cost-effective as well as in line with similar programs
nationally.
 IPC should consider revising its requirements regarding average cost per job for each agency to
better reflect the rising costs of those measures that lead to significant energy savings, such as
heat pumps. This will allow the weatherization contractors to keep pace with the rising costs of
this equipment.
 IPC should continue to market this program through bill inserts throughout its service territory
as a way to supplement the individual marketing activities by each contractor. IPC’s marketing
is particularly beneficial to reach customers located in regions where weatherization contractors
are struggling to meet the participation goals.
 The program website should provide information regarding program eligibility or income
guidelines. This will ensure a consistent messaging strategy across the entire program.
 IPC should review the current program eligibility guidelines to determine if moving income
requirements down to 150 percent of the federal poverty level will be a cost-effective
approach. Currently, the program’s eligibility requirements do not align with other types of
energy assistance programs, which make it more difficult to reach potential program participants.
Johnson Consulting Group 24
By implementing these recommendations, the Weatherization Solutions Programs will continue to
operate efficiently and is likely to be more cost-effective. Even more importantly, both the program staff
and implementers will have much greater confidence in the savings produced through these measure
installations, and the Weatherization Solutions Program will continue to provide an essential service to
this under-served low-income market segment.

Johnson Consulting Group 25
Addendum: Literature Review of Low-Income Programs and Policies

As a way to further inform the process evaluation findings for the IPC’s low-income programs, Johnson
Consulting Group team members also completed a literature review exploring two key areas:
 The types of Non Energy Benefits (NEBs) used in low income programs and
 Policies regarding cost-effectiveness tests for low-income weatherization programs.
The key findings from each area of inquiry are summarized next.
Non-Energy Benefits
Non Energy Benefits (NEBs) have been the subject of extensive research for the past 20 years. The
literature identified a wide range of NEBs that were developed in the mid-1990s based on three
“perspectives”; the benefits to the utility, society, or the participant (Amann 2006; Skumatz et al, 2010).
The next two tables summarize the types of NEBs that have been identified in previous studies of low-
income NEBs.
Table 7: Examples of Utility and Societal Non Energy Benefits
Utility Perspective Societal Perspective
Transmission and/or distribution savings Economic impacts (job creation, tax revenue, job retention)
Peak load reductions Improved housing stock/preservation/ property values
Reduced payment arrearages Emissions/environmental impacts
Reduced carrying costs Health and safety benefits
Lower debt written off/ lower collection costs Water and wastewater savings
Fewer customer calls Reduced reliance on public service benefits
Sources: Amann 2006; Hall et al 2002; Skumatz et al, 2010; Oppenhimer 2013

Johnson Consulting Group 26
Table 8: Examples of Participant NEBs
Type of NEB Examples
Financial benefits Program incentives: rebates, low interest financing, subsidize home assessment/diagnosis
Water and wastewater bill savings
Reduced equipment repair and maintenance
Increased home resale value
Improved home durability
Comfort benefits Improved airflow
Reduced drafts and temperature savings
Better humidity control
Aesthetic benefits More attractive windows, appliances, etc.
Less dust
Reduced/eliminated mold and/or water damage
Protection of furnishings
Dimmable lighting
Water/Sewer
benefits
Lower water usage
Health and safety
benefits
Improved IAQ
Reduced Emergency Calls
Reduced illnesses
Sources: Amann 2006, Hall et al 2002; Skumatz et al 2010; Oppenhimer 2013

While the list of NEBs is extensive, the real issue has been to identify the best way to measure the effects
of these NEBs. This has led to the development of “readily-measured” NEBS which are defined as those
“easily measured with direct computations of impacts or direct application of readily-accepted secondary
data” (Skumatz et al 2010, p. 42).
Examples of these types of easily measured NEBs include estimating the savings from low flow
showerheads, faucet aerators, or from efficient clothes washers, as well as the associated “soap” savings
from these washers. These NEBs are computed based on average showers or laundry loads per household
from established sources like the AWWA (American Water Works Association), among others. These types
of NEBs are measured around the country, but are formally included particularly in the Northwest.
Moreover, these NEBs have also been included in documenting savings for commercial and industrial
programs rather than just low-income programs (Skumatz et al 2010, p. 42).
Several states are moving towards using “readily measured” or easily quantifiable NEBs, including
Arkansas and Massachusetts. Table 9 summarizes the value that Massachusetts has attached to their
“readily measured” NEBs.

Johnson Consulting Group 27

Table 9: Summary of Costs Used to Quantify NEBs in Massachusetts for Low-Income Programs
Type NEB Description
Value to
Low-Income
Program
A=Annual Electric
Heat-
Relate
d
Aesthetics Lighting quality, lifetime $56.00 1x x
Safety HVAC - Fire, CO $45.05 A x
Dual Fuel HVAC - a/c $45.00 A a/c
Financial Rate discounts avoided calculate A x x
Comfort Thermal comfort -includes MF $101.00 A x
gas insulation – includes MF $25.38 A x
gas air sealing - includes MF $30.23 A x
gas heating - includes MF $28.01 A x
Comfort Thermal comfort - NC $101.00 A x
Comfort Noise reduction includes MF $30.00 A a/c x
gas insulation - includes MF $13.56 A x
gas air sealing - includes MF $16.39 A x
Comfort Noise reduction - NC $30.00 A a/c
Comfort Noise reduction - heat and cool A x x
gas insulation - includes MF $8.76 A x
gas air sealing - includes MF $10.61 A x
gas heating - includes MF $9.72 A x
Maintenance Equip. maint. - includes NC; MF $54.00 A x x
Maintenance Equip. maint. - heating includes LI MF) $27.43 A x
Health Health benefits-includes MF) $19.00 A x
gas insulation – includes MF $4.77 A x
gas air sealing - includes MF $5.69 A x
gas heating - includes MF $5.27 A x
Health Health benefits - NC $19.00 A x
Property Property value increase -includes MF $949.00 1x x x
gas insulation – includes MF $223.63 1x x
gas air sealing – includes MF $144.93 1x x
gas heating - includes MF $249.20 1x x
Property Property value increase - NC $949.00 A x x
Financial Arrearages reduced – includes NC;
MF
$2.61 A x x
Financial Bad debt writes off reduced - $3.74 A x x
Johnson Consulting Group 28
Type NEB Description
Value to
Low-Income
Program
A=Annual Electric
Heat-
Relate
d
includes NC; MF Construction.
Financial Terminations/reconnections –
includes NC; MF
$0.43 A x x
Financial Customer calls/collections – includes
NC; MF
$0.58 A x x
Operations Notices - includes NC., MF $0.34 A x x
Operations Price hedging - includes MF (gas) $0.76 1x per MMBTU x
Operations Price hedging - includes MF (elec) $0.01 1x per kwh x
Safety Safety-related emergency calls (gas) -
includes MF
$8.43 A x
Economic Rental marketability - MF $0.96 A x x
gas $0.07 A x
Economic Property durability - MF $36.85 A x x
gas $2.58 A x
Operations Reduced tenant complaints - MF $19.61 A x x
gas $1.37 A x
Economic Rental unit increase property value -
MF
$17.03 1x x x
gas $1.19 1x x
MF=Multifamily: NC= New Construction
Note: all fuels (includes oil, propane) unless noted or lighting; gas refers to utility gas
Source: Massachusetts NEBS 2013-2015, Oppenheimer 2013
Based on this analysis, IPC should investigate additional readily measured NEBs that could be included in
future cost-effectiveness testing of its low-income program portfolio.
Policies Regarding Cost-Effectiveness Tests for Low-Income Weatherization Programs
A second part of this literature review was to determine the current ways in which other states are
evaluating the cost-effectiveness of their low-income programs. According to recent literature review, 12
states include NEBs in their cost-benefit tests (Kushler et al 2011). Of those using NEBs, seven states
included water and other fuel savings, three include reduced maintenance, and one had a general adder.
In another recent review of selected states, NEBs were included in TRC calculations, usually as an “adder”
to the benefits side (Daykin et al 2011). Table 10 summarizes these findings.

Johnson Consulting Group 29
Table 10: Summary of Current State Cost-Effectiveness Policies for Low-Income Programs
State Non-Energy Benefits
Alabama NA
Alaska NA
Arizona
The Arizona Corporation Commission does not require NEBs to be included in cost-
effectiveness evaluations, but will allow utilities to report air emissions reductions if
presented to them
Arkansas NEBs do not need to be reported for regulatory evaluations but this is currently under
review.
California
Formal inclusion of participant-side NEBs was approved in low-income tests and is
currently reinvestigating that issue.
Colorado 25% adder for low-income programs
Connecticut NA
Delaware NA
Georgia NEBs do not need to be reported for regulatory evaluations
Hawaii NA
Iowa 10% adder for electric; 7.5% adder for gas
Illinois NA
Indiana NA
Kansas NA
Kentucky California Public Purpose Test (PPT) broad range of NEBs
Louisiana NA
Maine All quantifiable NEBs including deferred replacement costs
Maryland NA
Massachusetts The benefit cost model has NEBs build in for reduced costs to utility (arrearages,
termination, collections), and participant benefits (mobility, comfort, etc.).
Michigan NA
Montana NEBs do not need to be reported for regulatory evaluations.
Nebraska NA
New Hampshire Modified TRC with 15% adder for environment
Nevada NA
New Jersey NA
New Mexico NA
New York Comfort, safety, air quality, productivity, etc. are included in regulatory cost-
effectiveness evaluations for low income.
North Carolina NA
North Dakota NA
Oklahoma NA
Ohio NA
Oregon Carbon ($15/ton) 10% adder

Johnson Consulting Group 30
State Non-Energy Benefits
Pacific Northwest;
(from BPA, Energy
Trust, and NEEA)
BPA will only fund cost-effective measures with a BC ratio of 1 or greater. Energy Trust
/ NEEA report that they include the “readily measured” NEBs in the cost-effectiveness
reporting.
Pennsylvania Low income only;
Rhode Island NA
South Dakota NA
South Carolina NEBs do not need to be reported for regulatory evaluations.
Tennessee NA
Virginia NA
Utah Environmental “adder” of 10% of the benefits for low income cost-effectiveness if the
regulators allow
Vermont
NEBs such as reduced air emissions, property value increases, tax benefits, health
improvements and employment impacts are incorporated into formal cost-benefit
analysis for the low income program, which is required by the state legislature.
Washington 10% adder
Washington – Puget
Sound Energy
NEBs are not used for internal and regulatory cost-effectiveness test. Lower B/C ratios
are allowed for low-income weatherization programs because NEBs are assumed to be
associated with those programs.
Wisconsin California PPT
Wyoming
Environmental “adder” of 10% of the benefits for low income cost-effectiveness if the
regulators allow
Idaho Under review to add in NEBs and adders
Sources: Modified and Summarized from Daykin et al, 2011; Amann 2006, Skumatz et al 2011
The literature review also uncovered more specific information regarding low-income program cost-
effectiveness policies in California and Washington. These findings are summarized next.
California
The California Low-income Public Purpose Test (LIPPT) is used to estimate the impacts of the California
program. The LIPPT is a dynamic benefit-cost calculating tool developed for California’s investor-owned
utilities, and allows each user to edit, change and modify specific NEB- related values and assumptions
that drive an estimation of each NEB included in the estimation formula. The LIPPT may be used to
compute the energy and non-energy benefits and program costs of virtually any low-income or residential
program.
The results from these studies indicate that the non-energy benefits associated with low-income program
can be equal to or significantly greater than the value of the energy benefits for both large statewide cold-
climate programs installing in excess of $2,000 worth of measures per home, to smaller electric-focused
programs implemented in moderate climates (Hall et al 2001; Hall & Riggert 2002).

Johnson Consulting Group 31

Washington
Washington allows utilities to run low-income programs with a TRC of at least 0.67. The state also
requires that a utility’s entire conservation portfolio pass the TRC. There is a statewide preference for
low-income programs, and so recognizes that these programs may not be cost-effective. Although
Washington Commission Staff would prefer to move toward a Savings-to-Investment (SIR) ratio for low-
income efficiency programs, these changes has not yet been made.

More recently, the Commission ordered Avista to examine its Low-Income Rate Assistance Program
(LIRAP) to see what design improvements might be available. In future stakeholder meetings, the Staff
will be exploring incorporating key metrics regarding NEBs including reducing customer energy burden to
a certain level, reducing customer non-payment, reducing the amount of arrearages. Avista’s LIRAP is
currently a grant program similar to LIHEAP (Williams 2013).
These findings further illustrate that low-income programs serve a unique set of customers within a
utility’s overall program portfolio, and therefore may require looking beyond the traditional economic
cost-benefit tests to determine its true value to the utility, the participant, and society as a whole. There is
currently a trend to re-examine the cost-effectiveness calculations for low-income programs in order to
provide a more balanced view of these programs, which offer significant benefits beyond energy savings.
Johnson Consulting Group 32
Appendix A Interview Guides

(STAFF)
Name_______________________________________________________________

Date________________________________________________________________

Phone___________________Fax________________________________________

Email______________________________________________________________

Respondent Background
Thank you for talking with me today about Idaho Power’s weatherization programs. The goal of this discussion is to talk more fully about the way this program was designed and implemented. All comments will remain confidential.

Current Roles/Responsibilities
1. What is your current title? 2. What are your roles and responsibilities for each program:
a. Weatherization Assistance Program

b. Weatherization Solutions Program
3. About how much of your time is spent/allocated to each program?
a. Weatherization Assistance Program

b. Weatherization Solutions Program
c. Was this the level you anticipated? Why/why not?
4. How have your responsibilities for the program evolved since your involvement began (Probe for
each)?

Program History
5. Were you involved in the program design for:
a. Weatherization Assistance Program
b. Weatherization Solutions Program
Johnson Consulting Group 33

6. What are each program’s goals? a. Weatherization Assistance Program
b. Weatherization Solutions Program
7. How were the programs designed to help achieve those goals?

Program Marketing/Materials
8. What types of marketing and outreach materials were developed to promote the program to potential
participants?
a. Where the marketing methods different for each program or similar?

b. If different, how were did they different?
9. Overall which of these methods were most effective? (Probe specifically for each)
a. Flyers
b. Brochures c. Bill Inserts d. Community Agencies
e. Others? 10. Please describe your overall assessment of the customer marketing/outreach activities?
a. Did customers seem to understand the two program options?

b. Did weatherization agencies understand the two program options?
11. What suggestions, if any, do you have to improve the program outreach for:
a. Weatherization Assistance Program

b. Weatherization Solutions Program
Participation Rates/Customer Characteristics
12. What have been the participation rates for:
a. Weatherization Assistance Program
b. Weatherization Solutions Program
13. What types of customers account for the majority of participation in:
a. Weatherization Assistance Program
b. Weatherization Solutions Program
Johnson Consulting Group 34
14. How have participation rates aligned with expectations for each program?
a. Weatherization Assistance Program
b. Weatherization Solutions Program 15. What types of feedback have you gotten from program participants?
a. Weatherization Assistance Program

b. Weatherization Solutions Program
16. What are the biggest barriers to program participation for each program?
a. Weatherization Assistance Program

b. Weatherization Solutions Program

Program Implementation
17. Please describe your overall assessment of the enrollment process?
a. Weatherization Assistance Program
1. How long does it take to enroll customers in the process? 2. Overall, what worked best for the enrollment process? 3. What needs to be improved?
b. Weatherization Solutions Program

1. How long does it take to enroll customers in the process? 2. Overall, what worked best for the enrollment process?
3. What needs to be improved?

Program Tracking
18. Please describe the program tracking mechanisms used.
a. How does IPC track/report data- types of data collected/ frequency of reporting, etc.?
b. Are the weatherization programs tracked separately?
c. Is the current tracking system meeting your program needs?
d. What areas of tracking need to be modified or improved moving forward?

Johnson Consulting Group 35
Community Agencies Roles
19. How many community agencies/weatherization agencies participated each program?
a. Weatherization Assistance Program 1. How were these agencies recruited?
2. How many participated?

3. Which types of organizations were the most active?
4. What types of services did they provide?
b. Weatherization Solutions Program

1. How were these agencies recruited?
2. How many participated?
3. Which types of organizations were the most active?
4. What types of services did they provide?
20. What types of feedback have you gotten from any of the weatherization/community agencies about these programs?
a. What did they like best about the program/s?
b. What were the biggest challenges for them to participate?
c. How can the Community Action agency component of this program be improved?

21. Do you have anything else you’d like to add?

Thank you again for taking the time to talk with me today.
Johnson Consulting Group 1
(WEATHERIZATION AGENCY STAFF)
Name_______________________________________________________________

Date________________________________________________________________

Phone___________________Fax________________________________________

Email______________________________________________________________

Respondent Background
Thank you for talking with me today about Idaho Power’s weatherization programs. The goal of this discussion is to talk more fully about the way this program was designed and implemented. All comments will remain confidential.

Current Roles/Responsibilities
1. What is your current title?
2. Please describe your agency’s primary role in the community?
3. How has your agency been involved with IPC’s weatherization programs? (Probe specifically for)

a. Weatherization Assistance Program
b. Weatherization Solutions Program
4. What are your roles/responsibilities for the program/s?
5. About how much of your time working on the IPC program/s?

Program History
6. When did your agency start working with IPC on these programs?
7. How has your relationship with IPC changed/evolved since your organization became involved?

Program Marketing/Materials
8. How do you promote the program/s to your clients?
9. Overall which of these methods were most effective?
10. How effective is IPC’s marketing/outreach activities?

Johnson Consulting Group 2
11. What suggestions do you have to improve these marketing/outreach activities, if any?

Participation Rates/Customer Characteristics

12. What have been the participation rates for: a. Weatherization Assistance Program?
b. Weatherization Solutions Program?

13. What types of customers account for the majority of participation in:
a. Weatherization Assistance Program?
b. Weatherization Solutions Program?

14. How do the program participants differ from your other clients?

15. What types of feedback have you gotten from program participants?
a. Weatherization Assistance Program b. Weatherization Solutions Program
16. What are the biggest barriers to program participation for each program?
a. Weatherization Assistance Program

b. Weatherization Solutions Program

Program Implementation

17. Please describe the enrollment process for each program your agency is involved in:
1. How long does it take to enroll customers in the process?

2. Overall, what worked best for the enrollment process?
3. What needs to be improved?

Johnson Consulting Group 3
Program Tracking
18. Please describe the program tracking mechanisms used.

a. What types of data do you collect on behalf of IPC

b. How does your agency track clients who participate in these programs?

e. Are there areas of data tracking that should be improved? If so, what?

Overall Program Assessment

15. What do you like best about the IPC weatherization program/s?

16. What were the biggest challenges (if not already addressed)

17. How can IPC improve in its interaction with your agency?

18. Do you have anything else you’d like to add?

Thank you again for taking the time to talk with me today.

Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2013 Annual Report Page 865
SUCCESS STORIES
Table 5. 2013 Success Stories
Title Program Author*
Independent Meat Company goes whole hog for sustainability Custom Efficiency Idaho Power
Nampa, Idaho, sets an energy-efficient course for its public-service buildings Building Efficiency Idaho Power
Savings, security and sales drive lighting upgrade at Boise auto dealership Custom Efficiency Idaho Power
*All success stories written under contract with Writers, Ink. LLC.
Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 866 Demand-Side Management 2013 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.
Independent Meat Company
goes whole hog for sustainability
Nothing goes to waste
Independent Meat Company produces
Salmon Creek Farms Natural pork; Falls Brand
processed meat products, including ham, bacon,
and sausage; and animal-feed products. “We use
all available protein,” Rob said. “Nothing goes
to waste.”
Rob applied the same sort of philosophy to the
lighting project. “Being an environmentally
responsible company, I think it’s our duty to
pursue projects like the lighting retrofit we just
completed,” he explained.
Independent Meat Company of Twin Falls, Idaho, takes its commitment to
sustainability very seriously. The company carefully chooses its partners to
ensure they follow sustainable practices.
The company buys from farms in their region that raise livestock exactly
the way Indepenent Meat Company wants it. “We didn’t want antibiotics or
growth‑promotants in our meat,” said the company’s president, Rob Stephens.
“So now we have our own partner farmers.”
Replacing every light in the place
When Independent Meat Company looked at its lighting system, it saw an
opportunity for sustainability. The company replaced every existing T12
lighting fixture with more efficient T8 lighting. It also replaced exterior
metal‑halide lighting in its yards and parking lots, as well as its interior
incandescent lighting, with lower‑wattage, pulse‑start, metal‑halide fixtures
and compact fluorescent lights (CFL).
“We changed out every light fixture in the plant,” Rob said. “And added
motion sensors where we needed them. It’s been a good project for us.”
Looking forward to the savings
The results of Independent Meat Company’s lighting project have been
eye‑opening, to say the least. Idaho Power estimates the company will cut its
electrical usage by 542,562 kilowatt‑hours (kWh) per year, enough electricity
to power 43 average homes in the utility’s service area for a year. Best of
all for Independent Meat Company, it’s estimated the company will save
approximately $29,840 annually on its power bill.
Custom Efficiency
For Commercial and Industrial Projects
The project also qualified for an Idaho Power Custom Efficiency incentive
of $62,844, which went a long way in paying the $91,000 total cost of the
upgrade. “That’s pretty substantial,” said Rob. “And we’re looking forward to
the savings.”
Savings
(kWh/year)
Project
Cost
$/Year
Savings
Idaho
Power
incentive
Customer
out-of-
pocket*
Payback
(months)
542,562 $91,000 $29,840 $62,844 $28,156 12
* Source: Idaho Power Independent project summary IND0955
Uncommon savings are quite common
Saving energy has always been a smart business decision. Now, Idaho Power
makes it attainable. Our complete suite of energy efficiency programs
provides attractive incentives to commercial and industrial customers who
want to reduce their utility costs.
• The Custom Efficiency program offers substantial incentives to
large commercial and industrial customers who invest
energy‑saving improvements in their facilities.
• Easy Upgrades provides financial incentives to commercial and
industrial customers who implement qualified energy‑saving
measures in their facilities.
• The Building Efficiency program helps offset the additional
capital costs when a company upgrades its planned lighting,
cooling, controls, and building‑shell designs in favor of more
efficient components.
• FlexPeak Management offers commercial and industrial
customers incentives in the form of recurring payments for
reducing their power consumption during times of overall
peak demand.
How much can your company save?
For more information about Idaho Power’s energy efficiency incentive
programs, go to www.idahopower.com/business or call us at 208‑388‑5624
within the Treasure Valley or 1‑800‑488‑6151 outside of the Treasure Valley.
We’ll show how you can join smart companies like Independent Meat
Company, saving energy and money.
“[The projects] have benefitted
our company tremendously and
helped us stay true to our vision
of being sustainable in every way
we can.”
– Rob Stephens, President
Independent Meat Company
www.idahopower.com/business
The above success story was produced in cooperation with,
and approval from, Independent Meat Company.
Nothing goes to waste (cont’d)
“It’s also important that Idaho Power is willing to
make the investment in these energy efficiency
projects. We’ve done a couple of projects with
them now, and both have turned out to be
the real deal. They’ve benefited our company
tremendously, and helped us stay true to our
vision of being sustainable in every way we can.”
Nampa, Idaho, sets an
energy efficient course for its
public‑service buildings
The first thing you do is dig 72 holes
One cost-effective HVAC technology is the
ground-source heat pump. Tapping into
the heating and cooling power of the earth
itself, it can achieve an effectiveness of up to
600 percent. When applied to a 65,000-ft2
building like the Hugh Nichols Public Safety
Building, the savings can be impressive.
The City of Nampa uses 68 heat pumps and
72 vertical bore holes 375 feet deep to tap into
the “fuel.” “It’s an extremely efficient, flexible,
and comfortable system,” Brian said, “and we’ve
been very pleased with it.”
Things were getting tight in the old Nampa police station. “We were
bursting at the seams,” said Brian Foster, Nampa’s Facilities Management
Superintendent. “We were using virtually every square inch of it.”
When the new Hugh Nichols Public Safety Building opened in 2011,
it loosened things up a bit. At 65,000 square feet (ft2), it’s now home to the
city’s police department, Information Technology (IT) department, and fire
department administration. Just as important, it set the city on a path of
building energy efficient structures in the future. “This is a Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building,” Brian explained,
referring to the international green building program. “And the city is
committed to a green standard for everything we build down the road.”
In fact, the city begins construction on a new, LEED-certified library in 2013.
Finding energy efficiency in every corner
City officials looked at every facet of the building’s design in their search
for energy efficiency: the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
system; the lighting; the windows; and the water usage, including low-flow
faucets and even waterless urinals. “The first ones in the city,”
Brian pointed out.
Because of the focus on energy efficiency, the city worked with a
number of experts in the field, including a trusted partner from the past.
“We’ve used Idaho Power programs in facilities all over the city,” Brian said,
“and because this is a green building, we thought Idaho Power could help us
through their incentive programs.”
Building Efficiency
For Commercial Construction
The savings
The city was right. A number of features qualified for Idaho Power’s
Custom Efficiency and Building Efficiency incentive programs, including
68 high-efficiency ground-source heat pumps, energy recovery systems,
occupancy sensors, reflective roof coating, and high-performance windows.
The city was especially excited about the incentives for the heat pumps.
“We wanted ground-source heat pumps,” Brian explained, “because they
use the earth as their heat source, so they provide more stable operation
and higher efficiencies for both heating and cooling than your typical
air-source units.”
The qualifying measures are estimated to save just over
620,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh), or over $34,000 per year, over a typical
built-to-code building. “And they qualified for over $90,000 in incentives
from Idaho Power,” Brian added.
Estimated savings from the Hugh Nichols Public Safety Building project through
Idaho Power’s Custom Efficiency program
kWh/Year Savings $/Year Savings Idaho Power Incentive
620,718 $34,140 $90,756
Uncommon savings are quite common
Saving energy has always been a smart business decision. Now, Idaho Power
makes it attainable. Our complete suite of energy efficiency programs
provides attractive incentives to commercial and industrial customers who
want to reduce their utility costs.
• The Custom Efficiency program offers substantial incentives to
large commercial and industrial customers who invest
energy-saving improvements in their facilities.
• Easy Upgrades provides financial incentives to commercial and
industrial customers who implement qualified energy-saving
measures in their facilities.
• The Building Efficiency program helps offset the additional
capital costs when a company upgrades its planned lighting,
cooling, controls, and building-shell designs in favor of more
efficient components.
• FlexPeak Management offers commercial and industrial
customers incentives in the form of recurring payments for
reducing their power consumption during times of overall
peak demand.
“Working with Idaho Power is very easy,
very nice. And because we built energy
efficiency into the building, we qualified
for quite a few Idaho Power incentives.”
– Brian Foster, City of Nampa
Facilities Management Superintendent
www.idahopower.com/business
The above success story was produced in cooperation with,
and approval from, the City of Nampa, Idaho.
How much can your company save?
For more information about Idaho Power’s
energy efficiency incentive programs, go to
www.idahopower.com/business or call us at
208-388-2323 within the Treasure Valley or
1-800-488-6151 outside of the Treasure Valley.
We’ll show how you can join smart municipalities,
like the City of Nampa, saving energy and money.
Savings, security and sales
drive lighting upgrade at Boise
auto dealership
Breakthrough LeafNut technology
The new exterior lighting system on the
Lyle Pearson lots is driven by a new, advanced,
intelligent wireless control system for area
lighting known as LeafNut. Each pole-mounted
light fixture contains a LeafNut “node”
that communicates via radio, satellite and cellular
systems with a secure web page Lyle Pearson
personnel can access from any computer.
“We can control, monitor and receive
maintenance messages from each light fixture
on the lot,” Don pointed out. “It allows us to
schedule when each individual light goes on or
off. We can have one light on and one light off on
the same pole one night, then switch them the
next night to increase bulb life. It’s allowed us to
reduce our energy usage drastically.”
In the Mercedes Benz showroom at Lyle Pearson Company, Don Anderson,
the dealership’s chief financial officer (CFO), discussed the benefits of the
recent lighting upgrade the luxury auto dealership undertook. He gently
patted the gleaming hood of a new, cobalt blue CL550 coupe. “We measure
light levels at the hood level,” he said. “If the hood looks good, the whole car
looks good. As you can see, this hood looks really good.”
In an Acura service bay, he looked under the hood of a TSX sedan. The
engine gleamed. “We relocated and upgraded our wall-mounted lights in
the service department,” he said. “Now, the technicians can see inside the
engine compartment better.”
Outside, on the Mercedes lot, he pointed out two area lights at the top of a
pole controlled by a wireless monitoring system called LeafNut™. “We can
program these lights remotely so one is off and one is on. It basically
doubles their life span without affecting our lot security.” It also helps the
dealership save over 100,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year just on their
exterior lighting.
The smarter lighting project
In a three-phase lighting upgrade project that began in late 2010,
Lyle Pearson Company changed out 307 interior T-12 and metal halide
lights with more efficient T-8 and compact fluorescent lights (CFL).
Outside, new, super-efficient pulse-start metal halide lights with LeafNut
controls and CFLs replaced aging metal halide technology.
It was an ambitious project costing $102,445, but the energy savings and
incentives from Idaho Power’s Custom Efficiency incentive program helped
justify it. Lyle Pearson Company realized a total annual energy savings of
263,000 kWh, or approximately $14,500.
Custom Efficiency
For Commercial and Industrial Projects
The smarter lighting project (cont.)
Those savings were compounded by the $31,560 in Idaho Power incentives
the dealership received. “We’re very pleased,” Don said, “not only with
the savings, but with the improved lighting, too. It’s much better for the
technicians and sales people alike.”
Estimated savings the Lyle Pearson Company
received through Idaho Power’s Custom Efficiency project
kWh/Year
Savings
Project
Cost
$/Year
Savings
Idaho
Power
Incentive
Customer
Out-of-
Pocket
Payback
(months)
263,000 $102,445 $14,465 $31,560 $70,885 59
*Source: Idaho Power City of Hailey Lighting Upgrade project summaries IND0101 and IND0155
Uncommon savings are quite common
Saving energy has always been a smart business decision. Now, Idaho Power
makes it attainable. Our complete suite of energy efficiency programs
provides attractive incentives to commercial and industrial customers who
want to reduce their utility costs.
• The Custom Efficiency program offers substantial incentives to
large commercial and industrial customers who invest
energy-saving improvements in their facilities.
• Easy Upgrades provides financial incentives to commercial and
industrial customers who implement qualified energy-saving
measures in their facilities.
• The Building Efficiency program helps offset the additional
capital costs when a company upgrades its planned lighting,
cooling, controls and building-shell designs in favor of more
efficient components.
• FlexPeak Management offers commercial and industrial
customers incentives in the form of recurring payments for
reducing their power consumption during times of overall
peak demand.
“We’re very pleased. Not only with the savings, but with the improved lighting, too.”
– Don Anderson, CFO
Lyle Pearson Company
www.idahopower.com/business
The above success story was produced in cooperation with,
and approval from, the Lyle Pearson Company.
How much can your company save?
For more information about Idaho Power’s
energy efficiency incentive programs, go to
www.idahopower.com/business or call us at
208-388-5624 within the Treasure Valley or
1-800-488-6151 outside of the Treasure Valley.
We’ll show how you can join smart companies
like Lyle Pearson Company, saving energy
and money.
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2013 Annual Report Page 873
WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE FOR QUALIFIED CUSTOMERS
2012 ANNUAL REPORT
Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 874 Demand-Side Management 2013 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.
2012
Weatherization Assistance
for Qualified Customers
April 1, 2013
2012 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
2012 Annual Report Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... i
Description .......................................................................................................................................1
Background ......................................................................................................................................1
Review of Weatherized Homes and Non-Profit Buildings by County ............................................2
Review of Measures Installed ..........................................................................................................6
Overall Cost-Effectiveness ..............................................................................................................8
Customer Education and Satisfaction ............................................................................................10
Plans for 2013 ................................................................................................................................11

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
2012 WAQC weatherization activities and Idaho Power expenditures by agency
and county .....................................................................................................................................3
Table 2 2012 WAQC base and available funds .........................................................................................6
Table 3
2012 WAQC review of measures installed ...................................................................................7

Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Page ii 2012 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.

Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
2012 Annual Report Page 1
DESCRIPTION
The Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (WAQC) program provides financial
assistance to regional Community Action Partnership (CAP) agencies in the Idaho Power service
area. This assistance helps fund weatherization costs of electrically heated homes occupied by
qualified customers who have limited incomes. The WAQC program also provides a limited pool
of funds for the weatherization of buildings occupied by non-profit organizations serving
primarily special-needs populations, regardless of heating source, with priority given to
buildings with electric heat. Weatherization improvements enable residents to maintain a more
comfortable, safe, and energy-efficient home while reducing their monthly electricity
consumption. Improvements are available at no cost to qualified customers who own or rent their
homes. These customers also receive educational materials and efficiency ideas on using energy
wisely in their homes. Local CAP agencies determine program eligibility according to federal
and state guidelines.
BACKGROUND
In 1989, Idaho Power began offering weatherization assistance in conjunction with the
Idaho Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). Through the WAQC program, Idaho Power
provides supplementary funding to state-designated CAP agencies for the weatherization of
electrically heated homes occupied by qualified customers and buildings occupied by non-profit
organizations that serve special-needs populations.
Idaho Power has a WAQC agreement with each CAP agency. The agreement specifies the
funding allotment, billing requirements, and program guidelines. Currently, Idaho Power
oversees the program in Idaho through five regional CAP agencies. Canyon, Gem, and Payette
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Page 2 2012 Annual Report
counties are served by the CCOA—Aging, Weatherization and Human Services (CCOA).
The other four regional CAP agencies include the Eastern Idaho Community Action Partnership
(EICAP), El-Ada Community Action Partnership (El Ada), South Central Community Action
Partnership (SCCAP), and Southeastern Idaho Community Action Agency (SEICAA).
In Baker County, Oregon, Community Connection of Northeast Oregon, Inc. (CCNO),
serves Idaho Power customers. Community in Action (CinA) provides weatherization services
for qualified customers in Malheur and Harney counties.
This Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers 2012 Annual Report satisfies the
reporting requirements set out in the Idaho Public Utilities Commission’s (IPUC)
Order No. 29505 with the inclusion of the following topics:
• Review of Weatherized Homes and Non-Profit Buildings by County
• Review of Measures Installed
• Overall Cost-Effectiveness
• Customer Education and Satisfaction
• Plans for 2013
REVIEW OF WEATHERIZED HOMES AND NON-PROFIT
BUILDINGS BY COUNTY
In 2012, Idaho Power provided a total of $1,246,843 to Idaho CAP agencies. Of the funds
provided, $1,159,209 were dispersed to the CAP agencies in 2012, while $87,634 were accrued
for future funding. Of the funds dispersed in 2012, $1,018,503 directly funded audits,
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
2012 Annual Report Page 3
energy efficiency measures, and health and safety measures for qualified customers’ homes
(production costs), and $101,850 in administration costs were dispersed to Idaho CAP agencies
for those homes weatherized. Idaho Power funding provided for the weatherization of 224
Idaho homes and 4 Idaho non-profit buildings in 2012. The cost of those non-profit building
weatherization measures was $35,324, while $3,532 in administrative costs were dispersed for
those non-profit building weatherization jobs. In Oregon, Idaho Power made available a total of
$45,000 to CAP agencies in 2012. Of those funds, Idaho Power dispersed $40,238 in production
costs and $4,024 in CAP administrative costs for 10 homes. Table 1 below shows the CAP
agency, number of homes weatherized, production costs, average cost per home, administration
payments, and total payments per county made by Idaho Power.
Table 1 2012 WAQC weatherization activities and Idaho Power expenditures by agency and county
Agency County Number of Jobs Production Cost Average Cost1
Administration Payment to Agency Total Payment
Idaho
Homes
CCOA Canyon 37 $209,701 $5,668 $20,970 $230,671
Gem 2 16,318 8,159 1,632 17,949
Payette 5 29,805 5,961 2,980 32,785
Agency Total 44 $255,823 $5,814 $25,582 $281,406
EICAP Lemhi 4 11,625 2,906 1,163 12,788
Agency Total 4 $11,625 $2,906 $1,163 $12,788
El Ada Ada 88 413,810 4,702 41,381 455,191
Elmore 5 26,313 5,263 2,631 28,944
Owyhee 13 76,677 5,898 7,668 84,344
Agency Total 106 $516,799 $4,875 $51,680 $568,479
SCCAP Blaine 1 2,029 2,029 203 2,232
Cassia 4 24,427 6,107 2,443 26,869
Gooding 2 6,613 3,307 661 7,275
Jerome 5 13,785 2,757 1,379 15,164
Minidoka 1 3,513 3,513 351 3,864
Twin Falls 24 101,819 4,242 10,182 112,001
Agency Total 37 $152,186 $4,113 $15,219 $167,405
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Page 4 2012 Annual Report
Table 1 (continued)
Agency County Number of Jobs Production Cost Average Cost1
Administration Payment to
Agency
Total
Payment
SEICAA Bannock 19 $42,945 $2,260 $4,294 $47,239
Bingham 12 30,467 2,539 3,047 33,513
Power 2 8,657 4,329 866 9,523
Agency Total 33 $82,068 $2,487 $8,207 $90,275
Total Idaho Homes 224 $1,018,503 $4,547 $101,850 $1,120,353
Non-Profit Buildings
Bingham 1 8,116 8,116 812 8,928
Twin Falls 3 27,208 9,069 2,721 29,929
Total Idaho Non-Profit Buildings 4 $35,324 $8,831 $3,532 $38,856
Total Idaho 228 $1,053,827 $4,622 $105,383 $1,159,209
Oregon
CCNO Baker 2 5,864 2,932 586 6,450
Agency Total 2 $5,864 $2,932 $586 $6,450
CinA Malheur 8 34,374 4,297 3,437 37,812
Agency Total 8 $34,374 $4,297 $3,437 $37,812
Total Oregon Homes 10 $40,238 $4,024 $4,024 $44,262
Total Program 238 $1,094,065 $4,597 $109,406 $1,203,471
Note: Dollars are rounded.
1 Agency average cost total is equal to the production cost divided by the number of jobs.
The mandated base amount of $1,257,534 annually is not changed by the maximum annual
average cost per home. Idaho Power’s agreements with CAP agencies include the provision
allowing a maximum annual average cost per home up to a dollar amount specified in the
agreement between the CAP agency and Idaho Power. The intent of the maximum annual
average cost is to allow for CAP agency flexibility to service some homes with greater or fewer
weatherization needs. It also provides a monitoring tool for Idaho Power to forecast year-end
outcomes. The average cost per home served is calculated by dividing the total annual
Idaho Power production cost of homes weatherized per CAP agency by the total number of
homes weatherized that the CAP agency billed to Idaho Power during the year. The maximum
annual average cost per home the CAP agency was allowed under the 2012 agreement was
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
2012 Annual Report Page 5
$5,525. The maximum annual average amount does not change the total annual mandated base
amount provided for the WAQC program. In 2012, Idaho CAP agencies had a combined average
cost per home served of $4,547. However, the CCOA exceeded their annual average by $289 in
2012. There is no maximum annual average cost for the weatherization of buildings occupied by
non-profit agencies. Oregon CAP agencies averaged $4,024 per home. The maximum annual
average cost per her home applies to the CAP agency’s entire service area for the year.
CAP agency administration fees are equal to 10 percent of Idaho Power’s per-job production
costs. The average administration cost paid to agencies per Idaho home weatherized in 2012 was
$455, and the average administration cost paid to Oregon agencies per Oregon home weatherized
during the same period was $402. Additionally, Idaho Power staff labor, marketing, and support
costs for the WAQC program totaled $79,036 for 2012. These expenses were in addition to the
WAQC program funding requirements in Idaho specified in IPUC Order No. 29505.
In compliance with IPUC Order No. 29505, WAQC program funds are tracked separately,
with unspent funds carried over and made available to CAP agencies in the following year.
In 2012, $34,309 in unspent funds from 2011 were made available for expenditures in Idaho and
$1,262 were made available in Oregon. Table 2 details the funding base amount, available funds
from 2011, and the total amount of 2012 spending.
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Page 6 2012 Annual Report
Table 2 2012 WAQC base and available funds
Agency Base Available Funds from 2011 Total 2012 Allotment 2012 Spending
Idaho
CCOA ........................................... $302,259 $100 $302,359 $281,406
EICAP ........................................... 12,788 0 12,788 12,788
El Ada ........................................... 568,479 0 568,479 568,479
SCCAP ......................................... 167,405 0 167,405 167,405
SEICAA ........................................ 111,603 0 111,603 90,275
Non-profit buildings ....................... 50,000 34,209 84,209 38,856
Idaho Total .................................. $1,212,534 $34,309 $1,246,843 $1,159,209
Oregon
CCNO ........................................... $6,450 $0 $6,450 $6,450
CinA .............................................. 36,550 1,262 37,812 37,812
Non-profit buildings ....................... 2,000 0 2,000 0
Oregon Total ............................... $45,000 $1,262 $46,262 $44,262
Note: Dollars are rounded.
REVIEW OF MEASURES INSTALLED
Table 3 details job counts in which Idaho Power paid a portion of measure costs during 2012.
The Job Counts column represents the number of times any percentage of that measure was
billed to Idaho Power during the year. Measure counts for the home may be higher when
considering each job because in some homes the measure was actually installed and billed at
100 percent to the state weatherization program and not to Idaho Power. Consistent with the
Idaho WAP, the WAQC program offers several measures that have costs but do not necessarily
save energy or the savings cannot be measured. Included in this category are health and safety
measures, vents, furnace repairs, and home energy audits. Health and safety measures are
necessary to ensure weatherization activities do not cause unsafe situations in a customer’s home
or compromise a home’s existing indoor air quality. Other non-energy-saving measures are
allowed under this program because of the interaction between the non-energy-saving measures
and the energy-saving measures. Examples of items included in the “other” measure category
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
2012 Annual Report Page 7
include vapor barriers, dryer vent hoods, roof cement, and tie wire. The EA5 energy audit
program (EA5) is a software program that is approved for use by the Department of Energy
(DOE) and used by the weatherization managers. The EA5 includes material costs, labor costs
for installation, agency support costs, and estimated savings for individual measures.
Table 3
2012 WAQC review of measures installed
Job Counts Production Costs
Idaho Job Measures
Windows .................................................................................................. 146 $226,903
Doors ....................................................................................................... 139 83,298
Wall insulation ......................................................................................... 17 5,612
Ceiling insulation ..................................................................................... 111 70,151
Vents ....................................................................................................... 17 672
Floor insulation ........................................................................................ 102 72,094
Infiltration ................................................................................................. 160 39,322
Ducts ....................................................................................................... 52 29,617
Health and safety ..................................................................................... 24 7,212
Other ....................................................................................................... 21 4,799
Water Heater ........................................................................................... 3 110
Pipes ....................................................................................................... 24 942
Furnace tune ........................................................................................... 1 245
Furnace modify ........................................................................................ 4 8,089
Furnace repair ......................................................................................... 10 3,899
Furnace replace ....................................................................................... 146 486,739
Compact fluorescent lamp/light (CFL) ..................................................... 154 2,221
Audit ........................................................................................................ 155 11,901
Total Idaho Jobs ......................................................................................................................... $1,053,827
Oregon Job Measures
Windows .................................................................................................. 2 6,533
Doors ....................................................................................................... 1 903
Wall insulation ......................................................................................... 2 3,486
Ceiling insulation ..................................................................................... 2 3,300
Floor insulation ........................................................................................ 5 10,694
Infiltration ................................................................................................. 7 13,663
Ducts ....................................................................................................... 3 1,591
Health and safety ..................................................................................... 1 68
Total Oregon Jobs ..................................................................................................................... $40,238
Note: Dollars are rounded.
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Page 8 2012 Annual Report

Annually, Idaho Power physically audits approximately 10 percent of the homes weatherized
under the WAQC program. This is done through two methods. The first method includes the
Idaho Power program specialist participating in the Idaho state peer-review process that reviews
weatherized homes. The process involves utility representatives; weatherization personnel from
the CAP agencies; Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho, Inc. (CAPAI); and the
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW) reviewing homes weatherized by each of the
CAP agencies in 2012. Results showed that CAP agency weatherization departments are
weatherizing in accordance with federal guidelines.
The second method involves Idaho Power contracting with two companies—The Energy
Auditor, Inc., and Momentum, LLC—that employ certified building performance specialists to
verify installed measures in customer homes in specific regions for the program. The Energy
Auditor verifies homes weatherized for WAQC in Idaho Power’s Eastern and Southern regions
of Idaho. The owner of The Energy Auditor is certified by Performance Tested Comfort Systems
and is an ENERGY STAR® home performance specialist. Momentum verifies weatherization
services provided through WAQC in the Capital and Canyon regions of Idaho. The owner of
Momentum is a Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET®) certified Home Energy Rater.
After these companies verify installed measures, if the customer has further questions, the CAP
agency will be asked to follow up.
OVERALL COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Prior to 2012, the cost-effectiveness for the WAQC program was determined using the
energy-savings estimates from the EA4 energy audit program (EA4). In 2012, the Idaho WAP,
and hence WAQC, upgraded to the EA5. The EA5 is used for WAQC, in conjunction with the
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
2012 Annual Report Page 9
Idaho WAP, for leveraging funds by weatherization managers who are billing both state and
Idaho Power for each home weatherization job. In the field, the weatherization auditor uses the
EA5 to conduct the initial audit of potential energy savings for a home. The EA5 compares the
efficiency of measures prior to weatherization to the efficiency after the proposed improvement.
The output of the EA5 savings-to-investment ratio (SIR) is similar to the participant cost test
(PCT) ratio. If the EA5 computes an SIR of 1.0 or higher, the CAP agency completes the
proposed measures. In addition to the individual measure SIR, the entire job is required to show
an SIR of 1.0 or higher.
In 2012, Idaho Power contracted with D&R International, Ltd., to conduct an impact evaluation
of the WAQC program. Impact evaluations provide validation of energy savings and other useful
program information. The impact evaluation was completed and provided to Idaho Power in
February 2013. Results indicated significantly lower realized energy savings for the WAQC
program, which led to lower cost-effectiveness ratios in 2012 as compared to 2011. For the 2012
cost-effectiveness calculations, Idaho Power used D&R International’s average annual energy
savings of 2,684 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per home that resulted from the billing analysis of homes
weatherized homes in 2011. This is in contrast to an average of 9,103 kWh annual savings as
reported by the EA4 in 2011. Because the D&R International report did not provide a per-unit
savings amount for non-profit buildings weatherized under the WAQC program, the savings for
these four projects were adjusted by applying the overall program realization rate of 29 percent
from the impact evaluation. Even though the WAQC program used the EA5 audit program in
2012, Idaho Power believes the average annual saving per home estimate provided by D&R
International is applicable because the weatherization activities have not changed and the
reported savings from the EA5 are similar to the reported savings from the EA4. The results of
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Page 10 2012 Annual Report
this cost-effective analysis showed a total resource cost (TRC) ratio of 0.71 and a utility cost
(UC) ratio of 0.84. When possible, Idaho Power also adopted the recommendations included in
the IPUC staff’s report from Case No. GNR-E-12-01 for the cost-effectiveness calculations
for the WAQC program. Therefore, Idaho Power adopted the following IPUC staff’s
recommendations for calculating the program’s cost-effectiveness: applied a 100-percent
net-to-gross; claimed 100 percent of energy savings for each project; included indirect
administrative overhead costs; applied the 10-percent conservation preference adder;
and claimed one dollar of non-energy benefits for each dollar of utility and federal funds
invested in health, safety, and repair measures.
CUSTOMER EDUCATION AND SATISFACTION
Idaho Power provides materials to each CAP agency to help educate qualified customers who
receive weatherization assistance on using energy efficiently. Included in the materials are copies
of the Idaho Power brochures Practical Ways to Manage Your Electricity Bill and Energy Saving
Tips, which describe energy conservation tips appropriate for both the heating and cooling
seasons, and a two-sided card that describes the energy-saving benefits of using CFL bulbs and
helpful information about using the bulbs. In addition, Idaho Power provides each CAP agency
copies of the book 30 Simple Things You Can Do to Save Energy. Idaho Power actively informs
customers about weatherization assistance through energy, resource, and senior-citizen fairs.
To stay current with new programs and services, the Idaho Power program specialist overseeing
WAQC attends state and federal energy assistance/weatherization meetings and other
weatherization-specific conferences, such as the Affordable Comfort, Inc., Conference and the
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
2012 Annual Report Page 11
Energy Out West Conference. Idaho Power is also active in the Policy Advisory Council,
helping advise and direct Idaho’s state weatherization application to the DOE.
As described in the Review of Measures Installed section above, Idaho Power used independent,
third-party verification companies across its service area to randomly check approximately
10 percent of the weatherization jobs submitted for payment by the program. These quality
assurance inspectors verify installed measures in homes of participating customers, as well as
discuss the program with these customers. Home verifiers visited 39 homes, requesting feedback
about the program. When asked how much customers learned about saving electricity,
26 customers answered they learned “a lot” or “some.” When customers were asked about how
many ways they tried to save electricity, 29 customers responded “a lot” or “some.”
PLANS FOR 2013
In 2013, unless directed otherwise, Idaho Power will continue to provide financial assistance to
CAP agencies in the Idaho Power service area while exploring program changes to improve
program cost-effectiveness. Idaho Power will continue to assess the impact evaluation conducted
by D&R International that was completed in early 2013 and will conduct two additional research
and evaluation projects. Idaho Power will conduct a third-party process evaluation of the WAQC
program. Additionally, Idaho Power will issue a request for proposals to conduct research and
analysis on the current audit program, EA5, used by the CAP agencies to administer the WAQC
program and compare the savings estimated by the EA5 to the results from other residential and
commercial audit tools available on the market. Idaho Power will also require the contractor to
compare the modeled savings estimates to the deemed savings for weatherization measures as
determined by the Regional Technical Forum and other reliable sources. This research,
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Page 12 2012 Annual Report
along with the pending order in IPUC Case No. GNR-E-12-01, will help determine future
modifications to the WAQC program.
Idaho Power will continue to participate in the Idaho state peer-review process of reviewing
weatherized homes. Idaho Power will continue to verify approximately 10 percent of the homes
weatherized under the WAQC program.
In 2013, Idaho Power anticipates receiving the results of an evaluation from the Applied
Public Policy Research Institute for Study and Evaluation (APPRISE), which is conducting a
nationwide evaluation of low-income weatherization programs for the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory and for the DOE. In 2012, Idaho Power participated in this study by providing the
requested information to APPRISE.
Idaho Power will continue its involvement with the State of Idaho’s Policy Advisory Council
that serves as an oversight group for weatherization activities in Idaho. The council will continue
to review state grant applications.
While Idaho Power incorporates evaluation results, it plans to selectively market WAQC
throughout 2013. The program is promoted at resource fairs, community special-needs
populations’ service provider meetings, and CAP agency functions in an attempt to reach
customers who may benefit from the program. Marketing for this program is conducted in
cooperation with weatherization managers.
Idaho Power will continue working in partnership with the Idaho Department of Health and
Human Services, Oregon Housing and Community Services, CAPAI, and individual CAP
agency personnel to maintain the targets and guidelines and improve the cost-effectiveness of the
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
2012 Annual Report Page 13
WAQC program. Idaho Power continues to work with other investor-owned utilities and remains
ready to improve weatherization services throughout Idaho.
In 2013, Idaho Power increased the average maximum annual per-home cost to $6,000.
This amount allows flexibility when weatherizing homes with greater or fewer weatherization
needs. The increase ensures that the WAQC program is supporting the whole-house philosophy
of the Idaho WAP and is used to forecast WAQC program goals. Based on the required funding
and the contracted annual maximum average per-home cost, Idaho Power estimates 188 homes
and 6 non-profit buildings will be weatherized in Idaho in 2013. In Oregon, an estimated
7 homes and 1 non-profit building will be weatherized. In 2013, Idaho Power expects to fund the
base amount plus available funds from 2012 for $1,300,168 in weatherization measures and
agency administration fees in Idaho. Of this amount, $95,353 will be used to weatherize
buildings housing non-profit agencies that primarily serve qualified customers. Through the
WAQC program, Oregon CAP agencies have a budgetary amount of $45,000 to manage
weatherization services for Idaho Power customers in Oregon. Overall, Idaho Power will provide
the WAQC program with $1,345,168 in funding in 2013 for the weatherization of homes and
buildings of non-profit agencies serving qualified customers.
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Page 14 2012 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.